7 February 2025
The Internation Criminal Court and many international States condemn the issuance by the US of an Executive Order seeking to impose sanctions on ICC officials and harm its independent and impartial judicial work. The Court stands firmly by its personnel and pledges to continue providing justice and hope to millions of innocent victims of atrocities across the world, in all Situations before it: “We call on our 125 States Parties, civil society and all nations of the world to stand united for justice and fundamental human rights”.
Statement of ICC President Judge Tomoko Akane following the issuance of US Executive Order seeking to impose sanctions on the International Criminal Court
I note with deep regret the issuance by the United States of an Executive Order seeking to impose sanctions on the officials of the International Criminal Court (ICC, Court), harm the Court’s independence and its impartiality and deprive millions of innocent victims of atrocities of justice and hope.
The ICC is a judicial body which performs functions that align with the interests of the international community by enforcing and promoting universally recognised rules of international law, including the law of armed conflicts and human rights law.
As atrocities continue to plague the globe affecting the lives of millions of innocent children, women and men, the Court has become indispensable. It represents the most significant legacy of the immense suffering inflicted on civilians by the world wars, the Holocaust, genocides, violence and persecutions. When most of the States of the world gathered to draft the Rome Statute, they made the dream of many women and men come true. Today, the ICC is dealing with proceedings arising from different Situations across the world, in strict adherence to the provisions of the Rome Statute.
The announced Executive Order is only the latest in a series of unprecedented and escalatory attacks aiming to undermine the Court’s ability to administer justice in all Situations. Such threats and coercive measures constitute serious attacks against the Court’s States Parties, the rule of law based international order and millions of victims.
The ICC and its officials from all over the world realise daily its judicial mandate to determine whether certain individual conducts, within its legitimate jurisdiction, give rise to responsibility for international crimes. We firmly reject any attempt to influence the independence and the impartiality of the Court or to politicise our judicial function. We have and always will comply only with the law, under all circumstances.
The ICC stands firmly by its personnel and pledges to continue providing justice and hope to millions of innocent victims of atrocities across the world, in all Situations before it, in the sole interest of human dignity. I call upon all those who share the values enshrined in the Statute to stand united in the Court’s defence: our 125 States Parties, civil society and all nations of the world.
Source – International Criminal Court
United Nations: International Criminal Court condemns US sanctions move
7 February 2025
The International Criminal Court (ICC) on Friday condemned an executive order signed by United States President Donald Trump imposing punitive sanctions, countering that the order sought to “harm its independent and impartial judicial work.”
The court was established by the Rome Statute, negotiated within the UN – but it is a fully independent court set up to try the gravest crimes, including crimes against humanity.
Read our explainer here.
Thursday’s executive order said the US government would “impose tangible and significant consequences” on ICC officials who work on investigations that threaten national security of the US and allies – including Israel.
Arrest warrants
The directive follows the decision by ICC judges to issue arrest warrants in November for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant, which accuses them of alleged war crimes in relation to the conduct of the war with Hamas on Gaza.
The ICC also issued a warrant for a former Hamas commander, Mohammed Deif.
Neither the US nor Israel recognise the ICC’s jurisdiction; there are 125 states parties to the Rome Statute, which came into effect in 2002.
The US executive order says that the ICC actions against Israel and preliminary investigations against the US “set a dangerous precedent, directly endangering current and former” personnel.
The order details possible sanctions including the blocking of property and assets of ICC officials and barring them and their families from entering the US.
A bid to impose sanctions on the ICC by the US Congress in January prior to the change in administration, failed to garner enough support in the Senate.
ICC ‘stands firmly by its personnel’
“The ICC condemns the issuance by the US of an Executive Order seeking to impose sanctions on its officials and harm its independent and impartial judicial work,” said the court in a press release.
“The Court stands firmly by its personnel and pledges to continue providing justice and hope to millions of innocent victims of atrocities across the world, in all Situations before it.”
The court also called on all parties to the ICC together with civil society and other nations to “stand united for justice and fundamental human rights.”
