New U.S. sanctions on ICC: Clear assault on global laws and institutions

Pars Today – In a move supporting the Israeli regime, the United States has imposed sanctions on two judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

According to Pars Today, following the ICC judges’ decision not to dismiss Israel’s investigation into alleged war crimes in Gaza, the U.S. imposed sanctions on the two judges on Thursday, December 18.

The judges recently targeted by U.S. sanctions are Giorgi Lortkipanidze, former Minister of Justice of Georgia, and Ardenebalsuren Damdin, a judge from Mongolia. Under these sanctions, the judges are barred from entering the United States, and any of their assets or financial transactions within the country will be frozen. Lortkipanidze previously served as a visiting professor at Columbia University in New York.

The International Criminal Court (ICC), headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands, officially condemned the new sanctions, describing them as “strongly unacceptable.” In a statement, the court said the measures constitute “a blatant attack on the independence of an impartial judicial institution.”

Nevertheless, Israel welcomed the U.S. action. Gideon Sa’ar, Israel’s foreign minister, expressed his gratitude to his American counterpart on the social media platform X, calling the move “a clear and ethical stance.”

With this latest measure, the number of ICC judges sanctioned by the Trump administration has reached at least eight. Additionally, at least three prosecutors, including Karim Khan, the court’s Chief Prosecutor, are also on the sanctions list.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who had previously imposed sanctions on other judges and prosecutors related to this case, explicitly linked the new sanctions to the ICC’s vote on Monday, December 15. In that vote, the two targeted judges joined the majority in approving arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of the Israeli regime, and Yoav Galant, its former Defense Minister. Rubio claimed that the International Criminal Court has continued political actions against Israel, creating a dangerous precedent for all countries.

In a statement openly defending the Israeli regime’s actions, Rubio added that the U.S. “will not tolerate the ICC’s abuse of its authority or the wrongful targeting of Americans and Israelis.” Ignoring the ICC’s legal standing, the U.S. Secretary of State warned, “We will continue taking significant and tangible actions in response to the ICC’s measures and violations.”

In the 44-page ruling issued on Monday, the court confirmed the continuation of its investigation into allegations of war crimes committed by Israel in the Gaza Strip. Both Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Galant face charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in connection with Israel’s relentless attacks on Palestinian territories.

Notably, the U.S. sanctions against the International Criminal Court have drawn negative reactions from several European countries, including France, Spain, the Netherlands, and Denmark.

The new U.S. sanctions on the ICC can be seen as one of the most significant indicators of confrontation between the United States and global institutions. This move is not only viewed as political pressure on an independent body but also clearly reflects Washington’s challenge to international rules and laws. The reasons behind this action can be analyzed across several main dimensions.

First, the United States has always been highly sensitive to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. The U.S. is not a party to the Rome Statute and has consistently sought to shield its military and political personnel from potential ICC prosecution. Any investigation or action by the court against American citizens or close U.S. allies—especially regarding wars and military operations—is viewed by Washington as a direct threat to national sovereignty. Therefore, the sanctions can be seen as a response aimed at preventing the ICC from pursuing cases that could hold U.S. officials accountable.

Second, this action stems from U.S. foreign policy, which is often based on maintaining supremacy and avoiding international constraints. Washington supports institutions that operate in line with its interests, but when these bodies act independently and outside the framework of U.S. policies, they face pressure and sanctions. As an independent institution, the International Criminal Court can investigate cases that conflict with U.S. policies, including issues related to Palestine or Afghanistan. This very independence is the main reason for the U.S.’s hardline approach toward the court.

Third, the sanctions carry a clear political message. The United States aims to signal to other countries and international institutions that any action against its interests will not go unanswered. This message is directed not only at the ICC but also at other organizations, discouraging them from engaging in cases that could work against Washington. In effect, these sanctions are part of the U.S.’s broader deterrence strategy within the realm of international law.

Fourth, this action also reflects domestic concerns within the United States. Politically, acknowledging the ICC’s jurisdiction can be perceived as a sign of weakness or concession. Therefore, despite its confrontational stance, the Trump administration used the sanctions to send both an external and internal message: defending its personnel and policies against any potential international accountability.

Overall, the new U.S. sanctions against the International Criminal Court constitute a blatant assault on global laws and institutions. The move demonstrates that the United States is willing to override even fundamental principles of international justice to protect its interests and immunity. Such an approach not only undermines the ICC’s credibility but also poses a serious challenge to the global legal order.