US Sanctions on ICC Judges: Implications for International Justice and Sovereignty
A decision made by the United States in June 2025 to sanction four International Criminal Court (ICC) judges ushered in a crest of denunciations by the United Nations, the ICC, and other legal specialists across the globe. The step that specifically targets Judges Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda, Luz del Carmen Ib Anez Carranza of Peru, Reine Alapini-Gansou of Benin, and Beti Hohler of Slovenia has been causing the need to put on the table the question of how international justice will be happening in the future, what will happen to judicial independence, and the global rules-based order. This discussion examines the extent and the effects of the sanctions, how the major stakeholders have responded and the wider ramifications of sovereignty and responsibility.
What Do the US Sanctions Entail?
In June 2025, the US government declared that it would forbid all financial transactions with the four ICC justices and freeze all of their assets and interests within the country. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the sanctions by claiming that they were a reaction to the ICC’s “illegitimate and baseless” acts. While the other two sanctioned judges approved investigations into potential US war crimes in Afghanistan, two of them were engaged in approving arrest warrants for former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over alleged war crimes in Gaza.
Rubio stated,
“As ICC judges, these four individuals have actively engaged in the ICC’s illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America or our close ally, Israel. The ICC is politicized and falsely claims unfettered discretion to investigate, charge and prosecute nationals of the United States and our allies.”
The US defends the probes through its sovereignty and national security but its argument is not new, the merican governments have always maintained that they do not believe that the ICC has jurisdiction over countries that are not members.
The ICC and International Legal Community Respond
In a prompt response, the ICC called the US penalties a “blatant attempt to attack the independence of an international court.” The court underlined that criticizing judges for doing their legal responsibilities endangers the rule of law and gives people the confidence to act without consequence. The ICC’s statement noted,
“These sanctions are a clear attempt to undermine the independence of an international judicial institution. Targeting those working for accountability emboldens those who believe they can act with impunity.”
The Assembly of States Parties, the ICC’s legislative body representing its 125 member states, echoed this concern. They warned that the sanctions risk damaging global accountability efforts and eroding the rules-based international order, stating,
“The sanctions risk damaging global accountability efforts, weakening justice, and eroding the rules-based international order.”
UN Human Rights Chief’s Perspective
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk issued a strong rebuke of the US decision, calling the sanctions
“deeply corrosive of good governance and the due administration of justice.”
Türk urged the US to reconsider and withdraw the measures, warning that attacks on judges for performing their judicial duties undermine the rule of law values historically upheld by the US. He stated,
“I am profoundly disturbed by the decision of the Government of the United States of America to sanction judges of the International Criminal Court. Such attacks are deeply corrosive of good governance and the due administration of justice.”
European Union and Legal Experts Weigh In
The European Union expressed full support for the ICC, urging all parties to respect the court’s independence and the global fight against impunity. The International Bar Association (IBA) called the sanctions “an attack against the global rule of law,” with IBA President Jaime Carey emphasizing that judicial independence is “a fundamental principle” of justice.
Impact on International Justice and Victims
The US sanctions are indeed threatening the most important principle, which the ICC is based on the idea that those crimes of exceptional gravity, like genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, deserve to be tried by the universal jurisdiction in cases where the national jurisdiction evades prosecution attempts. Punishing judges who preside over legally sanctioned investigations undermines international agencies and introduces politics into the quest of justice in the US.
Immediate impact will be that investigations on atrocities in Afghanistan and Gaza shall be delayed or made complex, thereby delaying justice to the victims. Smaller countries can also wonder whether the international law is working, as strong states can escape justice and the international justice system can be given terrible credibility.
Sovereignty Versus Accountability
The government of the US justifies the sanctions on the basis of national sovereignty claiming that actions of the ICC are out of mandate as they are prosecuting the nationals of states which have not ratified the Rome Statute. Critics however, argue that the ICC does not intervene unless the jurisdiction of a country is unwilling or incapable of prosecuting the supposed crimes, presumptions and objectives achieved in both the Afghanistan and Palestinian cases.
This is the conflict between sovereignty and accountability at the centre of the current standoff. Even though the US is determined to defend its citizens and allies against what it terms as politicized prosecutions, the ICC and its proponents contend that world justice, just like that administered by the ICC, can not be vetoed by the most powerful nations in the world.
The Role of Social Media and Legal Scholars
Dr. Leila Kahlissee, an international law scholar, commented on the situation in her interview with Global Justice Now, emphasizing the chilling effect these sanctions could have on global justice. She observed,
“This isn’t just about four judges; it’s about deterring any court from challenging powerful states.”
Kahlissee warned that the US move could inspire similar actions against other international tribunals, potentially undermining the entire architecture of international law.
The U.S. just sanctioned the International Criminal Court for daring to investigate alleged war crimes. The consequences are chilling:
— Khalissee (@Kahlissee) May 19, 2025
➤ Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan locked out of email after Microsoft cut access
➤ His bank accounts frozen
➤ NGOs now refuse to work with the… pic.twitter.com/MW1fU6Jkht
Historical Context and US-ICC Relations
The hostility against the ICC is not new on the part of the US. Though the Clinton administration was one of the nations that ratified the Rome Statute way back in 2000, subsequent administrations of the same Clinton have, over time, become largely distanced with the court. In 2020, the Trump government sanctioned the ICC members but President Biden lifted them off in 2021. Current strength highlights a two-party rejection in Washington D.C. against graciously recognizing global maneuvering thriller, particularly with regards to abroad military activity.
Broader Geopolitical Implications
The sanctions are also issued when there is increased international tension, as ICC is investigating more than a dozen cases (Ukraine, Sudan, Myanmar, etc). The freedom provided by the court to be able to pass judgment without fear is very essential to the victims who seek redress and those who look to the international justice system.
This step taken by the US might encourage other strong states to also do the same against global courts, hence the global legal system may be well fragmented. There is a danger that international justice would turn into one of the weapons used only against the weak, instead of universal norm.
What’s Next for the ICC and International Justice?
Whether the ICC continues and succeeds in its work or not will be determined by the will of the member states and other sectors of the international society. Some of the available alternatives to the US pressure are the formation of alternative funding evaluations that will protect the court against the US financial systems, enhanced diplomatic collaboration, and legal action that will be taken against the US officials through the home laws of the ICC member states.
The next few months will prove whether the ICC will be allowed to live in its own freedom or whether the rule of accountability of serious offenses will be preserved in the times of growing geopolitical competition.
