Can US Block ICC Power – Or Undermine Law?

The Trump administration has imposed sanctions on four International Criminal Court judges, freezing their US assets and blocking American entities from working with them, as tensions escalate over investigations into US and Israeli officials.

At a Glance

  • Four ICC judges from Uganda, Peru, Benin, and Slovenia have been sanctioned for their roles in investigations targeting US military conduct in Afghanistan and Israeli leaders
  • Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the ICC “politicized” and accused it of infringing on US and Israeli sovereignty
  • The sanctions block all US-based property and assets of the judges and prohibit Americans from conducting transactions with them
  • Two judges were sanctioned for authorizing investigations into US troops in Afghanistan, while two others were targeted for actions related to arrest warrants for Israeli PM Netanyahu
  • Neither the US nor Israel are parties to the Rome Statute that established the ICC, arguing they are outside its jurisdiction

America Takes Firm Stand Against ICC Overreach

The United States has implemented sanctions against four International Criminal Court judges who were involved in investigations targeting American military personnel and Israeli officials. The sanctions, authorized through President Trump’s Executive Order 14203, target judges from four different countries: Solomy Balungi Bossa (Uganda), Luz del Carmen Ibanez Carranza (Peru), Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini Gansou (Benin), and Beti Hohler (Slovenia). These measures effectively freeze any US-based assets belonging to these individuals and prohibit American citizens and businesses from engaging in transactions with them.

“These individuals directly engaged in efforts by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute nationals of the United States or Israel, without consent from the United States or Israel,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement. 

Judges Bossa and Ibanez Carranza were specifically sanctioned for their authorization of investigations into alleged misconduct by US military personnel in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Alapini Gansou and Hohler faced sanctions for their roles in actions against Israeli leaders, including the issuance of arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes in Gaza. The Trump administration has consistently maintained that neither the United States nor Israel, as non-signatories to the Rome Statute that established the ICC, should be subject to the court’s jurisdiction.

US Officials Defend Sovereignty Against International Tribunal

Secretary of State Rubio has been particularly vocal in his criticism of the ICC, characterizing its actions as a direct threat to American sovereignty and security interests. The sanctions reflect the administration’s firm stance that the court has overstepped its authority by attempting to prosecute officials from nations that never consented to its jurisdiction. This position has been central to the Trump administration’s approach to international institutions that it perceives as infringing upon American autonomy.

“The ICC is politicized and falsely claims unfettered discretion to investigate, charge, and prosecute nationals of the United States and our allies,” Rubio added. “This dangerous assertion and abuse of power infringes upon the sovereignty and national security of the United States and our allies, including Israel.”

The Executive Order that enables these sanctions explicitly states that the ICC’s “malign conduct in turn threatens to infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States and undermines the critical national security and foreign policy work of the United States Government and our allies, including Israel.” This language reflects the administration’s view that the court’s actions represent not merely a legal dispute but a fundamental challenge to America’s ability to conduct its foreign and defense policies independently.

International Backlash and Implications

The ICC has responded forcefully to the sanctions, defending its institutional independence and judicial mandate. In an official statement, the court characterized the US measures as “a clear attempt to undermine the independence of an international judicial institution which operates under the mandate from 125 States Parties from all corners of the globe.” This response highlights the growing tension between the United States’ assertion of sovereignty and the international legal framework that the ICC represents.

The sanctions against these judges follow earlier measures against ICC prosecutor Karim Khan, which critics suggest have already slowed investigations into Israeli actions in Gaza. Secretary Rubio has called upon nations that support the ICC to reject what he characterizes as the court’s overreach, stating, “The United States will take whatever actions we deem necessary to protect our sovereignty, that of Israel, and any other U.S. ally from illegitimate actions by the ICC.” This statement signals that the administration views these sanctions not as an isolated action but as part of a broader strategy to counter perceived threats to American autonomy in the international arena.

The move represents a continuation of President Trump’s long-standing opposition to the ICC. During his previous administration, similar sanctions were imposed on ICC officials involved in investigations concerning US troops. Analysts note that these new sanctions could have significant implications for the court’s long-term effectiveness and raise questions about the future of international accountability mechanisms in relation to powerful nations that reject external judicial oversight.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR