In Dubrovnik, Croatia, a workshop on preventing war crimes was interrupted by news that Navi Pillay had won the Nobel Peace Prize for her work on international law and accountability. But the celebration was short-lived. That same day, the Trump administration announced sweeping sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC), a stark contrast to the Nobel committee's recognition of Pillay's achievements.
The sanctions target an institution that has issued arrest warrants for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity against both Israeli and Hamas leaders. President Trump made the motive explicit when he interrupted Secretary of State Marco Rubio's explanation, saying, "He is trying to defend [Benjamin Netanyahu] and various other people." This move fits a broader pattern of unilateral action and disregard for international norms, raising concerns about shielding American actions from scrutiny, including in the war on Iran and extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean.
These sanctions are not symbolic. The ICC relies on banks, payment systems, and technology providers. Restrictions jeopardize staff payments, secure systems, evidence preservation, and investigations. French Judge Nicolas Guillou, sanctioned in 2025, described how his bank restricted payment services and institutions struggled to reimburse travel expenses. Fear of U.S. sanctions may deter even legally permitted transactions.
The ICC has no police force; it depends on member states to cooperate and execute arrest warrants, including those for Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin. Sanctions do not invalidate warrants but compound enforcement obstacles. The U.S. is not simply declining to uphold international law; it is imposing costs on others for attempting to do so.
On the same day as the sanctions, Trump announced a new arrangement for Russia to supply diesel to international markets, including the U.S., potentially generating revenue for Putin's war in Ukraine. The message was clear: the U.S. is willing to work with alleged war criminals while targeting those seeking accountability.
These choices erode U.S. leverage and credibility. Weakening institutions does not end crises; it spreads their consequences. To counter Trump's recklessness, other nations can and should respond. The European Parliament has awarded its 2026 Freedom of Thought prize to the ICC and its officials, a good gesture that should be backed by concrete action.
Judge Guillou has called on the EU to invoke its blocking statute, designed to protect European operators from extraterritorial effects of foreign sanctions. Extending it to cover U.S. measures targeting the court would prohibit European companies and financial institutions from complying and provide remedies for those harmed. The European Commission has considered this, and France has indicated readiness, but commitments need implementation.
In the U.S., Congress should condemn and reverse the sanctions, including designations of ICC judges and prosecutors. Lawmakers must scrutinize the administration's use of financial and security leverage to pressure governments fulfilling their international legal obligations. When the U.S. acts as an enforcer for leaders like Netanyahu and Putin, it has a chilling effect on international peace and justice.
Dubrovnik's Old Town, once besieged and bombarded during the 1991-1992 war, now bustles with life. International tribunals prosecuted those responsible for war crimes there, demonstrating the real purpose of institutions now under attack. Progress in building mechanisms to prevent atrocities is neither inevitable nor irreversible; we have seen time and again that a world in which the most powerful act with impunity is a dangerous one.
