The year 2025 promises to bring many significant developments in the field of international law. Expect calculated and strategic weaponization of international law. Expect direct and indirect attacks on international law and institutions. Expect attempts to weaken or change international norms and efforts directed at reshaping the existing international order. One of the institutions in the direct line of fire is the International Criminal Court (ICC), the first permanent world court with a mandate to prosecute individuals accused of heinous crimes like genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes of aggression. According to recent news reports, work at the ICC is slowly and alarmingly grinding to a halt, a direct result of a February 6, 2025, executive order, “Imposing sanctions on the International Criminal Court” (Executive Order 14203). The Executive Order is a direct response to the warrants of arrest for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli defense minister, Yoav Gallant that the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I issued on November 21, 2024. The warrants authorized the arrest of Netanyahu and Gallant, “for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed [in Gaza].” The Chamber had concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant at the time of the relevant conduct each bore criminal responsibility for “the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare” and “the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.” In response to the Executive Order, on February 13, 2025, the Office of Foreign Assets Control updated its Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List; on the list is Mr. Karim A.A. Khan KC, the Prosecutor of the ICC. The Prosecutor has since lost access to his email and has had his bank accounts frozen. Although the Prosecutor stepped down temporarily from his position on May 16, 2025, for reasons unrelated to the sanctions, the sanctions on the ICC remain.
The ICC: What Is It? What Does it Do?
The ICC came into existence on July 17, 1998, when 120 countries adopted the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and became operational on July 1, 2002, when the Rome Statute entered into force. The significance of the ICC lies in the fact that “[f]or the first time in the history of humankind, States decided to accept the jurisdiction of a permanent international criminal court for the prosecution of the perpetrators of the most serious crimes committed in their territories or by their nationals.” The ICC investigates and, where warranted, tries individuals charged with the gravest crimes of concern to the international community. In the event of a conviction, the ICC can impose appropriate penalties including imprisonment, fines, and a forfeiture of proceeds, property and assets derived directly or indirectly from that crime.[1] To date, 125 states, nearly two-thirds of United Nations members, have ratified the Rome Statute.
Why is the US Going after the ICC?
Why is the US going after a world court whose primary mission “is to help put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole“? The Executive Order accuses the ICC of asserting jurisdiction over and opening preliminary investigations concerning personnel of the US and certain of its allies, including Israel, without legitimate basis. It explicitly accuses the ICC of engaging in “illegitimate and baseless actions” targeting America and Israel and asserts that the ICC “abused its power by issuing baseless arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant.” According to the Executive Order, the ICC’s actions “set a dangerous precedent, directly endangering current and former United States personnel, including active service members of the Armed Forces, by exposing them to harassment, abuse, and possible arrest.”
What Types of Sanction Does the Executive Order Impose on the ICC?
The Executive Order call for four actions: (i) condemnation of the warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant; (ii) sanctions against the ICC and specified foreign persons; (iii) rescission of funds to the ICC; and (iv) prohibition on future appropriation of funds for the ICC. The Executive Order calls on US allies “to oppose any ICC actions against the United States, Israel, or any other ally of the United States that has not consented to ICC jurisdiction.” Regarding sanctions, the Executive Order imposes “tangible and significant consequences” on those perceived to be responsible for the ICC’s transgressions. The sanctions are wide ranging and include blocking of property and assets, suspension of entry into the US of ICC officials, employees, and agents, as well as their immediate family members, and denial of funds to the ICC. The Executive Order also prohibits making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 USC § 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked.
In sum, under the Executive Order, serious sanctions could be imposed on a wide group of people regardless of whether or not they are directly employed by the ICC and regardless of their nationality. Besides ICC employees, officials and agents, the Executive Order could reach hundreds of law professors, scholars, researchers, organizations, and financial institutions around the world that assist the ICC in one capacity or another. As Human Rights Watch noted:
US sanctions have serious effects on those targeted, who lose access to their assets in the United States and are denied commercial and financial dealings with “US persons,” including banks and other companies. US sanctions also have a chilling effect on non-US banks and other companies outside of US jurisdiction that could themselves lose access to the US banking system if they do not support the sanctions. US persons face penalties, including fines and imprisonment, for violating sanctions.
The order appears designed not only to intimidate court officials and staff involved in the court’s critical investigations, but also to chill broader cooperation with the ICC, affecting the rights of victims globally.
Does the ICC Have Any Defenders? Are There Possible Arguments Against the Sanctions?
The ICC has many defenders. Most scholars, non-governmental organizations, think tanks, UN experts, and current and former presidents of the ICC’s management body oppose the Executive Order and warn that both set a dangerous precedent. In a recent piece, current and former presidents of the Assembly of States of the ICC “urge[d] States, civil society, corporations, and citizens worldwide to rally in defense of the ICC.”[2] While admitting that the ICC “is not without flaws,” they expressed committed to the ICC’s vision of justice and its mandate to ensure that no one is above the law, regardless of power. According to them, “[e]fforts to undermine the ICC are attacks on the principle that law protects the weak against the powerful.”
Judge Tomoko Akane, a current judge and the President of the ICC, has expressed “deep regret” at the issuance of the Executive Order. In Judge Akane’s view, the Executive Order would “harm the Court’s independence and its impartiality and deprive millions of innocent victims of atrocities of justice and hope.” The ICC also condemned the Executive Order and “pledge[d] to continue providing justice and hope to millions of innocent victims of atrocities across the world, in all Situations before it.” The ICC also called on its 125 States Parties, civil society and all nations of the world “to stand united for justice and fundamental human rights.”
