In the long arc of humanity's effort to hold power accountable before the law, the United States has taken another step toward dismantling one of its most ambitious instruments. The Trump administration sanctioned the ICC's president and a senior prosecutor tied to the Netanyahu investigation, freezing their assets and severing their access to global finance — not because they broke the law, but because they applied it. The action raises a question as old as justice itself: what becomes of a court when the most powerful refuse to be judged?
US Sanctions ICC President, Senior Lawyer in Escalating Campaign Against Court
When judicial actors are threatened for applying the law, the international legal order itself is at risk
Mark
Why target these two people specifically? What did they actually do?
Mimi
Seye was part of the team that pursued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu. Akane, as president, oversees the whole institution. They're not being sanctioned for breaking laws—they're being sanctioned for applying them to people the US wants to protect.
Mark
But the US isn't even a member of the ICC. Why does it care so much?
Mimi
Because the court can issue arrest warrants that travel. If Netanyahu leaves Israel and lands in a country that recognizes the ICC, he could be arrested. The US sees that as intolerable—not just for Netanyahu, but because it sets a precedent that American officials could face the same treatment.
Mark
What actually happens when you sanction a judge? Does it stop them from working?
Mimi
It freezes their money and cuts them off from the global financial system. You can't pay rent, can't move money, can't function in the modern economy. It's meant to be coercive—a way of saying, stop what you're doing or suffer.
Mark
And the ICC says this undermines the rule of law. Is that just rhetoric?
Mimi
No. If judges can be punished for ruling against powerful nations, then the law becomes whatever the powerful say it is. The court's whole legitimacy rests on the idea that it applies the law equally. Once that's broken, what's the point?
Mark
Are other countries following the US lead?
Mimi
Some are considering it. Rubio says five countries have already been persuaded to leave the ICC. But Europe is holding firm—the Netherlands, which hosts the court, has explicitly rejected the sanctions and reaffirmed support.
Mark
What happens next?
Mimi
That's the question. The court can't enforce its own independence. It depends on member states to protect it. If enough countries abandon it or if the sanctions campaign succeeds in intimidating judges, the institution could hollow out from the inside.
Il Polso
- The US Treasury froze the assets of ICC President Tomoko Akane and senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye, cutting them off from the global financial system in direct retaliation for their roles in investigating Israeli officials.
- The ICC warned that sanctions against its judges and prosecutors are cracking the foundations of the international legal order, threatening the court's ability to function in every case it oversees.
- European allies, including the Netherlands — which hosts the court — openly rejected the US pressure, with the Dutch foreign minister personally inviting Akane to reaffirm their support.
- Three ICC judges have already sued the Trump administration, and advocacy groups have filed separate lawsuits, turning the confrontation into a legal battle on multiple fronts.
- The administration is now pursuing a diplomatic campaign to persuade nations to withdraw from the ICC entirely, with at least five countries already said to be considering departure.
In the long arc of humanity's effort to hold power accountable before the law, the United States has taken another step toward dismantling one of its most ambitious instruments. The Trump administration sanctioned the ICC's president and a senior prosecutor tied to the Netanyahu investigation, freezing their assets and severing their access to global finance — not because they broke the law, but because they applied it. The action raises a question as old as justice itself: what becomes of a court when the most powerful refuse to be judged?
On August 18, the US Treasury Department froze the assets of two International Criminal Court officials: Tomoko Akane, the court's Japanese president, and Abdoulaye Seye, a Senegalese senior trial lawyer. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the action under an executive order authorizing sanctions against ICC officials who pursue individuals whose governments have not consented to the court's jurisdiction. The stated rationale was procedural, but the political target was unmistakable — both individuals are connected to the court's investigation into Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
Seye serves on the prosecution team that sought Netanyahu's arrest warrant and has been nominated to become an ICC judge himself. Akane, as the court's symbolic head, had already warned in December that American sanctions would rapidly jeopardize the institution's very existence. That warning went unheeded. The asset freeze, combined with severance from the American financial system — to which nearly every international bank is linked — effectively isolates both individuals from global commerce, with only a brief wind-down period granted through September 17.
The ICC responded with alarm, warning that punishing judicial actors for applying the law places the entire international legal order at risk. The Netherlands, which hosts the court in The Hague, pushed back publicly, with the Dutch foreign minister expressing disapproval and reaffirming support for the court's independence. The rift between Washington and its traditional European allies on this issue is now open and deepening.
