The ICC has tools for countering this kind of thing though.

They can order anyone who impedes them seized and handed over for judgement to the ICC, including bank CEOs and the like participating in retaliatory measures against them. They haven't done this, presumably for political reasons, but they can.

It would be good if they could, but the U.S. never consented to the court's authority, and the U.S. government maintains that the ICC has no jurisdiction over American citizens or personnel. We are living a multi-tier world, where there are entities that can be held accountable, and others not so.

They haven't done it because their power would collapse if they try to do something and be ineffective at it.

Anyone from a nation that signed the Statute of Rome. Guess what, USA not only hasn't joined the ICJ but has historical laws in place that will make them intervene even with military force to free a US citizen in the hands of the ICJ.

Anyone can order anyone to do anything. What matters is whether you have the power to enforce it. If a court in my country orders me to do something and I do not I will be fined or imprisoned. What can the ICC do? Countries are not going to arrest bank CEOs for something they are forced to do by the US.

Sources? When I look at the law and their mandate, it sure looks like they can't. That's not part of their soft powers. They can excusively go after a very narrow band of criminal acts.

> The ICC has tools for countering this kind of thing though.

That's irrelevant and unrealistic in this case. None of this factored into the US reaching for the sanctions hammer with more and more despicable intentions, like supporting war crimes even of other countries.