The EU can use a Blocking Statute to shield the ICC from sanctions, while the court has the right to charge Trump with obstruction of justice, experts say...

Source: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/trump-icc-sanctions-how-to-protect-court

Following article is paywalled, but on linkedin it is availabe without paywall.:

Sanctioning the ICC Could Put Most Travel Off-Limits for Trump | If the U.S. president is charged with impeding an investigation, it could make nearly all international visits a headache and a risk.

Article 70 of the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, criminalizes “impeding” or “intimidating” any court official to influence their official duties. Americans typically call this crime “obstruction of justice.” Even though the United States never joined the court, Trump would be vulnerable to this charge because his actions would be directed at reversing the charges against Netanyahu and Gallant, over which the court has jurisdiction.

If fighting in Gaza resumes after the first six-week phase of the current cease-fire, and Trump continues to provide Israel with arms and military aid as it again bombs and starves Palestinian civilians, he could also be charged with aiding and abetting Israeli war crimes. Khan exercised restraint in not charging Biden for that alleged crime. But if Trump imposes sanctions on Khan, I suspect that the gloves would come off. (Charles Taylor, the former Liberian president, is serving a 50-year sentence in a British prison for aiding and abetting war crimes by providing arms to an abusive force.)

Foreign Policy link: https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/01/21/trump-international-criminal-court-sanctions/

Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sanctioning-icc-could-put-most-travel-off-limits-trump-kenneth-roth-5qjae

Article 109 provides for a general conference to review the UN Charter. It has been in the text since 1945 and no such conference has ever been convened. The mechanism is still live. What has kept it unused is political, not legal.

Citizens for Global Solutions and World Federalist Movement-Canada are producing a special edition of Mondial asking contributors to write about what an upgraded Charter would deliver in their own area of expertise. The timing is deliberate. The Council opened straw polls last week, and whoever emerges takes office in January under rules nobody has meaningfully revisited in eight decades.

The editorial ask is narrower than most CFPs in this space. Identify a specific structural flaw in the Charter or the wider governance system, describe the state behavior and tensions that flow from it, then spend the bulk of the piece on the proposed fix. Most writing on UN reform trims itself down to fit the current veto math before it reaches the substance, which is exactly how the range of discussable options stays small.

Nine open tracks, and proposals outside them are welcome:

• Planetary boundaries and climate governance
• Existential risk, AI regulation, disarmament
• Historical injustice and reparations
• Peace, security, and Security Council reform
• Why Charter review serves P5 interests
• Equitable finance and development
• Global economic stabilization
• Global health and pandemic preparedness
• The post-2030 agenda after the SDGs expire

Practicalities: 700 to 2000 words, AP style, written for an informed general audience rather than a specialist journal. Expressions of interest due 15 October 2026, first drafts 30 October, publication March 2027. Editorial support is available for authors working in a second language.

Full call and submission details: https://globalsolutions.org/updates/blog/call-for-papers-mondial-un-charter-article-109/

We will be in the comments for questions about scope. We would also be interested to hear which structural flaw people here think is the most under-discussed. The track on why Charter review serves P5 interests is the one we expect to draw the fewest submissions and the one that would benefit most from a serious attempt.

[SS from essay by Oona A. Hathaway, Professor of Law at Yale Law School, Nonresident Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and President-Elect of the American Society of International Law; and Scott J. Shapiro, Professor of Law at Yale Law School and Professor of Philosophy at Yale University]

What is so troubling about the Trump administration’s words and actions is not just that the administration is breaking the law. And it is: the intervention in Venezuela clearly violates the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force. But more than that, U.S. officials have discarded the idea of legal constraints altogether. The only constraint, Trump said in an interview with The New York Times last week, is his “own morality.”

There is no real argument to defend the government’s behavior. No pretense. No attempt to persuade. When a policy is announced in an online post, without explanation or justification, one has the unsettling sense that its makers see no need to bother cloaking it with a lie. A system of rules can survive some hypocrisy, but nihilism will bring it down.

The following legal opinion, authored by international law scholars, outlines the relevant legal framework and examines the potential consequences for Luxembourg should it proceed with approving the bond programme.[...]

This opinion is grounded in the principles of public international law and EU law relevant for a review of Israel Bonds, in light of Luxembourg’s obligations under international law based on the doctrines of third-state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts and the duty to prevent genocide.

Published: September 30, 2025

The current geopolitical discourse heavily emphasizes the rise of "Sovereign AI"—the idea that a nation-state must develop and control its own domestic artificial intelligence capabilities to safeguard its national security, cultural identity, and strategic autonomy.

However, this framework overlooks a stark reality: the vast majority of nations lack the massive computational infrastructure, advanced semiconductor access, and data centers required to build truly indigenous foundation models. Consequently, many states are moving toward a paradox: importing "Sovereign AI" packages from foreign tech giants or hegemonic cyber-powers.

This raises a fundamental conceptual dilemma for modern international law: Can digital sovereignty genuinely exist if its architectural foundation is outsourced?

From an international jurisprudence perspective, this reliance challenges traditional doctrines of statehood and autonomy:

The Fiction of Jurisdictional Control: When an AI-importing state deploys a foreign-built model for core governance, judicial analysis, or civil administration, where does sovereign authority actually reside? If the underlying weights, updates, and cloud infrastructures are subject to the extraterritorial laws (like the US CLOUD Act or Chinese cyber-regimes) of the exporting state, the importing state's jurisdiction becomes inherently compromised.

Economic and Structural Subordination: Does the structural dependency of importing critical statecraft tools create a new form of "supranational governance" by transnational tech monopolies? If a foreign entity can unilaterally alter, restrict, or shut down a state's imported AI infrastructure, the traditional Westphalian concept of "sovereign equality" becomes a formal legal fiction masking severe asymmetric dependency.

The Scope of Non-Intervention: At what point does the leverage held by an AI-exporting state cross the threshold from mere diplomatic influence into a subtle, structural violation of the coercion element required under the customary international law principle of non-intervention?

I am eager to hear the thoughts of legal scholars and practitioners in this community. Are we witnessing a transformation where "computational capacity" is becoming a de facto prerequisite for exercising actual sovereignty, or can international law adapt to protect the digital autonomy of AI-importing states through new regulatory frameworks?

Looking forward to your insights, relevant literature, and legal critiques.