Sanctions by the U.S. on the "Judging Side" - Pressure on the International Criminal Court, Rule of Law Also Questioned in Japan

A court established to prosecute war crimes is becoming the target of economic sanctions. The international judicial conflict is extending to the funding and services that support the court's daily operations.

On October 9, 2026, the United States announced sanctions targeting the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Netherlands. By combining the breaking news from Germany's BUSINESS-PANORAMA with subsequent reports and statements from the Japanese government, the gravity of this measure becomes apparent.

The most significant change is that the sanctions have expanded from targeting individuals such as judges and prosecutors to the organization of the court itself.

The United States explains this as a measure to protect national sovereignty. The ICC, on the other hand, sees it as an obstruction to justice. For Japan, a U.S. ally and an ICC member state, this is not a distant conflict.

From sanctions on individuals to pressure on the court's operational foundation

The Trump administration has previously imposed sanctions on ICC affiliates. The current measure aims to pressure the foundation supporting the court's activities by restricting transactions with the organization itself.

According to AP News, a six-month period has been set for U.S. companies and individuals to reduce or terminate transactions with the ICC.

However, it is not accurate to interpret this as "all operations will cease immediately." Judicial news agency Courthouse News Service reports that exemptions are in place for necessary payments for operational maintenance, transaction termination, and certain communication and software services.

The court's work requires not only the courtroom but also paying staff salaries, managing evidence, and ensuring secure communication. If this foundation becomes unstable, the burden of continuing investigations and trials will increase.

The significance of the sanctions goes beyond protesting a verdict. It shakes the conditions necessary for the actual operation of justice from an economic perspective.

The U.S. advocates "defense of national sovereignty"

U.S. Secretary of State Rubio has expressed the position that the U.S. will not allow its citizens, military personnel, or political leaders to be prosecuted by a court to which the U.S. is not a party.

The background to this is opposition to ICC investigations and proceedings targeting U.S. and Israeli officials. Neither the U.S. nor Israel is a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the ICC.

However, it cannot be simplified to "the ICC has no jurisdiction over nationals of non-member states."

The ICC's jurisdiction is not determined solely by the suspect's nationality. It also involves the location where the crime was committed, acceptance of jurisdiction by related countries, and referrals from the United Nations Security Council. Crimes committed within the territory of a member state may involve nationals of non-member states. Additionally, there are separate jurisdictional restrictions for crimes of aggression.

Thus, at the core of the conflict is the issue of how much state consent is necessary and to what extent international accountability for serious crimes is recognized.

It is necessary to distinguish between the U.S. government's explanation and the legal framework on which the ICC relies.

What is the ICC for?

The ICC is a permanent international court that holds individuals criminally responsible for crimes of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes of aggression.

Its role differs from that of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which primarily deals with disputes between states.

Moreover, it is not an institution that replaces domestic courts in handling criminal cases worldwide. The fundamental idea is to complement domestic justice when the countries involved genuinely lack the will or ability to investigate and prosecute.

In this instance, the ICC strongly rejects sanctions against the organization, stating that they undermine the activities of an independent judicial body and the rule of law. Director Tomoko Akane has also expressed her commitment to continue her duties based on law and evidence, maintaining independence and fairness.

The question here is not just whether one agrees with specific investigations or judgments.

There is a different meaning between challenging the court and restricting the funds and services necessary for its activities. The latter can affect the functioning of the entire judicial body beyond individual cases.

What was shared on social media?

In this movement, social media also became a platform to directly convey government positions.

One of the transmissions confirmed through reports is a video on X by Secretary of State Rubio. Rubio stated the intention to weaken the ICC's ability to act against the U.S. by prohibiting transactions and cutting off resources, demonstrating a strong stance against the court to protect U.S. citizens.

In contrast, the Israeli Prime Minister's Office, led by Netanyahu, supported the sanctions. According to AFP, the Prime Minister's Office posted on X, positioning the ICC as a political organization rather than a judicial body, claiming it threatens national sovereignty.

On the other hand, criticism of the sanctions is also reflected in official statements from the ICC and human rights organizations. Amnesty International has called on countries to take concrete actions to protect the court.

