Editing International Criminal Court (section)

==Criticism and opposition==
===African states===
In October 2016, after repeated claims that the court was biased against African states, [[Burundi]], [[South Africa]] and the [[Gambia]] announced their withdrawals from the Rome Statute.<ref name="WPGambiaWD">
{{cite news|title=Gambia is the latest African country deciding to pull out of International Criminal Court|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/gambia-latest-african-country-deciding-to-pull-out-of-international-criminal-court/2016/10/26/7f54d068-c4ca-440f-848f-e211ba29dc34_story.html|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|last1=Sieff|first1=Kevin|date=26 October 2016|access-date=26 October 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161027060357/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/gambia-latest-african-country-deciding-to-pull-out-of-international-criminal-court/2016/10/26/7f54d068-c4ca-440f-848f-e211ba29dc34_story.html|archive-date=27 October 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> Following [[2016 Gambian presidential election|Gambia's presidential election]] later that year, which ended the long rule of [[Yahya Jammeh]], Gambia rescinded its withdrawal notification.<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/world/africa/burundi-international-criminal-court.html |title= Burundi Quits International Criminal Court |newspaper= The New York Times |last= Moore |first= Jina |date= 27 October 2017 |access-date= 20 March 2018 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20171109124035/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/world/africa/burundi-international-criminal-court.html |archive-date= 9 November 2017 |url-status= live |df= dmy-all }}</ref> A decision by the [[High Court of South Africa]] in early 2017 ruled that the attempted withdrawal was unconstitutional, as it had not been agreed by Parliament, prompting the South African government to inform the UN that it was revoking its decision to withdraw.<ref>{{cite news |last=Onishi |first=Norimitsu |date=8 March 2017 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/world/africa/south-africa-icc-withdrawal.html |title=South Africa Reverses Withdrawal From International Criminal Court |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20171028094648/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/world/africa/south-africa-icc-withdrawal.html |archivedate=28 October 2017 |work=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=27 October 2017}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Gissel |first=Line Engbo |title=The International Criminal Court and peace processes in Africa: judicialising peace |date=2020 |publisher=Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group |isbn=978-0-367-59335-3 |edition=First issued in paperback |series=Routledge studies in peace, conflict and security in Africa |location=London New York}}</ref>

===African accusations of Western imperialism===
[[File:William Samoei Ruto (cropped).jpg|thumb|upright|Kenyan politician [[William Ruto]] in February 2013]]
The ICC has been accused of bias and as being a tool of Western [[imperialism]], only punishing leaders from small, weak states while ignoring crimes committed by richer and more powerful states.<ref>{{cite web|date=11 October 2012 |url=http://www.africanholocaust.net/news_ah/icc_and_africa.html |title=ICC and Africa – International Criminal Court and African Sovereignty|access-date=5 May 2016|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303231227/http://www.africanholocaust.net/news_ah/icc_and_africa.html|archive-date=3 March 2016}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/ozatp-africa-icc-20110130-idAFJOE70T01R20110130|title=African Union accuses ICC prosecutor of bias|date=30 January 2011|work=Reuters|access-date=12 August 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5BcKncSktrUC&q=icc+criticism+africa&pg=PA58|title=The European Union's Africa Policies|access-date=5 May 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160429191025/https://books.google.com/books?id=5BcKncSktrUC&pg=PA58&dq=icc+criticism+africa&hl=en&ei=QjHXTrv-Os2aOoOxpbkO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=icc%20criticism%20africa&f=false|archive-date=29 April 2016|url-status=live|isbn=9781409400981|last1=Sicurelli|first1=Daniela|year=2010|publisher=Ashgate Publishing }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-37750978 |title= Is this the end for the International Criminal Court? |access-date= 21 June 2018 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20180427220322/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-37750978 |archive-date= 27 April 2018 |url-status= live |df= dmy-all |work= BBC News |date= 24 October 2016 |last1= Allen |first1= Karen }}</ref> This sentiment has been expressed particularly by African leaders due to an alleged disproportionate focus of the Court on Africa, while it claims to have a global mandate. Until January 2016, all nine situations which the ICC had been investigating were in African countries.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://nehandaradio.com/2013/09/24/africa-and-the-international-criminal-court-a-drag-net-that-catches-only-small-fish/|title=Africa and the International Criminal Court: A drag net that catches only small fish?|date=24 September 2013|website=Nehanda Radio|access-date=12 August 2019}}</ref><ref name="france24.com">{{cite news |url=http://www.france24.com/en/20120315-lubanga-kony-icc-africans-international-justice-hague-syria-congo |title=Europe – From Lubanga to Kony, is the ICC only after Africans? |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130326232118/http://www.france24.com/en/20120315-lubanga-kony-icc-africans-international-justice-hague-syria-congo |archive-date=26 March 2013 |publisher=France 24 |date=15 March 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dandc.eu/en/article/view-criticism-icc-balanced-debate-concerning-international-criminal-justice-needed|title=Dissatisfaction with the court|first=Darleen|last=Seda|date=19 November 2016 |publisher=D+C, Development and Cooperation|access-date=16 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161220195835/http://www.dandc.eu/en/article/view-criticism-icc-balanced-debate-concerning-international-criminal-justice-needed|archive-date=20 December 2016|url-status=live}}</ref>

African critics have suggested the ICC is acting as a neo-colonial force seeking to further empower Western political and extractive interests in Africa.<ref name="mcdonald2019">{{Cite web |title=The International Criminal Court: An Unbiased or Eurocentric Institution? |last=McDonald |first=Erin |date=15 November 2019 |publisher=McGill Journal of Political Studies |url=https://mjps.ssmu.ca/2019/11/15/the-international-criminal-court-an-unbiased-or-eurocentric-institution/ |access-date=2023-03-18 |archive-date=13 October 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231013114328/https://mjps.ssmu.ca/2019/11/15/the-international-criminal-court-an-unbiased-or-eurocentric-institution/ |url-status=dead }}</ref> Scholar Awol Allo has described the court's underlying problem that has led to these challenges with Africa as not overt [[racism]], but [[Eurocentrism]].<ref name="auto"/> Another analysis suggests that African states are motivated by concerns over Africa's place in world order: the problem is the sovereign inequality displayed by the ICC prosecutor's focus.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Brett |first1=Peter |title=Africa and the Backlash Against International Courts |last2=Gissel |first2=Line Engbo |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |year=2020 |isbn=9781786992970 |location=London |pages=34–55 |language=English}}</ref>

The prosecution of Kenyan Deputy President [[William Ruto]] and President [[Uhuru Kenyatta]] (both charged before coming into office) led to the Kenyan parliament passing a motion calling for Kenya's withdrawal from the ICC, and the country called on the other 33 African states party to the ICC to withdraw their support, an issue which was discussed at a special [[African Union]] (AU) summit in October 2013.<ref name="auto1">{{Cite web |date=9 September 2013 |title=Kenya: Is ICC withdrawal down to court's "lack of respect" for Kenyan cooperation and trial relocation requests? |first=Sabine |last=Hoehn |url=https://africanarguments.org/2013/09/kenya-is-icc-withdrawal-down-to-courts-lack-of-respect-for-kenyan-cooperation-and-trial-relocation-requests-by-sabine-hoehn/ |access-date=22 November 2024 |website=African Arguments}}</ref>

Though the ICC has denied the charge of disproportionately targeting African leaders, and claims to stand up for victims wherever they may be, Kenya was not alone in criticising the ICC. Sudanese President [[Omar al-Bashir]] visited [[Kenya]], [[South Africa]], [[China]], [[Nigeria]], [[Saudi Arabia]], [[United Arab Emirates]], [[Egypt]], [[Ethiopia]], [[Qatar]] and several other countries despite an outstanding ICC warrant for his arrest but was not arrested; he said that the charges against him are "exaggerated" and that the ICC was a part of a "[[Western world|Western]] plot" against him.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Lunn |first=Jon |date=16 October 2023 |title=The African Union, Kenya and the International Criminal Court |url=https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06743/ |access-date=22 November 2024 |website=House of Commons Library}}</ref> Ivory Coast's government opted not to transfer former first lady [[Simone Gbagbo]] to the court but to instead try her at home. Rwanda's ambassador to the African Union, Joseph Nsengimana, argued that, "It is not only the case of Kenya. We have seen international justice become more and more a political matter." Ugandan President [[Yoweri Museveni]] accused the ICC of "mishandling complex African issues".<ref name=":4" /><ref name="auto1"/> Ethiopian Prime Minister [[Hailemariam Desalegn]], at the time AU chairman, told the UN General Assembly at the [[General debate of the sixty-eighth session of the United Nations General Assembly]]: "The manner in which the ICC has been operating has left a very bad impression in Africa. It is totally unacceptable."<ref>{{cite news |title=Kenya pushing for African split from International Criminal Court |url=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/africa/kenya-pushing-for-african-split-from-international-criminal-court-1.1549427 |newspaper=The Irish Times |date=4 October 2013}}</ref>

===African Union (AU) withdrawal proposal===
{{main|States parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court#Withdrawal}}
South African President [[Jacob Zuma]] said the perceptions of the ICC as "unreasonable" led to the calling of the special AU summit on 13 October 2015. Botswana is a notable supporter of the ICC in Africa.<ref>{{cite news |first=Peter |last=Cluskey |url=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/africa/kenya-pushing-for-african-split-from-international-criminal-court-1.1549427 |title=Kenya pushing for African split from International Criminal Court |newspaper=The Irish Times |date=4 October 2013 |access-date=12 April 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150928170024/http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/africa/kenya-pushing-for-african-split-from-international-criminal-court-1.1549427 |archive-date=28 September 2015 |url-status=live}}</ref> At the summit, the AU did not endorse the proposal for a collective withdrawal from the ICC due to lack of support for the idea.<ref>{{cite web |last=Fortin |first=Jacey |url=http://www.ibtimes.com/african-union-countries-rally-around-kenyan-president-wont-withdraw-icc-1423572 |title=African Union Countries Rally Around Kenyan President, But Won't Withdraw From The ICC |date=12 October 2013 |access-date=12 October 2013 |website=[[International Business Times]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131018172412/http://www.ibtimes.com/african-union-countries-rally-around-kenyan-president-wont-withdraw-icc-1423572 |archive-date=18 October 2013 |url-status=live}}</ref> The summit concluded that serving heads of state should not be put on trial and that the Kenyan cases should be deferred. Ethiopian formerly Foreign Minister [[Tedros Adhanom]] said: "We have rejected the double standard that the ICC is applying in dispensing international justice."<ref>{{Cite news |title=Africans urge ICC not to try heads of state – Africa |publisher=Al Jazeera |url=http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2013/10/africans-urge-icc-not-try-heads-state-201310125566632803.html |url-status=live |access-date=28 April 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131012085450/http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2013/10/africans-urge-icc-not-try-heads-state-201310125566632803.html |archive-date=12 October 2013}}</ref> Despite these calls, the ICC went ahead with requiring William Ruto to attend his trial.<ref>{{Cite news |title=ICC rules Kenya VP must attend his trial – Africa |publisher=Al Jazeera |url=http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2013/10/icc-rules-kenya-vp-must-attend-his-trial-201310258280911718.html |url-status=live |access-date=28 April 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131027195009/http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2013/10/icc-rules-kenya-vp-must-attend-his-trial-201310258280911718.html |archive-date=27 October 2013}}</ref> The UNSC was then asked to consider deferring the trials of Kenyatta and Ruto for a year,<ref>{{Cite news |title=Africans push UN to call off 'racist' court – Features |publisher=Al Jazeera |url=http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/11/africans-push-un-call-off-racist-court-2013111451110131757.html |url-status=live |access-date=28 April 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131116131604/http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/11/africans-push-un-call-off-racist-court-2013111451110131757.html |archive-date=16 November 2013}}</ref> but this was rejected.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2013/11/un-rejects-trial-deferral-kenyan-leaders-20131115154921984213.html |title=UN rejects trial deferral for Kenyan leaders |date=16 November 2013 |access-date=25 January 2014 |publisher=[[Al Jazeera Media Network|Al Jazeera]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131122062110/http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2013/11/un-rejects-trial-deferral-kenyan-leaders-20131115154921984213.html |archive-date=22 November 2013 |url-status=live}}</ref> In November, the ICC's Assembly of State Parties responded to Kenya's calls for an exemption for sitting heads of state<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2013/11/kenya-vows-icc-statute-amended-2013112119540269406.html|title=Kenya vows to have ICC statute amended|access-date=5 May 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160420235223/http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2013/11/kenya-vows-icc-statute-amended-2013112119540269406.html|archive-date=20 April 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> by agreeing to consider [[Amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court|amendments to the Rome Statute]] to address the concerns.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/2013/11/win-for-africa-as-kenya-agenda-enters-icc-assembly/|title=Win for Africa as Kenya agenda enters ICC Assembly|last=Kaberia|first=Judie|date=20 November 2013|access-date=23 November 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131123184327/http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/2013/11/win-for-africa-as-kenya-agenda-enters-icc-assembly|archive-date=23 November 2013|url-status=live}}</ref>

On 7 October 2016, [[Burundi]] announced that it would leave the ICC, after the court began investigating political violence in that nation. In the two weeks that followed, South Africa and The Gambia also announced their intention to leave the court, with Kenya and Namibia reportedly also considering departure. All three nations cited the fact that all 39 people indicted by the court over its history by that date had been African and that the court has made no effort to investigate war crimes tied to the [[2003 invasion of Iraq]].<ref>{{cite web |first=Jane |last=Onyanga-Omara |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/10/26/gambia-latest-african-nation-withdraw-international-criminal-court/92766524/ |title=Gambia latest African nation to withdraw from International Criminal Court |work=USA Today |date=26 October 2016 |access-date=26 October 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161109005731/http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/10/26/gambia-latest-african-nation-withdraw-international-criminal-court/92766524/ |archive-date=9 November 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |first=Ofeibea |last=Quist-Arcton |url=https://www.npr.org/2016/10/26/499409044/south-africa-withdraws-from-international-criminal-court-others-follow |title=South Africa Withdraws From International Court; Others Follow |newspaper=npr.org |date=26 October 2016 |access-date=26 October 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161027123310/http://www.npr.org/2016/10/26/499409044/south-africa-withdraws-from-international-criminal-court-others-follow |archive-date=27 October 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref> Following [[2016 Gambian presidential election|The Gambia's presidential election]] later that year, which ended the long rule of [[Yahya Jammeh]], the new government rescinded its withdrawal notification.<ref>{{cite news|title=Gambia rejoins ICC|url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/17/gambia-rejoins-icc|access-date=14 July 2017|work=Dispatches |publisher=Human Rights Watch|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170719015323/https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/17/gambia-rejoins-icc|archive-date=19 July 2017|url-status=live}}</ref> The [[High Court of South Africa]] ruled on 2 February 2017 that the South African government's notice to withdraw was unconstitutional and invalid.<ref>{{cite news|title=ICC withdrawal 'unconstitutional and invalid', high court rules|url=http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/icc-withdrawal-unconstitutional-and-invalid-high-court-rules-20170222|access-date=6 July 2017|work=News24|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170715055028/http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/icc-withdrawal-unconstitutional-and-invalid-high-court-rules-20170222|archive-date=15 July 2017|url-status=live}}</ref> On 7 March 2017 the South African government formally revoked its intention to withdraw.<ref>{{cite news|title=SA formally revokes ICC withdrawal|url=http://ewn.co.za/2017/03/08/south-africa-formally-revokes-international-court-withdrawal|access-date=6 July 2017|work=Eyewitness News|publisher=Primedia|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170812022415/http://ewn.co.za/2017/03/08/south-africa-formally-revokes-international-court-withdrawal|archive-date=12 August 2017|url-status=live}}</ref> The ruling [[African National Congress|ANC]] revealed on 5 July 2017 that its intention to withdraw stands.<ref>{{cite news|title=ANC is sticking to its guns on ICC withdrawal|url=https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/politics/2017-07-04-anc-is-sticking-to-its-guns-on-icc-withdrawal/|access-date=6 July 2017|work=Business Day|location=South Africa|publisher=TMG|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170704224716/https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/politics/2017-07-04-anc-is-sticking-to-its-guns-on-icc-withdrawal/|archive-date=4 July 2017|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Israel===

In 2020, the [[+972 Magazine|+972 magazine]], based in Israel, reported political interference coming from Israel and the U.S. when [[Fatou Bensouda]], the [[Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court|chief prosecutor]] of the International Criminal Court, announced that "there is legal basis to probe Israel and Palestinian groups over war crimes in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip, and that her office was ready to investigate the matter". In 2018, when the Israeli government wanted to demolish the West Bank village of Khan al Ahmar, Bensouda explicitly warned Israel that doing so could be considered a ‘war crime’.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Iraqi |first=Amjad |date=13 January 2020 |title=With international law under siege, can the ICC bring justice to Palestinians? |url=https://www.972mag.com/palestinian-experts-icc-justice/ |access-date=29 November 2024 |website=+972 Magazine}}</ref> The Israeli government's response was to publicly defy the court, describing the prosecutor's statement as ‘pure anti-Semitism’ in Netanyahu’s words.<ref>{{Cite web |author=ToI Staff|title=International Criminal Court probe of Israel is 'pure anti-Semitism,' says PM |url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/international-criminal-court-probe-of-israel-is-pure-anti-semitism-says-pm/ |access-date=29 November 2024 |website=www.timesofisrael.com}}</ref>
 
''[[The Guardian]]'' reported in 2024, on the basis of anonymous sources, that Israel had conducted a nine-year "war" against the ICC. These sources alleged that Israeli intelligence agencies were used to "surveil, hack, pressure, smear and allegedly threaten senior ICC staff in an effort to derail the court's inquiries." In particular, [[Yossi Cohen]], director of [[Mossad]] at the time, allegedly threatened Bensouda and her family in an attempt to dissuade her from opening war crime inquiries against Israel. The anonymous sources are said to be familiar with disclosures Bensouda made to the ICC regarding the operation.<ref name="guardian280524">{{cite web |last1=Davies |first1=Harry |title=Revealed: Israeli spy chief 'threatened' ICC prosecutor over war crimes inquiry |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/28/israeli-spy-chief-icc-prosecutor-war-crimes-inquiry |website=The Guardian |access-date=30 May 2024 |date=28 May 2024}}</ref>

In November 2024, after the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Israeli prime minister [[Benjamin Netanyahu]] and former defense minister [[Yoav Gallant]] on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity during the [[Gaza war]], Netanyahu accused the ICC of [[antisemitism]], while Gallant argued the Court set "a dangerous precedent against the right to self-defence and ethical warfare and encourages murderous terrorism."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Netanyahu 'rejects with disgust' ICC arrest warrant |date=21 November 2024 |url=https://www.dw.com/en/netanyahu-rejects-with-disgust-icc-arrest-warrant/live-70838468 |access-date=6 April 2024 |website=dw.com}}</ref> In that same November, Israel appealed the ICC warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Israel to appeal against ICC warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm273g1jm51o |access-date=27 November 2024 |website=www.bbc.com}}</ref> 

In November 2024, France argued that the arrest warrants for Israeli leaders are not valid because Israel is not a member of the ICC.<ref>{{cite news |title=Is Netanyahu immune from ICC arrest warrant as France claims? |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/28/is-netanyahu-immune-from-icc-arrest-warrant-as-france-claims |work=Al Jazeera |date=28 November 2024}}</ref> In that same month, then-Prime Minister of Canada, [[Justin Trudeau]], announced that [[Government of Canada|Canada]] would abide by the arrest warrants and arrest and deport Netanyahu if he entered that country.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!-- not stated --> |date=November 21, 2024 |title=Trudeau says he would 'abide by' international court and allow Netanyahu's arrest |url=https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/trudeau-netanyahu-icc-arrest-warrant |work=National Post |location=Toronto |publisher=Postmedia Network Inc |access-date=May 19, 2025 |quote='We stand up for international law, and we will abide by all the regulations and rulings of the international courts. This is just who we are as Canadians,' Trudeau said}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Mohamed |first=Rahim |date=November 22, 2025 |title=Poilievre blasts PM as 'extreme' for backing arrest of Israeli prime minister |url=https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/poilievre-trudea-netanyahu-arrest-warrant-extre |work=National Post |location=Toronto |publisher=Postmedia Network Inc |access-date=May 19, 2025 |quote='He's calling for the arrest of the country that has been the victim of all of these attacks'}}</ref> Italian Foreign Minister [[Antonio Tajani]] said on various occasions that Italy would not arrest Prime Minister Netanyahu.<ref>{{cite news |last1=De La Feld |first1=Simone |title=European leaders’ support for Netanyahu and the defeat of international law: From Macron to Merz to Orbán |url=https://www.eunews.it/en/2025/03/31/european-leaders-support-for-netanyahu-and-the-defeat-of-international-law-from-macron-to-merz-to-orban/ |work=Eunews.it |date=31 March 2025}}</ref> In January 2025, Polish prime minister [[Donald Tusk]] guaranteed safe passage for senior Israeli officials, including Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to an event in Poland marking the 80th anniversary of the [[Liberation of Auschwitz concentration camp|liberation of Auschwitz]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Auschwitz: Poland divided on pledge not to arrest Netanyahu |url=https://www.dw.com/en/auschwitz-poland-netanyahu-arrest-pledge/a-71377468 |work=Deutsche Welle |date=23 January 2025}}</ref> The majority of the Polish public disagreed with the government's decision not to arrest Netanyahu.<ref>{{cite news |title=Most Poles disagree with giving Netanyahu safe passage to Holocaust memorial |url=https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/most-poles-disagree-with-giving-netanyahu-safe-passage-to-holocaust-memorial/ |work=Euractiv |date=15 January 2025}}</ref>

