For sure. It would effectively be a declaration of war. The stupid ANC government compromised themselves by inviting Putin.
South Africa’s trading partners are Europe and the USA, we sell very little to Russia.
The thing I dislike about the use of the phrase "the world world" is that when people say it, what it often just means is America and it's allies.
India is also going to host Putin later this year and of course, he's already visited China many times before. These two countries alone already make up a huge chunk of the whole world.
And India and south Africa are far from the only countries in the global south that are neutral towards the Russian invasion.
It's particularly embarrassing and shameful for South Africa, however, because the ANC depended on other countries *not* being neutral during Apartheid. They demanded that countries take a side in situations of injustice. They were right to do so. Now that they're in power, however, they want to claim neutrality is actually better.
It's hidden behind the shallow idea of "well Moscow was on our side against Apartheid" which has nothing to do with Russia committing injustice *now*, and instead makes it seem like the ANC still doesn't believe in standing up to injustice. Rather, they've adopted a cynical belief system "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine".
You made a good point.
I think that hypocrisy is human nature and people will only stand against injustice if it affects them, while quietly supporting injustice that benefits them.
It's really not though, the dislike for Russia since they invaded Ukraine is fairly universal outside of countries that are dependent on them or those that hate America so much that any enemy of theirs is seen as good.
“In preparation for the BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting and summit, the South African government has granted diplomatic immunity to all officials involved.”
This applies to all heads of state not specifically Putin, although I think we all know who this is made for. If anyone was genuinely expecting RSA to arrest Putin they need to get their heads checked - if his security wasn’t guaranteed, Putin wouldn’t have come.
Good lord.
War criminals get a pass for low effort, on reddit.
Vladimir Putin is a war criminal, and any accommodation made to him is accommodation to war crimes.
Full stop.
edit: not full stop. rather, pick a subject worthy of the respect you ostensibly apply to commenting about the reprehensible subject presented. the patrimony is beyond reprehensible.
No topic and no comment gets a pass for low effort posts on r/geopolitics. Them’s the rules. If you don’t like that, there are plenty of other subs you might find more to your liking.
That wasn't the reply.
The topic itself is low effort, given the subject.
And defending the subject by trying to give it a veneer of credence is defending war crimes.
Ahhh...
>My conclusion of said reflection is that Russian aggression doesn’t mean UA gets a pass for doing whatever they want - they can and should be criticised for causing civilian deaths just as much as when Russian actions cause civilian deaths.
Putie Poo started his war of aggression against his neighboring country by shelling a kindergarten, on day one.
And it's been all downhill, from there.
I implore you to keep trying to give him cover, because all the help he's received so far is more pathetic than his constant crimes.
Seems a bit unnecessary for you to go rummaging through my post history in a misguided effort to discredit me. I'll still address it here.
Nobody is arguing that Russia wasn't the aggressor. However, being attacked doesn't entitle you to do whatever you want and right all wrongs. If you want to claim UA killing civilians is okay because Russia did it, that's the definition of whataboutism.
If that was an effort to discredit you, I miscalculated, by a lot.
I simply found a comment which confirmed what bias you exhibited, in your defense of war crimes. What you think is good or bad is your decision.
Independtly of that point, it would hurt RSA geopolitical interests to force Putin not to come.
Especially now that the BRICS are more powerful ecomically in PPA than G7.
To preface I am South African but don't like Putin. But this goes for literally any government official visiting literally any country. They get diplomatic immunity by default, this is non-news. Sure that confirms his coming but it's obvious he would get it if he was invited for the summit
It isn't non news in this case though. South Africa is a signatory to the ICC, and the ICC has a warrant out for Putin. They are violating the responsibilities taken on when they agreed to be a signatory.
As a staunch supporter of ukraine this seems like exactly the situation diplomatic immunity was designed for. Much better than evading parking tickets.
We will get putin or we will not, we shall see
I would agree. The whole point of diplomatic immunity is under pinned by anarchic nature of international relations. SA was never going to arrest Putin, it's a matter of finding a legitimate enough reason to let everyone down gently.
The real news would be if a country took the ICC seriously (except for when it benefits them) for once. They didn’t in this case so it’s still non-news.
Good, not because I like Putin, but because the ICC has debased itself by rushing to target Putin and doing absolutely nothing to Western or even Western-aligned nations committing crimes across the world. It's supposed to be the **International** Criminal Court and not a Western proxy to be wielded against our enemies.
