Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand recently said, on the eve of International Justice Day, that Canada will continue to support the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Anand’s comments came in response to a Wall Street Journal op-ed written by United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio pledging to dismantle the ICC. In response, some analysts have argued doing so is not truly a current priority for the U.S. and won’t be a key issue during trade or other negotiations with Canada.
Nonetheless, Canada’s vocal support of the ICC is a positive development for the court; one of its key founding members is sticking with it. But could and should Canada do and say more to counter the many inaccurate claims made about the ICC? Here’s why Canada is in a tricky spot.
Marco Rubio’s threats
Rubio’s threat to dismantle the court “brick by brick if necessary” is yet another American attack against the ICC ostensibly aimed at protecting U.S. sovereignty.
Ironically, while Canada played a foundational, leading role in the creation of the ICC, the U.S. also supported its creation, albeit tepidly.
Nonetheless, many of the ICC’s key tenets are at odds with the allegations in Rubio’s op-ed.
Take the ICC’s principle of “complementarity” as an example: it calls on states to investigate and prosecute themselves first. Rather than distancing itself from American state sovereignty, as Rubio argued, this ICC concept aligns directly with it.
Canadian support
Anand’s recent vocal support of the ICC isn’t a one-off. Canada has supported Canadian Kimberly Prost, an ICC judge who’s been sanctioned by the U.S. for her work on Afghanistan — even though the court has refocused its attention on members of the Taliban rather than American conduct.
Canada also called for global support of the ICC in an open debate during the court’s Assembly of States Parties in December 2025.
Yet there have been no efforts by Canada to publicly counter factually inaccurate, disingenuous and inflammatory comments made about the ICC by the U.S., most recently in Rubio’s op-ed.
Clearly, Canada is mindful of creating any additional tensions in its relationship with the U.S. Given the size differentials — Canada remains “the mouse sleeping beside the elephant” — Canadian officials need to strike a very delicate balance.
Trade and defence are top priorities
Trade and security are taking priority in bilateral relations with the U.S. at the moment. The latest tensions surrounding the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) are such that the U.S. will not renew the agreement in its current form.
Read more: Why Mark Carney is pushing ‘Fortress North America’ amid deep Canadian distrust of the U.S.
The existing agreement is in place until ongoing negotiations are concluded, and it will be reviewed on an annual basis.
Defence is another critical policy area in the Canada-U.S. relationship. Canada has increased its defence spending, and its latest procurement initiatives suggest that it’s also sought other partners. That includes considering the purchase of Saab Grippen aircraft and reducing its order for American-made F-35 fighters.
Even though Canada has tried — as is the case with trade — to diversify, geo-strategic realities dictate that Canada needs to play ball with the U.S. on defence.
Horse trading in international relations
The reality of international negotiations — on international criminal justice or other matters — suggests that states don’t negotiate in a vacuum.
So-called issue linkages are very much part and parcel of international negotiations.
Sabine Noelke, a former Canadian ambassador to the Netherlands, has been intimately involved in the work of the ICC. In a 2020 interview, she said of negotiations at the ICC’s Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP):
“The horse trading that goes on on the floor of the ASP at the very last minute — like ‘we’ll vote for you for the Tribunal on the Law of the Sea if you vote for my judge here.’ It has nothing to do with the qualification of the candidate at that point; it becomes, you know, trading cards.”
Other researchers have found that “state positions on the ICC were influenced by their trade partners…states worried about pleasing their partners because they were dependent on them.”
What Canada should do
Canada — and certainly the U.S. — could be addressing their own domestic audiences, and not each other, when they weigh in on the ICC.
But because Canada’s international credibility is built on advocating for human rights and supporting the ICC, standing up for victims of mass atrocities is vital.
Speaking up and doing more to support the ICC isn’t just consistent with Canadian values — it is a smart diplomatic strategy.
