A joint statement published on GOV.UK by States Parties to the Rome Statute restates collective support for the International Criminal Court and places that support in institutional terms. The signatories say their backing is directed at the Court's independence, impartiality and integrity, making clear that the issue is not only political alignment but the continued credibility of the Court as a judicial body. The intervention comes in direct response to the United States announcement of sanctions against the ICC. Rather than treating the move as a routine bilateral disagreement, the statement presents it as a matter affecting the operation of an international court established to deal with the most serious crimes under international law.
The language used by the signatories is diplomatic but unambiguous. They state that they regret and strongly disagree with the planned sanctions, a formulation that signals both political distance from Washington's decision and continued support for the Court's legal mandate. For readers outside treaty terminology, States Parties are the countries that have joined the Rome Statute, the treaty that created the ICC. Their message is that support for the Court remains collective, organised and public, even where a major non-State Party is taking the opposite view.
The joint statement also indicates that the Court has been preparing for restrictive measures so that it can continue to carry out its mandate. The signatories welcome that preparation and say they will support the ICC in maintaining operations under pressure. In practical terms, the concern set out in the statement is that sanctions would not stop at symbolism. The governments involved warn that the effects would be felt in the Court's day-to-day work and by its staff and their families, which gives the issue an operational as well as a diplomatic dimension.
The reference to staff matters because it broadens the argument beyond institutional principle. According to the joint statement, those working at the ICC are engaged in bringing suspects accused of the gravest international crimes before the law while also supporting victims, so any disruption is framed as having consequences for accountability itself. This is a deliberate policy framing. The signatories are not only defending the existence of the Court; they are linking its uninterrupted functioning to the wider question of whether international justice mechanisms can continue to operate when subjected to external pressure.
The statement does not close the door to engagement with governments outside the treaty system. Instead, the signatories say they remain committed to constructive and inclusive dialogue with non-States Parties as preparations continue for the Assembly of States Parties in December 2026. That point is significant in policy terms. It suggests that the group intends to defend the Court while keeping multilateral channels open, using the Assembly both as a governance forum for ICC members and as a venue for managing wider diplomatic tension around the Court's role.
For officials, practitioners and the wider public, the plain-English reading is straightforward. The signatories are arguing that sanctions on the ICC could impair a court they regard as central to international accountability, and that the effects would reach beyond institutional reputation to staff welfare and the delivery of the Court's mandate. Taken together, the GOV.UK statement is a compact but firm defence of the ICC and of the rules-based international system cited by the signatories. Its immediate purpose is to register opposition to the US sanctions move; its broader purpose is to show that support for the Court remains coordinated ahead of the December 2026 Assembly.