In a powerful address to the Council on Foreign Relations on Friday, September 26, 2025, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, issued a resounding condemnation of sanctions and arrest warrants targeting judges and prosecutors of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Türk described these measures as not only unacceptable but also a grave threat to the integrity of the international justice system. His remarks come at a time when the ICC faces escalating pressures from powerful states, raising concerns about the court’s ability to operate independently and uphold its mandate to investigate and prosecute the world’s most serious crimes.
A Direct Assault on International Justice
Türk’s statement was unequivocal: “The sanctions against the International Criminal Court are appalling. They are totally unacceptable because they actually undermine a fundamental piece of the international system.” His words reflect growing alarm within the international community about actions that appear designed to intimidate and obstruct the ICC’s work. The ICC, established in 2002 under the Rome Statute, is tasked with prosecuting individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. It represents a cornerstone of the global effort to ensure accountability for atrocities, particularly in cases where national jurisdictions are unwilling or unable to act.
The High Commissioner’s remarks were prompted by reports that the United States is considering imposing sanctions on the ICC itself, a move that would mark a significant departure from previous measures targeting individual court officials. Such sanctions, if enacted, could disrupt the court’s daily operations, including its ability to conduct investigations, hold trials, and protect witnesses. The potential U.S. action is seen as a response to the ICC’s ongoing investigations into alleged war crimes committed by Israeli officials, particularly in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These investigations have drawn sharp criticism from Israel and its allies, who argue that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over Israeli nationals and that the court’s actions are politically motivated.
A History of Tensions Between the ICC and Powerful States
The ICC has long faced challenges in asserting its authority, particularly when its investigations involve powerful states or their allies. The United States, which is not a member of the ICC, has had a fraught relationship with the court since its inception. While the U.S. initially supported the creation of ad hoc tribunals, such as those for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, it has consistently opposed the ICC’s jurisdiction over its citizens. In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, often referred to as the “Hague Invasion Act,” which authorizes the use of military force to free any U.S. citizen detained by the ICC. This legislation underscored Washington’s skepticism of the court and its determination to shield its nationals from prosecution.
In recent years, tensions have escalated further. In 2020, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on then-ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and another senior official, Phakiso Mochochoko, for their roles in investigating alleged U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan. These sanctions included asset freezes and travel bans, measures typically reserved for individuals involved in terrorism or organized crime. The Biden administration later lifted these sanctions, signaling a willingness to engage more constructively with the ICC. However, the current consideration of broader sanctions against the court itself suggests a return to a more confrontational stance, driven by U.S. support for Israel.
Türk highlighted that the U.S. is not alone in targeting the ICC. He noted that the Russian Federation has also issued arrest warrants against ICC judges in response to the court’s issuance of arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and other senior officials over alleged war crimes in Ukraine. “By the way, it’s not only the US; it’s also the Russian Federation, because the Russian Federation has issued arrest warrants against judges,” Türk said. This parallel action by two major global powers underscores the precarious position of the ICC as it navigates a geopolitically charged environment.
The Silence of the International Community
One of Türk’s most pointed criticisms was directed at the broader international community, particularly UN member states, for their failure to robustly defend the ICC. “And I really think that’s extremely dangerous, and there needs to be a very strong reaction from member states,” he said. The High Commissioner expressed concern that the lack of vocal condemnation could embolden further attacks on the court’s independence, potentially undermining its ability to function as an impartial arbiter of justice.
The silence of member states is particularly troubling given the ICC’s role as a court of last resort. For many victims of atrocities, the ICC represents their only hope for justice when national systems fail. By targeting the court’s officials or imposing sanctions that disrupt its operations, states risk sending a message that powerful actors can act with impunity. This erosion of accountability could have far-reaching consequences, not only for the ICC but for the broader framework of international humanitarian law.
Türk’s call for a strong reaction from member states reflects the need for collective action to safeguard the ICC’s independence. Historically, the court has relied on the support of its 123 member states to carry out its mandate. However, geopolitical divisions often complicate this support. States that are parties to the Rome Statute, such as those in the European Union, have generally been vocal supporters of the ICC, while others, including major powers like the U.S., China, and Russia, remain outside its jurisdiction and are often critical of its actions.
The Broader Implications for International Law
The targeting of ICC judges and prosecutors raises profound questions about the future of international justice. The imposition of sanctions or arrest warrants against court officials is not merely an attack on individuals but an assault on the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law. These principles are foundational to the international system established in the aftermath of World War II, when the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials set a precedent for holding individuals accountable for atrocities.