Germany's CDU leader [[Friedrich Merz]] criticized the ICC's decision to issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu.<ref>{{cite news |title=Policies of German opposition chief and possible next chancellor Merz |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/policies-german-opposition-chief-possible-next-chancellor-merz-2024-09-17/ |work=Reuters |date=17 September 2024 |archive-date=18 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240918011748/https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/policies-german-opposition-chief-possible-next-chancellor-merz-2024-09-17/ |url-status=live}}</ref> In February 2025, one day after the [[2025 German federal election]], he announced his will to invite Netanyahu to Germany,<ref>{{cite news |title=Merz says Netanyahu will be able to visit Germany despite ICC warrant |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/2/24/merz-says-netanyahu-will-be-able-to-visit-germany-despite-icc-warrant |work=Al Jazeera |date=24 February 2025}}</ref> "as an open challenge" to the decision of the ICC.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Merz will offenbar Netanjahu nach Deutschland einladen |trans-title=Merz apparently wants to invite Netanyahu to Germany |url=https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/merz-einladung-netanjahu-100.html |access-date=24 February 2025 |website=tagesschau.de |language=de |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250226042727/https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/merz-einladung-netanjahu-100.html |archive-date=26 February 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref>

In April 2025, Netanyahu visited [[Hungary]], a state party to the Rome Statute of the ICC. During the visit, the Hungarian government's prime minister, [[Viktor Orbán]] announced that it would withdraw from the ICC, describing it as "politically biased". The withdrawal will become effective after one year's written notice. Hungary will join Israel, the US, Russia, China and North Korea among nations which do not recognise the ICC's jurisdiction.<ref>{{Cite web |date=3 April 2025 |title=Hungary withdraws from International Criminal Court during Netanyahu visit |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c807lm2003zo |access-date=6 April 2025 |website=BBC News |language=en-GB}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=3 April 2025 |title=Hungary announces plans to leave ICC as Netanyahu visits |url=https://www.dw.com/en/hungary-announces-plans-to-leave-icc-as-netanyahu-visits/live-72122213 |access-date=6 April 2025 |website=Deutsche Welle |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |first=Jon |last=Henley | date=4 April 2025 |title=Hungary to pull out of ‘political’ ICC as Netanyahu visits Budapest|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/03/netanyahu-to-visit-hungary-as-orban-vows-to-defy-icc-arrest-warrant |access-date=6 April 2025 |newspaper=The Guardian |language=en}}</ref> On May 20, 2025, the [[National Assembly (Hungary)|Hungarian National Assembly]] approved a bill to initiate the country's withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC), marking Hungary as the first European Union member state to take such action. The bill, introduced by Deputy Prime Minister [[Zsolt Semjén]], passed with 134 votes in favor, 37 against, and 7 abstentions.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Hungarian parliament approves withdrawal from International Criminal Court |url=https://english.news.cn/20250520/e4364fe3599d43c2ad066644e0c3ccee/c.html |access-date=2025-05-20 |website=english.news.cn |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-05-20 |title=Hungary Withdraws from International Criminal Court Amid Netanyahu Visit |url=https://mezha.net/eng/bukvy/hungary-withdraws-from-international-criminal-court-amid-netanyahu-visit/ |access-date=2025-05-20 |website=Ukraine news - #Mezha}}</ref> This move has drawn criticism from human rights organizations and may strain Hungary's relations within the European Union, where all member states are ICC members.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2025-04-03 |title=Hungary will withdraw from ICC, government says during Netanyahu visit |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/04/03/hungary-icc-withdraw-orban-netanyahu |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250404015922/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/04/03/hungary-icc-withdraw-orban-netanyahu/ |archive-date=2025-04-04 |access-date=2025-05-20 |work=The Washington Post |language=en}}</ref>

===Philippines===
Following the announcement that the ICC would open a preliminary investigation on the [[Philippines]] in connection to its [[Philippine Drug War|escalating drug war]], [[President of the Philippines|President]] [[Rodrigo Duterte]] announced on 14 March 2018 that the Philippines would start to submit plans to withdraw, completing the process on 17 March 2019. The ICC pointed out that it retained jurisdiction over the Philippines during the period when it was a state party to the Rome Statute, from November 2011 to March 2019.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2019/03/17/1901757/philippines-becomes-second-country-quit-icc|title=Philippines becomes second country to quit ICC|website=The Philippine Star|access-date=8 July 2019}}</ref>

On 11 March 2025, Duterte was [[Arrest of Rodrigo Duterte|arrested]] on an ICC warrant pursuant to his role in the Philippine Drug War and flown from Manila to The Hague.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Ratcliffe |first1=Rebecca |title=Duterte flown to The Hague after arrest over Philippines drug war killings |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/11/rodrigo-duterte-arrest-manila-former-philippines-president-war-on-drugs-ntwnfb |website=The Guardian |publisher=The Guardian |access-date=11 March 2025}}</ref>

===Russia===
{{See also|International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Russian leaders}}
[[File:XV BRICS Summit family photo.jpg|thumb|Following speculation whether South Africa would arrest him, Russian president [[Vladimir Putin]] did not attend the [[15th BRICS summit]] in Johannesburg. Russia was represented by Foreign Minister [[Sergei Lavrov]] (right).<ref name="Reuters-BRICS"/>]]
In March 2023, Kremlin spokesperson [[Dmitry Peskov]] announced that [[Russia]] did not recognize the Court's decision to issue an arrest warrant for President [[Vladimir Putin]] on account of [[War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine|war crimes in Ukraine]] and noted that Russia, like other countries which had not ratified the Rome Statute, did not recognise the jurisdiction of the ICC, saying "And accordingly, any decisions of this kind are null and void for the Russian Federation from the point of view of law."<ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Patil |first=Anushka |date=17 March 2023 |title=International Criminal Court Issues Arrest Warrant for Putin |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/17/world/russia-ukraine-putin-news |access-date=18 March 2023}}</ref>

[[State Duma]] speaker [[Vyacheslav Volodin]] wrote on [[Telegram (software)|Telegram]], "Yankees, hands off Putin!" calling the move evidence of Western "hysteria", and saying that "we regard any attacks on the President of the Russian Federation as aggression against our country".<ref name=":1" />

