US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced sanctions on International Criminal Court President Tomoko Akane of Japan and ICC Senior Trial Lawyer Abdoulaye Seye of Senegal this week. The move extends a US pressure campaign that has already targeted at least 11 ICC officials and deepens the clash between the US and the court over jurisdiction and prosecutions.
Rubio said the US was acting because the two officials were engaged in the ICC's efforts to prosecute officials whose government has not consented to ICC jurisdiction. His statement also described the court as “a corrupt and fatally politicized supranational court that has maliciously abused its authority and exceeded its mandate. We will not tolerate its assault on state sovereignty.”
The sanctions include asset freezes, travel bans, and restrictions on services from U.S. companies. The Trump administration has already announced sanctions on nine judges and the chief prosecutor, bringing the total number of targeted ICC officials to at least 11.
International Criminal Court pressure campaign
The latest move sits inside a longer campaign to dismantle the court “brick by brick,” Rubio said last month when he called on the ICC's 125 member countries to withdraw. The court, established in 2002, has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in member states or in situations referred by the UN Security Council. Prosecutor Of The International Criminal Court
The earlier sanctions were issued in retaliation for ICC investigations into US personnel in Afghanistan and for warrants the court issued against top Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, over alleged war crimes in Gaza. The state of Palestine became a member of the ICC in 2015, a detail that has remained central to the court's reach in disputes involving Israel and Palestine.
ICC response to Rubio
The ICC said it stands behind its staff and believes that measures such as those announced by Rubio “undermine the rule of law.” That response puts the court and the US on opposite sides of the same question: whether the ICC can pursue cases involving officials from countries that have not accepted its jurisdiction.
Liz Evenson of Human Rights Watch called the Trump administration's approach “The Trump administration seeks a get-out-of-jail-free card for whomever it chooses,” underscoring the criticism that the sanctions are meant to weaken the court's reach rather than answer a single case. During Trump's first term, Donald Trump called the ICC “a threat” and told the United Nations General Assembly it had “no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority” as far as the US is concerned.
The practical effect now falls on the sanctioned officials themselves: the financial restrictions and travel bans can complicate ordinary work, while the broader campaign aims to isolate the institution through pressure on member countries. Whether the 125 ICC member countries follow Rubio's call to withdraw is the next measure of whether the US campaign is gaining ground, and the court is left to keep operating under sanctions that already reach its senior leadership.
