Microsoft's ICC blockade: digital dependence comes at a cost

US sanctions, tech, and “legal” power

• Many see the US using Microsoft to cut off ICC email as politicized coercion: weaponizing commercial tech and undermining the idea of neutral infrastructure.
• Others argue sanctions are exactly the “legal” tool available in international politics; law is ultimately backed by power, and the US is entitled to regulate the commerce of its own firms.
• Several note that US companies are generally obliged to comply with lawful orders; Microsoft could theoretically refuse but would face penalties under US law.

ICC legitimacy and jurisdiction

• There’s a deep split on whether the ICC is an “important global court” or a selective, politicized, even “fake” institution.
• Disputes focus on:
  • Whether Palestine is a “state” able to confer jurisdiction.
  • Whether a court based on a treaty can prosecute nationals of non‑signatories (e.g. Israel, US).
• Some emphasize that the Rome Statute binds only its parties; non-signatories owe the ICC nothing and need not respect its authority.
• Others counter that signatories have voluntarily created a global court whose jurisdiction over crimes on their territory applies regardless of the perpetrator’s nationality.

International law vs raw power

• A recurring theme: international law is fragile and largely enforced by powerful states when convenient.
• Nuremberg, universal jurisdiction, and UN ad hoc tribunals are cited as precedents for trying serious crimes beyond strict state consent.
• Critics highlight selective enforcement and political impunity for major powers as evidence that “law” in this domain is mostly rhetoric masking power politics.

European tech dependence and sovereignty

• Many commenters argue this episode proves Europe and international bodies must reduce dependence on US cloud/SaaS for core functions.
• Proposals include: EU-funded, privacy-first browser engines; mandatory chat interoperability; sovereign, locally operated cloud infrastructure regulated like utilities.
• Others doubt the EU’s capacity or political will, citing cookie-banner fiascos and public resistance to non–big-tech tools.

Cloud vs self-hosting for a court

• There’s surprise and criticism that the ICC relies on US cloud services and Cloudflare, given espionage and sanctions risks.
• Some insist such a court should run its own sovereign IT; others note email and modern IT are complex, and small organizations often lack capacity.
• Moving to alternative providers (e.g., non-US email) is mentioned as a partial response, but commenters stress that any external vendor can be subject to some state’s sanctions.