1. What consequences might the US sanctions have for the functioning of the International Criminal Court?
“If implemented fully, the sanctions against the International Criminal Court as an institution are a massive escalation. Not only will U.S.-based companies and individuals be banned from providing any services to the ICC, but the sanctions will also likely scare other companies – including those based in Europe – into removing ties with the ICC.
This will impact all aspects of the ICC’s work: the payments, technology, staff travel, and much more. An official from the Court recently said that over ninety percent of the ICC’s work, as of the beginning of 2025, was directly or indirectly reliant upon US companies. Although the Court has made steps to remove reliance since then, it is nearly impossible to decouple completely from the US. In my view it’s difficult to say what aspect of the Court’s work won’t be affected by the sanctions.
The US has issued several ‘licences’ (exemptions) to the sanctions for the time being. While some have argued that this lowers the immediate impact of the sanctions on the ICC and gives an opportunity for diplomacy to end the sanctions, it is not as simple as that. Not only can these licences be removed at any time by the US, but companies both in Europe and worldwide will already be looking to cut their relationships with the ICC: for most, it is simply too much of a financial and reputational risk. Therefore, the impacts of the sanctions are likely already being felt at the ICC.”
2. What can the Netherlands do to protect the International Criminal Court against these sanctions?
“There are several options for the Netherlands. Firstly, there needs to be much stronger public messaging against these measures. The Netherlands needs to make it clear that such threats will not be accepted. This is particularly important as the US, in my view, is using the ICC as a test run.
If there is a lack of pushback against these sanctions, the US might consider sanctioning the International Court of Justice or some of its judges, particularly in response to the South Africa v. Israel genocide case, which President Trump’s administration has already extensively criticised.
On a more practical level, the Netherlands should work hard to ensure that the Court can continue functioning by providing guarantees to Dutch-based companies that they will protect them from US sanctions if they continue to provide services to the ICC. A core part of this will be to try and discourage ‘overcompliance’ with the sanctions, e.g. when companies follow US sanctions even though they are not strictly required to. The Netherlands can also help to facilitate the Court’s transition away from relying on US companies.”
3. What role can the European Union play in this regard?
“The most controversial option that the EU can choose is to activate the EU Blocking Statute in relation to the ICC. This would essentially require all EU companies and persons to ignore US sanctions against the ICC and continue to do business as usual. If such companies or persons would follow the US sanctions anyway, then they could be subject to fines.
While this would send a strong political message to the US and could in theory work to combat the ‘overcompliance’ problem, I am sceptical about whether it would work as intended. If forced to choose between a potential loss of access to the US financial system or a fine from the EU, most EU companies would choose the latter. It is simply too costly to risk losing access to the US financial system for many institutes, such as banks.
Therefore, my view is that the EU can best work politically to protect the Court, making it clear to the US that they will not compromise. The US sanctions against the ICC leave the EU, its member states and all ICC states with a choice: do they defend the international legal system that they have helped to create, or do they give in to President Trump’s demands. I fear that if the ICC is not protected now, the long-term repercussions for the wider international legal framework will be catastrophic.”
From legal mandates to practical support
The responses outlined here highlight how international courts depend not only on their legal mandates, but also on the practical support of states and the services that enable them to function. Understanding this relationship between law, policy and institutional practice is central to the Asser Institute’s annual short course, Contemporary developments from international courts and tribunals. Returning for its second edition in 2027, the course brings together practitioners and researchers to examine current developments involving the ICJ and ICC and their wider implications. Find out more.
Read more
[Analysis] Why Navi Pillay’s Nobel Peace Prize resonates in The Hague
Last week, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Navi Pillay, one of the world’s most prominent advocates of international justice ‘for her efforts to promote peace and international law’. Within hours of the announcement, the United States announced new sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC), escalating its campaign against the institution. This sends a clear message: efforts to seek accountability for crimes and international crimes matter. The Hague-based institutions have an important role to play in pursuing those efforts. Read more.
[Interview] What US sanctions against the ICC mean for international justice
US sanctions targeting the International Criminal Court are raising wider questions about the resilience of international criminal justice and international law. Asser Institute researchers James Patrick Sexton and Christophe Paulussen discuss what the sanctions mean, why they reach far beyond the US, and what happens when states themselves weaken the system they are meant to uphold. “The main issue today is that states often fail to realise they are the enforcement backbone of international law. Through their action or inaction, they either uphold the system or erode it.” An interview. Read more.