South African Foreign Minister [[Naledi Pandor]] criticized the ICC for not having what she called an "evenhanded approach" to all leaders responsible for violations of international law.<ref>{{cite news |title=South Africa Mulls Options After ICC's Putin Arrest Order |url=https://www.voanews.com/a/south-africa-mulls-options-after-icc-s-putin-arrest-order-/7025238.html |work=VOA News |date=28 March 2023}}</ref> South Africa, which failed in its obligation to arrest visiting Sudanese President [[Omar al-Bashir]] in June 2015, invited Vladimir Putin to the [[BRICS#Summits|15th BRICS Summit]] in Durban.<ref>{{cite news |title=There's a new dividing line for world leaders: Would you arrest Putin? |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/new-dividing-line-world-leaders-arrest-putin-rcna76471 |publisher=NBC News |date=25 March 2023}}</ref> On 19 July 2023, South Africa announced that "by mutual agreement" Putin would not attend the summit. Foreign Minister [[Sergei Lavrov]] attended in Putin's place.<ref name="Reuters-BRICS">{{cite news |title=South Africa says Putin agreed not to attend BRICS summit |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/south-africa-putin-will-not-attend-brics-summit-by-mutual-agreement-2023-07-19/ |work=Reuters |date=19 July 2023}}</ref>
[[File:Vladimir Putin in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia on September 3, 2024 (2).jpg|thumb|Putin with Mongolian President [[Ukhnaagiin Khürelsükh]] in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 3 September 2024]]
In the months following the arrest warrant for Putin being issued, Russia issued warrants for the arrest of multiple ICC officials, including the court's president [[Piotr Hofmański]] and its vice-president [[Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-international-criminal-court-icc-president-piotr-hofmanski-wanted-list/|title=Russia puts international court's top leadership on wanted list|website=Politico|date=25 September 2023|last=Chiappa|first=Claudia}}</ref>

In advance of a [[Mongolia–Russia relations|visit by Putin to Mongolia]] on 3 September 2024, the ICC stated that Mongolia was obligated to place Putin under arrest, due to [[Mongolia]] being a signatory of the Rome Statute of the ICC.<ref>{{cite news |last=Santos |first=Sofia Ferreira |date=30 August 2024 |title=Mongolia Obliged to Arrest Putin If He Visits – ICC |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0e852r50x7o |access-date=30 August 2024 |work=BBC}}</ref> After failure to make the arrest, Mongolia was described by Ukraine as complicit in Putin's war crimes.<ref>{{cite news |title=Putin Evades Arrest in Mongolia |url=https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/radionational-breakfast/putin-evades-arrest-in-mongolia/104305828 |access-date=4 September 2024 |work=Australian Broadcasting Corporation |date=4 September 2024 |quote=The Ukrainian Government have (...) [claimed] this makes Mongolia complicit in Putin's war crimes}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Bennetts |first1=Marc |title=Vladimir Putin defies ICC Arrest Warrant on Mongolia Visit |url=https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/vladimir-putin-icc-arrest-warrant-mongolia-gsnsdq3nb |access-date=4 September 2024 |work=[[The Times]] |date=3 September 2024 |quote=Kyiv said that Mongolia’s failure to execute the ICC warrant meant it was complicit in Putin’s crimes}}</ref> Following the visit and the refusal to arrest Putin, the Mongolia government said that the issue of energy relations is critical to the country and that "Mongolia has always maintained a policy of neutrality in all its diplomatic relations, as demonstrated in our statements of record to date."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Jochecová |first=Ketrin |date=2024-09-03 |title=Sorry not sorry, says Mongolia after failure to arrest Putin |url=https://www.politico.eu/article/mongolia-failure-arrest-vladimir-putin-international-warrant-international-criminal-court/ |access-date=2024-11-15 |website=POLITICO}}</ref>

=== United States ===
{{See also|United States and the International Criminal Court}}
United States President [[George W. Bush]] signed the [[American Service-Members' Protection Act]] (informally referred to as ''The Hague Invasion Act'') to signify the United States' opposition to any possible future jurisdiction of the court or its tribunals. The act gives the President the power to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court".<ref>{{cite web |title=American Service-Members' Protection Act |url=https://2001-2009.state.gov/t/pm/rls/othr/misc/23425.htm |website=US Department of State Archive|date=30 July 2003 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |date=6 August 2002 |title="Hague Invasion Act": Bush Signs a New Law Designed to Intimidate Countries That Ratify the Treaty for the International Criminal Court |url=https://www.democracynow.org/2002/8/6/hague_invasion_act_bush_signs_a |editor1-last=Roth |editor1-first=Ken |publisher=[[Democracy Now!]] |publication-date=6 August 2002 |access-date=14 April 2022 |url-access= |quote=On Friday President George Bush signed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, which will supposedly protect U.S. servicemembers from the International Criminal Court.}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Marquand |first1=Robert |date=13 February 2009 |title=Dutch still wincing at Bush-era 'Invasion of The Hague Act' |url=https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2009/0213/p05s01-woeu.html |department=World |work=The Christian Science Monitor |publication-date=13 February 2009 |access-date=14 April 2022 |url-access= }}</ref> During the administration of [[Barack Obama]], U.S. opposition to the ICC evolved to "positive engagement", but no effort was made to ratify the Rome Statute.<ref>{{cite news |first=Mark |last=Landler |date=10 September 2018 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/10/us/politics/trump-plo-bolton-international-criminal-court.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage |title=Bolton Expands on His Boss's Views, Except on North Korea |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180911114612/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/10/us/politics/trump-plo-bolton-international-criminal-court.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage |archive-date=11 September 2018 |work=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Luban |first=David |title=America the Unaccountable |url=https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2020/08/20/icc-justice-america-unaccountable/ |access-date=2023-12-02 |issn=0028-7504}}</ref>

The subsequent [[First presidency of Donald Trump|Donald Trump administration]] was considerably more hostile to the Court, similar to the Bush administration, threatening prosecution and financial sanctions on ICC judges and staff in U.S. courts as well as imposing visa bans in response to any investigation against American nationals in connection to alleged crimes and atrocities perpetrated by the U.S. in Afghanistan. The threat included sanctions against any of over 120 countries that have ratified the Court for cooperating in the process.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/15/us-threatens-international-criminal-court|title=US Threatens International Criminal Court|date=15 March 2019|publisher=Human Rights Watch|access-date=7 May 2019}}</ref> In November 2017, [[Fatou Bensouda]] advised the court to consider seeking charges for human rights abuses committed during the [[War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)|War in Afghanistan]] such as alleged rapes and tortures by the [[U.S. Armed Forces]] and the [[Central Intelligence Agency]], crime against humanity committed by the [[Taliban]], and war crimes committed by the [[Afghan National Security Forces]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/11/20/icc-prosecutor-requests-investigation-into-us-military-cia-for-alleged-war-crimes-in-afghanistan.html|title=ICC prosecutor requests investigation into U.S. military, CIA for alleged war crimes in Afghanistan |last=Corder|first=Mike|date=20 November 2017|work=[[Toronto Star]] |access-date=26 April 2018|agency=[[Associated Press]]|issn=0319-0781}}</ref> [[John R. Bolton|John Bolton]], [[National Security Advisor of the United States]], stated that ICC Court had no jurisdiction over the U.S., which had not ratified the Rome Statute.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Law and Contemporary Problems: Vol 64, No. 1 |url=https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol64/iss1/ |access-date=2023-12-02 |website=scholarship.law.duke.edu}}</ref> In 2020, overturning the previous decision not to proceed, senior judges at the ICC authorized an investigation into the alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/mar/05/senior-icc-judges-authorise-afghanistan-war-crimes-inquiry |title=Senior ICC judges authorise Afghanistan war crimes inquiry |first=Owen |last=Bowcott |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |date=5 March 2020 |access-date=5 March 2020}}</ref>

