US sanctions International Criminal Court president and trial lawyer

[Beijingwalker]

US sanctions International Criminal Court president and trial lawyer​

The Trump administration has led a campaign to ‘dismantle’ the court, calling it a threat to US national sovereignty.
18 Aug 2026

The Trump administration has added the head of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and one of its senior lawyers to a list of sanctioned individuals.

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio framed the widening sanctions on Tuesday as part of his campaign to “dismantle” the ICC.

“The Trump Administration is sanctioning ICC President Tomoko Akane and Senior Trial Lawyer Abdoulaye Seye in our unwavering mission to protect Americans from this sham of a court,” Rubio wrote on social media.

“In honor of our Declaration of Independence, Americans will never be transported beyond seas to be tried for pretend offenses.”

Akane, a Japanese judge, has served as the ICC’s president since her election in March 2024. Seye is a Senegalese lawyer at the court.

The sanctions freeze any assets they may have in the US and limit US-based entities from conducting transactions with them, starting on September 17.

Japan’s foreign ministry said the decision to sanction Akane and Seye was “very unfortunate.”

“Japan has consistently supported the ICC, which is a permanent international criminal court, in its efforts to prosecute and punish ‌the most serious crimes of concern to the international community,” Japan’s foreign ministry said in a statement.

The US has sanctioned more than a dozen ICC judges and prosecutors, triggering a response from financial institutions that cuts them off from much of the international banking system.

It has also imposed financial restrictions on human rights groups and figures such as United Nations Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, citing their cooperation with the ICC.

In June, three ICC judges sued the Trump administration over the sanctions, calling them an “arbitrary and capricious” means of curtailing the court’s judicial independence.

International legal order ‘at risk’​

The ICC has denounced the Trump administration’s efforts as a means of eroding the rule of law.

“When judicial actors are threatened for applying the law, it is the international legal order itself that is placed at risk,” the court said in a statement.

Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen said on X that the Netherlands, which hosts the court, disapproved of the latest US sanctions and he had invited Akane to “discuss our continued support”.

“International courts and tribunals must be able to freely carry out their mandates,” Berendsen wrote.

The Trump administration, however, has argued that the ICC overstepped its authority by opening investigations into actions committed by the US and its close ally, Israel. Neither country is a member of the court, which is based in The Hague.

But proponents have argued that the court has jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute actions carried out in its 125 member states, even if the perpetrators fall outside its membership.

The court’s mandate is to investigate grievous international crimes, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In 2020, for instance, the ICC opened an inquiry into allegations of US war crimes in Afghanistan, where it had led a 20-year war that ended in 2021. More recently, in 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes during Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

In an X post on Tuesday evening, Netanyahu applauded the US sanctions and called the ICC “a kangaroo court that cloaks its abuse of power in the language of international law”.

US hints at more measures​

The Trump administration has also protested against investigations into US and Israeli actions.

In July, Rubio issued a statement calling the court an “intolerable threat” to the countries’ sovereignty and pledging to dismantle it.

Several countries, including Chad and Venezuela, have since announced plans to withdraw from the ICC, with critics citing the US’s influence as a motivating factor.

But in Tuesday’s statement, Rubio doubled down on his criticism, hinting at more punitive measures to come.

“The Trump Administration has been clear: the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a corrupt and fatally politicized supranational court that has maliciously abused its authority and exceeded its mandate,” he said. “We will not tolerate its assault on state sovereignty.”

Last week, four human rights groups sued US President Donald Trump in a New York court over his sanctions targeting the ICC, saying the measures block victims of war crimes from pursuing justice.

One of the plaintiff groups, Human Rights Watch (HRW), issued a statement on Tuesday decrying the new sanctions.

The sanctions are “just the latest example of the Trump administration’s utter contempt for international law and a naked attempt to shield American and Israeli officials implicated in serious crimes from justice”, HRW’s Middle East and North Africa director Balkees Jarrah said.

 

[Beijingwalker]

Trump administration issues fresh sanctions against the International Criminal Court​

Aug 20, 2026

The International Criminal Court has criticized the US for imposing new sanctions on its president and a senior prosecutor. It's the Trump Administration's latest effort to undermine the ICC.

The court is under intense pressure from the US government primarily because of its investigation into the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over alleged war crimes in the Gaza Strip.

One of the court members targeted in these latest sanctions was a lead prosecutor in the Netanyahu investigation.

 

[Beijingwalker]

International Criminal Court: New US sanctions ‘a flagrant attack’ against its independence​

UN Photo/Loey Felipe Judge Tomoko Akane, President of the International Criminal Court, delivers the court's report to the UN General Assembly.

19 August 2026

“These sanctions are a flagrant attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution which operates pursuant to the mandate conferred by its States Parties from across regions,” the ICC wrote in a statement.

Established in 2002 under the Rome Statute, the ICC is a separate institution and not part of the UN, although the Security Council may refer cases to the court.

With the consent of countries that have signed the Rome Statute, the ICC prosecutes individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression.

See our explainer, here.

UN Spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric told reporters on Wednesday that Secretary-General António Guterres was seriously concerned at the latest US action “as well as the ongoing designation of other International Criminal Court employees.”

US steps up attack​

The US, which is not a party to the Rome Statute, has expressed concerns that the ICC is a threat to its national sovereignty. It worries the Court could prosecute US citizens for grave crimes allegedly committed in countries that – unlike the US – recognize the court’s authority.

On Tuesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced fresh sanctions against ICC President Tomoko Akane and senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye. Washington had previously sanctioned former top prosecutor Karim Khan, who has since been dismissed from his post.

According to media reports, Mr. Seye has played a role in the investigation into Israeli funding for illegal settlements in the West Bank and the alleged distribution of weapons to settlers.

In November 2024, the ICC led by prosecutor Khan issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant, alleging war crimes relating to the war against Hamas in Gaza.

“The Trump Administration has been clear: the International Criminal Court is a corrupt and fatally politicised supranational court that has maliciously abused its authority and exceeded its mandate,” Mr. Rubio wrote in a statement.

The sanctions build on previous US sanctions against the ICC under both terms of President Donald Trump, as well as Mr. Rubio’s statement on 13 July that the US intended to “dismantle” the court’s threat to US sovereignty.

Nine of the court’s 18 judges, along with both deputy prosecutors, the former prosecutor and one staff member are now barred from transacting with US citizens and face onerous restrictions in the global financial system.

ICC is ‘key pillar’: Dujarric​

“While the United Nations and the International Criminal Court are separate institutions, with separate and distinct mandates, as we often said, the United Nations considers the ICC a key pillar of international criminal justice and the Secretary-General very much respects its work,” Mr. Dujarric said.

US officials including Mr. Rubio have defended US sanctions by asserting that some of the court’s investigations and arrest warrants have been politically motivated, and that the Court’s power infringes upon national constitutional systems.

On Wednesday, the court pushed back, saying that “the international legal order itself is placed at risk” when judges are threatened for applying the law.

“Threats and coercive measures also impact the ability of victims to seek justice, as they turn to the court when all other avenues have been exhausted,” the ICC wrote.

The court said it stands behind its personnel and victims of “unimaginable atrocities,” adding that it will continue to carry out its mandate “with independence and impartiality.”

“The ICC values the consistent demonstrations of solidarity of States Parties, civil society and all those who support the rule of law and justice for the victims of international crimes,” it wrote. “The Court will continue its work, with all partners and with the unwavering support of its States Parties, to ensure the effective and independent implementation of its mandate.”

International Criminal Court: New US sanctions ‘a flagrant attack’ against its independence

The International Criminal Court (ICC) on Wednesday responded to a new round of US sanctions targeting its president and a senior prosecutor, calling them “a flagrant attack” against the court.

news.un.org

 

[Beijingwalker]

Is it the same US?

 

[Beijingwalker]

Trump says he will dismantle the ICC ‘brick by brick’. It could be his most chilling move of all
Fri 24 Jul 2026 08.00 BST

Barely a month appears to go by without Donald Trump making a fresh attempt to destroy the international rules-based order. The US has pulled funding from dozens of international institutions, shut down USAID and withdrawn from the Paris climate agreement. Nato may survive on paper, but Trump has made clear that he has little interest in coming to the aid of any ally that is attacked. The Board of Peace is clearly an attempt to sideline the United Nations.

But the state department’s announcement last week that it wishes to dismantle the international criminal court “brick by brick” could be Trump’s most frightening move of all.

