The European Union has called on the United States to reverse sanctions announced against the International Criminal Court, saying the Court must be able to work independently and without outside pressure.
In a statement issued on 10 October, the EU said it deeply regretted the measures directed at the Court as an institution. It said it noted a decision to delay the entry into force of the latest measures and described that interval as an opportunity for diplomacy aimed at securing their reversal and preventing further steps that could undermine the Court’s independence and integrity.
The issue is not a ruling in an individual case. It concerns the ability of an international court, its officials and people who cooperate with it to function while financial, legal and practical restrictions are threatened or applied. The EU said it would continue to support the Court and would contribute to protecting its staff and those working with it. It also said it was ready to take necessary measures to help the institution operate effectively.
United Nations independent human-rights experts separately said the United States had imposed sanctions on the Court as an entity. They urged states committed to the rule of law to act collectively in its defence. Their statement represents the views of independent experts appointed under the UN human-rights system, rather than a finding by a court or a position binding on governments.
The EU’s statement set out why it regards the Court as part of a rules-based international order. It pointed to the principle of complementarity, under which the Court acts only where a state is unwilling or genuinely unable to investigate or prosecute individuals responsible for the gravest international crimes. The principle is intended to preserve the primary role of competent national judicial systems; it does not make the Court a general forum for replacing domestic justice.
That distinction is central to the political dispute. The EU said international criminal justice has a role in holding people to account for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. It argued that threats or attacks against the Court, elected officials, personnel, civil-society representatives and service providers are not acceptable. The statement did not announce a new EU sanctions measure or claim that the disagreement had been resolved.
Independent experts urged governments to consider legal and practical protections for the Court, its personnel, victims and organisations that work with it. They specifically called on the EU to activate its Blocking Statute, a legal instrument intended to counter certain extra-territorial effects of third-country sanctions, and urged states to consider the agreement governing the Court’s privileges and immunities. Those are recommendations from the experts, not announced decisions by the EU.
The immediate significance lies in the gap between an announced sanctions policy and the diplomatic window identified by the EU. The EU says it wants that space used for discussion with states party to the Rome Statute. Whether that produces a change in the US position remains unresolved. For now, the statement places the EU on record as seeking the reversal of measures it says could disrupt an institution designed to deal with the most serious international crimes.