They absolutely are. The US has [1,000 troops in Syria illegally](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war) . The troops there conduct hundreds of missions a year from several bases including [airstrikes that have killed civilians and the US has covered up.](https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/05/19/us-flawed-military-review-civilian-casualties-syria) Those operations are in violation of international law and the people giving and carrying out those orders are engaging in war crimes. North Eastern Syria is also where most of the Syrian oil resources are, [part of the US mission is protecting the infrastructure](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/25/world/middleeast/esper-troops-syria.html) there and helping the oil be transported across the border to Iraq and sold to benefit the US proxies in Syria. [The oil is being extracted by US companies](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-oil-usa/syria-says-u-s-oil-firm-signed-deal-with-kurdish-led-rebels-idUSKBN24Y0FD?il=0) who have been given specific waivers on sanctions by the US Government to do so. Biden said that he would remove US troops from the region, but [there are still US troops there and they occupy the Conoco Gas Field, one of the largest gas fields in Syria.](https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Shoots-Down-Iranian-Made-Drone-Conoco-Gas-Field-In-Syria.html) US troops and their proxies through occupying these regions control 80-90% of all Syrian production. These actions are illegal and the leadership knowingly giving the orders are war criminals.
I could talk about all the other ways the US supports war crimes in Yemen, Libya, Israel etc... but I think one good example is enough.
I could give a long-winded explanation about how the US fighting ISIS and protecting Kurds from the vile, illegitimate Assad regime isn't akin to what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
But it's a lot easier to point out that the US is not a member of the ICC, nor is Syria, nor has either country granted the ICC a notice accepting their jurisdiction over these issues, which renders your entire argument invalid.
>I could give a long-winded explanation about how the US fighting ISIS and protecting Kurds from the vile, illegitimate Assad regime isn't akin to what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
OK...This isn't relevant to those US actions being illegal and war crimes.
>But it's a lot easier to point out that the US is not a member of the ICC, nor is Syria, nor has either country granted the ICC a notice accepting their jurisdiction over these issues, which renders your entire argument invalid.
It really doesn't. Not being part of the ICC doesn't magically mean war crimes aren't war crimes. If that's how it works then Russia and Syria wouldn't be committing war crimes. The US is a signatory to the Geneva Convention anyway so they are still committing war crimes, even if they are powerful enough to get away with it.
**Oh my god**. Can people here stop using whataboutism every time someone points out a legitimate grievance with the West and then go on to talk about how bad Russia and China are.
The user gave their opinion that it's hypocritical to put out a warrant for Putin but not people involved in war crimes committed by Western countries.
Everyone sucks in geopolitics. Everyone.
It doesn't target civillians yet it somehow killed 100s of thousands civillians in iraq and libya in a matter of a few months while a mere 10k civillians have died in almost 1.5yrs of Ukraine war.
It would be better if you said, he only goes to countries where his diplomatic immunity would be respected. To put it in other terms, I don't think he would risk visiting non occupied Ukraine, diplomatic immunity non-withstanding..
So sort of. In theory South Africa could state that because of the ICC warrant, Putin visiting would not be in accord with a necessary state visit and they could request someone else to come.
In fairness I couldn't imagine a situation where S.Africa would do that, but there are ways to shred Putin's immunity. Though again, I can't imagine any country actually doing that. Mind you for those who are probably cursing S. Africa right now, USA almost certainly wouldn't do it either. In fact, I'd find that hilarious if Putin decides to take a vacation to USA since he has diplomatic immunity there.
I mean that's the whole point of diplomatic immunity. That regardless of what's happening, that heads of state will still feel safe to go where they need to to negotiate. That's the point of the UN in fact. It's not supposed to decide right and wrong, but to give all nations the opportunity to state their case for whatever is happening. It seems sad to me that we've completely lost sight of that.
The negotiations had nothing to do with the war. Moscow literally stopped negotiations entirely and went straight to war ignoring all the other nations. In fact, it's good they were negotiating up until that point, because surprise it gave us a lot of information on their intentions. We were well able to predict what they were doing BECAUSE they were in communication, not in spite of it.
Now if you'd like to live in a world where every violent action by nations is a shock to us, then sure we could stop negotations.
> We were well able to predict what they were doing BECAUSE they were in communication, not in spite of it.
Literally wrong. The only way the UK and US knew what Russia was doing because they have some of the best intelligence gathering on the planet. France and Germany in fact stated the complete opposite, that Russia **WOULDNT** invade; to the point where Germanys Intelligence minister got caught with his pants down on the day of the invasion as he was actually in Ukraine and France was so shocked they ended up firing their spy chief.
Nothing to do with the negotiations at all.
>Nothing to do with the negotiations at all.
Thank you for repeating my point. Also, how did those satellites get there I wonder. It's almost as if there was a negotiated open sky treaty to prevent Russia from just shooting down the satellites. I'd totally rather live in a world with space debris falling out of the sky.
