header-logo header-logo

Rule of law threat as US sanctions ICC judges

Lawyers have voiced support for judges and prosecutors of the International Criminal Court (ICC) subjected to US sanctions

The US imposed sanctions this week on two judges, Canada’s Kimberly Prost and France’s Nicolas Guillou, and two prosecutors, Fiji’s Nazhat Shameem Khan and Senegal’s Mame Mandiaye Niang, in response to the ICC issuing arrest warrants in November against Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant, and to Judge Prost’s work on an investigation into US personnel in Afghanistan.

The ICC has also issued arrest warrants against three Hamas leaders who have since died.

Law Society president Richard Atkinson said: ‘The sanctions against ICC legal professionals not only violate their rights but also threaten to undermine access to justice for victims of crimes under international law.

‘The legal profession upholds democracy and the rule of law—and when it is threatened, it is our duty to ensure that justice prevails. We stand with the ICC, fellow groups of legal professional bodies and lawyers’ rights organisations in condemnation of the US sanctions against ICC personnel, which represent a flagrant disregard for the rule of law and justice worldwide.’

The ICC’s oversight body, the Assembly of States Parties, condemned this week’s sanctions as ‘regrettable attempts to impede the Court and its personnel in the exercise of their independent judicial functions.

‘We continue to object to such unilateral measures firmly and unequivocally. They represent an affront to the independence of the Court and the integrity of the Rome Statute system…. In these challenging times, the international community must reaffirm its collective commitment to the rule of law and to ensuring that no one is above accountability’.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll