As the Trump Administration forges ahead with its campaign to dismantle the International Criminal Court (ICC) “brick by brick,” Europe is publicly showing a steady stream of support for the institution.

The E.U. last week awarded the court and its officials the Sakharov human rights prize, commending “the important work of the court in upholding international law and justice.”The prestigious recognition came after former ICC judge Navanethem 'Navi' Pillay on Oct. 9 was awarded the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize—an honor long coveted by President Donald Trump. Jørgen Watne Frydnes, chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, acknowledged the award was intended to send a “message to those who are attacking, undermin[ing]... the international rules-based system.”

Hours after Pillay’s win, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced sweeping new sanctions against the ICC. While previous U.S. sanctions had targeted the institution's prosecutors and judges, the new measures were aimed at “cutting off [the court’s] resources” by severing U.S. transactions with the court.

Experts warn that the sanctions could have “extremely disruptive” implications for the court, especially in regards to financial support for case work, travel to the U.S. for judges, and the core functions of the institution itself. “Leaving the political dimension to one side, the rule of law and the just resolution of disputes depends, to a large extent, on the body in question having all available evidence,” says Nabil Khabirpour, an affiliated lecturer in E.U. law and jurisprudence at Cambridge University. “Organizations that are involved in working with witnesses, both on the ground and within the legal infrastructure, are likely to be affected.”

The latest sanctions, which were announced with a six-month initial grace period, are part of a broader push by the Trump Administration to dismantle the institution it accuses of unfairly targeting the U.S. and Israel. The Trump Administration has staunchly criticized the ICC over arrest warrants issued for Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and former investigations into the actions of American soldiers in Afghanistan. The ICC is recognized as the world’s highest criminal court.

It draws its jurisdiction from the Rome Statute, a treaty that went into effect in 2002 and is ratified by 125 countries. Neither the U.S. nor Israel is a state party to the Rome Statute, and therefore they do not recognize the jurisdiction of the court.

Trump has long complained that the ICC oversteps its authority and should not claim jurisdiction over U.S. citizens. He amplified his campaign against the organization at the United Nations General Assembly in New York last month, taking time out of his 45-minute speech to publicly call on “all nations that are members of the ICC to officially resign from this rogue institution, immediately.”He said the U.S. is “opposed to the out-of-control institution known as the ICC” and “will never allow U.S. service members or anyone else to be investigated or given show trials by an anti-American tribunal with no jurisdiction over us.”His call to action was swiftly rejected by European leaders.

German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, shortly after the speech, said: "We will, of course, not be doing that." In an interview with Germany's Deutschlandfunk radio station, he described the court as "an important institution” and said the issue is "one of the areas where we do indeed have to acknowledge a regrettable difference in policy from the U.S. Administration." Netherlands Prime Minister Rob Jetten also defended the ICC, asking how can anyone “possibly be opposed to prosecuting the very worst crimes?”

“I believe there can be only one response,” he continued, in his own U.N. address. “To say: 'hands off' the ICC, and all those other institutions that protect the international legal order.”

The remarks drew loud applause from attending delegates. Similarly, European Council president Antonio Costa stressed that the E.U. stands “firmly behind” the ICC and argued it’s “unacceptable to threaten or attack the International Criminal Court, its officials, and its staff.”The European Union as an organization has since strongly criticized the U.S. sanctions against the ICC.

In a speech on Oct. 20, E.U. policy chief Kaja Kallas said the most recent “misguided” measures were “against” European interests. “The U.S. has already adopted individual sanctions, including against nine judges and the chief prosecutor of the ICC. The latest U.S. announcement [on Oct. 9] to impose institutional sanctions puts the entire court at risk,” she argued, adding that Brussels will use the next six months "to open dialogue and look for solutions.”European lawmakers call for “concrete” action against U.S. sanctions The European Commission’s choice to take time to consider how to counter the U.S. sanctions has fallen short of what many European lawmakers have called for. Several leading MEPs, including Germany's David McAllister, chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and France's Mounir Satouri, chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights, issued a public statement on Oct. 9 calling for the Commission to activate a legislative shield referred to as the “blocking statute,” which would essentially prevent E.U. firms from complying with U.S. sanctions.

