ICC

On October 8, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim received Myanmar’s President Min Aung Hlaing in Putrajaya with a guard of honour and an official luncheon, in the military chief’s first visit since the 2021 coup. Nine days earlier, Malaysia sent 1,476 Myanmar nationals back by sea in the first phase of a plan to return 5,000 people.

Kuala Lumpur calls this pragmatic diplomacy. In reality, it lends a middle power’s credibility to the Trump administration’s retreat from international accountability, weakening the laws and institutions smaller states rely on most.

Domestic pressures

Since May, a surge of online hate speech and misinformation has targeted the Rohingya, Malaysia’s largest refugee community. By late July, at least nine Rohingya community schools had closed or faced closure orders, and more than 100 Rohingya told UNHCR that residents of their Penang village had driven them out.

The hostility ignores the facts: Malaysia’s police chief says Rohingya account for 0.02 percent of crime. Yet research by INITIATE.MY and the Center for the Study of Organized Hate found AI-generated content amplifying anti-Rohingya disinformation across Malaysia, Indonesia, India and Bangladesh, casting refugees as a threat and legitimising vigilante violence.

Electoral politics plays a part. After heavy losses in three state elections, and with a general election due by February 2028, Anwar’s coalition may see a hard line on Rohingya returns as a show of control, though voter disillusionment and right-wing rivals make any electoral gains uncertain.

Impunity goes mainstream

Malaysia is not acting alone. Mongolia hosted Vladimir Putin in 2024 despite an ICC arrest warrant, and Hungary welcomed Benjamin Netanyahu in 2025 despite another. Kuala Lumpur denies this is recognition, yet Anwar says Malaysia will work towards Myanmar’s full reintegration into ASEAN, and Min Aung Hlaing wants a seat at the bloc’s November summit in Manila. Each welcome makes the next easier and tells leaders accused of atrocities, from Netanyahu to Min Aung Hlaing, that diplomatic rehabilitation is possible without accountability.

ASEAN has tried this before. In April 2021, Min Aung Hlaing agreed to the Five-Point Consensus, then ignored it: The violence continued, the ASEAN special envoy never met Aung San Suu Kyi, and inclusive dialogue never began. The bloc’s one real lever was excluding military leaders from its summits. Myanmar Specialist, Arkar Hein, said “Welcoming him back with nothing asked in return rewards that defiance and tells Naypyidaw that time and a staged election can achieve what
compromise would otherwise require. Each handshake abroad also makes the regime less willing to offer its opponents real concessions, and convinces them that only the battlefield will decide Myanmar’s future.”

A question of consistency

Malaysia has spent decades building its credibility as a regional peacemaker, a hard-won reputation it now puts at risk. It has facilitated the Bangsamoro peace process since 2001, helping negotiate a landmark peace agreement in the southern Philippines, and has facilitated talks in southern Thailand since 2013. In November 2024, Anwar welcomed the ICC’s arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former defence minister, saying they “should be arrested even if they are visiting other countries”. That same month, the ICC prosecutor sought an arrest warrant for Min Aung Hlaing for alleged crimes against humanity targeting the Rohingya, and an Argentinian court has since issued its own.

The Gambia’s genocide case against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice centres on the 2016-17 operations Min Aung Hlaing commanded, which killed thousands of Rohingya, included mass rapes and burned hundreds of villages, driving more than 700,000 people into Bangladesh. UN investigators called for him to face genocide charges. Malaysia is not a party to the Rome Statute and has no legal duty to arrest him. But its credibility as a peacemaker and on Palestine rests on applying one standard to everyone.

Returns without safeguards

The returns rest on assurances no independent body can verify. UNHCR says it was not involved in the returns and had no access to verify that they were voluntary, and that safe conditions do not exist. Those returned reportedly included 27 children. Though not a party to the Refugee Convention, Malaysia is bound by the customary principle of non-refoulement, and the UN Special Rapporteur on Myanmar has warned of substantial risks.

Naypyidaw says no Rohingya are involved because it does not recognise them as citizens, but other returnees also risk arbitrary detention, prosecution and forced recruitment. The military does not even control Rakhine State, where the Arakan Army holds more than 90 percent of the territory. On September 28, a day before returns began, a military air attack reportedly killed at least 50 civilians there, following more than a dozen other mass killings by the military earlier this year.

Nor can the military-backed government deliver the peace that safe return requires. Its election saw no voting in 67 of 330 townships, and when Min Aung Hlaing offered peace talks in April, the National Unity Government (NUG) and major ethnic armed groups refused. Without a ceasefire and an inclusive political process, assurances of safe return ring hollow.

Malaysia’s frustration is nonetheless legitimate. It has hosted refugees for decades with little international support, and resettlement has shrunk since the Trump administration suspended United States refugee admissions in January 2025. But failed burden-sharing cannot justify returns without safeguards.

