The United States is preparing to take a dramatic step against the International Criminal Court (ICC), with officials weighing sanctions on the court as an entire entity. The move, if finalized, would mark a sharp escalation from earlier measures targeting individual judges, prosecutors, and even human rights organizations linked to ICC cases. At stake is a deepening dispute over jurisdiction, sovereignty, and the U.S. commitment to shielding its allies and military personnel from international prosecution.

A Battle Over Jurisdiction

The U.S. has long opposed the ICC’s authority to investigate American citizens or those of allied states that are not party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the court in 2002. Washington argues that the ICC has no legitimate mandate over individuals from countries that have not signed up to its jurisdiction.

The flashpoint came when the ICC authorized arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes in Gaza. Israel, like the United States, is not a member of the court, and both countries reject its claim that Palestine’s membership gives it jurisdiction over actions on Palestinian territory.

For Washington, the issue is as much about sovereignty as it is about geopolitics. U.S. officials insist the court’s investigations are politically motivated and risk undermining national security by exposing military and intelligence personnel to legal jeopardy overseas.

Protecting Allies and Interests

The ICC’s scrutiny of Israel has amplified Washington’s determination to act. Israel is a core strategic ally in the Middle East, and U.S. officials view the court’s actions as an attack on the credibility and legitimacy of a partner state.

The U.S. has also faced ICC scrutiny itself. Previous investigations into alleged abuses by U.S. forces in Afghanistan sparked anger in Washington, which sees such moves as violations of national sovereignty. By intensifying pressure on the court, American leaders aim to deter any future investigations that could ensnare U.S. personnel.

Domestic politics play a role as well. Support for Israel remains strong across party lines, and Congress has advanced legislation designed to penalize the ICC for its actions. Senior U.S. officials have gone further, branding the court a “national security threat” and an instrument of “lawfare” against the United States and its allies.

What Washington Has Already Done

The current escalation builds on a series of measures taken over the past year.

Executive Order 14203: In February, the White House issued a sweeping executive order authorizing sanctions on individuals who support or participate in ICC investigations of U.S. personnel or those of allied states. The order declared that such investigations represent a threat to American national security and foreign policy.

Targeted Sanctions on Officials: The most high-profile target of these measures was ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Ahmad Khan, who was sanctioned after requesting arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant. U.S. restrictions froze any assets under American jurisdiction and barred him from entering the country.

The U.S. later expanded its measures to include four judges who had backed the Gaza-related warrants and earlier investigations concerning U.S. actions in Afghanistan. These sanctions were designed to signal that those who move against U.S. or allied interests will face tangible consequences.

Targeting Civil Society: In a broader move, Washington sanctioned several Palestinian human rights groups accused of supporting ICC investigations against Israel. By extending sanctions beyond court officials, the U.S. made clear that organizations providing evidence or advocacy in support of cases against Israel could also face repercussions.

What Entity-Wide Sanctions Would Mean

Until now, U.S. actions have singled out individuals and organizations. But sanctions against the ICC itself would represent a dramatic escalation, striking at the institution’s operational core.

Such measures could freeze ICC assets in U.S. jurisdictions, cut off its access to international banking systems, and block its use of U.S.-based software and communications tools. The fallout could affect routine activities from paying staff salaries to managing case files.

Court officials have reportedly begun preparing for this possibility by paying staff wages in advance and exploring alternative banking arrangements. Still, entity-level sanctions would create unprecedented challenges for the court, which relies on global cooperation to carry out its mandate.

U.S. officials argue that earlier steps have not deterred the court and that stronger measures are necessary to halt what Washington sees as politically motivated prosecutions. By escalating to institutional sanctions, the U.S. aims to raise the cost of the ICC’s investigations and force it to reconsider its approach.

The timing reflects a sense of urgency. Arrest warrants have already been issued, and further legal actions are expected. Washington wants to ensure that neither its personnel nor its allies face international proceedings that could limit their freedom to act militarily or diplomatically.

Legal and Political Tools Behind the Strategy

The U.S. position is underpinned by a combination of laws and executive authority. The American Servicemembers’ Protection Act of 2002, often called the “Hague Invasion Act,” explicitly seeks to shield U.S. personnel from ICC jurisdiction and authorizes actions against states that cooperate with the court in surrendering Americans.

Executive orders allow the White House to impose sanctions under national emergency powers. Recent legislation in Congress, including the Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act, has strengthened the political mandate for sanctioning the ICC. Together, these measures provide Washington with a wide toolkit for pressuring the court.

Not all U.S. partners share this approach. Several ICC member states have voiced opposition to American sanctions, arguing that they threaten judicial independence and undermine the rule of international law. Some diplomats have pledged to raise the issue at the United Nations, though it remains unclear how far member states are willing to go in directly confronting Washington.

The European Union, which broadly supports the ICC, faces a delicate balancing act: upholding principles of accountability while avoiding a clash with the United States.

High Stakes for International Justice

Entity-wide sanctions could have wide-ranging consequences beyond the immediate dispute over Israel and Palestine. They risk slowing down investigations in other regions, some of which align with U.S. interests, such as cases involving war crimes in Africa. They may also discourage civil society groups from cooperating with the court out of fear of U.S. reprisals.

For the ICC, the pressure threatens not just financial stability but also credibility. If the world’s most powerful country can cripple the court with sanctions, questions arise about the court’s ability to deliver justice impartially and effectively.

For Washington, the strategy underscores a broader tension: balancing its stated support for human rights and accountability with its determination to protect sovereignty and shield allies from external prosecution. The outcome will shape not only the future of the ICC but also the evolving balance between international law and geopolitical power.

(Adapted from Reuters.com)

Categories: Geopolitics, Regulations & Legal