Penalising peasant seed systems threatens global food supply by UN Working Group on the rights of peasants   16 Sep. 2026   Farmers across Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America face fines and imprisonment for saving, exchanging and selling seed under laws written for industrial seed markets, the UN Working Group on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas said today.   Punishment for seed sharing goes up to 15 years in prison in some jurisdictions, the Working Group said.   In its latest report to the UN Human Rights Council, the Working Group said almost all the world's food comes from seeds, and traditional systems supply 70 to 90 per cent of the seed sown in many countries.   "Saving and sharing seed are among humanity's oldest agricultural practices, and the reason crops can still withstand drought, floods and disease," said Shalmali Guttal, Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group. "Criminalising them is unacceptable and counterproductive."   Plant variety protection laws punish farmers who trade seed of a company's protected variety. Certification rules go further, permitting the sale or exchange only of catalogued seed. Peasant varieties, intentionally diverse and continually adapting, do not meet standards for industrial seeds. Peasants trading their own traditional seed thereby become traders of "counterfeit" seed.   The experts noted that women, as the principal custodians of seed, are particularly affected. They select, adapt and make available local varieties, protecting families from debt arising from purchased seeds and expensive inputs. Rules penalising traditional practices undermine their income and food autonomy.   "Traditional seed systems should be celebrated, not prosecuted," Guttal said. "By exercising their right to seeds, peasants feed the world, protect nature and find sustainable ways forward through the climate crisis.”   Enforcement has hardened in recent years, the report found. Infringements once settled as private disputes are now pursued as crimes against industrial property, with molecular markers, drones, satellite imagery and anonymous tip lines inviting reports of "suspicious seed activity."   The report traces the pressure to the 1991 Act of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV 1991), which trade agreements increasingly require States to adopt, and to World Bank financing conditioned on UPOV-aligned reform.   The report also examines the concentration of the seed market, where four corporations, Bayer, Corteva, Syngenta and BASF, control more than half of US$81 billion in annual sales. Patents are staked on digital sequence information, which allows companies to claim traits without ever obtaining the seed.   “Laws should penalise biopiracy, commodification of seeds and prevent seed monopolies,” the Working Group said.   “War and occupation destroy seed systems outright. In December 2025, military raids forced the closure and seizure of the only Palestinian community-managed seed bank, which held more than 70 varieties collected across the West Bank and Gaza; its seed-multiplication unit had been bulldozed five months earlier.”   The experts said peasant seed survives only by being grown, exchanged and reselected. Varieties kept but not planted stop adapting and knowledge not passed on is gone in a generation. “What is at risk is not only the seed already collected but the knowledge and capacity to go on producing more,” they warned.   In November 2025 the High Court of Kenya at Machakos held that seed sharing is not a crime. In 2021 the Supreme Court of Honduras struck down the country's plant variety protection law, citing articles 19 and 20 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants for violating the right to nutrition, among the first judgments anywhere to invoke the Declaration.   The Working Group urged States to write article 19 of the Declaration into national law, refrain from implementing UPOV 1991 in ways which contravene the rights of peasants, repeal provisions criminalising peasant seed practices, and exempt traditional seed systems from industrial-market rules.   "Seeds are the material basis of the rights to life, food, health, culture and a healthy environment before they are articles of commerce," Guttal said. "Laws and policies must therefore unconditionally protect peasant right to seeds."   http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/09/penalising-peasant-seed-systems-threatens-global-food-supply-un-experts http://afsafrica.org/blog/the-ndjamena-declaration-africas-seeds-belong-to-its-peoples/ Visit the related web page
	International courts must always remain independent and free from political influence and coercion by ICC President Judge Tomoko Akane The International Criminal Court   19 Aug. 2026   The International Criminal Court deplores the announcement of new designations for sanctions by the US administration against Judge Tomoko Akane (Japan), the President of the Court, and Mr Abdoulaye Seye (Senegal), Senior Trial Lawyer at the Office of the Prosecutor.   These sanctions are a flagrant attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution which operates pursuant to the mandate conferred by its States Parties from across regions. As a result of these designations, at present, nine of the eighteen Judges, both of the two Deputy-Prosecutors, the former Prosecutor and one staff member have been sanctioned by the United States.   Such measures targeting judges, prosecutors and staff who work towards the fulfilment of the mandate that was conferred to the ICC by States undermine the rule of law. When judicial actors are threatened for applying the law, it is the international legal order itself that is placed at risk. Threats and coercive measures also impact the ability of victims to seek justice, as they turn to the Court when all other avenues have been exhausted.   As previously stated, the Court remains undeterred and stands firmly behind its personnel and behind victims of unimaginable atrocities. The Court will continue to fully discharge its mandate with independence and impartiality, in full accordance with the Rome Statute and in the interest of victims of international crimes.   