US Sanctions on ICC Judges: Investigating War Crimes, Asserting Sovereignty
The recent decision by the United States to sanction four International Criminal Court (ICC) judges—Solomy Balungi Bossa (Uganda), Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza (Peru), Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini Gansou (Benin), and Beti Hohler (Slovenia)—has once again thrust the complex intersection of international law, accountability for war crimes, and national sovereignty into the global spotlight. This controversial action comes as a direct response to the ICC’s pursuit of investigations involving US personnel in Afghanistan and, critically, its recent issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Likud) and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant (Likud) regarding alleged conduct during the Gaza conflict.
On June 5, 2025, the United States imposed sweeping sanctions on these four female ICC judges, freezing their assets and barring them from entry into the US. The move is seen by many as a significant escalation in the US’s ongoing campaign to limit the ICC’s jurisdiction over US and allied personnel. As reported, the sanctions are the latest in a series of steps taken by the Trump administration to counter what it perceives as politicized, overreaching investigations by the ICC. Washington’s stance is that neither the US nor Israel falls within the court’s remit, as they are not state parties to the Rome Statute that established the ICC.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio (R) was openly critical of the ICC’s actions, characterizing them as illegitimate efforts to target US and Israeli officials.
“These steps are about targeting our people and our allies, not about justice,” Rubio asserted in a statement to the press, underscoring the administration’s position that the ICC is acting beyond its mandate.
The secretary’s remarks echo a longstanding dispute over what international law can and should mandate regarding states unwilling to submit their citizens or leaders to foreign prosecutors.
The ICC, for its part, has condemned the sanctions, viewing them as attacks on the independence and mission of the court. This clash has reverberated through international legal and diplomatic circles, intensifying debates already simmering for years.
Global Reactions and the Ongoing Struggle for International Accountability
The US’s course of action has triggered an array of responses worldwide, from celebration among Israeli officials to alarm and criticism from human rights advocates, the ICC itself, and several of America’s closest international partners. Israeli leaders welcomed the move; Prime Minister Netanyahu (Likud) expressed gratitude to both President Trump (R) and Secretary Rubio (R) for their “steadfast defense of Israel’s right to self-determination.”
Yet, for many inside and outside the US, the broader implications are more worrying. Human rights organizations have warned that the sanctions threaten the delicate framework of international justice and risk undermining the rule of law at a time when accountability for grave crimes is urgently needed. According to Human Rights Watch, these measures appear designed to deter the ICC from investigating and prosecuting serious allegations of war crimes, especially those involving powerful nations and allies.
“The message, unfortunately, is that seeking accountability for atrocities will come at a personal and professional cost,” said a senior Human Rights Watch legal analyst. “This is deeply troubling for victims and for the authority of international law.”
These developments have not occurred in a vacuum. The ICC, established as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, has always faced fierce resistance from countries that see its reach as a threat to their sovereignty. The US, despite playing a major role in the court’s creation, has never joined the Rome Statute and has periodically targeted ICC officials with travel bans and asset freezes, especially when investigations have brushed against US military or intelligence activities.
In contrast to the US and Israel’s positions, European allies have voiced strong support for the ICC. European Council President Antonio Costa highlighted the court’s critical role as “a cornerstone of international justice,” signaling a growing rift between the US and Europe over how best to address grave abuses and promote global accountability.
“The ICC’s mandate is to ensure that no one stands above the law, regardless of their nationality or political power,” Costa stated, reflecting the EU’s continued backing for a rules-based international order.
Historical and Policy Context: Precedents, Power, and International Law
Tensions between the US and the ICC are hardly new. In the years following the ICC’s founding in 2002, successive US administrations have both cooperated with and criticized the court. The George W. Bush (R) administration first imposed restrictions and secured bilateral immunity agreements exempting Americans from ICC jurisdiction. President Barack Obama (D) took a more measured approach, promoting engagement but stopping short of ratification. The Trump (R) administration, however, has adopted the most aggressive stance yet, framing ICC investigations targeting Americans or US allies as hostile acts.
This is not the first punitive measure taken against the ICC by the US. In February 2025, the administration sanctioned ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan, moves which reportedly disrupted the court’s functioning, caused some resignations among American staff, and complicated international banking and travel for the individuals involved. The new round of sanctions targeting judges expands on this strategy, focusing on those most directly involved in authorizing or supporting investigations related to Afghanistan and Gaza.
As noted in multiple reports, the US maintains that its own judicial and military systems are capable of investigating and prosecuting any alleged misconduct by American personnel—and that external oversight is an affront to national sovereignty.
Yet these measures have prompted significant pushback from legal scholars, advocacy groups, and the international community. Critics argue that the US and Israel’s refusal to recognize the ICC’s authority weakens the broader system of international justice and emboldens other states to flout accountability mechanisms. As highlighted by analysts, such actions risk making impunity for powerful actors the norm rather than the exception.
Efforts to limit or undermine the ICC are further complicated by broader trends—such as a growing number of states parties to the Rome Statute, widespread support for international legal norms in Europe and Africa, and persistent calls from civil society for global accountability. As the world grapples with the aftermath of conflict in Gaza and a renewed push for justice in Afghanistan, the stakes have never been higher for those seeking to protect human rights and promote lasting peace.
“Every credible system of justice, national or international, encounters its defining moments—this is one,” remarked a legal expert from the International Crisis Group.
The road ahead will likely see further debate and diplomatic friction, but the endurance of the ICC’s mission—and the drive for accountability—remains a testament to the power of global collaboration and grassroots advocacy. If anything, this episode underlines the urgent need for an open, inclusive conversation about how to balance sovereignty, justice, and the rights of victims everywhere.