FHESS RESEARCH NOTE 16 — FROM IMMOBILISED ASSETS TO INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY: REPRESENTING THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT IN THE €210 BILLION FIELD

FHESS Research Note 16 examines the representation of institutional capacity within the field created by immobilised Russian sovereign assets in the European Union. The immediate empirical finding object is a news report concerning former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s September 2026 intervention calling for Russian financial resources held in Belgium to be made available in support of Ukraine. Rather than treating that intervention as a legal determination concerning ownership, confiscation or allocation, the Note examines the representational movement it performs: immobilised Russian financial capacity is connected to a particular capacity need and a possible beneficiary. This opens a further research question: when exceptional financial capacity is being considered in response to war-related damage, which institutional positions are represented, and where is the International Criminal Court (ICC) represented within that field? The Note distinguishes Johnson’s reference to more than €140 billion in Belgium from the approximately €210 billion in Central Bank of Russia assets and reserves immobilised across the European Union. It examines the positions of Ukraine, the ICC, Russia, the European Union, Belgium and Euroclear while preserving the distinction between immobilised principal assets, extraordinary revenues and possible financial instruments connected to them. The concept of CAPACITY DAMAGE is introduced as a functional research object: pressure, obstruction, diversion or additional burden affecting an institution’s ability to perform its functions with independence, continuity, security and effectiveness. The Note asks whether pressures sustained by the ICC can be translated into demonstrable effects on investigative, evidentiary, protective and judicial capacity. The research does not presume confiscation of Russian sovereign assets, transfer of ownership, or an ICC entitlement to those assets. It asks a prior question of institutional representation and explores whether lawful financial pathways could strengthen international criminal justice while preserving the legally relevant positions within the field. Central finding: REPRESENTATION PRECEDES ALLOCATION. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22756041