US Sanctions Begin Biting at ICC as Staff Face Banking Difficulties, Court Switches to European Tech Providers
The deputy prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Nazhat Shameem Khan, confirmed in an interview published on 24 October 2026 that US sanctions imposed earlier in October are beginning to have practical effects on court staff, although she insisted that investigations and operations have not been hindered. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the latest round of sanctions, describing the ICC as a rogue court. The sanctions came with a six-month negotiation window before full effect. Khan, who was herself among 13 ICC staff targeted by earlier US sanctions in February 2025, said some banks are taking additional precautions to minimise their own exposure, resulting in staff experiencing difficulties accessing banking services and credit cards. In response, the ICC has been actively reducing its dependence on US-based services. Steps taken include switching from Microsoft software to European alternatives and negotiating new arrangements for banking and health insurance. The court has confirmed that all investigations are continuing, including those relating to the Gaza conflict, following the issuance of arrest warrants in November 2024 against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant. The European Parliament awarded the ICC and its officials the 2026 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, which Khan described as sending an important message of international support. The episode illustrates how secondary sanctions pressure, where banks restrict services to avoid US counterparty risk rather than being directly sanctioned themselves, can affect an international institution's day-to-day operations even before primary sanctions formally take effect.
Why this matters
The ICC's experience illustrates a phenomenon that commercial lawyers advising international clients encounter regularly: the chilling effect of secondary sanctions, where financial institutions restrict services to entities associated with a sanctions target well before any direct legal obligation requires them to do so. Banks' decisions to take extra precautions with ICC-linked accounts reflect their own sanctions compliance programmes rather than any explicit legal prohibition, and this over-compliance dynamic is a recurring feature of US extraterritorial sanctions regimes. The ICC's pivot to European technology providers and European banking arrangements is a live example of the de-dollarisation and de-Americanisation of institutional infrastructure that is becoming an increasingly common response to US sanctions risk across a range of entities.
On the Ground
This story is most directly relevant to international sanctions law and financial regulation practices. Lawyers advising institutions subject to US sanctions or facing secondary sanctions pressure need to advise on the scope of restrictions, permissible banking and service arrangements, and the design of compliance frameworks that satisfy both US requirements and the operational needs of the client. The ICC's switch to European technology vendors also raises data protection and technology contract issues. A trainee working in this area would assist with sanctions screening memos, draft choice-of-law and governing-law summaries for new service contracts, and coordinate local counsel instructions in relevant jurisdictions.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“How would you advise a European client whose bank has withdrawn services following US sanctions pressure, even though the client is not itself on any sanctions list?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeSources
My notes
saved