On 11 June 2020, the United States announced sanctions on officials and employees, as well as their families, involved in investigating alleged crimes against humanity committed by U.S. armed forces in Afghanistan.<ref>{{Cite web|first=Jennifer |last=Hansler|date=11 June 2020|title=Trump authorizes sanctions against International Criminal Court officials|publisher=CNN |url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/11/politics/icc-executive-order/index.html |access-date=21 June 2020}}</ref> This move was widely criticized by human rights groups.<ref>{{Cite web|date=11 June 2020 |title=US Sets Sanctions Against International Criminal Court |url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/06/11/us-sets-sanctions-against-international-criminal-court|access-date=21 June 2020 |publisher=Human Rights Watch}}</ref> The U.S. ordered sanctions against the ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, and the ICC's head of Jurisdiction, Complementary, and Cooperation Division, Phakiso Mochochok, for an investigation into alleged war crimes by U.S. forces and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Afghanistan since 2003.<ref>{{Cite news|date=2020-09-05 |last=Haidar|first=Suhasini |title=International Criminal Court: The transnational arm of law|language=en-IN|work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/international-criminal-court-the-transnational-arm-of-law/article32532312.ece |access-date=2020-09-07|issn=0971-751X}}</ref> Attorney General [[William Barr]] said, "The US government has reason to doubt the honesty of the ICC. The Department of Justice has received substantial credible information that raises serious concerns about a long history of financial corruption and malfeasance at the highest levels of the office of the prosecutor". The ICC responded with a statement expressing "profound regret at the announcement of further threats and coercive actions." "These attacks constitute an escalation and an unacceptable attempt to interfere with the rule of law and the Court's judicial proceedings", the statement said. "They are announced with the declared aim of influencing the actions of ICC officials in the context of the court's independent and objective investigations and impartial judicial proceedings."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/11/trump-icc-us-war-crimes-investigation-sanctions|title=Trump targets ICC with sanctions after court opens war crimes investigation |access-date=11 June 2020|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]|date=11 June 2020 }}</ref>

On 30 September 2020, prominent United States human rights lawyers announced that they would sue Trump and his Administration—including Barr, [[United States Secretary of State|Secretary of State]] [[Mike Pompeo]], Treasury secretary [[Steven Mnuchin]], and [[Office of Foreign Assets Control|OFAC]] director [[Andrea Gacki]], and the departments they head—on the grounds that Trump's [[s:Executive Order 13928|Executive Order 13928]] order had [[Gag order|gagged them]], violating their right to free speech and impeding their work in trying to obtain justice on behalf of victims of war crimes. One of the plaintiffs, [[Diane Marie Amann]], stated that, as a result of sanctions against the chief prosecutor at the ICC, she herself risked having her family assets seized if she continued to work for children who are bought and sold by traffickers, killed, tortured, sexually abused and forced to become child soldiers.<ref>{{cite news |first=Julian |last=Borger |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/01/human-rights-lawyers-sue-trump-administration-for-silencing-them |title=Human rights lawyers sue Trump administration for 'silencing' them |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=1 October 2020}}</ref>

On 4 January 2021, U.S. District Judge [[Katherine Polk Failla]] in New York City issued a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration from imposing criminal or civil penalties against ICC personnel and those who support the court's work, including the plaintiffs.<ref>{{Cite web|title=US Judge Blocks Trump Sanctions Targeting Human Rights Lawyers, War Crimes Tribunal|url=https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_us-judge-blocks-trump-sanctions-targeting-human-rights-lawyers-war-crimes-tribunal/6200322.html|access-date=2021-01-06|publisher=Voice of America|date=4 January 2021 }}</ref> The sanctions were subsequently lifted by the Biden administration Secretary of State [[Antony Blinken]] in April 2021.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2021-04-02 |title=US lifts Trump-era sanctions against ICC prosecutor |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56620915}}</ref>

In 2023, the Biden administration welcomed the issuing of an ICC arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin. President [[Joe Biden]] said that the issuing of the warrant "makes a very strong point".<ref name="putin_warrant_2023_03_18_bbc"/>
In 2024, the Biden administration opposed an [[International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine|arrest warrant]] for Israeli Prime Minister [[Benjamin Netanyahu]] over alleged [[Israeli war crimes]] committed during the [[Gaza war]] in the [[Gaza Strip]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Israel, U.S. seek to prevent ICC arrest warrant against Netanyahu – report |url=https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy/artc-israel-u-s-seek-to-prevent-icc-arrest-warrant-against-netanyahu-report-2 |work=[[i24NEWS (Israeli TV channel)|i24NEWS]] |date=28 April 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=US and Israel criticised for threatening International Criminal Court |url=https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/us-and-israel-criticised-for-threatening-international-criminal-court |work=[[Scottish Legal News]] |date=14 May 2024}}</ref> Biden denounced Netanyahu's arrest warrant as "outrageous."<ref>{{cite news |title=Biden at odds with allies as U.S. and Israel attack ICC over arrest warrants |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/biden-us-israel-attack-icc-arrest-warrants-netanyahu-hamas-rcna153211 |work=NBC News |date=21 May 2024}}</ref> Secretary of State [[Antony Blinken]] said the Biden administration would work with the US Congress on potential [[United States sanctions|sanctions]] against the ICC.<ref>{{cite news |title=Blinken says he'll work with US Congress on potential ICC sanctions |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/blinken-says-hell-work-with-us-congress-respond-icc-move-gaza-2024-05-21/ |work=Reuters |date=22 May 2024}}</ref> Prior to the issuing of the ICC's arrest warrant for Netanyahu, a group of US Republican senators sent a letter to ICC prosecutor [[Karim Ahmad Khan]] that contained the warning "Target Israel and we will target you. If you move forward ... we will move to end all American support for the ICC, sanction your employees and associates, and bar you and your families from the United States. You have been warned."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Whitson |first=Sarah Leah |author-link=Sarah Leah Whitson |date=2024-09-24 |title=The White House's Defense of Israel Is Undermining International Law |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/09/18/biden-israel-icc-icj-gaza-netanyahu-international-law/ |access-date=2024-09-21 |website=Foreign Policy}}</ref> [[United States House of Representatives|The U.S. House of Representatives]] passed a bill to sanction ICC officials on 4 June 2024.<ref>{{cite news |author1=Clare Foran |author2=Haley Talbot |title=House passes International Criminal Court sanctions bill after prosecutor seeks Netanyahu warrant |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/04/politics/house-vote-icc-sanctions/index.html |work=CNN |date=June 4, 2024}}</ref>

[[File:Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu at White House 2025 (4).jpg|thumb|US President [[Donald Trump]] and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu at the [[White House]], 4 February 2025]]

