By Simpson Global Media News Desk
Germany has reaffirmed its support for the International Criminal Court and said it is working with other countries to protect the court’s ability to operate, as pressure from the United States administration continues to raise questions about the future of the institution and the wider system of international criminal justice.
German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul made the position clear on Monday, September 28, ahead of a visit to The Hague where he is due to meet Dutch officials and representatives of the International Criminal Court.
Germany is the ICC’s second-largest financial contributor after Japan, according to Reuters, and Wadephul said Berlin was working with partners to safeguard the court’s ability to fulfil its mandate.
The renewed German statement comes days after United States President Donald Trump called on countries belonging to the ICC to leave the institution, describing the court in strongly critical terms during the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, while Germany is one of the 125 states that are currently parties to the statute. Nigeria is also among those 125 states.
The dispute is therefore taking place against a wider debate about the reach of international criminal law, the responsibilities of national courts and the role of international institutions in investigating and prosecuting serious crimes.
For Germany, the issue has become part of its stated commitment to international rules and accountability.
For the United States, the ICC has faced longstanding objections concerning its jurisdiction over American personnel and the court’s investigations and arrest warrants involving individuals from countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute.
The latest developments do not mean that the court’s existence is immediately threatened by a single country’s position. The ICC is an institution supported by a large group of states, and its Assembly of States Parties continues to exercise management and legislative oversight over the court.
But the dispute has created a significant diplomatic issue for countries that support the ICC and has placed renewed attention on the court’s finances, jurisdiction, investigations and ability to operate under external pressure.
Germany’s Position
Wadephul said Germany would continue supporting the ICC and other international institutions during a period in which their role is being questioned.
“International rules are only as strong as our willingness to stand up for them,” the German foreign minister said, according to Reuters.
He also linked Germany’s position to the country’s historical experience and argued that national legal systems are not always able or willing to deal with the most serious international crimes.
The statement was delivered ahead of Wadephul’s trip to The Hague.
During the visit, the German foreign minister is expected to meet Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen as well as representatives of the ICC. The discussions are expected to include international institutions and European issues, with the court’s future operating environment forming an important part of the visit.
Germany’s position is not entirely new.
The country has been a party to the Rome Statute since 2000 and has previously provided financial and political support to the institution.
In March, the ICC said Germany had made a voluntary contribution of €40,000 to the court’s Trust Fund for Victims, which supports reparative measures for people affected by crimes within the court’s jurisdiction.
The German government has also previously expressed support for international accountability mechanisms in connection with conflicts including the war in Ukraine.
Its current position therefore represents a continuation of a policy that has included financial contributions, diplomatic support and participation in the ICC’s governing structures.
Why the ICC Is Under Pressure
The International Criminal Court has faced criticism from the United States for many years.
The current dispute has intensified because of the court’s investigations involving United States personnel and its actions concerning other individuals, including an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Reuters reported on September 28 that the Trump administration has sought to punish the court over its investigations into US personnel and the arrest warrant involving Netanyahu.
Trump has repeatedly criticised the ICC and, during the UN General Assembly, called on member states to withdraw.
Reuters reported on September 24 that only Nauru had followed the US call to withdraw during that week of the General Assembly, although the wider question of countries’ future positions remains subject to their own domestic and treaty processes.
The disagreement reflects a fundamental difference in how countries view the court.
Supporters of the ICC see it as a mechanism for investigating and prosecuting individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression when the legal conditions for the court to act are met.
The ICC itself describes its role as complementary to national courts rather than as a replacement for them.
Critics, including successive US administrations, have questioned the court’s jurisdiction and its ability to exercise authority over nationals of countries that have not accepted the Rome Statute.
That jurisdictional disagreement has remained central to the US position.
What the International Criminal Court Does
The ICC was established under the Rome Statute, which entered into force in 2002.
Its mandate concerns individuals rather than governments as such.
The court investigates and, where appropriate, tries individuals accused of the gravest crimes of concern to the international community.
These include genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression.
The court is headquartered in The Hague in the Netherlands.
It is separate from the International Court of Justice, also located in The Hague.
The distinction is important.
The International Court of Justice primarily deals with disputes between states and provides advisory opinions on questions of international law.
The ICC prosecutes individuals for specified international crimes.
The ICC also operates under the principle of complementarity.
That means national legal systems retain the primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting crimes falling within their jurisdiction.
The ICC is intended to become involved under the conditions established by the Rome Statute, including situations in which national proceedings meet the treaty’s criteria for ICC intervention.
The court therefore does not function as a general international criminal court with unlimited authority over all serious crimes committed anywhere in the world.
Its jurisdiction is determined by the Rome Statute and the legal circumstances of individual situations and cases.
The 125 Member States
The current diplomatic dispute is occurring within a membership structure that includes 125 states.
The official Assembly of States Parties list identifies 125 countries as parties to the Rome Statute.
They include Germany, Nigeria, Ghana, South Africa, the United Kingdom, France, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Ukraine and many other countries across Africa, Europe, Asia-Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean.
The United States is not among them.
Neither are several other major powers, including China and Russia.
This means the court’s relationship with countries outside the Rome Statute has always been an important part of its international legal framework.
A state that is not party to the treaty does not simply have the same relationship with the ICC as a state that has ratified the Rome Statute.
The question becomes more complicated when alleged crimes have connections to territories or states that are parties to the statute, or when situations are referred to the court through mechanisms established by international law.
These jurisdictional questions have been at the centre of disputes over the court for years.
Germany as a Major Contributor
Germany’s position carries particular significance because of its financial contribution to the ICC.
Reuters reported on September 28 that Germany is the court’s second-largest financial contributor after Japan.
The country has also made voluntary contributions to specific ICC programmes.
In March, the ICC announced that Germany had provided €40,000 to the Trust Fund for Victims. The court said the contribution reaffirmed Germany’s commitment to international justice and victims’ rights.
The Trust Fund for Victims is separate from the court’s ordinary judicial work.
It supports reparative measures for victims and their families in connection with crimes within the ICC’s jurisdiction.
Germany’s financial relationship with the institution therefore extends beyond its mandatory participation as a State Party.
Berlin has also worked through international institutions and European partners on questions concerning accountability.
That combination of financial support and diplomatic engagement means Germany has an established interest in maintaining the ICC’s operational capacity.
The Role of the Assembly of States Parties
The ICC is not governed solely by its judges and prosecutors.
The Assembly of States Parties is the court’s management oversight and legislative body.
It is composed of representatives of states that have ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute.
According to the ICC, the Assembly oversees the administration of the Presidency, Prosecutor and Registrar.
It also adopts the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the Elements of Crime, considers the court’s budget and contributions, and participates in the election of judges and prosecutors.
Each State Party has one representative and one vote in the Assembly, although the Rome Statute calls for efforts to reach decisions by consensus.
States that are not parties may participate as observers but do not have voting rights.
This structure means that the future of the ICC is not determined by Germany alone or by any other individual government.
Its member states collectively have an institutional role in determining budgets, administration and other major matters.
That is particularly relevant at a time when some countries are considering their relationship with the court.
Recent Pressure on the Institution
The ICC has experienced several forms of pressure during 2026.
The Assembly of States Parties recorded a series of developments involving withdrawals from the Rome Statute.
In July, the Assembly’s presidency issued a statement concerning steps by Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger towards withdrawal from the treaty.
In August, it issued another statement concerning withdrawals by Chad and Venezuela.
Those developments illustrate that the court’s membership has been subject to political pressure from different regions for reasons that vary by country.
At the same time, Hungary decided in May to remain a State Party after previously beginning a withdrawal process.
The Assembly of States Parties welcomed that decision.
The result is a mixed international picture.
Some governments have taken steps away from the institution.
Others have reaffirmed their membership.
Germany’s latest statement belongs to the second category.
US Sanctions and the ICC
The current disagreement also involves US sanctions against ICC officials.
The Assembly of States Parties said in August that it regretted the extension of US sanctions targeting the ICC president and a staff member.
The sanctions have contributed to concerns about the practical ability of court officials and institutions to conduct international work.
Financial restrictions can create complications for international organisations because their officials may depend on cross-border banking, travel and other services.
The effect of sanctions can therefore extend beyond the specific individuals named.
For countries supporting the ICC, the question is how to ensure that the court retains the resources and operational independence required to carry out its mandate.
Germany’s latest statement indicates that Berlin intends to work with other countries on that issue.
