What Mongolia’s decision to defy an international warrant for Putin’s arrest and welcome him with open arms means for the country and the Kremlin
The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) decision to issue an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin back in March of 2023 has thrown a bit of a wrench into the Russian president’s travel plans. On Monday, however, Putin landed in Mongolia — an ICC member state obligated to arrest him if he steps foot in the country. But instead of executing the warrant, the Mongolian authorities welcomed Putin with open arms, and the next day, he left the country unimpeded. Meduza explains what consequences Mongolia may face for disregarding international law, whether this defiance might encourage other nations to follow suit, and what this development could mean for the Kremlin.
On September 2, Vladimir Putin arrived in Mongolia for an official visit. The Russian president, along with the country’s Children’s Rights Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova, is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for his alleged involvement in the illegal deportation of children from occupied Ukrainian territories to Russia. As an ICC member, Mongolia is formally obligated to arrest him under the court’s warrant.
This was Putin’s first visit to a signatory of the Rome Statute since March 2023, when the ICC issued the warrant for his arrest. He left Mongolia on September 3.
Will the ICC penalize Mongolia for not arresting Putin?
It has no means to do so. The ICC, like other international legal institutions, relies on member states acting in good faith, explains Gleb Bogush, an expert in international criminal law. This isn’t unique to the ICC; most international organizations function in the same way. There are exceptions, but even those often don’t work perfectly, Bogush notes. For example, the U.N. Security Council can impose enforcement measures on states, but its permanent members have the ability to avoid complying with them.
Even though we’re outlawed in Russia, we continue to deliver exclusive reporting and analysis from inside the country.
Our journalists on the ground take risks to keep you informed about changes in Russia during its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Support Meduza’s work today.
The ICC has no real leverage over Mongolia, even within its own framework. In December 2023, Mongolian Supreme Court Justice Erdenebalsuren Damdin became the first judge from the country elected to the ICC. As journalist Farida Rustamova noted, Mongolian President Ukhnaagiin Khürelsükh, who invited Putin for the visit, described Damdin’s election as “a sign of Mongolia’s growing international reputation and the trust international organizations have in the country.”
However, the ICC can’t remove Damdin from his position — while judges are nominated by specific countries, they serve in a personal capacity, says Bogush. Judges are elected by member states and serve a single nine-year term, which in Damdin’s case began quite recently, in 2024.
The ICC Assembly of States Parties could, in theory, condemn Mongolia’s decision to ignore its obligations. However, Bogush explains that no serious consequences, such as sanctions, are in place for non-compliant states. “The Assembly can reprimand a particular state and recommend that it comply with the Rome Statute,” he says. “[But] the main consequences for Mongolia may be reputational — this incident will go down in history.”
So, Mongolia won’t even be expelled from the ICC?
It seems highly unlikely.
As human rights activist Stanislav Dmitrievsky explained to Meduza, the Rome Statute doesn’t specify what actions can be taken against violators. While expulsion from the ICC isn’t explicitly mentioned, member states could theoretically impose any sanctions they see fit, as long as they align with international law. However, Dmitrievsky doubts that expelling a country from the Assembly is a real possibility:
There have been instances where member states refused to cooperate with arrest warrants, but none of these led to serious consequences for the violators. This kind of “punishment” is more of a political issue than a legal one, and it comes down to balancing interests.
It’s clear that refusing to cooperate undermines the court’s mission. However, some member states “publicly flogging” others, or worse, reducing the number of signatories to the statute, also weakens both the ICC’s efforts and its international authority. Whether formal membership without fulfilling obligations is better than an outright refusal to cooperate with the court is a matter for debate.
Who else has failed to comply with the ICC?
An arrest warrant for then-Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir (accused of multiple international crimes) was also issued in absentia, lawyer Natalya Sekretaryova explained to Meduza’s Kit newsletter. However, al-Bashir evaded justice for many years, traveling freely to countries like Chad, Kenya, and Jordan. “The case of al-Bashir shows how limited the ICC’s influence over member states can be,” said Sekretaryova. “A dictator accused of genocide was able to travel freely for 10 years through neighboring countries, whose officials simply shrugged off requests to arrest him.”
