Downing Street has confirmed that the UK has no intention of imposing sanctions on officials from the International Criminal Court (ICC) following a controversial move by US President Donald Trump.
The White House issued an executive order on Thursday, criticising the ICC for what it described as “illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel.” The order imposes sanctions on ICC officials in response to the court’s investigation into Israel’s military actions in Gaza and its issuance of an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant.
The decision has been met with strong condemnation from the ICC, which has defended its role in delivering justice for victims of atrocities worldwide. In a statement, the court said it “stands firmly by its personnel and pledges to continue providing justice and hope to millions of innocent victims of atrocities across the world.”
Downing street’s response
Asked about the UK’s stance on the matter, a Number 10 spokesperson distanced Britain from Washington’s approach, saying:
“Ultimately, that’s a matter for the US. As for the UK, we support the independence of the ICC. Therefore, we’ve got no plans to sanction individual court officials.”
The spokesperson further emphasised the UK’s long-standing support for the ICC, noting that Britain is a signatory to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the court, whereas the United States is not.
“The UK and the US, over a number of administrations, have taken a different view on the ICC,” the spokesperson added.
Trump’s order and its implications
The executive order signed by Mr Trump has escalated tensions between the US and the ICC, which has increasingly come under fire from Washington over its investigations into alleged war crimes committed by Israeli and US forces.
The ICC’s investigation into Israel relates to military actions taken during its war with Hamas, with the court issuing an arrest warrant for Mr Netanyahu over alleged war crimes. In its statement, the White House accused the court of overstepping its jurisdiction and acting politically, stating:
“The ICC has no jurisdiction over the United States or Israel.”
The executive order also claimed the court was setting a “dangerous precedent” by targeting leaders of sovereign nations that are not ICC members. It warned that the US would impose “tangible and significant consequences” on those responsible for what it called the ICC’s “transgressions.”
International backlash
The ICC has called on its 125 member states, civil society groups, and the global community to “stand united for justice and fundamental human rights” in the face of what it considers political interference.
This is not the first time that the US has taken action against the ICC. During his first term, Mr Trump imposed sanctions on then-ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and one of her deputies over an investigation into alleged war crimes committed by US forces in Afghanistan. The sanctions were later lifted by President Joe Biden in 2021, signalling a shift in US policy towards the court.
However, with the latest executive order, Mr Trump’s administration has once again placed the ICC under pressure, drawing criticism from human rights organisations and legal experts who argue that the move undermines the global rule of law.
More Read
The UK’s position on the ICC
The UK has consistently supported the ICC as an independent judicial body tasked with prosecuting war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. As a state party to the Rome Statute, Britain has reaffirmed its commitment to the court’s principles, despite occasional disagreements over specific cases.
British officials have previously voiced concerns over certain ICC investigations, including those involving UK military actions in Iraq, but have stopped short of rejecting the court’s authority outright. The government’s latest statement indicates that while it may not always agree with ICC decisions, it will not follow the US in imposing punitive measures against the court or its officials.
What happens next?
With the US escalating its confrontation with the ICC, attention will now turn to how other member states respond. The European Union has historically backed the court and is expected to issue a statement reaffirming its support for the ICC’s independence. Meanwhile, Israel has welcomed Washington’s move, with Israeli officials arguing that the ICC’s actions are politically motivated.
As diplomatic tensions rise, the UK’s decision to uphold its commitment to the ICC while maintaining close ties with the US highlights the delicate balancing act required in navigating international justice and geopolitical alliances.