Joint international statement in support of the International Criminal Court (ICC)
New York, 7 February 2025
This statement in support of the International Criminal Court is endorsed by the following States: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cabo Verde, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Jordan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Namibia, Netherlands, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, State of Palestine, Sweden, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Vanuatu.
“We, the undersigned States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), reaffirm our continued and unwavering support for the independence, impartiality, and integrity of the ICC. The Court serves as a vital pillar of the international justice system by ensuring accountability for the most serious international crimes, and justice for victims.
Today, the Court is facing unprecedented challenges. Measures sanctioning the Court, its officials and staff, and those cooperating with it [have been] adopted in response to the Court carrying out its mandate in accordance with the Rome Statute.
Such measures increase the risk of impunity for the most serious crimes and threaten to erode the international rule of law, which is crucial for promoting global order and security. Moreover, sanctions could jeopardize the confidentiality of sensitive information and the safety of those involved—including victims, witnesses, and Court officials, many of whom are our nationals.
Sanctions would severely undermine all situations currently under investigation as the Court may have to close its field offices. Advancing the ICC’s vital work serves our common interest in promoting accountability, as evidenced by the support provided to the Court by both States Parties and non-States Parties.
As strong supporters of the ICC, we regret any attempts to undermine the Court’s independence, integrity and impartiality. We are committed to ensuring the ICC’s business continuity so that the Court can continue to carry out its functions effectively and independently.
As we collectively strive to uphold international justice, we underscore the ICC’s indispensable role in ending impunity, promoting the rule of law, and fostering lasting respect for international law and human rights.”
Source – Estonian UN Embassy
Erklärung von Außenministerin Annalena Baerbock zu den US-Sanktionen gegen den IStGH
Zu den US-Sanktionen gegen den IStGH erklärte Außenministerin Annalena Baerbock Freitag:
„Das Einstehen für das Völkerrecht und für den Internationalen Strafgerichtshof ist in unserem maximalen Sicherheitsinteresse. Nur die Stärke des Rechts schützt vor dem Recht des Stärkeren. Wenn Regeln nicht mehr gelten, verlieren am Ende alle. Miteinander die Völkerrechtsordnung und ihre internationale Gerichtsbarkeit zu bewahren, ist unsere beste Lebensversicherung und zugleich auch Grundlage für Wohlstand und Frieden.
Der internationale Strafgerichtshof ist eine der größten Errungenschaft des Völkerstrafrechts und wird von mehr als 120 Staaten getragen. Er gründet auf fundamentalen Prinzipien: Die Durchsetzung des Völkerstrafrechts und die Unabhängigkeit der internationalen Gerichte – Prinzipien, die Sicherheit für alle bedeuten. Deshalb unterstützen wir den IStGH und deshalb braucht der IStGH unsere Unterstützung.
Wenn der IStGH seine Arbeit jetzt nicht weiterführen könnte, wäre das doch eine der größten Freuden für Putin. Putin musste in den vergangenen drei Jahren erfahren, dass seine Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit wie die Verschleppung ukrainischer Kinder nicht folgenlos bleiben. So konnte Putin unter anderem nicht zum BRICS-Treffen nach Südafrika reisen, weil Südafrika Unterzeichner des Römischen Statuts ist und ihn hätte festnehmen müssen. Niemand steht über dem Völkerrecht.“
Quelle – Auswärtiges Amt (per E-Mail)
UN explainer: The International Criminal Court
Established in 2002 and based in The Hague, the ICC is a criminal court that can bring cases against individuals for war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Most recently, on Monday it issued a request for arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and three leaders of Hamas, the de facto authorities in Gaza.
The warrants – which must now be formally approved by the ICC’s judges – are related to alleged war crimes stemming from the seven month-long war in Gaza triggered by the Hamas-led attacks in Israel.
Here are five facts about the ICC and how it is helping build a more just world.
Trying the gravest crimes
The ICC was created with the “millions of children, women and men” in mind who “have been victims of unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity”.
It is the world’s first permanent, treaty-based international criminal court to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide and the crime of aggression.
