Nicolas Guillou, French ICC judge sanctioned by the US and “debanked”

Sanctions, “debanking,” and alternatives

• Commenters highlight how US financial sanctions effectively “debank” ICC personnel worldwide because card networks and much of correspondent banking are US-based.
• Some argue this shows why cash must remain strong legal tender and why elites or dissidents might turn to Bitcoin, stablecoins, or informal systems like hawala.
• Others say Bitcoin is environmentally harmful, volatile, and attractive to crime, and that elites will never back something that undermines tax collection.
• A minority welcomes that a powerful judge now experiences the same opaque financial-blocking tools used on protesters and activists elsewhere.

US sanctions: human rights tool or geopolitical weapon?

• Several note that human-rights frameworks (e.g. Magnitsky-style laws) are now used against ICC judges, UN rapporteurs, and even a foreign supreme court justice, for decisions disfavored by the US.
• Some see this as continuity: sanctions were always about geopolitical leverage, with “human rights” mostly as branding.
• Others insist the original intent was narrower and that retroactively redefining it as “always geopolitical” is a form of conceptual drift.

ICC jurisdiction and overreach

• One camp says the ICC is legitimately acting because Palestine joined the Rome Statute, alleged crimes occurred on its territory, and crimes against humanity allow broad or even universal jurisdiction.
• Opponents argue neither the US nor Israel ratified the Statute, so the court has no authority over their nationals and is abusing power; sanctions are framed as pushback against that precedent.
• There is debate over whether domestic systems (e.g. Israeli courts) are “willing and able” to prosecute, which would bar ICC action, and whether they were given a real chance.

Israel–Palestine, terrorism, and double standards

• The thread contains heated disagreement: some stress Hamas atrocities and argue Israel is fighting for survival; others emphasize mass civilian deaths, “collective punishment,” and expansionist aims.
• A few point out that the ICC also targeted Hamas leadership, but critics say the court is still asymmetrical or late.
• Some comments explicitly veer into anti‑Jewish or conspiratorial territory; others push back, noting that historical persecution doesn’t justify present abuses.

US hegemony, soft power, and European autonomy

• Many see these sanctions as accelerating a long-term erosion of US soft power and trust in US-controlled financial rails, especially in Europe.
• Proposals include EU‑backed payment systems (e.g. Wero, digital euro), EU‑only banking options, and explicit refusal to enforce US sanctions on ICC staff.
• Others argue the US remains a superpower backed by military and economic scale, and that ICC or EU efforts cannot practically constrain it without risking severe escalation.

International justice vs. realpolitik

• Some view the ICC and post‑Nuremberg “rules-based order” as aspirational but fatally limited: international law ultimately depends on power, not paper.
• Others reply that imperfect enforcement is better than none; even low-probability future arrests, travel limits, and stigma can matter and may modestly deter war crimes.
• There’s a recurring tension between “might makes right” realism and the belief that abandoning legal ideals cements global cynicism and invites further abuses by all powers.