Sovereignty disputes and sanctions test the tribunal’s mandate to deliver global accountability.

On July 17, the World Day for International Justice is commemorated, marking the adoption of the Rome Statute in 1998, the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Netherlands.

RELATED:
Human Rights Groups Sue Trump Administration over ICC Sanctions

Understanding the ICC requires examining its legal mechanics, historical evolution, and political realities. While designed to end impunity, the court operates within a complex landscape of state power, jurisdictional limits, and competing national interests.

The Origins and Structure of the International Criminal Court

The concept of a permanent global tribunal developed out of post-World War II legal precedents, such as the Nuremberg and Tokyo military tribunals.

During the 1990s, the United Nations Security Council created ad hoc tribunals to prosecute atrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

While these temporary courts achieved convictions, international legal experts and diplomats sought a permanent body that would not require temporary UN mandates for every new crisis.

In June and July 1998, representatives from 160 states gathered in Rome to negotiate the founding treaty. On July 17, 1998, the United Nations Diplomatic Conference adopted the Rome Statute with 120 votes in favor, 7 against, and 21 abstentions.

The treaty officially entered into force on July 1, 2002, after securing the required 60 state ratifications. The ICC headquarters are in The Hague, and its core mission is defined by four core international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.

Members of the International Criminal Court (ICC) will meet at the UN Headquarters today to vote on whether to fire the court’s prosecutor, Karim Khan, who faces sexual misconduct allegations.

Here’s what we know about the vote and the case against Khan https://t.co/UKqxuEHOQs pic.twitter.com/FGSQHeDZA0

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) July 24, 2026

Core Legal Principles and How the Court Operates

The principle of complementarity governs the ICC. Under this framework, the court does not replace national judicial systems. Instead, it serves as a tribunal of last resort, stepping in only when a sovereign nation is genuinely unable or unwilling to investigate or prosecute the alleged crimes.

The court can exercise its jurisdiction through three specific mechanisms. First, a state party to the Rome Statute can refer a situation on its own territory or involving its nationals to the ICC Prosecutor.

Second, the UN Security Council can refer a situation to the Prosecutor under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, extending the court’s reach even to non-member states.

Third, the ICC Prosecutor can initiate an investigation independently (proprio motu) with the authorization of a Pre-Trial Chamber composed of ICC judges.

Unlike domestic criminal courts, the ICC does not possess its own police force to execute arrest warrants or detain suspects. The tribunal relies entirely on the cooperation of member states to collect evidence, freeze assets, arrest suspects, and enforce sentences.

Global Membership and the Jurisdictional Divide

As of 2026, 124 states are party to the Rome Statute. Regional representation includes 33 African states, 28 Latin American and Caribbean states, 25 Western European and other states, 20 Eastern European states, and 19 Asia-Pacific states.

Countries such as Armenia (2023) and Ukraine (2024) represent recent accessions to the treaty. Conversely, Burundi withdrew in 2017 and the Philippines withdrew in 2019 following court inquiries into domestic state operations.

A major structural constraint on the court is the absence of major world powers. Three permanent members of the UN Security Council, the United States, Russia, and China, have not ratified the Rome Statute. Other major regional powers, including India and Israel, also remain non-members.

This creates a systemic jurisdictional divide. Because non-member states fall outside the court’s routine jurisdiction, their citizens can typically only be investigated if crimes occur on the territory of a member state, if the state consents, or if the UN Security Council issues a referral.

However, because the US, Russia, and China hold veto power on the Security Council, they can block referrals concerning themselves or their strategic allies.

NEW: Colombia is set to withdraw from the International Criminal Court.

US Defense Secretary Hegseth has explicitly urged allies to leave the ICC, calling it “fake and illegitimate.”

Colombia would be the first major Latin American state to leave, joining Venezuela, Chad, and… pic.twitter.com/WzGoMi0mB1

— Clash Report (@clashreport) August 18, 2026

Key Precedents, Cases, and Jurisprudential Shift

In its initial decade of operations, the ICC faced criticism for primarily opening formal investigations in African nations, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Central African Republic, Sudan, and Côte d’Ivoire.

