ICC President Defies U.S. Sanctions in Remote U.N. Address

12 hours ago

3 min read

International Criminal Court President Tomoko Akane used a remote address to the United Nations on Monday to confront a U.S. sanctions campaign that now targets the court itself, calling on all 193 U.N. member states to defend an institution Washington says it wants to cripple.

Akane spoke by prerecorded video to the General Assembly on November 2 because the United States placed the ICC on its sanctions list on October 9. It was the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic that an ICC president delivered the court’s annual U.N. report remotely, according to the court’s official account. The format itself exposed the reach of Washington’s pressure: the head of a treaty-based international tribunal could not appear in person before the world body.

The Associated Press reported that Akane accused the Trump administration of trying to obstruct international justice. She urged governments to take concrete action in the court’s defense and rejected the idea that sanctions would dictate its cases. “The time to act is now,” she said in the published text of her address.

The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, which created the ICC, but it commands the financial networks, technology suppliers and travel routes on which an international institution depends. Washington has sanctioned judges and prosecutors individually and then escalated to the court as an entity. The campaign followed ICC investigations touching U.S. personnel and Israeli officials, including arrest warrants issued in the Palestine situation.

The International Criminal Court headquarters in The Hague — FILE — International Criminal Court headquarters in The Hague, July 23, 2024. Photo: Tony Webster / CC BY 2.0.

Image source and licence: Tony Webster via Wikimedia Commons · CC BY 2.0.

The administration describes the tribunal as a threat to U.S. sovereignty and its allies. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the designation would cut off resources and damage the court’s ability to operate. The Treasury Department’s October 9 action added the ICC to the Specially Designated Nationals list, blocking property within U.S. reach and generally prohibiting transactions involving the court unless licensed.

Washington simultaneously issued limited general licenses covering maintenance, some software and telecommunications, pensions and detainees. Those exceptions do not erase the structure of coercion. They place the court’s basic operations under rules written by the same government seeking to halt investigations it opposes. Banks and contractors outside the United States may also withdraw services rather than risk exposure to the dollar system.

That financial leverage is the sanctions campaign’s real weapon. Reuters documented how entity-wide penalties could disrupt payments, cloud services, travel and contracts for roughly 900 court employees from about 100 countries. The aim is not merely to dispute a ruling or contest jurisdiction through law. It is to weaken the machinery capable of investigating powerful states.

The ICC has serious limits. It depends on states to arrest suspects, applies international justice unevenly and cannot compel major powers that reject its authority. Akane’s annual report acknowledged 34 publicly known arrest warrants remained outstanding. Yet those weaknesses make political support more necessary, not less. A court cannot test evidence or hear a defense if financial isolation prevents it from functioning.

More than 23,500 victims participated in ICC proceedings during the reporting period, including over 7,000 in reparations processes, the court said. Institution-wide sanctions therefore reach far beyond judges in The Hague. They threaten cases built by people seeking accountability for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity when national systems cannot or will not act.

The ICC formally rejected the sanctions as an attack on the rule of law. European Union representatives and other supporters backed the court at the General Assembly on Monday. Their statements now require material follow-through: protected banking channels, resilient technology, travel access and enforcement of member states’ legal duties.

Akane’s remote appearance turned a bureaucratic annual report into a direct test of international order. If governments let a powerful nonmember disable the court through economic force, the principle that no official stands above the law becomes conditional on Washington’s consent. Defending judicial independence now means keeping the court operational—and refusing to let sanctions decide which alleged crimes may be investigated.