International Criminal Court President Tomoko Akane has called on governments around the world to take concrete action in defense of international justice, warning that sanctions against the court and its officials threaten the independence of a judicial institution established to address some of humanity’s gravest crimes. Speaking to the United Nations General Assembly through a prerecorded video on November 2, Akane urged all 193 UN member states to stand behind the court, even as political pressure and restrictions create growing challenges for its work. Her appeal, drawing renewed attention on November 4, raises a difficult question for the international community: how can justice remain independent when the officials responsible for applying the law face penalties from powerful governments?
Akane Delivers a Serious Warning to the United Nations
Akane presented the International Criminal Court’s annual report during a General Assembly session in New York. Unlike previous in person appearances, her address was delivered remotely. US sanctions imposed against her and other court officials have made travel to the United States difficult, forcing the ICC president to communicate with delegates through a recorded message.
Her absence from the General Assembly chamber was more than a procedural detail. It illustrated the practical consequences of the restrictions facing the court. A president of an international judicial institution was unable to address the United Nations in person because of sanctions imposed by a country that is not itself a member of the ICC.
Akane described the measures as an attempt to obstruct the course of justice and prevent the court from fulfilling the responsibilities assigned to it. She maintained that the ICC would continue its work independently and impartially, guided by law and evidence rather than political pressure.
Her central message extended beyond the court’s 125 member countries. She called on all 193 UN member states to take concrete action, individually and collectively, to defend the institution. That appeal places responsibility on a much wider group of governments, including countries that have not joined the Rome Statute.
Why the United States Imposed Sanctions
The dispute has intensified over investigations and legal proceedings involving the United States and its allies, including Israel. The Trump administration has strongly criticized the ICC’s actions and argued that the court is acting beyond its proper authority in matters affecting American interests and those of its partners.
Washington has introduced sanctions against individual ICC judges, prosecutors and other personnel. The measures were expanded in October 2026 to target the court as an institution. The latest institutional restrictions were announced on October 9, following earlier actions against individual officials, including Akane, who was placed under US sanctions in August.
US officials have defended the measures as necessary to protect American sovereignty and oppose investigations they consider illegitimate. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the administration intended to restrict transactions with the court and limit the resources available for its operations.
The ICC rejects that position. It argues that sanctions targeting judges and prosecutors for carrying out judicial responsibilities threaten the independence of the institution and weaken the international legal system. The disagreement is therefore not simply a diplomatic dispute between governments. It concerns the limits of national power, the authority of international courts and the ability of judicial officials to act without fear of economic or political retaliation.
Why Judicial Independence Matters
The International Criminal Court was established in 2002 under the Rome Statute. Based in The Hague, it investigates and prosecutes individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression, subject to the legal conditions governing its jurisdiction.
The court is designed to complement national justice systems rather than replace them. Its role becomes particularly important when a country is unwilling or genuinely unable to investigate and prosecute serious international crimes itself. For victims of mass violence, forced displacement, torture and other atrocities, the ICC can offer a legal route when domestic institutions cannot provide meaningful accountability.
That work depends on judicial independence. Judges must be able to assess evidence, interpret legal rules and issue decisions without being punished for the outcomes. If officials believe that carrying out their duties could lead to financial restrictions, travel limitations or other personal consequences, the pressure may affect not only those individuals but also the wider institution.
Sanctions can also create practical obstacles. Restrictions on financial transactions may complicate access to banking services, payments and international cooperation. Technology providers, financial institutions and other businesses may become cautious about working with the court, even when a particular service is not directly prohibited. Such uncertainty can make ordinary administrative work more difficult and increase the cost of maintaining essential operations.
The Consequences for Victims and International Justice
Akane’s appeal also focused attention on the people whose cases depend on the court. During the reporting period covered by the annual report, more than 23,500 victims participated in ICC proceedings. More than 7,000 were involved at the reparations stage, which can provide a formal process for addressing harm suffered as a result of serious crimes.
These figures represent individuals and communities whose experiences extend far beyond legal documents. Victims may have lost relatives, homes, livelihoods and a sense of safety. For many, participating in court proceedings is part of a difficult effort to have their suffering recognized and to seek accountability.
Pressure on the court can affect the people who rely on its work. Investigations require cooperation, secure communications, access to evidence and the protection of witnesses. Financial or operational disruption can make these tasks harder. It may also discourage people and organizations from assisting investigators if they fear becoming targets of sanctions themselves.
