Key takeaways
- The UN General Assembly adopted resolution A/81/L.11 on November 2, 2026 by 93 votes to 13, with 36 abstentions, condemning threats and interference against the International Criminal Court.
- The United States voted against the text and urged other states to do the same, while ICC President Tomoko Akane said ICC sanctions threaten judicial independence itself.
- Support slipped slightly from the 2025 vote of 94 in favour, 10 against and 34 abstentions, with opposition and abstentions both rising.
- Trinidad and Tobago abstained for the first time on a resolution it had historically supported, prompting domestic criticism.
The UN General Assembly voted on November 2, 2026 to condemn threats and interference against the International Criminal Court (ICC), as the court’s president warned that US sanctions endanger its independence. According to the UN meetings coverage service, the Assembly adopted resolution A/81/L.11 by a recorded vote of 93 in favour, 13 against and 36 abstentions. The result matters because ICC sanctions now reach the institution itself, and the vote shows how many governments are willing to publicly defend it.
The resolution welcomes the court’s report covering August 1, 2025 to July 31, 2026, and condemns attacks on the body and its personnel. It also encourages states that have not joined the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding treaty, to do so without delay, according to the same UN account.
What did the General Assembly vote on, and who opposed it?
The annual ICC report resolution is a routine item, but this year it became a referendum on US pressure. Caribbean National Weekly, citing the UN voting record, reported that the United States, Russia, Israel and Argentina were among the states voting against, alongside Belarus, North Korea, Nicaragua and Paraguay.
In an explanation of vote dated November 2, the US Mission to the UN said the draft contained unacceptable elements that expand the court’s reach, and encouraged other states to vote against it. The statement also recalled that President Donald Trump, in his September General Debate address, called on all ICC member states to withdraw from the court.
The UN account also records a sharp exchange on the floor. One speaker, who cited visa restrictions affecting Russian diplomats, called the draft “detached from reality” and urged states to reject it.
Why are ICC sanctions at the centre of the dispute?
ICC President Tomoko Akane addressed the Assembly by video. According to The Japan Times, it was the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic that an ICC president spoke to the Assembly remotely, because US sanctions on her prevent entry to the United States. The same report said nine of the court’s 18 judges are now under US sanctions.
Akane told delegates that the measures amount to an attempt to obstruct justice. According to TRT World, she said sanctions on the institution were imposed on October 9, the same day the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Navi Pillay, a former ICC judge. She said this followed sanctions on 13 independent judges and prosecutors, including herself.
She also urged states to cooperate in executing outstanding arrest warrants, including those for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, The Japan Times reported. The Japan Times added that the Trump administration targeted individual judges and prosecutors first over investigations involving the United States and its allies, including Israel.
How does this vote compare with last year?
The margin was almost unchanged but moved in the wrong direction for the court’s supporters. On November 11, 2025, the Assembly adopted the equivalent resolution by 94 votes in favour, 10 against and 34 abstentions, according to the UN photo library. This year’s tally is one vote lower in favour, three higher against and two higher in abstentions.
The change is small, yet it comes as the stakes rose. A separate General Assembly vote on the International Court of Justice report, reported by the UN meetings service, passed 106 to 8 with 18 abstentions. That is a different court with a different caseload, but the contrast shows the ICC resolution draws far more resistance. For the related election of ICJ judges, see Intelligence Report’s coverage of the ICJ judges election.
Why did Trinidad and Tobago abstain?
The most notable individual shift came from the Caribbean. The Trinidad Express reported that Trinidad and Tobago abstained, calling it a historic departure from decades of foreign policy on a resolution the country had traditionally co-sponsored and supported. Domestic critics attacked the government’s decision, and the paper noted the country’s role in championing the court’s creation.
Port of Spain has not been reported in these sources as explaining its position in detail, so its motives remain unconfirmed. Analysts quoted by CNC3 questioned whether US influence played a part, which is a claim by critics rather than an established fact.
What it means for the court
General Assembly resolutions are not binding, so the vote does not lift any sanctions or change US policy. Its value is political: it records which governments will publicly defend the court while Washington lobbies against it. Competing positions are clear. Supporters frame the court as an independent guardian against impunity, while opponents argue it exercises unchecked power over states that have not accepted its jurisdiction.
What to watch
- Further US designations: whether Washington adds more ICC judges, prosecutors or staff to its sanctions lists after the vote.
- Defections and shifts: whether other states that backed the court in the past follow Trinidad and Tobago in abstaining on ICC matters.
- Arrest warrant cooperation: whether member states act on the outstanding warrants Akane referred to, or decline to.
- Withdrawal calls: whether any government answers Trump’s September call to leave the court.
- Court operations: any ICC statement on how sanctions affect banking, staffing and its ability to work.
Frequently asked questions
What did the UN General Assembly decide on the ICC on November 2, 2026?
The Assembly adopted resolution A/81/L.11 by 93 votes to 13, with 36 abstentions. The text welcomes the ICC's annual report for August 2025 to July 2026 and condemns threats, attacks and interference against the court and its personnel. It is a non-binding resolution.
Why did the United States vote against the ICC resolution?
In its explanation of vote, the US Mission said it opposes any ICC action against US personnel or allies that have not consented to the court's jurisdiction. It said the draft contained unacceptable elements expanding the court's reach, and it encouraged other states to vote against.
Are ICC judges under US sanctions?
Yes. The Japan Times reported that nine of the court's 18 judges are under US sanctions. ICC President Tomoko Akane said sanctions were also imposed on the institution on October 9, following earlier sanctions on 13 judges and prosecutors, including herself.
Sources
- General Assembly Condemns Threats to International Criminal Court (UN Meetings Coverage, GA/12804)
- Explanation of Vote on the ICC Annual Report Draft General Assembly Resolution (US Mission to the UN)
- ICC president urges U.N. members to defend court against U.S. sanctions (The Japan Times)
- US sanctions against institution seek to 'obstruct course of justice': ICC chief (TRT World)
- Trinidad and Tobago breaks with longstanding ICC support in UN vote (Caribbean National Weekly)
- T&T abstains in ICC vote (Trinidad Express)
- T&T under fire for ICC vote abstention (CNC3)
- General Assembly Adopts Report of International Criminal Court, November 11, 2025 (UN Photo)
- Underscoring Importance of Independence for International Court of Justice (UN Meetings Coverage, GA/12802)
Top image: Ymblanter / Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)
This article was produced by the Intelligence Report Desk. Sources are linked below.
