Source: © Thomas Wolf, www.foto-tw.de (CC BY-SA 3.0 DE)
If you’re late to the party, the U.S. launched a campaign to dismantle the ICC in July 2026, and this month vowed to do it “brick by brick”.
The latest: a new round of (harsh) sanctions on the ICC.
1. What will the sanctions do?
Previous ones targeted specific ICC judges. These ones blacklist and sanction the Court as a whole.
So any money or property on U.S. soil belonging to the ICC as an organisation is frozen.
The ICC also loses access to ordinary American services related to money (think banks/credit cards and any dollar payments) and insurance, travel, equipment (like U.S. airlines, insurers, booking platforms).
These sanctions have taken effect immediately, but there’s a six-month window running until 7 April 2027 for member states to negotiate a solution to US concerns.
2. Why is the U.S. doing this?
Because the ICC can prosecute U.S. nationals suspected of committing international crimes (war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide), despite the U.S. not being a party to it.
It also takes issue that the ICC issued an arrest warrant on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and that investigations concerning Israel are ongoing.
This hostility goes back decades to the 2002 Hague Invasion Act: a U.S. law saying it will take measures (like invade The Hague) if Americans or its allies (including Israel) are arrested, detained, prosecuted or jailed by or on behalf of the ICC (see section 15(3)).
3. Can the ICC actually prosecute U.S. and Israeli nationals, though?
Yes.
Every country can prosecute crimes committed on its own territory, whoever commits them. If an American commits a crime in France, France can try them. The U.S. does the same to foreigners everyday.
Every country can also choose to share some of its sovereignty with an international court. States do this all the time.
So when a country joins the ICC, it agrees that the ICC can deal with the biggest crimes committed on its soil, instead of (or alongside) its own courts.
That’s Article 12(2)(a) of the Rome Statute.
So the ICC isn’t claiming any new power over Americans. It’s using a power those countries’ own courts would have anyway.
That’s why the ICC opened investigations into:
U.S. nationals in Afghanistan,
Israeli nationals in Palestine,
Russian nationals in Ukraine
The U.S., Israel and Russia are not parties to the ICC, but it doesn’t matter, because the crimes were allegedly committed on the territory of states that did sign up to the ICC.
This has always been an ICC rule agreed to almost three decades ago, and today accepted by 125 states.
It’s not ‘rogue targeting’ of the U.S. as the State Department portrays it. Rather, the U.S. is punishing the ICC for… well… doing its job.
4. Has the U.S. campaign been working?
Somewhat.
ICC judges and officials had already been heavily sanctioned, struggling to do normal every day things like use credit cards, use Amazon, Uber or Microsoft.
Beyond sanctions, the U.S. plan involves pressuring states to withdraw from the ICC.
Chad and Venezuela announced their withdrawal shortly after the U.S. campaign launch.
To top it off, ICC Member States voted to remove its Prosecutor following a controversial sexual misconduct scandal. This weakens an already-fragile Court, currently with no elected Prosecutor.
But it is still standing.
5. Is the U.S. the only country against the ICC?
No.
Russia convicted former ICC Prosecutor Khan and eight ICC judges in their absence, with sentences of 3.5 to 15 years. It now wants their arrest. (The ICC issued an arrest warrant on Vladimir Putin.)
Israel has (obviously) been vocal against the ICC.
Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger announced their departure in 2025, calling the ICC neo-colonialist (oh, and there’s an ongoing investigation in Mali).
Basically, everybody’s fine with international criminal justice until it comes after them or their friends.
6. Has the ICC been fighting back?
Yes.
It has already taken measures to distance itself from U.S. service providers.
Three ICC judges sued in a U.S. federal court in Manhattan in June, over the sanctions against them personally.
ICC member states have also decided to move their annual meeting from the usual New York to The Hague (sensible!).
7. What can the EU do about this?
EU companies with U.S. exposure might get scared and refuse to work with the ICC going forward.
But the EU blocking statute forbids European companies from complying with U.S. sanctions.
E.g.: A European bank couldn’t legally drop the ICC just because Washington says so.
The EU hasn’t pulled this trigger yet, despite calls for it to do so. This would help curb the U.S.’s ambitions to weaken the ICC until it grinds to a halt.
8. What have other countries done?
Allies Australia, the UK, Canada, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, Japan and the Netherlands have said they “regret and strongly disagree” with U.S. measures.
9. Can anything else be done?
Yes.
First, I’m sure the ICC is scrambling to take more financial measures ahead of April 2027 (like switching entirely to banks with little U.S. exposure) and that this will be the key topic discussed at their December meeting.
Second, the Netherlands as host country of the ICC could provide it with services itself (e.g., cloud/IT hosting, staff health insurance, etc), through public bodies rather than private firms.
Third, Article 70 of the ICC’s own Statute lets it prosecute anyone who deliberately intimidates or pressures its officials to stop them doing their job properly, or who punishes them for the work they have done. (Unlikely to happen, but informing you nonetheless!)
Fourth, the General Assembly could ask the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion about the legality of coercive measures designed to obstruct an international judicial institution. It would be slow and not bind the U.S., but set the legal record, create pressure and give states political cover.
Fifth, the allies’ statement could be widened to African, Latin American and Asian states for more impact (and perhaps stronger wording could be considered!).
Sixth, we could speak out about it. You can start by sharing this post. 🙂
If you enjoyed this SAIL post, you might also enjoy:
Thank you for this! You are so on it! I really need to carve out more writing time, there is so much I want to say but I’m so glad you’re getting this information out there 🕊️
Terrific write-up. The operational solutions you listed for the April 2027 horizon are fascinating—especially the prospect of the Dutch government stepping in with public-sector service hosting to bypass private U.S. corporate blocks. If the EU ultimately triggers its blocking statute to protect European financial transactions with the Court, this could turn into a massive structural showdown over financial sovereignty. Excellent macro analysis.