Scholarship@WashULaw

Document Type

Blog Posting

Language

English (en)

Publication Date

2023

Publication Title

Just Security

Abstract

The International Criminal Court (ICC)’s arrest warrants against Russian President Vladimir Putin and Commissioner for Children’s Rights Maria Lvova-Belova, accusing them of war crimes allegedly involving the unlawful transfer and deportation of Ukrainian children, have generated extensive discussion, including on Just Security. Are the warrants lawful even though one accused is a sitting head of State, and both are nationals of the Russian Federation, which is not a party to the Rome Statute, and has not consented to the ICC’s jurisdiction? Russia has objected to them, a controversial opinion by an Advisory Committee of Dutch scholars has argued that Putin retains his immunity before the ICC, and while the United States supports the ICC’s investigation in Ukraine, the Pentagon continues to insist that it objects to the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over non-State party nationals. Many of these objections are based upon the so-called “delegation theory” of the ICC’s jurisdiction fail. In an article forthcoming in the Notre Dame Law Review, “The Conferred Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court,” I argue that these objections fail as a general matter, and for the same reason, they do not bar the ICC from issuing these specific warrants.

Keywords

ICC Putin Arrest Warrant, Immunity, International Courts, International Criminal Court (ICC), Russia, Russia-Ukraine War, Translation Available, Ukraine, Vladimir Putin, War Crimes

Publication Citation

Leila Nadya Sadat, Conferred Jurisdiction and the ICC’s Putin and Lvova-Belova Warrants, Just Security (Apr. 21, 2023), https://www.justsecurity.org/86079/conferred-jurisdiction-and-the-iccs-putin-and-lvova-belova-warrants/

Comments

Ця стаття також доступна українською мовою тут. This post is also available in Ukrainian here.

Download

Share

COinS