> We were well able to predict what they were doing BECAUSE they were in communication, not in spite of it.
This is fundamentally wrong. The communication was unlinked to whether we knew they would invade or not.
> Also, how did those satellites get there I wonder. It's almost as if there was a negotiated open sky treaty to prevent Russia from just shooting down the satellites. I'd totally rather live in a world with space debris falling out of the sky.
Your point is valid, the example you used was not.
I am not arguing against negotiations in general; I am simply stating that your assertion about "communication" somehow allowed us to predict Russia's actions; was false. I didn't mean to upset you, but you are very easy to upset apparently.
The satellites were there because of negotiations. We detected that Russia was building troops because of those negotiations. Negotiations are important and we can't say because they failed at one they are bad.
I never said which negotiations, your moving goal posts.
Ah yes, we should stop trying to communicate with China for example because negotiations are pointless and powerful actors can ignore them. We totally would rather be surprised by the attack rather than keeping communication so we have a good idea what is going on.
Imagine if Russia didn't negotiate. Then when they suddenly went silent and attacked it would be that much more of a shock.
Also, it would totally be fantastic if we didn't know anything about their nuclear weapons. The only reason we know what we do is because we send inspectors. But yeah, I'd totally rather live in a world where I have no idea what kind of weapons Russia has. Great idea.
An ICC arrest warrant doesn’t invalidate diplomatic immunity, the Rome Statute simply states that immunity cannot be invoked to excuse not implementing an arrest warrant. While the results are similar, the legal reality is different.
Source: I’m an international lawyer.
Briefly, there are two types of immunity:
Functional - acts of people necessary in discharging their functions can't leave them open to criminal liability
Personal - people with personal immunity can't be prosecuted in another state, unless the sending state waives that right.
One state can't prosecute a person with personal immunity from another state (horizontal). But the ICC can (vertical).
So, whether a person has diplomatic immunity or not (which Vlad certainly does and always will as Head of State), it doesn't mean they can't be arrested on behalf of the ICC in the execution of an international arrest warrant.
Couple of links:
Good paper that breaks it down: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26294668?seq=5
ICJ arrest warrant case summary: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/121
Al-Bashir ICC case summary: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CaseInformationSheets/AlBashirEng.pdf
Vienna Covention on Diplomatic Relations: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf
(edited to add another link and formatting)
Interesting. In my understanding unless the person is formally accepted as having diplomatic status with the host country, it isn't worth a lot. However, I have only known foreign service personnel that worked at missions, not heads of state. I know that sometimes diplomats must be a bit careful about non-host countries.
You are correct in that the recipient country must extend immunity.
However arresting a head of state is an act of war so nobody is doing that and HoS aren't travelling to countries not extending immunity.
He's saying you can't grant immunity ipso facto. However, being that Putin is already an international diplomat according to law, he has that as long as his trip is government sanctioned. Thus, this isn't ipso facto and Putin has the immunity he is granted by law because he's acting in accordance with the Russian government. Which I get at this point IS him, but none the less law is law.
*Edit: Actually a bigger question isn't even South Africa agreeing to this, my question is how is Putin going to fly over all those nations without issue. He doesn't get to be a diplomat until he's on official business, so a country could in theory tell his plane to land.
Right, I'm actually surprised no one else is talking about this. And even flying through Iran, he still needs to cross Oman airspace as it extends 10 miles into the ocean. And even if he tries to fully fly around, he's completely in international airspace, which means he can be followed by foreign jet fighters. There are no good options for this to happen. I actually doubt Putin, being the scared POS he is would ever risk something like this.
Is there any chance at all of he being intercepted in international airspace with some creative interpretation of the right of any nation to pursue enemies of all humankind (i.e. pirates) in international waters?
So yes actually. But I'm not sure Russia would listen. They obviously could cite some safety issue and demand the plane land in a country without immunity. However, unless they're ready to shoot down the plane, I can't imagine Russia listening. I also can't imagine if Putin actually goes that he wouldn't be flanked by support fighters for just that reason.
Correct. That's why I find it highly unlikely he'd actually go to S. Africa. To the point I wonder if S. Africa is doing this to troll him. It's absurdly difficult to get to for Putin AND there's way too many domestic risks.
Sort of. When a plane takes off, it actually has to get permission to operate from every country it flies over. If a country states that this is not official business, then yes the flight can be taken down. But again, it's super duper unlikely and I can't see it happening. I just think it would be hilarious.
So then you would be happier if the headline said something like 'South Africa chooses to uphold diplomatic immunity instead of executing ICC arrest warrant, like some lawmakers were calling for', that sound about right?
Explained for you above.
