The ICC sanctions targeting Judge Tomoko Akane brings the Trump administration’s escalating confrontation with the International Criminal Court directly into one of America’s most important alliances.
TOKYO/THE HAGUE — The Trump administration’s campaign against the International Criminal Court has reached one of Washington’s closest allies after the United States imposed sanctions on the Court’s Japanese president, Judge Tomoko Akane.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced sanctions on Akane and Abdoulaye Seye, a Senegalese senior trial lawyer at the ICC, on August 18. The measures freeze any assets they hold under U.S. jurisdiction and restrict their access to the U.S. financial system.
Washington argues that the ICC has exceeded its authority by pursuing officials from countries, including the United States and Israel, that have not joined the Rome Statute. The Court maintains that it can exercise jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed on territory falling under its jurisdiction, even when the accused is a national of a non-member state.
The ICC condemned the sanctions as an attack on judicial independence. The latest action brings the number of sanctioned ICC personnel to 13, including nine of the Court’s 18 judges, both deputy prosecutors and its former prosecutor.
For Japan, the confrontation is particularly sensitive. Akane is Japanese, and Tokyo has been a strong supporter of the Court since joining it in 2007.
Japan described the sanctions as “very unfortunate” and reaffirmed its support for the ICC and the rule of law. The response marked a rare public disagreement with Washington from a government whose security strategy remains deeply anchored in the U.S.-Japan alliance.
ICC Sanctions Put Japan to a Difficult Test
Japan’s criticism of the ICC sanctions was carefully calibrated.
Tokyo did not signal a broader confrontation with Washington. But the sanctions expose a growing tension between two longstanding pillars of Japanese foreign policy: reliance on the United States for security and support for international law and multilateral institutions.
That tension is emerging at a particularly sensitive moment. Japan is expanding its own defense capabilities and seeking greater strategic autonomy, but the American security guarantee remains foundational to its regional posture.
The ICC dispute therefore adds another layer to a broader question facing Tokyo: how to preserve close strategic alignment with Washington while retaining independent positions on international institutions and legal norms.
Japan has consistently supported the ICC’s role in prosecuting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Akane became the Court’s president in 2024 and is one of the most senior Japanese figures in the international judicial system.
The result is a delicate balancing act rather than a binary choice. Tokyo can continue supporting the Court while seeking to contain disagreement with Washington, but a widening U.S. sanctions campaign could make that balance more difficult.
Washington Broadens Its Campaign Against the Court
The sanctions on Akane are part of a wider Trump administration strategy toward the ICC.
Washington has focused particular criticism on the Court’s investigation of alleged crimes connected to the Gaza war and its arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
Neither Israel nor the United States is a member of the Court.
Rubio has also gone beyond opposing individual investigations. He has described the administration’s policy as a broader effort to counter what Washington views as a threat to U.S. sovereignty and has said the United States will encourage ICC members to withdraw from the institution.
At least five ICC member states have indicated plans to withdraw in the past year, with Venezuela and Chad among those announcing their intention to leave. Withdrawals take a year to become effective.
For Japan, that broader campaign raises the stakes. As a major supporter of the Court and one of Washington’s closest allies, Tokyo’s response could help show whether U.S. pressure will persuade allied governments to distance themselves from the ICC or instead reinforce their support for it.
The Reach of U.S. Sanctions
The consequences are not only diplomatic.
ICC sanctions have already affected the personal finances and access to services of ICC officials. Canadian judge Kimberly Prost, who was sanctioned previously, lost access to credit cards and other services after her designation.
That illustrates how U.S. measures can reach judges and prosecutors even when they live and work outside the United States, reflecting the central role of American financial institutions and companies in the global economy.
The United States argues that such measures are legitimate tools for preventing an international court from asserting jurisdiction over nationals of countries that have not consented to its authority.
The ICC and its supporters argue that targeting individual judges and prosecutors risks constraining judicial independence by imposing personal financial consequences for decisions taken in an official capacity.
The dispute is therefore no longer only about the legal reach of the Court. It is also about whether a major power can use its financial leverage to limit the ability of an international judicial institution to operate.
The UN Raises Concerns
The confrontation is also drawing concern from the United Nations.
Secretary-General António Guterres said he was seriously concerned by the sanctions on Akane and Seye, as well as measures imposed on other Court officials.
The ICC and United Nations are separate institutions, but UN spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric described the Court as a key pillar of international criminal justice.
The implications extend beyond the politically contentious cases involving Israel.
The ICC is involved in investigations and proceedings concerning alleged atrocities in Ukraine, Sudan, Myanmar, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Governments that disagree sharply over individual cases may still have a broader interest in preserving mechanisms capable of investigating genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
That makes the current confrontation partly a debate over the future reach and resilience of international criminal justice itself.
A Wider Test for U.S. Allies
Japan may not be the last American ally to confront this tension.
Australia, Canada, South Korea and most European U.S. allies are ICC members. Germany and the Netherlands have also criticized the latest sanctions and reaffirmed support for the Court.
If Washington continues expanding its campaign, more allied governments could find themselves balancing two interests they have traditionally viewed as complementary: close strategic ties with the United States and support for international legal institutions.
For Tokyo, the immediate dispute is unlikely to alter the foundations of the U.S.-Japan alliance. But it adds to a broader debate over the terms of American leadership and the extent to which U.S. allies are willing to defend multilateral institutions when Washington fundamentally disputes their authority.
Japan’s response to the Akane sanctions may provide one of the clearest early tests.
RELATED STORIES:
Follow SDG News on LinkedIn
