Pablo Pareja: "Trump presents the International Criminal Court judges as progressive people who want to impose their agenda on them"

BarcelonaThe United States continues its offensive to dismantle the International Criminal Court through sanctions and a major media campaign. We discuss this with Pablo Pareja, an expert in international relations and international law at UPF.

The US has announced that they want to dismantle the ICC. Why now?

— Trump saw a window of opportunity on the eve of the midterm elections and made a political calculation: he can criticize the court for appealing his domestic hearing and, at the same time, knows that the response of the court's defenders will be more moderate due to the context. But, above all, he has anticipated some rulings that the court should announce in the coming months that could splash Washington's and its allies' interests.

What resolutions?

— No escapes to anyone that Marco Rubio's first criticisms of the court coincided with South Africa's accusation against Israel for genocide before the International Court of Justice. And now, faced with the possibility of rulings being issued that could affect Israel, we are seeing a second wave of attacks. In any case, the rulings are the pretext, but Trump's animosity towards multilateralism and international law is structural and has been for a long time.

What authority do the United States have to impose sanctions on members of the International Criminal Court, of which they are not a part?

— More than "sanctions" in the strict legal sense, I would speak of a set of hostile actions towards the court. Within their sovereignty, they can – as they have done – prohibit judges from entering or freeze their funds in North American entities. And they threaten to expand them, for example, by preventing them from flying with North American airlines or prohibiting companies from the country from hiring them. Since the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute, they cannot launch an offensive from within; what they do is progressively weaken the court's legitimacy from the outside.

Marco Rubio has gone so far as to call the court foreign bureaucrats who want to take away the freedoms of the USA.

— Rubio's narrative seeks to undermine the ICC's credibility by attacking one of the pillars of the international order as we know it. He presents the judges as "progressive and cosmopolitan people" who want to impose an agenda on the United States, and criticizes that it cannot be that foreign citizens decide on national matters. With such statements, the average American is left with the idea that these tribunals "trample on the sovereignty of countries." The campaign's slogan is "America first" and international order second.

What does it mean for international law to sanction judges and prosecutors? Should we think they will back down?

— Judges are people and do not live outside of debates or pressures, but the court has safeguards. It is a collegiate body of eighteen judges and the pressure does not fall on a single one. And at the same time, we are talking about an elite of judges with a very long track record who already have "thick skin" against threats. However, the precedent is dangerous. It is a different offensive from previous ones – against the UN or the WHO – because it does not question any multilateral organization, but the very judicial and oversight function of international tribunals. If you equate judges to a political actor, the rule of law falters. Furthermore, it must be taken into account that the ICC only judges very specific crimes (war, genocide, crimes against humanity, and aggression). If we destroy this, we are saying that the great powers are above international law.

Is this aggressive turn against the ICC exclusive to the Trump administration or does it come from before?

— None of the administrations of the United States in the last twenty years has made a firm defense of the ICC, not even Obama's. Therefore, we would not be talking about a rupture of foreign policy, but rather an increase in aggressive tone and an intensification of strategy. Until now the stance was "I will not cooperate or I will ignore it", but now it is different: there is an acceleration, the intention to torpedo the court to undermine its credibility.

Trump has called on third countries to withdraw support from the tribunal. Is he trying to fracture the world order?

— In this second term, Donald Trump is infinitely more aggressive. The US is behaving like the bully of the class, who ignores the rules and applies the law of the strongest. But he has not calibrated well. This may earn him a certain credibility with other powers that act similarly, like Russia or China, but it makes him lose connection with the majority of the countries in the world. Trump overlooks that the great powers of the world are a minority: of the almost 193 states, 124 are members of the agreement.

What tools does the TPI have to defend itself from this pressure?

— The court is a bit tied up because it does not have the media power that the United States government has. Its best defense is to continue operating with the usual autonomy and independence.

What should be the role of the European Union or the countries that defend the court in the face of this attack?

— The US chooses the ICC precisely because they know that the response from defending countries will be rather lukewarm or moderate. The EU is exhausted from picking battles and does not want to get into a scuffle with Washington nor let them set the narrative for global dialogue. And the same applies to the rest of the countries. The US is shooting left and right (opening fronts in Ukraine, Venezuela, and Cuba) to force allies to choose which battles they fight and thus favor their negotiating position.

Does this attack risk the definitive death of the ICC, as some analysts suggest?

— Let's not rush. The construction of international institutions is never a linear process; it has steps forward and steps backward. Furthermore, the US presidency will not last forever. This attack, in fact, could generate a defensive reaction and cause the 124 member countries to rally together. I would find it serious if countries like Germany, France, or Spain began to abandon the Rome Statute, butif it all remains at this level of external pressure, I believe the ICC will be able to weather this crisis.