The Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, Vasily Nebenzya, stated that Moscow does not recognize decisions issued by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. He did not single out any one ruling but emphasized that Russia views ICC actions as illegitimate, describing the court’s measures as incompatible with international law and with the sovereignty of states. Nebenzya’s remarks reflected a broader Russian position that questions the authority and jurisdiction of the ICC in matters connected to actions during the conflict in Ukraine. According to him, the steps taken by the court undermine the principles of equal and fair treatment among nations and distort the normal processes that govern international justice. He also asserted that Russia would continue to respond to ICC actions in a manner it sees as appropriate to protect its interests and to ensure that its official representatives can operate without external interference. News.
In discussing the court’s historic move, Nebenzya underlined that the ICC’s involvement in this matter is not only politically charged but also legally questionable in the eyes of many Russian officials. He described the court’s arrest warrant as a political tool that lacks legitimate foundation, arguing that it contravenes established norms of reciprocity and due process. The Russian side has repeatedly argued that international judicial bodies must respect the sovereignty and primacy of national legal systems when assessing alleged offenses committed on domestic soil. Nebenzya’s interpretation suggests that Moscow views the ICC’s action as an attempt to sidestep practical diplomatic channels and to exert pressure that is inconsistent with the agreed framework of international law. In his view, such moves risk creating a precedent that could invite further unilateral accusations that are not backed by universally accepted evidence. News.
The described situation centers on a court decision that targeted two Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, who serves as Russia’s Children’s Ombudsman. The arrest warrant was issued regarding possible violations described by the ICC as illegal deportation and displacement of populations, in particular children, from Ukrainian territory. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov responded with strong condemnation, arguing that the ICC’s actions lack a valid legal basis and are unacceptable to Russia. He stressed that Moscow would continue to defend its position in relation to these court findings and would not recognize what he called an illegitimate effort to compel Russia to comply with a decision perceived as biased and politically motivated. Peskov’s comments echoed the Kremlin’s ongoing stance that international institutions must operate within the bounds of established legal procedures and mutual respect for national sovereignty. News.
Meanwhile, representatives from the ICC issued statements indicating that the prosecutor’s office continues to cooperate with the Russian Federation on matters related to Ukraine. Karim Khan, the ICC prosecutor, reaffirmed the court’s ongoing engagement with Russian authorities as part of its mandate to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute alleged crimes committed during the conflict. The prosecutor’s remarks reflected a steadfast commitment to pursuing accountability while navigating the complexities of a multinational investigation that involves a range of state actors and legal systems. The ICC emphasized that its decisions are grounded in international law and in the objective assessment of evidence presented by investigators on the ground. The office also highlighted its intent to pursue cooperation through formal channels to ensure that authorities have access to the necessary information to fulfill their duties. News.
Observers note that the situation has continued to unfold amidst a broader debate about the reach and limits of international criminal justice in times of armed conflict. Critics of the ICC argue that the court may pursue actions in ways that appear selective or politically influenced, while proponents contend that independent judicial mechanisms are essential for accountability and deterrence on the international stage. The current episode has thus become a focal point in discussions about how international law interfaces with national sovereignty, the political dimensions of high-profile investigations, and the practical realities of enforcing international arrest warrants when states or leaders involved do not recognize the court’s jurisdiction. News.
As both sides navigate this complex and highly charged dispute, the international community continues to monitor developments and to weigh the implications for ongoing cooperation between Russia and international legal bodies. The dialogue remains marked by insistence on sovereignty, procedural fairness, and a commitment to pursuing truth through lawful means. The discussions illustrate the enduring tension between national legal systems and supranational institutions in addressing alleged violations within a conflict zone, a topic that remains central to debates on how justice is pursued in the modern era. News.