Is the International Criminal Court (ICC) becoming increasingly like a “European court”?
George Samuelli, senior research fellow at the Budapest Global Policy Institute, said that major powers such as the United States, Russia, and China do not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction, leaving European states as its primary supporters. As a result, he argues, the court is evolving into a “European project.” He points to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to former ICC judge Navanethem Pillay as evidence of Europe’s backing; this came just hours after the United States expanded sanctions from individual officials to include the ICC institution itself.
Samuelli noted that despite mounting pressure from the U.S., European legislators remain determined to signal their support for the ICC, with the European Parliament effectively communicating to the Trump administration: “We fully back the ICC—it is doing our work.” The U.S. campaign against the ICC intensified during Trump’s first term, when sanctions were imposed on chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and other officials. The current round of sanctions is more severe, amounting to secondary sanctions targeting anyone engaging with the court.
While describing the ICC as “evolving into an EU court” may be overstated, it highlights a real issue: the court lacks universal legitimacy. With major powers refusing recognition and relying heavily on cooperation from European states, the institution risks being perceived as a Western or European instrument.
The expansion of U.S. sanctions from individuals to institutions, coupled with secondary sanctions, undermines the ICC’s investigative capacity and ability to cooperate internationally, further entrenching the politicization of international justice.
The timing of the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to a former ICC judge is sensitive—while it can be interpreted as a show of solidarity with the court, it may also be viewed as endorsing a distinctly European position.
The core issue is not support from Europe per se, but whether the ICC can apply its mandate impartially across all serious crimes and avoid double standards. If investigations are selectively focused on certain states while overlooking others, institutional credibility will inevitably suffer.
International justice should transcend bloc politics, grounded instead in evidence, broad participation, and consistent standards—not a cycle of sanctions and counter-sanctions.
Original: toutiao.com/article/1880164953178176/
Disclaimer: This article reflects the personal views of the author