1899 → 2026 · International justice

The Court of Last Resort

How the world came to put individuals, even presidents and prime ministers, on trial for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity: from the failed trials after the First World War, through Nuremberg, Tokyo and the UN tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, to the International Criminal Court, how it works, who stays outside it, and the US sanctions of 2026.

Interactive 3D film7 min1899 to 2026Published 2026-10-12

Watch the interactive film อ่านภาษาไทย

Prologue

9 October 2026 · Oslo, Washington, The Hague

The court of last resort

On the same day, a former judge of the International Criminal Court won the Nobel Peace Prize, and the United States sanctioned the court itself.

On the ninth of October 2026, the Nobel Peace Prize went to Navi Pillay, a South African judge who once sat on the International Criminal Court.

Hours later, the United States announced sanctions against the court itself. The European Commission called them deeply regrettable.

The green countries on this globe are the court’s members: 125 of them. Some of the world’s most powerful states are not.

How did the world come to put individuals, even presidents and prime ministers, on trial for war crimes and genocide? And why is it still so contested?

Prologue · Why the news matters

A prize and a sanction on the same day

On 9 October 2026 the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize to Navanethem “Navi” Pillay for her work to promote peace and international law. She served on the UN tribunal for Rwanda and as a judge of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Hours later, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced sanctions on the ICC as an institution. US officials said the timing was a coincidence and the measures had been planned for months.

What the US measures do: Cut the court off from US financial services, technology firms and dollars
European Commission: “Deeply regrettable”
US position (Rubio): “Either the ICC will end its threats, or we will end the ICC.”

The globe is coloured by membership of the Rome Statute, the treaty that created the court, as of October 2026. This story explains where the idea came from, how the court works, and why governments disagree so sharply about it. It does not take sides.

How to use: pick a chapter below the scene or press ← → to change step · ▶ plays the step · drag to rotate, scroll or pinch to zoom · “Play the film” runs every step full-screen.

Sources: Al Jazeera, 9 Oct 2026; AP via ITV News, 9 Oct 2026; Reuters via Khaleej Times, 9 Oct 2026; Euronews, 9 Oct 2026; APA, 9 Oct 2026

Chapter I · Before the law

1899 and 1907 · The Hague

Rules for war, but no judge

Governments agreed for the first time on written rules for how wars may be fought. Nobody could be put on trial for breaking them.

In 1899, and again in 1907, governments met in The Hague and signed the first multilateral treaties on how war may be fought.

They covered prisoners of war, the wounded, poison weapons, looting and the bombardment of undefended towns.

But the rules bound states, not people. The one court the conferences created, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, is a voluntary forum for disputes between states.

A general who ordered a massacre could be blamed. He could not be tried by any international court.

Chapter I · Step 1 · 1899 and 1907

Rules for war, but no judge

The two Hague Peace Conferences produced, with the Geneva Convention of 1864, the first formal statements of the laws of war. Much of their 1907 regulations is now treated as customary law that binds every state, whether or not it signed. What they did not do was make individual leaders answerable before an international court.

1863 The Lieber Code for Union forces in the US Civil War, a model for later treaties
18 May 1899 The First Hague Conference opens
18 Oct 1907 The Second Conference’s treaties are signed
1915 A third conference was planned but never held: the First World War had begun

International law at the time was a law between states. Holding individuals personally responsible came only with Nuremberg, which legal historians call “the true beginning of international criminal law”.

Sources: Wikipedia: Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907; Wikipedia: Nuremberg trials

1919–1921 · Versailles and Leipzig

The trial that never happened

After the First World War the victors promised to try the German emperor. He was never tried, and almost nobody else was either.

After the First World War, the Allies set out a new idea: defeated leaders should face criminal charges.

The Treaty of Versailles called for a special tribunal to try the former German emperor, Kaiser Wilhelm the Second. He had fled to the Netherlands, which refused to hand him over.

The Allies drew up a list of about nine hundred suspects. Germany refused to extradite them and offered its own Supreme Court in Leipzig instead.

Only twelve people were tried, in 1921. At the time the trials were widely seen as a failure.

