The European Commission has so far been cautious about using the EU’s Blocking Statute to protect the International Criminal Court (ICC) from US sanctions. On 14 October, it said discussions were continuing. Nine days later, it advised European companies to continue providing services to the Court, relying on temporary US authorisations and ongoing diplomacy. That is not a durable strategy.
On 9 October, the Trump administration placed the ICC itself on the US sanctions list.
Europe must now decide whether it is prepared to defend the independence of an international court in practice, not just in words.
The immediate deadline is 7 April 2027. The broad US general licence currently authorising transactions necessary to maintain the Court’s operations expires on that date.
It covers essential activities such as salaries, insurance, contributions by States Parties and routine commercial services. Three other US licences cover more specific areas, including telecommunications and software, pensions and certain transactions involving ICC detainees.
They do not share the same expiry date. But General License 13 provides the broad operational breathing space on which the Court currently depends.
Washington has presented this six-month period as an opportunity for States Parties to address its concerns. These include withdrawing arrest warrants against Israeli leaders, formally closing the Afghanistan investigation insofar as it concerns alleged crimes by US personnel, and changing the Rome Statute to prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction over US nationals, even where alleged crimes are committed on the territory of a State Party.
The principle at stake is fundamental: the ICC’s jurisdiction is established by law, not by the political preferences of governments. A court forced to trade judicial independence for the ability to operate cannot fulfil its mandate.
Read more
EU bets on diplomacy, not blocking statute, to protect ICC from Trump sanctions
A political opening in Washington
The Democrats have won control of both chambers of the US Congress in the midterm elections. The new Congress takes office in January.
President Donald Trump retains his veto, so a legislative reversal of the sanctions is unlikely. But an opposition-controlled Congress can hold hearings, exercise oversight and scrutinise the costs of the sanctions for American banks and technology companies.
Brussels should not assume that the Democrats are natural allies. In January 2025, 45 House Democrats voted for a Republican bill to sanction the ICC. Senate Democrats subsequently blocked it, partly because of concerns about its breadth and its consequences for US businesses and allies.
Europe’s strongest argument in Washington is therefore not simply defence of the Netanyahu arrest warrants. It is that a president is using emergency economic powers to target an independent court and the companies that serve it, damaging American interests and relations with its allies.
The pressure goes further. In July, at a closed-door meeting of Nato ambassadors in Brussels, US ambassador Matthew Whitaker urged allies to withdraw from the Rome Statute and end material support for the ICC, according to reporting on a US diplomatic document. This was an American demand, not a Nato position. Every Nato member except the United States and Türkiye is a party to the Rome Statute. They should not be pressured into abandoning their commitment to the Court.
The legal instrument Brussels must prepare
The EU Blocking Statute, Regulation 2271/96, protects European operators against the extraterritorial application of specified foreign laws. It prohibits companies within its scope from complying with listed sanctions. But it cannot eliminate the commercial risks for companies exposed to the US market, nor guarantee that Washington will not retaliate.
The Dutch foreign minister, Tom Berendsen, has called it a “nuclear option”, while insisting that Europe should prepare to use it. That distinction matters. Preparing the instrument does not mean activating it immediately. It means ensuring that Europe can act quickly if diplomacy fails.
There is a legal step Brussels cannot avoid: the US measures do not automatically fall within the Statute’s current scope.
The commission must prepare a delegated act adding the relevant measures to its annex, subject to the applicable EU scrutiny procedures. That work should begin now, not in the weeks before the deadline.
There is already a political mandate. The European Council has reaffirmed support for the ICC and called for uninterrupted access to financial and other services. France has said it is prepared to support the use of the Blocking Statute if necessary; Belgium has called for the commission to prepare for its possible activation.
The European Parliament’s foreign affairs committee has backed activation and practical protection for the Court, while the ICC has been named the 2026 Sakharov Prize laureate.
Read more
International Criminal Court wins EU’s top human rights prize in defiance of Trump’s sanctions
On 23 October, the commission advised operators to continue providing services, noting that General License 13 currently authorises necessary transactions and that SEPA payments rely on European infrastructure.
These are welcome steps, but they do not provide a lasting safeguard once the broad US licence expires.
Read more
‘Bullies cannot be appeased’: Pressure mounts on EU to shield ICC from new US sanctions
What Europe should do
Prepare the legal instrument. The commission should draft the delegated act adding the relevant US measures to the Blocking Statute’s annex, consult Member States and complete the preparatory work well ahead of April. Preparation is not activation; it gives Europe the option to act without delay.
Protect European service providers. Banks, insurers, payment providers and IT companies need clear guidance and political backing if they are targeted. The commission and member states should identify vulnerable services and ensure the Court can continue paying staff, receiving contributions and maintaining essential infrastructure.
Build an international coalition. Nine countries — Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom — have issued a joint declaration supporting the Court. The coalition should expand to include other EU members and the nine non-EU countries that aligned themselves with the EU statement: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway and Ukraine. Together, they could coordinate financial, insurance and IT support, share the costs of essential services and assist staff and providers exposed to sanctions. The challenge is to turn political solidarity into practical protection.
Talk to Washington but draw a red line. The Rome Statute already recognises the primacy of genuine national investigations and prosecutions through the principle of complementarity. Dialogue is essential, but concessions on the Court’s jurisdiction or arrest warrants are not acceptable. Nor should Europe entertain amendments that place powerful states and their nationals beyond the reach of international criminal justice.
Take the case to Capitol Hill. European governments should engage the incoming congressional leadership, relevant committee chairs and American companies. The argument should focus on the costs to US businesses, the interests of allies and the damage to the rule of law. The immediate request should be to extend the broad general licence and keep the Court’s essential operations authorised.
The midterms have created an opening, not a guarantee of change. Congress may scrutinise the sanctions, but Europe cannot rely on it to reverse them. The choice is not between diplomacy and defending the ICC. Europe must do both. Preparing its legal and practical safeguards is what will make diplomacy credible.
If Brussels waits for Washington to change course, it may discover that the temporary authorisation has expired before Europe has a response. The question is no longer whether Europe supports the ICC. It is whether it is prepared to act before time runs out.