The US Just Sanctioned the International Criminal Court

I read about the sanctions on a Saturday. Then I went on with my day. Bought groceries, did the laundry, watched a show without really watching it.

Everything was normal, except this one thought that just wouldn't leave me alone.

It wasn't even anger at first. It was more a feeling that something was deeply wrong, and I couldn't quite put it into words.

The US Treasury had sanctioned the International Criminal Court. Not just a judge or a prosecutor, but the institution itself. And when an institution is hit with sanctions like these, even basic things can become difficult. Banking, paying salaries, buying software, keeping the organization running. Suddenly, doing ordinary work becomes a problem.

The ICC is based in The Hague and has 125 member states. The United States isn't one of them.

And I think that's an important detail.

I also want to get the facts right because it's easy to get carried away when something makes you angry. The ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant. The allegations include war crimes and crimes against humanity, including starvation as a method of warfare. These are not genocide charges. That's a separate legal category, and the distinction matters.

You can disagree with the court. You can question its decisions, challenge its reasoning or argue that it has overstepped its authority. That's fair. No institution should be above criticism.

But there's a difference between disagreeing with a court and trying to make it impossible for that court to function.

And that's the part I can't stop thinking about.

The message seems pretty clear: if the court goes after certain people, there will be consequences.

To me, that feels less like a legal argument and more like a warning.

The ICC isn't some powerful world government. It has no army of its own. It depends on countries to cooperate with investigations and enforce arrest warrants. It's slow, underfunded and has spent years being criticised from all sides.

It's far from perfect.

But it's also one of the few institutions that can pursue accountability for some of the worst crimes imaginable when the legal conditions for its involvement are met and genuine domestic proceedings aren't taking place.

Think about that for a moment. The system is already limited. Getting justice through it is already difficult. And now there's another obstacle.

You don't necessarily have to shut a door completely to stop people from using it. Sometimes, making it too difficult to open is enough.

What's also striking is the reaction from other countries. European leaders have condemned the sanctions, and several US allies have expressed concern. The Netherlands, where the court is based, has also made clear that it supports the institution.

These countries don't agree with every decision the ICC makes. That's not the point.

The point is that questioning a court's decisions and undermining its ability to do its job are two very different things.

And honestly, I don't know what happens from here.

Maybe the court finds a way through this. Maybe European countries help it work around the restrictions, and a few years from now, we'll look back on this as another difficult chapter it managed to survive.

I hope that's what happens.

But I also worry that the damage could happen quietly, little by little. Organizations might become afraid to work with the court. Funding could become harder to secure. Staff could leave. Investigations could suffer.

And the court might still exist, technically, while becoming less and less capable of doing what it was created to do.

There may be no single dramatic moment when everything falls apart. Things might simply stop working as well as they once did.

And most people might never notice.

There's another thing I feel a little uncomfortable admitting.

Writing this post costs me nothing. I can sit here, put my thoughts into words, share them and then get on with my life.

For people living through war in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine, the question of accountability isn't just something to discuss online. These are people whose lives have been torn apart, people who may never see justice in their lifetimes.

My frustration about what might happen to the court is not the same as what they experience when the possibility of justice slips further away.

I know that. And I don't want to pretend otherwise.

I don't have a clever conclusion or a solution to offer. I genuinely don't know whether the ICC will come through this or whether we're watching the beginning of something much worse.

But I keep coming back to one simple thought.

We often don't appreciate institutions like this until we need them. And by the time we realise how much they matter, they may already have been weakened beyond repair.

The ICC isn't perfect. It should be questioned when necessary. Its decisions should be open to scrutiny.

But if accountability only applies when the people being investigated are politically convenient, then what does accountability really mean?

That's what bothers me.

I read the news on a Saturday. I did my shopping, finished my laundry and carried on with my life.

But the thought stayed with me.

Because a court doesn't have to be perfect to matter. Justice doesn't have to be guaranteed for the possibility of it to be worth protecting.

And sometimes, what should worry us most isn't that a door is being closed.

It's how easily the rest of us might get used to it being closed.

SD /- The Writing Maven