Chapter I · Step 2 · 1919–1921

The trial that never happened

In January 1919 the Paris Peace Conference set up a Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War. Articles 227–230 of the Treaty of Versailles provided for a special tribunal for the former Kaiser and for Allied military trials of German suspects.

The Netherlands declined to extradite Wilhelm II, citing its neutrality. He lived at Doorn until his death in 1941.
In February 1920 the Allies sent Germany a list of 900 names. Germany refused to hand anyone over.
The list was cut to 45. In the end only 12 people from the lists were tried, before Germany’s Supreme Court in Leipzig, with mixed results.

The UN War Crimes Commission later blamed slow action, divided Allies, an immature international scene and poor drafting. In the longer term, some historians see the trials as a first step toward prosecuting violations of international law.

Sources: Wikipedia: Leipzig war crimes trials; Wikipedia: Commission of Responsibilities

Chapter II · Nuremberg and Tokyo

20 November 1945 – 1 October 1946 · Nuremberg

Power pays tribute to Reason

Four victorious powers put 22 leaders of Nazi Germany on trial, and established that individuals, not just states, can be guilty of crimes under international law.

In 1945 Britain at first preferred to execute the Nazi leaders without trial. The United States insisted on a court.

France, the Soviet Union, Britain and the United States each named two judges. Twenty-two men were tried for crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Interpreters translated every word, live, between English, French, Russian and German. It was the first use of simultaneous interpretation.

Twelve were sentenced to death, seven to prison, and three were acquitted. Critics point out that only the defeated side was tried. Supporters see the trial as the true beginning of international criminal law.

Chapter II · Step 3 · 1945–1946

The International Military Tribunal

The Nuremberg Charter, signed in London on 8 August 1945, defined three crimes: crimes against peace (planning and waging aggressive war), war crimes, and crimes against humanity. It said that being head of state was no shield (Article 7) and that following orders was no defence, though it could reduce a sentence (Article 8).

Judges: 4 + 4
Defendants: 22
Verdicts: 12 death · 7 prison · 3 acquitted
Criminal organisations: 4

US prosecutor Robert H. Jackson called the decision to give the defeated a trial “one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason”. The verdict called aggressive war “the supreme international crime”.

Two criticisms have lasted: only the defeated side was tried, and aggression had not been a crime for individuals before the Charter. Use the button on the scene to show the verdicts; the dotted figure is Bormann, tried in absentia.

Source: Wikipedia: Nuremberg trials

29 April 1946 – 12 November 1948 · Tokyo

Eleven nations on one bench

The Tokyo tribunal tried Japan’s wartime leaders for more than twice as long as Nuremberg.

In Tokyo, judges from eleven countries that had fought Japan tried twenty-eight of its military and political leaders.

The court looked back as far as the invasion of Manchuria in 1931. The trial lasted two and a half years.

Seven defendants were sentenced to death, sixteen to life imprisonment and two to shorter terms. Two died during the trial and one was found unfit.

After Tokyo, no new international war crimes court would be created for more than forty years.

Chapter II · Step 4 · 1946–1948

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East

General Douglas MacArthur established the tribunal by proclamation, with a charter modelled on Nuremberg’s. Its judges came from Australia, Canada, China, France, India, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Defendants: 28
Sentenced to death: 7
Life imprisonment: 16
Shorter terms: 2

All defendants still on trial at the end were found guilty of at least one count. The Indian judge, Radhabinod Pal, and the Dutch judge, Bert Röling, were among those who wrote separate opinions; Röling argued five defendants should have been acquitted. International war crimes tribunals did not appear again until 1993.

Source: Wikipedia: International Military Tribunal for the Far East

Chapter III · Naming the crimes

1944–1950

A word for the worst crime

A Polish lawyer who had fled the Nazis invented a word for the attempt to destroy a whole people: genocide.

Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jewish lawyer, introduced the word genocide in a 1944 book: from the Greek genos, meaning a people or tribe, and the Latin cide, killing. He lost forty-nine relatives in the Holocaust.

On the ninth of December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted the Genocide Convention.

In 1949 the four Geneva Conventions set out how the wounded, prisoners and civilians must be treated, and named the gravest breaches as war crimes.

Together with crimes against humanity and aggression from Nuremberg, these became the four pillars of international criminal law.

Chapter III · Step 5 · 1944–1950

Four crimes, one by one

Lemkin introduced the word in his 1944 book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe and then campaigned for a treaty. The Genocide Convention defines genocide as acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”, and says leaders must be tried like anyone else.

War crimesHague 1899/1907; Geneva Conventions, 12 Aug 1949 (ratified by 196 countries) Crimes against humanityNuremberg Charter 1945: murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation… GenocideWord 1944; Convention 9 Dec 1948, in force 1951; 154 parties Aggression“Crimes against peace” at Nuremberg Only defined for the ICC at Kampala in 2010; the court could prosecute it from 17 July 2018

In 1946 the UN General Assembly affirmed the principles of the Nuremberg Charter, and in 1950 the International Law Commission wrote them down. Principle III: acting as head of state “does not relieve him from responsibility under international law”.

Sources: Wikipedia: Raphael Lemkin; Wikipedia: Genocide Convention; Wikipedia: Geneva Conventions; Wikipedia: Nuremberg principles; Wikipedia: Crime of aggression

1950s–1989

Shelved

The plan for a permanent world criminal court was ready by the early 1950s. Then it sat in a drawer for almost four decades.

In 1948 the UN General Assembly first recognised the need for a permanent international criminal court.

The International Law Commission drafted two statutes by the early 1950s. The Cold War made such a court politically unrealistic, and the drafts were shelved.

In 1989 Trinidad and Tobago revived the idea, proposing a court to deal with the illegal drug trade. The UN asked for a new draft.

Before it was finished, war in Europe and genocide in Africa forced the Security Council to act.

Chapter III · Step 6 · 1950s–1994

The long pause

During the Cold War a permanent international criminal court was politically unrealistic, and the drafts stayed on the shelf. Advocates kept the idea alive, among them Benjamin Ferencz, who had been chief US prosecutor at one of the later Nuremberg trials.

1948 UN General Assembly recognises the need for a permanent court
early 1950s Two draft statutes by the International Law Commission, then shelved
Jun 1989 A. N. R. Robinson of Trinidad and Tobago proposes a court for drug trafficking
1994 Final draft statute presented to the General Assembly

On the globe: Trinidad and Tobago, highlighted, and the United Nations in New York.

Source: Wikipedia: International Criminal Court

Chapter IV · Two tribunals

25 May 1993 · The Hague

The first since Nuremberg

As war tore Yugoslavia apart, the UN Security Council created a court to try those responsible, while the fighting was still going on.

In May 1993 the UN Security Council set up the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, in The Hague.

It could try genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed there since 1991. It indicted 161 people, from soldiers to presidents.

In July 1995 more than eight thousand Bosniak men and boys were killed around Srebrenica. The tribunal ruled it genocide.

Slobodan Milošević became the first sitting head of state charged by an international tribunal. He died in 2006, before a verdict. Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić were convicted of genocide.

Chapter IV · Step 7 · 1993–2017

The tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

Created by Security Council Resolution 827 on 25 May 1993, the ICTY was the first international war crimes tribunal since Tokyo. Its maximum sentence was life imprisonment. The last of its fugitives was arrested in 2011.

Indicted: 161
Trials completed: 111
Srebrenica, July 1995: > 8,000
Closed: 31 Dec 2017

1999 Milošević indicted while president of Yugoslavia; his trial (2002–2006) ended with his death
2016 Karadžić convicted of genocide at Srebrenica; life sentence on appeal in 2019
2017 Mladić convicted of genocide on 22 November

Sources: Wikipedia: ICTY; Wikipedia: Trial of Slobodan Milošević; Wikipedia: Srebrenica massacre; Wikipedia: Radovan Karadžić

2 September 1998 · Arusha, Tanzania

The first genocide verdict

Fifty years after the Genocide Convention, an international court applied it for the first time.

In about a hundred days in 1994, more than eight hundred thousand Tutsi and moderate Hutu were murdered in Rwanda.

In November that year, the Security Council created a second tribunal, which sat in Arusha, Tanzania.

