South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa said that any attempt to arrest Russian President Vladimir Putin when he visits the country next month would be a declaration of war with Russia.
Ramaphosa said in court papers that were released on Tuesday that “Russia has made it clear that arresting its sitting President would be a declaration of war.”
Putin has been invited to a BRICS summit in Johannesburg next month but is the target of an International Criminal Court arrest warrant – a provision that Pretoria as an ICC member would be expected to implement were he to attend.
South Africa’s diplomatic dilemma is playing out in court, where the leading opposition party, the Democratic Alliance (DA), is trying to force the government’s hand and ensure the Kremlin leader is held and handed over to the ICC if he steps foot in the country.
In his response, Ramaphosa described the DA’s application as “irresponsible” and said national security was at stake. According to the president, South Africa is seeking an exemption under ICC rules based on the fact that enacting the arrest could threaten the “security, peace and order of the state”.
“It would be inconsistent with our constitution to risk engaging in war with Russia,” he said, adding that this would go against his duty to protect the country.
The arrest would also undermine a South African-led mission to end the war in Ukraine and “foreclose any peaceful solution”, Ramaphosa wrote.
The ICC treaty states that a member country should consult the court when it identifies problems that may impede the execution of a request, and that the court may not proceed with requesting an arrest if this would require a state to break international rules on diplomatic immunity.
South Africa is the current chair of the BRICS group, a gathering of economic heavyweights that also includes Brazil, Russia, India and China, which sees itself as a counter-balance to Western economic domination.
Putin is sought by the ICC over accusations that Russia unlawfully deported Ukrainian children.
South African Deputy President Paul Mashatile has said in recent interviews with local media the government has been trying to persuade Putin not to come – but so far unsuccessfully.
Signed in June and initially marked as “confidential”, Ramaphosa’s affidavit was published on Tuesday, after the court ruled it be made public.
It seems like Putin should have diplomatic immunity.
Why would he have immunity if he’s got an arrest warrant out from the ICC?
Diplomatic immunity trumps arrest warrants in countries. The worst the host country’s can do is kick out the offending diplomat.
Based on the article, the ICC does not want members going against this common practice.
Diplomatic immunity is granted by the visited country, not declared by the originating country. They’re free to refuse the request for diplomatic immunity (just not simply take the status away once it has been granted).
The ICC issued the warrant, there’s no immunity. South Africa is seeking an exemption from the requirement to enforce the warrant.
In other words, under current international law, South Africa is required to arrest Putin.
What you seem to be thinking of is diplomatic law, like ambassadors and shit. That’s a different thing entirely and does not apply here.
Just to go a bit further… there isn’t really an “international law” so much as there was a treaty that over 100 countries signed on to for war crimes declarations. South Africa is a signatory of it. If I recall Russia might be as well, but the US isn’t for example and so as such the “law” doesn’t apply to us since we never signed the treaty.
Russia is also not a signatory. Not anymore… They quit in 2014 after the ICC started looking into their initial invasion of Ukraine.
Ukraine is also not a signatory, but has accepted jurisdiction.
South Africa signaled that they would quit the treaty in 2016, but rescinded that in 2017 so are still members.
I mean, international law is just a bunch of treaties and some uncodified norms about how nations should behave. It’s not like there’s really a full-fledge international legal system with its own ability to arrest and prosecute.
There is actually a full-fledged international legal system with its own ability to issue arrest warrants and does prosecute. 123 nations are signed to it and they have a section dedicated to reading about criminal cases they have tried and repercussions. The problem for South Africa is they are a signatory of the Rome Statute, which would mean that they should arrest someone charged with a crime by the ICC.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/cases
This is not an arrest warrant in South Africa. It is an arrest warrant by the ICC itself. South Africa is a member nation of the international criminal court. If Putin goes to any member nation of the ICC, they will be required to arrest him. So far, Putin has not visited any nation who is a signatory for the ICC since they issued the warrant for him. South Africa will be the first.
Putin should have Zelensky’s foot up his ass.
I didn’t say “should” as it is the right thing, but “should” as in it is something that would likely happen.
Putin is a war criminal, but the war criminal will likely have diplomatic immunity when attending a diplomatic summit.
Diplomatic immunity is a legal fiction. On whose authority does he have diplomatic immunity? It’s not some magical construct, it describes the pressure that can be exacted by the diplomat’s country were that diplomat to be detained or run afoul of some law in the host country. It’s not like there is some central overarching authority handing out Diplomatic Immunity cards. It’s based upon ad-hoc agreements between nations. South Africa can do as they please. They will have to face any potential consequences from either Russia for enforcing the ICC arrest warrant, or from the ICC for not enforcing the warrant.
The ICC doesn’t have nukes. All that said, hard to give the launch order when you are dead so lets hope for misadventure.
Perhaps you meant to say ‘likely’ and not ‘should’.