Play store
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has strongly condemned the latest US sanctions against its president, Judge Tomoko Akane of Japan, and senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye of Senegal, calling the measures a “flagrant attack” on the court’s independence.
The sanctions were announced by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio as part of the Trump administration’s broader campaign against the Hague-based court.
Washington accuses the ICC of being “corrupt and fatally politicised” and of exceeding its authority by investigating or prosecuting nationals of countries that have not accepted its jurisdiction.
The ICC rejected that argument, saying its judges, prosecutors and staff operate under a mandate granted by the 125 states that are parties to the Rome Statute.
It warned that targeting judicial officials for carrying out their legal duties undermines the rule of law and places the wider international legal order at risk.
The dispute is closely linked to the ICC’s investigations involving Israel and alleged crimes in Gaza.
The court previously issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, prompting strong opposition from both Israel and the United States. Neither the US nor Israel is a party to the Rome Statute.
The latest measures reportedly freeze assets within US jurisdiction and restrict the sanctioned officials’ access to the US financial system.
The new designations bring the number of ICC personnel sanctioned by Washington to 13, including judges and senior legal officials.
The sanctions have also drawn criticism from US allies. Japan described the measures against its national, Akane, as “very unfortunate,” while the UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed serious concern.
European governments have also reaffirmed their support for the ICC and its judicial independence.
The ICC, meanwhile, has vowed to continue its work investigating and prosecuting genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression, despite the pressure.
In short: the confrontation represents a growing clash between Washington’s position that the ICC has no authority over US or allied nationals and the court’s insistence that its judicial independence must be protected from political pressure.