Its first trial was of Jean-Paul Akayesu, the mayor of a town called Taba. On the second of September 1998 he was found guilty of genocide.

One of the three judges was Navi Pillay. The judgment found that rape and sexual violence can be acts of genocide. Pillay said: rape is no longer a trophy of war.

Chapter IV · Step 8 · 1994–2015

Rwanda and the Akayesu judgment

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Resolution 955, November 1994) covered crimes in 1994. Trial Chamber I, made up of judges Laïty Kama (presiding), Lennart Aspegren and Navanethem Pillay, convicted Akayesu on 9 of 15 counts. It was the first interpretation and application of the 1948 Genocide Convention by an international court. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Convicted: 61
Acquitted: 14
Navi Pillay at the ICTR: 8 years, 4 as president

The tribunal was widely criticised for not prosecuting crimes committed by the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) or trying its leader, Paul Kagame; some called this “victor’s justice”.

Sources: Wikipedia: ICTR; Wikipedia: Jean-Paul Akayesu; Wikipedia: Navi Pillay

Chapter V · Rome

17 July 1998 · Rome

120 to 7

After five weeks of negotiation, a diplomatic conference adopted a treaty for a permanent International Criminal Court.

On the seventeenth of July 1998, at a UN conference in Rome, 120 countries voted for the treaty. Seven voted against and twenty-one abstained.

There is no official record of who voted no, but China, Israel and the United States have said they did.

The court needed sixty ratifications. On the eleventh of April 2002, ten countries ratified together at the UN, pushing the total past sixty.

On the first of July 2002 the Rome Statute came into force. The court can only judge crimes committed from that date on.

Watch the map fill in. Use the buttons to jump through time.

Chapter V · Step 9 · 1998–2026

The Rome Statute

The 1998 Rome conference turned the old drafts into a treaty. States could sign until 31 December 2000; 139 did. Signing shows intent; only ratifying makes a state a member, or “state party”.

Vote, 17 Jul 1998: 120 – 7 – 21
Ratifications needed: 60
In force: 1 Jul 2002
First judges sworn in: 11 Mar 2003

state party signed, not ratified withdrew signature left the court notified withdrawal

Use the buttons on the scene, or drag the slider under it, to move through time. Small island states are drawn as dots.

Dates are from the UN treaty depositary as compiled on Wikipedia. Each country is coloured from the date it ratified; for most early members the treaty itself took effect on 1 July 2002. Dependent territories follow their governing state; disputed territories are left grey.

Sources: Wikipedia: Rome Statute; Wikipedia: States parties to the Rome Statute; Wikipedia: International Criminal Court; Natural Earth via world-atlas (country outlines)

Chapter VI · How the court works

The Hague · since 2002

A court of last resort

The ICC does not replace national courts. It steps in only when they cannot or will not act.

The court has eighteen judges, an independent prosecutor and a registry. It judges four crimes: war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression.

A case can start in three ways: a member state refers a situation, the UN Security Council refers one, or the prosecutor opens an investigation with the judges’ permission.

Usually the crime must have happened on a member’s territory, or been committed by a member’s national. A Security Council referral can reach any country.

Then comes the key test: complementarity. If national courts are genuinely investigating, the case stays with them.

Chapter VI · Step 10 · How the court works

Who can be tried, and when

The ICC tries people, not states. That makes it different from the International Court of Justice, the UN court that hears disputes between governments. Under Article 27 of the Rome Statute, official position, even as head of state, gives no immunity.

Triggers (Article 13): a referral by a state party, a referral by the UN Security Council, or an investigation the Prosecutor opens with Pre-Trial Chamber authorisation.
Jurisdiction (Article 12): crimes on the territory of a state party, or by a national of one. A non-member can accept jurisdiction by declaration; Ukraine did this before joining.
Admissibility (Article 17): a case is inadmissible if a state with jurisdiction is investigating it, “unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely” to do so.

Judges: 18
Security Council referrals: 2

Sources: Rome Statute, full text (Wikisource); Wikipedia: International Criminal Court; Wikipedia: ICC investigations

From suspicion to verdict

How a case moves

Each stage demands stronger evidence. And one stage depends entirely on governments.