African Union leaders argued that the court was exercising a selective “Afro-centric” focus while ignoring potential violations by powerful Western states.

The court achieved its first historic verdict in March 2012, convicting Congolese militia leader Thomas Lubanga Dyilo of war crimes for recruiting child soldiers.

Subsequent landmark rulings expanded international legal definitions. In 2016, the court convicted Jean-Pierre Bemba, establishing command responsibility for sexual violence committed by subordinates (a decision later overturned on appeal).

In recent years, the ICC Prosecutor’s Office has shifted toward broader geopolitical scrutiny. The court opened investigations into events in Afghanistan, Georgia, Ukraine, and Venezuela.

Significant legal developments include the issuance of an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2023 over allegations of child deportations, as well as formal arrest warrants issued in 2024 for high-ranking Israeli officials and Hamas leaders regarding alleged war crimes in the Middle East.

Bipartisan Opposition, Legal Sanctions, and the United States Policy

United States policy toward the International Criminal Court is defined by bipartisan resistance to external judicial oversight.

Although President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute in December 2000, he recommended against submitting it to the US Senate for ratification.

In May 2002, President George W. Bush formally notified the United Nations that the US had no intention of becoming a state party, effectively withdrawing the signature.

Opposition to the court in Washington rests on constitutional and strategic arguments. US officials maintain that the Rome Statute undermines national sovereignty and lacks key procedural rights guaranteed under the US Constitution, such as the right to a jury trial.

To shield American personnel, the US Congress passed the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (ASPA) in August 2002. Critics refer to ASPA as the “Hague Invasion Act” because it authorizes the US President to use “all means necessary and appropriate” to free American or allied personnel detained by or on behalf of the ICC.

The legislation also restricted US military aid to nations that joined the ICC unless those countries signed bilateral non-surrender agreements promising not to hand US citizens over to the court.

Executive policy toward the tribunal has escalated into direct financial and diplomatic pressure when court actions targeted US operations or key allies.

Under Executive Order 13928 in 2020 and Executive Order 14203 in 2025, Trump’s administration imposed economic sanctions and visa restrictions on senior ICC personnel. These measures targeted prosecutors and judges involved in investigations concerning Afghanistan and Palestine.

The sanctions freeze assets within US jurisdiction and restrict financial institutions from conducting transactions with targeted court officials.

Marco Rubio and Donald Trump just openly admitted they are pushing to dismantle the International Criminal Court to protect Benjamin Netanyahu and US political leaders from being prosecuted for war crimes.

This is an admission of guilt. 𝐎𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐚 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐡𝐨… pic.twitter.com/EIxSDrSvNa

— Power to the People ☭ (@ProudSocialist) July 31, 2026

Global Critiques and the Future of International Justice

Criticism of the International Criminal Court extends beyond the United States, reflecting broader debates over state sovereignty, geopolitical power, and judicial impartiality.

Diverse governments and legal scholars highlight structural limitations within the Rome Statute framework.

Several Asian nations, including China and India, refuse to join the court on grounds of national sovereignty. Beijing argues that the ICC’s proprio motu prosecutorial powers infringe on state sovereignty and that war crimes should be resolved within domestic judicial systems or through explicit UN Security Council mandates.

India similarly objects to the ICC’s authority over non-signatory states and the referral power granted to the UN Security Council, which New Delhi views as inherently unequal due to the permanent members’ veto power.

The African Union (AU) has voiced sustained critiques regarding the court’s enforcement practices. In 2013, the AU held an extraordinary summit where leaders argued that the court focused disproportionately on African states while overlooking potential violations committed by Western powers.

However, the ICC’s operational reach continues to depend on voluntary state cooperation and the political dynamics of member nations. For the court to establish universal credibility, it must navigate the structural influence of non-member global powers, manage state withdrawals, and maintain uniform standards of justice across all regions.

Sources: TeleSUR – Al Jazeera – RT – TRT – Xinhua – The ICC official page – BBC – La Radio del Sur – La Iguana TV – Justice Info, Legal Information Institute

From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.