LONDON: US President Donald Trump stood before world leaders at the United Nations on Wednesday and urged members of the International Criminal Court to withdraw from the Hague-based tribunal, escalating his administration’s campaign against an institution it accuses of overreach.

Trump called the ICC a “rogue institution” and urged member states to “officially resign” immediately, saying the US would never allow American service members or allies to face what he described as “show trials” before an “anti-American tribunal with no jurisdiction over us.”

His remarks followed a UN fact-finding mission’s finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe US forces committed war crimes during strikes in Iran. The mission said two February strikes, including one on a school in Minab, constituted war crimes.

Trump’s call does not alter the legal obligations of ICC member states, said Harout Ekmanian, a New York-based lawyer specializing in international disputes and public international law.

“President Trump’s call for states to withdraw from the ICC carries political significance but has no legal effect on their obligations under the Rome Statute,” Ekmanian told Arab News.

States retain the sovereign right to leave the court, but must follow the Rome Statute’s withdrawal procedures and their own constitutional rules.

Trump’s claim that the ICC has no jurisdiction over the US is also “legally overbroad,” Ekmanian said.

“Although the US is not a party to the Rome Statute, the ICC’s jurisdiction is not exclusively dependent upon the accused individual’s nationality or their State’s consent,” he said.

Under Article 12(2), the court can exercise jurisdiction over citizens of nonmember states when alleged crimes are committed on the territory of an ICC member state or a state that has accepted the court’s jurisdiction.

“Non-membership therefore does not confer categorical immunity from the ICC’s jurisdiction,” Ekmanian said. “It does, however, mean that the US is generally not subject to the Rome Statute’s treaty-based cooperation obligations.”

The bigger question is whether Trump’s pressure, combined with possible new US sanctions against the court, could weaken political support for the ICC.

The Trump administration is preparing sanctions targeting the institution itself, according to sources cited by Reuters, in a move that could restrict its access to US financial and other services. Washington has previously sanctioned ICC judges and prosecutors.

Timothy Kaldas, deputy director of the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, said member states should take the threat seriously.

“They should take very seriously Trump’s threats to try to destroy the court,” Kaldas told Arab News. “That said, I think they should unite to defend it, because the more unified the members are, the more pressure they can push back on the US to try to protect the court from US actions.”

European officials have also expressed concern. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said the ICC was under “immense pressure” and warned that pressure on the court and its judges raised questions about commitments to the international legal order.

The Netherlands has called on the EU to invoke its Blocking Statute, which is designed to prevent European companies from complying with certain extraterritorial sanctions.

But Kaldas said the measure alone might not protect European banks with significant exposure to the US financial system.

“I think that the EU, in order to defend the ICC, would have to probably confront the United States,” he said. “The blocking statute alone … isn’t guaranteed to protect European banks that could be implicated in US sanctions on the ICC.”

Ekmanian said the EU could update the Blocking Statute to prohibit European firms from complying with ICC-related US sanctions and allow them to seek damages. It could also develop payment channels less dependent on the dollar.

But those measures would not fully protect transactions involving US dollars, US banks or US persons. Financial institutions with major US exposure could still face conflicting legal requirements.

“History suggests many would de-risk regardless, as they did with Iran after 2018,” Ekmanian said. “Full protection would require either a US license or arrangements that stay entirely outside US jurisdiction.”

Even if countries heed Trump’s call and begin withdrawal proceedings, leaving the ICC would not erase obligations arising while they were members, Ekmanian said.

“Crucially, withdrawal does not operate retroactively,” he said. “It neither extinguishes the court’s jurisdiction over crimes committed while the state was bound by the statute nor terminates investigations and proceedings already under consideration.”

Recent withdrawals have nevertheless added to concerns about the court’s future. Venezuela and Chad began withdrawal procedures this year, following Burkina Faso,  Burundi Mali and Niger. The ICC’s Assembly of States Parties has warned that such withdrawals risk weakening international efforts to end impunity.

Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said Trump’s campaign against the court was aimed at shielding US and Israeli officials from accountability.

“Trump’s attacks on the International Criminal Court reflect an effort to make the world safe for war criminals if they are American or Israeli,” Roth told Arab News. “It will fail.”

Roth said the next major test could be the selection of the ICC’s next chief prosecutor. He argued that the US administration could seek to influence the choice of a prosecutor more receptive to its approach to accountability.

“It is essential that ICC member states not bow to Trump’s quest for impunity,” Roth said.