On October 9, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced sweeping, full-blocking financial sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC). It was an unprecedented escalation in the clash between sovereign states and international institutions, and a direct challenge to the Hague-based tribunal.
The decision came amid a turbulent October. Demonstrations and riots were intensifying in major cities, instability was widespread, and conventional diplomacy was under strain. The sanctions risk dismantling the postwar architecture of international justice.
Washington calls the sanctions a defense of national sovereignty against what it sees as the Court’s political overreach. The dispute, however, goes back years. The US has long objected to ICC investigations involving American personnel and the actions of close allies, particularly Israel. Now the breach between Washington and the Court has widened, giving fresh momentum to critics in Europe.
Their objections go beyond US policy. They question the neutrality, selectivity, and professionalism of the Court’s personnel. Critics argue that an institution founded to judge the gravest international crimes has become a vehicle for political agendas. Much of their attention has centered on Luis Moreno Ocampo, the ICC’s first prosecutor, who served from 2003 to 2012.
Ocampo’s activities since leaving office have fueled allegations of commercialization and political activism. Between 2023 and 2026, he became a vocal critic of Israeli military operations in Gaza, describing them as a "risk of genocide" and suggesting that arms supplies from allied states could constitute complicity.
Ocampo maintains his independence. His critics say that such statements, coming from a former head of ICC prosecution, objectively intensify political pressure on Israel and undermine the perceived neutrality of the Court’s former leadership.
In April 2026, Newsweek România reported on recordings purportedly featuring Ocampo and his son discussing private funding, ways to influence the European Parliament, and efforts to pressure European Commission leaders over EU policy toward Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Whatever the eventual legal assessment, critics see a former chief prosecutor using his reputation and connections in ways incompatible with the independence expected of international justice.
The concerns are not new. In 2017, a joint investigation by major European news organizations revealed Ocampo’s use of offshore structures and a multimillion-dollar consulting contract with a Libyan businessman linked to the Gaddafi regime. To those who regard the ICC as an instrument of geopolitical interests, a former chief prosecutor becoming what they call a "legal gun for hire" is not an isolated professional lapse.
Signs of systemic institutional degradation
It is a sign of systemic institutional degradation. Calls for a full review of former ICC prosecutors’ financial and lobbying activities have become central to the debate.
The Court has also faced questions about its own leadership. In May 2024, allegations of sexual misconduct involving a female ICC staff member were referred to the Court. The initial process ended when the complainant declined to participate, but a second referral followed in October.
The United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services investigated the matter from November 2024 to December 2025 and reviewed thousands of pages of evidence and testimony. The allegations concerned the Court’s then-chief prosecutor, Karim Khan. On July 24, 2026, the Assembly of States Parties removed him from office after finding serious misconduct and a serious breach of duty. Khan denies the allegations.
This criticism now has a prominent voice in the European Parliament. Harald Vilimsky, head of the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) delegation and vice chair of the Patriots for Europe group, wants the EU to follow Washington’s lead. After the U.S. sanctions announcement, his party called for a "decisive shift in thinking" and urged the EU to impose sanctions on the ICC.
Vilimsky points to the Court’s actions against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, beginning with a 2024 arrest warrant request, as evidence of what he sees as political motivation.
"International institutions have clearly defined tasks to fulfill and must not elevate themselves to the status of political actors who disregard the sovereignty of states and interfere in their affairs," he said in his October 12 German-language statement. In his view, the ICC increasingly acts as a "self-appointed moral and political authority," making unconditional European support untenable.
Vilimsky has influence in certain political circles, but the EU remains divided. Senior EU officials reaffirmed their commitment to the Court as a cornerstone of the rules-based international order at the October 15 and 16 summit. That official position has not silenced Vilimsky and others who challenge it. Their pressure suggests that the consensus behind the ICC is fracturing.
His intervention carries particular weight in Israel. Vilimsky has been warmly received there, and ministers Amichai Chikli and Miri Regev have publicly welcomed the political rapprochement he helped advance. That has raised his standing as a European voice on Israel and the ICC. The debate over the Court is not simply legal. It is also about alliances, sovereignty, and competing views of accountability.
Together, US-led sanctions, scrutiny of past institutional conduct, and political opposition in Europe have placed the ICC in an existential crisis. The current unrest, marked by street riots and a pervasive sense of instability, reflects a broader climate of uncertainty in which confidence in international institutions is increasingly being questioned. It remains unclear whether this is a temporary setback or the permanent dismantling of the existing order.
The court faces a stark choice. It can continue its current course, risking further isolation and the loss of support from major global powers. Or it can undertake a profound, transparent review of its governance, the conduct of former officials, and its operational mandate. Without that transformation, the ICC risks being seen permanently not as an independent court but as a political instrument. That would signal the end of an era of international accountability that began at the turn of the century. The future of international justice itself is at stake.
Dr. Philip Levy is a member of the International Dialogue Circle, a forum focused on international affairs, geopolitical engagement, and collaborative initiatives.