Blocking Property of Certain Persons Associated With the International Criminal Court

Background

Executive Order 13928, issued by President Trump in June 2020, had profound implications for U.S. foreign policy and legal frameworks regarding international law enforcement. This directive mandated the blocking of property and interest in the property of certain persons involved with the International Criminal Court (ICC). It effectively barred ICC officials, employees, and their families from entering the United States, positioning the U.S. in stark opposition to actions of the ICC that were deemed to intrude upon American sovereignty. The impact of this order was visible in diplomatic circles, as it framed the U.S. as a state unwilling to submit to international legal entities it viewed as overreaching their jurisdictional bounds. U.S. departments, including the Departments of State and Treasury, were tasked with identifying individuals subjected to these sanctions, which strained diplomatic relations with U.S. allies who supported the ICC.

Operational adjustments followed the executive order, as various U.S. agencies coordinated to implement the blockades on individuals' properties in accordance with the guidelines. The Departments of Homeland Security and State had to collaborate extensively to enforce entry restrictions, altering standard immigration and visa processing procedures. Such shifts required rigorous inter-departmental exchanges to ensure compliance with the order's stipulations. Additionally, financial oversight branches saw increased responsibilities, as the Treasury was tasked with compiling reports and maintaining vigilance over monetary dealings associated with blacklisted ICC affiliates, ensuring that executive directives were upheld to curb any perceived ICC overreach.

Social policy and international relations experienced tangible repercussions as well. The executive order, being highly visible, influenced public perception of the United States' stance on international justice, potentially eroding moral and diplomatic capital amongst allied and global partners. The U.S. finding itself at odds with countries that were ICC signatories underscored a foreign policy prioritizing national interests over international judicial cooperation. Critics argued that this executive action was more symbolic than pragmatic, reflecting an aggressive unilateralism that deterred cohesive global law enforcement alliances. The order arguably fueled an environment where international legal institutions viewed the U.S. government as antagonistic, potentially obfuscating pathways of meaningful engagement in international peace and security measures.

Reason for Revocation

The revocation of this executive order by President Biden signaled a significant recalibration in U.S. foreign policy, reflecting a broader ideological shift from the previous administration's adversarial posture to one that sought multinational cooperation. This action was consistent with Biden's campaign promise to restore alliances and reinvigorate America's role on the world stage as a champion of human rights and international norms. The ICC, despite its contentious standing with the U.S., represents a crucial mechanism for accountability in international law; hence, the removal of this executive order symbolized an attempt to mend diplomatic rifts and reposition the U.S. as a more collaborative global actor.

President Biden's revocation reflected an ideological shift towards emphasizing diplomacy and multilateral engagements over isolationist policies. The decision was consistent with broader foreign policy objectives aimed at revitalizing the transatlantic alliance and improving relations with NATO allies, many of whom view the ICC as a critical pillar of global justice. Additionally, this policy retraction underscored a willingness to engage with international bodies as a mechanism for addressing complex global issues, contrasting starkly with the prior administration's more confrontational approach.

In revoking this order, the Biden administration appeared to be signaling a commitment to legal processes and international courts as partners rather than adversaries. By facilitating a less obstructive environment for U.S. cooperation with international legal frameworks, Biden aimed to underscore an administration dedicated to rule-based order, a core tenet of his foreign policy ethos. This decision was couched within broader advocacy for human rights, press freedom, and global equity, highlighting a renewed engagement ethos to build trustworthy international partnerships.

The timing of this revocation also coincided with international appeals for greater U.S. involvement in human rights dialogues, particularly at the United Nations and other global forums, underscoring the need to re-engage in forums that uphold international law. The removal of restrictions on ICC personnel enabled more fluid exchanges of dialogue and efforts towards shared goals in combating impunity, particularly in conflict-heavy regions where justice is often elusive. Ultimately, the rationale behind the revocation was not solely reactionary but part of a larger strategic recalibration reflecting the Biden administration's desire to leverage multilateral partnerships as a pathway to advancing U.S. interests more broadly.

Winners

Among the clear beneficiaries of the revocation are NGOs and human rights organizations who champion the work of the ICC in holding perpetrators of international crimes accountable. Such groups, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, view the removal of U.S. sanctions against the ICC as a positive step towards ensuring that the court can function without undue external pressures or constraints from one of the world's leading powers. This revocation reconnects supportive non-governmental bodies to broader international efforts of ensuring justice, accountability, and the rule of law.

The European Union and its member states, many of which are staunch proponents of global justice mechanisms, stand to gain diplomatically from this decision. Improved relations between the U.S. and the EU on this front are likely, enhancing collaborative ventures in international justice efforts. European nations, being primary advocates for the ICC, likely saw the revocation as a bridge-mending gesture that could pave the way for renewed U.S.-European dialogue on shared approaches to global governance and security.

Corporations and financial institutions involved in international transactions also stand to benefit indirectly from a more stable geopolitical environment post-revocation. The uncertainty that had surrounded compliance with the executive order's sanctions — particularly financial dealings with organizations potentially associated with the ICC — would have complicated cross-border financial activities. The revocation obviates such concerns, offering a clearer legal and regulatory landscape favorable for international trade and financial investment.

Losers

Nationalist factions within the United States who prioritized sovereignty over multilateral commitments might perceive the revocation as a loss, arguing it aligns the U.S. too closely with international entities that could undermine domestic autonomy. Such groups often view international institutions with suspicion, fearing overreach into national matters, and may criticize the administration for weakening U.S. sovereignty over legal jurisdiction of its personnel and policy-making independence.

Domestic political opponents of the Biden administration who favored Trump's hardline approach towards the ICC can also be seen as losing influence, as the revocation represents a rebuke of their preferred foreign policy that viewed the ICC as antagonistic to U.S. national interests. The removal of the executive order may embolden critics of the previous administration's foreign policy stances, marginalizing voices advocating for a more protectionist U.S. posture in global affairs.

Lastly, some defense and intelligence sectors might harbor concerns about the implications of increased international scrutiny and cooperation on U.S. military and covert operations. This sector could feel that without the protections afforded by the revoked executive order, there may be a heightened risk of legal action against its personnel by bodies like the ICC, potentially impacting overseas operations and strategies. Although these fears might be mitigated by diplomatic agreements and assurances, they reflect underlying anxieties about ceding ground to foreign legal systems over actions taken during U.S.-led global interventions.