The International Criminal Court Challenges Washington's Sanctions: We Have Fortified Ourselves

Listen to the article. The text-to-speech is automatically generated by a machine system.

The International Criminal Court confirmed that it has taken measures to fortify its work against the repercussions of U.S. sanctions, amid ongoing tensions between it and the administration of President Donald Trump over investigations and prosecutions targeting Israeli and American officials.

Deputy Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Nazhat Shameem Khan, stated that the court has taken a series of measures to protect its operations from the repercussions of any new U.S. sanctions that may target the institution as a whole.

She also confirmed in an interview with the "Financial Times" today, Friday, that preparations for this have been ongoing for about a year.

She added, "The law must prevail over power," noting that the court does not wait for sanctions to be imposed to take action. Khan, who is currently involved in managing the court's prosecution office, indicated that the institution has already established "protective barriers" to mitigate the potential effects of sanctions, after reports this week indicated that the Trump administration is preparing to impose measures on the court as a whole. She clarified that the court has heard "rumors" about imminent sanctions, but has not yet received any official notification of new U.S. actions.

These statements came after months of preparations within the court, based in The Hague, to face the possibility of Washington expanding the scope of sanctions from officials and individuals to measures that could affect the court's ability to use international financial and technological services. Court staff began taking precautionary measures, including downloading and printing important files, while the administration considered reducing its reliance on American technology service providers, in addition to reviewing its banking, insurance, travel, and remote work arrangements.

Over the past year, the court has re-evaluated several of its technical systems and began transferring its office work programs from American "Microsoft" services to the German openDesk platform, in an attempt to reduce its reliance on American technology, according to the "Financial Times."

Notably, its employees were informed last year that more than 90% of its operations depended, at that time, on American technological systems.

The court has also made alternative arrangements to handle banking and health insurance services, but it refused to disclose details to maintain the effectiveness of those measures.

The precautions did not stop there, as the court paid salaries to employees months in advance, aiming to mitigate the impact of any potential disruption in salary payments if sanctions extended to the institution itself.

In February 2025, Trump issued an executive order allowing sanctions against officials of the International Criminal Court, accusing the court of taking "unlawful" actions against the United States and Israel.

The order included freezing assets and financial interests subject to U.S. jurisdiction for individuals listed under it. It also allowed targeting foreigners whom Washington believes participated directly in the court's efforts to investigate American citizens or citizens of allied countries that do not consent to the court's jurisdiction, or provided material or technical support for those efforts, according to the U.S. White House.

The dispute escalated after the court issued arrest warrants in November 2024 against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, based on accusations of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity related to the war in Gaza.

Netanyahu and Israel rejected the accusations and the court's jurisdiction, while Washington also rejected its jurisdiction over U.S. and Israeli citizens, who are not parties to the Rome Statute.

U.S. actions were not limited to threats. Washington imposed sanctions on officials of the court, including sanctions on four of its judges, which included freezing assets subject to U.S. jurisdiction and restrictions on dealings with them. The Trump administration stated that these steps were in response to the court's actions against the United States and Israel, while the court rejected these measures and insisted on its independence.

The sensitivity of U.S. sanctions lies in the fact that their impact may extend beyond freezing the assets of a specific official. Global financial and technological institutions rely to varying degrees on the U.S. financial system and American companies, which may lead some to avoid dealing with an entity subject to sanctions for fear of falling under U.S. restrictions.

For this reason, the court has been preparing alternative plans for some time. According to the "Financial Times," the preparations included searching for alternatives to American technology providers, especially given the court's significant reliance on "Microsoft" services, as well as studying how banking, insurance, and travel services could continue in the event of tightened measures.

Here, the statements of the Deputy Prosecutor gain importance, as they indicate that the court believes it has become more capable of absorbing the repercussions of any additional measures.

Khan stated that some court officials who were subject to sanctions have already faced what she described as "over-compliance," as some institutions imposed restrictions on them that exceed the direct requirements of the sanctions, forcing them to find alternative ways to continue their lives and dealings.

Khan herself was subjected to U.S. sanctions last year, according to the "Financial Times."

The current clash recalls Trump’s first term, when Washington imposed sanctions on former chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and another official in the prosecution office over the investigation in Afghanistan. The Biden administration lifted those sanctions in April 2021, although Washington continued to object to some of the court's actions.

In Trump's current term, the policy of sanctions has returned more broadly, while the court insists that its work is based on the Rome Statute and that external pressures will not stop its investigations.

Thus, the dispute between Washington and the court has shifted from a legal and political confrontation over the limits of its jurisdiction to a practical test of its ability to continue its financial and technological operations in the face of one of the most powerful U.S. pressure tools, which is sanctions.