James A. Goldston is the executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative.

Last month, U.S. President Donald Trump lambasted the United Nations for “empty words” that “don’t solve war.” At the same time, reports emerged that his administration was poised to issue a fatal blow against one of the crowning achievements of multilateralism: the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The ICC’s creation in 1998 fulfilled a century-long ambition: to see perpetrators of the greatest crimes, no matter their station, held to account when national governments fail to act against them. In its short life, the court has prosecuted heinous acts of sexual violence, cultural desecration and the use of child soldiers. It has charged Russia’s and Israel’s most senior officials for alleged crimes in Ukraine and Gaza respectively, as well as Myanmar’s military commander-in-chief for the alleged persecution of hundreds of thousands of Rohingya.

But now, with America exerting enormous financial and political pressure on the court, this may all fall away.

In an effort to protect Israel’s leaders, over the past few months the Trump administration has undertaken an all-out assault on the ICC, imposing draconian targeted sanctions on its prosecutor and his two deputies, six judges, one U.N. special rapporteur and three NGOs accused of aiding the court’s investigation into and prosecution of crimes in Gaza.

Threatening judges and prosecutors with travel bans and asset freezes isn’t just wrong — it betrays the U.S.’s proud, if uneven, history of leading the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II, and its help in addressing subsequent atrocities in former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone. It’s also an odd way to defend American sovereignty, particularly when — as Israel has done — Washington is free to argue its jurisdictional objections in The Hague.

Concerning as the existing measures are, the discussed new sanctions on the ICC as a whole would go even further, barring banks, software providers and other vendors from servicing the institution, effectively shutting down its operations. If these sanctions were to result in the court’s destruction, the losses would be incalculable.

Detainees like former President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines — accused of orchestrating mass killing — could go free. Investigations and prosecutions for abuses by the Taliban in Afghanistan, and alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Myanmar, Ukraine and Venezuela would all come to a halt. Thousands of survivors, advocates, doctors and journalists the world over would lose their last and only recourse for redress. And the cause of a world governed by law rather than violence, however imperfectly, would be set back.

America’s on-again, off-again history with the ICC notwithstanding — it has never joined the court, and has alternately both helped and blocked it — this possibility is shocking. And the relative quiescence of others, including many of the court’s 125 member countries from Europe, Africa and Latin America, is disappointing — particularly when international stages, such as the U.N. General Assembly and various fora in each of the world’s major regions, provide ready-made opportunities to lift up the ICC’s mission and work.

Though some countries have made their objections public, many have declined to do so. In July, little over one-third of the court’s membership signed an anodyne statement expressing “deep concern” at “recent measures” targeting the four judges, and pledged “full support” for the ICC without specifying what they would do. Civil society has sounded the alarm.

But if ever there were a moment for governments to defend the ICC, this is it.

For months, EU members have debated and failed to adopt legal tools that would provide limited protection for companies and individuals who seek to continue providing services to designated ICC-affiliated persons.Meanwhile, States Parties to the Rome Statute could demonstrate a determination to stand with the ICC in other ways, like assisting with witness protection and sentence execution, boosting finances and committing to execute outstanding arrest warrants.

Finally, as an investigation into allegations of sexual abuse by the ICC chief prosecutor approaches its 12th month, the court’s governing body could do more to ensure this probe is completed with integrity and expedition, and that preparations are in place for swift action when it does — whether that be reinstatement or the selection of a successor.

It’s true that the ICC’s performance to date — 11 convictions and four acquittals in 20 years — hasn’t met the ambition of its creators. However, the court has secured important judicial rulings, pushed governments to prosecute war criminals themselves, created an impartial historical record for countries in conflict, and modeled a system of law for generations to come.

It took 50 years after the horrors of the Holocaust to establish the ICC. Without more robust assistance from its allies, sanctions will make the court a weaker institution — if it survives at all. And the damage to international law and justice may be irreversible.

All those who believe in the ICC’s vital mission must make their voices heard.