This is not an idle social media post sent out late at night; there is no chance that the next person to speak to Trump might change his mind. It is now official US policy to destroy the ICC, and the administration is prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to do so.

Nations that do not fall into line will be punished. The state department has promised “increased scrutiny of nations that refuse to reject the ICC’s false authority while relying on US assistance”, particularly targeting those countries that “enjoy the benefits of the US security umbrella”. That will include the UK, a country that contributes just over £15m a year to the ICC, making it the fourth largest donor after Japan, Germany and France.

Travel and sanctions bans have already been imposed on judges and senior officials; now more will be targeted. As one of those previously threatened with sanctions told me, it can result in individuals being completely cut off from modern life. Personal bank accounts are shut down, while a whole host of US apps and websites, from Uber to booking.com, are off-limits. Email accounts can be blocked – Microsoft and Google are US companies. For the court itself, it means backing up evidence previously held on Microsoft systems.

The state department campaign also includes working with other nations that are not part of the ICC, suggesting that the US could ally itself with Russia and China.

Make no mistake, this is an existential crisis not just for the ICC but the very idea of international justice. The most powerful nation on Earth and the supposed leader of the democratic west is aligning itself with dictators and autocrats to prevent those accused of genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes from ever facing justice.

The US has had a complicated history with international justice. It was integral in the establishment of the post-second world war Nuremberg trials but was reluctant to ratify the genocide convention, only doing so in 1988, four decades after it was passed by the UN general assembly.

The issue was always one of self-preservation, rather than principle. For generations of US politicians, mainly Republicans but including some Democrats, the very idea that judges in other countries could hold American citizens to account was a non-starter. Until now, successive US presidents have generally accepted the idea of international justice even if, hypocritically, they did not want it to apply to them.

The US refused to sign the Rome statute that created the ICC in 2002, but it did not use its power to prevent its birth. In 2005, at the height of the Darfur genocide, it allowed the UN security council to pass a resolution authorising the ICC to investigate, and if necessary prosecute, those accused of war crimes in Sudan. Under Joe Biden’s presidency, it also encouraged the ICC to prosecute Vladimir Putin for alleged war crimes committed in Ukraine.

For Trump, though, the ICC has always been a threat. He imposed sanctions on court officials during his first term, following an investigation into alleged war crimes committed by US troops in Afghanistan.

The campaign against the court ratcheted up after his return to office last year. The ICC’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, had issued an arrest warrant for Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, accusing him of committing war crimes in Gaza. In response, Trump imposed fresh sanctions on ICC officials including Khan.

The threats to the ICC are not just coming from its enemies – many of them are self-inflicted. Two women, one a staffer at the ICC, have accused Khan of sexual abuse. The executive committee of the ICC’s governing body last month voted to suspend Khan, who denies any wrongdoing, after concluding that he had committed serious misconduct. The court’s 125 member states will, this Friday, vote on whether to remove him from office.

Staff in The Hague say the ICC has become an increasingly high-pressure place to work, with one former senior official describing the atmosphere as toxic.

There are also concerns from international law and human rights experts over its record. It has botched many of its big cases, including against Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto, two opposing politicians who were both accused of fomenting Kenya’s post-election violence in 2007-8. As the ICC dithered, witnesses disappeared and the two men joined forces to run for election. Their election as president and vice-president in 2012 eventually led to the case collapsing.

The question now is what the “rest of the west” will do in response to Trump’s attacks. The court’s biggest donors need to stay strong and not give in to intimidation. It will be an early test for Ed Miliband, who said upon his appointment as foreign secretary on Monday that “we face a time of greater instability and threat to international law … than at any time since the second world war”.

The ICC’s imperfections undoubtedly make it a harder institution to defend. Those weaknesses can be magnified and targeted, making the court’s natural defenders reluctant to man the barricades.

Yet that is exactly what needs to happen. Even when it is badly run or cases are poorly constructed, the ICC’s very existence can have an impact. Netanyahu and Putin will for ever be referred to as men indicted for war crimes. Their worlds have shrunk thanks to the threat of arrest. The Philippines’ former president, Rodrigo Duterte, is on trial, accused of crimes against humanity during his “war on drugs”.

This is why Trump is so determined to shut it down, argues Luis Moreno Ocampo, the court’s first chief prosecutor. “Trump knows he could be a target after he leaves office,” he told me. “The ICC is a huge obstacle for him.”

And that’s another reason why it’s so important the ICC is saved. Actions need to have consequences. After the midterm elections in the US, a Democrat-led Congress is likely to hold hearings and open investigations into a whole host of Trump’s actions, from his murky dealings to his use of paramilitaries against his own citizens.

But the rest of the world needs to hold him accountable too – whether it’s for bombing boats in the Caribbean, striking a school in Iran or indeed any fresh horror he commits in the next two and a half years. Just as Putin and Netanyahu will live out the rest of their days knowing the threat of arrest could lie just around the corner, Trump fears this might be his fate. He cannot be allowed to escape it.

Trump says he will dismantle the ICC ‘brick by brick’. It could be his most chilling move of all | Steve Bloomfield

The US is aligning itself with dictators and autocrats to prevent those accused of genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes from ever facing justice, says Steve Bloomfield, former international editor of the Observer

www.theguardian.com

 

[ety]

Good for the US and Japan indeed. When it comes to international law, no one is more hypocritical than the US, EU comes second, lol.

 

[retaxis]

Good for the US and Japan indeed. When it comes to international law, no one is more hypocritical than the US, EU comes second, lol.

This will definitely help american image and get more people to invest in america

 

[Solomon2]

The International Criminal Court Is a Woke NGO. Shut It Down.​

Secretary Rubio’s pledge to dismantle the ICC brick by brick will be easier to execute than many may think.

By David Hoile August 25, 2026​

The Trump administration’s recent declaration of war on the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a welcome advancement toward the rule of law. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s critique of the ICC is on target and should be shared by anyone who has monitored the activities of this court over the years.

The ICC is fruit of the poisonous tree. The “court” is a creature of both the European Union—by way of conception or adoption and funding—and of unaccountable (and largely EU-funded) international and national non-governmental organizations, which, amongst other things, vet judicial candidates for the ICC bench.

Following the money is easy. The court is inextricably tied to EU countries, which provide up to 70 percent of its funding, making it a less-than-subtle instrument of European foreign policy. He who pays the piper really does call the tune.

The reality is that the ICC, which opened its doors in 2002, has emerged as a sham court peddling ersatz international law. It is not the international court (China, Russia, the United States, India, Pakistan, and Indonesia are just some of the many countries that remain outside of the court’s jurisdiction).

It isn’t even a real court, as we will see below. Secretary Rubio is right to say it is an intolerable threat to sovereignty. It forms part of the architecture of power, together with other “international tribunals,” designed by the political left to short-circuit national sovereignty and bypass democratic domestic legislatures in pursuit of an unaccountable Woke “internationalism.”

The ICC, together with its ideological sibling, the European Court of Human Rights, is also part and parcel of the lawfare aimed at emasculating Anglosphere armed forces, most notably in Britain and Australia, peeling away America’s most trusted and enduring allies.

Federal law repudiates ICC jurisdiction over any American citizen anywhere in the world and authorizes the president to use “all means necessary” to free any citizen in court custody.

The ICC is well and truly off the reservation upon which its creators (with an exaggerated wink and a nod amongst themselves) had promised it would confine itself. Secretary Rubio’s observation that the ICC has deliberately moved from being a “narrow backstop” charged with prosecuting “only the gravest offenses … when a nation’s courts were unable” is absolutely accurate. The ICC suffers from premeditated mission creep.

The ICC is a treaty-based organization, superficially committed to prosecuting the most serious of atrocities, genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes—within those states that signed the Rome Statute in 1998. President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute for the United States, but the Senate did not ratify it. President George W. Bush “unsigned” it in 2002. President Obama all too predictably played footsie with it.

Despite declaring itself an independent entity publicly committed to the rule of law, the ICC is political to its very core and has shown no compunction about bending and repeatedly breaking the very Statute it was meant to enforce. The reasons are political.

Israel is a case in point. It was never an ICC signatory state. Yet the Court has ignored its own Statute to shoehorn in indictments of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant following the Israeli military operation to destroy Hamas in Gaza after the terrorists’ October 2023 attack that killed about 1,200 people.

The ICC’s current prosecution of former Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte provides another prime example of this behavior. At the heart of the ICC Statute is the principle of “complementarity” alluded to by Secretary Rubio. If a signatory state is unable or unwilling to prosecute its own citizens for serious crimes, then the Court can step in to do so.