The court has successfully prosecuted individuals for war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia, including in Srebrenica, and has resolved cases of significance for international justice, shedding light on the crimes of using child soldiers, the destruction of cultural heritage, sexual violence or attacks of innocent civilians. Through its judgements in exemplary cases, it is gradually building authoritative case law.
The court has investigated some of the world’s most violent conflicts, including in Darfur, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Gaza, Georgia and Ukraine. It currently holds public hearings, with 31 cases on its docket, and its warrant list includes Russian President Vladimir Putin as well as individuals in Libya.
However, issuing a warrant and apprehending suspects is challenging. The court has no police to enforce its warrants and depends on its member States to implement its orders. Most of the individuals indicted by the court have been from African countries.
Involving victims
On any given day, if you watch ICC proceedings, you’ll likely hear witness testimonies or hear a lawyer representing victims’ views in court. Their accounts are essential to the judicial process.
The court does not only try and punish those responsible for the most serious crimes, but also ensures that the voices of the victims are heard. Victims are those who have suffered harm as a result of the commission of any crime within the court’s jurisdiction.
Victims participate in all stages of ICC judicial proceedings. More than 10,000 victims of atrocities have participated in proceedings, and the court maintains direct contact with communities affected by crimes within its jurisdiction through outreach programmes.
The court also seeks to protect the safety and physical and psychological integrity of victims and witnesses. Although victims cannot bring cases, they can bring information to the Prosecutor, including to decide whether to open an investigation.
The ICC Trust Fund for Victims is currently making the Court’s first orders on reparations a reality, including with demands for reparations to victims and their families in the DRC. Through its assistance programmes, the Trust Fund has also provided physical, psychological and socioeconomic support to more than 450,000 victims.
Ensuring fair trials
All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt before the ICC. Each defendant is entitled to public and impartial proceedings.
At the ICC, suspects and accused persons have critical rights, including: to be informed of the charges; to have adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence; to be tried without undue delay; to freely choose a lawyer; and to receive exculpatory evidence from the Prosecutor.
Among these rights is the right to follow the proceedings in a language the accused fully understands. This has led to the court hiring specialised interpreters and translators in more than 40 languages, sometimes using, simultaneously, four languages during the same hearing.
In its first 20 years, participants were faced with a diversity of new substantive and procedural challenges, miles away from the crime scenes. In addition, the crimes prosecuted by the ICC are of a specific nature and often mass crimes requiring important amount of evidence and a lot of efforts to ensure the safety of the witnesses. The proceedings are complex, and there are many matters that need to be resolved behind the scenes over the course of a case.
Complementing national courts
The court does not replace national courts. It is a court of last resort. States have the primary responsibility to investigate, try and punish the perpetrators of the most serious crimes.
The court will only step in if the State in which serious crimes under the court’s jurisdiction have been committed is unwilling or unable to genuinely address those.
Serious violence is escalating rapidly around the world. The court’s resources remain limited, and it can only deal with a small number of cases at the same time. The court also works hand in hand with national and international tribunals.
Building more support for justice
With the support of more than 120 States Parties, from all continents, the ICC has established itself as a permanent and independent judicial institution.
But, unlike national judicial systems, the court does not have its own police. It depends on the cooperation of States, including to implement its arrest warrants or summonses.
Nor does the court have territory to relocate witnesses who are at risk. The ICC thus depends, to a large extent, on the support and cooperation of States.
How is the International Court of Justice (ICJ) different from the International Criminal Court (ICC)?
There is frequent confusion between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Here’s an overview at how they differ:
- The simplest way to explain the difference is that ICJ cases involve countries, and the ICC is a criminal court, which brings cases against individuals for war crimes or crimes against humanity.
- While the ICJ is an organ of the United Nations, the ICC is legally independent of the UN, although it is endorsed by the General Assembly.
- While not all 193 UN Member States are parties to the ICC, it can launch investigations and open cases related to alleged crimes committed on the territory or by a national of a State party to the ICC or of a State that has accepted its jurisdiction.
- Learn more about the ICJ in our explainer.
Source – United Nations