The campaign does not stop at sanctions. Rubio has said at least five countries are already considering withdrawing from the ICC following US diplomatic pressure — a move that would erode the court's membership and legitimacy. Three ICC judges have sued the Trump administration over the sanctions, and advocacy groups have filed additional lawsuits arguing the campaign violates constitutional protections for organizations working with the court. The administration, for its part, has framed the effort as protecting American personnel from prosecution in a court the US does not control.
The ICC has no army, no enforcement mechanism, and no way to compel compliance. It survives on the willingness of member states to respect its independence and carry out its mandates. That willingness is now being tested by a superpower with both the means and the stated intention to limit the court's reach.
On Tuesday, August 18, the United States Treasury Department froze the assets of two people at the International Criminal Court and cut them off from the American financial system. The targets were Tomoko Akane, a Japanese judge serving as the court's president, and Abdoulaye Seye, a Senegalese senior trial lawyer. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the action, citing an executive order from the previous year that gave him authority to sanction ICC officials. The stated reason: both individuals had engaged in efforts to investigate, arrest, or prosecute people whose governments had not consented to ICC jurisdiction.
The move represents another turn of the screw in what has become a sustained campaign by the Trump administration against The Hague-based institution. The ICC was created in 2002 by the international community as a court of last resort for prosecuting war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. The United States has never joined it. Yet over the past year, the administration has repeatedly targeted the court's officials with financial sanctions, each action more pointed than the last. The immediate trigger for this latest round appears to be the court's investigation into Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant—a fact Rubio did not hide. Trump himself has said openly that the campaign aims to defend Netanyahu from prosecution.
Seye's role in the Netanyahu investigation is central to understanding why he was singled out. He serves on the prosecution team that sought an arrest warrant for the Israeli prime minister and has been nominated for election as an ICC judge. Akane, as president of the court, has become the symbolic head of an institution the administration views as a threat. In December, she warned that American sanctions would "rapidly undermine the court's operations in all situations and cases, and jeopardize its very existence." That warning went unheeded.
The practical effect of the sanctions is severe. The freeze on assets and the severing of access to the American financial system—to which almost every international bank is connected—effectively isolates these individuals from global commerce. The Treasury Department issued a general license allowing a wind-down period through September 17, but the message was unmistakable. The administration also used the occasion to signal its next move: a diplomatic campaign aimed at persuading other nations to withdraw from the ICC altogether. Rubio said last month that at least five countries had already heeded this call.
The response from the court itself was sharp. In a statement, the ICC said the sanctions undermine the rule of law and place "the international legal order itself" at risk. "When judicial actors are threatened for applying the law," the court wrote, the foundations of justice itself begin to crack. The court's argument is straightforward: if judges and prosecutors can be punished by powerful nations for doing their jobs, the institution cannot function.
Europe has pushed back. Tom Berendsen, the Dutch foreign minister, said on social media that the Netherlands—which hosts the court—disapproved of the sanctions. He invited Akane to discuss "our continued support" and emphasized that international courts must be able to carry out their mandates freely. The rift between the United States and its traditional allies on this issue is now visible and widening.
Three ICC judges have already sued Trump and his administration over the sanctions, arguing they are unlawful. Advocacy groups have filed separate lawsuits claiming the campaign infringes on the constitutional rights of organizations working with the court to pursue justice for atrocities. Rubio's justification for the broader campaign extends beyond Netanyahu. He has argued that the ICC poses a threat to American personnel carrying out Trump's hardline immigration policies, conducting strikes on suspected drug-trafficking vessels, and engaging in other military operations. The administration's position is that American officials and service members should never face prosecution in a court the United States does not control.
What unfolds now is a test of whether the ICC can withstand sustained pressure from a superpower determined to limit its reach. The court has no police force, no army, no way to compel compliance. It depends on member states to arrest suspects and on the international community to respect its independence. That independence is now under assault.
Citazioni salienti
These individuals have directly engaged in efforts by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute officials whose government has not consented to ICC jurisdiction— Secretary of State Marco Rubio
When judicial actors are threatened for applying the law, it is the international legal order itself that is placed at risk— International Criminal Court statement
Vuoi la storia completa?
Leggi l'originale su Rappler ↗
Politics & Governance