Pressure on the court

The ICC exists so that victims of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity can find justice when their own states fail them. That mission now faces unprecedented pressure. On October 9, hours after former ICC judge Navi Pillay won the Nobel Peace Prize, the Trump administration sanctioned the court itself. Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, Chad and Venezuela have announced their withdrawal.

Yet middle powers can push back. Seventy-nine ICC members, including Canada, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, backed the court after the first US sanctions in February 2025, and in May Hungary’s new government reversed its predecessor’s withdrawal. In Southeast Asia, the Philippines surrendered former President Rodrigo Duterte to The Hague, and on October 8 judges found him fit to stand trial for crimes against humanity, with proceedings due to begin on November 30.

Middle powers should say no

Middle powers like Malaysia, and blocs such as ASEAN and the European Union, cannot stop US sanctions, but they need not follow the Trump administration’s lead. As Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney told the World Economic Forum in January, middle powers “must act together, because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu”.

Malaysia and its neighbours should lead by saying no: No to efforts to weaken the court, no to treating Min Aung Hlaing’s presidency as a clean slate, and no to Rohingya returns into an active conflict. Malaysia should back efforts to hold him accountable if ICC judges issue a warrant, and reconsider acceding to the Rome Statute, a move it abandoned in 2019.

Saying no does not mean disengaging. Kuala Lumpur should tie Myanmar’s reintegration into ASEAN to real progress on the Five-Point Consensus, starting with an end to violence and inclusive dialogue involving the NUG and ethnic armed organisations. At home, it should pause returns until an independent body confirms they are safe and voluntary, and hold accountable those who evict, threaten or attack refugees.

Malaysia should not carry this burden alone. ASEAN partners, members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and donors should fund refugee registration, education and integration, and resettlement countries should restore their commitments. Governments should also hold tech platforms accountable for amplifying anti-refugee disinformation and require swift action against incitement.

For years, Malaysia has offered refuge to the Rohingya and others fleeing Myanmar when few countries would. That record gives it the standing, and the responsibility, to defend the system of international justice it has long championed.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

The United States has imposed a new set of sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC), prompting several countries – including US allies – to condemn the move and reiterate their support for the world’s war crimes tribunal.

On Friday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that Washington would be banning transactions with the “rogue court, cutting off their resources and crippling its ability to operate”, adding that President Donald Trump would “never allow” the Hague to prosecute Americans.

The ICC was created in 2002 to prosecute individuals accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity when national authorities are unable or unwilling to do so.

The US Treasury Department announced the penalties with a six-month initial grace period and other exemptions that would allow some transactions for telecommunications, software, pension payments and transactions related to detainees.

Rubio said the sanctions would give the court and its member states an opportunity to address US concerns and would be adjusted if they did not meet those demands.

The Trump administration says the court has exceeded its authority by pursuing officials from countries that are not ICC members, such as Israel. The United States and Israel have never joined the court.

In response to the sanctions, the ICC said that the move was an “assault on the rule of law and on the very foundations of the international legal order”. It called on its 125 member states to defend the institution.

“The Court cannot stand alone. Its fate now rests also in the hands of the states that created it,” the ICC said in a statement. “This is not just about defending a single institution, but about safeguarding the international order grounded upon the rule of law. History will judge this moment.”

The Trump administration sanctioned more than a dozen judges and prosecutors before issuing sanctions on the court itself Friday.

Allies ‘regret and disagree’ with US move

Soon after the US announcement, top United Nations officials condemned the move.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was “deeply alarmed” by the expected impact of the sanctions on the court as a whole, particularly its ability to carry out its mandate, a statement from his spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said.

“Today’s decision marks a serious blow to our collective pursuit of international criminal justice, of which the ICC is a key pillar,” the statement added.

UN Human Rights chief Volker Turk called for immediate measures to protect the ICC. “These sanctions – the latest in a series of retaliatory steps against the ICC and its personnel for the work they do every day to advance accountability for the very worst violations of human rights – are unacceptable,” he said.

ICC member states that are US allies also expressed dismay at the decision.

Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen, whose country hosts the ICC, said the US’s decision was “deeply regrettable”.

“We will stand firm in defence of the court. At the same time, it’s important to note that the sanctions will not take effect immediately and that service providers can continue to work for the ICC. The six-month period before the sanctions take effect creates scope for dialogue,” he said.

In a joint statement, the foreign ministers of Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada and Japan said they “regret and strongly disagree” with the sanctions.

“If put into effect, these sanctions will have a significant impact on the Court’s work, its dedicated staff and their families … We remain both united in our support for the ICC and committed to engaging in constructive and inclusive dialogue with non-States Parties,” they said.

Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prevot also said Brussels would discuss support for the ICC with European Union foreign affairs colleagues on Monday and at the upcoming European Council.