The ICC’s website lists several rulings related to non-cooperation under the Rome Statute. Most of them involve al-Bashir, but there’s also the case of former Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta. Kenyatta was the first sitting head of state to appear before the ICC as a defendant, voluntarily attending hearings (the non-cooperation mentioned by the ICC refers to Kenya’s failure to provide the court with necessary documents). In December 2014, the ICC dropped all charges against Kenyatta due to a lack of evidence.
Don’t Putin and other leaders have international immunity?
They do, but this immunity mainly applies to intergovernmental relations, as legal expert Gleb Bogush explains:
There are different views on this matter, but the practice is fairly clear: diplomatic immunity doesn’t apply within the ICC. This is explicitly stated in Article 27 of the Rome Statute. This is not only the ICC’s position but also that of other international courts, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which issued an arrest warrant for sitting [Serbian] President Slobodan Milošević at a time when Yugoslavia wasn’t even a U.N. member — and this was a U.N. tribunal. Another very important ruling was the issuance of an arrest warrant for Liberian President Charles Taylor by the Special Court for Sierra Leone.
But it’s important to note that the ICC doesn’t have its own police force; it relies on the cooperation of member states to enforce its decisions. If Putin were to be arrested, it would be up to Mongolian authorities to carry it out, even though it wouldn’t be their initiative. Such a move would clearly be seen as a political decision — something the Mongolian government is fully aware of.
An unnamed government spokesperson told Politico that Mongolia is heavily dependent on energy imports and adheres to a policy of neutrality. According to the spokesperson, Mongolia imports 95 percent of its petroleum products and more than 20 percent of its electricity from neighboring countries. “This supply is critical to ensure our existence and that of our people,” the spokesperson said. “Mongolia has always maintained a policy of neutrality in all its diplomatic relations, as demonstrated in our statements of record to date.”
“This situation is very convenient for the Kremlin,” says Bogush. “Mongolia is landlocked and borders both Russia and China. The country’s geography and economy put it in a challenging political situation. For the Kremlin, this is a very favorable scenario, as it’s easy for it to work with a government in such a position.”
However, other countries that are less dependent on Russia could theoretically act differently. In August 2023, Putin was expected to attend the BRICS summit in South Africa (the ICC issued the arrest warrant in March). At the time, South African presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya stated that the country was aware of its legal obligations to the International Criminal Court. In the end, Putin didn’t go.
However, back in 2015, South Africa failed to arrest Omar al-Bashir. Two years later, the ICC determined that the country had not fulfilled its obligations but didn’t bring the issue to the Assembly for a formal vote of condemnation.
So, did Mongolia violate international law?
Yes. And not just concerning the provisions in the Rome Statute (though breaking this treaty alone is already a violation of international law). As Gleb Bogush points out, the crimes Putin is accused of are serious breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Countries that have ratified these conventions are obligated to prosecute or extradite individuals who have violated their principles.
Bogush also draws attention to the fact that Mongolian authorities are citing political considerations rather than legal arguments in their statements. He believes this is because they fully understand that “they simply don’t have a strong legal case.”
Is Mongolia’s decision a victory for the Kremlin?
Gleb Bogush believes the Kremlin can certainly view Mongolia’s refusal to arrest Putin as a win. “It strengthens the Russian authorities’ worldview that both international and national law are meaningless,” he explains. Human rights activist Stanislav Dmitrievsky concurs, saying that Putin “can celebrate an interim victory”:
[The Kremlin’s] brazen display of bending a neighbor to its will and spitting in the face of international justice worked. One can only hope that this victory will ultimately prove to be Pyrrhic.
Bogush also stresses that the reaction of the international community, even at the rhetorical level, will be important:
If the response is purely formal, it could influence the position of other states, which will come to understand that violating the Rome Statute doesn’t lead to any real or diplomatic consequences. Mongolia certainly wasn’t forced to ratify this document, and a situation where a member state completely ignores the Statute could be very dangerous. It’s important to ensure that Mongolia doesn’t remain comfortable in this situation.
Amnesty International Mongolia’s executive director, Altantuya Batdorj, has already condemned the government’s actions:
To shelter a fugitive from international justice would not only amount to obstruction of justice. If Mongolia provides even a temporary safe haven for President Putin, it will effectively become an accomplice in ensuring impunity for some of the most serious crimes under international law.
Story by Petr Sapozhnikov