On 6 February 2025, an Executive Order was adopted by US President Donald Trump imposing sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC). It authorizes asset freezes and entry bans on ICC officials and other non-US persons providing support to the court’s work. Earlier in January 2025, the House of Representatives passed legislation to impose sanctions against the International Criminal Court, however the bill failed to pass through the Senate. The imposition of sanctions on the ICC constitutes an unjustified resort to coercive measures that infringe on the Court’s judicial independence and could severely affect its ability to fulfil its mandate to combat impunity for human rights abuses.
- What is the International Criminal Court?
The ICC is a permanent international court created by international treaty, the Rome Statute, which was adopted at a diplomatic conference in July 1998. It entered into force on 1 July 2002; since then 125 countries have joined the court. The ICC has jurisdiction to try individuals, including state officials and heads of state, for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. So far, the Court has opened investigations in 17 situations.
The Court acts on the basis of complementarity, which means it exercises its jurisdiction only in situations where national legal systems fail to do so, when it is demonstrated that they are unwilling or unable to carry out genuine proceedings.
The ICC was created with the express purpose to combat impunity for international crimes (war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide) across the world and to enforce the fundamental rule of law principle that no one stands above the law and that all public powers need to act within the constraints set out by the law.
- Why is the US imposing sanctions?
The sanctions are a retaliatory measure for the ICC’s opening of investigations into international crimes committed in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict. In March 2021, the Prosecutor of the ICC initiated an investigation into crimes committed since 13 June 2014 in Palestine. Following this, arrest warrants were issued by the Court in November 2024 against Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant. The Court found reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant are responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes in the Gaza Strip. An arrest warrant was also issued for Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
They fit into a long-standing US policy of a narrowly strategic engagement with the ICC, and of adopting measures to counter the Court when it attempts to investigate crimes in which the US, or its allies, are implicated. For example, the adoption in 2002 of the “American Service-Members’ Protection Act” and the signing of bilateral immunity agreements with numerous states were aimed at preventing the prosecution and arrest of members of the US armed forces by the Court.
In 2019, following the opening of an investigation by the Court into the situation in Afghanistan, the United States adopted an Executive Order on ICC sanctions which led to the enforcement of sanctions against the Court’s then Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, and the head of the ICC’s Jurisdiction, Complementarity and Cooperation Division, Phakiso Mochochoko. Two lawsuits were filed by American civil society organizations against this Executive Order. The Biden administration rescinded the Executive Order in April 2021 but, in January 2025, the Trump administration, in turn, rescinded Biden’s Executive Order.
- What is the reach of the sanctions?
The Executive Order authorises sanctions against foreign individuals and/or entities who directly engage in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute an American national or a national from an allied country that is not a State Party to the Court or has otherwise accepted the jurisdiction of the Court. It also authorises sanctions against individuals and/or entities who have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support to an already sanctioned person.
Sanctioned individuals will face asset freezes and travel bans. The scope of the visa bans under the executive order goes broader though as it can be applied not only to sanctioned individuals, but also to their family members (spouses and children) as well any non-US individual whom the Secretary of State finds are “employed by, or acting as an agent of, the ICC”. As of present, only the ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan has been placed on the sanctions list. The executive order mandates the US treasury secretary to submit a report within 60 days to identify additional targets for sanctions.
- Are sanctions a legitimate instrument?
The US sanctions regime’s primary purpose has been to target actors involved in international organised crime, the proliferation of weapons, terrorism and human rights abuses because such acts are seen to constitute threats to US’s national security. It is therefore ironic that this same instrument is used to curtail an institution whose precise purpose is to combat impunity for human rights abuses. By resorting to sanctions the US is undermining the global rule of law and signalling that justice should only apply selectively, even in situations where grave human rights abuses have been committed.
