U.S. Sanctions on the International Criminal Court

Since the negotiation of the Rome Statute, U.S. relations with the Court have zig-zagged between quiet support and open hostility. With President Trump’s return to office, we are back to confrontation. On June 5, Secretary of State Marco Rubio made sanction designations of four ICC judges – two of whom authorized the investigation into Afghanistan and two of whom approved the Netanyahu and Gallant arrest warrants. This post describes these developments and situates them within the broader context of U.S.-ICC relations.

“For the Sole Reason of Being Born Mixed-Race”

Where there is a will, there is a way. This phrase could sum up the logic behind the recent judgment of the Brussels Court of Appeal which condemned the Belgian government to compensate for the damage resulting from the abduction and racial segregation of children of white fathers and Black mothers during its colonisation of the Congo. The judgment sets a historic precedent: it is the first time that a domestic Court has ordered the government to pay financial compensation for acts that could have had amounted to crimes against humanity during its colonial past.

It’s Not a Trap

Despite most countries having trouble getting rid of bribery in daily life, only few so far have dared integrity testing: sending out undercover testers disguised as ordinary citizens to contact the public administration and check which public employees ask for bribes. The main argument against such undercover tests has been that they constitute “entrapment”. However, in Cavca, the ECtHR finally dispels the myth that these tests in and of themselves equal entrapment. Yet, the decision leaves one key question unaddressed: Just when does integrity testing become entrapment?

Behind Bars, Beyond Rights

The European Court of Human Rights has quietly endorsed a troubling new practice: denying prisoners access to information based solely on format, not content. In Tergek v. Türkiye, the Court upheld a ban on photocopies and printouts, deferring to vague security concerns. Read alongside Yasak, the judgment signals a broader shift away from rigorous rights protection toward deference to state narratives. If this trend continues, the Convention's core promise — to make rights practical and effective — stands on increasingly shaky ground.

Genocide in Gaza?

“Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.” This was the claim raised by South Africa before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague just two and a half months after Hamas' large-scale terrorist attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. South Africa alleges that Israel's military counteroffensive is not (primarily) directed against Hamas, but rather aims to destroy the group of Palestinians in Gaza as such. This accusation carries significant political and legal weight. However, proving the necessary intent to destroy is difficult; it should not be accepted lightly. At any rate, as Israel's warfare continues and becomes increasingly brutal, the evidence for genocide is mounting.

Endlich gleiches Recht für alle?

Mit der Ankündigung eines Haftbefehls gegen den israelischen Premierminister hat IStGH-Chefankläger Karim Khan den lange bestehenden Vorwurf selektiver Strafverfolgung offen aufgegriffen. Die internationale Strafjustiz steht vor der Herausforderung, ihre Maßstäbe zu schärfen und ihre Legitimität zu festigen. Das geplante Ukraine-Tribunal lenkt den Blick auf bestehende Asymmetrien – und auf das Potenzial für strukturelle Reformen. Ob daraus ein tatsächlicher Wandel erwächst, ist noch ungewiss. Doch der Anspruch auf Kohärenz im internationalen Strafrecht lässt sich nicht länger übergehen.

What Are Human Rights For?

The Danish-Italian public letter to the European Court of Human Rights from 22 May 2025 must be understood in the context of two decades of “crises” in the European human rights regime. None of it is new or unprecedented. What makes it truly troubling, however, is the changed geopolitical context and the focus on migrants and asylum seekers as the most vulnerable.

Challenging Strasbourg

Since 22 May 2025, a disquieting letter has been circulating: nine leading EU politicians are calling for “a new and open-minded conversation about the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights,” with particular reference to migration. The signatories seek to explore whether “the Court, in some cases, has extended the scope of the Convention on Human Rights too far compared with the original intentions behind the Convention, thus shifting the balance between the interests that should be protected.” The letter raises not only political and ethical questions but also significant legal concerns.

Genozid in Gaza?

Israel begehe in Gaza einen Völkermord. Diesen Vorwurf trug Südafrika bereits rund zweieinhalb Monate nach dem großangelegten Terroranschlag der Hamas auf Israel vor dem Internationalen Gerichtshof (IGH) in Den Haag vor. Die militärische Gegenoffensive Israels richte sich nicht (primär) gegen die Hamas, sondern ziele darauf ab, die Gruppe der Palästinenser als solche zu zerstören. Dieser Vorwurf wiegt politisch wie rechtlich schwer. Die hierfür notwendige Zerstörungsabsicht ist nur schwer nachzuweisen und darf nicht vorschnell bejaht werden. Mit zunehmender Dauer und Brutalisierung der israelischen Kriegsführung verdichten sich jedoch die Indizien für das Vorliegen eines Genozids.