On 9 January 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the ''Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act'' by 243–140 to sanction the ICC in protest at its arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant issued in November 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Zengerle |first=Patricia |date=January 10, 2025 |title=US House votes to sanction International Criminal Court over Israel |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us-house-votes-sanction-international-criminal-court-over-israel-2025-01-09/ |access-date=January 10, 2025 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=House Passes Chairman Mast’s Bill to Sanction International Criminal Court for Targeting Israel |url=https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press-release/house-passes-chairman-masts-bill-to-sanction-international-criminal-court-for-targeting-israel/ |access-date=2025-01-10 |website=Committee on Foreign Affairs |language=en}}</ref> On 6 February 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order imposing economic and travel sanctions on individuals involved in ICC investigations targeting U.S. citizens and allies, notably Israel.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Davies |first=Harry |last2=Dunbar |first2=Marina |date=2025-02-07 |title=Trump imposes sanctions on ICC, accusing it of targeting US and Israel |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/06/trump-sanction-icc |access-date=2025-02-07 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Green |first=Erica L. |date=2025-02-07 |title=Trump Imposes Sanctions on the ICC, Accusing It of Targeting the U.S. and Israel |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/06/us/politics/trump-icc-sanctions.html |access-date=2025-02-07 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> This action coincided with Netanyahu visiting Washington. The sanctions entail freezing U.S. assets of designated individuals and prohibiting their entry into the United States. This move mirrors a similar stance taken during Trump's first term, when sanctions were applied to ICC officials over investigations into alleged war crimes by U.S. forces in Afghanistan.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Trump imposes sanctions on International Criminal Court |url=https://www.lbcgroup.tv/news/world-news/836216/trump-imposes-sanctions-on-international-criminal-court/en |date=7 February 2025 |access-date=2025-02-07 |website=LBCIV7 |publisher=[[Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation International]] |language=en}}</ref>

==== U.S. criticisms ====
The [[United States Department of State]] argues that there are "insufficient checks and balances on the authority of the ICC prosecutor and judges" and "insufficient protection against politicized prosecutions or other abuses".<ref name="US DoS faq"/> The current law in the United States on the ICC is the ''[[American Service-Members' Protection Act]]'' (ASPA), 116 Stat. 820. The ASPA authorizes the President of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". This authorization has led the act to be nicknamed the "Hague Invasion Act",<ref>{{cite web |author=Human Rights Watch |url=https://www.hrw.org/en/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law |title=U.S.: 'Hague Invasion Act' Becomes Law |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150118203654/http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law |archive-date=18 January 2015 |date=3 August 2002}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/Archive/Article/0,4273,4456801,00.html |title=Who are America's real enemies? |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |author=John Sutherland |date=8 July 2002 |access-date=8 January 2007}}</ref> because the freeing of U.S. citizens by force might be possible only through military action.

On 10 September 2018, [[John R. Bolton]], in his first major address as U.S. [[National Security Advisor (United States)|National Security Advisor]], reiterated that the ICC lacks checks and balances, exercises "jurisdiction over crimes that have disputed and ambiguous definitions", and has failed to "deter and punish atrocity crimes". The ICC, Bolton said, was "superfluous", given that "domestic judicial systems already hold American citizens to the highest legal and ethical standards". He added that the U.S. would do everything "to protect our citizens" should the ICC attempt to prosecute U.S. servicemen over alleged [[Bagram torture and prisoner abuse|detainee abuse in Afghanistan]]. In that event, ICC judges and prosecutors would be barred from entering the U.S., their funds in the U.S. would be sanctioned and the U.S. "will prosecute them in the U.S. criminal system. We will do the same for any company or state that assists an ICC investigation of Americans", Bolton said. He also criticized [[Palestinian government|Palestinian]] efforts to bring Israel before the ICC over allegations of human rights abuses in the [[West Bank]] and Gaza.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45474864 |title=International Criminal Court: US threatens sanctions |last=McKelvey |first=Tara |date=10 September 2018|publisher=[[BBC]] |access-date=10 September 2018 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20180910212031/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45474864 |archive-date=10 September 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Office of Public Counsel for the Defence ===
Concerning the independent Office of Public Counsel for the Defence (OPCD), Thomas Lubanga's defence team say they were given a smaller budget than the Prosecutor and that evidence and witness statements were slow to arrive.<ref name="cfr"/>

===Impartiality===
The International Criminal Court is often "critiqued for being selective, or imperialistic, or reflecting the geopolitical interests of powerful states," says Sarah Knuckey, a Columbia law professor. While many Western countries supported the arrest warrant for Russian President Putin, how they respond to the warrant against Israel's Netanyahu will be "a test of the genuineness of their commitment to international justice for all", she continued.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Hussain |first1=Murtaza |title=Can a U.S. Ally Actually Be Held Accountable for War Crimes in the ICC?|url=https://theintercept.com/2024/05/20/icc-arrest-warrant-israel-hamas/ |agency=The Intercept |date=20 May 2024}}</ref>

Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported that the ICC's prosecutor team takes no account of the roles played by the government in the conflict of Uganda, Rwanda or Congo. This led to a flawed investigation, because the ICC did not reach the conclusion of its verdict after considering the governments' position and actions in the conflict.<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Scharf|first=Michael |url=http://publicinternationallawandpolicygroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/WCPW-040416.html|title=Contents |magazine=War Crimes Prosecution Watch|volume=11|issue=2 |date=4 April 2016|access-date=16 September 2016 |via=Publicinternationallawandpolicygroup.org|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170129213001/http://www.publicinternationallawandpolicygroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/WCPW-040416.html |archive-date=29 January 2017}}{{Failed verification|date=July 2022}}</ref>

=== Unintentional consequences ===
Research indicates that prosecutions of leaders who are culpable of international crimes in the ICC makes them less likely to peacefully step down, which can prolong conflicts and incentivize them to make continued use of mass violence.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Krcmaric|first=Daniel |title=The Justice Dilemma: Leaders and Exile in an Era of Accountability|date=2020|publisher=Cornell University Press|isbn=978-1-5017-5021-2 |jstor=10.7591/j.ctvrs90j0}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |title=The Role of Domestic Opposition and International Justice Regimes in Peaceful Transitions of Power |journal=Journal of Conflict Resolution |volume=60 |issue=7 |date=12 February 2015 |issn=0022-0027 |pages=1191–1218 |doi=10.1177/0022002714567946 |first1=Monika |last1=Nalepa |first2=Emilia Justyna |last2=Powell |author-link2=Emilia Justyna Powell |s2cid=147312685}}</ref> It is also argued that there is little evidence that international criminal prosecution practically fosters peace: "the ICC has been used as a means of intervention in ongoing conflicts with the expectation that the indictments, arrests, and trials of elite perpetrators have deterrence and preventive effects for atrocity crimes. Despite these legitimate intentions and great expectations, there is little evidence of the efficacy of justice as a means to peace".<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Tiemessen |first=Alana |title=The International Criminal Court and the lawfare of judicial intervention |magazine=International Relations |volume=30 |issue=4 |date=December 2016}}</ref>

=== State cooperation ===
That the ICC cannot mount successful cases without state cooperation is problematic for several reasons. It means that the ICC acts inconsistently in its selection of cases, is prevented from taking on hard cases and loses legitimacy.<ref name=":0">
{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/28/last-week-the-international-criminal-court-convicted-a-war-criminal-and-that-revealed-one-of-the-iccs-weaknesses/|title=Last week, the International Criminal Court convicted a war criminal. And that revealed one of the ICC's weaknesses.|last1=Hillebrecht|first1=Courtney|date=28 March 2016|last2=Straus|first2=Scott|newspaper=The Washington Post|issn=0190-8286|access-date=28 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160328214446/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/28/last-week-the-international-criminal-court-convicted-a-war-criminal-and-that-revealed-one-of-the-iccs-weaknesses/|archive-date=28 March 2016|url-status=live}}
</ref> It also gives the ICC less deterrent value, as potential perpetrators of war crimes know that they can avoid ICC judgment by taking over government and refusing to cooperate.<ref name=":0" />

