Both the International Criminal Court (icc) and the UN Security Council (unsc) are vested with the capacity to request States to freeze individuals’ assets. The two bodies are also bound to cooperate closely under the terms of their relationship agreement ‘with a view to facilitating the effective discharge of their respective responsibilities’. This article examines whether this obligation extends to the unsc coordinating its targeted sanctions regime to support the icc in respect of the enforcement powers with which the latter is equipped. It does so by analysing eight cases where unsc action (could) have coincided with icc operations, with a particular focus on the (non-)parallel implementation of the two bodies’ asset freezing procedures. The article demonstrates that, though the activities of the unsc and the icc in this sphere of their respective operations might have overlapped on a number of occasions, they have rarely been deliberately coordinated. This leads the author to conclude that close cooperation as envisaged in the relationship agreement between the two bodies is unlikely on this front.

国际刑事法院（icc）和联合国安理会（unsc）均具有要求各国冻结个人资产的能力。这两个机构还必须根据其关系协定的条款密切合作，“以促进有效履行各自的职责”。本文探讨了这一义务是否延伸到联合国安理会协调其有针对性的制裁，支持国际刑事法院对于与后者配备的执法权力。通过分析unsc动作（可能）与icc一致的八种情况来做到这一点行动，特别着重于两个机构资产冻结程序的（非并行执行）。这篇文章表明，尽管unsc和icc在各自的业务领域中的活动可能在许多场合重叠了，但很少有意进行协调。这使作者得出结论，在这方面，两个机构之间的关系协议所设想的密切合作是不可能的。