ICC Rebukes Washington Over Sanctions Against Officials, Citing Threats To Judicial Independence

The International Criminal Court (ICC) on Wednesday condemned the United States for imposing sanctions on its president, Tomoko Akane, and senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye, calling the measures a "flagrant attack" on the independence of the international judicial body. The ICC said the sanctions threatened the rule of law and could undermine the ability of judges, prosecutors and staff to perform their duties independently. Washington imposed sanctions on Akane, a Japanese national, and Seye of Senegal on Tuesday as part of its broader campaign against the Hague-based court. The US administration has accused the ICC of being "corrupt and fatally politicised" and has repeatedly challenged its authority to investigate or prosecute officials from countries that have not accepted the court's jurisdiction.

"These sanctions are a flagrant attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution," the ICC said in a statement. The court added that measures targeting judges, prosecutors and other personnel "undermine the rule of law", arguing that judicial officials should be protected from political pressure while carrying out their legal responsibilities. The latest sanctions follow earlier US measures against ICC officials, many of which have been linked to Washington's opposition to investigations involving Israel, a close American ally. The ICC has been examining alleged crimes connected to the conflict, while the United States has rejected the court's authority in cases involving countries that have not consented to its jurisdiction.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the sanctions, saying the targeted individuals had directly participated in efforts by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute officials whose governments had not consented to ICC jurisdiction. Rubio did not provide specific examples in his statement, but the administration has consistently criticised the court's investigations and questioned the legal basis for some of its actions. Japan, meanwhile, objected to the US measures against Akane and Seye. Foreign Ministry press secretary Toshihiro Kitamura said Tokyo had consistently supported the ICC in its efforts to prosecute and punish the most serious crimes of concern to the international community and to uphold the rule of law.

Also Read: ICC Condemns US Sanctions, Says Measures Undermine International Justice And Rule Of Law

"From this standpoint, the announced measures are very unfortunate," Kitamura said, reflecting Japan's continued backing for the court despite Tokyo's close alliance with Washington. Japan is the ICC's biggest funder and has played a significant role in supporting its work. The disagreement highlights the widening divide between Washington and the ICC over the scope of international criminal jurisdiction. The court was established under the Rome Statute to prosecute individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression in circumstances where its jurisdiction applies.

The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute and has long maintained that the ICC should not exercise jurisdiction over American citizens without US consent. Washington has similarly objected when the court has sought to act against officials from other countries that have not accepted its jurisdiction. For the ICC, however, the sanctions raise broader concerns about judicial independence. The court maintains that its personnel must be able to investigate and prosecute alleged international crimes without facing retaliation from governments affected by its work.

The confrontation has also put Japan in a notable position. Despite being a close US ally, Tokyo has openly criticised the sanctions and reiterated its support for the ICC. Japan's response underscores the wider international debate over the role of the court and the principle that judicial institutions should be able to operate independently. The ICC has said it remains committed to carrying out its mandate despite the US measures. The dispute is likely to intensify debate over international justice, state sovereignty and the limits of the court's authority, particularly as it continues to handle cases involving powerful states and senior political figures.

Also Read: Punjab Police Arrest 3 Bambiha Gang Operatives After Malaysia Deportation