The Ministry of Internal Affairs has reported that Karim Khan, the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court in The Hague, who issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin in March, has been listed on Russia’s wanted list.
According to the document, Khan’s card cites the “Search basis: wanted under Criminal Code clause.” The card identifies Khan as 53 and from Edinburgh, but does not specify the article under which he is sought, and it makes no mention of the ICC prosecutor’s special qualifications.
On March 17, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber issued warrants for Putin and for Maria Lvova-Belova, the Russian Juvenile Ombudsman. The court noted that both individuals were responsible for war crimes, specifically the illegal deportation of children from occupied Ukrainian territories to Russia, with the relevant events beginning on February 24, 2022.
Moscow has consistently rejected the ICC’s authority and its actions. Dmitry Peskov, the President’s press secretary, called the ICC’s statement outrageous and unacceptable, adding that Russia does not recognize the court’s jurisdiction and that its decisions hold no legal force inside Russia.
In a sharply different tone, the Russian Ombudsman reacted with irony to the arrest warrant, praising international attention to the welfare of children in Russia and defending the government’s actions as providing shelter and care for minors removed from conflict zones.
Andrey Klihas, chairman of the Federation Council’s Committee on Constitutional Legislation, suggested on Telegram that the court appears to be eroding itself and suggested that Russia should issue arrest warrants for all ICC judges who participate in its proceedings.
What is the ICC and why does Moscow reject its decisions?
The International Criminal Court stands as the world’s first permanent body dedicated to prosecuting genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression. It operates from The Hague in the Netherlands. The ICC is not a United Nations entity; its founding framework is the Rome Statute, adopted in 1998. Russia signed the Rome Statute in 2000 but has not ratified it, and Moscow’s stance has evolved over time as circumstances on the ground changed. The court’s governance does not rest on the UN Charter, yet it interacts with many UN member states in various capacities. The Rome Statute entered into force in 2003, and in 2016 Russia chose not to become a party to it. Ukraine, while not a party to the Statute, has accepted ICC jurisdiction for crimes committed on its territory since Russia’s broader military actions began. In total, 123 countries have ratified the Rome Statute, including major powers and several regional players; the United States, while involved in early discussions, did not ratify the treaty in 1998 and has since taken a cautious stance toward ICC authority.
On March 20, three days after the warrant was issued, Russia’s Investigative Committee opened a criminal case against ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan and several ICC judges, alleging violations of Russian criminal law. The committee asserted that the prosecutors and judges acted in ways that could be seen as complicating international relations or affecting the sovereignty of the Russian Federation, arguing that the defendants held immunity and that the prosecutions were without legal basis within Russian jurisdiction.
During an interview later in May, Dmitry Peskov described the ICC as an instrument used by Western states to exert pressure. He insisted that any calls from non-sovereign states to enforce such warrants would be unlikely to gain traction given the ICC’s limited jurisdiction in relation to Russia’s sovereignty. He also noted that some governments might theoretically be interested in acting on such orders, but such scenarios remained hypothetical given Russia’s legal framework and the political realities involved.
The unfolding events highlight the ongoing tensions between international judicial mechanisms and state sovereignty, a debate that is as much about legal authority as it is about geopolitical strategy. As cases such as this circulate, the international community continues to weigh the balance between accountability for serious crimes and respect for national legal systems. The implications for diplomacy, cross-border justice, and the handling of individuals tied to leadership roles remain central to the dialogue surrounding accountability on the world stage. [CITATION: International criminal justice discourse and formal statements from Moscow and The Hague are summarized for context.]