The Enforcement Crisis of International Criminal Law: The Case of the Putin Arrest Warrant

International criminal law aspires to be a universal architecture of accountability, a legal order that binds individuals, not merely states, to the most fundamental norms of human conduct. It emerged from the moral and legal reckoning at Nuremberg and matured in response to the atrocities of Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. The Rome Statute of 1998 codified this vision, asserting that certain crimes offend not only individual states but the conscience of humanity as a whole. Its central premise is that no office, no nationality, and no political alliance should shield an individual from justice.

In practice, however, this cosmopolitan promise remains deeply constrained by the sovereign structure of the international system. The International Criminal Court (ICC), the primary institution responsible for enforcing international criminal law, has no enforcement arm of its own. It relies on the cooperation of states to arrest individuals, execute warrants, and implement its decisions. This structural dependence means that the ICC's authority remains, ultimately, contingent upon political will. The Court's 2023 arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin exemplifies this dilemma in its starkest form.

Legal Framework and Political Limitations

Under the Rome Statute, the ICC may exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of member states or by their nationals. The Court may also investigate situations referred to by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), including those involving non-member states. These provisions were designed to give the Court a broad reach. However, the Rome Statute does not provide the Court with independent enforcement powers. Arrests and transfers must be carried out by national authorities, and states retain considerable discretion over whether to cooperate.

On March 17, 2023, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, Russia’s Commissioner for Children’s Rights. The warrants alleged responsibility for the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children to Russian territory, classified under Article 8 of the Rome Statute as a war crime. The Court’s statement affirmed that the actions occurred in the context of Russia’s occupation of Ukrainian territory and involved direct participation or consent by state authorities. (International Criminal Court, Press Release, March 17, 2023).

Despite the legal clarity of the warrant, its implementation has been elusive. In September 2024, Putin traveled to Mongolia, a member of the Rome Statute. Under Article 59, Mongolia was obligated to arrest and surrender him to the ICC. The Mongolian authorities, however, did not act on the warrant. In response, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber II issued a formal decision declaring Mongolia non-compliant with its obligations under the Rome Statute and referred the matter to the Assembly of States Parties. (ICC, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on Mongolia’s Non-Cooperation, October 24, 2024). This referral, though legally consistent with the Statute, had no immediate consequences. The Assembly does not possess sanctioning powers, and the process remains largely declaratory.

Referring the issue to the United Nations Security Council was also not a viable option. Russia, as a permanent member of the Council, holds veto power and would block any attempt to escalate the matter. This dynamic reveals a fundamental contradiction: the Court’s jurisdictional authority expands to include powerful actors, yet its ability to enforce that jurisdiction is paralyzed when those same actors reject the system’s legitimacy.

The Problem of Uneven Enforcement

The case of Vladimir Putin is not unprecedented. In 2009, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for then-Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, charging him with genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in connection with the conflict in Darfur. Al-Bashir continued to travel to several ICC member states, including South Africa and Chad, without being arrested. Governments justified their inaction by citing diplomatic immunity, political stability concerns, and obligations under other international treaties. These incidents exposed the ICC’s dependence on state cooperation and revealed how legal obligations are frequently subordinated to political calculations. (Human Rights Watch, “Ten Years After Bashir’s Indictment,” March 2020).

The inaction surrounding the Putin warrant highlights a similar, though more profound, challenge. Russia is not only a non-party to the Rome Statute but also a nuclear power with extensive diplomatic influence. The inability or unwillingness of member states to act on the warrant has reinforced long-standing critiques of the ICC’s selective enforcement practices. Prior to 2023, the Court’s docket was overwhelmingly focused on African defendants. While many of these cases were justified on evidentiary and jurisdictional grounds, the consistent geographic pattern raised concerns about the ICC's impartiality and potential subordination to Western interests.

The Putin case was initially seen as a departure from this pattern, a sign that the Court was willing to hold powerful actors accountable. Yet the lack of enforcement has undercut that narrative. The contrast between bold legal assertion and practical impotence has deepened perceptions of geopolitical justice, where the weight of international law varies depending on a state's global standing.

Fragmentation and Institutional Responses

In response to the enforcement paralysis, Ukraine and several European institutions have pursued alternative legal avenues. Most notably, the Ukrainian government, with support from the Council of Europe, has announced plans to establish a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression. As previously noted, the ICC is unable to prosecute aggression involving non-state parties unless the UNSC refers the case. The proposed tribunal is intended to bypass this limitation and focus specifically on Russia’s initiation of the war in Ukraine. (Financial Times, “Ukraine, Council of Europe to Launch Special Tribunal on Aggression,” June 25, 2025).

While such developments reflect a desire for justice, they also risk fragmenting the international criminal law landscape. Competing tribunals may introduce inconsistent legal standards and generate competing narratives of legitimacy. The reliance on ad hoc mechanisms to address enforcement gaps may further erode confidence in the ICC as the central institution for global accountability.

The Need for Structural Reform

The Putin case illustrates that the ICC’s crisis is not simply one of enforcement, but one of institutional design. Addressing this problem requires more than symbolic declarations. Three structural reforms merit consideration.

First, states that fail to comply with arrest warrants should face tangible consequences. This could include diplomatic censure, suspension from international legal agreements, or financial penalties coordinated through multilateral institutions. Without consequences, the legal obligation to arrest becomes little more than a normative aspiration.

Second, the Security Council’s veto power in matters involving atrocity crimes should be procedurally constrained. Proposals such as the French-Mexican initiative for voluntary veto restraint in atrocity situations offer one pragmatic path forward. Although these proposals would not eliminate the veto, they could raise the political costs of using it to shield perpetrators.

Third, the ICC should establish regional enforcement partnerships. Collaborating with regional legal institutions, law enforcement bodies, and intelligence services could increase the Court’s capacity to gather evidence, protect witnesses, and, where possible, execute arrests. Such partnerships would help bridge the gap between global legal authority and regional political realities.

The ICC’s arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin affirmed the principle that no leader is above international law. However, the failure to enforce that warrant has revealed the enduring dependence of law on politics. Without state cooperation, the Court’s declarations remain symbolic. Without reform, the idea of universal accountability risks becoming a rhetorical artifact rather than a living norm. For international criminal law to maintain its legitimacy, it must evolve. The Court must address the structural weaknesses that allow impunity for the powerful. The international community must decide whether the promise of legal accountability applies equally to all, or only to those without the means to resist it. If the former remains the aspiration, then the architecture of enforcement must be rebuilt to match the moral clarity of the law.

Image by www.kremlin.ru via WikimediaCommons