Support Global Accountability: Lift Sanctions on the ICC

Backgrounder: U.S. Sanctions on the International Criminal Court and the Principle of International Justice

​

On February 6, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order imposing sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC). This action is part of a broader effort by his administration to distance the United States from international institutions and agreements. It came in response to the ICC’s investigation into potential war crimes committed by U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan. The decision also reflects the U.S.’s ongoing opposition to the court's jurisdiction over non-signatory nations, including the United States and Israel.

​

The ICC’s Role in International Justice

The International Criminal Court was established under the Rome Statute in 1998, with the mission of investigating and prosecuting individuals for crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The ICC operates under the principle that the perpetrators of the most heinous acts—no matter their status—should be held accountable in a fair and impartial manner. It serves as a key institution in upholding global human rights standards, particularly when individuals in powerful positions evade justice due to their status or political influence.

​

The ICC is designed to serve as a court of last resort, intervening only when national judicial systems are either unwilling or unable to prosecute individuals for serious crimes. This framework ensures that perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity are held accountable, even when domestic legal systems fail to act. It provides victims with a pathway to justice when their governments are unwilling or unable to do so.

​

The U.S. Response to the ICC: Sanctions and Political Tensions

President Trump’s executive order targets individuals associated with the ICC who are involved in investigations against U.S. personnel or its allies, including Israel. The move was prompted by the ICC’s decision to issue an arrest warrant for Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, over alleged war crimes committed during the 2014 Gaza conflict. This decision escalated tensions between the U.S., Israel, and the ICC, with both nations criticizing the court’s overreach and accusing it of politically motivated decisions.

​

While Trump’s sanctions reflect longstanding U.S. opposition to the ICC, the order also signifies a broader shift in U.S. foreign policy. For decades, the U.S. has resisted ICC jurisdiction, citing concerns over its potential to undermine U.S. sovereignty and the protections afforded to American citizens. However, this move represents a substantial escalation of that resistance and could have significant ramifications for both the future of the ICC and international cooperation on human rights issues.

​

Netanyahu, the ICC, and Accountability

The ICC’s decision to investigate Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, is part of a broader effort to ensure that individuals responsible for serious violations of international law—regardless of their political or military stature—are held accountable. The investigation centers on accusations of war crimes during the 2014 Gaza conflict, in which Israeli forces allegedly targeted civilian infrastructure and engaged in other actions that may have violated international humanitarian law.

​

Critics of the ICC’s investigation argue that it is politically motivated, given the context of Israeli-Palestinian tensions and the longstanding conflict in Gaza. Some also question the court’s jurisdiction over non-signatory states like Israel. However, the ICC operates on the principle of universal jurisdiction, meaning that it has the authority to pursue investigations into individuals accused of committing grave crimes, even if those individuals belong to non-signatory states like Israel.

​

While the ICC's investigation does not automatically imply guilt, it is essential to ensure that those responsible for such serious crimes are investigated and, if necessary, prosecuted. Netanyahu and Gallant’s roles in the 2014 Gaza conflict, particularly their responsibility for military actions that may have led to civilian casualties, warrant a fair and transparent investigation. The ICC’s role in investigating potential war crimes, regardless of the individual’s position, is critical to maintaining the integrity of international law.

​

Is the ICC Overstepping?

Some critics argue that the ICC has overstepped by issuing arrest warrants for Netanyahu and other Israeli officials, accusing the court of acting in a politically motivated manner. These critics often point to the fact that Israel is not a member of the Rome Statute and that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over countries that have not ratified the treaty. Others suggest that the ICC’s actions undermine the sovereignty of nations like Israel, which should be able to investigate and prosecute war crimes domestically.

​

However, the ICC’s intervention reflects its duty to pursue justice when domestic legal systems are unable or unwilling to do so. Israel’s legal system may be unable to prosecute high-ranking officials, particularly those in positions of power like Netanyahu, and the ICC plays a crucial role in stepping in when national courts fail to act. The court’s decision to proceed with an investigation—based on credible allegations of war crimes—upholds the principle that no one, not even heads of state, is above the law.

​

Summary

The Trump administration’s decision to sanction the ICC is a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy and reflects growing resistance to international institutions that aim to hold individuals accountable for war crimes and human rights violations. While the administration’s stance aligns with the longstanding view of many U.S. policymakers that the ICC poses a threat to U.S. sovereignty, it raises important questions about the role of international justice in holding powerful individuals accountable.

​

The ICC’s investigation into Netanyahu and other Israeli officials is not about undermining Israel or engaging in political warfare but about ensuring that those responsible for war crimes are held to account, regardless of their political position. If credible evidence exists to suggest that Netanyahu’s actions during the Gaza conflict violated international law, then the ICC’s investigation should proceed. The principle of universal jurisdiction is essential in the fight against impunity and in ensuring that human rights abuses are not ignored due to political considerations.

​

In this context, supporting the ICC’s mandate to investigate alleged war crimes is crucial in upholding the fundamental belief that all individuals—regardless of their position or nationality—are equal before the law.

​

:Citations:

1. McCabe, B., & Haberman, M. (2025). Trump Sanctions International Criminal Court, Targeting Prosecutor Over Investigation of U.S. Troops. The New York Times.

2. United Nations. (n.d.). International Criminal Court (ICC). UN Official Website.

3. International Criminal Court (2025). What is the International Criminal Court? Official ICC Website.

4. BBC News. (2025). ICC issues arrest warrant for Netanyahu over Gaza conflict. BBC News.

5. Human Rights Watch. (2025). The International Criminal Court and the Fight for Global Justice. Human Rights Watch.

6. Amnesty International. (2025). International Criminal Court and Global Justice: Key Milestones. Amnesty International.

7. Smith, A., & Brown, J. (2025). U.S. sanctions the ICC: A challenge to global accountability. The Guardian.

8. International Crisis Group. (2025). The Role of the ICC in Peacebuilding and Conflict Resolution. International Crisis Group.