The International Criminal Court narrowed the diplomatic playing field on December 5, 2025, when deputy prosecutors Mame Mandiaye Niang and Nazhat Shameem Khan told Reuters that arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and five other Russian officials "will stay in place" regardless of any blanket amnesty floated in ongoing peace negotiations. The prosecutors emphasized that only a United Nations Security Council resolution could defer the proceedings, and that the Rome Statute—the Court's founding treaty—does not give weight to political arrangements that conflict with its mandate for accountability.
The statement directly contradicts a provision in the leaked U.S.-led peace framework reported in November, which stipulated that "all parties…will receive full amnesty for their actions during the war." Ukraine has categorically rejected such blanket amnesty. Andriy Kostin, Ukraine's ambassador to the Netherlands, dismissed comprehensive immunity as incompatible with justice after "mass atrocities." The ICC's legal position now aligns with Kyiv's insistence on accountability, effectively removing a cornerstone of the preliminary American proposal and reshaping the parameters for any durable settlement.
At its core, the Rome Statute establishes that the pursuit of justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity cannot be overridden by expedient political bargains. The ICC is a permanent international court with 125 member states; Russia, China, and the United States are not parties. Even so, the Court derives its jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed on the territory of member states—including Ukraine, which accepted ICC jurisdiction. Russia rejects the Court's authority, but the legal architecture remains in place, and the warrants persist.
Legal foundation and enforcement realities
The ICC first issued arrest warrants for Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova on March 17, 2023, charging them with war crimes related to the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied areas to Russia. The Court outlined individual criminal responsibility and superior responsibility under Articles 25 and 28 of the Rome Statute. Subsequent warrants in 2024 targeted former Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, specifically attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure between October 2022 and March 2023.
Enforcement of these warrants depends entirely on state cooperation. ICC member states are legally obligated to arrest and surrender indicted individuals who enter their territory. Yet compliance has been uneven and politically fraught. South Africa faced criticism when the ICC warrant for Putin created a legal dilemma over his potential attendance at the 2023 BRICS Summit in Johannesburg. To avoid the obligation to arrest him, South Africa and Russia agreed that Putin would not attend in person; instead, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov represented Russia, and Putin participated remotely via video link. Mongolia similarly drew scrutiny in October 2024 when Putin visited despite the outstanding warrant. Non-member states—including India, China, and the United States—are not legally bound to execute ICC warrants, further complicating universal accountability.
Still, the warrants carry significant diplomatic and political weight. They constrain Putin's international travel and impose reputational costs on states that ignore them. More critically for the current negotiation dynamic, they establish a legal baseline that cannot be quietly erased through bilateral or trilateral political agreements. As Europe races to revise the U.S. draft framework, the ICC's December statement functions as a formal legal constraint that European capitals can invoke to resist provisions that sacrifice accountability for expediency.
Members are reading: Why the UN Security Council deferral pathway is a mirage, and how the ICC stance reshapes Europe's negotiating leverage.
Implications for the negotiation architecture
The ICC's statement compounds the enforcement gap identified in earlier analyses of the U.S. draft. Washington's leaked framework collided with NATO doctrine and alliance cohesion in part because it lacked credible mechanisms to prevent future aggression. Now, the legal dimension adds another layer: even if political actors agree to amnesty provisions, the warrants persist, and ICC member states remain bound by their treaty obligations.
For Kyiv, the Court's position offers reinforcement. Ukraine's insistence on a "just peace" rather than a expedient ceasefire is no longer merely a negotiating posture; it is consistent with the binding international legal framework. European allies can point to the Rome Statute when resisting American pressure to accept diluted accountability provisions. And for Moscow, the ICC statement clarifies that no political deal will erase the legal stigma or travel restrictions that accompany indictment.
The practical result is a narrower menu of diplomatic trade-offs. Negotiators cannot offer comprehensive immunity as a bargaining chip. Any settlement text must acknowledge or accommodate the Court's ongoing jurisdiction. This complicates deal-making but also ensures that the legal architecture for accountability survives the political bargaining process. Whether that strengthens the prospects for a durable peace or prolongs the diplomatic stalemate will depend on how creatively negotiators can reconcile legal obligations with the hard realities of power.
Subscribe to our free newsletter to unlock direct links to all sources used in this article.
We believe you deserve to verify everything we write. That's why we meticulously document every source.
