Bertina Lou
Legal Fellow and Deputy Editor of the JA Blog
The International Criminal Court (ICC) Bar Association held a Judicial Independence Event on the 1st of May, 2026.
The event hosted three ICC judges, Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza, Judge Kimberly Prost, and Judge Beti Hohler, as well as Ambassador of Canada to the Netherlands, Hugh Adsett, UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Margaret Satterthwaite, and Adviser to the National Council of the Magistracy in Argentina, Dr Jimena de la Torre.
The topic of judicial independence was occasioned by a period of prolonged disruption to the ICC, the global context for which traces back to over a year ago.
Prolonged Disruptions for the ICC
Since then, Russia has found the Chief Prosecutor and eight Judges of the ICC guilty of crimes and condemned to prison sentences ranging from three and a half years to fifteen years. The acts by these two non-member countries have been
Just Access has previously written about the ICC’s struggle to uphold global justice amid sanctions as well as the effect of political pressures on creating instability and distrust of the ICC within the international justice system. In response to the ongoing sanctions, the ICC has taken steps over the past year to radically transition its daily operations, including alleviating its dependency on USA technology companies out of precaution for software being weaponised to further political objectives.
Beyond the individual sanctions being onerous for affected ICC personnel and the operational disruptions to the ICC as a whole organisation, the sanctions have potentially far-reaching consequences for the international justice ecosystem worldwide. The Coalition for the International Criminal Court recently published a report on the impacts of the USA’s sanctions in April 2026. The report linked the criminalisation of ICC-related work to a chilling effect on the participation and collaboration of NGOs, activists, and academics who fear potential reprisals, as well as to the risk of a wider chilling effect on the rule of law at a global level.
Judicial Independence and the Rule of Law
The World Justice Project defines the rule of law according to four universal principles, accountability, just law, open government, and accessible and impartial justice, which are delivered by a durable system of laws, institutions, norms, and community commitment. Judicial independence is one pillar of the rule of law. It is upheld when a judiciary decides matters based on evidence and in accordance with the law, without any improper influences, threats, or interference. Judicial independence is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, among other international legal instruments.
“Judicial independence isn’t about the judges’ prerogatives, it’s about protecting the independence of the system.” - Margaret Satterthwaite, UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers
The ongoing sanctions against the ICC have been perceived as political efforts to not only attack judicial independence through acts of intimidation towards judges aimed to influence their decision making, but also to threaten the international rule of law according to the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Ms. Satterthwaite. Judge Hohler elaborated that the measures targeting the ICC as an institution also target the very concept of international criminal justice and flout the idea that those responsible for crimes should be investigated, prosecuted, and brought before the ICC with fair proceedings. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights released press statements earlier this year urging the USA and Russia to end the politicised reprisals against judicial independence and attempts to undermine the architecture of international justice.
Despite the sanctions, the event panel unanimously agreed that the measures had no impact on how ICC judges approach their work and decision making –that is, impartially and purely on the basis of law and evidence, as required by their judicial oath.
States Parties’ Support Necessary to Uphold the International Rule of Law
Event panel members advocated for systemic ways to support judicial independence, the rule of law, and the international criminal justice system. They expressed a pressing need for States Parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC to strengthen their present support for the international institution. Panellists emphasised that the ICC is neither the judges’ court nor the prosecutors’ court, despite these personnel bearing the brunt of the sanctions. Rather, it is the States Parties’ court because States recognized the importance of creating a mechanism with independent adjudicators to end impunity and they should publicly support it, as such.
“No achievement lasts unless each generation chooses to defend it again.” - Dr Jimena de la Torre, Adviser to the National Council of the Magistracy in Argentina
According to Judge Prost, a practical measure States may take to mitigate the effects of sanctions against the ICC is to communicate within their jurisdiction that participating in sanctions imposed by non-member States is unnecessary. For example, companies are not obligated by law to comply with sanctions, and a business decision to do so represents complicity in threatening the independence of the ICC’s judiciary. Several panellists also highlighted the importance of States advancing blocking statutes to prevent the application of laws enacted by another jurisdiction, to refuse recognition of foreign court rulings that enforce the laws, and to prohibit companies in their own jurisdiction from complying with the extra-jurisdictional laws.
As an institution with both importance and flaws, the ICC engenders legitimate criticism. However, unjustifiable attacks that threaten to undermine the fundamental principles of an international legal order must be collectively resisted to uphold the international rule of law. Anything less from the States Parties risks the futility of the court of last resort they helped to create.
Support our work!
We can only do our work thanks to the support of brave, passionate people like you!
Your donation will help us to keep fighting for human rights and access to justice for everyone, everywhere.