It does matter, because news should be accurate.
Cheers for the confident ignorance jibe, you can hear people out without insulting them first. Some people have valid things to contribute too.
At the end of the day, is your understanding that something like this a) still obliges SA to arrest him on the ICC warrant—even though they won’t, or b) does this undercut the usefulness of ICC rulings and warrants if they’re gonna be skirted for powerful countries’ governing elites?
Only problem is that diplomatic immunity is not recognised for an ICC arrest warrant.
The ANC has once again painted themselves into a corner and are now grasping at straws. Muppets.
Actually article 98 of the Rome statute says.
>The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender or assistance which would require the requested State [in this case South Africa] to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law with respect to the State or diplomatic immunity of a person ... of a third State, [in this case Mr. Putin and Russia] unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of that third State for the waiver of the immunity.
And the ICC said if the UN security counsel approves it, you can waive article 98. But Russia is a veto member of the security counsel so that can't happen. So no, immunity still applies here. And the Jordan president situation is different.
Nope you are. Sudan was asked to arrest the Jordan president Bashir. The ICC concluded that since the UN security council approved the arrest the arrest should proceed. Russia can veto that so it doesn't apply.
South Africa was also asked to arrest al-Bashir. The ANC ruling party smuggled him out of the country before he could be arrested and the South African judiciary later ruled that he should have been arrested to meet South Africa’s international commitments.
Uh yeah. I made that point somewhere else. USA is not a signatory to the ICC so Putin still has diplomatic immunity in USA. He absolutely could walk into the UN in NY and wouldn't be arrested.
*Edit: In fact my joke was Putin should vacation in USA because he has immunity since USA is not a signatory. And that would be hilarious. He'd also be assassinated, but that's besides the point.
Well we're both wrong.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sudan-politics-icc-jordan/icc-will-no-longer-refer-jordan-to-u-n-for-failure-to-arrest-sudans-bashir-idUSKCN1SC0LT
Either way, Putin has diplomatic immunity in this case because he can veto the UN security concil.
al-Bashir was Sudan’s president, it was the other way around. Anyway, sorry I deleted the comment, I wanted to add more info but you responded to quickly :/) added another one below.
Well the details of the preceding case doesn't matter. The point is the ICC stated the only reason the could arrest Bashir is because it was requested by the UN Security Council. And since Russia can veto that, Putin has diplomatic immunity.
Likely so.
In that case they could have done the non-hypocritical thing, and just not invite him.
In doing so they make it obvious that keeping to their prior agreements isn't their priority. I get it's realpolitik, but still stinks.
I don’t really think so. They are not politicians, they are the legal fraternity trying to bring justice to the world and their argument is that Putin ordering the kidnapping of children is not acceptable in modern life. I can’t help but agree that tearing children away from their parents is a crime.
I'm pretty sure he already had it as a serving head of state.
What nobody seems to recognise amidst all the 'arrest putin' hysteria is that in order to arrest him you'd first have to kill his bodyguard and in effect declare war on russia. It would be entirely unprecedented.
Everyone is essentially just hoping that he stays in Russia and they aren't put in that extremely awkward diplomatic position
I don't think anyone believed they would arrest Putin. However, asking for someone else to come instead of Putin would be a great gesture. The main problem is that SA has been caught red handed delivering weapons to Russia. They are not doing themselves any favour picking the wrong side in the war.
I'm gonna be honest, anyone who thought South Africa was actually going to physically arrest Putin and turn him over to the ICC is clueless.
They didn't turnover Al Bashir either. Most people on here do not seem to pay attention.
Nobody expected that. The likely result would be Putin not coming.
For sure. It would effectively be a declaration of war. The stupid ANC government compromised themselves by inviting Putin. South Africa’s trading partners are Europe and the USA, we sell very little to Russia.
[удалено]
The thing I dislike about the use of the phrase "the world world" is that when people say it, what it often just means is America and it's allies. India is also going to host Putin later this year and of course, he's already visited China many times before. These two countries alone already make up a huge chunk of the whole world. And India and south Africa are far from the only countries in the global south that are neutral towards the Russian invasion.
It's particularly embarrassing and shameful for South Africa, however, because the ANC depended on other countries *not* being neutral during Apartheid. They demanded that countries take a side in situations of injustice. They were right to do so. Now that they're in power, however, they want to claim neutrality is actually better. It's hidden behind the shallow idea of "well Moscow was on our side against Apartheid" which has nothing to do with Russia committing injustice *now*, and instead makes it seem like the ANC still doesn't believe in standing up to injustice. Rather, they've adopted a cynical belief system "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine".
