Leaders of the International Criminal Court's governing body have asserted that diplomatic measures designed to marginalize the court are calculated to erode trust in the wider international legal system, not merely to undermine a single institution. In a joint op-ed published on Thursday, the current president of the Assembly of States Parties and seven of her predecessors framed the diplomatic campaign as an attack on the rule of law itself.
The authors - who included Paivi Kaukoranta, the Assembly of States Parties president - cautioned that efforts to encourage States Parties to withdraw from the Rome Statute, or to persuade non-States Parties to adopt measures intended to weaken the ICC, have implications beyond the institution's immediate functioning. "Efforts to isolate the Court diplomatically - whether by encouraging States Parties to withdraw from the Rome Statute or urging non-States Parties to join measures intended to weaken it - are aimed at eroding not only one institution, but confidence in the international legal order itself," they wrote.
In their piece, the signatories defended the ICC as a component of the international framework designed to prevent impunity for mass atrocities. "Defending the ICC is about preserving the international legal order as we have built it, as humanity's strongest safeguard against a descent into lawlessness and impunity," the op-ed said. It added that the choice at stake was "between a world based on the rule of law and one where might decides what is right."
The statement comes amid an escalated campaign by the Trump administration to pressure countries to distance themselves from the Hague-based court. Recent moves by the administration include sanctions on ICC judges and officials, a step that has drawn legal challenges and criticism from some U.S. allies. Last month the administration announced sanctions against the ICC's president, Tomoko Akane, and a senior trial lawyer.
Washington has also signaled its intent to intensify efforts to persuade other countries to withdraw from the institution. The ICC was established in 2002 to prosecute war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, and it generally asserts jurisdiction only when a member state is unable or unwilling to investigate and prosecute alleged atrocities itself. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute.
Two recent probes have been central to the U.S. administration's objections to the court: the ICC's decision to issue an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity tied to Israel's assault on Gaza, and a prior inquiry into alleged misconduct by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Those actions have contributed to increasing tensions between the court and Washington.
"The Trump Administration's campaign to disable the ICC's ability to operate, target American servicemen or officials, or otherwise threaten American sovereignty will continue," State Department spokeswoman Paloma Chacon said in response to the op-ed.
The administration has indicated it will deploy travel bans and sanctions against the ICC and related organizations. Those measures are being contested in U.S. courts by ICC judges and by advocacy groups in the United States, which argue that the actions infringe on free speech and exceed executive authority.
The joint op-ed by the current and former Assembly presidents represents a concerted institutional response to the diplomatic pressure. It frames the question facing the international community as one of basic legal principle - upholding a global mechanism intended to hold perpetrators of the gravest crimes to account versus accepting a dynamic in which geopolitical weight, rather than legal norms, determines outcomes.
While the op-ed speaks to institutions and states, the debate has practical implications for diplomatic relations and for institutions that rely on multilateral legal frameworks. The clash between the ICC and a powerful non-member state underlines tensions inherent when international judicial mechanisms confront actions by states that reject or oppose their jurisdiction.
As litigation and political efforts continue, the dispute is likely to remain a focal point in discussions about the future of international criminal justice and the resilience of the legal order it embodies.