The court reported that 34 publicly known arrest warrants remained outstanding. Akane stressed that cooperation from states is essential to executing those warrants and bringing accused individuals before judges. Under Part 9 of the Rome Statute, states parties have legal obligations to cooperate with the court, including obligations relating to arrest and surrender.
What UN Member States Can Do
Akane’s call for collective action does not mean that every UN member state has identical legal obligations toward the ICC. Countries that have joined the Rome Statute have specific responsibilities under the treaty. Countries outside it have different legal positions, although they can still express diplomatic support and take steps consistent with their own laws.
Governments considering how to respond have several practical areas to address:
- Protect institutional independence: Publicly support the principle that judges and prosecutors must be able to perform their duties without political intimidation.
- Maintain essential services: Work with financial institutions and service providers to avoid unnecessary disruption to lawful court operations.
- Support cooperation: Fulfil applicable treaty obligations and help ensure that investigations, arrest warrants and judicial proceedings can proceed.
- Use diplomatic channels: Raise concerns through the United Nations and other international forums while pursuing dialogue aimed at reducing tensions.
- Strengthen legal commitments: Encourage broader participation in the Rome Statute system and effective implementation of its protections.
These measures would not automatically cancel sanctions or settle the legal disagreement between Washington and the court. They would, however, demonstrate whether governments are prepared to protect the basic conditions required for independent international justice.
European Union Reaffirms Support for the Court
Akane’s address received support from the European Union and several other countries during the General Assembly discussion. In a statement delivered on behalf of the EU and its member states, representatives condemned the sanctions and called for their reversal. They warned that restrictions could undermine the international legal order and discourage investigators, witnesses, victims and civil society organizations from cooperating with the court.
The EU also stressed the importance of uninterrupted access to financial and other services. Its position reflects concern that sanctions may have consequences extending beyond the officials directly named in government measures. If institutions and businesses withdraw from legitimate cooperation because of uncertainty, the court’s ability to carry out its mandate could be weakened.
At the same time, international support does not remove the challenges facing the ICC. Governments have different views about the court’s jurisdiction, particular investigations and the relationship between international obligations and national sovereignty. Building a unified response will require sustained diplomatic engagement rather than statements of solidarity alone.
A Wider Test for the International Legal Order
The dispute comes at a sensitive moment for international institutions. The United Nations provides a forum where countries with different political interests can debate global challenges, while the ICC operates under a separate treaty framework created by its member states. Their responsibilities are connected through cooperation, but the two institutions are not interchangeable.
The General Assembly includes 193 member states, whereas the ICC has 125 states parties. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute. This distinction matters because membership in the United Nations does not automatically make a country a member of the ICC or subject it to every obligation under the Rome Statute.
Nevertheless, the sanctions dispute has consequences for the credibility of international law well beyond the court’s membership. If judicial officials can be subjected to restrictions because governments disagree with their work, other international institutions may face similar pressure. Conversely, the ICC must continue to demonstrate that its investigations and decisions meet the highest standards of fairness, independence and accountability.
For readers seeking the official record of the discussion, the United Nations website provides access to General Assembly proceedings and institutional information. The ICC’s annual report and public statements also offer important context for assessing its work and the challenges it faces.
What Happens Next?
The immediate question is whether governments will turn expressions of support into practical measures. The court needs reliable access to financial services, cooperation from states, protection for its personnel and the ability to conduct investigations without improper interference. These requirements are essential to its daily operations and to the confidence of victims who look to international justice for accountability.
Diplomatic negotiations may help reduce tensions, but the underlying disagreement is unlikely to disappear quickly. The United States maintains its objections to the court’s actions, while the ICC insists that it must be able to exercise its legal mandate independently. Any lasting resolution will need to address these competing positions without compromising the principles of judicial independence and due process.
Akane’s message to the General Assembly was ultimately a call for governments to consider what kind of international legal system they want to preserve. The ICC cannot enforce every decision on its own, and its authority depends heavily on cooperation from states. Arrest warrants require action. Investigations require access and assistance. Victims require a functioning institution capable of hearing their cases.
As the international community weighs its response, the stakes extend far beyond one court or one diplomatic confrontation. The ability to investigate grave crimes and pursue accountability depends on a system in which legal decisions are not determined by political convenience. Akane has challenged UN member states to help defend that principle. Whether they respond with coordinated action may shape the future credibility and effectiveness of international justice.
