'Extremely worrying', says former International Criminal Court judge about Trump's sanctions after Nobel Peace Prize

Donald Trump imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court after Navi Pillay won the Nobel Peace Prize.

In an interview with g1, Steiner says that the court is fulfilling the duties for which it was created, and that punishing the institution for its actions threatens the independence of international justice.

The harshest reaction came from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio: "Either the ICC will end its threats, or we will end the ICC."

"President Trump will never allow the International Criminal Court to prosecute American citizens. [...] We will prohibit transactions with this rogue court, cutting off its resources and harming its ability to operate," Rubio said on Friday.

The speech took place hours after the Norwegian Nobel Committee justified the choice of South African Pillay with her contribution to the development of an international legal order and to accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

Pillay chaired the UN commission that concluded, in 2025, that Israel committed genocide in Gaza and that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant incited the crime.

Israel and the United States do not recognize the court's jurisdiction.

During her career, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning judge:

fought against apartheid and ensured that Nelson Mandela had access to a lawyer in prison;

became the first non-white woman on the Supreme Court of South Africa;

judged the genocide in Rwanda;

headed the UN human rights area;

chaired the committee created by the UN that determined that Israel committed genocide in Gaza.

It was precisely his experience in genocide trials that marked his professional relationship with the Brazilian Steiner. The two were part of the ICC's first group of judges, in 2003, after Pillay served on the court created to judge crimes committed in Rwanda in 1994.

Steiner reminded g1 of the South African colleague's reputation, her 'revolutionary' decision on sexual violence and the importance of her work that preceded Pillay's work at the ICC.

“She had an extraordinary reputation for the work she had done in Rwanda,” Steiner said.

g1 - What was it like working with Navi Pillay at the International Criminal Court?

Sylvia Steiner — We were both elected to the first composition of the International Criminal Court, in 2003. Navi Pillay was appointed to the Chamber of Appeals, because of her experience at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).

I was assigned to the Preliminary Chamber. She already had an extraordinary reputation for the work she had done in the trials related to the Rwandan genocide.

How important was Navi Pillay's role at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda?

Her experience in court was very important for the consolidation of international justice and the development of legal understandings about the crimes committed during the 1994 genocide.

One of the most striking cases was the trial of politician Jean-Paul Akayesu, who recognized that rape can constitute an act of genocide when it is carried out with the intention of destroying, in whole or in part, a protected group.

It was a revolutionary decision.

Still as president of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Pillay held media leaders responsible for inciting the genocide. Broadcasters and publications contributed to the persecution of Tutsis by dehumanizing the group, calling them “cockroaches” and disseminating information that encouraged murders.

The trial demonstrated that incitement to genocide through communication can also generate criminal liability.

The Nobel Peace Prize recognizes Navi Pillay's contribution to peace and international law. What does her trajectory represent in this context?

Her trajectory demonstrates the importance of having mechanisms capable of investigating serious crimes and holding their perpetrators accountable.

Navi Pillay worked in different international institutions and played an important role in building legal understandings about genocide and other crimes. This work is essential so that violations of this severity do not go unanswered.

In what situations can ICC judges investigate and judge a case?

The court's actions depend on the rules of jurisdiction set out in the Rome Statute. In general terms, we can act in cases related to crimes committed in the territory of a State that has acceded to the treaty or by citizens of one of these countries.

There are also specific situations in which a State that is not party to the treaty accepts the jurisdiction of the court, in addition to the hypotheses provided for in the Statute itself.

Why does the ICC rely on countries to arrest people against whom it has issued warrants?

The ICC does not have its own police force and cannot enter a country's territory to make an arrest on its own. They depend on the cooperation of States to execute the warrants and deliver the accused to justice. Although there are cooperation obligations, political and geopolitical factors may make compliance with these measures difficult.

When states do not cooperate for political or geopolitical reasons, the court's hands are tied. We do not have our own means to carry out arrests, so we depend on some State to fulfill its obligations and detain the wanted person.

How do you evaluate the sanctions imposed by the Donald Trump government on the ICC?

All political interference has an impact. Judicial independence is fundamental both to guarantee the rule of law within countries and to preserve the international order. Sanctioning a court for fulfilling its obligations is atypical and extremely worrying.

We are talking about an institution that was built over decades, since the Nuremberg trials, to prevent international crimes from going unpunished. The court exists to ensure that we do not return to a time where only force prevails.

What could be the consequences of these measures for victims of international crimes?

The weakening of the court harms victims of humanitarian disasters and international crimes. The ICC allows them to participate in the processes and, in the foreseen cases, to have access to reparations.

When we weaken the institution, we also harm the people who depend on it to seek justice.

With this political pressure, the very idea of ​​an international order based on law is at risk. We need the international community to unite in defense of the court. Despite sanctions and pressure, judges, prosecutors and officials continue to work. International Law is the only guarantee of this order.