The Netanyahu Arrest Warrant
One of the most politically sensitive aspects of the dispute concerns the ICC arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The United States has criticised the ICC’s approach to the case.
The court’s actions concerning Netanyahu have also generated disagreement among governments, including European countries that otherwise support the ICC.
The issue demonstrates the difficult position faced by the institution.
Its supporters argue that the court must apply the Rome Statute based on legal standards rather than political considerations.
Its critics question the jurisdictional basis for the court’s actions and whether it should exercise authority over officials from states that are not parties to the treaty.
Those arguments remain contested.
The ICC operates according to its own legal procedures, while individual governments retain their own positions concerning the court’s jurisdiction and decisions.
Germany’s support does not settle that underlying legal dispute.
It establishes Berlin’s political position on the importance of maintaining the institution.
The United States and Non-Membership
The United States signed the Rome Statute in 2000 but did not become a State Party.
The country has maintained concerns about the court’s potential jurisdiction over US citizens.
Those concerns have continued through different administrations.
The current administration’s criticism is therefore part of a longer US debate over international criminal jurisdiction.
However, the intensity of the present confrontation has increased the diplomatic significance of the issue.
Trump’s call for countries to leave the ICC places governments that support the court in a position where they must publicly articulate their own policies.
Germany has now done so.
Other governments have also expressed support for the court.
Reuters reported earlier in September that European governments had largely reacted to the US position by reaffirming their support for the institution.
The extent to which that support translates into additional financial, legal or diplomatic measures remains a matter for individual governments.
Why The Hague Matters
The Hague has long served as a centre for international law.
The city hosts several international judicial institutions, including the ICC and the International Court of Justice.
The ICC’s presence there reflects the broader post-war development of international mechanisms designed to address crimes that cross national borders or involve mass atrocities.
Germany’s foreign minister is scheduled to visit the city at a time when those institutions are again at the centre of international diplomacy.
The visit is therefore significant not only because of Germany’s relationship with the ICC but also because it demonstrates how questions of international law have become intertwined with foreign policy.
Governments must balance their commitment to international institutions with their own national legal and political interests.
The current debate is an example of that tension.
Africa and the ICC
The issue has particular relevance to Africa.
The official ICC list shows that 33 of the 125 States Parties are African countries.
Nigeria is among them.
African governments have historically had varied relationships with the ICC.
Some have strongly supported international accountability mechanisms.
Others have criticised the court, including over the distribution of its investigations and the relationship between international prosecution and national sovereignty.
The withdrawal steps taken by Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, and the later announcement concerning Chad, have added another dimension to that debate.
At the same time, countries such as Nigeria remain members of the Rome Statute.
The continent therefore does not have a single position on the ICC.
Individual governments have different legal and political relationships with the court.
The latest German statement does not change those African positions, but it forms part of the broader international debate that African member states are also following.
Nigeria’s Position in the System
Nigeria’s status as a State Party means that the country participates in the Rome Statute system.
The official ICC membership list includes Nigeria among the 125 States Parties.
That status carries legal and institutional implications.
Nigeria has obligations under the Rome Statute framework and participates in the Assembly of States Parties.
The country’s relationship with the ICC is therefore distinct from that of states that have never joined the treaty.
The current debate over the institution’s future may have implications for all member states, including Nigeria, particularly where international investigations, cooperation and accountability mechanisms intersect with national legal processes.
However, Germany’s decision to continue supporting the court does not require Nigeria to adopt an identical policy beyond its existing treaty obligations.
Each State Party has its own domestic legal and diplomatic considerations.
International Law Under Pressure
The larger issue raised by the dispute is how international institutions operate when major powers disagree with their authority.
International organisations rely on member states for funding, cooperation and enforcement.
Courts are especially dependent on state cooperation because they do not possess a conventional police force capable of enforcing every judicial decision independently.
The ICC therefore depends heavily on countries for arrests, evidence, witness protection, access to territory and other forms of cooperation.
That dependence has always been part of the court’s operating environment.
Political disputes can make cooperation more difficult.
Germany’s argument is that international rules are meaningful only when states are prepared to support them.
The United States position, by contrast, reflects longstanding concerns that international criminal institutions should not exercise authority over US personnel without American consent.