It reinforces a global culture of impunity and adds to other efforts by States to weaken international justice. Following the Court’s arrest warrants against Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, for crimes committed in the context of the Ukraine conflict, Russia opened criminal proceedings against the Prosecutor and three judges of the International Criminal Court. Russia has also passed a law penalizing any cooperation with the International Criminal Court. The Israeli parliament is currently considering a bill that would impose penal sentence to any Israeli citizen, authority of public body cooperating with the ICC. And in January 2025 Italy, which is a State Party to the Court, failed to comply, on dubious grounds, with an arrest warrant issued against a Libyan general accused of crimes against humanity and being implicated in the mistreatment of migrants.
The US sanctions are a disproportionate punitive measure which constitute an affront to victims of human rights abuses and contribute to a politicisation of international justice which will embolden war criminals.
- Has the Court overstepped its authority in issuing arrest warrants?
The US claim that the ICC has overstepped its authority in investigating alleged crimes committed in Palestine and in issuing arrest warrants against citizens of non-State Parties. However, this point has been litigated and it was found that the Court is acting within the bounds of its jurisdiction. Under the Rome Statute, the ICC can exercise its jurisdiction when the alleged crimes are committed on the territory of a State Party (or a State that has otherwise accepted the jurisdiction of the Court), including when these crimes are committed by a person who is a citizen of a non-State Party. Palestine became a State Party to the ICC in 2015 and requested the ICC open investigations into alleged crimes committed in the occupied Palestinian territory since 13 June 2014. On 17 November 2023, a further referral of the Situation in the State of Palestine was made to the ICC by South Africa, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Comoros, and Djibouti.
In the past, the ICC has already issued arrest warrants against third-party nationals, such as Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir and Russian president Vladimir Putin, without any notable opposition from the United States. On the contrary, under both the Bush and Trump administrations the need to hold perpetrators of genocide and mass atrocities accountable was defined as important to US’s national security. The Biden administration, in turn, stated that the arrest warrant against Putin is “justified” and “sends a strong signal”. Current claims by the US administration that the ICC is acting “without a legitimate basis” are therefore clearly politically motivated.
- How could the sanctions affect the ICC and international justice advocates?
Beyond the personal and financial impacts the sanctions will have on sanctioned individuals (and their families), they could also hamper the work of the ICC where it is reliant on services provided by US banks and other companies. Sanctions can also make it more difficult and dangerous for civil society organisations, lawyers, and experts to collaborate with the ICC, even beyond the investigations in the Palestine case. Foreign individuals collaborating with the Court of a sanctioned ICC official run the risk of being sanctioned. In turn, US individuals or civil society organisations risk severe civil or criminal penalties if they cooperate with the Court on the Palestine case or with a sanctioned ICC official.
By deliberately weakening the ICC, the US sanctions effectively curtails the ability of victims globally to obtain justice in countries where the US has been actively promoting the fight against impunity, including through the ICC, such as Ukraine, Darfur, Libya and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The sanctions also represent a direct attack against the judicial independence of the ICC and constitute an obstruction of justice, since sanctions are used as a political instrument to pressure and intimidate ICC judges and prosecutors. Article 70 of the Rome Statute defines ‘an offense against the administration of justice’ as any actions taken to impede, intimidate or retaliate against an official of the Court on account of duties performed by that official.
- How have others responded to the US sanctions?
The sanctions have been widely condemned by States Parties. In June 2024 and February 2025, a collective of States Parties issued a joint statement in which they declared their unwavering support for the ICC as an independent and impartial justice institution. At the Assembly of State Parties held in December 2024, they reiterated their ongoing support for the Court and condemned any threats, attacks, intimidation or interference targeted at the Court, its personnel and those cooperating with it. Several States, lead by South Africa and Malaysia, have also taken the initiative to create a “Hague Group” to defend international justice institutions such a the ICC and the International Court of Justice.
The European Union has similarly expressed its ongoing support to the ICC and condemned efforts to intimidate and impede the Court. Similarly, 14 United Nations Special Rapporteurs/Independent Experts on human rights issued a statement condemning the US’s sanctions against the ICC. Meanwhile numerous civil society coalitions and human rights organisations, based inside and outside of the US, have condemned the US’s attacks against the Court and efforts to criminalise cooperation with the Court.
