The Invisible Cuffs: 5 Surprising Realities of the Global Hunt for Putin and Netanyahu

When Vladimir Putin visited New Delhi in December 2025 for the India-Russia Annual Summit, India had no legal obligation to arrest him.

By Rakesh Raman
New Delhi | December 4, 2025

It’s a scenario that sounds like the plot of a political thriller: powerful world leaders, accustomed to traversing the globe with impunity, are suddenly having their travel plans dictated by an international court. Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu, two of the most recognizable figures on the world stage, are now wanted for alleged war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

This has thrust international diplomacy into uncharted territory. How does a court with no police force of its own exert this much influence, and what are the surprising limits of its power? This article explores the five most impactful and counter-intuitive takeaways from this global legal drama.

1. World Leaders Are Literally Rerouting Planes to Avoid Arrest

The International Criminal Court’s threat is no longer a distant legal theory; it is a geographic reality, redrawing the map for wanted leaders. The invisible cuffs have a very physical effect. A stark example of this occurred in September 2025, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s flight to the United Nations General Assembly took an unusual and significantly longer route.

Instead of the typical path over European countries like France and Spain, flight tracking data showed the plane flying over the Mediterranean Sea and through the Strait of Gibraltar. This detour, a clear change from his trip just two months prior in July, was a deliberate maneuver to avoid the airspace of ICC member states that would be legally obligated to enforce the arrest warrant against him.

2. The Court Has No Police, But 124 Countries Act as Its Deputies

The International Criminal Court’s core enforcement mechanism is its greatest strength and its most significant vulnerability: it has no police force and relies entirely on its member states. Under the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the court, all 124 member countries are legally obligated to arrest a wanted individual if they enter their territory. This collective obligation effectively deputizes a majority of the world’s nations.

The consequences of this are profound. Russian President Vladimir Putin skipped two consecutive BRICS summits—the 2023 meeting in Johannesburg and the 2025 summit in Rio de Janeiro—for this very reason. Both South Africa and Brazil are signatories to the Rome Statute, and his physical presence would have legally compelled them to act on the warrant.

His absence forced him to participate via video link, a clear downgrade in diplomatic presence for a world leader. This obligation stands in stark contrast to the freedom enjoyed by non-member states, a critical loophole that leaders like Putin are increasingly exploiting.

3. The Charges Aren’t Vague—They’re Shockingly Specific

The ICC warrants are not based on general political disagreements but on severe and specific alleged crimes detailed by the court. The charges against Benjamin Netanyahu, for which the ICC found “reasonable grounds to believe” he bears criminal responsibility, are extensive. They include:

Specific charges against Netanyahu include the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare, willful killing, murder, willfully causing great suffering, and intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population.

Similarly, the charges against Vladimir Putin are not for the invasion of Ukraine in general terms. The warrant accuses him specifically of the war crime of unlawfully deporting hundreds of children from Ukraine. The ICC argues this action violates the Fourth Geneva Convention and was facilitated by presidential decrees he issued which “helped speed up the process of granting Russian citizenship to these children.”

4. The Ultimate Loophole: Just Don’t Join the Club

The most significant limitation on the ICC’s power is that its jurisdiction only applies to countries that have signed and ratified the Rome Statute. For those facing a warrant, this provides the easiest way to slip the cuffs: travel only to countries that aren’t part of the club. India serves as a prime case study. When Vladimir Putin visited New Delhi in December 2025 (December 4-5) for the India-Russia Annual Summit, India had no legal obligation to arrest him. As a non-signatory, an ICC warrant has no legal effect inside the country.

India’s position highlights a deep-seated skepticism shared by other major powers: a belief that international justice, when administered by a body like the ICC, can become a tool of geopolitical influence, particularly by the permanent members of the UN Security Council. Concerns about the court’s structure and its limited definition of international crimes, which excluded offenses like terrorism, led India to remain outside the system. Several other major powers, including the United States, Russia, China, and Israel, also remain outside the ICC’s jurisdiction.

5. Even Member States Get Cold Feet

The Court’s legal chain is only as strong as its weakest political link. Even among the 124 member states, legal obligation does not always translate to political will, and there are times when the deputies tasked with enforcing the cuffs simply look the other way. A clear example of this occurred in April 2025 when Hungary, an ICC member state, invited Benjamin Netanyahu for a state visit and did not arrest him.

This decision highlighted the tension between a country’s obligations under the Rome Statute and its own foreign policy choices. In response to Hungary’s non-compliance, the ICC opened an official inquiry into the matter, underscoring the court’s struggle to ensure uniform enforcement among its members.

A New Fault Line in Global Politics

The rise of the International Criminal Court’s influence is more than a legal curiosity; it is a symptom of a fracturing global order. In the absence of the clear power blocs that defined the 20th century, the ICC has emerged as a new, unpredictable battleground where the ideals of international justice collide with the raw calculus of national interest.

Though its reach is limited by loopholes and political defiance, the fact that flight paths are being rerouted and summit attendance is being reconsidered proves its power is real. The invisible cuffs have created a new fault line in global politics, reshaping diplomacy one travel plan at a time. As the world continues to grapple with conflict, it leaves us with a critical question: where should the line between a nation’s sovereignty and the international community’s demand for justice be drawn?

By Rakesh Raman, who is a national award-winning journalist and social activist. He is the founder of a humanitarian organization RMN Foundation which is working in diverse areas to help the disadvantaged and distressed people in the society.

Rakesh Raman  |  LinkedIn  |  Facebook  | Twitter (X)