Implications of US sanctions for the ICC
In the media image: Tingey Injury on Unsplash
America is threatening to impose sanctions on the International Criminal Court. In an interview on NPO Radio 1, Larissa van den Herik, Professor of Public International Law, talks about the implications of these measures and potential consequences for European companies.
The objections of the United States to the ICC are not new. Since the Court’s establishment, the US has been uneasy about the prospect of an international tribunal exercising jurisdiction over American citizens, particularly US military personnel. According to Van den Herik, what is new about the sanctions currently being considered is that they would target not only individual ICC officials, such as judges and prosecutors, but the institution as a whole. These institutional sanctions could prohibit US companies from doing business with the ICC which could affect a range of organisations, including banks and tech firms. In addition, such measures could put pressure on European companies to comply with US policy through the threat of secondary sanctions. Van den Herik adds that the sanctions could also have a ‘chilling effect’: companies might decide to stop supporting the ICC out of fear of incurring fines or becoming subject to US restrictions.
According to the professor, the Netherlands has for some time been preparing behind the scenes for the potential consequences of new sanctions. One option, Van den Herik says, would be to ‘urge the European Union to extend the scope of the EU Blocking Regulation to cover US sanctions against the ICC.’ Doing so could help shield European companies from the impact of US measures. Such a blocking statute, however, would not provide a complete solution. 'What a blocking statute can do,' she notes, 'is raise the stakes considerably.'
Asked about the importance of the ICC, she argues that the issue touches on a more fundamental question: ‘Do we want to live in a world in which genocide is considered normal, and are we willing to give in to the Americans? Or do we continue working together to preserve what can still be preserved and remain committed to a world in which the rule of law plays a meaningful role?’