The Presidency of the International Criminal Court has referred Italy's non-compliance to the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), the Court's governing legislative body composed of the Rome Statute's member states. The referral, announced by the ICC, moves a dispute over a state's failure to cooperate with the Court from the judicial chamber to the political forum where member states weigh consequences for statutory breaches.

The referral concerns Italy's non-compliance. The ICC Presidency issued the decision after concluding that Italy failed to meet obligations owed to the Court. Under the Rome Statute, the Court's judicial organs may refer a state's refusal or failure to cooperate to the Assembly of States Parties, and where the UN Security Council referred the situation, to the Council itself. Italy's situation did not involve a Security Council referral, so the matter proceeds to the ASP.

What the referral means

The Presidency is one of the Court's principal organs, responsible for judicial administration and, in this context, for transmitting findings of non-compliance. A referral under the Statute's cooperation framework does not itself impose sanctions. Instead, it places the matter before the ASP, which may take any measure it deems appropriate. In practice, that can range from diplomatic pressure and public censure to measures affecting a state's standing within the Assembly.

The referral follows the established sequence under Article 87(7) of the Rome Statute, which permits the Court to make a finding of non-compliance and refer it upward when a State Party fails to cooperate, thereby preventing the Court from exercising its functions and powers under the Statute. The Presidency's action signals that the Court considers the failure sufficiently serious to warrant collective attention by the membership.

Practical consequences for practitioners

For counsel and government legal advisers, the referral carries several implications. First, it puts Italy's cooperation record formally on the ASP agenda, which means Rome will face scrutiny from fellow States Parties at the Assembly's sessions, including its annual meeting in New York and any resumed sessions in The Hague. Second, states considering cooperation requests from the ICC will watch how the ASP responds, since the outcome will signal the real-world cost — or absence of cost — of refusing or failing to execute Court requests. Third, defence teams and victims' representatives may cite the finding of non-compliance in proceedings where a state's failure to cooperate has affected the fairness or completeness of proceedings.

The referral also tests the ASP's enforcement toolkit. The Assembly has no coercive powers comparable to those of domestic courts; its leverage rests on peer pressure, budgetary decisions and diplomatic engagement. How it handles this referral will indicate whether the cooperation regime at the heart of the Rome Statute carries practical weight when a founding member of the Court's European constituency stands accused of non-compliance.

Background on the organs involved

The ICC Presidency consists of the President and First and Second Vice-Presidents, elected by an absolute majority of the judges. The Assembly of States Parties, established by the Rome Statute, meets at least once a year and oversees the Court's management, including budget, cooperation and the election of judges and prosecutors.

No date for ASP consideration of the referral was included in the Court's announcement. The Assembly's next scheduled session will provide the first formal opportunity for member states to respond to the Presidency's finding and to decide what measures, if any, to take regarding Italy's non-compliance with the Court.