These competing positions illustrate the unresolved tension between international accountability and national sovereignty.
The Question of National Courts
Another important part of the ICC debate concerns the capacity of national justice systems.
The ICC describes itself as a court of last resort and says its role is to complement, rather than replace, national courts.
That principle is known as complementarity.
In practice, the ICC’s involvement in a situation depends partly on whether the relevant national proceedings meet the legal requirements established by the Rome Statute.
Supporters of the system argue that this allows national courts to remain central while providing an international mechanism for situations in which domestic justice is unavailable or inadequate under the statute.
Critics question aspects of how those standards are applied.
The debate therefore involves not only whether an international court should exist but also how international and domestic jurisdictions should interact.
Germany’s Historical Argument
Wadephul connected Germany’s support for the ICC with the country’s historical experience.
He said Germany understood the consequences of situations in which state power disregards law and human dignity.
That argument is part of Germany’s broader post-war foreign-policy approach, which has placed considerable emphasis on international institutions and legal mechanisms.
It is also why Berlin has frequently supported international accountability initiatives.
The statement does not mean that Germany regards every ICC decision as beyond debate.
States can support an institution while disagreeing with individual decisions or procedures.
Germany’s current position instead concerns the continued existence and functioning of the court as an international institution.
That distinction is important in understanding the diplomatic development.
What the German Visit Could Address
Wadephul’s visit to The Hague is expected to provide an opportunity to discuss the court’s operating environment directly with officials.
The meeting comes amid questions about sanctions, financing and political pressure.
Germany and the Netherlands are both European Union member states and parties to the Rome Statute.
The Netherlands is also the host country for the ICC.
The visit therefore combines bilateral diplomacy with discussions about an international institution located on Dutch territory.
The immediate outcome will depend on the discussions and any commitments subsequently announced.
There is no indication that Germany intends to withdraw from the ICC.
Instead, the German foreign minister has explicitly said the country will continue supporting the institution.
The Financial Question
Maintaining an international court requires sustained funding.
The ICC has a regular budget financed by its States Parties, alongside voluntary contributions for specific activities.
The court also operates a Trust Fund for Victims.
Germany’s position as the second-largest contributor gives it a substantial financial relationship with the institution.
If major donors reduce their support, the institution could face pressure to limit activities or seek alternative funding.
Conversely, continued contributions from major member states could help maintain operational capacity.
The financial dimension is therefore closely connected to the political dispute.
Support for the court is not simply a matter of diplomatic statements.
Governments can demonstrate support through budgetary contributions, cooperation with investigations, participation in the Assembly of States Parties and assistance with the implementation of judicial decisions.
A Broader Debate About Multilateralism
The ICC dispute is occurring alongside wider disagreements over international institutions.
Governments around the world are debating the role of multilateral organisations in a period marked by wars, trade disputes, migration pressures, economic uncertainty and competition among major powers.
The ICC is one institution within that larger system.
Germany’s foreign minister has framed support for the court as part of a broader commitment to international rules.
Other governments have taken different positions.
The debate is therefore about more than one court.
It reflects different views of how international cooperation should operate when national interests conflict.
For countries supporting multilateral institutions, the challenge is maintaining cooperation when major powers question aspects of those institutions.
For countries critical of them, the challenge is addressing concerns about jurisdiction, accountability and sovereignty without undermining broader international cooperation.
No Immediate Resolution
Germany’s announcement does not resolve the disagreement between Berlin and Washington over the ICC.
Nor does it settle the legal disputes surrounding individual investigations.
The United States remains outside the Rome Statute system.
Germany remains a State Party and has now reaffirmed its support.
The ICC continues its work under the Rome Statute and through its governing institutions.
The practical consequences of US pressure will depend on how individual countries respond and on the ability of the court and its member states to maintain financing, staff, cooperation and access to necessary international services.
The situation could therefore evolve over time rather than through a single diplomatic decision.
The Court’s Institutional Resilience
The ICC has faced challenges before.
Its member states have debated funding, jurisdiction, investigations and cooperation.
Countries have joined and left the Rome Statute system.
Individual governments have disagreed with the court’s decisions.
The current pressure is nevertheless significant because it involves a major non-member power with considerable political and economic influence.
The court’s ability to continue functioning depends on its member states and its institutional structures.
