US Sanctions on ICC Judges: A Crisis for Global Justice -THINK TANK JOURNAL

The United States ignited a firestorm of international controversy by imposing sanctions on four judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC), including Slovenia’s Beti Hohler. The sanctions, targeting Solomy Balungi Bossa (Uganda), Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza (Peru), Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini Gansou (Benin), and Hohler, were a direct response to the ICC’s investigations into alleged war crimes by US forces in Afghanistan and Israeli actions in Gaza. This unprecedented move has drawn sharp condemnation from the European Union, the Netherlands, and global human rights advocates, who view it as a direct assault on the principles of international justice. Slovenia has called for Brussels to activate its blocking statute to protect Hohler, signaling a potential escalation in transatlantic tensions.

The Sanctions: A Bold Move Against the ICC

The US sanctions, announced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, target four ICC judges for their involvement in what the US deems “illegitimate and baseless” investigations. According to the US State Department, these judges “directly engaged in efforts by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute nationals of the United States or Israel” without the consent of either nation, neither of which is a party to the Rome Statute (US State Department). The sanctions include:

Asset Freezes: Blocking access to any property or assets the judges may hold in the US.
Transaction Bans: Prohibiting transactions with American entities, which could affect the judges’ ability to travel, access funds, or engage with international organizations.

These measures extend beyond the judges to potentially impact anyone who supports the ICC, including nationals and corporate entities of its 125 member states. The ICC has warned that such sanctions “target those working for accountability” and do “nothing to help civilians trapped in conflict” (ICC Statement).

Sanctioned Judge	Country	Role in ICC Investigations
Beti Hohler	Slovenia	Ruled in favor of arrest warrants for Israeli officials
Solomy Balungi Bossa	Uganda	Involved in Gaza investigation
Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza	Peru	Involved in Gaza investigation
Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini Gansou	Benin	Involved in Afghanistan investigation

The EU’s Defiant Response

The European Union has responded with a unified front, condemning the US sanctions as a threat to the ICC’s independence and the broader framework of international law. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen declared, “The ICC holds perpetrators of the world’s gravest crimes to account & gives victims a voice. It must be free to act without pressure” (Al Jazeera). European Council President António Costa emphasized that the ICC “does not stand against nations—it stands against impunity,” urging the protection of its integrity (Euronews).

High Representative Kaja Kallas reinforced this stance, stating that the ICC “must remain free from pressure and true to its principles.” The Netherlands, as the ICC’s host country, also expressed strong disapproval, with Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp asserting, “Independent international courts and tribunals must be able to carry out their work without hindrance. We stand firmly behind the Court” (Euronews).

Slovenia has taken a particularly proactive role, rejecting “pressure on judicial institutions” and pledging “all necessary support” for Judge Beti Hohler. The country has urged the EU to activate its blocking statute, a regulation designed to protect EU nationals and companies from extraterritorial US sanctions. The European Commission is currently assessing the situation, with a spokesperson noting that it will “closely monitor the implications before we decide on any next steps” (Euronews).

Slovenia’s Call for the Blocking Statute

The EU blocking statute, introduced in 1996 in response to US sanctions on Cuba, Iran, and Libya, allows EU entities to resist US laws that conflict with European legal protections and seek compensation for damages caused by such sanctions (Atlantic Council). Its potential activation in this case would be unprecedented, as it has primarily been used to protect commercial interests, such as during the 2018 US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal.

Slovenia’s request for the statute’s activation reflects its commitment to defending Hohler and the ICC’s independence. ICC President Judge Tomoko Akane has urged the EU to act, stating that the blocking statute is “one of the Court’s most essential tools for surviving any sanctions” (Atlantic Council). Dutch Justice Minister David van Weel noted that the Netherlands, as the ICC’s host, cannot protect its banks alone and requires EU-level action to ensure the Court’s financial operations continue unimpeded.

However, challenges remain. The blocking statute requires a qualified majority among EU member states, and its effectiveness may be limited for entities with significant ties to the US financial system. Dutch banks, such as ING and Rabobank, face a dilemma, as compliance with EU protections could expose them to US penalties (Atlantic Council).

The ICC Investigations: Afghanistan and Gaza

The sanctions stem from two high-profile ICC investigations that have long been contentious for the US:

Afghanistan Investigation: Since 2003, the ICC has been investigating alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan, including actions by US forces, the Taliban, and Afghan National Security Forces. Authorized in March 2020, the probe has faced significant US opposition, including sanctions during Trump’s first term against ICC officials like former prosecutor Fatou Bensouda (Human Rights Watch). The US argues that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over its nationals, as it is not a Rome Statute member.
Gaza Investigation: The ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, citing alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during Israel’s Gaza offensive against Hamas. These warrants, supported by judges like Hohler, have been met with bipartisan condemnation in the US, which views them as an overreach and a threat to its ally Israel (BBC).

These investigations highlight the ICC’s mandate to prosecute individuals for the most serious international crimes, regardless of nationality or location. However, they also underscore the challenges of applying this mandate to powerful non-member states like the US and Israel.

Global Reactions and Broader Implications

The sanctions have elicited widespread condemnation beyond the EU. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk called for their “prompt reconsideration and withdrawal,” stating that “attacks against judges for performance of their judicial functions run directly counter to respect for the rule of law” (BBC). Over 80 countries, including members of the Hague Group like South Africa and Malaysia, issued a joint statement reaffirming their support for the ICC’s independence (Government of the Netherlands).

The sanctions could have far-reaching consequences:

ICC Operations: By targeting not only the judges but also those who support the Court, the sanctions may deter banks and companies from engaging with the ICC, potentially disrupting its financial and operational capabilities.
US-EU Relations: The EU’s strong rebuke and Slovenia’s call for the blocking statute signal a deepening divide between transatlantic allies, already strained by differing views on international law and multilateral institutions.
Global Justice: The incident raises questions about the ICC’s ability to hold powerful nations accountable. If sanctions deter its work, they could embolden those who believe they can act with impunity, undermining the rule of law globally.

Historical Context: US-ICC Tensions

The US has a long history of tension with the ICC, viewing its ability to investigate nationals of non-member states as a threat to sovereignty. During Trump’s first term, sanctions were imposed on ICC officials, including Fatou Bensouda, for the Afghanistan probe, though these were later lifted by the Biden administration (BBC). The current sanctions, authorized under Executive Order 14203, reflect a continuation of this policy, with Rubio calling on allies to “stand with us against this disgraceful attack” (US State Department).

The US’s stance contrasts with the EU’s commitment to the ICC, which it views as a cornerstone of the international legal order. This divergence has been exacerbated by actions like Hungary’s defiance of the ICC’s warrants and its announced withdrawal from the Rome Statute, marking it as the first EU member state to do so.

The Future of International Justice

The US sanctions on ICC judges represent a critical test for the global justice system. The ICC has vowed to continue its work undeterred, but the practical challenges posed by the sanctions cannot be ignored. The EU’s potential activation of the blocking statute could provide a lifeline, but its success depends on political will and the ability to navigate complex financial realities.

This incident also highlights a broader philosophical divide: should international institutions like the ICC have the power to hold individuals from non-member states accountable, or does this infringe on national sovereignty? The answer will shape the future of global justice, influencing how nations balance their interests with the pursuit of accountability for the world’s gravest crimes.