New York: Nauru has become the only country to publicly support US President Donald Trump’s call for countries to withdraw from the International Criminal Court, putting the Pacific island nation at odds with a broader group of governments defending the role of the international tribunal.

Nauru President David Adeang addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York as world leaders continued discussions over international law, conflicts and the future of global institutions.

Adeang’s position comes after Trump urged countries to abandon the International Criminal Court, which the US president has criticized over its investigations and actions involving major international conflicts.

The International Criminal Court, based in The Hague, was established to prosecute individuals accused of serious international crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, when the court has jurisdiction.

The court has faced strong political criticism from several governments over the years. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute that established the ICC and has repeatedly challenged the court’s authority over American citizens.

Nauru’s support for Trump’s position has attracted attention because it contrasts with statements from numerous other countries that have emphasized the importance of international legal institutions.

The issue has become particularly significant amid ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Europe, where questions surrounding alleged war crimes and accountability remain highly contentious.

Supporters of the ICC argue that international courts provide an important mechanism when national judicial systems are unable or unwilling to investigate serious alleged crimes.

Critics, however, have questioned the court’s jurisdiction, enforcement mechanisms and the political consequences of some of its investigations and decisions.

The debate has intensified as the court has pursued cases connected to major geopolitical conflicts. Its actions have generated strong reactions from governments on different sides of international disputes.

Nauru’s position therefore adds another voice to the growing international debate over the future of the ICC and the broader system of international justice.

The discussion also reflects a wider disagreement over how international institutions should operate in an increasingly divided geopolitical environment.

Countries supporting the court have argued that international law should apply consistently and that institutions such as the ICC should be allowed to operate independently.

Opponents have maintained that international judicial bodies can sometimes exceed their authority or become involved in disputes that governments believe should be resolved through national legal systems or diplomatic channels.

The debate is expected to continue during the UN General Assembly, where representatives are discussing several major international crises and questions about the effectiveness of existing global institutions.

The contrasting positions over the ICC also highlight the broader challenge facing the international community: finding common ground on rules and institutions while major powers increasingly disagree over sovereignty, security and accountability.

For the ICC, continued international support remains important because the court depends heavily on cooperation from member states to investigate cases and enforce its decisions.

Nauru’s position is unlikely to settle the wider debate, but it demonstrates that the question of the court’s role remains politically sensitive among UN member states.

As discussions continue in New York, international leaders are expected to remain divided over how much authority global institutions should have in addressing alleged violations of international law.