“We will press for concrete protection. The court’s independence cannot depend on whom it investigates. Europe must act. Belgium is calling for the activation of the EU Blocking Statute to protect the court,” Prevot said.

US aims to ‘ultimately destroy’ ICC

Similarly, organisations and rights groups sounded the alarm over the implications of the US decision.

Philippe Bolopion, executive director of US-based Human Rights Watch, said the Trump administration had made clear its aim to “destroy” the ICC and “shield US and Israeli officials from facing charges before the court”.

“The ICC was created to ensure that no one, no matter how powerful, is above the law. Governments that value human rights and accountability should condemn this outrageous move and take swift action to protect the ICC, its staff, and all those who cooperate with it, starting with the European Union using its laws to mitigate the sanctions’ impact in the region,” he said.

The Executive Director of the Open Society Justice Initiative, James Goldston, said the sanctions were a “calculated attack on the rule of law and the principles of judicial independence and equality that underpin it.”

“This is the latest move in a campaign of coercion intended to destroy the system of international justice,” he said.

Amnesty International called on countries to “resist”. Trump’s “sanctions are designed to isolate and ultimately destroy the International Criminal Court”, Erika Guevara Rosas, Amnesty’s senior director for research, policy, advocacy and campaigns, said in a statement. “This existential attack must fail. States must take concrete action to resist the imposition of these measures.”

Amid widespread criticism, Israel commended the US move.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed the sanctions and praised Trump and Rubio for taking this “critical decision”.

“The ICC is not a court. It is a political body that poses a mortal threat to law-abiding democracies worldwide and to the very idea of national sovereignty,” Netanyahu wrote on X.

In 2024 the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu on war crimes and crimes against humanity charges for the war on Gaza.

Oct. 9, 2026 10:38 AM PT

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has imposed sweeping new sanctions on the International Criminal Court as part of its campaign to dismantle the tribunal over investigations into the United States and its allies, including Israel.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the sanctions Friday, after the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to South African jurist Navi Pillay, a former judge at the ICC and other international courts whose selection was condemned by Israel. President Trump has coveted that prize for himself.

“We will ban transactions with this rogue court, cutting off their resources and crippling its ability to operate against us,” Rubio said in a video address posted to social media. “The United States and the American people are not subject to the jurisdiction of this fake ICC.”

The sanctions cut the court off from U.S.-based financial services, technology companies and even using U.S. dollars. They set a six-month timeline for U.S. companies and individuals that have business with the court to wind that business down.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks at the Pnyx hill, where ancient Athenians held democratic assemblies, with the ancient Parthenon temple atop the Acropolis in the background, in Athens,Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2026.

(Mark Schiefelbein / Associated Press)

The ICC denounced the step as an attack on the rule of law and the foundations of international order, themes that Rubio had appeared to embrace only two days ago in a speech in front of the Acropolis in Athens.

“It is an attempt to obstruct the course of justice and to prevent the court from doing what it was created to do,” the court said in a statement. “It is an assault on the rule of law and on the very foundations of the international legal order which strikes at the simple principle that no one stands above the law.”

ICC President Tomoko Akane, a citizen of U.S. ally Japan, said the court would “continue to fully discharge its mandate, with independence and impartiality, acting only on the basis of the law and the evidence, for the sake of the countless victims of grave crimes.”

She also appealed to other ICC members for support. “This is not just about defending a single institution, but about safeguarding the international order grounded upon the rule of law.”

Rights groups also denounced the sanctions.

“This existential attack must fail,” said Erika Guevara Rosas, an Amnesty International senior director. “States must take concrete action to resist the imposition of these measures and actively protect the Court.”

A view of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, on August 22, 2026.

(Karolina Janik/NurPhoto via Associated Press)

The court’s host country of the Netherlands has been preparing for weeks for the move. One possible measure to mitigate sanctions is the EU “blocking statute,” which could be used to protect European court staff by preventing European companies from complying with the U.S. measures. Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen has called the blocking statute the “nuclear option” in countering possible sanctions, but said the Netherlands has been in talks with the European Commission to ensure that if it is necessary it can be quickly enacted.

In a joint statement, Canada, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom expressed strong disagreement with the U.S. sanctions.

“We will continue to work together to support the court’s vital work, uphold the rules-based international system, and advance accountability,” the statement said.

“If put into effect, these sanctions will have a significant impact on the court’s work, its dedicated staff and their families. They work every day to bring those accused of the most serious international crimes to justice and to support their victims.”

Rubio said U.S. allies should join in the U.S. actions. “If they do not, the United States will continue its campaign to dismantle the ICC, piece by piece, until Americans are threatened no longer,” he said.

A number of countries have withdrawn from the court this year, including Venezuela and Chad. The South Pacific island nation of Naoero was the most recent to announce it would quit.

Lee and Quell write for the Associated Press. Quell reported from The Hague, Netherlands. AP writer Mike Corder contributed to this report from The Hague.