Why Interpol’s Member Nations Should Reject Its New Privileges and Immunities Agreement

((Ted R. Bromund, Charlie Magri and Sandra Grossman – Just Security) The United States and most of the other 195 member nations of the international police-coordination organization Interpol are currently deciding whether to sign a recent agreement that would provide near-complete immunity for Interpol’s main function: the processing and sharing of data about individuals for global law enforcement. This agreement is an important and disturbing instrument for everyone concerned about Interpol abuse. If the agreement is widely adopted, it will ultimately increase the ability of autocratic regimes around the world to abuse Interpol’s famous Red Notices and other Interpol instruments to harass individuals such as opposition political figures, journalists, entrepreneurs, or others seeking refuge abroad from repression at home. The most recent Interpol General Assembly, held in Marrakesh, Morocco, on Nov. 24-27, 2025, adopted the new General Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of Interpol (the “General Agreement”), sending it to Interpol’s member nations for signature and, depending on national process, ratification. The General Agreement would have little direct effect in the United States, which already grants legal immunity to Interpol. A U.S. signature would however, signal approval of the General Agreement, which will have a significant impact in many jurisdictions where historically, the fact that Interpol was not immune from suit created much-needed impetus for reform within the organization. Though far from perfect, these reforms, most implemented after 2015, created additional protections for individuals subject to illegitimate targeting using Interpol mechanisms. Unfortunately, the General Agreement substantially reduces the threat of judicial liability which acted as a guardrail, helping to protect victims of abuse by spurring sua sponte reforms. The General Agreement will also have the unfortunate impact of largely eliminating an important driver of transparency and accountability in Interpol by disempowering reform-minded individuals and nations inside Interpol that want the organization to improve. Interpol abuse is part of the wider phenomenon of transnational repression. As summarized in a 2025 New Lines Institute report by two of us, Bromund and Grossman, (with co-author Bradley Jardine), transnational repression “occurs when governments extend their reach beyond borders to attempt to silence or eliminate critics living in other countries”. Interpol is a tool that its member nations can abuse by manipulating its systems for purposes prohibited by Interpol’s Constitution, which requires Interpol to act in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to avoid involvement in racial, religious, military, or political matters. The consequences of unjust targeting through Interpol can be devastating, ranging from imprisonment to the loss of travel privileges, the closure of bank accounts, reputational damage, and removal or extradition to the abusing nation. Individuals fight Interpol abuse by presenting the facts about their persecution to counter the claims the offending nation has made through Interpol. Victims of abuse can work through advocacy in national court systems, through the media as appropriate, and by appealing to the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files (CCF), Interpol’s appellate body. But because the abuse is carried out through Interpol’s data-sharing systems, individuals suffering from it should have a way to hold Interpol to legal account. If the new General Agreement is implemented, it will – as it is designed to do – raise new and substantial barriers against Interpol accountability. As a result, it will also disempower reformers both inside Interpol and out of it, and reduce the organization’s commitment to reform. In the United States, the General Agreement will almost certainly be treated as a congressional-executive agreement, not a treaty, and thus will not come before the Senate. This is because Congress has already given the Executive Branch wide powers to grant immunities to public international organizations, and the President can do what is required by the General Agreement within his existing authorities. But just because the Senate will not be called upon to advise and consent does not mean that Congress – and those outside it – cannot weigh in on the General Agreement as the Executive Branch decides whether to sign it in advance of the next meeting of the Interpol General Assembly in Hong Kong from November 30 to December 3, 2026. Understanding why the United States should not sign the General Agreement requires understanding four elements: the history of Interpol’s immunities in the U.S., Interpol’s efforts since 2015 to reform and to pursue a legal risk-mitigation strategy in light of its concern over potential European legal challenges, the General Agreement itself, and the effect the General Agreement will have on efforts to reform Interpol to reduce abuse of its systems. – The Need to Reject Interpol’s Privileges and Immunities Agreement