Despite the Philippines’ robust legal system with which to try Duterte (two Filipino judges have served on the ICC bench), incumbent President Bongbong Marcos and the ICC illegally colluded to offshore Marcos’ political rival to The Hague on questionable charges—and this despite (or because of) Duterte having taken his country out of the ICC in 2019.

The ICC had its own political reasons for detaining Duterte. It needed to divert attention from a sorry record. Rightly accused for years of a racist, Africa-only focus (more later), the Court was only too willing to accept Marcos’ offer to sideline his rival. There is little doubt that both the Israeli and Filipino indictments were forced through by the ICC’s Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan in a desperate bid to offset the scandal, which he knew was about to break, concerning allegations of his sexual misconduct. The ICC finally removed Khan over a sex scandal last month.

Secretary Rubio’s critique does not go far enough. The bait-and-switch merchants behind the ICC rely on the essential decency of many law-abiding observers who accept at face value the ICC’s claim to be a court. This claim is simply untrue. In their attempt to replace accountable institutions with the rule of judges, they haven’t even been able to maintain the façade of a real court or real judges.

Why should anyone accept being judged by a court some of whose judges have never even been lawyers, let alone judges, before they were appointed to the bench to rule on incredibly complex matters of law? Unsurprisingly, what has ensued has been described even by sympathizers as “slapstick comedy.”

ICC judges are politically vetted by NGOs and elected by corrupt FIFA-esque vote-trading. This game elevates Woke-compliant mediocrities over legal competence. A vice president of the Court candidly even admitted that interns draft key legal documents. ICC prosecutors appear to override the presumption of innocence and show a willingness to hide exculpatory evidence from both judges and the defense in trials. Even the pro-ICC Economist termed these trials “bumbling,” “chaotic,” and “near-farcical.”

The ICC has wrecked peace processes in Africa, artificially prolonging and extending devastating civil wars. If allowed to proceed, the ICC will hinder peace in Ukraine.

Secretary Rubio’s pledge to dismantle the ICC brick by brick will be easier to execute than many may think.

The ICC is rotten to the core, irretrievably damaged by its racism, blatant double standards, hypocrisy, corruption, and serious judicial irregularities.

Even friends of the ICC admit the Court is politicized, broken, and dysfunctional. Amnesty International has noted the ICC’s “questionable credibility,” warning that “the court’s legitimacy risks being eroded by an increasingly selective approach to justice.” Human Rights Watch has observed deepening “perceptions of politicization in the court’s work” and warned that “The ICC’s legitimacy . . . is at risk.”

Similarly, ICC-friendly international law experts have said the following of key ICC decisions: “spectacular failures,” a “fiasco,” “obvious shortcomings,” “deeply misguided … very dangerous and unwise,” “confusing,” a “mess,” the “worst possible solution,” and a “spiral of absurdity,” with ICC prosecutors said to be “poorly prepared,” “angry, threatening” and “autocratic” with a “coercive or dictatorial management style” and a “recurring pattern of evidentiary problems.”

The ICC’s focus on Africa is a matter of record. African leaders call it racist. They are right. It is quite simply racial profiling. The Court has only ever convicted black Africans. An ICC judge summed up the problem neatly: European countries paid “the bills for the ICC,” and Africa provided “the suspects and the accused” for the Court. Between 2002 and 2020, the Court had only indicted Africans—indictments that clearly served European foreign-policy interests.

African Union leaders have accused the Court of “racist hypocrisy” and “double standards.” Rwandan President Paul Kagame stated that the ICC reflected “colonialism, slavery, and imperialism.” An Ethiopian prime minister accused the ICC of “hunting Africans” because of their race. African discontent culminated at the January 2017 annual African Union heads of state summit in Addis Ababa when the African Union called for the mass withdrawal of its member states from the court.

Most African countries did not withdraw because of unsubtle EU blackmail: No ICC membership, no EU trade deals, and no economic assistance or aid. The Kenyan parliament, for example, has twice voted to leave the ICC only for Europe to yank Kenya’s financial chain.

The Emperor is truly naked. The sharpest critiques just scratch the surface. The ICC should now be seen for what it is: an EU-funded NGO masquerading as a court. There were serious questions about its longevity long before the very welcome attention of the Trump administration. Time to finish it off.