The International Criminal Court strongly rejected a new round of U.S. sanctions imposed on two of its judges and two deputy prosecutors on August 20, 2025, describing the measures as an attack on the independence of the Hague-based court.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced sanctions against Canadian judge Kimberly Prost, French judge Nicolas Guillou, Fijian Deputy Prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan and Senegalese Deputy Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang. The designations were made under President Donald Trump's February 2025 executive order authorizing sanctions connected to ICC actions involving U.S. or Israeli nationals.
Rubio said the four officials had participated in efforts by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute U.S. or Israeli nationals without the consent of those governments. He characterized the court as a national-security threat and an instrument of "lawfare" against the United States and Israel. Those descriptions reflected the U.S. government's position; the ICC and many of its member states reject Washington's characterization of the court and its jurisdiction.
Why the Four ICC Officials Were Targeted
The U.S. government said Prost was designated because of her role in a judicial decision authorizing an ICC investigation concerning U.S. personnel in Afghanistan. Guillou was targeted over his role in the chamber that authorized arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
The ICC issued the Netanyahu and Gallant warrants on November 21, 2024. The court said there were reasonable grounds to believe the two bore criminal responsibility for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity connected to the Gaza conflict. Arrest warrants are not findings of guilt, and the allegations would have to be adjudicated through judicial proceedings if the defendants appeared before the court.
Washington said Khan and Niang were sanctioned for continuing to support ICC actions involving Israel after assuming leadership responsibilities in the Office of the Prosecutor. The two deputy prosecutors had been running the office after Prosecutor Karim Khan went on leave in May 2025.
The sanctions generally block property and interests in property of designated individuals that fall within U.S. jurisdiction and restrict transactions involving them under the applicable U.S. sanctions framework.
ICC Says Sanctions Threaten Judicial Independence
In its response to the August 2025 designations, the ICC said the sanctions represented a "flagrant attack" on the independence of an impartial judicial institution operating under the authority of its states parties.
The court also described the measures as an affront to its member states, the rules-based international order and victims of international crimes. It said it would continue carrying out its mandate under the Rome Statute despite restrictions, pressure or threats.
The Presidency of the Assembly of States Parties, the ICC's management oversight and legislative body, separately objected to the measures and warned that sanctions against elected court officials could hamper investigations and interfere with the institution's independent functions.
France and Israel Take Opposing Positions
France criticized the sanctions and expressed solidarity with Guillou. The French Foreign Ministry said the measures were contrary to the principle of judicial independence and called on Washington to withdraw sanctions imposed under the February 2025 executive order.
Netanyahu, by contrast, welcomed the U.S. action and accused the ICC of conducting a false campaign against Israel. Israel disputes the ICC's jurisdiction and has rejected the allegations underlying the warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant.
Part of a Broader U.S.-ICC Confrontation
The August 2025 measures were part of a broader sanctions campaign rather than an isolated action. Earlier in 2025, the United States had sanctioned Prosecutor Karim Khan and four ICC judges. Washington has long objected to ICC proceedings involving nationals of countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute, including the United States and Israel.
The ICC maintains that its jurisdiction can extend to alleged crimes committed on the territory of states that have accepted the court's jurisdiction, even when an accused person's home country is not a Rome Statute member. That legal position remains a central point of disagreement between Washington, Israel and the court.
The U.S. also sanctioned UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese in July 2025 amid disputes over her work concerning the occupied Palestinian territories. The wider confrontation unfolded against the continuing humanitarian consequences of the Gaza conflict; Gaza children were expected to arrive in the UK for medical support during the same period.
Later Developments Deepened the Dispute
The confrontation did not end with the four August 2025 designations. The United States subsequently expanded sanctions against additional ICC personnel. By August 2026, the Presidency of the Assembly of States Parties said U.S. measures covered the leadership of the Office of the Prosecutor and eight ICC judges, alongside further sanctions targeting the court's president and a staff member.
The practical consequences became increasingly visible. In September 2026, the Assembly's Bureau decided to relocate its twenty-fifth annual session from United Nations headquarters in New York to The Hague, citing concerns about participation restrictions affecting sanctioned ICC officials as well as visa restrictions involving some other participants.
Separately, Karim Khan's status changed after the original August 2025 episode. In July 2026, the Assembly of States Parties removed him from office following disciplinary proceedings. Deputy Prosecutors Khan and Niang continued to lead the Office of the Prosecutor after his removal.
What the Dispute Means for the ICC
Established by the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court is a permanent international tribunal with jurisdiction, subject to the treaty's requirements, over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. It relies heavily on cooperation from states because it does not have its own police force.
The sanctions dispute therefore extends beyond the four officials named in August 2025. It raises practical questions about financial services, travel, international cooperation and the ability of court officials to carry out their work, while also reflecting a fundamental legal disagreement over the ICC's authority in cases involving nationals of states that have not joined the Rome Statute.
Washington maintains that its sanctions protect U.S. sovereignty, personnel and allies from what it considers illegitimate ICC action. The court and supporting states argue that pressure on judges and prosecutors threatens judicial independence and international accountability. Those competing positions remained unresolved as the U.S.-ICC confrontation continued into 2026.
0 Comments