International Criminal Court Fortifies Operations Against US Sanctions

Nuzhat Shameem Khan, Deputy Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), announced that the institution has taken a series of measures to safeguard its operations from the repercussions of any potential US sanctions that might target it entirely. This declaration comes amidst ongoing tensions between the Court and the administration of President Donald Trump, particularly due to its investigations and prosecutions concerning Israeli and American officials. Khan elaborated in an interview with the "Financial Times" on Friday that these preparations have been underway for approximately a year. She emphasized that "law must prevail over force," asserting that the Court does not await the imposition of sanctions to act. Khan, currently involved in managing the Court's prosecution office, stated that the ICC has already established "protective barriers" to mitigate the effects of potential sanctions, following reports this week indicating the Trump administration's readiness to impose measures on the entire Court. She noted that the Court had heard "rumors" of impending sanctions but had not yet received any official notification of new US actions. These statements follow months of preparations within the Hague-based Court to counter the possibility of Washington expanding the scope of sanctions, which could impact its ability to utilize international financial and technological services. Court staff began taking precautionary measures, including downloading and printing important files, while the administration explored reducing its reliance on American technology service providers and reviewed its banking, insurance, travel, and remote work arrangements. Over the past year, the Court reevaluated several of its technical systems and began migrating office software from American "Microsoft" services to the German openDesk platform, aiming to reduce its dependence on US technology, as reported by the "Financial Times." Staff had been informed last year that over 90% of the Court's operations at the time relied on American technological systems. The Court also established alternative arrangements for banking and health insurance, but it refrained from disclosing details to ensure the effectiveness of these measures. Precautions did not stop there, as the Court paid employees several months' salaries in advance, seeking to mitigate the impact of any potential disruption to payroll operations if sanctions extended to the institution itself. The roots of the crisis trace back to February 2025, when Trump issued an executive order authorizing sanctions against Court officials, accusing it of taking "illegitimate" actions against the United States and Israel. The order included freezing assets and financial interests under US jurisdiction for individuals listed under it. It also allowed targeting foreigners whom Washington deemed to have directly participated in the Court's efforts to investigate US nationals or those from allied countries not consenting to the Court's jurisdiction, or who provided material or technical support for those efforts, according to the White House. The dispute escalated after the Court issued arrest warrants in November 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, over war crimes and crimes against humanity linked to the conflict in Gaza. US measures were not limited to threats; Washington imposed sanctions on Court officials, including four of its judges, which involved freezing assets under US jurisdiction and restricting dealings with them. The Trump administration justified these steps as a response to the Court's actions against the United States and Israel, while the Court rejected the measures and asserted its independence. The sensitivity of US sanctions lies in their potential impact extending beyond freezing the assets of a specific official. Global financial and technological institutions rely to varying degrees on the US financial system and American companies, which could lead some to avoid dealing with entities under sanctions for fear of falling under US restrictions. For this reason, the Court began preparing alternative plans some time ago. Preparations included seeking alternatives to US technology providers, especially given the Court's significant reliance on "Microsoft" services, in addition to studying how banking, insurance, and travel services would continue if measures were tightened, according to the "Financial Times." The Deputy Prosecutor's statements gain importance here, as they indicate that the Court believes it is now more capable of absorbing the repercussions of any additional measures. Khan stated that some Court officials affected by sanctions have already faced what she described as "overcompliance" by some institutions, forcing them to find alternative ways to conduct their lives and dealings. Khan herself was subjected to US sanctions last year, according to the "Financial Times." The current confrontation echoes Trump's first term, when Washington imposed sanctions on former Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and another official in the prosecution office, stemming from the Afghanistan investigation. The Joe Biden administration revoked those sanctions in April 2021, despite Washington's continued objections to some of the Court's actions. However, in Trump's current term, the sanctions policy has returned more broadly, while the Court maintains that its work is based on the Rome Statute and that external pressures will not halt 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 US pressure tools: sanctions.