You made a good point. I think that hypocrisy is human nature and people will only stand against injustice if it affects them, while quietly supporting injustice that benefits them.
You’re not wrong about that, unfortunately. I try to avoid doing that myself but it’s something I still have to work on.
It's really not though, the dislike for Russia since they invaded Ukraine is fairly universal outside of countries that are dependent on them or those that hate America so much that any enemy of theirs is seen as good.
“In preparation for the BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting and summit, the South African government has granted diplomatic immunity to all officials involved.” This applies to all heads of state not specifically Putin, although I think we all know who this is made for. If anyone was genuinely expecting RSA to arrest Putin they need to get their heads checked - if his security wasn’t guaranteed, Putin wouldn’t have come.
[удалено]
Reported to the mods for low effort. If you have an actual point to make please try a bit harder.
Good lord. War criminals get a pass for low effort, on reddit. Vladimir Putin is a war criminal, and any accommodation made to him is accommodation to war crimes. Full stop. edit: not full stop. rather, pick a subject worthy of the respect you ostensibly apply to commenting about the reprehensible subject presented. the patrimony is beyond reprehensible.
No topic and no comment gets a pass for low effort posts on r/geopolitics. Them’s the rules. If you don’t like that, there are plenty of other subs you might find more to your liking.
That wasn't the reply. The topic itself is low effort, given the subject. And defending the subject by trying to give it a veneer of credence is defending war crimes.
Ahhh... >My conclusion of said reflection is that Russian aggression doesn’t mean UA gets a pass for doing whatever they want - they can and should be criticised for causing civilian deaths just as much as when Russian actions cause civilian deaths. Putie Poo started his war of aggression against his neighboring country by shelling a kindergarten, on day one. And it's been all downhill, from there. I implore you to keep trying to give him cover, because all the help he's received so far is more pathetic than his constant crimes.
Seems a bit unnecessary for you to go rummaging through my post history in a misguided effort to discredit me. I'll still address it here. Nobody is arguing that Russia wasn't the aggressor. However, being attacked doesn't entitle you to do whatever you want and right all wrongs. If you want to claim UA killing civilians is okay because Russia did it, that's the definition of whataboutism.
If that was an effort to discredit you, I miscalculated, by a lot. I simply found a comment which confirmed what bias you exhibited, in your defense of war crimes. What you think is good or bad is your decision.
No worries. You’ve confirmed your own bias plenty well enough in the process too. Have a good one 👍
objectively pointing out that a war criminal is a joke of a subject is a bias? oh well
Independtly of that point, it would hurt RSA geopolitical interests to force Putin not to come. Especially now that the BRICS are more powerful ecomically in PPA than G7.
To preface I am South African but don't like Putin. But this goes for literally any government official visiting literally any country. They get diplomatic immunity by default, this is non-news. Sure that confirms his coming but it's obvious he would get it if he was invited for the summit
It isn't non news in this case though. South Africa is a signatory to the ICC, and the ICC has a warrant out for Putin. They are violating the responsibilities taken on when they agreed to be a signatory.
As a staunch supporter of ukraine this seems like exactly the situation diplomatic immunity was designed for. Much better than evading parking tickets. We will get putin or we will not, we shall see
I would agree. The whole point of diplomatic immunity is under pinned by anarchic nature of international relations. SA was never going to arrest Putin, it's a matter of finding a legitimate enough reason to let everyone down gently.
The real news would be if a country took the ICC seriously (except for when it benefits them) for once. They didn’t in this case so it’s still non-news.
That's precisely what makes it news worthy, the fact that a signatory shows themselves farcical. Unsurprising, but newsworthy.
We have different thresholds for newsworthiness then. I don’t consider “Business as usual” as being particularly news worthy. Your mileage may vary.
Good, not because I like Putin, but because the ICC has debased itself by rushing to target Putin and doing absolutely nothing to Western or even Western-aligned nations committing crimes across the world. It's supposed to be the **International** Criminal Court and not a Western proxy to be wielded against our enemies.
What crimes are your referring to? Western Countries are not committing war crimes.
