Talk:International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Russian figures

Link from In The News?
The current In The News template has an item about arrest warrants for Putin and Lvova-Belova. Should this article be linked from it? J I P &#124; Talk 18:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

More Info
If I am correct there have been several more developments about this arrest warrant. Could we include that? (Specifically the government of Belarus’s reaction to this.) 165.234.101.99 (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Мария Алексеевна Львова-Белова (cropped 2).jpg

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2023
Change paragraph 2 from:

The 123 member states of the ICC are obliged to detain and transfer Putin if he sets foot on their territory.

to:

The 123 member states of the ICC are obliged to detain and transfer Putin and Lvova-Belova if either set foot on their territory. 9yz (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit semi protected
Under the International law section, where it says Article II of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states that "forcibly transferring children from one human group to another" is an act of genocide”, please change the term human group to  national, ethnic, racial or religious group. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-prevention-and-punishment-crime-genocide 2600:100C:A117:1B0E:5445:A334:97EF:D6CE (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ M.Bitton (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

This article should not be a collection of vaguely related information
In I did some tidying. This article is about ICC arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova. Some background is justified, but it should be in reasonable proportion (not too long) in relation to the main body of the article. The pieces of text that I've removed quite likely are already well-covered in the related articles: if something is missing in those other articles, then feel free to recover the removed material (use copied for attribution on the talk pages). Boud (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Please add to the preamble
According to the Office of the Prosecutor General and National Police of Ukraine, the number of children abducted by Russia from the Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts of Ukraine as of April 11, 2023 exceeds 19,384. Only 361 managed to return. 91.210.250.93 (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The applicability of Article 98 of the Rome Statute
The article currently does not address the issue of whether Article 98 of the Rome Statute and international customary law permits the arrest of a head of state of a non-party. The article states unequivocally that state parties have an obligation to arrest Putin and does not deal in any way with possible counterarguments. I'm not taking any sides on this issue, I just believe that it is something that should be explored in more detail in the article.

For a scholarly examination of the issue in the context of Omar al-Bashir, see for example: https://www.zis-online.com/dat/artikel/2010_6_461.pdf

--Rebus16 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

A question about extensive use of Russian language sources
A question to fellow editors. Some parts of this article quotes sources in the Russian language extensively and exclusively. One example of such is the section on "International Law". Are we allowed to do this? As a non Russian user, and a native English user, there's no way for me to verify these sources, or the representation of these sources, even though I'm dealing with the English wikipedia. I did some research but can't find any wikipedia policy or guidance on this issue. Can some experienced editors guide or enlighten me on this? Thank you 00:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HollerithPunchCard (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, it is allowed as soon as non-English sources are reliable (which I did not check in this case).--Ymblanter (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, Ymblanter. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to delete or thoroughly revamp the section on International Law
Soliciting the opinion of other wiki editors as a courtesy before I make a major move. I think the entire section on International Law on this article is misconceived. This section talks about crime against humanity, genocide, etc. But these alleged crimes, serious as they are, have nothing to do with the actual charges that are the subject of the arrest warrant against Putin and co. Under the actual arrest warrant, Putin and co. are being sought for forced deportation of children as part of war crimes. These discussions on genocide, international law, interesting and enriching as they are, tend to mislead the readers on what the arrest warrants are really about.

The section is better off discussing deportation of children under the context war crimes instead of these other crimes that are not the subject of the arrest warrants. Are there any objections? If there are no reasonable objections I will proceed to delete this section, before I consider replacing it with a discussion on war crimes instead, which will need some time and work. Thanks for reading. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of a proposed change: Inaccurate equation of deportation of children with genocide and crime against humanity
There is a change that I wish to make. Ymblanter has fairly noted that the change I'm proposing is too significant to make without discussion here. So here I am. The changes that I wish to make are found under the Section on International Law, and are as follows:

1. From the point of view of international law, the forcible deportation of minors is considered a crime against humanity:

Change to: From the point of view of international law, the forcible deportation of minors is considered an element of the crime against humanity.

