Ignazio Cassis’s reckless remarks on Vladimir Putin in Switzerland
OPINION. Granting Vladimir Putin temporary immunity so that he could come to negotiate is legally possible in Switzerland, but it would undermine our credibility as a reliable partner of international justice, writes Alain Werner, director of the organization Civitas Maxima.
It was in August. The Federal Councilor in charge of Foreign Affairs, Ignazio Cassis, declared that Switzerland could host Vladimir Putin for a peace conference by granting him immunity.
The decisions of the International Criminal Court (ICC) are consistent. Since Mr. Putin has been indicted for war crimes, there is no way consistent with the ICC Statute for any member state to receive him on its territory without being obliged to arrest him, except by obtaining an explicit decision from the United Nations Security Council, which seems unlikely. At a time when international law is under attack from all sides, it is dangerous for a politician of a member state to call for the violation of the ICC Statute. Doing so weakens the entire structure of international justice, built on decades of effort.
When, on June 16, 2021, Geneva hosted Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden for a meeting facilitated by Switzerland, the then-president of the Swiss Confederation publicly expressed the hope that these discussions would also have “a positive effect on the whole world.” Eight months later, Vladimir Putin launched a war that continues to this day — the largest and deadliest on European soil since 1945. With this war, Mr. Putin broke away from the rules of international law and, since March 2023, has been under an ICC arrest warrant for war crimes. He will likely one day also face indictment for the crime of aggression by an ad hoc tribunal soon to be established by the Council of Europe.
The ICC has neither police nor an army to enforce its decisions, it only has the power of law. As of today, 125 states are still members of this institution, nearly two-thirds of the United Nations member states. Thus, while the ICC cannot send forces to arrest Vladimir Putin in Moscow or elsewhere, member states’ compliance with their obligations makes the world considerably smaller for anyone under an international arrest warrant.
From 2015 to 2019 — before the arrest warrant was issued — Mr. Putin traveled three times to Austria, twice to France, twice to Japan, as well as to Italy, Greece, Germany, Finland, Argentina, Serbia, and Brazil — all ICC member states.
Since March 2023, Mr. Putin has not traveled to any of the 125 ICC member countries, except Mongolia — a neighboring, Russia-dependent country — where he traveled with his ministers and military chiefs in September 2024. Following that trip, the ICC issued a decision noting Mongolia’s violation of its obligation to cooperate with the Court.
The same situation applies to Mr. Netanyahu, who is also under an ICC arrest warrant for war crimes and crimes against humanity issued on November 21, 2024. He can no longer travel to Italy, Scotland, France, or Japan as he did between 2021 and 2024 without risking arrest. In 2025, he has traveled only three times to the United States and to Hungary, an ICC member state. Upon Mr. Netanyahu’s arrival in Budapest in April 2025, Hungarian President Mr. Orbán announced that his country was withdrawing from the ICC. The Court has since issued a decision noting Hungary’s violation of its obligations, as withdrawal cannot take effect immediately but only one year later.
Exceptions to the obligation to arrest anyone under an ICC warrant — such as a host country’s fear for its territorial integrity, participation in a peace conference, or attendance at a major political summit for regional development — could have been explicitly provided for by the states that negotiated and ratified the ICC’s founding Statute freely and sovereignly. However, no such exceptions were provided, unless, once again, the UN Security Council adopts a resolution to that effect.
Here, a Swiss specificity comes into play. Although the separation of powers is a fundamental pillar of our system, Switzerland’s legal practice regarding cooperation with the ICC does not respect the Court’s recent jurisprudence and leaves it to the Federal Council to decide whether to arrest — or not — a person benefiting from immunity, such as a head of state under an ICC warrant.
Ignazio Cassis’s recent statement of the government’s willingness to grant temporary immunity to Vladimir Putin for a possible peace conference reflects this political prerogative. Such a decision, while legally possible in Switzerland, would clearly violate the country’s obligations to cooperate with the ICC. It would amount to prioritizing short-term diplomatic convenience over the imperative of fighting impunity, which the ICC has upheld for more than 25 years. This choice by the Federal Council would endanger Switzerland’s credibility as a reliable partner of international justice and betray the spirit of its commitments to the victims of the most serious crimes.
At a time when the world’s leading power is sanctioning ICC judges and prosecutors, and some African states have just announced their withdrawal, it is up to the ministers and presidents of the countries that have supported the construction of international justice for decades to vigorously defend respect for international law and to explain why this law is so valuable for global security and stability, and why its respect, without exception, is crucial. Doing precisely the opposite is irresponsible. It undermines people’s trust in international law and fuels the populist movement we see across our democracies, which advocates the blatant violation of international law for opportunistic political reasons
The article first appeared in French on Le Temps on the 29th of September 2025
Image: Vladimir Putin’s visit to Mongolia in September 2024. Photo Presidential Press and Information Office (Kremlin).
