Amid ICC Sanctions, Expert Suggests India Could Play Diplomatic Role In International Justice

New Delhi [India], October 28: The United States' decision to impose sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) as an institution has renewed international debate over judicial independence, national sovereignty and the functioning of international legal bodies. Against this backdrop, Nasser Zakr, International Lawyer and Former UN Legal Adviser, has suggested that India could contribute to diplomatic discussions on maintaining the operational continuity of international judicial institutions while retaining its existing position on the ICC.

The proposal represents Zakr's individual perspective and should not be interpreted as an official initiative or policy position of the Government of India.

On October 9, 2026, the United States announced additional sanctions targeting the ICC as an institution under Section 1(a)(ii)(A) of Executive Order 14203. The executive order was originally signed on February 6, 2025, and established the legal framework for sanctions relating to the Court. The October 2026 institutional designation was a subsequent action taken under that existing authority.

The measures restrict certain transactions involving the ICC, subject to applicable exemptions and authorisations. The US Treasury Department also issued general licences permitting specified activities, including a 180-day authorisation covering certain transactions connected with the Court's operations, alongside provisions concerning telecommunications, enterprise software, pension payments and detainees.

The US administration has maintained that its actions are intended to protect American sovereignty and address concerns about the ICC's exercise of jurisdiction. The Court, meanwhile, has rejected the sanctions, expressing concern about their potential consequences for its independence and operations.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres also criticised the decision. According to remarks delivered by his spokesperson on October 9, the Secretary-General expressed serious concern about the possible effects on the ICC's ability to fulfil its mandate, including cases referred by the UN Security Council and states parties to the Rome Statute.

India's Position on the ICC

India is not a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court. It abstained during the Statute's adoption in 1998 and has historically raised concerns about aspects of the Court's jurisdiction and the role of the UN Security Council in its functioning.

These longstanding concerns remain relevant to India's relationship with the institution. There has been no indication that the Government of India has adopted Zakr's proposal or announced a change in its position regarding ICC membership.

Zakr has argued that India could potentially participate in discussions concerning the practical functioning of international judicial institutions without necessarily endorsing their jurisdictional arrangements.

In his assessment, disagreements over a court's legal authority can be considered separately from questions concerning the financial, technological and administrative services necessary for its operations.

He suggested that India's status as a non-party state could allow it to contribute an additional perspective to international discussions, particularly on the relationship between sovereignty, institutional independence and international legal cooperation.

Proposal for Diplomatic Engagement

Zakr has outlined a possible framework through which interested countries could examine operational challenges faced by international judicial institutions during periods of political disagreement.

The proposed approach would involve assessing vulnerabilities in essential institutional services, considering lawful alternatives where disruptions arise and establishing channels for consultation among participating countries.

According to Zakr, such arrangements would be intended to facilitate dialogue and operational planning within applicable legal restrictions, rather than bypass sanctions or exempt international institutions from accountability.

He has also suggested that India could explore opportunities for engagement with the ICC's Assembly of States Parties, subject to the Assembly's established procedures governing participation by countries that have not joined the Rome Statute.

Under these procedures, participation by non-party states may be permitted through appropriate invitations and approvals. Such participation does not confer voting rights or imply acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction.

The framework remains an expert proposal. It has not been presented as an initiative endorsed by the Indian government, the ICC or the Assembly of States Parties.

International Reactions and Broader Implications

The ICC, established under the Rome Statute, is mandated to investigate and prosecute individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression, subject to its jurisdictional requirements.

The Court has 125 states parties and has maintained that it intends to continue carrying out its judicial responsibilities despite the sanctions.

The institutional measures have prompted differing international responses. The ICC and its supporters have raised concerns about possible disruption to investigations, judicial proceedings and services supporting the Court's work.

The Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties has also expressed opposition to the sanctions and reaffirmed its support for the Court's independence.

The United States, however, has defended its approach on sovereignty and jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the ICC has exceeded its authority in matters involving nationals of countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute.

These competing positions reflect broader disagreements about the scope of international criminal jurisdiction, the accountability of international institutions and the responsibilities of states that have not joined the Court.

Scope for Further Dialogue

Zakr's proposal places emphasis on the possibility of maintaining communication between countries with differing views on international judicial institutions.

His assessment suggests that discussions on operational continuity need not require participating countries to resolve all disagreements concerning jurisdiction, institutional legitimacy or treaty obligations.

For India, any potential engagement would depend on decisions taken by the Government of India and the relevant institutional procedures.

The proposal therefore remains part of a wider discussion about international legal cooperation rather than an established diplomatic programme.

As debate continues over the October 2026 sanctions, questions surrounding sovereignty, judicial independence and the practical functioning of international courts are likely to remain central to discussions among governments, legal experts and international institutions.