Justification: The statement that forcible deportation of minors is considered a crime against humanity is inaccurate. To constitute a crime against humanity, the act of forcible deportation of minors alone is insufficient. This act must also be part of a systematic and widespread attack directed against a civilian population. In this sense, the act of forcible deportation of minors is one, but not the only element or requirement to creating the crime against humanity. This act cannot be equated to the crime, per se.

The full definition of crime against humanity is clearly stipulated by Article 7 of the Rome Statute (see: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf).

Reliable secondary sources on this point is abundant. See for example, Crimes against Humanity and the Limits of International Criminal Law by Massimo Renzo, Springer, Vol. 31, No. 4 (July 2012) (https://www.jstor.org/stable/41487020).

2. Article II of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states that "forcibly transferring children from one national, ethnic, racial or religious group to another" is an act of genocide;

Change to: Article II of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states that "forcibly transferring children from one national, ethnic, racial or religious group to another" is an element of genocide;

Justification: Again, it is inaccurate to equate the act of deportation of children, on its own, with genocide, as the current sentence suggests. This is clearly stated in Article II of the Genocide Convention itself, that this sentence references, and purports to reflect. Specifically, Article II states that the forcible transfer of children is genocide when committed with an intent to destroy a group.

Therefore, the forcible transfer of children is not an act of genocide per se. It is one of the conditions, but not the only condition to an act of genocide. The other condition is the presence of genocidal intent, which this sentence neglects to mention, at the expense of correctness and accuracy.

If fellow editors require reliable secondary sources on the aforementioned definition of genocide, I'll be happy to provide - there are more than plenty.

Thank you all for reading this long monologue. My intention is not to diminish what's happening in Ukraine. It's precisely my sympathies for what's going on in Ukraine that I'm paying such attention to this article, and trying to make it the best it can be.

May I know if there are any objections to me proceeding with my proposed edits? HollerithPunchCard (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Ladies and gentlemen - especially Ymblanter - any comments or feedback to my post? If not I'll presume consensus to my proposals and proceed to incorporate the edit proposed above. Thanks all. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We should not determine ourselves whether this is genocide, an element of genocide, a military crime or whatever, and certainly not by reading the Convention. Instead, we should go to the reliable sources - starting from those cited in the article - and see what they say. Ymblanter (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Ymblanter Did you actually read the reliable sources I provided above? I agree with you that "we should not determine ourselves whether this is genocide, etc, etc", which is exactly what the disputed sentences is trying to do, and which is exactly why I'm proposing the edits.


 * The claims made in the disputed sentences are contrary to reliable sources that I have provided above. It's not my reading of the Convention (which is quite clear and plain btw) - it's what all of the major international law treatise and textbooks say on the matter raised in those disputed sentences.


 * The statement in the Article made an assertion of law, allegedly sourced to two news articles in the Russian language which I suspect most editors on English Wikipedia can't read. This is contrary to WP:VERIFY.


 * This assertion of law made by the disputed sentences is also inaccurate as it is contrary to the international law textbooks and the major treatise on this matter, two examples of which I have provided above (in addition to the plain text of the Convention which this disputed sentence purports to quotes).


 * Are you saying that you disagree with the accuracy of the sources I provided, or are you saying that they are not reliable sources, and that the two Russian news articles are preferred to these international law text books (assuming that they are even accurately represented in the disputed sentences which English users including myself are in no position to verify)? Or are you saying that my representation of the sources I provided is inaccurate?


