The International Criminal Court (ICC) faces an existential threat from sanctions imposed by the United States, which could cripple its ability to function and lead to its institutional demise. The international community's response has been largely limited to weak condemnations, despite over 20 months since the sanctions were first announced.

These sanctions block the ICC's assets and prohibit US individuals and companies from conducting business with the court, directly impacting essential services like banking, insurance, and IT support. While a 180-day "grace period" allows for the winding down of operations, it is seen by the authors as a tool for political coercion rather than a genuine opportunity for resolution.

US banks, insurers, IT firms, and other businesses are barred from supplying goods or services to the ICC without risking penalties. This could lead to a paralysis of the court's investigative and prosecutorial activities. The "grace period" is framed by the US as an opportunity for states to resolve its objections, but the authors argue it is a coercive measure.

Statements of support from States Parties, while welcome, are insufficient to counter the practical impact of the sanctions. The authors contend that declarations alone will not prevent financial institutions or service providers from withdrawing their support due to fear of US retaliation. A coordinated strategy is urgently needed.

Many non-US businesses may also overcomply with the sanctions, ceasing to provide services to the ICC out of apprehension of facing penalties themselves. This widespread withdrawal of support could effectively cut off the court from vital resources, hindering its ability to carry out its mandate.

The "grace period" also covers essential operational aspects such as states' payments, salary and insurance provisions for employees, and payments for rent and utilities. Separate licenses allow for specific services like telecommunications and pension processing.

Despite the severity of the threat, the authors argue that it is not too late to act. The remaining period of the "grace period" should be used for concrete measures to bolster the court's resilience and independence, rather than engaging in unproductive negotiations.

This situation highlights a critical juncture for international justice, where the operational capacity of a key global institution is directly challenged by a major world power, demanding a robust and strategic response from the international community.