The United States has imposed sweeping sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC), escalating its long-running confrontation with the Hague-based tribunal over investigations involving Americans and US allies, including Israel.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the measures on October 9, saying Washington would restrict transactions with the court and move to cut off its access to US financial services, technology and the US dollar. US companies and individuals that currently do business with the ICC have been given six months to wind down those activities, subject to exemptions and authorisations.
Why the US is sanctioning the ICC
The Trump administration has repeatedly rejected the ICC's jurisdiction over the United States, which is not a party to the Rome Statute that established the court.
Washington has particularly objected to the ICC's investigations involving US personnel over alleged crimes in Afghanistan and proceedings involving Israeli officials.
The administration has argued that the court has exceeded its authority by attempting to exercise jurisdiction over citizens of countries that have not joined the Rome Statute. Rubio said the latest measures were intended to protect American personnel and officials from prosecution by the tribunal.
The sanctions follow earlier US measures against ICC judges and prosecutors. The Treasury Department's sanctions programme was established under an executive order issued in February 2025 and has since been expanded through additional designations.
What the sanctions mean for the ICC
The latest measures target the institution itself rather than only individual court officials.
They restrict transactions involving the ICC and can affect its access to US-based financial services, technology and other services. US persons and companies conducting business with the court have been given a six-month period to end those relationships, although the US Treasury has issued several general licences permitting specific categories of transactions.
The sanctions could therefore create logistical and financial difficulties for the court, particularly because international institutions rely on a network of banks, technology providers, insurers and other service companies.
The ICC has been preparing for the possibility of broader sanctions and has sought alternatives to some US-linked services, according to international-law experts cited by Al Jazeera.
ICC strongly rejects the US action
The ICC condemned the sanctions, describing the move as unprecedented and saying it was designed to disrupt the court's operations.
ICC President Tomoko Akane said the court would continue carrying out its mandate independently and impartially.
The court also appealed to its 125 member states to provide support and ensure that it has the resources necessary to continue its work investigating and prosecuting genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.
The Assembly of States Parties, the body representing ICC member states, also expressed concern over the sanctions.
European allies oppose the sanctions
The US action has created another point of tension between Washington and several of its European allies.
Foreign ministers from Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom said they strongly disagreed with the US decision and pledged to support the ICC's work.
The European Union also described the sanctions as deeply regrettable and said it was prepared to take measures to help the court continue operating.
The Netherlands, where the ICC is headquartered in The Hague, has been considering measures to shield court employees and operations from the effects of US sanctions. One option discussed is an EU blocking statute that could prevent European companies from complying with certain US restrictions.
UN warns of impact on international justice
UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed concern over the US decision, describing it as a serious blow to international criminal justice.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk also criticised the institutional sanctions, adding to international concern about the consequences for the ICC and its ability to carry out its mandate.
The dispute also came on the same day that South African jurist Navi Pillay, a former ICC judge and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, was awarded the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize. Pillay's career has included work at several international criminal tribunals.
Washington threatens further action
Rubio has warned that the latest sanctions could be followed by additional measures if US allies do not take steps to address Washington's objections to the court.
The Secretary of State said the United States would continue its campaign against the ICC if the court remained involved in cases that Washington considers outside its jurisdiction.
The ICC, however, maintains that it will continue its judicial work based on the law and evidence.
The confrontation now places the court's member states in a significant position as they weigh how to protect the institution from the financial and operational effects of the US measures while maintaining cooperation with Washington.
For the ICC, the immediate challenge will be maintaining its operations despite restrictions on US-linked services. For the United States, the sanctions represent a further escalation of its opposition to the court's jurisdiction over Americans and certain allied officials.
