International Criminal Court: US Sanctions

Question

15:23:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking in response to the sanctions imposed by the President of the United States of America on staff working for the International Criminal Court; and whether they will confirm their commitment to the Court and its work in pursuit of justice.

My Lords, the Government have repeatedly expressed their support for the independence of the International Criminal Court, including, most recently, last week, by joining a statement together with 70 other states parties. Imposing sanctions against ICC officials impedes the court’s ability to carry out its important work of investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern. We are in contact with the US Administration and British nationals employed by the ICC to understand the possible implications of these measures.

My Lords, let me immediately thank my noble friend for his reassurance that the UK is resolute in its support for the ICC. The world will never see peace if there is no entity that will pursue justice for victims of egregious crimes. There cannot be impunity for our allies. Even now, the court is working on files to bring yet more members of Hamas to trial for the atrocities that took place on 7 October. It is assisted in this painful work by Israeli lawyers for the families of the hostages and the families of the Israeli dead. Work continues also on the investigation of potential war crimes in Gaza. Do the Government accept that this new executive order attacks the fundamentals of the court and its functioning? Will the Government inform the United States Administration in the contacts that they have that Article 70 of the Rome statute forbids the obstruction of justice? There can be no impeding of any officer of the court in carrying out their duties, and arrest warrants can follow. Will the Government advise the President of the risk he faces of an arrest warrant being issued for him?

My Lords, as my noble friend is very much aware, successive UK and US Administrations have taken a different view on the ICC. For example, the UK, as she rightly points out, is a signatory to the Rome statute; the US is not. The UK supports fully the independence of the ICC and we do not support sanctioning individual court officials. Our focus remains on ensuring that the ceasefire can be sustained, that a surge of vital aid can reach those most in need in Gaza and that all remaining hostages are released and reunited with their families. That is our goal, we are working with the US at all levels on it, and we will continue to do so.

My Lords, Israel’s judicial system is actively investigating cases of suspected misconduct by Israeli soldiers and petitions on humanitarian issues in Gaza. The ICC chief prosecutor recognised in December 2023 that the military receives independent legal advice on the legality of every air strike. The ICC complements, rather than replaces, national criminal systems, prosecuting cases only when states are unwilling or unable to do so. So, it had no authority to intervene here. Does the Minister agree with that?

Of course, I agree that where states fail to properly investigate, the ICC has a right to step in. In this case, as the noble Lord pointed out, Israel has undertaken a due and proper investigation, so I agree with the noble Lord in that particular case.

Will the Government inform Donald Trump that the forcible transfer of the population of Gaza will be an Article 7(1)(d) crime against humanity, and that under Section 2 of our own domestic International Criminal Court Act 2001, our Attorney-General has no discretion but to endorse any warrant of arrest for the President issued by the ICC for execution in the United Kingdom? That will mean no more golf for the President at Balmedie and Turnberry, and, certainly, no more cups of tea and parades with our good King Charles.

My Lords, I am going to repeat what I said. The ceasefire and the return of the hostages were negotiated with the United States with the support of the United Kingdom, and the Presidents of the United States were heavily involved in that ceasefire. Our focus is absolutely to ensure the return of all hostages, and that peace can continue in Gaza so that we can get the humanitarian aid in. That is what we are focused on. I am sorry that I do not agree with the noble Lord at all.

My Lords, in welcoming what the Minister has just said, I ask: would he not agree that one of the outstanding legacies of the Jewish lawyer, Raphael Lemkin, who saw more than 40 members of his family murdered during the Holocaust, was the creation of the international architecture that led to the Rome statute and the creation of the International Criminal Court? Would it not be better for those countries that are not members of the ICC to join the United Kingdom in becoming members of the ICC and to uphold the principles that the noble Baroness outlined? Given what the Minister said about the conversations that he is having with colleagues in the United States, when a noble Baroness such as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy—an outstanding human rights lawyer—is threatened herself with visa restrictions and even potential fines for dealing with clients who are part of the process of the International Criminal Court, must we not protest about that in the strongest possible terms?

The noble Lord is absolutely right. The ICC is the primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern. We urge all countries to support it and we urge them to sign the Rome treaty. We know that the US, whether it has a Democrat or Republican President, has refused to do so, but that does not stop us focusing on how we deal with these crimes and how we can build alliances to ensure that they do not happen again. The noble Lord is absolutely right about the rabbi. We do need international law, we need international law to be upheld and we urge all countries to do so.

My Lords, on the question my noble friend asked just now, can the Minister clarify that he would agree, as his Ministerial colleagues have agreed, that the forcible transfer of the population of Gaza would be a crime against humanity and against international law? I know that he distanced himself from some other elements of what my noble friend said, but, on that, can he clarify the Government’s position?

As the noble Baroness will recall, I absolutely made clear the position of the Government in relation to forcible removal of Gazan citizens, or Palestinians, from Gaza. I made that very clear in the recent repeat of the Urgent Question and I reassure her that our position has not changed.

My Lords, the USA is not a party to the Rome statute, which created and governs the International Criminal Court. Does the Minister agree that the USA is entitled to do as it pleases with regard to that court? Secondly, in the light of the ceasefire, is there any change to His Majesty’s Government’s position on the arrest warrant for Mr Netanyahu?

Let me begin by repeating what I have said before: we believe in international law, we support the ICC and we support the Rome treaty. We are absolutely committed to these and we urge all others to do so. But there has always been a difference between the United States’ position and the United Kingdom’s. I repeat that what we want to do is ensure that peace returns to Gaza and that full humanitarian aid can get back in, and we absolutely urge the return of all the hostages. That is our position, that is our objective and that is our aim.

My Lords, in the light of what President Trump has said—that if all Israeli hostages are not returned by noon on Saturday, all hell should let loose—can I ask the Minister what the approach of the British Government is?

The United Kingdom Government are deeply concerned about reports that Hamas has delayed the next hostage release. We want to see the continuation of ceasefire negotiations and ensure the full flow of aid and ongoing release of hostages. We must build confidence on all sides that helps sustain the ceasefire and move it from phase one through to phase three: that is our commitment. The US has played an integral role in negotiating the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, along with Qatar and Egypt. We will continue to work with the United States Administration to ensure regional security and stability, including ensuring a lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians.