ICC Faces US Sanctions: Urgent Action Needed to Protect the Court

US sanctions imposed on the International Criminal Court (ICC) are threatening to undermine the court's ability to function, putting it at risk of a slow institutional death. Continuous operation as an international organization—let alone as a court—will become impossible.

The international community has responded with weak statements of condemnation. Member states have had more than 20 months since US President Donald Trump took office to prepare for this move. Efforts should have been made to strengthen the court's institutional resilience.

However, it is not too late to act. The grace period offered by the US should not be used for futile negotiations, but should be seized to implement immediate measures to protect the court.

The impact of sanctions

The sanctions block the ICC's assets and other property interests in the US or under American control. Under exemptions and licenses issued by the US Treasury Department, American individuals and companies are prohibited from transacting with the court.

US banks, insurance companies, information technology firms and other businesses cannot provide goods, services or accept payments from the ICC without facing the risk of sanctions. Many non-US businesses will over-comply and refuse services for fear of being penalized.

Cutting the court off from suppliers and services could paralyze the ICC's investigative and prosecutorial work in every situation.

However, the sanctions come with a 180-day "grace period" to maintain or scale back the ICC's operations. This period covers member state payments to the ICC, salaries, health insurance and medical services for staff or contractors, as well as rent, utilities and routine service payments. Separate licenses permit the provision of certain telecommunications, cloud and software services, the processing of ICC pension payments, and services essential for certain ICC detainees.

Washington presents the "grace period" as an opportunity for member states to "demonstrate meaningful progress in diplomatic and legal solutions" to address US objections. In essence, however, it is an overt instrument of political coercion aimed at forcing member states into compliance.

No room for 'dialogue'

After the sanctions were announced, many member states once again reaffirmed their support for the court and criticized the US. At this moment, however, the ICC cannot be protected by statements alone.

Formal support becomes meaningless without a tightly coordinated strategy to counter US coercion and defend the ICC's independence. Statements will not stop banks from closing ICC accounts, insurers from withdrawing coverage, technology companies from halting services, or other businesses from abandoning the court for fear of US retaliation.

The European Union has repeatedly affirmed that the ICC is a pillar of international justice and that the court's independence from external pressure must be protected. On October 10, EU High Representative Kaja Kallas reiterated this position, calling attacks or threats against the court, its officials and those who cooperate with it "unacceptable."

Beyond these statements, however, the EU remains passive, seemingly for fear of further angering Trump and triggering US tariffs.

It is troubling that some member states and the EU welcome the humiliating "grace period" as creating "scope for dialogue" and "diplomatic space" with Washington. What meaningful compromise is possible when the US goal, stated clearly, is to destroy the court?

Over the past 20 months, the US has steadily escalated its war against the ICC. For member states and the EU to expect a different outcome now is self-deception, and it signals submission to Washington and a lack of self-respect. Concessions to a bully only make them more aggressive.

Dialogue under such coercive conditions paves the way for pressure to force the ICC to withdraw from its mission in Palestine in exchange for a easing of sanctions. Accepting US demands, especially sacrificing the Palestine investigation to appease the Washington administration, would destroy the court as an independent and impartial institution.

That would reinforce the perception that international justice operates selectively, depending on the political power of those in its sights. Betraying the ICC's mandate and victims' pursuit of justice would mean unacceptable loss of credibility and would undermine the very idea that no one is above the law.

Urgent action needed

Meaningful action is long overdue, but it is not too late. Member states must make a principled choice and stick with it. They must defend the ICC and ensure its ability to operate—not pursue futile dialogue with a hostile non-member state, beg for mercy, and make concessions that neither they nor the court can afford.

They must publicly commit to increasing the ICC's budget and provide the resources and facilities needed for the court to withstand political and economic pressure. They must adopt effective legal measures, blocking statutes and safeguards against financial de-risking, to protect the court, its officials and those who cooperate with it from the extraterritorial impact of US sanctions. These protections must extend equally to Palestinian civil society organizations, which have been targeted for supporting the court's investigation.

The EU should immediately activate its Blocking Statute to prohibit EU operators from complying with US sanctions. Though not a panacea, this measure would provide some cover for the ICC. A growing number of member states and members of the European Parliament are calling on the European Commission to extend this law to sanctions against the ICC and ensure protection in the event of comprehensive sanctions. This step cannot be delayed any further.

In parallel, member states must urgently finalize agreements on alternative banking, payment and digital infrastructure to ensure the ICC has continuous access to essential services. The measures must form a structural, coordinated response that goes far beyond statements of solidarity and temporary fixes.

If the international community stands by while the US destroys the ICC, the ability of any international court—or even a national court—to operate without fear or favor will become impossible.

The views in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.