By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Hungary intends to host Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump within the next couple of weeks, despite the International Criminal Court (ICC) issuing an arrest warrant for Putin. Although Hungary has announced its withdrawal from the ICC, it is still legally obligated to cooperate with the court’s decisions until mid-next year, alongside the other 124 member states. The ICC emphasizes that member states are bound by law, regardless of their agreement with ICC rulings. Putin has limited foreign travel since the pandemic and the Ukraine invasion, particularly after the arrest warrant was issued.
Read the original article here
ICC expects Putin’s arrest on the way to the Budapest summit – this is the hot topic, and let’s dissect it. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has, essentially, put out a call to action. They’re saying that if Vladimir Putin tries to attend a planned summit with Donald Trump in Hungary, member states are “legally obligated” to arrest him. This is all based on the ICC’s outstanding arrest warrant against him for alleged war crimes in Ukraine. It’s a bold move, but the real question is: will it actually happen?
Or what? That’s the crux of the matter, isn’t it? The ICC can issue warrants, but they don’t have their own police force or military. They rely on member states to enforce those warrants. And that’s where things get tricky. The article emphasizes that Hungary, the host country, is legally bound to cooperate with the ICC. However, Hungary, under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, has a complex relationship with the ICC and, by extension, Russia. While Hungary must comply with ICC rulings until mid-next year, the Hungarian Prime Minister has previously welcomed Benjamin Netanyahu, who the ICC also ordered to be arrested. This suggests that while there is an obligation, it might not necessarily translate into action.
The ICC is essentially pleading with the countries surrounding Hungary, too. These countries would be in a position to intercept Putin’s flight, should he try to get to Budapest. The implication is that these surrounding countries, all ICC signatories, would have to act on the arrest warrant if Putin’s plane were to enter their airspace. This adds another layer of complexity. The willingness of these nations to risk the wrath of Russia, even for a short period of time, is a huge variable.
Since the war in Ukraine and the ICC’s arrest warrant, Putin has certainly been traveling less. He notably skipped summits in countries like South Africa and Brazil, both of which recognize the ICC. However, his trip to Alaska for a meeting with Donald Trump last summer shows that he is willing to travel if he sees it as advantageous. The article also points out that the U.S. has always kept itself outside the ICC, making any potential cooperation on this front unlikely.
The discussion quickly turns to the practicalities and the reality of the situation. Some believe that the ICC is essentially a “paper tiger.” They highlight the fact that the court has a limited enforcement ability and relies on the cooperation of member states. The general sentiment seems to be that the ICC’s announcement is more symbolic than anything else. Many commenters are cynical about the prospect of Putin’s arrest. They believe that countries like Hungary, with their close ties to Russia, are unlikely to comply.
The debate then shifts to the hypothetical scenarios. Several commenters propose more aggressive approaches, suggesting that Putin’s plane could be forced to land or even shot down if he refuses to cooperate. Others suggest the potential for accidents. The sentiment reflects the frustrations surrounding international law and accountability when dealing with powerful figures. The discussion also touches on the idea of a “Coalition for ICC Enforcement,” a group of countries committed to arresting indicted war criminals, denying them access to their airspace, and sanctioning those who assist them. The overall perception seems to be that without such a coalition, the ICC’s legal framework is weak.
Then it focuses on the ICC’s track record, pointing out the relatively small number of people it has detained since its inception. This is used to underline the court’s limitations. It’s hard not to be skeptical, looking at the history and imagining the actual enforcement. The suggestion that it’s more likely for the Russian air defense to down Putin’s aircraft emphasizes the potential dangers involved. The comment about a “toothless court” sums up the general perception of the ICC’s power. There is a sense of disappointment and a lack of faith in the ability of international law to hold powerful leaders accountable.
The focus shifts to the practical aspects of any potential arrest. How would Putin even get to Hungary? Does he have to fly through NATO airspace? This is a key point: The logistics are incredibly complex and involve a web of political and military considerations. The fact that the trip would need to cross the airspace of a number of nations makes any attempt to arrest Putin even more difficult. The article highlights the point that Orban is a Russian agent, suggesting Hungary is unlikely to take any action. The statement that the ICC is a joke, sums up the level of expectation.
Finally, the article raises some interesting questions about the overall message the ICC sends. The question is posed, what’s the point of announcing the arrest to the world? It gives Putin ample time to react and avoid any potential capture. The overall feeling seems to be that if the ICC was serious, they’d simply act, not announce their intentions ahead of time. The comment that it’s “nice to want things” sums up the ultimate sentiment: There is a wish for accountability, but the reality is that the challenges are enormous, and the likelihood of Putin’s arrest at this point seems incredibly low. The underlying theme remains: The illusion of global political oversight has been broken.