The Coalition for the International Criminal Court and more than 140 of its member non-governmental organizations and coalitions from around the globe also strongly oppose efforts by the US to impose sanctions on the ICC. In a joint statement, the Coalition “express[ed] strong, unconditional commitment to the ICC and its critical global mandate” and urged ICC member states to “[p]ublicly condemn the use of sanctions to undermine the ICC.” According to the statement, sanctions “are a tool to be used against those responsible for the most serious international crimes, not against those seeking justice.”
What is the Future of the ICC?
From all accounts, the sanctions are severely affecting the ability of the ICC to fulfill its crucial mandate. The sanctions strike at the core of judicial independence and the rule of law and raise concerns about the future of the international criminal law regime—a regime established to address impunity in our world.
First, given that the Executive Order is a direct response to the ICC’s action against Israel, there are concerns that it effectively creates a blind spot for justice regarding certain countries. This, according to critics, “not only legalises double standards and impunity but irreparably undermines the spirit of universality that the international justice system is built upon.” According to Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General, the Executive Order “sends the message that Israel is above the law and the universal principles of international justice” and “suggests that President Trump endorses the Israeli government’s crimes and is embracing impunity.” To Callamard, the Executive Order is “vindictive,” “aggressive,” and “a brutal step that seeks to undermine and destroy what the international community has painstakingly constructed over decades, if not centuries: global rules that are applicable to everyone and aim to deliver justice for all.”
Second, the possible snowball effect of a US sanction on the ICC is a major concern. The US is not the only country or even the first country to attack the ICC. In November 2024, a Russian court ordered the arrest in absentia of ICC judge Haykel Ben Mahfoudh on a charge of “illegal incarceration.” The order of the Russian court came after the ICC issued arrest warrants for former defense minister Sergei Shoigu and armed forces Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov over Russia’s alleged war crimes in Ukraine. There are fears that the sanctions could open the door for many other countries to do the same. Even if other countries do not follow suit, the sanctions could seriously undermine the stature and standing of the ICC in the global community.
Third, in the short term, the sanctions could damage the ICC’s independent pursuit of international justice and accountability as they will likely “embolden perpetrators, present and future” and “negatively impact the interests of all victims globally and those who look to the Court for justice in all the countries where it’s conducting investigations.” Although many established democracies have strong justice mechanisms, the truth is that “[t]he ICC performs a vital role by investigating crimes under international law, often committed by the most powerful individuals, in situations where—without its involvement—the perpetrators would benefit from perpetual impunity.”
The future of the ICC may well depend on the outcome of recent lawsuits brought by US citizens challenging the Executive Order. In April, two law professors sued President Trump, the US Department of State, and others over Executive Order 14203. On May 5, Eric Iverson, a US citizen and decorated Army veteran, filed a lawsuit also challenging the constitutionality of the Executive Order.
Conclusion
Admittedly, “[a] court that has the mandate to prosecute individuals for committing the most egregious crimes is bound to come under attack. The ICC is not perfect and is urgently in need of reform. Over the years, many scholars and experts have called for reforms to improve the ICC’s governance and resource efficiency. However, it is one thing to criticize the ICC and call for its reform, and a completely different thing to take action calculated to completely undermine and possibly destroy the court.
The ICC “is a judicial body which performs functions that align with the interests of the international community by enforcing and promoting universally recognised rules of international law, including the law of armed conflicts and human rights law.” Not only does the ICC “represent[] the most significant legacy of the immense suffering inflicted on civilians by the world wars, the Holocaust, genocides, violence and persecutions,” it is indispensable today because atrocities continue to plague the globe affecting the lives of millions of innocent children, women and men.
Judging from the atrocities unfolding in many parts of the globe and the fact that the global rule of law is coming under threat from multiple fronts, “institutions like the Court are needed more than ever to advance human rights protections, prevent future atrocities and secure justice for victims.” Kelebogile Zvobgo, a visiting fellow in the Foreign Policy program at Brookings, warns that sanctions haven’t stopped the court’s work in the past and could backfire. According to Zvobgo, “sanctions are punitive and performative and will ultimately make US leaders look ineffectual. At worst, sanctions will undermine US credibility on the world stage and give cover to US adversaries such as Russia that also oppose the ICC, thereby eroding the international rule of law.”
Uche Ewelukwa Ofodile (SJD, Harvard) holds the E.J. Ball Endowed Chair at the University of Arkansas School of Law where she has taught a broad range of courses including Public International Law, Intellectual Property Law, Copyright Law, Technology and the Law, and International Trade and Investment Law. Prof. Ofodile is a life member of the Council on Foreign Relations and was a two-time Senior Fellow of the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
[1] Rome Statute, Article 77.
[2] The authors are current and former Presidents of the International Criminal Court Assembly of State Parties: Päivi Kaukoranta (2024-2026), Silvia Fernández de Gurmendi (2021-2023), O-Gon Kwon (2018-2020), Sidiki Kaba (2015-2017), Tiina Intelman (2012-2014), Christian Wenaweser (2008-2011), Bruno Stagno Ugarte (2005-2007), and Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein (2002-2004). See We Need the International Legal Order: A Call to Protect the International Criminal Court, 27 January 2025. https://www.justsecurity.org/author/iccasppresidents/