opinion parliamentary committee draft, 9 June 2026

On towards an EU strategy to protect and strengthen the international justice system and its institutions, mechanisms and partners

Document JURI-PA-789891 · (2026/2004(INI))

Committee on Legal Affairs · Rapporteur: Tineke Strik

Where the law stands · dossier 2026/2004 →

On Parliament’s site PDF Word

Full text

Jump to an amendment (18)

Amendment 1
Amendment 2
Amendment 3
Amendment 4
Amendment 5
Amendment 6
Amendment 7
Amendment 8
Amendment 9
Amendment 10
Amendment 11
Amendment 12
Amendment 13
Amendment 14
Amendment 15
Amendment 16
Amendment 17
Amendment 18

Amendments 91 paragraphs

The Committee on Legal Affairs submits the following to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, as the committee responsible :

Amendment 1

Motion for a resolution

Citation 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
Motion for a resolution– having regard to all international ad hoc tribunals and hybrid/internationalised courts established by the UN,	Amendment– having regard to all international ad hoc tribunals and hybrid/internationalised courts established by the UN, in particular the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda,

Or. en

Amendment 2

Motion for a resolution

Citation 29 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
Motion for a resolution	Amendment– having regard to the Council conclusions of 26 June 2023 on the International Criminal Court on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the adoption of the Rome Statute,

Or. en

Amendment 3

Read the rest (79 paragraphs)

Motion for a resolution

Recital A

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
Motion for a resolutionA. whereas the EU’s commitment to support international justice is embedded in its external action policies, which aim to uphold human rights and the rule of law; whereas key actions include financing and defending the ICC through existing legal instruments, financing actions related to accountability through the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe, strengthening transitional justice, providing aid for investigations and reparations for victims, supporting Eurojust as well as UN-backed investigative mechanisms, partnering with civil society organisations and strengthening judicial cooperation with non-EU countries; whereas the Blocking Statute Regulation8 is a legal tool that can be used to protect stakeholders from the extraterritorial impact of foreign sanctions;	AmendmentA. whereas the EU’s commitment to support international justice is embedded in its external action policies, which aim to uphold human rights and the rule of law; whereas key actions include financing and defending the ICC through existing legal instruments, financing actions related to accountability through the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe, strengthening transitional justice, providing aid for investigations and reparations for victims, supporting Eurojust as well as UN-backed investigative mechanisms, partnering with civil society organisations and strengthening judicial cooperation with non-EU countries; whereas the EU’s commitment to support international justice also encompasses the requirement to ensure that all EU external actions, including the provision of EU funding, are implemented in full compliance with the obligations incumbent on the EU and its Member States on the basis of international law, in particular international humanitarian law, international criminal law and international human rights law; whereas the Blocking Statute Regulation8 is a legal tool that can be used to protect stakeholders from the extraterritorial impact of foreign sanctions;
Motion for a resolution8 Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom (OJ L 309, 29.11.1996, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/1996/2271/oj).	Amendment8 Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom (OJ L 309, 29.11.1996, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/1996/2271/oj).

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

A. whereas the EU’s commitment to support international justice is embedded in its external action policies, which aim to uphold human rights and the rule of law; whereas key actions include financing and defending the ICC through existing legal instruments, financing actions related to accountability through the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe, strengthening transitional justice, providing aid for investigations and reparations for victims, supporting Eurojust as well as UN-backed investigative mechanisms, partnering with civil society organisations and strengthening judicial cooperation with non-EU countries; whereas the EU’s commitment to support international justice also encompasses the requirement to ensure that all EU external actions, including the provision of EU funding, are implemented in full compliance with the obligations incumbent on the EU and its Member States on the basis of international law, in particular international humanitarian law, international criminal law and international human rights law; whereas the Blocking Statute Regulation8 is a legal tool that can be used to protect stakeholders from the extraterritorial impact of foreign sanctions;

8 Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom (OJ L 309, 29.11.1996, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/1996/2271/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 4

Motion for a resolution

Recital A a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
Motion for a resolution	AmendmentAa. whereas the legitimacy of the rules-based international order, which the EU strongly supports and seeks to safeguard, is dependent on compliance with the orders of international bodies and their effective functioning; whereas discrediting and attacking multilateral organisations has serious consequences, such as fostering a culture of impunity; whereas the international community, including the EU, bears responsibility for upholding the rules-based international order1a;
Motion for a resolution	Amendment1a European Parliament resolution of 21 January 2026 on human rights and democracy in the world and the European Union’s policy on the matter – annual report 2025 (Texts adopted, P10_TA(2026)0014).

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Aa. whereas the legitimacy of the rules-based international order, which the EU strongly supports and seeks to safeguard, is dependent on compliance with the orders of international bodies and their effective functioning; whereas discrediting and attacking multilateral organisations has serious consequences, such as fostering a culture of impunity; whereas the international community, including the EU, bears responsibility for upholding the rules-based international order1a;

1a European Parliament resolution of 21 January 2026 on human rights and democracy in the world and the European Union’s policy on the matter – annual report 2025 (Texts adopted, P10_TA(2026)0014).