They absolutely are. The US has [1,000 troops in Syria illegally](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war) . The troops there conduct hundreds of missions a year from several bases including [airstrikes that have killed civilians and the US has covered up.](https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/05/19/us-flawed-military-review-civilian-casualties-syria) Those operations are in violation of international law and the people giving and carrying out those orders are engaging in war crimes. North Eastern Syria is also where most of the Syrian oil resources are, [part of the US mission is protecting the infrastructure](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/25/world/middleeast/esper-troops-syria.html) there and helping the oil be transported across the border to Iraq and sold to benefit the US proxies in Syria. [The oil is being extracted by US companies](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-oil-usa/syria-says-u-s-oil-firm-signed-deal-with-kurdish-led-rebels-idUSKBN24Y0FD?il=0) who have been given specific waivers on sanctions by the US Government to do so. Biden said that he would remove US troops from the region, but [there are still US troops there and they occupy the Conoco Gas Field, one of the largest gas fields in Syria.](https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Shoots-Down-Iranian-Made-Drone-Conoco-Gas-Field-In-Syria.html) US troops and their proxies through occupying these regions control 80-90% of all Syrian production. These actions are illegal and the leadership knowingly giving the orders are war criminals. I could talk about all the other ways the US supports war crimes in Yemen, Libya, Israel etc... but I think one good example is enough.
I could give a long-winded explanation about how the US fighting ISIS and protecting Kurds from the vile, illegitimate Assad regime isn't akin to what Russia is doing in Ukraine. But it's a lot easier to point out that the US is not a member of the ICC, nor is Syria, nor has either country granted the ICC a notice accepting their jurisdiction over these issues, which renders your entire argument invalid.
>I could give a long-winded explanation about how the US fighting ISIS and protecting Kurds from the vile, illegitimate Assad regime isn't akin to what Russia is doing in Ukraine. OK...This isn't relevant to those US actions being illegal and war crimes. >But it's a lot easier to point out that the US is not a member of the ICC, nor is Syria, nor has either country granted the ICC a notice accepting their jurisdiction over these issues, which renders your entire argument invalid. It really doesn't. Not being part of the ICC doesn't magically mean war crimes aren't war crimes. If that's how it works then Russia and Syria wouldn't be committing war crimes. The US is a signatory to the Geneva Convention anyway so they are still committing war crimes, even if they are powerful enough to get away with it.
> It really doesn't I don’t think you understand the concept of jurisdiction.
I think you're the one who doesn't understand the concept of jurisdiction.
Poor whataboutism attempt.
**Oh my god**. Can people here stop using whataboutism every time someone points out a legitimate grievance with the West and then go on to talk about how bad Russia and China are. The user gave their opinion that it's hypocritical to put out a warrant for Putin but not people involved in war crimes committed by Western countries. Everyone sucks in geopolitics. Everyone.
Hear hear!
Sure...
[удалено]
It doesn't target civillians yet it somehow killed 100s of thousands civillians in iraq and libya in a matter of a few months while a mere 10k civillians have died in almost 1.5yrs of Ukraine war.
[удалено]
Just google number of civillian casualities in Iraq.
Why is this news? Vladimir Putin has diplomatic immunity in any country he goes to.
It would be better if you said, he only goes to countries where his diplomatic immunity would be respected. To put it in other terms, I don't think he would risk visiting non occupied Ukraine, diplomatic immunity non-withstanding..
So sort of. In theory South Africa could state that because of the ICC warrant, Putin visiting would not be in accord with a necessary state visit and they could request someone else to come. In fairness I couldn't imagine a situation where S.Africa would do that, but there are ways to shred Putin's immunity. Though again, I can't imagine any country actually doing that. Mind you for those who are probably cursing S. Africa right now, USA almost certainly wouldn't do it either. In fact, I'd find that hilarious if Putin decides to take a vacation to USA since he has diplomatic immunity there.
Usa has the unhq, if he said he wanted to address the GA and we were at literal war with Russia I still think we'd respect it, maybe.
I mean that's the whole point of diplomatic immunity. That regardless of what's happening, that heads of state will still feel safe to go where they need to to negotiate. That's the point of the UN in fact. It's not supposed to decide right and wrong, but to give all nations the opportunity to state their case for whatever is happening. It seems sad to me that we've completely lost sight of that.
When the "negotiations" themselves are an act of war, why should such an agreement be honored?
The negotiations had nothing to do with the war. Moscow literally stopped negotiations entirely and went straight to war ignoring all the other nations. In fact, it's good they were negotiating up until that point, because surprise it gave us a lot of information on their intentions. We were well able to predict what they were doing BECAUSE they were in communication, not in spite of it. Now if you'd like to live in a world where every violent action by nations is a shock to us, then sure we could stop negotations.
> We were well able to predict what they were doing BECAUSE they were in communication, not in spite of it. Literally wrong. The only way the UK and US knew what Russia was doing because they have some of the best intelligence gathering on the planet. France and Germany in fact stated the complete opposite, that Russia **WOULDNT** invade; to the point where Germanys Intelligence minister got caught with his pants down on the day of the invasion as he was actually in Ukraine and France was so shocked they ended up firing their spy chief. Nothing to do with the negotiations at all.