From these, it can be interpreted that the U.S. and Israeli sides emphasize "defense of sovereignty," while the ICC and human rights organizations focus on "protecting accountability for serious crimes."

However,the posts by government officials and the public opinion of general users are not the same. It is not possible to determine trends such as "majority support on social media" or "overwhelming criticism" based solely on the posts and reports confirmed in this instance. Here, only transmissions and reactions with verifiable sources are introduced.

Japan expresses "deep concern"—showing both support and operational improvement

On October 9, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a message from the Foreign Minister.

In it, Japan expressed deep concern, stating that the U.S. sanctions against the ICC itself do not align with Japan's position, which emphasizes the rule of law and international courts in the international community.

At the same time, it pointed out that for the ICC to gain the trust of the international community, it is important for the court and member states to address issues and ensure proper operation. As a member state, Japan intends to participate in discussions and continue necessary support.

These two stances are compatible. It is possible to support the independence of the court while discussing improvements in its operation.

The Japanese government intends to continue engaging with the U.S. and communicating with Director Akane and related countries.

The challenge for Japan lies in maintaining its relationship with the U.S., which is important for security, while translating its support for international justice into concrete actions.

How to maintain justice for victims

As government exchanges intensify, the presence of those who need the court becomes less visible.

For victims of serious crimes, it is crucial that evidence is not lost, they can testify safely, and the presence or absence of responsibility is determined through proper procedures.

The ICC's Trust Fund for Victims has also expressed deep concern about the impact of the sanctions. When considering the court's activities, it is necessary to look beyond judges and states to the impact on the victims.

The focus going forward is on what negotiations will take place during the grace period, whether necessary services will be maintained, and how member states will materialize their support.

The phrase "support for the rule of law" alone cannot pay salaries or maintain systems for managing evidence. These sanctions challenge countries to translate their commitment to supporting international justice into actions that protect daily operations.

Sources

1. BUSINESS-PANORAMA/dts News Agency (October 9, 2026)
   Breaking news on U.S. sanctions against the ICC. Specific details of the sanctions are not included.
   https://business-panorama.de/news.php?newsid=6714202

2. AP News
   Report on the outline of the sanctions, the period for reducing or ending transactions, and the responses of various countries.
   https://apnews.com/article/4ea3555403e3c695d8f81dc473515d9bAP News

3. Courthouse News Service
   Explanation of the impact of the sanctions on operations and exemptions related to payments, communication, and software.
   https://www.courthousenews.com/trump-escalates-war-on-international-criminal-court-with-deep-sanctions/Courthouse News Service

4. ICC Official Statement (October 9, 2026)
   ICC's perspective on sanctions against the organization and Director Akane's stance on continuing duties.
   https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-strongly-rejects-us-sanctions-against-institutionInternational Criminal Court

5. Ministry of Foreign Affairs "Sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) (Foreign Minister's Message)"
   Japan's expression of concern, ICC's proper operation and support, and policy on communication with the U.S.
   https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/ila/ila/pageit_000001_03245.htmlmofa.go.jp

6. UPI News
   Report to confirm the video posted by Secretary of State Rubio on X and its content.
   https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2026/10/09/icc-sanctions/9301791558216/UPI.com

7. AFP News
   U.S. explanation, Netanyahu's Prime Minister's Office's support statement on X, and international reactions.
   https://www.afp.com/en/us-announces-sanctions-icc-hours-after-nobel-award-former-judgeAFP.com

8. Amnesty International
   Criticism of ICC sanctions and a statement calling on countries to protect the court.
   https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/10/usa-trumps-attack-on-the-icc-demands-a-global-response-of-resistance-and-protection/Amnesty International

9. ICC Office of the Prosecutor/Ministry of Foreign Affairs "Diplomatic Bluebook 2026"
   Materials to confirm basic conditions regarding ICC jurisdiction and acceptance, and the role of international judicial bodies.
   https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-office-prosecutor-concludes-preliminary-examinations-venezuela-ii-and-lithuania/belarus
   https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/bluebook/2026/html/chapter3_01_06.htmlInternational Criminal Court

10. ICC Trust Fund for Victims
    Statement expressing concern about the impact of the sanctions.
    https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-trust-fund-victims-relation-sanctions-imposed-against-icc