Senior Officer - Distribution Compliance

ICC ends contract with French insurer amid US sanctions threat. News October 2, 2026 The International Criminal Court (ICC) has ended its contract with French health and life insurer AXA with immediate effect and will switch to another insurance provider, amid mounting pressure from the US and Israel and the threat of financial restrictions against the court over its investigations into war crimes by US and Israeli officials. The Hague (QNN)- The International Criminal Court (ICC) has ended its contract with French health and life insurer AXA with immediate effect and will switch to another insurance provider, amid mounting pressure from the US and Israel and the threat of financial restrictions against the court over its investigations into war crimes by US and Israeli officials. At last week's United Nations General Assembly, Trump referred to the ICC as an "evil" and "a rogue institution" and urged countries to leave it. The only country to follow suit is Nauru, a tiny Pacific island nation. Axa and the ICC expressed concern that the looming sanctions would force the Paris-based insurer to stop doing business with the court, the Financial Times reported. After months of talks, the two sides were unable to find a solution without using what is called a blocking statute - a legal mechanism designed to protect European firms from the impacts of sanctions imposed by third countries, the report said. "Axa and the Court have decided by mutual agreement to terminate the contractual relationship," the ICC spokesperson told Reuters news agency in a statement. The ICC and Axa did not respond to Al Jazeera's request for comment. The Financial Times said that the court would use a new health insurance provider but didn't specify the firm. Late last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump administration is planning to impose sweeping sanctions on the ICC, potentially disrupting the tribunal's finances and day-to-day operations. The sanctions would prohibit most transactions with the court following a grace period of six to seven months. The move could paralyze the institution by banning transactions conducted in US dollars, thereby cutting it off from large parts of the global financial system. The move would mark a sharp escalation in Washington's campaign against the Hague-based court by targeting the institution itself rather than individual judges and prosecutors. The Trump administration plans to announce the sanctions soon, according to the Reuters news agency, quoting two sources familiar with the matter. The Journal, citing anonymous officials, said a decision could be finalized during the United Nations General Assembly gathering in New York or soon afterwards. If imposed, the measures would generally bar US citizens and companies from providing the ICC with money, goods or services without a licence from the US Treasury. Banks and other companies often take an especially cautious approach to US sanctions because they rely on access to the American financial system. The ICC president and registrar have previously warned that sanctions on the organisation as a whole could interfere with its ability to buy information technology and insurance services, hire investigators and make routine payments, including salaries for American employees. Trump's administration intensified its campaign against the Hague-based court by sanctioning in August the court's President Tomoko Akane and senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye, with restrictions on them taking effect on September 17. Washington has said it will also step up efforts to persuade other countries to quit the institution, a call that at least five countries have already heeded. Just days after he assumed power in late January 2025, Trump signed an executive order to sanction the ICC over its investigations into top Israeli officials. British barrister Karim Khan, who was the ICC's chief prosecutor, was the top sanctioned individual at the time. He has since been removed through a vote by member states, albeit due to sexual misconduct allegations. Khan has denied them. Three out of eight ICC judges were also sanctioned, alongside two of Khan's deputies, the United Nations special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territories, and three Palestinian human rights organisations. The judges have since sued the Trump administration. Netanyahu applauded the US sanctions and called the ICC "a kangaroo court that cloaks its abuse of power in the language of international law". The Trump executive order followed a White House visit by Netanyahu, who is wanted by the ICC over war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Gaza since October 2023. Netanyahu and his then defense minister, Yoav Gallant, were issued arrest warrants in November 2024. Recently, four US-based rights groups sued the Trump administration for its sanctions on the ICC. In a statement, the American Friends Service Committee, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch, and the Open Society Institute called the sanctions "blatantly illegal". They said they are being forced "to curtail a wide range of human rights and legal work in violation of... First and Fifth Amendment rights under the US Constitution and under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act", given that anyone who appears to associate with ICC cases or officials could now face legal repercussions. And in July, advocates for Palestinian rights in the US also filed a lawsuit in a New York City federal court, seeking an injunction to stop the Trump administration's enforcement of sanctions against groups or individuals liaising with the ICC. Democracy for the Arab World Now and the Taxpayer Alliance Against Genocide said they felt compelled to immediately go to court after Rubio wrote in an opinion piece that the US was willing to dismantle the ICC "brick by brick". Earlier this year, former ICC chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda said the previous head of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency pressured her in a series of meetings to drop her investigation into war crimes in occupied Palestine. Bensouda, who served in her role from 2012 to 2021, said unidentified men came to her home in The Hague after she opened a preliminary examination into the situation in Palestine in 2015. "They came directly to my house," Bensouda told Al Jazeera in an interview published on Sunday. "I got the message that they're sending." She said the men handed her an envelope containing $500 and indicated it was from someone she had helped. Bensouda said she later concluded the gesture was intended to show that those behind it knew where she lived. Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a statement decrying the new sanctions. The sanctions are "just the latest example of the Trump administration's utter contempt for international law and a naked attempt to shield American and Israeli officials implicated in serious crimes from justice", HRW's Middle East and North Africa director Balkees Jarrah said.