Or. en

Amendment 5

Motion for a resolution

Recital A b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
Motion for a resolution	AmendmentAb. whereas the system of international justice was significantly shaped by the historical work of international tribunals, in particular the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg Tribunal) and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (Tokyo Tribunal), the ad hoc tribunals of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the mixed hybrid tribunals of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, and the permanent treaty-based institution of the ICC, which have established foundational principles and refined definitions of international crimes, such as through the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’s clarification of the principle of command responsibility in establishing the three criteria, namely the existence of a superior-subordinate relationship, the mental state of the commander, and the failure of the superior to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or punish1a;
Motion for a resolution	Amendment1a Judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia of 3 March 2000 in Prosecutor v Blaškić, (Trial Chamber), paragraph 294, of 26 February 2001 in Prosecutor v Kordić and Čerkez, (Trial Chamber), paragraph 401, and of 24 March 2000 in Prosecutor v Aleksovski, (Appeals Chamber), paragraph 76.

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

Ab. whereas the system of international justice was significantly shaped by the historical work of international tribunals, in particular the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg Tribunal) and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (Tokyo Tribunal), the ad hoc tribunals of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the mixed hybrid tribunals of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, and the permanent treaty-based institution of the ICC, which have established foundational principles and refined definitions of international crimes, such as through the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’s clarification of the principle of command responsibility in establishing the three criteria, namely the existence of a superior-subordinate relationship, the mental state of the commander, and the failure of the superior to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or punish1a;

1a Judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia of 3 March 2000 in Prosecutor v Blaškić, (Trial Chamber), paragraph 294, of 26 February 2001 in Prosecutor v Kordić and Čerkez, (Trial Chamber), paragraph 401, and of 24 March 2000 in Prosecutor v Aleksovski, (Appeals Chamber), paragraph 76.

Or. en

Amendment 6

Motion for a resolution

Recital B

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
Motion for a resolutionB. whereas Articles 3 and 21 TEU require consistency between the EU’s internal and external action; whereas failure to support international justice mechanisms and to comply with international obligations would undermine the credibility of the EU’s external action;	AmendmentB. whereas Articles 3 and 21 TEU require consistency between the EU’s internal and external action; whereas advisory opinions and judgments issued by international courts may have legal implications for the EU legal order and for the implementation of EU law and policies; whereas failure to support international justice mechanisms, to comply with international obligations and to ensure consistency between EU action and international law would undermine the credibility of the EU’s external action;

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

B. whereas Articles 3 and 21 TEU require consistency between the EU’s internal and external action; whereas failure to support international justice mechanisms and to comply with international obligations would undermine the credibility of the EU’s external action;

B. whereas Articles 3 and 21 TEU require consistency between the EU’s internal and external action; whereas advisory opinions and judgments issued by international courts may have legal implications for the EU legal order and for the implementation of EU law and policies; whereas failure to support international justice mechanisms, to comply with international obligations and to ensure consistency between EU action and international law would undermine the credibility of the EU’s external action;

Or. en

Amendment 7

Motion for a resolution

Recital E a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
Motion for a resolution	AmendmentEa. whereas the Rome Statute explicitly describes acts of impediment, intimidation and retaliation directed against ICC officials to influence the performance of their duties as offences against the administration of justice;

Or. en

Amendment 8

Motion for a resolution

Recital F a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
Motion for a resolution	AmendmentFa. whereas such coercive measures targeting officials of international organisations undermine the functioning of the international justice system and directly interfere with the principles of jurisdictional independence and EU Member States’ sovereignty;

Or. en

Amendment 9

Motion for a resolution

Subheading 1

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
Motion for a resolutionDeveloping an EU strategy to strengthen the international system of justice and to protect European sovereignty	AmendmentDeveloping an EU strategy to strengthen the international system of justice

Or. en

Amendment 10

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
Motion for a resolution	Amendment6a. Calls on the Commission to present a comprehensive assessment of the consequences for the EU legal order arising from relevant decisions and advisory opinions issued by international courts and tribunals, including the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 19 July 2024; calls on the Commission to assess, in particular, whether EU legislation, policies, programmes, funding instruments, trade-related measures, economic and diplomatic relations and administrative practices are fully consistent with the legal obligations incumbent on the EU and its Member States under international law and to propose, where necessary, appropriate corrective measures to ensure that EU law, policy and practice do not contribute to, facilitate or grant recognition to situations found to be contrary to international law; calls on the Commission to report to Parliament on any legislative, regulatory or administrative measures taken in this respect;

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

6a. Calls on the Commission to present a comprehensive assessment of the consequences for the EU legal order arising from relevant decisions and advisory opinions issued by international courts and tribunals, including the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 19 July 2024; calls on the Commission to assess, in particular, whether EU legislation, policies, programmes, funding instruments, trade-related measures, economic and diplomatic relations and administrative practices are fully consistent with the legal obligations incumbent on the EU and its Member States under international law and to propose, where necessary, appropriate corrective measures to ensure that EU law, policy and practice do not contribute to, facilitate or grant recognition to situations found to be contrary to international law; calls on the Commission to report to Parliament on any legislative, regulatory or administrative measures taken in this respect;

