Steadfast support of International Criminal Court

On July 2, the United States Department of Justice issued a forceful statement rejecting the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over American nationals. The declaration described any attempt by [...]

To continue reading, please subscribe: Digital Subscription One year of digital access for only $205* - Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com - Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper - Access News Break, our award-winning app - Play interactive puzzles *First annual payment billed as $205.00 + GST for one year. This annual subscription will automatically renew at $233.00 + GST every 52 weeks (10% off the regular annual price of $259.35). Offer available to new and qualified returning subscribers only.

Cancel any time. To continue reading, please subscribe: Add Free Press access to your Brandon Sun subscription for only an additional $1 for the first 4 weeks* * Your next Brandon Sun subscription payment will increase by $1.00 and you will be charged $17.95 plus GST for four weeks.

After four weeks, your payment will increase to $24.95 plus GST every four weeks. On July 2, the United States Department of Justice issued a forceful statement rejecting the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over American nationals. The declaration described any attempt by the court to assert authority over Americans as illegitimate and a violation of national sovereignty.

It was unusually categorical, and it arrived at a moment when Washington has been sharpening its political posture toward international criminal accountability. Canada should not be unsettled by it. Canada’s position has been clear for more than two decades, and this new declaration does not alter Canada’s commitments or responsibilities.

The context surrounding the July 2 statement matters. It was issued under Attorney General Todd Blanche, who also continues to serve as President Donald Trump’s personal attorney. That dual role is highly unusual, and it inevitably shapes the tone of the department’s communications.

President Trump has long expressed strong hostility toward the court, and the July 2 statement reflects that longstanding view. It is part of a broader political environment in Washington, where international criminal accountability is increasingly framed as a challenge to national sovereignty rather than a shared global responsibility. This environment has produced more than rhetoric.

Recent legislation in Washington naming Israel, in particular, demonstrates a willingness to use domestic law to confront the court directly. The legislation is not about Canada, but it illustrates the political climate in which the July 2 statement was issued. It shows that the current administration is prepared to escalate its opposition to the court, and that the Department of Justice’s declaration is not an isolated legal clarification.

It is part of a co-ordinated political posture Canada is not obliged to mirror. Canada respects the right of every state to determine how its nationals are subject to legal authority. But Canada does not subordinate its treaty obligations to the preferences of any ally, no matter how close.

This was made clear more than 20 years ago, when the U.S. sought to negotiate bilateral agreements that would prevent states from transferring American nationals to the ICC without Washington’s consent. Many countries signed these agreements. Canada did not.

Canada refused because such agreements would have undermined its responsibilities under the treaty that created the court. That refusal was not an act of defiance. It was an act of consistency.

Canada’s commitment to the ICC has always been rooted in principle. When the institution was created, Canada played a central role in shaping its mandate and ensuring that the most serious crimes known to international law would be prosecuted when national systems failed to act. Canada has co-operated fully with investigations, supported prosecutions and treated the court as an essential part of the international system.

This co-operation has endured through changes in government, shifts in global politics and moments when the court itself has faced criticism. Canada has remained steady because its position is not reactive. It is foundational.

The recent statement from the U.S. does not change this. Canada’s obligations remain exactly as they were before the declaration was issued. Canada will continue to co-operate with the court, continue to support investigations into mass atrocities, and continue to uphold the treaty commitments it made.

The United States may choose to reinforce its own boundaries, but Canada’s boundaries are defined by its own values and legal responsibilities. There is also a broader point Canadians should recognize. The international system is under strain.

Conflicts are intensifying, civilian populations are suffering and accountability mechanisms are being tested. In this environment, consistency matters. States that remain committed to the institutions designed to address the worst crimes help preserve the integrity of the international order.

Canada’s role is not to mirror the posture of its allies but to uphold the commitments it made to the global community. Canada’s refusal to be intimidated by the recent statement from Washington is not a rejection of the United States. It is a reaffirmation of Canada’s own identity as a state that supports international justice, respects the rule of law and honours its treaty obligations.

The United States will continue to protect its nationals according to its own legal framework. Canada will continue to support accountability according to its own. These positions are different, but they are not incompatible.

They reflect two countries acting according to their own principles. The question Canadians should ask is not whether the United States will change its relationship with the court. It will not.

The question is whether Canada will remain consistent in a moment when international justice is facing new pressures. The answer should be yes. Canada’s commitment to the court has never been about responding to the preferences of other states.

It has been about strengthening a system that protects the most vulnerable and holds the most powerful to account. Canada is not intimidated by the recent statement from Washington. It is anchored by its own principles.

And in a world where accountability is increasingly contested, that steadiness is not defiance. It is leadership. Stuart Hendin is a lawyer who writes from Ottawa.