Eight close United States allies publicly broke with Washington over its sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) — and Australia was not among them for three days. The ABC reported on 13 October 2026 that Canberra’s name was finally added late on the Monday to a joint statement defending the Hague-based court, which prosecutes individuals for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The statement was issued late on the Friday by Japan, Canada, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, according to the ABC, hours after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced sanctions freezing the court’s US assets and cutting it off from American companies.
Key facts
- The eight original signatories reaffirmed their support for the ICC’s independence, impartiality and integrity, the ABC reports.
- Australia was not on the list when the statement appeared on the Saturday morning, Australian local time.
- Australia’s name was added late on the Monday, after which the statement went onto the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) website.
- A federal government spokesperson told the ABC that Australia was invited to join only after publication, and told the Netherlands on the Sunday that it was willing to sign.
- Australia’s initial silence drew criticism from legal experts, who accused the government of cowardice, the ABC says.
What the sanctions do
The measures announced by Mr Rubio freeze the court’s assets in the United States and cut it off from American companies, the ABC reports. The eight-country statement said they would have a significant impact on the court’s work, on its staff and their families, and on the victims those staff support.
“As committed supporters of the ICC we regret and strongly disagree with the announcement of sanctions to be imposed upon the Court by the United States,” the signatories said, in wording quoted by the ABC.
The practical bite is commercial rather than legal. Professor Catherine Renshaw, Dean of Law at the University of Western Sydney, told the ABC that US companies and financial institutions play a central role in providing the court with legal, travel and banking services, which makes the sanctions a very difficult problem. On that account the court’s exposure runs through the same banking and compliance channels any international institution depends on — payroll, travel bookings, insurance and correspondent banking — rather than through any courtroom.
Canberra’s low profile
Professor Renshaw described the government’s initial response as sluggish and said it was disappointing that Australia did not sign the original statement, given what she called Australia’s long history of building international law and supporting institutions such as the ICC. She told the ABC it was nonetheless welcome that Australia had now joined friends and allies.
An official from another Western country, quoted by the ABC, said Australia was taking a much more careful and low profile approach to defending the court than other US allies, contrasting Australian ministers with Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who the ABC says issued a statement in English and Japanese on the Friday night sharply criticising the sanctions.
Officials told the ABC earlier this year that there was deep unease in Canberra about the sanctions, but that Australia was wary of a fight with the Trump administration over the issue, particularly because the campaign against the court has been championed by Mr Rubio. One official from a third country told the ABC it was surreal to watch Western diplomats working out how best to shield their own nationals from US sanctions.
The Pacific read, and its limits
The instrument in dispute is already familiar in this region. Fiji News has reported that Suva asked Washington for the evidence behind the sanctioning of Zhao Fugang, and that the US barred a Suva hotelier over alleged corruption links. The contrast with this week is instructive: in those cases the designations landed on individuals with no government willing to object on the record, while here nine wealthy allies objected in writing within days — and Australia, which co-hosted the Pacific pre-COP31 leaders meeting in Nadi, needed three of those days to do so.
That comparison is this publication’s analysis, not a finding in the ABC’s report, and the limits should be stated plainly: the ABC report does not connect the ICC sanctions to Fiji, to Pacific Island states or to any regional institution, and no Fijian minister, official or regional analyst has commented on the episode on the record.
What is not yet known
This account rests on a single ABC report; Fiji News has not independently verified the statement’s drafting timeline with DFAT, the Netherlands or the court. The ABC does not say whether Australia’s Prime Minister or Foreign Minister intend to comment further, what practical assistance is being offered to Australians at the court, or whether additional countries have since joined the statement.
Frequently Asked Questions
When do the US sanctions on the ICC actually take effect?
The ABC reports that the Trump administration has offered a 180-day grace period before the sanctions are fully implemented, and that Canberra has used that window to work through the implications with Australians employed by the court.
Have Anthony Albanese or Penny Wong personally condemned the sanctions?
According to the ABC, neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Minister has made a personal statement on the issue. The ABC reports that last month Ms Wong declined to directly criticise the Trump administration over the sanctions in an SBS interview, saying she spoke for Australia and not for the US.
Do other governments believe Australia deliberately held back?
Not all of them. The ABC reports that an official from a European country defended Australia’s approach, saying it took time to coordinate a position across continents over a weekend, and that an official from another Western country did not believe Australia had hesitated.
Why is a Fiji news site covering an Australia–US dispute?
Because Australia is the Pacific’s largest traditional partner and the way Canberra handles public disagreement with Washington bears on decisions that reach this region. Readers should know the limits of that link: the ABC report makes no mention of Fiji, Pacific Island states or any Pacific institution, and Fiji News has not obtained comment from any Fijian official on this episode.
