Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court

February 6, 2025

Presidential Actions

View Original

Action Summary

Purpose & Rationale: Imposes sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC) for illegitimate actions targeting the United States and Israel, including baseless arrest warrants against key Israeli officials, which the Order deems a threat to U.S. national security and foreign policy.
Legal Authority: Exercises powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and section 301 of title 3, U.S. Code.
Sanctions & Prohibitions:
- Blocks all property and interests in property in the U.S. related to designated individuals, including ICC officials and those materially assisting ICC actions.
- Prohibits contributions, donations, and any financial or service transactions with blocked persons.
Immigration Restrictions: Suspends entry into the United States for aliens associated with the ICC and immediate family members, subject to certain exceptions determined by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Attorney General and Homeland Security.
Reporting & Enforcement:
- Requires the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to report additional individuals for potential sanctions within 60 days.
- Empowers executive departments to adopt necessary rules and regulations to enforce the sanctions and prevent evasion.
Definitions & Scope: Clarifies terms such as “person,” “entity,” “United States person,” “protected person,” “ally of the United States,” and “immediate family member.”
National Emergency Declaration: Declares a national emergency given the extraordinary threat posed by ICC’s actions, enabling prompt and decisive measures without prior notice to those affected.

Risks & Considerations

The Executive Order imposes sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC), which could lead to diplomatic tensions between the United States and countries that support the ICC. This may affect international collaborations and partnerships that Vanderbilt University might have with institutions in those countries.
There is a risk that the sanctions could impact international students and scholars associated with the ICC or from countries that are strong supporters of the ICC. This could affect Vanderbilt’s ability to attract and retain international talent.
The order’s emphasis on national security and foreign policy could lead to increased scrutiny of international research collaborations, potentially affecting Vanderbilt’s research initiatives that involve international partners.
Vanderbilt University may need to consider the implications of this order on its legal and compliance frameworks, particularly in relation to international engagements and the handling of funds or assets that could be subject to sanctions.

Impacted Programs

Vanderbilt Law School may need to provide expertise and guidance on the legal implications of the sanctions, particularly in relation to international law and human rights.
Vanderbilt’s Office of International Affairs might need to reassess its strategies for international partnerships and collaborations to ensure compliance with the new sanctions.
The Office of Global Safety and Security could play a crucial role in advising faculty, staff, and students on the potential risks associated with international travel and collaborations in light of the sanctions.
Vanderbilt’s research centers focusing on international relations and global policy may see increased demand for analysis and insights on the geopolitical implications of the Executive Order.

Financial Impact

The sanctions could affect funding opportunities for research projects that involve international partners or are related to international law and human rights.
Vanderbilt University might experience changes in its funding landscape, particularly if federal grants prioritize national security and foreign policy objectives over international collaborations.
There may be increased opportunities for Vanderbilt to secure funding for research and development in areas related to national security and foreign policy, particularly through collaborations with the Department of State and other federal agencies.
The sanctions could lead to a shift in the demographics of students and scholars applying to Vanderbilt, potentially affecting tuition revenue and financial aid distribution.

Relevance Score: 3 (The order presents moderate risks typically involving compliance or ethics.)

Key Actions

Vanderbilt’s Office of Federal Relations should monitor developments related to the sanctions imposed on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to understand any potential impacts on international collaborations and partnerships. This will help ensure that the university’s international engagements remain compliant with U.S. policies.
Vanderbilt’s Legal Department should review the implications of the executive order on international research collaborations, particularly those involving countries or entities that may be affected by the sanctions. This will help mitigate any legal risks associated with international partnerships.
The Department of Political Science should consider conducting research on the geopolitical implications of the U.S. stance against the ICC. This research could provide valuable insights into international law and policy, enhancing the department’s academic contributions and public discourse.

Opportunities

The executive order presents an opportunity for Vanderbilt’s Law School to engage in scholarly analysis and debate on the intersection of international law and U.S. foreign policy. By hosting symposiums or publishing research on this topic, the law school can position itself as a thought leader in international legal studies.
Vanderbilt can leverage its expertise in international relations to offer policy recommendations or advisory services to government agencies or NGOs navigating the complexities of international law and sanctions. This could enhance the university’s influence and reputation in policy circles.

Relevance Score: 3 (Some adjustments are needed to processes or procedures to ensure compliance and capitalize on academic opportunities.)

Average Relevance Score: 3.4

Timeline for Implementation

Within 60 days of February 6, 2025: The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, must submit to the President a report on additional persons to be included under the order.

Relevance Score: 3

Impacted Government Organizations

Department of the Treasury: Charged with implementing asset freezes, blocking property interests, adopting necessary rules and regulations, and redelegating these functions as needed.
Department of State: Responsible for enforcing travel bans on ICC officials and foreign persons, and coordinating with other agencies such as Homeland Security regarding entry permissions.
Department of Justice (Attorney General): Involved in enforcing sanctions and advising on legal actions against parties that attempt to evade the prohibitions.
Department of Homeland Security: Consulted on determining admissibility of aliens and coordinating border security measures relevant to the entry suspensions.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB): Maintains oversight on budgetary and administrative proposals to ensure consistency with the implementation of the order.
United States Congress: Receives recurring and final reports on the national emergency and the implementation of these sanctions, monitoring the order’s impact on national security.
All Executive Departments and Agencies: Instructed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to enforce and implement the directives contained in this order.

Relevance Score: 3 (The order impacts a moderate number of specific agencies within the executive branch, as well as oversight by Congress.)

Responsible Officials

Secretary of the Treasury – Charged with enforcing sanctions, submitting reports to Congress, and taking necessary actions under the President’s authority (Sections 5, 10, and 11).
Secretary of State – Responsible for designating targeted foreign persons, implementing entry suspension procedures, and consulting on key decisions (Sections 1 and 4).
Attorney General – Consulted alongside the Secretary of State in determining persons directly involved in ICC actions (Section 1).
Secretary of Homeland Security – Consulted by the Secretary of State on immigration matters related to the suspension of entry for certain individuals (Section 4).
All Executive Departments and Agencies – Directed to take all appropriate measures to implement the order (Section 10).

Relevance Score: 5 (Directives directly impact cabinet-level officials and require coordinated action across multiple senior agencies.)