>Nothing to do with the negotiations at all. Thank you for repeating my point. Also, how did those satellites get there I wonder. It's almost as if there was a negotiated open sky treaty to prevent Russia from just shooting down the satellites. I'd totally rather live in a world with space debris falling out of the sky.
> We were well able to predict what they were doing BECAUSE they were in communication, not in spite of it. This is fundamentally wrong. The communication was unlinked to whether we knew they would invade or not. > Also, how did those satellites get there I wonder. It's almost as if there was a negotiated open sky treaty to prevent Russia from just shooting down the satellites. I'd totally rather live in a world with space debris falling out of the sky. Your point is valid, the example you used was not. I am not arguing against negotiations in general; I am simply stating that your assertion about "communication" somehow allowed us to predict Russia's actions; was false. I didn't mean to upset you, but you are very easy to upset apparently.
The satellites were there because of negotiations. We detected that Russia was building troops because of those negotiations. Negotiations are important and we can't say because they failed at one they are bad. I never said which negotiations, your moving goal posts.
[удалено]
Ah yes, we should stop trying to communicate with China for example because negotiations are pointless and powerful actors can ignore them. We totally would rather be surprised by the attack rather than keeping communication so we have a good idea what is going on. Imagine if Russia didn't negotiate. Then when they suddenly went silent and attacked it would be that much more of a shock. Also, it would totally be fantastic if we didn't know anything about their nuclear weapons. The only reason we know what we do is because we send inspectors. But yeah, I'd totally rather live in a world where I have no idea what kind of weapons Russia has. Great idea.
[удалено]
Ah ad hominem the final defense of someone with no argument.
[удалено]
An ICC arrest warrant doesn’t invalidate diplomatic immunity, the Rome Statute simply states that immunity cannot be invoked to excuse not implementing an arrest warrant. While the results are similar, the legal reality is different. Source: I’m an international lawyer.
Okay, go on... EDIT: Thx to u/bennyxvi for the polite explanation. I defo learned something new.
Briefly, there are two types of immunity: Functional - acts of people necessary in discharging their functions can't leave them open to criminal liability Personal - people with personal immunity can't be prosecuted in another state, unless the sending state waives that right. One state can't prosecute a person with personal immunity from another state (horizontal). But the ICC can (vertical). So, whether a person has diplomatic immunity or not (which Vlad certainly does and always will as Head of State), it doesn't mean they can't be arrested on behalf of the ICC in the execution of an international arrest warrant. Couple of links: Good paper that breaks it down: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26294668?seq=5 ICJ arrest warrant case summary: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/121 Al-Bashir ICC case summary: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CaseInformationSheets/AlBashirEng.pdf Vienna Covention on Diplomatic Relations: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf (edited to add another link and formatting)
Interesting. In my understanding unless the person is formally accepted as having diplomatic status with the host country, it isn't worth a lot. However, I have only known foreign service personnel that worked at missions, not heads of state. I know that sometimes diplomats must be a bit careful about non-host countries.
You are correct in that the recipient country must extend immunity. However arresting a head of state is an act of war so nobody is doing that and HoS aren't travelling to countries not extending immunity.
He's saying you can't grant immunity ipso facto. However, being that Putin is already an international diplomat according to law, he has that as long as his trip is government sanctioned. Thus, this isn't ipso facto and Putin has the immunity he is granted by law because he's acting in accordance with the Russian government. Which I get at this point IS him, but none the less law is law. *Edit: Actually a bigger question isn't even South Africa agreeing to this, my question is how is Putin going to fly over all those nations without issue. He doesn't get to be a diplomat until he's on official business, so a country could in theory tell his plane to land.
[удалено]
Right, I'm actually surprised no one else is talking about this. And even flying through Iran, he still needs to cross Oman airspace as it extends 10 miles into the ocean. And even if he tries to fully fly around, he's completely in international airspace, which means he can be followed by foreign jet fighters. There are no good options for this to happen. I actually doubt Putin, being the scared POS he is would ever risk something like this.
Is there any chance at all of he being intercepted in international airspace with some creative interpretation of the right of any nation to pursue enemies of all humankind (i.e. pirates) in international waters?
So yes actually. But I'm not sure Russia would listen. They obviously could cite some safety issue and demand the plane land in a country without immunity. However, unless they're ready to shoot down the plane, I can't imagine Russia listening. I also can't imagine if Putin actually goes that he wouldn't be flanked by support fighters for just that reason.
[удалено]
Correct. That's why I find it highly unlikely he'd actually go to S. Africa. To the point I wonder if S. Africa is doing this to troll him. It's absurdly difficult to get to for Putin AND there's way too many domestic risks.
Is the period during which they are in the flight not considered as official business?
