It’s not good news. Vladimir Putin has visited Mongolia despite an outstanding warrant issued against him by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Observers are rightly appalled. Some are questioning the very relevance of the ICC. One analyst claims that Putin has used Mongolia to “mock” the Court. But it is not all bad news. Putin’s visit to Mongolia shows that he and his regime simply cannot ignore the allegations against him. It has also acted as an important reminder of Putin’s horrific atrocities, and the need to hold him accountable.

Mongolia is the first member-state of the ICC that Putin has visited since he was targeted for prosecution since Russia’s 2022 invasion. In March 2023, judges at the ICC issued a warrant for Putin on charges of unlawfully deporting Ukrainian children and illegally transferring them from Russian occupied areas of Ukraine to Russia. Those acts constitute a war crime, and a particularly grotesque one: stealing children. 

Mongolia is under a clear, unambiguous legal obligation to arrest Putin and surrender him to The Hague. That Ulaanbaatar chose not to is a slap in the face of victims, survivors, and anyone who subscribes to the basic notion that war crimes demand accountability.

In an ideal world, Putin would be on trial in The Hague, not only for the war crimes he is already charged with but with a litany of others and potentially also crimes against humanity and genocide (Russia is facing charges of genocide at the International Court of Justice). But we do not live in an ideal world. Far from it.

As an institution, the ICC is in never-ending negotiation between its aspirations as an independent court and the reality that it is a creation of states which exists in a world of sharp political divisions. When its founding treaty, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, was negotiated, states chose not to give the ICC powers to enforce its own arrest warrants. The Court has no police force. Unless states are willing to back the ICC up and enforce the ICC’s warrants, suspects will be able to enjoy a degree of freedom.

Consider the case of former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. In the late 2000s, warrants were issued for him on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, all in relation to atrocities committed in Darfur. In the years that followed, Bashir was hosted by a number of ICC members states, including Uganda, South Africa, and Jordan. Each of those states refused to arrest and surrender Bashir. Some observers consequently lambasted the ICC as impotent in the face of high-level perpetrators gallivanting across the world.

But that does not capture the full story. Even as a head of state, Bashir could not just go wherever he wanted to. His world shrank. Everywhere he travelled, he was followed by voices insisting that he should be prosecuted and observers who reiterated Bashir’s heinous crimes. Those voices accumulated, and indeed may have played some role in Bashir’s 2019 ouster from power, and the demand that he be held criminally responsible for his crimes.

Similar dynamics are at play in the situation in Palestine. Judges have not yet responded to the request of the ICC Prosecutor to issue a warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. But the ICC’s scrutiny of his actions has meant that Netanyahu has had to change his plans. In June, a pro-government outlet reported that Netanyahu travelled directly to the United States rather than stopping over in Europe. Why? Because of fears that European states would enforce any ICC warrant against him.

Back to Putin. While his presence in Mongolia is offensive, it also led to an outpouring of condemnation and coverage of Russia’s terrible crimes in Ukraine. And while the Russian President may be feeling smug, advocates of international justice and accountability can take some solace in the fact that the Court is clearly on his mind. Putin’s handlers had to plan his travel to Mongolia very carefully for no reason other than the fact that the ICC has him in his crosshairs. And again, it is not like Putin could go just anywhere. According to Mongolian officials, the country was somewhat ‘handtied’ in hosting Putin, as the country is highly energy-dependent on Russia and likely fears retaliation if it defies the Russian president. 

That despots, dictators, and war criminals are annoyed and frustrated by the ICC is of course no consolation for these figures facing actual prosecution. But it is also not irrelevant. The likes of Putin should be bothered by the fact that the ICC wants him to answer for his atrocities before judges in The Hague. And maybe if his coterie of goons are anxiously planning his trips to ensure Putin is not arrested, they don’t have as much time to plan more slaughter in Ukraine.

The reaction to Putin’s visit to Mongolia likewise illustrates that Putin can travel to some parts of the world, but he will never be able to hide from the allegations against him. Paradoxically, his travel to an ICC member-state has acted as a reminder and galvanized renewed interest in the charges against him and the importance of Putin being held accountable.

Much will be said about the Russia’s President trip in the coming days. Mongolian rights advocates will hopefully push for answers and perhaps even bring the country’s government to court for flouting its legal obligations. But only focusing on the bad misses the point: in the one-and-a-half years since the ICC charged him, the only member-state that the President of the largest country in the world has been able to visit is one that fears saying no to him.

Putin’s world will never be the same as it was before 2023, and that is because the ICC’s warrants against him has changed it.