US announces new sanctions on top ICC figures
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has announced sanctions against ICC President Tomoko Akane of Japan and Senior Trial Lawyer Abdoulaye Seye of Senegal, the latest step in the Trump administration's campaign to "dismantle" the court. Washington accuses the pair of pursuing efforts to investigate, arrest or prosecute officials from countries that have not consented to ICC jurisdiction, with Rubio branding the court "corrupt and fatally politicised". The move deepens a rift between the US and the international justice system, which is backed by more than 120 member states.
The sanctions, which typically include asset freezes, travel bans and restrictions on US company services, follow an executive order Donald Trump issued last year and bring the number of sanctioned ICC officials to at least 13, including nine judges and the chief prosecutor. The action stems from ICC investigations into US conduct in Afghanistan and arrest warrants against Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, over alleged Gaza war crimes; neither the US nor Israel are ICC members. The sanctions have prompted legal pushback, with three ICC judges and four US human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, suing the administration, arguing the measures are unlawful and unconstitutional.
- US sanctions ICC president Tomoko Akane and lawyer Abdoulaye Seye
- Part of Trump's wider campaign to "dismantle" the ICC
- At least 13 ICC officials now sanctioned; legal challenges under way
New here? Start with this
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a treaty-based court that investigates and prosecutes individuals accused of serious international crimes, such as war crimes. More than 120 countries are members, but the United States and Israel are not, so they have not accepted the court’s general authority over their nationals.
The ICC’s work has included investigations into alleged US conduct in Afghanistan and arrest warrants for Israeli officials over alleged crimes in Gaza. The US government says the court is acting beyond its authority; the ICC’s supporters say it is carrying out its mandate. The dispute matters because US sanctions can affect court officials and test how the court works with countries outside its membership.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The strongest case emphasises institutional legitimacy and sovereignty. The ICC should respect the consent-based nature of international law by not investigating countries that haven't joined the court; the US and Israel never agreed to submit to its jurisdiction. The court's selective focus on Western-aligned nations whilst overlooking atrocities elsewhere suggests political motivation rather than impartial justice, undermining its legitimacy and justifying defensive measures to protect national sovereignty and allies.
The case against
The strongest case defends the international legal order and accountability. The ICC has proper jurisdiction when crimes occur on member state territory, regardless of the perpetrator's nationality. Sanctioning judges and prosecutors for performing their duties attacks judicial independence and the rule of law itself. With over 120 countries supporting the institution, dismantling it through coercive measures sets a perilous precedent that powerful nations can escape accountability by intimidating the international system designed to enforce justice impartially.