The U.S. can cripple a global court by forcing banks to choose between it and the dollar
The United States is not arresting judges. It is pressuring banks to abandon the International Criminal Court.
Global News Podcast · Trump strikes deal with Putin to buy Russian dieselThe United States is trying to shut down the world's war crimes court by treating it like a terrorist group and cutting off its money.
The court is the International Criminal Court in The Hague, created more than two decades ago to try charges of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Washington has opposed it over its pursuit of arrest warrants against Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and other Israeli leaders, and a past investigation of American soldiers in Afghanistan. Until now, the United States had sanctioned individual judges, prosecutors, and officials, which made it hard for those people to hold bank accounts or get paid.
The new move sanctions the court itself as an institution. The power of that step comes from forcing foreign banks to choose between the court and the dollar.
Tom Bateman, the BBC's State Department correspondent, explained that the court is being treated as a sanctioned terrorist organization would be treated. Any financial institution around the world that has dealings with it "could then not operate in the international dollar system," he said, which makes it very hard for the institution to get financing.
For a court, that can mean it cannot reliably pay judges and staff or operate its technical systems. Court officials have already tried workarounds, including paying staff months in advance and looking for a European technology-based system. Bateman noted, for example, that there are Microsoft staff at the court.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio put the goal bluntly: "Either the ICC will end its threats, or we will end the ICC." Tomoko Akane, the court's president and herself a judge, responded that the court is "an independent and impartial judicial institution" guided only by law and evidence, and that obstructing it is unacceptable.
There is still one opening. The sanctions include a six-month grace period that lets member states keep paying for the court to function. The administration says the time is for negotiating a diplomatic solution it accepts. Bateman describes the broader aim as an attempt to dismantle the court so that it ceases to function.
Questions people ask
Why does losing access to dollars matter so much to a foreign bank?
Much international trade, lending, and wire transfers are settled in dollars through banks that need access to the United States financial system. If Washington bars a bank from that system, the bank can lose correspondent accounts, dollar clearing, and American customers.
Why has the United States opposed the court?
The episode points to two disputes cited by Washington: arrest warrants for Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and a past investigation involving American soldiers in Afghanistan. Washington had already imposed sanctions on ICC judges and officials before sanctioning the court itself.
Has Washington used this kind of financial pressure before?
Yes. Washington routinely uses financial sanctions against militant groups, drug networks, and weapons programs by threatening banks that handle their money with loss of dollar access. What is different here is using that same financial tool against an established international court.