U.S. Sanctions Against ICC Judges Upend Lives and Fuel Calls for European Responses
The Hague, Netherlands — A group of judges at the International Criminal Court (ICC) are finding that U.S. sanctions imposed on them last year have upended their daily lives, finances and work—turning routine activities into serious complications. Critics say the situation illustrates just how deeply European legal and economic systems depend on U.S.-controlled financial and digital services, and fuels debate about the need for greater European sovereignty in technology and payments.
The sanctions were introduced in August 2025 under Executive Order 14203, signed by U.S. President Donald Trump in response to a decision by ICC judges to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes in the Gaza Strip. The measures were framed in Washington as a defence of U.S. sovereignty and a rejection of what officials described as the ICC overstepping its jurisdiction.
From Judicial Authority to Economic Isolation
For French ICC judge Nicolas Guillou, the decision has had profound personal consequences. Once respected in international legal circles, he is now effectively treated as a pariah from the perspective of many American-linked companies. Guillou and other sanctioned judges were barred from U.S. territory and access to services tied to U.S. financial and digital infrastructure.
As a result, Guillou cannot use major payment systems such as Visa and Mastercard, which still dominate global credit and debit card markets. Everyday financial tools most Europeans take for granted—from online banking to credit card purchases—are now frequently denied or blocked because U.S. firms must comply with sanctions.
He recounted an experience in which a hotel reservation in France booked via the U.S.-based travel platform Expedia was abruptly cancelled after operators detected his status as sanctioned. Even online shopping, delivery services using American intermediaries like UPS, and digital accounts on U.S.-owned platforms have become inaccessible or difficult to manage.
“It’s not just about travel bans,” Guillou told journalists recently. “It’s the prohibition on any U.S. individual or legal entity from providing services to or receiving services from a sanctioned person.” This requirement effectively shuts out targeted judges from modern commercial and digital life, even within Europe where they reside.
Sanctions Spread Beyond a Single Judge
Guillou is not alone: reports indicate that at least 11 ICC judges have been targeted by Washington’s sanctions regime. Among them are jurists from France, Canada, Fiji, Senegal and other countries—all affected by financial restrictions, asset freezes and service denials as a result of their judicial work at The Hague.
Other sanctioned ICC officials have shared similar experiences. Canadian judge Kimberly Prost described how her credit cards were cancelled and access to everyday online tools was blocked, making routine communication, shopping and financial transactions difficult. In some cases, transferring money internationally has become complicated or impossible because the transactions pass through U.S.-linked systems.
Observers emphasise that while individual impacts may seem like “annoyances,” the cumulative effect is both disruptive and punitive—particularly given that many judges have spent their careers enforcing international law. Some legal experts describe the sanctions as a troubling precedent that could undermine judicial independence.
The Irony of Sanctioning International Judges
The sanctions target individuals whose entire professional lives have been dedicated to upholding international justice. These are not politicians or military leaders but jurists whose work involves interpreting and applying the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC. That they now find themselves unable to book hotel rooms, make online purchases, or access their own bank accounts represents a bizarre inversion of the sanctioning logic.
For judges from countries that have long been U.S. allies—France, Canada, Senegal—the experience has been particularly jarring. They never expected to find themselves on the receiving end of U.S. sanctions, let alone for performing the duties they were appointed to carry out.
Broader Political and Legal Backlash
The sanctions have also drawn widespread international criticism. Several governments—including Senegal, whose own magistrate was sanctioned—have formally condemned the U.S. measures as unjust and a threat to the independence of the international judicial system. Critics argue that targeting judges for the exercise of their mandate weakens global legal institutions and discourages impartial adjudication.
The United Nations, human rights experts and civil society groups have also joined in denunciations, saying such sanctions interfere with the ICC’s ability to investigate and prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide—functions central to its mission under the Rome Statute. These voices assert that sanctioning judicial personnel for fulfilling their duties represents a dangerous challenge to the rule of law.
The European Union has expressed concern but has so far been unable to offer practical remedies to affected judges. The problem lies in the structure of global finance and technology: even when companies are European, they often rely on U.S.-controlled infrastructure for payments, data storage, or digital services, making them subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Calls for a European “Sovereignty Shield”
In response, Guillou and others are urging the European Union to develop protective measures that would shield Europeans from extraterritorial U.S. sanctions. One idea gaining traction is the creation of European digital payment tools—such as a digital euro—and alternative technology infrastructure that would reduce dependency on American-controlled systems.
Guillou argues that only by building such sovereign mechanisms can Europeans ensure continuity of services for citizens, officials and professionals who might otherwise be cut off by sanctions launched thousands of kilometres away. Beyond economics, he warns of a deeper risk: that sanctions could amount to a form of “civil death” for people whose lives and work are increasingly rooted in digital services.
The concept of a digital euro has been under discussion for years, but the ICC judges’ predicament adds urgency to the project. If European officials cannot make purchases, access banking services, or communicate effectively because U.S. companies are enforcing sanctions, then Europe’s dependence on American infrastructure becomes a vulnerability that extends far beyond trade policy.
The Legal Battle Ahead
Several sanctioned judges are exploring legal options to challenge the measures. However, the path is difficult. U.S. sanctions law provides limited avenues for foreign nationals to contest their designation, and the political nature of the decision makes judicial review unlikely to succeed. European courts, meanwhile, have no jurisdiction over U.S. executive orders.
Some international law experts argue that the sanctions themselves violate international law by interfering with the functioning of a treaty-based institution. The ICC is not a U.N. body but an independent organization with 123 member states, many of which are U.S. allies. That Washington would seek to penalize its judges for doing their jobs strikes many as fundamentally incompatible with the rule of law.
Implications for International Justice
The sanctions set a dangerous precedent. If major powers can retaliate against judges who rule against their interests or those of their allies, then the entire project of international criminal justice is threatened. Other international courts and tribunals may find their personnel vulnerable to similar pressure.
The ICC has already faced significant challenges since its establishment: non-cooperation by major powers, withdrawal threats from African states, and limited enforcement capacity. That its judges now face personal financial ruin for performing their duties adds a new and troubling dimension to these challenges.
A Test of Transatlantic and International Law
The impact of U.S. sanctions against ICC judges thus highlights growing tensions over jurisdiction, sovereignty and international legal authority. With global reliance on American financial systems and digital platforms remaining strong, any attempt to wield sanctions against foreign judicial actors reverberates both politically and personally.
As the debate continues in Brussels, The Hague and capitals worldwide, the situation raises fundamental questions about how international institutions and national powers interact—and how individuals tasked with upholding justice can be protected from geopolitical retaliation.
For Judge Guillou and his colleagues, these are not abstract questions. They are daily realities: cancelled reservations, blocked payments, inaccessible services. The sanctions have turned their lives into a constant reminder that even international judges are not immune from the reach of U.S. power.
Conclusion: Justice Under Pressure
The sanctions against ICC judges represent a collision between American power and international law. For those targeted, the consequences are not symbolic but practical: they cannot easily shop, travel, or manage their finances. Their work continues, but their personal lives have been upended.
For Europe, the situation exposes a dangerous dependency. As long as European daily life runs on American-controlled infrastructure, Europeans remain vulnerable to U.S. sanctions regardless of whether they agree with them. The call for a digital euro and European technological sovereignty is not abstract geopolitics—it is a practical response to a concrete problem.
For the international legal order, the sanctions pose a fundamental challenge. If judges can be punished for doing their jobs, then the entire system of international justice is compromised. The message to future jurists is clear: rule against powerful states at your own peril.
Eleven judges sanctioned. Eleven lives disrupted. One question remains: Can international justice survive when its judges cannot?