The ICC values the consistent demonstrations of solidarity of States Parties, civil society and all those who support the rule of law and justice for the victims of international crimes. The Court will continue its work, with all partners and with the unwavering support of its States Parties, to ensure the effective and independent implementation of its mandate.   http://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-strongly-rejects-new-us-sanctions-designations   17 July 2026   Statement of ICC President Judge Tomoko Akane on the Day of International Criminal Justice:   "Twenty-eight years ago today, the Rome Statute was born from a shared conviction: that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished. Its adoption made possible the creation of the International Criminal Court, which is the only permanent international criminal court established to end impunity for the perpetrators of those crimes.   Since then, the International Criminal Court has been fulfilling its mandate and is now seized of situations from regions across the world. The Court has never been busier, reflecting the continued relevance of its mission.   On this International Criminal Justice Day, let us recall that the international rule of law cannot exist without independent judicial institutions that uphold the law through the decisions of impartial judges. The International Criminal Court is one such institution. By exercising its jurisdiction over individuals accused of committing the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, the Court provides a necessary mechanism for accountability and offers hope to victims of these grave crimes.   International courts must always remain independent and free from political influence and coercion. This guarantees their impartiality and ensures fair proceedings.   Yet in recent years, international law has come under increasing pressure, through both direct attacks and a weakening of the commitment to uphold it. It has never been more important than it is today to defend the international rule of law and to continue the pursuit of justice.   Even in the most challenging times, the International Criminal Court will remain steadfast in its mission: to bring justice to the victims of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community.   Thanks to the continued support of States Parties and civil society, and the commitment of its staff, the Court is able to continue delivering on its demanding but indispensable mandate.   On this International Criminal Justice Day, let us remember that the pursuit of justice is a shared responsibility. Above all, let us remember those who are still waiting for justice for the crimes committed against them".   17 July 2026   The President of the Assembly of States Parties underscores the importance of upholding the rule of law over impunity:   "17 July is the Day of International Criminal Justice. It marks the anniversary of the adoption of the Rome Statute on 17 July 1998, the founding treaty of the ICC, which seeks to protect people from genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.   17 July unites all those who wish to support justice, promote victims' rights, and help prevent crimes that threaten the peace, security and well-being of the world.   The President of the Assembly of States Parties, Ambassador Paivi Kaukoranta, states on the Day of International Criminal Justice:   "International Criminal Justice is about upholding the rule of law over impunity, accountability over indifference, and cooperation over division.   On this Day of International Criminal Justice, I pay tribute to all those who contribute to the Rome Statute system and reaffirm the unwavering commitment of the Assembly of States Parties to safeguard the independence, integrity and future of the International Criminal Court for the benefit of victims of mass atrocities of present and future generations.   It is imperative that we stand today together, address challenges and reinforce our support for the Court, its officials and on those who cooperate with it.”   * The Assembly of States Parties is the management oversight and legislative body of the ICC. It is comprised of representatives of States that have ratified and acceded to the Rome Statute.   http://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-president-judge-tomoko-akane-day-international-criminal-justice http://www.icc-cpi.int/news/president-assembly-states-parties-underscores-importance-upholding-rule-law-over-impunity http://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-deputy-prosecutor-nazhat-shameem-khan-united-nations-security-council-situation http://www.icc-cpi.int/news/iceland-renews-its-support-trust-fund-victims-voluntary-contribution-2025 http://www.icc-cpi.int/news/japan-continues-its-support-trust-fund-victims-icc-bolstering-efforts-assist-survivors-sexual http://www.icc-cpi.int/news/portugal-strengthens-its-voluntary-contribution-2026-and-upholds-its-long-standing-commitment http://www.icc-cpi.int/news/slovenia-reiterates-assistance-survivors-sexual-and-gender-based-violence-through-new http://www.icc-cpi.int/news/germany-bolsters-its-position-leading-donor-and-lends-support-implementation-court-ordered   July 2026   The United Nations upheld the critical role of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on Monday in the global fight to end impunity for grave crimes, amid calls for it to be abolished by the U.S. Administration.   During his regular media briefing, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric was asked if the Secretary-General had anything to say regarding reports that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio wants to “dismantle” the Court, which prosecutes individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression.   “While the ICC is an organisation that is separate from the Secretariat and the UN, it remains for us a critical cog in the international justice system,” said Mr. Dujarric.   “It is supported by a vast number of Member States, and it helps bring accountability for serious crimes,” he added.   The US is not a party to the Rome Statue, the 1998 treaty that established the ICC, which is located in The Hague in the Netherlands.   It comes in the wake of developments last year, when Washington imposed sanctions on nine ICC personnel – including judges, the prosecutor and deputy prosecutors – in connection with efforts to investigate alleged war crimes committed by US forces in Afghanistan and Israel in Gaza..   EU rejects Trump administration claims that ICC threatens US sovereignty. (Guardian News)   A spokesperson for the EU has pushed back against the Trump administration’s assertion that the international criminal court poses a threat to US sovereignty, a day after the US government said it would work to “systematically disable” a global tribunal that seeks to prosecute the perpetrators of the world’s gravest crimes.   Anouar El Anouni, an EU spokesperson, said on Tuesday: “We stand firm in our support for the international criminal court (ICC). Attacks or threats against the court, elected officials, personnel or those cooperating with the court are simply not acceptable.”   El Anouni pointed to the court’s role in pursuing the perpetrators of some of the world’s gravest crimes, from genocide to war crimes. He said: “Let’s also recall that the ICC does not target sovereign states, nor does it constitute a threat to their sovereignty.”   Instead, he added, it “exercises jurisdiction over individuals, perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community”.   Japan, the court's largest financial contributor, "places great importance on the eradication and prevention of serious crimes, as well as the upholding of the rule of law," and "has consistently supported the ICC in its capacity as a permanent international criminal tribunal," Chief Cabinet Secretary Minoru Kihara said Tuesday.   Since Donald Trump returned to power last year, his administration has steadily worked to hobble The Hague-based court. So far, 11 of the court’s officials – including the chief prosecutor and eight judges – have been placed under US sanctions, leaving them grappling with cancelled credit cards, Amazon and Google accounts, as well as US travel bans.   Monday’s announcement, however, marked a dramatic escalation. In a video published on Monday, Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, claimed that the court “threatens every aspect of our political and legal system”. In an accompanying op-ed, he invoked images of US border patrol agents and elected leaders being “dragged before an international court” and tried by judges from around the world.   The US state department said in a statement that the campaign against the court would take a “wide range of actions”, including potentially pressuring other nations to withdraw from the ICC and “increased scrutiny” of the countries that refuse to do so while relying on US assistance.   Countries that could be affected by these measures include Ukraine, where the ICC launched an investigation in 2022 into possible war crimes following Russia’s invasion.   Legal experts described Rubio’s remarks as a mischaracterisation of the tribunal’s powers.   The court can investigate alleged crimes committed in countries that have signed up to it, or crimes committed by citizens of those countries. It can also investigate cases referred by the UN security council, or where a country not signed up agrees to let it act.   But the court is only supposed to step in when a country cannot or will not investigate the crimes itself. The US has not signed up to the court.   For US citizens abroad, chances are slim of being put on trial by the court, as about 100 countries have signed agreements with the US to refrain from surrendering Americans to the court.   Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said: “The ICC is not claiming jurisdiction over conduct in the United States. Rubio is dressing up his quest for impunity for American war crimes under the label of national sovereignty, which ignores the sovereign right of other nations to invoke the ICC for crimes committed on their territory.”   A former senior US government sanctions official suggested that the Trump administration was looking to curtail the possibility of investigations into its actions. “It gives you the sense that this is a pre-emptive campaign against any action the ICC might be considering..” the official said.   What does the Trump Administration Statement on Dismantling the ICC Really Mean? (Just Security)   We asked leading experts to consider: What does this announcement mean in practice for U.S. interests, for the Court, and for the cases it is pursuing? Is it simply more of what has come before from past U.S. administrations or is this a fundamental shift, and if so, what might be driving it? And what does it mean for international criminal law and its enforcement more broadly?   Alex Whiting, Member of the Just Security Editorial Board and Professor of Practice at Harvard Law School, and former Investigations and Prosecutions Coordinator at the ICC:   "We have seen this movie before. Since the ICC opened its doors in 2002, the United States has at various times moved aggressively against the court, only to realize later that this approach was self-defeating and contrary to U.S. interests. The George W. Bush administration started off in a hostile posture toward the court, but then in 2005 supported a U.N. Security Council referral of the situation in Darfur, recognizing that the ICC was one of the few institutions that might address the massive crimes being committed there.   