Canada has formally recognized the state of Palestine, drawing the ire of United States President Donald Trump.
At the same time, the U.S. is continuing to oppose the International Criminal Court (ICC) by sanctioning several of its judges, citing their involvement in investigations related to alleged war crimes by American and Israeli officials.
The ICC investigates and prosecutes individuals for international crimes that include genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Despite Canada’s historic support for the ICC, the current government has yet to officially defend it against the recent accusations, even though one of its sanctioned judges, Kimberly Prost, is Canadian.
American threats
There are two key questions worth asking in relation to these shifts in Canadian foreign policy:
- Why did Canada recognize Palestine despite signals from the U.S. that the move would impact its trade relationship?
- What does Canada’s silence on the sanctions against the ICC suggest about how and why Canadian foreign policy in relation to the court may have changed?
Recognizing Palestine placed Canada’s policy — and its trade negotiations — on a collision course with the U.S. as American officials called the move “reckless …and undermines prospects for peace.”
The stakes seemed even higher when Trump linked Canada’s recognition of Palestine with trade deals. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, mentioned Canada in his warning that if American allies comply with the ICC arrest warrants against Israeli officials, the U.S. will “crush” the economies in question.
The recognition seems to be a substantial shift in Canadian foreign policy. For a considerable amount of time, at the very least stretching back to the days of Stephen Harper’s Conservative government — Canada has been a staunch supporter of Israel.
Canada even publicly said on the international stage in 2014 that it didn’t recognize Palestine.
Canada’s lack of support for the ICC
Mark Carney’s Liberal government, however, has yet to push back against the U.S. attacks on the ICC. Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand did note that she has “utmost confidence” in Prost and praised the court, but made no reference to the American sanctions against her.
Canada has missed two opportunities to support the ICC: one in July 2025, when other states, members of civil society groups and international organizations defended the court during its Assembly of States Parties meetings in New York.
The second arose during the 59th meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council in June 2025.
What could explain these shifts and apparent snubs?
The middle ground
There has been extensive domestic and global pressure to keep the plight of Palestinians caught up in the humanitarian catastrophe in the spotlight, and to recognize Palestine.
Canada has attempted to chart a middle ground on the issue, accusing Hamas of terrorizing both Palestinian and Israeli civilians.
Canadian allies like the U.K. and the European Union, along with other like-minded states, declared in July that Palestine is a state.
On the question of why Canada has not voiced public support of the ICC since Carney was elected in April 2025 — as France, Belgium, Slovenia and the UN have done — there are two possible explanations.
On the surface, it might be because the government is still weighing its options and isn’t ready to act. If so, however, its silence suggests a lack of support of the ICC given Canada’s previous backing of the court until March 2025, during Justin Trudeau’s years in office.
Read more: What the ICC's anticipated arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Hamas leaders mean for Canada
The ‘value of our strength’
Another explanation could involve Canada’s commitment to NATO and its new, broader foreign policy aims.
The Canadian government has promised it will allocate five per cent of its GDP to NATO by 2035. In the same declaration, Carney noted that “global conflict [is] becoming more frequent and volatile.”
Therefore, the federal government could be adopting a pragmatic position and aiming to prioritize security and sovereignty from now on. A wider global engagement for the Canadian military would mean that its service members could, at least conceptually, come under closer scrutiny by the ICC, which steps in when national judicial systems are unable or unwilling to hold perpetrators accountable.
During the so-called Somalia Affair in the early 1990s, Canada did prosecute its own. The government went as far as to disband the unit the soldiers involved belonged to. But Canada was not, in the early 1990s, bound by the Rome Statute of the ICC until 2002. The statute established four core international crimes — genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression — and stipulated they aren’t subject to any statute of limitations.
Current global geostrategic dynamics are also very different today than they were in the 1990s. Canada could be anticipating a much broader military engagement.
The pragmatism explanation is supported by the latest declaration Anand made in her recent speech to the United Nations General Assembly as Canada’s foreign affairs minister.
She noted that the three priorities of the Carney government will be “security and defence,” “economic resilience” and “core values.” Anand, a former defence minister, concluded her speech — echoing Carney’s words — that Canada will be defined not “by the strength of our values, but by the value of our strength.”
Laszlo Sarkany does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
