Washington gives American firms six months to cut off the International Criminal Court

The six-month window probably matters less than it looks. I'd expect most American banks and technology vendors serving the court to leave well before the deadline Fortune reported ^[8], because one client in The Hague is a small thing to weigh against an open sanctions question in Washington. The counter-case is that six months is what the order allows, and a supplier running off a contract has little reason to give up its fees early. This view is wrong if American firms are still serving the court five months from now.

The allies are reading the same window differently. The eight governments behind the joint statement ^[15] wrote: "If put into effect, these sanctions will have a significant impact on the court's work, its dedicated staff and their families" ^[11]. That conditional treats the six months as time before anything bites. Rubio did not hedge. "We will ban transactions with this rogue court, cutting off their resources and crippling its ability to operate against us," he said ^[4].

The country holding the most direct counter is keeping it in reserve. The Netherlands, the court's host, has been preparing for weeks for the move ^[12]. Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen has called the EU blocking statute the "nuclear option", and so far the Dutch have only held talks with the European Commission to make sure it can be enacted quickly if necessary ^[13].

The court is also losing members. Venezuela and Chad withdrew this year, and Naoero has announced it will quit ^[14]. ICC President Tomoko Akane appealed to the remaining members for support and said the court would "continue to fully discharge its mandate" ^[6].

Neither report says how much of the court's spending moves in dollars, or which American companies supply it. If most of its money runs in euros through European banks, the dollar clause costs it little, and the six months go on replacing US software and banking contracts.