The first Trump administration also went after the ICC in 2020, imposing sanctions on the Prosecutor at the time because of the court’s investigations into potential international crimes in Afghanistan. But then after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, there was bipartisan support in the United States for the ICC’s investigations into potential war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine. The late Senator Lindsay Graham sponsored a resolution in the Senate supporting the work of the ICC and said that “the ICC is a venue to bring bad actors to justice in those areas where the Rule of Law is absent …   In fact, despite these periods of hostility, and even though the United States has never signed up to the ICC, it has largely taken a position of constructive engagement with the Court, through both Democratic and Republican administrations. And this is not surprising. Although the ICC is an imperfect institution, and has struggled to succeed, it is today the international institution to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, following on the legacy of Nuremberg and the ad-hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Sierra Leone, and Kosovo.   From the beginning, the United States has been critical to the success of the project of accountability for international crimes, playing an essential role in the creation of these tribunals as well as in their accomplishments.   Accountability for international crimes, including by the ICC, serves U.S. interests in at least three ways. First, American service members and citizens can themselves be the victims of these horrific crimes. A commitment to accountability is an important step to deterring these crimes and ensuring that justice is done when they occur.   Second, international crimes cause further instability in the world, threatening to unleash cycles of violence and retaliation, which can threaten U.S. interests, including by fomenting terrorist reprisals.   Third, the commitment to accountability is an important part of the international fabric and a foundational principle for many of our allies. Currently there are 125 states in the world that are part of the ICC. With the exceptions of the United States and Turkey, all the other members of NATO are members of the Court, and other allies in North and South America, Africa, and Asia are as well.   Secretary of State Rubio’s newly announced policy to “dismantle the ICC – brick by brick if necessary” appears to be a dramatic escalation of hostility toward the court, with the apparent objective of destroying the institution. Putting aside that the Court is actually constructed of metal and glass, and not bricks, Rubio justifies his policy by pointing to various imagined threats against U.S. service members and citizens by the Court, even though there is no indication whatsoever that the Court is currently investigating any Americans or has any plans to do so.   The administration’s hostility to the Court is not new – it has imposed sanctions on the Prosecutor, Deputy Prosecutors, and numerous judges because of the Court’s arrest warrants in the Palestine situation – but now the administration appears poised to increase the pressure on the Court dramatically, announcing that future measures could include additional sanctions and pressure on member states to leave the Court.   Ultimately, these measures will undermine U.S. interests, emboldening the perpetrators of grave international crimes and further distancing the United States from its allies in the world"..   Beth Van Schaack, Distinguished Fellow with Stanford’s Center for Human Rights & International Justice, served as U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice:   "Secretary Rubio’s threat to launch an all-out assault on the International Criminal Court is as unnecessary as it is misguided. If you look at the Court’s docket, it is singularly focused on delivering justice for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity—including sexual violence and harm to children—in some of the worst atrocity situations around the world: Darfur, Sudan; Libya; the Philippines; Ukraine; and Venezuela. By way of example, arrest warrants have been issued for senior Russian figures for deliberately attacking civilians in Ukraine, former President Rodrigo Duterte for launching a campaign of murder in the Philippines, and Senior General Min Aung Hlaing for the enduring persecution of Rohingya in Myanmar/Burma.."   Rebecca Hamilton, Executive Editor of Just Security and Professor of Law at American University Washington College of Law and and former prosecution lawyer at the ICC:   "We have seen similar efforts by various U.S. officials to “kill the court” for over 20 years now. Yet, over that same period we have also seen how the United States also finds it useful for there to be an institution that can pursue accountability for grave crimes in places like Ukraine and Sudan, where the United States cares about justice.   Rubio is trying to shield the Trump administration’s military campaigns from external scrutiny. He may be unhappy to learn that by pursuing a full court press on this, he is only attracting more attention to allegations of U.S. war crimes and crimes against humanity from Iran to the Caribbean."   Todd Buchwald, served as Special Coordinator for the State Department’s Office of Global Criminal Justice from 2015-2017, with the rank of Ambassador from 2016:   "All this attention to such a phantom problem. Tell the Ukrainians that there should be no ICC pursuing the war crimes committed against them, or tell the victims of genocide in Darfur, or the women who have been been methodically raped and people whose societies have been destroyed in any number of other places.   Meanwhile, no U.S. service members are subject to any actual risk of investigation by the ICC that wasn’t already a possibility in the courts of any of the world’s more than 190 states that already exist. On those rare occasions when something actually comes up, we deal with it, and have always been successful.   At the same time, the Justice Department of the United States has often prosecuted personnel from other countries – posing to them the same type of risk that this announcement says is impermissible under international law. So what is it that the administration is actually saying is illegal and sinister?"..   