An indictment of Putin would make the president of Russia an international fugitive.
"It's not easy for a head of state to fear being arrested when he or she puts foot in a European country or in a North American country," said Justice Richard Goldstone.
"He is inevitably now trapped in Russia. He will never be able to travel internationally, because it would be too great a risk that he would be captured and brought before a court of law," said Ambassador Beth Van Schaack.
"They will enjoy some impunity while they stay within Russia," Van Schaack said, "but what we have seen is perpetrators don't stay within their home states. They want to go shopping in Europe or go on vacation somewhere, and they get identified, and then the law enforcement is activated. And we are never more integrated than we are now."
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ120 | |
| 2 | Ṁ61 | |
| 3 | Ṁ61 | |
| 4 | Ṁ26 | |
| 5 | Ṁ21 |
@johnleoks This does not appear to be time-decaying, participants seem to assume it will not resolve No at the end of the year. It looks like we could either:
- Extend the timeline out indefinitely
- Resolve this N/A and a new, active creator could create a new, very similar market
@42irrationalist If it was trading at 0.1% for the past few weeks, that would imply participants think it is no longer an issue, and there could be some argument that it could resolve No even if he hadn't left Russia. For example, if the warrant was rescinded or other events superseded it.
It seems like some participants still think there is a chance he would be arrested if he left Russia today, so I don't think resolving No is an option.
And we still have the unknown status of his visit to Kyrgyzstan.
With 30 traders, clearly this is of interest to some people.
I guess my preference would be for a new, active creator to make a very similar question where the criteria tricks have been worked out, and shepherd everyone over there. And N/A this one.
@Eliza some discussion below FYI.
I would vote on extending it, don't really see the harm. Evan leans NA it seems. So maybe that's two to one for NA.
I think based on the creator's comment below this is only about ICC countries. It wasn't as clear of a clarification as I'd like, but that's how I read it. So I don't think the Kygyzstan visit matters, and I don't think it matters whether he has some claim to diplomatic immunity in an ICC country if he visits one.
I think the major question at the moment is what happens if he doesn't visit any other countries before EOY: do we resolve N/A or extend the deadline?
In favor of N/A: supported by the original close date. Lets people move to a similar market with active creator. Bets on whether he gets arrested conditional on leaving in 2023 have different meaning than later; people might reasonably believe the timing to matter to the outcome if/when he leaves.
In favor of extend: this is actually a reasonably well defined market, I don't think there's a comparable one for a longer time frame. People probably prefer not to move their bets and wouldn't be able to get them at the prices they originally got.
Overall I think I come down on the side of N/A if nothing further happens by market close, but with we'd gotten clarification on that early in the market life cycle and would have voted for extending it had I been asked early on.
@EvanDaniel Great, I hadn't seen that comment, but indeed it clears things up pretty well.
Yeah, I think the question is pretty objective with that clarification. I think it's pretty reasonable to leave the question open until Putin first visits an ICC-recognising country, or N/A if he never does or the arrest warrant is dropped. I understand people may have been betting based on the close date, but that hadn't really occurred to me at least.
He left Russia, didn't get arrested:
Kyrgyzstan has not ratified the Rome Statute and thus has no obligation to cooperate with the ICC in his arrest whether Putin is considered to have diplomatic immunity in travelling there or not.
No idea how this market resolves. Creator is inactive, and whilst a literal reading of the title implies it should resolve NO, the description emphasises travel to "Europe or North America" - perhaps the creator had in mind countries that have ratified the Rome Statute.
how does this resolve considering diplomatic status? i.e., if Putin leaves to meet with other world leaders, it's generally accepted that he and his retinue are immune to arrest and prosecution (though I'm not sure if that applies to the ICC). thus might not be "testable" unless/until he publicly leaves without guaranteed diplomatic protections
@ASomewhatRudeParakeet If he leaves Russia and is publicly seen in any countries that are members of the ICC (which includes most of Europe), he should get arrested if the warrant is enforced. If nothing happens to him while he is in those countries, then the market will be resolved as a NO.
@johnleoks I'll take these odds then. Although since Putin can still go to lots of countries (Turkey, India, China, Belarus, Ukraine) my guess is he just won't go to any ICC countries.