The ICC’s Independence Under Siege

The International Criminal Court’s recent denunciation of US sanctions against its chief and a senior lawyer marks a significant escalation in Washington’s long-standing campaign to undermine global justice. This erosion of international norms and institutions threatens the very foundation of the rule of law.

For years, the United States has quietly worked to dismantle the ICC, using its influence to persuade countries to withdraw from the court or abstain from cooperation with its investigations. The sanctions against Tomoko Akane, the ICC’s president since her election in March 2024, and Abdoulaye Seye, a senior trial lawyer, are just the latest manifestation of this campaign.

The Trump administration’s language is telling: describing the ICC as “corrupt and fatally politicised” is a thinly veiled attempt to delegitimize the court in the eyes of its member states. This tactic allows Washington to avoid directly confronting the substance of the ICC’s work while still undermining its legitimacy.

The sanctions target judges, prosecutors, and staff who are simply doing their job – pursuing justice against those responsible for war crimes and atrocities when national courts are unwilling or unable to act. By targeting these individuals, Washington sends a chilling message: if you pursue justice against our allies, we’ll punish you.

Other countries have reacted swiftly and decisively to the sanctions. Japan, the ICC’s biggest funder and a close US ally, has publicly denounced the move, stating that it “consistently supported” the court. The European Union has also weighed in, with its leaders expressing support for Akane and top officials who must be able to act independently.

The implications of this development are stark: if countries can simply withdraw from or undermine the ICC at will, where is the accountability? Who will be left to prosecute war crimes and atrocities when national courts are unwilling or unable to do so?

The actions of other countries will determine whether the ICC’s independence is maintained. Will they stand up for the court, or will they cave to US pressure? The signs aren’t encouraging – Chad and Venezuela have already withdrawn from the court, citing concerns about its “politicisation”.

As the ICC struggles to maintain its independence in the face of this onslaught, it becomes increasingly clear that the stakes are higher than ever. If Washington succeeds in undermining the court, it will be a catastrophic blow to the rule of law and international justice.

The future of global accountability hangs in the balance – but what’s at stake is not just the ICC itself, but the very principles that underpin our collective pursuit of justice.