Within a single Friday, the world of international justice experienced both its highest honour and one of its sharpest blows. In the morning, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize to Navanethem “Navi” Pillay, a South African jurist and former judge of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Only hours later, the Trump administration announced sweeping sanctions against the ICC itself, a step the court described as “an assault on the rule of law.”
The timing turned two separate news stories into one sharp contrast. On one side stands a lifelong advocate of international law being celebrated in Oslo. On the other stands the most powerful country in the world trying to cut off the funding and services of the court where she once served.
Pillay, 85, was recognised “for her efforts to promote peace and international law,” according to the Nobel Committee. Born in 1941 in Durban into a family of Indian Tamil origin under apartheid, she became a lawyer who defended Nelson Mandela and other anti-apartheid activists. She later became the first woman of colour to sit on South Africa’s High Court.
Her international career is long. She served as a judge and president of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, where the court established that rape and sexual violence could constitute crimes against humanity and genocide. In the same case, a defendant was charged for the first time with incitement to genocide purely on the basis of spreading propaganda. Pillay then served as a judge at the ICC and, from 2008 to 2014, as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. From 2021 to 2025 she chaired the UN commission of inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and today she sits as an ad hoc judge at the International Court of Justice in the case in which Myanmar stands accused of genocide against the Rohingya.
According to AP, Pillay heard the news while attending a law forum in Nuremberg, Germany, the city whose post-war trials are often seen as the birthplace of modern international criminal law. The Nobel Committee said her work had held states and leaders accountable and brought hope to victims of violence and conflict.
What the new US sanctions mean for the court
The sanctions announced by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio go far beyond earlier measures. Washington had already sanctioned 17 ICC judges and officials. This time, the court is targeted as an institution. US entities are banned from doing business with it, which means American companies can no longer provide services such as banking or software. The measures also include threats of punishment for countries that work with the court, the Washington Post reported.
Rubio framed the move as a defence of national sovereignty and accused the court of trying to prosecute Americans. “Either the ICC will end its threats, or we will end the ICC,” he said, according to the BBC. The administration has long been angered by a past ICC investigation into actions of US soldiers in Afghanistan, which has since been closed, and by the court’s arrest warrants for Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu welcomed the sanctions and called the ICC “not a court” but a political body.
There is, however, a grace period. Some of the new measures will only take effect after six months, so member states can keep paying for the court’s operations in the meantime. Washington says the delay gives countries time to negotiate a “solution” to its concerns. Rubio also called on US allies that belong to the court, including the United Kingdom, to “rein in” the institution.
The ICC said the sanctions were designed to disrupt its work and intimidate those who cooperate with it, but that it “will not be deterred.” It added: “History will judge this moment.” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called the decision “a serious blow to our collective pursuit of international criminal justice.”
Several close US allies pushed back openly. The United Kingdom joined Canada, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, Japan and the Netherlands in reaffirming their “continued and unwavering support” for the court and said they “regret and strongly disagree with” the sanctions. The Netherlands, which hosts the ICC in The Hague and is also a NATO ally, faces particular pressure. Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen warned that the measures would seriously affect the court’s ability to function.
The practical stakes are high. Founded in 2002, the ICC prosecutes war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide and has 125 member states. Major powers such as the United States, Russia, China, India and Israel are not members. Like any large institution, the court depends on banks, payment systems, IT providers and software, many of which have links to the US market. If those services disappear, the court could struggle to pay staff, run its systems and hold hearings.
Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University and former special counsel at the US Department of Defense, told the BBC that the sanctions could eventually leave the ICC unable to try cases. In that scenario, detainees awaiting trial or judgment might have to be released “as a matter of law” if fair proceedings were no longer possible. Among those held in The Hague is Rodrigo Duterte, the 81-year-old former president of the Philippines, who is accused over thousands of killings during his “war on drugs.” Others awaiting trial or with pending appeals include former senior figures accused of war crimes in Libya, Sudan and the Central African Republic.
The US has included some carve-outs. Licences will allow the ICC to keep paying for the operation of detention facilities used for Duterte and other detainees. But Goodman argued that a release of such suspects would be “enormously damaging” to global efforts toward international justice and deeply traumatic for victims who took part in the proceedings in the hope of seeing justice done.
For now, the next six months look decisive. European governments will have to decide how far they are willing to go to protect the court, whether through alternative payment channels, political pressure on Washington or negotiations over US concerns. The ICC, meanwhile, will try to keep its cases moving while preparing for a possible loss of key services.
Navi Pillay’s prize does not change any of these hard facts. Yet it sends a clear signal from Oslo about which values the Nobel Committee wants to defend at a time when international institutions are under pressure. The same week has made one thing obvious: the question of who may judge the world’s gravest crimes, and who pays for it, has become one of the central political fights of 2026.
