International Relations13 Oct 2026 · about 5 min

Foreign Minister Berendsen mobilizes EU partners: ‘Stand firmly behind the Court together’

The brief

Foreign Minister Berendsen wants EU countries to stand firmly behind the International Criminal Court, or ICC. He is calling for a united European response, rather than separate national statements. The court matters because it pursues accountability for serious international crimes. The immediate trigger was Washington’s sanctions against the ICC. Those measures put pressure on the court and challenge its ability to work independently. Berendsen therefore urged EU ministers to defend the institution publicly and show that Europe will not abandon it. The source does not identify a specific court case; the sanctions are the concrete event behind his appeal. European countries have not yet agreed on a hard response. The reports describe hesitation and a retreat from strong language, despite Berendsen’s effort to mobilise partners. The central question now is whether EU governments translate verbal support into joint action. That decision will show how firmly Europe supports international justice when facing pressure from Washington.

What is Foreign Minister Berendsen asking EU countries to do, and what American action prompted his appeal?

The immediate trigger was Washington’s sanctions against the ICC. Those measures put pressure on the court and challenge its ability to work independently. Berendsen therefore urged EU ministers to defend the institution publicly and show that Europe will not abandon it. The source does not identify a specific court case; the sanctions are the concrete event behind his appeal.

European countries have not yet agreed on a hard response. The reports describe hesitation and a retreat from strong language, despite Berendsen’s effort to mobilise partners. The central question now is whether EU governments translate verbal support into joint action. That decision will show how firmly Europe supports international justice when facing pressure from Washington.

How many countries are members of the International Criminal Court, and how broad is its global reach?

The ICC has 125 member countries, but it is not a world court with automatic reach everywhere. It prosecutes people for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression when legal conditions allow.

Ukraine shows how that reach works. The ICC opened an investigation into alleged crimes there after Ukraine accepted the court’s jurisdiction, even before becoming a full member. The court can also act when the accused is from a member country, or when the UN Security Council refers a situation.

So, 125 members give the ICC broad global reach, but not universal authority. The source shows the political stakes: Dutch foreign minister Berendsen urged EU partners to stand firmly behind the court. He spoke after US sanctions, while EU governments hesitated over a strong response. The ICC still depends on countries for arrests, evidence, and cooperation.

What can US sanctions against the Court or its officials do in practice?

US sanctions cannot close the International Criminal Court, but they can make its work riskier and more expensive. They may freeze US-linked assets, ban Americans from doing business with targeted officials, and restrict travel. The pressure can also deter banks, lawyers, and organisations from cooperating.

A well-documented example came in 2020. The Trump administration targeted prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and senior official Phakiso Mochochoko over the Afghanistan investigation. Their US property was blocked, and US persons were generally barred from transactions with them. The Court has no police force. It depends on staff, funding, banks, and international cooperation.

Practically, sanctions can isolate officials and disrupt payments, travel, and partnerships. They do not erase the Court’s legal authority or automatically stop cases elsewhere. The source reports EU governments hesitated after the US measures. Dutch foreign minister Berendsen urged ministers to support the Court. That hesitation shows the wider danger: sanctions may create political pressure even when the Court remains legally active.

Why was the International Criminal Court created, and what major historical events shaped its founding?

The International Criminal Court was created to prosecute individuals for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The Rome Statute established it in 1998, and the court began work in 2002. Its goal was lasting accountability beyond temporary tribunals.

Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after World War II showed that leaders could face justice. Later, genocide in Rwanda and wars in the former Yugoslavia prompted new tribunals. These experiences shaped the court’s central mechanism: national courts act first, while the ICC intervenes when countries cannot or will not genuinely prosecute.

The source article shows why this system remains contested. The United States imposed sanctions after criticizing the ICC, while Dutch foreign minister Berendsen urged European governments to support it. EU countries initially hesitated over a strong response. The court’s future therefore depends on cooperation, funding, and political backing, especially when powerful states reject its authority.

How is the International Criminal Court different from the International Court of Justice, and why does that distinction matter?

The International Criminal Court prosecutes individuals suspected of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity. The International Court of Justice settles legal disputes between states and gives opinions on international law. One seeks personal criminal responsibility; the other addresses countries’ obligations.

For example, ICC judges issued arrest warrants in 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged crimes in Gaza. The court’s mechanism targets named individuals, but it relies heavily on countries to arrest suspects. The ICJ, by contrast, handles cases brought by one country against another.

This distinction matters in the current conflict with Donald Trump. The United States imposed sanctions against the ICC, while EU countries initially hesitated over a strong response. Dutch Foreign Minister Berendsen urged EU ministers to stand firmly behind the court. European support could help protect its independence and enforcement, even though the ICC has no police force of its own.

How can an international court prosecute individuals while countries still retain national sovereignty?

An international court does not replace countries’ governments: it tries people for the gravest crimes when national justice cannot act. Countries accept this limited power by joining a treaty, while non-members may face jurisdiction in certain situations.

For example, the International Criminal Court can prosecute a national leader for alleged genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes. The key safeguard is complementarity. National courts get the first chance. The ICC steps in only when they are unwilling or genuinely unable to investigate.

This balance remains contested. The source reports that US sanctions followed America’s attack on the ICC, while EU countries delayed a forceful response. Dutch Foreign Minister Berendsen urged EU ministers to stand firmly behind the court. Sovereignty therefore remains, but treaty commitments create shared limits against impunity.

This brief was written by AI from the original reporting and checked by other models. Names, figures and quotes come from the source; read it for full context.