** American sanctions and the impact on the International Criminal Court: a fragile balance between justice and politics **
Since February, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has faced unprecedented challenges following the imposition of sanctions by the American presidency, directly targeting its chief prosecutor, Karim Khan. These measures, which include the suspension of access to Khan’s financial and technological resources, highlight the persistent tensions between the ICC, an international institution responsible for judging serious crimes, and certain governments, notably that of the United States.
### Context and origin of sanctions
The sanctions were applied after the ICC had arrested mandates for Israeli leaders, Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, suspected of war crimes with regard to their actions during the Gaza conflict. This decision, although supported by part of the legal world and human rights defenders, was perceived by Washington as an attack on his interests and those of his allies.
This climate is all the more complex since the United States is not members of the ICC. Consequently, they do not always feel obliged to comply with the mechanisms of international justice as defined by this court. Warnings made to ICC employees on the risks of arrest in the event of return to the United States illustrate how political tensions can interfere with the operation of international legal organizations.
### Consequences on the functioning of the ICC
The consequences of the sanctions are immediate and worrying for the functioning of the ICC. Testimonies collected from various actors, including former court officials, reveal a real paralysis in carrying out its missions. Important surveys, such as those on atrocities in Sudan, were put on ice, hindering access to justice for the victims.
The CCP is greatly based on NGOs and other partners to build files and conduct surveys. However, faced with the threat of sanctions, many partners hesitate or refuse to collaborate, thus undergoing both moral and financial pressure which compromises the efficiency and scope of investigations.
## Reactions and perspectives
Critics of this situation come mainly from the community of human rights. Liz Evenson, director of Human Rights Watch, stresses that these sanctions could prevent victims from accessing the justice they deserve. This raises a crucial question: how much should political issues interfere with international justice mechanisms?
The speech of CPI officials indicates a palpable fear about the future of the institution under current pressure. The president of the ICC, Tomoko Akane, described these sanctions as an attack on the international order based on the rule of law. This opens the way to a wider reflection on the way in which countries manage their relations with international institutions, without harming the ability of these institutions to operate effectively.
### Towards a mutual understanding
The current debate highlights the need for a frank and constructive dialogue between nations and the international community. Reinforced cooperation could make it possible to avoid blockages which disadvantage not only the institutions but, more seriously, the victims. How can we establish common ground which guarantees both national sovereignty and international justice? What measures could be implemented to prevent political considerations from increasing access to justice for victims of atrocities?
It is essential to explore these questions openly and respectful, because potential solutions will reside in the ability of nations to find a balance between national interests and global humanitarian stake. Ultimately, solid support for international justice could contribute to peace and security for all, beyond borders and political contexts.