The Assembly of States Parties provides one of those structures.
Its members oversee the court’s administration and budget and participate in the election of key officials.
Germany’s decision to continue supporting the institution therefore fits within an existing multilateral framework rather than representing a unilateral attempt to determine the court’s future.
What Happens Next
The immediate next step is Wadephul’s visit to The Hague.
The German foreign minister is expected to hold talks with Dutch officials and meet representatives of the ICC.
Beyond that visit, Germany is expected to continue discussions with other countries about maintaining the court’s operational capacity.
The ICC will continue to depend on its member states for financing and cooperation.
The Assembly of States Parties will remain the principal political and administrative forum for decisions concerning the institution.
Individual governments will also determine whether they continue, increase or reduce their own contributions and cooperation.
For countries such as Nigeria, the developments provide another reminder that membership in the Rome Statute system involves participation in an international legal framework whose future depends on cooperation among states.
The Significance for International Justice
The current dispute will be closely watched because the ICC represents one of the most significant attempts to create a permanent international mechanism for prosecuting individuals accused of the gravest international crimes.
Its supporters view the institution as a means of addressing cases that may otherwise remain unresolved.
Its critics have raised questions about jurisdiction, sovereignty and the relationship between international and domestic justice.
Those disagreements are unlikely to disappear quickly.
Germany’s September 28 statement is significant because it demonstrates that at least one major European contributor intends to maintain support despite US pressure.
The statement also shows that the debate has moved beyond the courtroom.
It now includes questions about diplomatic support, funding, sanctions, international cooperation and the future of multilateral institutions.
A Divided International Landscape
The international response to the ICC is not uniform.
Some countries remain committed to the court.
Others have withdrawn or begun withdrawal processes.
Some governments outside the Rome Statute system continue to cooperate with the institution in particular circumstances.
Others strongly oppose its jurisdiction over their nationals.
That diversity makes the ICC a reflection of the wider international system.
It has supporters and critics across different regions.
The recent developments should therefore not be understood simply as a dispute between Germany and the United States.
They are part of a larger argument involving 125 member states, non-member governments, international organisations and national legal systems.
Conclusion
Germany has reaffirmed its support for the International Criminal Court at a time when the institution is facing renewed pressure from the United States administration.
Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said Germany would work with international partners to help preserve the ICC’s ability to carry out its mandate and stressed the importance of international rules.
His statement came ahead of a visit to The Hague, where he is expected to meet Dutch officials and representatives of the court.
Germany’s position is backed by an established relationship with the ICC. It has been a State Party to the Rome Statute since 2000, is the court’s second-largest financial contributor after Japan and made a voluntary contribution to the Trust Fund for Victims earlier this year.
The United States, meanwhile, is not a party to the Rome Statute and has long objected to the ICC’s jurisdiction over US personnel. The Trump administration has intensified that criticism and recently called on ICC member states to withdraw.
The court’s future, however, does not depend on the position of one government alone.
The ICC currently has 125 States Parties, including Germany and Nigeria, and is overseen administratively and legislatively by the Assembly of States Parties.
At the same time, the institution faces real challenges.
Several governments have taken steps toward withdrawal from the Rome Statute during 2026, while other countries have reaffirmed their membership.
The court also depends heavily on member states for funding and cooperation because it does not operate as a conventional national justice system with its own independent enforcement apparatus.
That makes diplomatic and financial support particularly important.
Germany’s latest position therefore represents more than a statement of support from a European government.
It is an indication that Berlin intends to remain engaged with the ICC at a moment when questions about international justice, national sovereignty and the authority of international institutions are again becoming central to global diplomacy.
The immediate focus will now turn to Wadephul’s meetings in The Hague and to the wider response of ICC member states.
Whether the current pressure leads to changes in the court’s funding, cooperation arrangements or membership will depend on decisions taken by individual governments and by the Assembly of States Parties.
For now, Germany has made its position clear: it intends to remain within the Rome Statute system and work with other countries to preserve the ICC’s capacity to perform the functions assigned to it under international law.
The continuing debate will ultimately centre on the balance between international accountability and national sovereignty, and on how states choose to cooperate with institutions designed to address crimes that can have consequences far beyond the borders of a single country.
Comments
Post a Comment