International Law Under Threat: U.S. Sanctions on the International Criminal Court

I was in Dubrovnik, Croatia, at a workshop focused on war crimes prevention, when we received news that Navi Pillay had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her dedication to international law and accountability for war crimes. Our celebration was brief. The same day, the Trump administration announced broad sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC). This contrast was striking. While the Nobel committee acknowledged Pillay’s achievements and the significance of international law, Washington increased its attack on an institution that had issued arrest warrants against both Israeli and Hamas leaders for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Trump himself later clarified the motive. During a discussion with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump interrupted saying, “He is trying to defend [Benjamin Netanyahu] and various other people.” These sanctions highlight a deeper pattern: an administration willing to act unilaterally abroad, then scurry to handle the aftermath, exacerbating crises rather than solving them. The administration shields allies from scrutiny and aims to protect American actions from international accountability. Concerns arise over the oversight of its activities — in the war on Iran, in extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean and beyond.

These sanctions are not merely symbolic. The ICC depends on banks, payment systems, technology providers, and commercial services. These restrictions jeopardize staff payments, secure systems, evidence preservation, and investigations.

The impact on victims and witnesses is immediate and serious. International criminal investigations rely on obtaining and safeguarding sensitive testimony, and ensuring survivors can participate without additional risk.

French Judge Nicolas Guillou, sanctioned in 2025, shared how his bank restricted payment services, and European institutions struggled to cover his travel expenses. This disruption spread to digital services. Fearing U.S. sanctions, institutions might avoid transactions even when legally allowed.

The ICC lacks a police force. It relies on member states to assist with investigations and execute arrest warrants — including those against Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin. Sanctions do not invalidate warrants but create additional enforcement obstacles.

The U.S. is not only refusing to uphold international law but also imposing penalties on others for attempting to do so. On the same day Trump sanctioned the ICC, he announced a new arrangement with Russia to supply diesel to international markets — including the U.S. Intended to mitigate energy prices made worse by the U.S. war with Iran, this move may provide funds for Putin’s war in Ukraine.

The message was clear — the U.S. government is open to cooperating with alleged international war criminals while targeting those trying to hold them accountable. These choices erode influence, credibility, and the ability to manage shared threats. Freedom from constraints doesn’t guarantee more influence. Weakening institutions does not resolve crises. The administration not only fails to extinguish crises; its actions spread consequences across regions, economies, and institutions.

Other nations can and should respond strongly to counter Trump’s recklessness. The European Parliament has awarded its 2026 prize for Freedom of Thought to the ICC and its officials. This is a commendable gesture, warranting concrete support. Guillou called on the European Union to invoke its blocking statute, designed to shield European entities from foreign sanctions’ extraterritorial effects.

This statute could offer protections against U.S. measures aimed at the court, prohibit European companies and financial institutions from adhering to specific restrictions, and provide solutions for those impacted. The blocking statute cannot fully negate exposure to U.S. jurisdiction but signifies that European governments will not allow American economic pressure to dictate the functioning of an international court they established.

The European Commission considered this option, and France has indicated its willingness to use it. However, these commitments require action. In the U.S., Congress members must strongly oppose and rescind the sanctions, including previous designations affecting the court’s judges and prosecutors. They must examine the administration’s financial and security leverage use to pressure governments fulfilling their international legal duties.

When the U.S. acts as an international bully and an enforcer for leaders like Netanyahu and Putin, wanted for war crimes, it severely impacts prospects for international peace, justice, and coexistence. Dubrovnik’s Old Town is now thriving after surviving siege, bombardment, and war crimes during the 1991-1992 war in the former Yugoslavia. International tribunals prosecuted those responsible for war crimes there and elsewhere, showing that the institutions now under attack by Trump serve a real purpose.

We have made progress in building mechanisms to prevent atrocities and pursue justice, but progress is not inevitable or irreversible. We have repeatedly seen that a world where the powerful do anything they wish, regardless of damage or destruction, leaves all people vulnerable. Trump’s attempts to dismantle international institutions of justice must be fiercely resisted and rejected.