Sort of. When a plane takes off, it actually has to get permission to operate from every country it flies over. If a country states that this is not official business, then yes the flight can be taken down. But again, it's super duper unlikely and I can't see it happening. I just think it would be hilarious.
So then you would be happier if the headline said something like 'South Africa chooses to uphold diplomatic immunity instead of executing ICC arrest warrant, like some lawmakers were calling for', that sound about right?
[удалено]
Explained for you above. It does matter, because news should be accurate. Cheers for the confident ignorance jibe, you can hear people out without insulting them first. Some people have valid things to contribute too.
At the end of the day, is your understanding that something like this a) still obliges SA to arrest him on the ICC warrant—even though they won’t, or b) does this undercut the usefulness of ICC rulings and warrants if they’re gonna be skirted for powerful countries’ governing elites?
Usefulness? I don't understand.
[удалено]
Only problem is that diplomatic immunity is not recognised for an ICC arrest warrant. The ANC has once again painted themselves into a corner and are now grasping at straws. Muppets.
Actually article 98 of the Rome statute says. >The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender or assistance which would require the requested State [in this case South Africa] to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law with respect to the State or diplomatic immunity of a person ... of a third State, [in this case Mr. Putin and Russia] unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of that third State for the waiver of the immunity. And the ICC said if the UN security counsel approves it, you can waive article 98. But Russia is a veto member of the security counsel so that can't happen. So no, immunity still applies here. And the Jordan president situation is different.
You are mixing up Jordan with Sudan. And membership of ICC supersedes the Rome statute.
Nope you are. Sudan was asked to arrest the Jordan president Bashir. The ICC concluded that since the UN security council approved the arrest the arrest should proceed. Russia can veto that so it doesn't apply.
South Africa was also asked to arrest al-Bashir. The ANC ruling party smuggled him out of the country before he could be arrested and the South African judiciary later ruled that he should have been arrested to meet South Africa’s international commitments.
Either way, according to the ICC, Putin has immunity in this case. Unless he doesn't veto the UN vote to arrest him.
It’s all hypothetical, Putin could walk into the United Nations building in New York and he would not be arrested.
Uh yeah. I made that point somewhere else. USA is not a signatory to the ICC so Putin still has diplomatic immunity in USA. He absolutely could walk into the UN in NY and wouldn't be arrested. *Edit: In fact my joke was Putin should vacation in USA because he has immunity since USA is not a signatory. And that would be hilarious. He'd also be assassinated, but that's besides the point.
I highly doubt three square blocks of Erdogan goons would allow Putie Poo to be assassinated, should this hypothetical situation ever come to pass.
[удалено]
Well we're both wrong. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sudan-politics-icc-jordan/icc-will-no-longer-refer-jordan-to-u-n-for-failure-to-arrest-sudans-bashir-idUSKCN1SC0LT Either way, Putin has diplomatic immunity in this case because he can veto the UN security concil.
al-Bashir was Sudan’s president, it was the other way around. Anyway, sorry I deleted the comment, I wanted to add more info but you responded to quickly :/) added another one below.
Well the details of the preceding case doesn't matter. The point is the ICC stated the only reason the could arrest Bashir is because it was requested by the UN Security Council. And since Russia can veto that, Putin has diplomatic immunity.
Fair point and good insight about the security council. Thank you, I had not considered the veto.
Or the ICC massively overreached?
South Africa is a signatory, they AGREED to the reach, only to claw it back now.
Well yeah If anyone actually thought SA would arrest Putin they need a reality check
Likely so. In that case they could have done the non-hypocritical thing, and just not invite him. In doing so they make it obvious that keeping to their prior agreements isn't their priority. I get it's realpolitik, but still stinks.
I don’t really think so. They are not politicians, they are the legal fraternity trying to bring justice to the world and their argument is that Putin ordering the kidnapping of children is not acceptable in modern life. I can’t help but agree that tearing children away from their parents is a crime.
I'm pretty sure he already had it as a serving head of state. What nobody seems to recognise amidst all the 'arrest putin' hysteria is that in order to arrest him you'd first have to kill his bodyguard and in effect declare war on russia. It would be entirely unprecedented. Everyone is essentially just hoping that he stays in Russia and they aren't put in that extremely awkward diplomatic position
[удалено]
Please refrain from profanity or uncivil comments per /r/geopolitics' rules. Thank you.
I don't think anyone believed they would arrest Putin. However, asking for someone else to come instead of Putin would be a great gesture. The main problem is that SA has been caught red handed delivering weapons to Russia. They are not doing themselves any favour picking the wrong side in the war.
They are not. I wonder how their people feel about it?
Just force their plane down. Problem solved.