Netherlands dispatch: US sanctions on International Criminal Court staff sharpen debate over sovereignty and judicial reach Dispatches
OSeveno, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Netherlands dispatch: US sanctions on International Criminal Court staff sharpen debate over sovereignty and judicial reach

The standoff between the United States government and the International Criminal Court (ICC) entered a new phase last week as government officials in Washington sanctioned four senior ICC officials on August 20. The designations target Judge Kimberly Prost (Canada), Judge Nicolas Guillou (France), Deputy Prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan (Fiji), and Deputy Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang (Senegal).

Acting under Executive Order No. 14203, President Donald Trump authorized the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to freeze any property in US jurisdiction, bar financial dealings, and impose travel restrictions on the named ICC officials. OFAC also issued General License 9 allowing a limited wind-down of transactions with the sanctioned individuals. The measures follow a first tranche of sanctions in June 2025, which blacklisted four other ICC judges.

The ICC swiftly denounced the move as “a flagrant attack on judicial independence,” while the Israeli government welcomed it as a defense of sovereignty against what it views as politically-motivated proceedings.

The sanctions rest on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and related statutes, which gives the president broad authority to respond to what he deems national security threats. In this case, the US government has characterized the ICC’s investigations—particularly its 2024 arrest warrants against Israeli officials for their alleged role in carrying out war crimes and crimes against humanity in Palestine, and its probe into potential war crimes by US military and CIA personnel in Afghanistan—as illegitimate attempts to assert jurisdiction over non-party states.

The US and Israel are not parties to the Rome Statute, and both governments maintain that their nationals cannot be subjected to ICC prosecution without Security Council referral. In this sense, the US government’s sanctions on the ICC are framed not as an attack on accountability per se, but as a protection of fundamental principles of sovereignty and consent under international law.

Under Article 12 of the Rome Statute, the ICC asserts jurisdiction over crimes committed within the territory of a State Party—even if the alleged perpetrators are nationals of a country that is not a party to the Rome Statute. This principle forms the basis for the Court’s investigations in Palestine and Afghanistan. Critics argue this approach goes beyond what countries originally agreed to and could make international justice more political.

For the US and Israel, the sanctions reflect a view that the ICC has overstepped its mandate by targeting non-member states. Under this view, the US government argues that it may use its domestic laws to shield citizens and allies from a tribunal whose legitimacy they do not recognize, reinforcing bipartisan skepticism toward the ICC.

International reaction has been mixed: many European governments criticized the sanctions, while Israel and some US lawmakers welcomed them as long overdue. Critics warn that US sanctions could have a chilling effect on judicial independence, while supporters argue that the ICC undermines its own credibility by targeting states that never consented to its jurisdiction. For the US and Israel, the sanctions are less about crippling the Court and more about drawing a clear line: international justice, they argue, must respect sovereignty and avoid becoming a vehicle for politics.

The sanctions highlight a growing rift between country sovereignty and the ICC’s universalist aspirations. By directly targeting judges and prosecutors, the US government has raised questions about whether the Court can legitimately prosecute officials of non-member states and whether such actions undermine judicial independence.

The practical impact will depend on factors such as whether OFAC enforces the designations, how US courts handle constitutional challenges, and whether ICC member states rally to defend the Court. The symbolic impact, however, is immediate: a strong signal that international justice cannot operate without state consent.

The US government’s sanctioning of ICC officials is legally grounded in domestic law, politically calibrated to protect US interests. While controversial, these acts reflect a consistent sovereign position: without treaty consent, international tribunals cannot legitimately exercise jurisdiction over non-parties.

Whether one views the sanctions as a coercive overreach or a principled defense of sovereignty, they have forced the international community to reckon with the unresolved tension between sovereignty and global accountability—a debate that will shape the future of international justice.

Opinions expressed in JURIST Dispatches are solely those of our correspondents in the field and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.
THIS DAY @ LAW

11th Amendent to US Constitution ratified

On February 7, 1795, the 11th Amendment to the United States Constitution took effect with ratification by North Carolina. Adopted in the aftermath of the US Supreme Court's ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia, the amendment limited the jurisdiction of the federal courts to automatically hear cases brought against a state by the citizens of another state. Learn more about the meaning and history of the 11th Amendment from the National Constitution Center.

Maastricht Treaty signed, creating EU

On February 7, 1992, the Maastricht Treaty was signed by the members of the European Community, creating the European Union. Officially called the Treaty on the European Union, the original Maastricht Treaty went into force on November 1, 1993. The current Maastricht Treaty includes amendments from later EU treaties.