EU Urges U.S. to Reverse Sanctions on International Criminal Court, Signals Readiness to Protect Its Operations

The European Union urged the United States on Saturday to reverse its latest sanctions on the International Criminal Court, warning against pressure that could disrupt the work of the Hague-based tribunal. Brussels also said it was prepared to take whatever measures were necessary to help the court continue operating, as Washington extended its sanctions campaign from individual court officials to the institution itself.

The EU’s response combined a demand for reversal with an opening for negotiations. It welcomed what it described as Washington’s willingness to discuss its concerns with countries that are parties to the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the court. The bloc also acknowledged a delay affecting the new restrictions, which it said could provide time to reach a diplomatic solution.

The statement issued by the Council of the European Union on October 10 did not identify a specific protective instrument, timetable or financial commitment. Its immediate message was that support for the court would continue, including for employees and outside organizations that cooperate with it.

U.S. sanctions now cover the court as an institution

On October 9, the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control added the International Criminal Court to its list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons. The official sanctions notice names the court as an entity at its address in The Hague. The institutional listing marks a further escalation of U.S. measures previously directed at judges and prosecutors, bringing the court’s own dealings and assets within the sanctions framework.

A designation of this kind generally blocks property and interests in property within U.S. jurisdiction and restricts dealings by U.S. persons unless an exemption or license applies. Its practical reach can extend beyond the United States: financial institutions and technology suppliers may need to assess whether payments, contracts or services fall within the restrictions. Those are potential operational consequences of the legal designation, not evidence that a particular court account or service has already stopped working.

The latest step follows an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in February 2025. In that order, the administration argued that the ICC had improperly asserted authority over U.S. personnel and Israeli officials, citing the court’s investigations and arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The order stated Washington’s position that neither the United States nor Israel had accepted the court’s jurisdiction. That is the U.S. government’s argument, rather than a finding made by an international court in the present dispute.

For the ICC, the immediate concern is not only whether an individual prosecutor can travel or access funds. An institution also needs banking arrangements, software, communications, facilities and routine payments to carry out its work. The EU specifically included civil society representatives and service providers among those whose ability to cooperate with the court it wants protected. Restrictions on these relationships could impede operations even when investigations and court proceedings formally remain open.

A temporary U.S. license keeps routine operations authorized

Washington’s decision was accompanied by several Treasury licenses that limit the immediate effect of the designation. General License 13, issued October 9, authorizes otherwise prohibited dealings ordinarily necessary to maintain or wind down the court’s operations, contracts and agreements through 12:01 a.m. U.S. Eastern daylight time on April 7, 2027. The authorization expressly covers contributions from Rome Statute member countries and payments connected to salaries, health insurance, medical services, rent, utilities and ordinary commercial services.

The license also allows blocked accounts of the ICC to be used for activities it authorizes. This provides a defined legal route for specified payments while the court remains listed. It does not remove the designation, and it does not automatically authorize dealings involving a separately sanctioned individual. That limitation is important for an institution where certain officials have been targeted independently of the court.

Other licenses address services that would be difficult for a functioning judicial institution to lose. General License 14 permits specified telecommunications and internet services, including email, hosting and collaboration platforms, along with enterprise software used for functions such as payroll, financial management, cybersecurity and data backup. General License 15 covers certain pension payments. General License 16 authorizes activities needed for the continued detention, health and welfare of a defined group of people held by the court.

Taken together, the licenses show why the U.S. action should not be described as an immediate, comprehensive shutdown of the ICC. Some critical services and payments remain authorized, though providers must still comply with the exact scope of each permission and other applicable requirements. The April 2027 deadline belongs to the broad maintenance and wind-down authorization in General License 13; it should not be treated as an identical expiry date for every separate license.

The timing helps explain why the EU referred to a delay. Treasury has imposed an institutional designation now while allowing specified activity to continue for a period. That creates room for talks but leaves unresolved what happens to dealings that depend on General License 13 after its scheduled expiry if the underlying sanctions remain in place and no further authorization is issued.

Europe pledges protection without naming a response

Brussels framed its position around the court’s independence and its role in prosecuting genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. The EU said the tribunal must be able to operate without external interference and promised continued backing for its personnel and those who assist its work. It did not announce an EU counter-sanctions package, invoke a named legal mechanism or say that member governments had agreed to a particular new funding arrangement.

The bloc also sought to answer a central U.S. objection about jurisdiction. Under the principle of complementarity, national authorities have priority when they genuinely investigate or prosecute the relevant crimes; the ICC’s role is not simply to replace domestic justice systems. The EU stressed that framework in its statement and argued that it recognizes the primacy of competent national courts, including those in the United States.

That explanation does not erase the political and legal disagreement. Washington’s 2025 executive order rejected the ICC’s actions concerning the United States and Israel and presented them as threats to sovereignty. European governments supporting the tribunal view independent international criminal justice as necessary when national proceedings do not adequately address crimes within the court’s mandate. The October 10 statement did not claim that those differences had been resolved.

Brussels is seeking a diplomatic reversal even as the U.S. sanctions rules govern what American counterparties can do for the court. The EU’s description of Washington’s openness to discussion has not been accompanied by a publicly identified meeting date or a negotiated outcome. Nor did Saturday’s statement explain what specific measures Europe would take if talks failed.

For now, the court remains on the U.S. sanctions list and the permissions issued on October 9 define important parts of its operating space. The next firm date in the Treasury documents is April 7, 2027, when General License 13 is scheduled to expire. A reversal, renewal or other change before then would require a further decision by Washington; the EU’s promise of protection does not itself change the U.S. rules.