Illegality of Sanctions (or Coercive Measures) Against the International Criminal Court

While sanctions, understood as collective measures decided by an international organization or a group of states, are widely known forms of using pressure in international relations unilateral measures imposed by states on the officials of international organizations seem to play a different role, and discussion is needed whether such measures could in fact be called sanctions according to international law. They are neither about the protection of states’ strategic political or economic interests nor a response for previous violations of international law—but they directly target the ability of such organizations to act in certain legal environments. Russian or American “sanctions” (or rather unilateral coercive measures?) targeting the officials of the International Criminal Court including freezing the assets of and placing travel restrictions were aimed at destabilizing the operation of an international institution that is supposed to prosecute the perpetrators of international crimes. Although such sanctions are not formally forbidden by international law it shall be noted that they could only be applied to achieve a legitimate aim in accordance with international law. Any sanctions exceeding this aim should be perceived as illegal. This contribution will try to assess how international law recognizes such instruments, while it will attempt to anchor such sanctions in the practice of international law by sketching the legal boundaries for their application it will also critically refer to the said practice of misusing unilateral measures as tools for subordinating the activities of organizations by intimidating their officials. Finally, it will discuss the erga omnes obligations of states, emphasizing that such measures are more than political tools and could potentially violate international law.