=== Principle of complementarity ===
The Rome Statute's principle of complementarity (that the Court will only prosecute if states are unwilling or unable to) is often taken for granted in the legal analysis of international criminal law and its jurisprudence. Initially the thorny issue of the actual application of the complementarity principle arose in 2008, when [[William Schabas]] published his influential paper.{{Clarify|reason=Influential paper about what? What influence did it have, and on whom?|date=November 2024}}<ref>{{Cite journal | doi=10.1007/s10609-007-9054-5|title = 'Complementarity in practice': Some uncomplimentary thoughts| journal=Criminal Law Forum| volume=19| pages=5–33|year = 2008|last1 = Schabas|first1 = William A.|s2cid = 144796686}}</ref> No substantive research was made by other scholars on this issue for quite some time. In June 2017, Victor Tsilonis advanced the same criticism which is reinforced by events, practices of the Office of the Prosecutor and ICC cases in the Essays in Honour of [[Nestor Courakis]]. His paper essentially argues that the Αl‐Senussi case arguably is the first instance of the complementarity principle's actual implementation eleven whole years after the ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.<ref>
{{Cite web |url=http://crime-in-crisis.com/en/?p=305 |title=Victor Tsilonis, "The Awakening Hypothesis of the Complementarity Principle", in C.D. Spinellis, Nikolaos Theodorakis, Emmanouil Billis, George Papadimitrakopoulos (eds.), Europe in Crisis: Crime, Criminal Justice and the Way Forward, Essays in Honour of Nestor Courakis, Volume II: Essays in English, French, German, and Italian, (Athens: Ant. N. Sakkoulas Publications), (2017), pp. 1257–1303. |access-date=25 July 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170812055852/http://crime-in-crisis.com/en/?p=305 |archive-date=12 August 2017 |url-status=live}}
</ref>

On the other hand, in 2017, Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda invoked the principle of complementarity in the situation between Russia and Georgia in the [[Ossetia]] region.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.icc‐cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2015_19375.PDF |title=Situation in Georgia, Public Document with Confidential...|pages=132–133, 150–151 |date=10 April 2017}}{{dead link|date=May 2024}}</ref> Moreover, following the threats of certain African states (initially Burundi, Gambia and South Africa) to withdraw their ratifications, Bensouda again referred to the principle of complementarity as a core principle of ICC's jurisdiction and has more extensively focused on the principle's application on the latest Office of The Prosecutor's Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2016.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, regarding the situation in the Kasaï provinces, Democratic Republic of the Congo |url=https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-prosecutor-international-criminal-court-fatou-bensouda-regarding-situation-kasai |access-date=2023-09-30 |website=International Criminal Court}}</ref>

Some advocates have suggested that the ICC go "beyond complementarity" and systematically support national capacity for prosecutions.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Concannon |first=Brian |date=1 October 2000 |title=Beyond Complementarity: The International Criminal Court and National Prosecutions, A View from Haiti – Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2000 |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2719650 |access-date=29 September 2023 |website=ssrn.com|ssrn=2719650 }}</ref> They argue that national prosecutions, where possible, are more cost-effective, preferable to victims and more sustainable.

===Jurisdiction over corporations===
There is a debate on whether the ICC should have jurisdiction over [[corporation]]s that violate international law.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kyriakakis |first1=Joanna |title=Corporations before International Criminal Courts: Implications for the International Criminal Justice Project |journal=Leiden Journal of International Law |date=March 2017 |volume=30 |issue=1 |pages=221–240 |doi=10.1017/S0922156516000650 |s2cid=152031365 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law/article/abs/corporations-before-international-criminal-courts-implications-for-the-international-criminal-justice-project/B1B861A5B2E55EE9CA1B96A30D0D1FD4|issn=0922-1565|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Supporters argue that corporations can and do commit human rights violations,<ref name ="carrillo-santarelli">{{cite web |last1=Carrillo-Santarelli |first1=Nicolás |title=Corporate Human Rights Obligations: Controversial but necessary |url=https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/blog/corporate-human-rights-obligations-controversial-but-necessary/ |website=Business & Human Rights Resource Centre |access-date=18 June 2021}}</ref> such as war crimes linked to raw materials in conflict zones.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Graff |first1=Julia |year=2004 |title=Corporate War Criminals and the International Criminal Court: Blood and Profits in the Democratic Republic of Congo |url=https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1357&context=hrbrief |journal=Human Rights Brief |volume=11 |issue=2 |pages=23–26 |access-date=18 June 2021}}</ref> Critics argue that prosecuting corporations would compromise the principle of complementarity,<ref>{{cite SSRN |last1=Kyriakakis |first1=Joanna |title=Corporations and the International Criminal Court: The Complementarity Objection Stripped Bare |date=2007-06-01 |ssrn=2309162}}</ref> that it would give corporations excessive power under international law, or that it would compromise voluntary initiatives by companies.<ref name ="carrillo-santarelli"/> [[John Ruggie]] has argued that jurisdiction of corporations under international law should be limited to international crimes, while Nicolás Carrillo-Santarelli of [[University of La Sabana|La Sabana University]] argues that it should cover all human rights violations.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Bernaz |first1=Nadia |title=Including Corporate Criminal Liability for International Crimes in the Business and Human Rights Treaty: Necessary but Insufficient |url=https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/blog/including-corporate-criminal-liability-for-international-crimes-in-the-business-and-human-rights-treaty-necessary-but-insufficient/ |website=Business & Human Rights Resource Centre |access-date=18 June 2021}}</ref>

Despite its lack of jurisdiction, the ICC announced in 2016 that it would prioritize criminal cases linked to land grabbing, illegal resource extraction, or [[environmental degradation]] caused by corporate activity.<ref>{{cite news |title=International Criminal Court to prosecute business and human rights |url=https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/latest-thinking/international-criminal-court-to-prosecute-business-and-human-rights |access-date=18 June 2021 |work=[[Herbert Smith Freehills]] |date=2016-11-02}}</ref> The proposed crime of [[ecocide]] would have jurisdiction over corporations as well as governments.<ref name="time">{{cite news |date=19 February 2021 |title=Lawyers Are Working to Put 'Ecocide' on Par with War Crimes. Could an International Law Hold Major Polluters to Account?|magazine=Time |url=https://time.com/5940759/ecocide-law-environment-destruction-icc/ |access-date=18 June 2021}}</ref> Supporters of criminalizing ecocide argue that it would shift the ICC's priorities away from Africa, since most [[environmental degradation]] is caused by states and corporations in the Global North.<ref name="time" />{{Failed verification|date=November 2024|reason=The article does not say "most environmental degradation is caused by states and corporations in the Global North," it says "powerful white men...are often disproportionately represented in extractive industries," and this text includes a bewildering hyperlink (as a source, in the typical manner of online news media) to statistics about the overall racial makeup of laborers in various U.S. industries.|talk=Ecocide would shift priorities toward the Global North?}}