Donald Trump risks an arrest warrant being issued against him by the International Criminal Court (ICC) after imposing sanctions on the court’s officials, a leading human rights lawyer has warned.
Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, director of the International Bar Association’s Institute of Human Rights, told the House of Lords that Article 70 of the Rome Statute explicitly forbids the obstruction of justice.
She stressed that no officer of the ICC can be prevented from carrying out their duties and that the former US president’s executive order could constitute a direct violation of international law.
Sanctions and their implications
The warning follows Trump’s executive order, which targeted the Hague-based tribunal after it launched investigations into Israel’s military actions in Gaza and its conflict with Hamas.
In her statement, Lady Kennedy said:
“The world will never see peace if there is no entity which will pursue justice for victims of egregious crimes.”
She also condemned the double standards in international justice, stating:
“There cannot be impunity for our allies.”
Lady Kennedy emphasised that the ICC continues to investigate alleged war crimes in Gaza, including cases involving both Israeli forces and Hamas militants. She highlighted that Israeli lawyers representing the families of hostages and victims of the 7th October attacks were also assisting in the Hague’s legal processes.
Challenging the UK Government on its stance, she asked:
“Does the Government accept that this new executive order attacks the fundamentals of the court and its functioning?
“And will the Government inform the United States administration that Article 70 of the Rome Statute forbids the obstruction of justice?
“There can be no impeding of any officer of the court in carrying out their duties, and arrest warrants can follow.
“Will the Government advise the president of the risk he faces of an arrest warrant being issued for him?”
The ICC’s recent arrest warrants
Lady Kennedy’s remarks follow the ICC’s recent decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif.
The prosecutor’s office, which Lady Kennedy herself was involved in, carefully reviewed the evidence before applying for these warrants, marking a significant moment in international law.
UK government’s response and pressure to act
Responding to Lady Kennedy’s concerns, Foreign Office minister Lord Collins of Highbury reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to the ICC’s independence.
He stated:
“The Government has repeatedly expressed its support for the independence of the International Criminal Court, including most recently last week by joining a statement together with 70 other States Parties.”
He condemned Trump’s sanctions against ICC officials, stating that such measures “impede the court’s ability to carry out its important work investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern”.
The UK Government is reportedly in discussions with both the US administration and British nationals working at the ICC to assess the potential implications of these measures.
However, Lord Collins acknowledged the long-standing differences in approach between the UK and the US regarding the ICC.
“The UK is a signatory to the Rome Statute, the US is not.
“The UK fully supports the independence of the ICC and we do not support sanctioning individual court officials.”
He reiterated that Britain’s priority remains securing a ceasefire in Gaza, delivering humanitarian aid, and securing the release of hostages.
Legal consequences for Trump in the UK
Lord Alton of Liverpool, a human rights campaigner and independent crossbench peer, raised further concerns about threats made against Baroness Kennedy, including potential visa restrictions and fines for her involvement with the ICC.
He called on the UK Government to protest “in the strongest possible terms” against such actions.
More Read
Lord Thomas of Gresford, a former Deputy High Court judge, also weighed in, arguing that Trump’s plans for forcibly relocating Gaza’s population could constitute a crime against humanity under Article 7.1(d) of the Rome Statute.
He further claimed that, under Section 2 of the UK’s International Criminal Court Act 2001, the UK Attorney General would be legally required to endorse an ICC arrest warrant for Trump should one be issued.
In a sharp remark, he added:
“No more golf for the President at Balmedie and Turnberry and certainly no more cups of tea and parades with our good King Charles.”
The UK Government has repeatedly insisted that Palestinians must be allowed to return to their homes and rebuild Gaza, strongly opposing any efforts to forcibly relocate them.
What comes next?
With international scrutiny growing, the question remains: Will the ICC take legal action against Trump?
If an arrest warrant is issued, it could severely limit Trump’s ability to travel internationally, with UK and European authorities bound by law to enforce the ICC’s ruling.
As global tensions over the Gaza conflict continue, Trump’s executive order against the ICC may escalate into a legal and diplomatic crisis—one that could have far-reaching consequences for US-UK relations and the future of international justice.