Tom Dannenbaum, Member of the Just Security Editorial Board and Professor of Law at Stanford Law School:   "In March of 2022, Marco Rubio co-sponsored S.Res.546, which: (i) described the ICC as “an international tribunal that seeks to uphold the rule of law, especially in areas where no rule of law exists, by investigating and trying individuals charged ‘with the gravest crimes of concern to the international community: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression”..   http://www.justsecurity.org/147012/trump-administration-statement-dismantling-icc http://www.hrw.org/news/2026/08/11/rights-groups-sue-trump-administration-over-targeting-icc http://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/news/defend-justice-reject-united-states-campaign-against-icc http://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-strongly-rejects-new-us-sanctions-designations http://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-presidency-assembly-states-parties-withdrawals-rome-statute-chad-and-venezuela http://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-president-judge-tomoko-akane-day-international-criminal-justice http://www.icc-cpi.int/news/president-assembly-states-parties-underscores-importance-upholding-rule-law-over-impunity http://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-deputy-prosecutor-nazhat-shameem-khan-united-nations-security-council-situation http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/08/un-experts-demand-bold-action-icc-member-states-denounce-new-sanctions http://news.un.org/en/story/2026/07/1167932 http://www.jurist.org/commentary/2026/07/only-authoritarians-fear-international-justice http://www.hrw.org/news/2026/07/17/support-the-icc-as-a-vital-court-of-last-resort-for-victims-of-grave-international http://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jul/14/eu-rejects-trump-administration-claims-icc-threatens-us-sovereignty http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/07/reprehensible-us-campaign-dismantle-icc/   26 Jan. 2026   The United States must immediately withdraw sanctions against judges and prosecutors of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and repeal Executive Order 14203 of February 2025, a UN expert said today, after a fresh round of sanctions designations targeting judges was issued last month.   The latest round of designations on 18 December 2025, brings the total number of sanctioned ICC prosecutors and judges to 10.   “Sanctions targeting ICC justice personnel strike at the very heart of the promise born of the Rome Statute and the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials: a foundational pledge that no atrocity would go unanswered by international justice,” warned Margaret Satterthwaite, Special Rapporteur on Independence of judges and lawyers.   Ahead of the opening of the ICC’s judicial year, Satterthwaite called for renewed support for the ICC, both political and financial.   “Sanctions send a chilling message to victims of atrocities and their advocates, who rely on judges and prosecutors for accountability, repair and reparation,” the expert said.   “It is alarming that NGOs have also been sanctioned, and that victims themselves may fear punishment under the US sanctions regime, as the legal system allows for civil and criminal penalties, including imprisonment, against those transacting with sanctioned individuals and entities in some circumstances,” Satterthwaite said.   The international community must act decisively to ensure that justice personnel are able to perform their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or interference, the expert said.   “Judges, prosecutors and all those engaged in the enforcement of the rule of law and accountability for international crimes must not be subjected to intimidation, reprisals or punishment for carrying out their professional duties,” Satterthwaite said.   “Threats of prosecution, or administrative, economic or other coercive measures targeting them for the legitimate exercise of their functions, are an unacceptable assault on judicial independence, a deliberate obstruction of justice, and a grave threat to the rule of law and international accountability.”   * 125 countries from all the regions of the world are States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.   http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/01/usa-un-expert-demands-withdrawal-sanctions-against-icc-judges-and http://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-strongly-rejects-new-us-sanctions-designations-against-two-icc-judges http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/02/russia-must-end-reprisals-and-intimidation-icc-prosecutor-and-judges-un http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164136 http://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-president-judge-tomoko-akane-17-july-day-international-criminal-justice http://www.icc-cpi.int/news/international-criminal-court-deplores-new-sanctions-us-administration-against-icc-officials http://www.icc-cpi.int/news/presidency-assembly-states-parties-expresses-deep-concern-and-rejects-us-measures-targeting http://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2025/06/comment-un-human-rights-chief-volker-turk-us-imposition-sanctions   http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/12/assembly-states-parties-must-oppose-us-sanctions-icc/ http://www.fidh.org/en/issues/international-justice/international-criminal-court-icc/will-states-parties-protect-the-international-criminal-court-or-let http://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-president-judge-tomoko-akane-following-issuance-us-executive-order-seeking http://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-bureau-assembly-states-parties-support-independence-and-impartiality-international http://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-statement-occasion-80th-anniversary-auschwitz-liberation http://buildingtrust.si/79-states-parties-in-support-of-the-icc/ http://www.washingtonicc.org/2025-open-letter-regarding-sanctions-on-icc http://coalitionfortheicc.org/oppose-sanctions-against-ICC-safeguard-victims-access-justice http://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/cicc-urges-states-parties-defend-icc Visit the related web page
	View more stories