Or. en

Amendment 11

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 6 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
Motion for a resolution	Amendment6b. Stresses that no EU action, financial assistance, programme, cooperation agreement or funding instrument should directly or indirectly contribute to, facilitate, aid, assist, or otherwise be linked to violations of international law, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide or other serious violations of international humanitarian law, international criminal law or international human rights law; calls on the Commission to strengthen ex ante and ex post assessments and monitoring mechanisms accordingly;

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

6b. Stresses that no EU action, financial assistance, programme, cooperation agreement or funding instrument should directly or indirectly contribute to, facilitate, aid, assist, or otherwise be linked to violations of international law, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide or other serious violations of international humanitarian law, international criminal law or international human rights law; calls on the Commission to strengthen ex ante and ex post assessments and monitoring mechanisms accordingly;

Or. en

Amendment 12

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 9

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
Motion for a resolution9. Urges the Commission to activate the EU Blocking Statute as an essential and immediate instrument to counteract the extraterritorial effects of foreign unilateral coercive measures;	Amendment9. Deeply regrets the fact that the Commission has not taken all the necessary steps, as a matter of priority, to ensure effective protection against the extraterritorial effects of foreign unilateral coercive measures targeting international justice institutions, officials, mandate holders and civil society organisations or other persons cooperating with international accountability mechanisms, including through the activation of the EU Blocking Statute; reiterates its call on the Commission to activate the EU Blocking Statute as an essential and immediate instrument to counteract the extraterritorial effects of foreign unilateral coercive measures; underlines the fact that persistent inaction in this regard warrants further parliamentary scrutiny through the instruments provided for in the Treaties and in Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, including the establishment of a temporary committee of inquiry in accordance with Article 226 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

9. Urges the Commission to activate the EU Blocking Statute as an essential and immediate instrument to counteract the extraterritorial effects of foreign unilateral coercive measures;

9. Deeply regrets the fact that the Commission has not taken all the necessary steps, as a matter of priority, to ensure effective protection against the extraterritorial effects of foreign unilateral coercive measures targeting international justice institutions, officials, mandate holders and civil society organisations or other persons cooperating with international accountability mechanisms, including through the activation of the EU Blocking Statute; reiterates its call on the Commission to activate the EU Blocking Statute as an essential and immediate instrument to counteract the extraterritorial effects of foreign unilateral coercive measures; underlines the fact that persistent inaction in this regard warrants further parliamentary scrutiny through the instruments provided for in the Treaties and in Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, including the establishment of a temporary committee of inquiry in accordance with Article 226 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

Or. en

Amendment 13

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 20 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
Motion for a resolution	Amendment20a. Reiterates its call for the creation of an EU-wide legal framework for non-profit and not-for-profit entities operating within the EU and for the continuation of work, at EU level, to establish a statute for a European association as a functional framework to empower civil society organisations and allow them to be a meaningful part of the efforts to protect democracy;

Or. en

Amendment 14

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22 a (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
Motion for a resolution	Amendment22a. Considers that it should create a temporary committee of inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions or maladministration in the implementation of EU law as set out in Council Decision 2011/168/CFSP and Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96;

Or. en

Amendment 15

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22 b (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
Motion for a resolution	Amendment22b. Considers that it should, without delay, consider establishing a committee of inquiry to investigate possible failures or maladministration by EU institutions or Member States, inconsistent or discriminatory implementation by Member States, failures to comply with duties of sincere cooperation under EU law in terms of obligations or administrative obstruction of cooperation with the ICC where EU law obligations are engaged that stem from Council Decision 2011/168/CFSP and Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96;

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

22b. Considers that it should, without delay, consider establishing a committee of inquiry to investigate possible failures or maladministration by EU institutions or Member States, inconsistent or discriminatory implementation by Member States, failures to comply with duties of sincere cooperation under EU law in terms of obligations or administrative obstruction of cooperation with the ICC where EU law obligations are engaged that stem from Council Decision 2011/168/CFSP and Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96;

Or. en

Amendment 16

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22 c (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
Motion for a resolution	Amendment22c. Calls on the Commission and the Council to establish a monitoring and reporting system to keep under review the implementation of the Agreement between the ICC and the EU on cooperation and assistance;

Or. en

Amendment 17

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22 d (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
Motion for a resolution	Amendment22d. Recalls the Rome Statute obligations regarding cooperation and assistance and notes that Council Decision 2011/168/CFSP states that ‘the Union and its Member States shall consider the conclusion, as appropriate, of ad hoc arrangements and agreements to enable the effective functioning of the ICC and shall encourage third parties to do so’;

Or. en

Amendment 18

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 22 e (new)

Motion for a resolution	Amendment
Motion for a resolution	Amendment22e. Calls on the European External Action Service to establish a monitoring and reporting system whereby the Council and Parliament are informed and briefed on a regular basis of developments relating to the Rome Statute;

Or. en