The ICC’s work is inherently contentious, as it often involves investigating politically sensitive cases. Its investigations into situations in Palestine, Ukraine, Sudan, and elsewhere have drawn criticism from various quarters, with some accusing the court of bias or overreach. Yet, the ICC’s mandate requires it to act impartially, without fear or favor, in pursuit of justice. When powerful states retaliate against the court for fulfilling this mandate, they risk undermining the very system designed to prevent impunity for the worst crimes known to humanity.
Moreover, the actions of the U.S. and Russia could set a dangerous precedent. If other states follow suit, targeting ICC officials for their work, the court’s ability to function could be severely compromised. This could lead to a chilling effect, where judges and prosecutors hesitate to pursue cases against powerful actors for fear of personal repercussions. Such an outcome would represent a significant setback for the global fight against impunity.
The Role of the UN and the Path Forward
As the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Türk’s role is to advocate for the protection and promotion of human rights worldwide. His condemnation of sanctions and arrest warrants against ICC officials is consistent with this mandate, as the ICC plays a critical role in upholding the right to justice for victims of atrocities. However, Türk’s ability to influence state behavior is limited, as the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights lacks enforcement powers. Instead, Türk’s statements serve to galvanize international opinion and pressure states to act responsibly.
The UN Security Council, which has the authority to refer cases to the ICC and impose binding measures on member states, could theoretically play a role in protecting the court. However, the Council’s permanent members—particularly the U.S., Russia, and China—have often used their veto power to block actions that conflict with their interests. This dynamic makes it unlikely that the Security Council will take decisive action to support the ICC in this instance.
Instead, the burden falls on ICC member states, civil society organizations, and the broader international community to rally in defense of the court. Türk’s call for a “very strong reaction” suggests the need for diplomatic pressure, public advocacy, and potentially legal measures to counter the actions of states targeting the ICC. For example, member states could issue joint statements condemning sanctions and arrest warrants, while civil society groups could mobilize to raise awareness about the importance of the ICC’s work.
The ICC’s Resilience in the Face of Challenges
Despite the challenges it faces, the ICC has demonstrated resilience in its nearly two decades of operation. The court has secured convictions in several high-profile cases, including those involving war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Central African Republic. It has also issued arrest warrants for prominent figures, such as Sudan’s former president Omar al-Bashir and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, signaling its willingness to hold powerful individuals accountable.
However, the ICC’s effectiveness depends on the cooperation of states, particularly in areas such as arresting suspects, protecting witnesses, and enforcing sentences. Sanctions and other forms of retaliation undermine this cooperation, making it harder for the court to carry out its mandate. The potential U.S. sanctions, in particular, could have a chilling effect on states that rely on U.S. financial or diplomatic support, as they may fear repercussions for cooperating with the ICC.
A Call to Action
Türk’s remarks underscore the urgency of the situation facing the ICC. The imposition of sanctions and arrest warrants against its officials represents a direct challenge to the principles of international justice. As the court navigates this turbulent period, the international community must decide whether to stand in defense of the rule of law or allow powerful states to erode the institutions designed to protect it.
For the ICC to continue its work, it will need not only the vocal support of UN officials like Türk but also concrete actions from member states, civil society, and other stakeholders. These actions could include diplomatic efforts to counter sanctions, increased funding for the ICC’s operations, and public campaigns to highlight the importance of the court’s role in addressing atrocities.
In his address, Türk emphasized the dangerous precedent set by the current attacks on the ICC. “This is not just about one court; it’s about the entire system of international justice,” he said. His words serve as a clarion call to action, urging the international community to recognize the stakes and act decisively to protect the ICC’s independence.
Conclusion
The sanctions and arrest warrants targeting ICC judges and prosecutors represent a critical juncture for the international justice system. Volker Türk’s condemnation of these measures highlights the need for a robust defense of the ICC’s independence and mandate. As powerful states like the United States and Russia take actions that threaten the court’s ability to function, the silence of the international community risks emboldening further attacks.
The ICC’s work is vital to ensuring accountability for the world’s most heinous crimes. By targeting its officials, states undermine not only the court but the broader principles of justice and human rights. Türk’s call for a strong reaction from UN member states is a reminder that the fight for international justice requires collective action and unwavering commitment. As the ICC faces these unprecedented challenges, the international community must rally to its defense, ensuring that the court can continue to serve as a beacon of hope for victims of atrocities worldwide.