 * I get that what's happening in Ukraine is horrible and there's a lot of interest in calling what's happening in Ukraine a genocide. But genocide is the most serious crime to allege in existence, it has a rigorous definition, and such claims need to be rigorously made. To call an unlawful deportation of children, on its own, as genocide, is plainly wrong.HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am saying that what you are trying to do is called original research. It could be aligned or not aligned with the sources, I have not checked this yet. Ymblanter (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research)
 * I am not attempting original research - on the contrary, what I'm doing is precisely bringing to light reliable, published sources that contradict the original research represented by the disputed sentences.
 * I'm also raising the issue of WP:VERIFY and WP:NOENG as the disputed sentences exclusively rely on non English sources, when reliable, published sources exist, as I have indicated above, which must be preferred.
 * Since you have indicted that you have not checked the sources I produced, kindly check and get back to me with your considered view of this matter, if you still maintain objection to my proposed edits.HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do sources you provided specifically mention the arrest warrants for Putin and Lvova-Belova? If not, this is original research. I will then not waste my time checking them. Your objection against Russian language sources is invalid and can be safely ignored. Ymblanter (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter at this stage I'm not sure if you even realize what are the disputed sentences that I'm talking about. The dispute sentences are as follows:
 * "From the point of view of international law, the forcible deportation of minors is considered a crime against humanity."
 * "Article II of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states that "forcibly transferring children from one national, ethnic, racial or religious group to another" is an act of genocide."
 * The assertions in the disputed sentences have nothing to do with the arrest warrants for Putin and Lvova-Belova. They are claims on general legal principles that are inaccurate. Your requirement that the sources I rely upon to dispute these sentences "specifically mention the arrest warrants for Putin and Lvova-Belova", which is entirely irrelevant to the claims in the question, is therefore, unintelligible.
 * Since you do not wish to conduct your due diligence despite objecting to my edits, I will conduct mine. I obtained a translation of the Russian sources cited by the disputed sentences, and my position is that the disputed sentences misrepresent the Russian sources cited.
 * The Russian sources cited claims that forceful deportation of minors "may" constitute crime against humanity or genocide. The disputed sentences represent these sources to say that forceful deportation of minors "is" a crime against humanity or genocide.
 * "may" and "is" may be a difference of one word, but it is a world of difference.
 * You now have three grounds of objection from me to the disputed sentences:
 * (1) the reliance on Russian sources on general principles of international law is a breach of WP:VERIFY and WP:NOENG, especially since reliable secondary sources on this issue is abundant in English;
 * (2) biased representation and misrepresentation of the sources cited, by exaggerating claims in those sources, in further breach of WP:NPOV
 * (3) the claims in the disputed sentences are inaccurate as they are contradicted by numerous reliable sources on the subject of those claims.
 * If you wish to object to my proposed edits, please address each ground of my objection. Your bare assertion that my objections are "invalid" and "may be safely ignored" is an attitude and not an intelligible argument or a response. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I now had time to check a selection of reliable sources which discuss the order. Three of them  do not mention genocide (they mention war crimes though). One  mentioned genocide in the context that Khan opened several investigations including one probe of genocide, but does not say that the arrest warrants are related to the genocide investigation. Whereas more research than just four articles is probably needed, this gives us a clear direction on how the story must be formulated. Ymblanter (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ymblanter. Genocide was mentioned in the ICC prosecutor, Khan's initial investigation, but that investigate did not end up in a charge of genocide, but a charge of war crime of the unlawful deportation of children. So the claims regarding genocide in the article is inaccurate.
 * But that's not even the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that the problematic section on "International Law" makes sweeping assertions about what the international law is, that has nothing to do with the arrest warrants against Putin and Lvova-Belova and are therefore, strictly redundant, irrelevant to the subject matter, and most importantly - plainly inaccurate, for all the reasons that I have mentioned above and will not belabour.
 * Kindly let me know if I can finally have your consensus to make the edits proposed. That section on international law also deserves a revamp, as I've proposed in earlier on this talk page. Thank you. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter *Waves* Do you still object to my proposed edits? If you wish to suggest a different approach I'm all ears. Thank you. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I need more time to review the text, and I will not have time to do it in the coming week. Please have patience and remember that a short while ago you were not even an extended confirmed user and were prohibited from editing this article. Ymblanter (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter I don't think that "I need more time to take a position" is a valid reason to justify your revert of the Edit at this time. If I'm missing something I'll be happy to stand corrected. To be clear, I'm not rushing you and there is WP:NORUSH.
 * Yes you are more senior than me as a wiki editor, but I would appreciate that you do not WP:PULLRANK, moving forward. Let's get on with the discussion, and let the merit of the argument prevail, not the seniority of the editor. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, you can start edit-warring in an article on a sensitive topic and see what happens. Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody mentioned anything about edit-warring, and you are not being constructive. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I object to the proposed edits, since none of the sources mentions "elements of genocide" and "elements of crimes against humanity". As I said above, I would not object removing the mention of the genocide from the article and concentrating on war crimes instead. Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Or may be someone else gets interested, I am sure this article is of interest to more than two editors. Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Italian
There is not an Italian translation of thi article... Can anybody provide some? ... Please 93.34.90.19 (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2024
Change