Follow one case. The prosecutor first needs a reasonable basis to believe a crime was committed, then investigates, collecting evidence for and against the suspect.

Judges issue an arrest warrant if there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is responsible. A warrant is not a verdict.

Then the hardest step. The court has no police force. It depends on states to make the arrest, and many suspects are never handed over.

Before a trial, judges must find substantial grounds for the charges. To convict, guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The accused must be present, so there are no trials in absentia.

The maximum sentence is thirty years, or life in the most serious cases. Both sides can appeal.

Chapter VI · Step 11 · Interactive

How a case moves

The bars beside each stage show the evidence threshold rising. Everyone is presumed innocent until proved guilty (Article 66).

Preliminary examination: jurisdiction, gravity, complementarity. Threshold: “reasonable basis to believe” (Art. 53).
Investigation: the Prosecutor must collect and disclose evidence that incriminates and exonerates.
Arrest warrant or summons: “reasonable grounds to believe” (Art. 58).
Arrest and surrender by a state. The ICC “relies on cooperation with countries worldwide … particularly for making arrests”.
Confirmation of charges: “substantial grounds to believe” (Art. 61).
Trial before three judges; the accused must be present (Art. 63); victims can take part.
Verdict: guilt “beyond reasonable doubt” (Art. 66). Penalty up to 30 years, or life (Art. 77); reparations for victims.
Appeal by either side.

Use the buttons on the scene to move the case one stage at a time, or see what happens when no state makes the arrest.

Sources: Rome Statute, full text (Wikisource); ICC: How the Court works

2005–2026

Warrants are not verdicts

The court has issued dozens of arrest warrants, including for sitting leaders. Far fewer cases have reached a verdict.

The first warrants, in 2005, were for Joseph Kony and other leaders of Uganda’s Lord’s Resistance Army. Kony has never been caught.

In 2009 Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir became the first sitting head of state indicted by the court. In 2023 judges issued a warrant for Russia’s president Vladimir Putin; in 2024, for Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant. None of them has been handed over to the court.

In March 2025 the Philippines arrested former president Rodrigo Duterte and handed him to the court. His charges were confirmed in April 2026, and a trial date of thirtieth November has been set, subject to a ruling on his fitness.

So far the court counts eleven convictions and four acquittals. Twenty people remain at large.

Chapter VI · Step 12 · Cases and warrants

Where some well-known cases stand

A warrant means judges found “reasonable grounds to believe” a person committed a crime. It is not a finding of guilt; every suspect is presumed innocent.

2005 Joseph Kony (Uganda, LRA): warrant; at large
2009 Omar al-Bashir, then president of Sudan: warrants in 2009 and 2010; not surrendered to the court
2012 Thomas Lubanga (DR Congo): first ICC conviction, recruiting child soldiers; 14 years, served
2021 Dominic Ongwen (Uganda): convicted of 61 crimes; 25 years
2021 Laurent Gbagbo, former president of Côte d’Ivoire: acquitted
2023 Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova: alleged unlawful deportation and transfer of children from occupied Ukraine. Russia is not a member; it withdrew its signature in 2016
2024 Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant: alleged war crime of starvation as a method of warfare and crimes against humanity during the Gaza war. Israel challenged the court’s jurisdiction, and the prime minister’s office called the warrants antisemitic
2025 Haibatullah Akhundzada and Abdul Hakim Haqqani (Taliban): alleged crimes against humanity against Afghan women and girls; at large
2026 Rodrigo Duterte: in custody since March 2025; charges of murder and attempted murder as crimes against humanity confirmed on 23 April 2026; trial set for 30 November 2026, subject to a ruling on his fitness

Convictions: 11
Acquittals: 4
Arrest warrants issued: 49
People at large: 20

Sources: ICC: About the Court; Wikipedia: People indicted by the ICC; ICC press release, 17 Mar 2023; Wikipedia: ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders; Wikipedia: Arrest of Rodrigo Duterte; Human Rights Watch, 23 Apr 2026; DZRH News, 27 May 2026

Chapter VII · Inside and outside

Signed, unsigned, never signed

The empty chairs

Three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are not members of the court.