“The European Union must now demonstrate unwavering solidarity with the ICC and its personnel—not only with words, but also with concrete acts,” the leading Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) said in a joint statement.

“The European Commission must immediately trigger the E.U. blocking statute, shielding the court and European actors from the extraterritorial reach of these sanctions. Europe must stand firm in defence of international law and the rule of law." This request was bolstered as 58 MEPs reportedly sent a letter to European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen for the Commission to activate the measure.

According to the Commission, the purpose of the European Union’s blocking statute is to “protect E.U. operators from the extra-territorial application of third country laws.”The blocking statute came into force in 1996 in direct response to the U.S. sanctions against Cuba. The aim of the measure was to protect economic operators within the E.U. from the effects of such extraterritorial sanctions, according to the Norton Rose Fulbright law firm. As such, the blocking statute shields European economic operators from the application of the U.S. legislation and sanctions specified in the Annex to the E.U. blocking statute. More recently, the E.U.'s updated blocking statute entered into force in response to U.S. sanctions on Iran after the U.S. withdrew from the nuclear agreement in 2018.

Kallas has expressed an openness to the measure, but also advised caution when delivering her statement on European support for the ICC. “We should keep all options on the table. If we use the blocking statute, we have one shot and we should do it well. So, it should be well prepared," Kallas said, urging companies “not to over comply” with the sanctions, as they are not yet in effect.

ICC prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan told the Guardian last week that some ICC staff are already facing "banking difficulties," despite the grace period before the sanctions come into effect. Khan said the banks were “over complying” to minimize risk amid uncertainty over the scope of the measures. She said the court's work has not been hindered. TIME has reached out to the ICC for comment.

If the E.U. were to activate the blocking statute, it would be a “very important gesture” that could show the Trump Administration how “Europe is serious about protecting the court and that it is prepared to take real steps in that direction,” says Sergey Vasiliev, a professor of international law at Open University Netherlands. But he warns that some may view it as a “very extreme or radical measure, that could perhaps anger the Trump Administration even more” at a time where U.S.-Europe relations are already strained.

Meanwhile, some ICC officials have suggested alternative measures in an effort to mitigate the expected impact of the U.S. sanctions. Osvaldo Zavala Giler, the court's registrar, told Politico that “comfort letters” could be sent out, reassuring firms that they needn’t comply with the U.S. measures.

But Vasiliev argues that this “will not necessarily solve the problem, because businesses are expecting clear assurances of protection… the only such assurance can be provided by the actual triggering of the blocking statute.”Could the ICC row further escalate U.S.-Europe tensions?

Relations between Europe and the U.S. have been under increasing strain since Trump returned to office in January 2025.

Trump has introduced various waves of tariffs on international trading partners, and has threatened further levies on the E.U. and member states in response to divisive issues.

When Trump’s pursuit of acquiring Greenland as a U.S. territory reached a critical point in January, Trump threatened to tariff European countries that opposed his campaign—a move that earned him strong rebuke from within his own party.

Last month, when von der Leyen invited Canada to work toward becoming the European Union’s first “associate member,” in what she described as an “urgent” reimagining of partnerships, Trump again threatened economic pressure. He called the proposal “laughable” and threatened to “put very serious tariffs or stop trading with Europe on many things” if such an idea were to go ahead.

The Trump Administration has also clashed with its NATO allies. Earlier this year, Trump refused to rule out leaving the alliance over Greenland disputes, and since the start of the Iran war, the President has hit out at NATO countries for refusing to get actively involved in the conflict.

Should Brussels and Washington continue to clash on the ICC sanctions, “this could risk accelerating certain destabilizations, such as what we've seen with the trade wars,” says Khabirpour. International organizations will ultimately stand to suffer if the two remain at odds, he adds.