On 17 March 2023, following an investigation of war crimes...

to

On 17 March 2023, following an investigation of war crimes... Seungri400 (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ popo dameron  ⁠ talk  21:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Is the date referenced at the beginning of the article correct?
The article begins with On 17 March 2023, following an... , but this would have been more than a year after Russia invaded Ukraine, which occurred on February 22, 2022. Did it really take a year for the ICC to issue arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin? Tomada36 (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Have a look through the International Criminal Court investigations and the List of people indicted in the International Criminal Court and you'll see the time scales involved. Have a look through International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine and you'll see that the times scales can be even longer when governments of rogue states (in the sense of those that "reserve the right" to carry out war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide) obstruct the procedures. Boud (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 26 June 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. With consensus to move to International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Russian figures. (closed by non-admin page mover) Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 23:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova → International Criminal Court arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin – It made sense to include these two together when they were the only people in Russia wanted by ICC for their crimes in Ukraine. However later new warrants appeared for Sergey Kobylash and Viktor Sokolov, and then for Sergei Shoigu and Valery Gerasimov. This article does not cover all Russians wanted for war crimes anymore and I see no more reason to group Putin and Lvova-Belova together. It is clear Putin's warrant is the primary topic. For a reason is "Putin" mentioned 73 times in the article while "Lvova-Belova" is mentioned 10. Super  Ψ   Dro  13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)  — Relisting. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 23:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Russian figures — I suspected this may have been a response to the warrants for Shoigu and Gerasimov, and I came here to see if that scope could be expanded. It would be improper to solely mention Putin if the article is to cover these additional warrants and Lvova-Belova's warrant. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This article did not include the warrants for Sokolov and Kobylash which were issued back in March so the scope remained the first two warrants, with the article currently dealing mostly with Putin, but I am not opposed to this solution if consensus is found for it. Super   Ψ   Dro  16:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good solution provided the other warrants are mentioned Kowal2701 (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll join this counterproposal as long as the other warrants are added. Killuminator (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Politics, WikiProject International law, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Military history, and WikiProject Military history/Post-Cold War task force have been notified of this discussion. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 23:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please add some content to justify the RM
So I would propose that you add the other four subject to arrest warrants. Moreover, "figures" is a bit too casual and not very encyclopedic. Once, hopefully, some people do actually rework the article to add other people than Putin + Lvova-Belova to justify not reverting back to the old name, then a new rename to something like International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Russians or International Criminal Court arrest warrants against Russians or International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Russian citizens would be needed. Russia also has the particularity of distinguishing between "nationality" and "citizenship", so there could also be arguments for International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Russian nationals, and "nationals" is often used in this sort of context. I would go for International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Russians, but I'm not going to propose it while this article is still mostly about Putin and a little about Lvova-Belova. The move was done just yesterday, so admittedly there hasn't yet been much time to add the others ... Boud (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no involvement in this move and believe it should be undone. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)