Astana views no barriers in the way of Russia arranging official visits, even if the International Criminal Court (ICC) were to issue an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin. Kazakhstan did not sign the Rome Statute that established the ICC, which means the court’s document does not hold legal force domestically. This stance was clarified by Ermukhambet Konuspaev, Kazakhstan’s Deputy Foreign Minister, who spoke in a detailed briefing about the country’s position on international legal instruments and bilateral diplomacy.
According to Konuspaev, the Rome Statute does not apply to Kazakhstan, so there is no call to action within the Kazakh legal framework or any obligation that would compel local authorities to act in response to ICC proceedings. He stressed that there are no travel restrictions currently imposed by Kazakhstan on anyone, including state leaders. If a decision is made at the highest level in Moscow to initiate visits or diplomatic engagements, Kazakhstan would certainly proceed with its normal channels of communication and arrangements, treating such moves as a matter of bilateral dialogue rather than a response to ICC jurisprudence. The deputy minister underscored that the practical impact of international arrest warrants depends on whether the issuing authority can leverage domestic legal mechanisms, and in Kazakhstan’s case, the absence of ratification means the document does not trigger automatic actions on Kazakh soil.
Separately, Hakob Arshakyan, who has previously held the position of Deputy Speaker of the Armenian Parliament, is engaged in ensuring that any potential ICC obligations connected to the Rome Statute do not undermine Armenia’s strategic ties with Russia. On March 24, the Armenian Constitutional Court ruled that recognizing the ICC’s obligations under the Rome Statute is constitutional, a decision that reflects a broader pattern among neighboring states weighing the balance between international justice mechanisms and regional political partnerships. This development is part of a wider regional conversation about how states in the Caucasus and Central Asia navigate ICC processes while maintaining key security and economic relationships. In the Canadian and American context, observers note that many governments prioritize sober assessments of how international legal tools interact with national sovereignty, treaty commitments, and regional diplomacy. The overarching aim in these discussions remains to preserve stable, predictable avenues for high-level dialogue and cooperation, even when international tribunals issue contentious warrants or judgments with potential geopolitical implications. As such, countries like Armenia, Kazakhstan, and others in the region continue to articulate positions that align legal interpretations with long-standing strategic partnerships and regional stability, rather than allowing ICC proceedings to drive immediate unilateral policy changes.