125 countries are members of the court. Most of Europe, Latin America and much of Africa have joined.

The United States signed in 2000, then told the UN in 2002 that it did not intend to ratify. Russia signed, and withdrew its signature in 2016. China and India never signed.

Their reasons differ. China has argued the court weakens state sovereignty and gives the prosecutor too much power. India objected, among other things, to the Security Council’s role.

Thailand signed in October 2000 and has not ratified. Two countries have left: Burundi in 2017 and the Philippines in 2019.

Chapter VII · Step 13 · Members and non-members

Who is in, and who is not

States parties: 125
Signed, not ratified: 29
Never signed or joined: 41
Left the court: 2

Stated reasons for staying out

US Concern that US soldiers and officials could face the court without US consent; a 2002 law, the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, blocks US funding of the court
China Sovereignty; complementarity lets the court judge national courts; prosecutor’s powers; aggression may weaken the Security Council
India Abstained in 1998: broad definition of crimes against humanity, Security Council powers, nuclear weapons not explicitly covered
Israel Fears political pressure on the court; objects to treating settlement in occupied territory as a war crime

The UN Security Council’s permanent members are China, France, Russia, the UK and the US; only France and the UK are ICC members. Any one of the five can veto a Security Council referral to the court.

Sources: Wikipedia: States parties to the Rome Statute; Wikipedia: United States and the ICC; UN Charter, Chapter V

The debate

Justice for whom?

Critics say the court has targeted the weak and cannot touch the strong. Supporters say it has done what governments themselves asked.

The coloured countries are where the court has opened investigations, eighteen situations so far, coloured by who started them.

The first nine were all in Africa. In 2013 an African Union summit concluded that serving heads of state should not be put on trial. In 2025 the leaders of Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger called it an instrument of neo-colonialist repression.

Supporters answer that five of the African investigations were requested by the governments themselves, and two by the Security Council. Since 2016 most new investigations have been outside Africa.

The deeper problem is arrests. When indicted leaders travel to member states, those states have not always arrested them.

Chapter VII · Step 14 · Criticism and defence

Justice for whom?

referred by a member state referred by the UN Security Council opened by the Prosecutor

Critics argue

Africa 10 of 18 situations are in Africa; until 2016 every investigation was. Several African governments have called this bias
Power The strongest states stay outside, and permanent Security Council members can veto referrals
Results 11 convictions in more than two decades, for a 2024 budget of about €187 million
Sovereignty US President Trump at the UN in 2018: “As far as America is concerned, the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority.”

Supporters argue

Consent Uganda, DR Congo, the Central African Republic (twice) and Mali referred themselves; Darfur and Libya came from the Security Council
Reach Investigations now include Georgia, Ukraine, Palestine, Afghanistan, Venezuela, the Philippines, Bangladesh/Myanmar and Belarus
Last resort The court acts only where national courts will not; no one is immune because of office

Enforcement examples: South Africa did not arrest al-Bashir when he visited; Hungary hosted Netanyahu in April 2025 and announced it would leave (it reversed this in May 2026); Tajikistan hosted Putin in October 2025, and the court made a formal finding of non-compliance.

Sources: Wikipedia: ICC investigations; Wikipedia: States parties to the Rome Statute; Institute for Security Studies, 2012; Wikipedia: United States and the ICC; ICC: About the Court

2025–2026

The pressure campaign

Washington has moved from sanctioning individual judges and prosecutors to sanctioning the court itself.

In February 2025 the US president signed an order allowing sanctions on people involved in ICC cases against Americans or allies such as Israel. Judges and prosecutors were sanctioned through 2025.

Between June and September 2026, six member states notified their withdrawal. In July, Secretary of State Rubio announced a diplomatic push to dismantle the court.

On the ninth of October came sanctions on the court itself. The ICC called them an attempt to obstruct the course of justice.

The European Union said it was ready to take any necessary measures to keep the court working, and hoped the six-month delay would leave room for dialogue.

