International Criminal Court

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

14:51

Asked by

[Lord Teverson]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the future of the International Criminal Court.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Wood of Anfield) (Lab)]

My Lords, support for international criminal justice and accountability is a fundamental element of the UK’s foreign policy. The International Criminal Court is the primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern, holding perpetrators to account and achieving justice for victims. The ICC, as everyone knows, is going through a particularly challenging period, and the UK stands alongside our fellow ICC states parties in supporting and vending the independence, impartiality and integrity of the court.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, first, I welcome very much the prompt statement by the UK, together with seven other nations, in support of the ICC, following the assault by sanctions on not just the ICC itself but its staff. What are we doing practically to make sure that the court survives in the long term, despite those sanctions led by the United States? In particular, how can we help defend those individual members of staff who are so much in the firing line of President Trump himself?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to point out the early statement. Within hours of the American announcement, we published a joint statement expressing our strong disagreement with the sanctions imposed upon the court, co-signed by the Foreign Ministers of Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the Netherlands. The noble Lord is also right to point to the need for practical support of the ICC in this period. We are offering that practical support through various things, including witness protection, sentence enforcement and commitment to internal reform processes. On UK staff, something like 50 or so staff are employed at the ICC. We are in close contact with the court and with British nationals impacted by events and these sanctions.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, if we want to speak about practical steps, I just mention to the House that, across Europe, efforts have been made to create a blocking statute. In fact, we already have our own blocking regulation: a domestic blocking regime which is capable of extension without requiring new legislation. I urge the Government to look closely at EU Council regulation 2271/96, which was modified and preserved after Brexit. It authorises the Secretary of State to amend its annex by statutory instrument to add foreign laws that have an extraterritorial application causing adverse effects. Has the Minister looked at that regulation and the way it can be used to absolutely counter what these sanctions are doing to many people who work with the court on trying to ensure accountability for those who commit international crimes?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my noble friend’s activity, commitment, passion and involvement over many years in this area. We are monitoring the impact of the sanctions and how they will be implemented and enforced. We remain in very close contact with partners, particularly European Union partners, where there are differences of view. Recently, the Vice-president of the European Commission said that we should use the next few weeks to open dialogue on how to respond to the US sanctions. Our approach is to sustain that dialogue and continue conversations with non-states parties and European allies.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, given that Russia withdrew its signature from the Rome statute in 2016, meaning that it is not a party to the International Criminal Court, what methods could be used to bring future prosecutions of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Russians in Ukraine?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises important issues on the lack of overlap between jurisdiction and the future necessity there will be to take action against individuals and organisations that commit crimes. As the noble Lord knows, we are already taking action to set up embryonic forms—which will take less embryonic forms in the future—of commissions that will do investigations. We are doing that in partnership with other countries. There will probably need to be special procedures in place for that, but we are in the lead in trying to think about the different structures that will be required.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in the context of the emasculation of the International Criminal Court, will the Minister look at the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ unanimous reports, on two occasions, calling for the extension of universal jurisdiction to fill some of the gaps that might be left? Will he work with the International Criminal Court to bring to justice Omar al-Bashir, who was indicted by the court for genocide against the people of Darfur?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a very important point and I will definitely look at the reports that he raised. We have a robust conversation on Sudan on a very regular basis. We support the active investigation into the situation in Darfur, and we raise that with the United States and other allies consistently.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, last Thursday, less than a fortnight after the US announced its vindictive sanctions, when Marco Rubio called the ICC a “rogue court” and threatened to cripple its ability to function, the European Parliament awarded the ICC the prestigious Sakharov Prize for freedom of thought, named after Andrei Sakharov, the Nobel Prize-winning Soviet physicist and dissident. The prize is a major recognition of the court’s role in upholding international law, justice and human rights. Will the Government again publicly demonstrate the UK’s support for not just the ICC but the European Parliament’s position, alongside our displeasure at US sanctions?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Lord has captured the position of the Government quite well. We are a strong supporter of an effective International Criminal Court. I hope and expect that the House will recognise that from the statement we put out in conjunction with partners. We remain committed to the Rome statute and to promoting accountability internationally for the most serious international crimes, and we are insistent that the ICC must be permitted to continue its critical work, holding perpetrators of the most horrific crimes to account.

[Baroness Prentis of Banbury (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Ukrainians are to be very much commended on the work they are doing in the war crime space during an active conflict? Will he assure me that the British Government will do all they can to continue to support them? Some 317 people have been convicted already.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I am glad that the noble Baroness brought this subject up. It is an issue that is very close to my heart. I have seen at first hand the bravery of Ukrainian officials, citizens, NGOs and others, who are collecting evidence of not just crimes but all sorts of things to do with traces of weapons use and other things for a future date, as yet unknown, when there will be some possibility of accessing justice. As she says, they are already collecting files and initiating cases at this stage. We absolutely support that work and will do our utmost to support it in the future.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

Will my noble friend the Minister remind critics of the ICC that it brought to justice those in the Balkans who committed terrible crimes of genocide and that that should be commended? Does he agree that the remit of the ICC does not allow for the prosecution, charging and pursuance of kleptocrats responsible for terrible corruption across the world and that that is why there is a need for an international anti-corruption court?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My noble friend raises not just one but two very important points. This is the time, as he says, to stand up for, rather than think about restricting, the jurisdiction of the ICC. At a time when the court is being challenged significantly, we should not just celebrate its past achievements but recognise that they would not have been accomplished without its presence, and redouble efforts of practical support, ensuring security for the future of the court. On the issue of anti-corruption, we absolutely want greater accountability for kleptocratic crimes and illicit finance—that is a huge priority. There are different ways that this can be addressed. I know that there is a draft treaty in circulation among legal experts; I do not believe there has yet been formal consultation with officials on it. The objective of holding to account kleptocrats, as my noble friend puts it, and pathways of illicit finance, is absolutely essential.

[Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)]

My Lords, the ICC prosecutor could have sought warrants for the Hamas leaders who were behind the 7 October massacre straight away, but he waited seven months and then announced them together with warrants for Israeli elected leaders, as if the two were equivalent. This timing served to draw attention away from the misconduct which ultimately cost him his job. Does the Minister agree that this delay served the prosecutor and did not serve justice?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I am not sure I agree with the noble Lord’s framing of that question. Being a supporter of the ICC means supporting the procedures that are used and which are in conformity with the ICC statute. That applies to this case and to all other cases, as it does to the investigation and process to remove the lead prosecutor. We stand in full support of the ICC pursuing its functions with due process.