ICC, insurer Axa cut ties amid Trump campaign against court. Published on 10/01/2026 at 10:49 am EDT Oct 1 (Reuters) - The International Criminal Court has ended its contract with French life and health insurer Axa starting October 1 and will now be using a new health insurance provider, a spokesperson for the Hague-based court said. The spokesperson gave no reason for the decision, which was first reported on Thursday by the Financial Times, and declined to name the new insurance provider. President Donald Trump recently urged other countries to leave the ICC, calling it "evil" and "a rogue institution," amid an escalating US campaign against the court. The Trump administration says the ICC oversteps its authority by claiming jurisdiction over citizens of countries, including the United States and Israel, which have not ratified the court's founding treaty, known as the Rome Statute. "AXA and the Court have decided by mutual agreement to terminate the contractual relationship," the ICC spokesperson told Reuters in a statement. AXA did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. The FT said in its report that Axa had cited "risks arising from the extraterritorial application of US sanctions", which the insurer said reflected "an international environment that has become increasingly tense and complex for businesses". The newspaper, citing a person familiar with the matter, said Axa had held months of discussions internally and with the ICC about potential workarounds, but was unable to find a solution without a so-called blocking statute. Blocking statutes are legal mechanisms designed to protect Europeans from the extraterritorial effects of sanctions imposed by third countries. The US has imposed financial sanctions and visa bans on ICC staff, and officials have prepared sanctions that could undercut the court's ability to operate, sources familiar with the matter earlier told Reuters. (Reporting by Kanjyik Ghosh in Barcelona and Chandni Shah in Bengaluru; Editing by Alison Williams and Gareth Jones) (C) Reuters - 2026

ICC, insurer Axa cut ties amid Trump campaign against court. Posted on October 1, 2026 · Last updated: October 1, 2026 ICC and insurer Axa end contract amid US sanctions, Trump campaign pressure. Contract termination and its context. ICC ends contract with Axa. Oct 1 (Reuters) - The International Criminal Court has ended its contract with French life and health insurer Axa starting October 1 and will now be using a new health insurance provider, a spokesperson for the Hague-based court said. The spokesperson gave no reason for the decision, which was first reported on Thursday by the Financial Times, and declined to name the new insurance provider. US pressure and political backdrop. Trump Administration's Stance on ICC. President Donald Trump recently urged other countries to leave the ICC, calling it "evil" and "a rogue institution," amid an escalating US campaign against the court. The Trump administration says the ICC oversteps its authority by claiming jurisdiction over citizens of countries, including the United States and Israel, which have not ratified the court's founding treaty, known as the Rome Statute. Statements from ICC and Axa. "AXA and the Court have decided by mutual agreement to terminate the contractual relationship," the ICC spokesperson told Reuters in a statement. AXA did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. Sanctions and legal complexities. Impact of US sanctions. The FT said in its report that Axa had cited "risks arising from the extraterritorial application of US sanctions", which the insurer said reflected "an international environment that has become increasingly tense and complex for businesses". Internal discussions and blocking statutes. The newspaper, citing a person familiar with the matter, said Axa had held months of discussions internally and with the ICC about potential workarounds, but was unable to find a solution without a so-called blocking statute. Definition of blocking statutes. Blocking statutes are legal mechanisms designed to protect Europeans from the extraterritorial effects of sanctions imposed by third countries. Further US measures against ICC. The US has imposed financial sanctions and visa bans on ICC staff, and officials have prepared sanctions that could undercut the court's ability to operate, sources familiar with the matter earlier told Reuters. (Reporting by Kanjyik Ghosh in Barcelona and Chandni Shah in Bengaluru; Editing by Alison Williams and Gareth Jones) Key takeaways. * ICC ended contract with Axa due to concerns over U.S. sanctions' extraterritorial reach (bluewaterhealthyliving.com) * The move reflects growing business complexities amid Washington's intensified campaign to dismantle ICC via sanctions, travel bans, and diplomatic pressure (investing.com) * A blocking statute - legal mechanism to counter extraterritorial sanctions - is central to discussions but has yet to resolve insurer's concerns (amnesty.org) References. Frequently asked questions. Why did the ICC end its contract with Axa? Who is the ICC's new health insurance provider? What role did US sanctions play in the ICC and Axa contract termination? What is a blocking statute in this context? What actions has the US taken against the ICC?