Chapter VII · Step 15 · 2025–2026

The court under sanctions

2020–21 First Trump administration sanctions prosecutor Fatou Bensouda over Afghanistan; lifted by the Biden administration in April 2021
Feb 2025 Executive Order 14203 authorises sanctions on ICC officials
Jun–Aug 2025 Judges and deputy prosecutors sanctioned; 13 judges and prosecutors in all before October 2026
Jun–Sep 2026 Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, Venezuela, Chad and Nauru notify withdrawal (each takes effect after one year); Hungary cancels its own withdrawal
9 Oct 2026 Sanctions on the ICC as an institution

What each side says

United States: “President Trump will never allow the International Criminal Court to prosecute Americans.”
ICC: “An attempt to obstruct the course of justice”
European Union: Attacks or threats against the court are “not acceptable”
Israel: Congratulated the US

Eight governments, including Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the UK, said they “regret and strongly disagree”. The Netherlands, host of the court, asked the EU to prepare its “blocking” rules, which would forbid European firms from complying with the US measures. The UN called the move “a serious blow”.

Sources: AP via ITV News, 9 Oct 2026; Reuters via Khaleej Times, 9 Oct 2026; Euronews, 9 Oct 2026; APA, 9 Oct 2026; MercoPress, 9 Oct 2026; Wikipedia: United States and the ICC; Wikipedia: States parties to the Rome Statute

Epilogue

1899 → 2026

An unfinished experiment

A century ago, no court on earth could try a head of state for an atrocity. Today one can. Whether it will be allowed to is still being decided.

In little more than a century, the world went from no court at all, to tribunals of the victors, to tribunals of the Security Council, to a permanent court that 125 countries have joined.

Its supporters see a promise that no one is above the law. Its critics see selective justice, or a threat to sovereignty.

Navi Pillay dedicated her Nobel Prize to all of the survivors of international crimes.

The court of last resort still has no police of its own. It works only as far as governments let it.

Epilogue · 1899 → 2026

From Leipzig to The Hague

1899/1907 Hague Conventions: rules for war, no court for individuals
1921 Leipzig: 12 of 900 suspects tried
1945–48 Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals
1948–49 Genocide Convention; Geneva Conventions
1993–94 UN tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda
1998 First international genocide conviction (Akayesu); Rome Statute adopted
2002 The ICC opens; jurisdiction from 1 July
2012 First ICC verdict (Lubanga)
2018 Crime of aggression activated
2026 Nobel Peace Prize for Navi Pillay; US sanctions on the court

The courtroom in the 3D scenes is abstract and not a model of any real room. The globe’s country outlines come from Natural Earth (public domain), simplified; borders shown do not imply any position on disputed territory. All full-screen stills are AI-generated to help the imagination; they are not photographs and show no real people.

Sources

Al Jazeera, 9 Oct 2026
AP via ITV News, 9 Oct 2026
Reuters via Khaleej Times, 9 Oct 2026
Euronews, 9 Oct 2026
APA, 9 Oct 2026
MercoPress, 9 Oct 2026
Wikipedia: Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907
Wikipedia: Leipzig war crimes trials
Wikipedia: Commission of Responsibilities
Wikipedia: Nuremberg trials
Wikipedia: International Military Tribunal for the Far East
Wikipedia: Raphael Lemkin
Wikipedia: Genocide Convention
Wikipedia: Geneva Conventions
Wikipedia: Nuremberg principles
Wikipedia: ICTY
Wikipedia: Trial of Slobodan Milošević
Wikipedia: Srebrenica massacre
Wikipedia: Radovan Karadžić
Wikipedia: ICTR
Wikipedia: Jean-Paul Akayesu
Wikipedia: Navi Pillay
Wikipedia: Rome Statute
Rome Statute, full text (Wikisource)
Wikipedia: International Criminal Court
Wikipedia: States parties to the Rome Statute
Wikipedia: United States and the ICC
Wikipedia: ICC investigations
Wikipedia: People indicted by the ICC
Wikipedia: ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders
Wikipedia: Arrest of Rodrigo Duterte
Wikipedia: Crime of aggression
ICC: About the Court
ICC: How the Court works
ICC press release, 17 Mar 2023
Human Rights Watch, 23 Apr 2026
DZRH News, 27 May 2026
Institute for Security Studies, 2012
UN Charter, Chapter V
Natural Earth via world-atlas (country outlines)