Washington, D.C. – In a move that has sparked international controversy and raised serious questions about judicial independence and geopolitical influence, the United States government under former President Donald Trump imposed sanctions on four judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC). These judges were part of the judicial panel that issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, over alleged war crimes.
The Judges Targeted by the US Sanctions
According to a statement released by then-US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the four judges subjected to sanctions are:
- Solomy Balungi Bosa (Uganda)
- Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza (Peru)
- René Adelaide Sophie Alapíni-Gansou (Benin)
- Betty Hohler (Slovenia)
The statement claimed that these individuals had “actively participated in the court’s illegal and politically motivated actions” that targeted both the United States and its close ally Israel. The Trump administration alleged that the ICC’s rulings lacked jurisdiction and undermined the principles of national sovereignty and self-determination.
Background: The ICC’s Case Against Israel
The International Criminal Court, headquartered in The Hague, is the world’s only permanent international tribunal set up to prosecute individuals for war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, and aggression. The ICC operates under the Rome Statute, which was established in 1998 and entered into force in 2002.
Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute and does not recognize the court’s jurisdiction, similar to the stance taken by the United States. However, in 2021, the ICC opened an investigation into possible war crimes committed in the Palestinian territories, including actions by Israeli officials and Palestinian militant groups.
The arrest warrant issued for Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant stems from allegations surrounding Israeli military actions in Gaza, particularly during Operation Guardian of the Walls and the more recent conflict escalation in 2023, which saw thousands of casualties and widespread devastation.
History of ICC’s Conflict with the US
This isn’t the first time the ICC has come under fire from the United States. The court has previously faced criticism for its investigations into US military conduct in Afghanistan. In 2020, under the Trump administration, the US imposed sanctions on the ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and other officials after they authorized a probe into alleged war crimes committed by American personnel.
Judges Solomy Balungi Bosa and Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza were part of the bench that approved that Afghanistan investigation, which examined actions by the CIA and US armed forces.
By targeting these four judges, the United States has escalated its campaign to delegitimize the court’s jurisdiction over nations that have not ratified the Rome Statute, especially when it comes to military and security operations.
ICC’s Response to US Sanctions
The International Criminal Court issued a strong condemnation of the sanctions, labeling them as an unprecedented attempt to threaten and intimidate the judiciary of an independent international legal institution. In a formal statement, the court said:
“These coercive measures represent a direct attack on the rule of law, and on the ICC’s ability to fulfill its mandate to provide justice to victims of serious international crimes, regardless of political pressure.”
Legal scholars and international rights organizations have also expressed alarm, stating that such actions undermine the principle of judicial independence and could set a dangerous precedent where powerful countries attempt to dictate the outcomes of international legal proceedings.
Impact of the Sanctions on the Judges
The sanctions imposed by the United States are not merely symbolic. They include:
- Asset freezes, which block any financial assets the judges may have in US jurisdiction
- Travel restrictions, barring them from entering the United States
- Limitations on accessing the global financial system, making it difficult for them to conduct international banking transactions or use systems like SWIFT
These penalties may affect the judges’ ability to travel for official duties, attend international conferences, or even receive payments or pensions through certain banking channels. More broadly, the sanctions send a chilling message to international legal professionals, signaling the potential personal risks of challenging powerful governments.
Global Reactions and Legal Community Response
The global reaction has been mixed. While Israel welcomed the US move, calling the ICC’s arrest warrants “biased and politically motivated”, several European Union countries, which are state parties to the Rome Statute, expressed concern.
The European Commission stated that it supported the ICC’s independence and opposed “any external pressure or coercion” on its operations.
Human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, also criticized the sanctions, arguing that the move represented a serious affront to international justice mechanisms. They called on democratic governments to defend the ICC and uphold the rule of law, even when politically inconvenient.
The Legal Debate: Jurisdiction and Sovereignty
At the heart of this conflict lies a complex legal and diplomatic debate: Can the ICC exercise jurisdiction over nationals of countries that have not ratified the Rome Statute?
- The US and Israel argue that, since they are not parties to the treaty, the court has no authority to investigate or prosecute their officials.
- However, Palestine, which has been recognized as a state party by the ICC, granted the court jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed in its territories, including the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza.
Legal experts are divided. Some argue that this jurisdiction is valid under international law. Others see it as a politicization of international legal mechanisms, especially when applied asymmetrically.
The Political Ramifications for the Middle East
The arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, and the subsequent US retaliation against the ICC, have profound implications for Middle East politics and US-Israel relations.
While the move by the ICC has been hailed by Palestinian leaders and human rights advocates, it has also added fuel to an already volatile situation in the region. Israel has stepped up diplomatic efforts to discredit the ICC’s findings, while the United States has pledged continued support for Israel’s right to defend itself.
The incident also raises questions about the role of international institutions in conflict resolution, particularly in deeply entrenched geopolitical disputes where global superpowers have vested interests.
Looking Ahead: What Does This Mean for the ICC?
This latest standoff may have long-term implications for the credibility and survival of the International Criminal Court. If powerful nations like the US and Israel continue to reject its authority while punishing those who cooperate with it, the court risks becoming toothless in the face of global injustice.
However, the ICC’s defenders argue that principles of accountability and international law must prevail, even when the defendants are heads of state or leaders of powerful armies.
The coming months will reveal whether the international community has the political will to protect the ICC, or whether the era of international justice is being undermined by political retaliation and selective accountability.
