On Friday the US put the International Criminal Court on its sanctions list as an institution. Until now only individual judges, prosecutors and staff were on the list (Reuters, AP, NOS, NU.nl, Volkskrant, The Guardian, CBS). According to CBS, Secretary of State Rubio wants to dismantle the court ‘brick by brick’ if it does not change; NOS reports that his statement leaves member states room to negotiate. The sanctions came hours after the Nobel Peace Prize went to Navi Pillay, a former ICC judge and former UN human rights commissioner. Prime Minister Jetten called the step ‘deeply regrettable’ and wants dialogue with the US. According to Mainichi, eight foreign ministers spoke out against the sanctions; Kallas and Türk reacted sharply. Russia asked the Netherlands and other countries for the extradition of president Akane (Japan Times, NHK, Asahi). Nothing has yet been confirmed about the precise consequences for payments and services around the court.
The ICC is the only permanent court that can prosecute individuals for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Sanctions on the institution itself can affect work, payments and cooperation, not just a few individuals. For the Netherlands there is also its role as host country: the court is one of the best-known institutions in The Hague, and the Netherlands presents itself as a guardian of international law.
As a citizen you will notice little directly. Indirectly, The Hague’s reputation as a city of law and peace is at stake, as is the question of how far the Netherlands is willing to go when an ally attacks an institution on its own soil. Businesses and organizations that work with the court may face questions about payments; we have seen no official guidance.
Those in favor of the sanctions say the court oversteps its authority and can wrongly prosecute American and Israeli officials. That is Washington’s position; Rubio leaves a door open for negotiation.
Those against say the court must be able to work without political pressure and that sanctions against a legal institution confirm the law of the strongest. Kallas, Türk, the court itself and the eight ministers share this view.
This is less about the sanctions themselves than about what the Netherlands does about them. A ‘regrettable’ and ‘disappointing’ verdict costs nothing; real protection of staff and payments requires a European arrangement. Watch whether the EU comes up with a measure of its own and whether The Hague puts something concrete on the table within the six months.
NOS · NU.nl · de Volkskrant · Reuters · AP · The Guardian · CBS News · The Hill · Mainichi · Asahi · NHK · Japan Times (Oct. 9–10)
The US puts the entire International Criminal Court on its sanctions list, hours after the Nobel Prize for former judge Pillay
For the first time Washington is hitting the institution itself, not just its judges and staff. The cabinet in The Hague, the court’s host country, condemns the move but seeks dialogue. Russia asked this week for the extradition of the court’s president.
On Friday the United States put the International Criminal Court (ICC) on its sanctions list as an institution. Until now Washington had hit only individual judges, prosecutors and staff. Reuters was first to report the step; AP, NOS, NU.nl, de Volkskrant, The Guardian and CBS followed. According to CBS, Secretary of State Rubio wants to dismantle the court ‘brick by brick’ if it does not change. The court, founded in 2002, prosecutes individuals for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity; many countries are members, the US is not. According to NOS, his statement does leave room: the member states can negotiate a solution to the American objections. The timing is striking. The sanctions came hours after the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Navi Pillay, a South African jurist, former ICC judge and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. According to The Hill, the court ‘firmly’ rejects the sanctions and says it will continue its work (Reuters); president Tomoko Akane said in a video statement that she will not be intimidated (Mainichi, Asahi).
For the Netherlands this is no distant matter. The court sits in The Hague, which makes the Netherlands its host country. Prime Minister Jetten called the sanctions ‘deeply regrettable’ and wants to talk to the US (NU.nl, NOS). He is glad that, according to NOS, there are still six months to find a solution, and would not say which countermeasures the Netherlands is considering. The cabinet says it exerted heavy diplomatic pressure for months to prevent new sanctions. At the UN at the end of September Jetten still said ‘hands off the court’ (NOS). Professor De Hoon called Friday’s tone mild compared with those earlier words: those who stay merely diplomatic, he says, will see Trump keep going further. Outside the Netherlands the tone is sharper. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas calls protecting the court a European priority; UN human rights chief Volker Türk speaks of unacceptable measures. According to Mainichi, eight foreign ministers, including those of Japan, the United Kingdom, France and Germany, declared themselves against the sanctions. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, according to Mainichi, praised the sanctions as a defense against a threat to national sovereignty. Russia asked the Netherlands and other countries this week to extradite Akane (Japan Times, NHK, Asahi); we saw no Dutch response. What the measures mean in practice for payments and businesses around the court has not yet been confirmed. This weekend, watch for the European response and for whether the Netherlands comes up with concrete protection.