U.S. Sanctions Four ICC Judges Over Warrants for Netanyahu’s Arrest

1. Background: ICC’s Warrants and U.S. Reaction

In November 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague issued historic arrest warrants for two Israeli officials—Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant—alongside Hamas commander Mohammed Deif. These warrants alleged:

1. Netanyahu and Gallant ordered or enabled “intentionally and knowingly depriving the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to survival, including food, water, and medicine,” during the 2023–2024 Gaza war .
2. Deif was wanted for war crimes and crimes against humanity tied to the October 7 Hamas attacks

The warrants ignited sharp responses from Israel—who denounced the ICC’s action as politically motivated “lawfare”—and from the United States. Though neither the U.S. nor Israel is an ICC member, Washington said the court’s move threatened its ally and infringed on sovereignty .

Building on former President Trump’s 2025 executive order empowering sanctions against ICC officials investigating Americans and allies, the U.S. State Department—under Secretary of State Marco Rubio—escalated the pressure .

2. The Sanctions: Who, What, and Why

On June 5, 2025, the U.S. announced sanctions against four ICC judges involved in authorizing the arrest warrants:

1. Solomy Balungi Bossa (Uganda)
2. Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza (Peru)
3. Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini Gansou (Benin)
4. Beti Hohler (Slovenia) .

Under the new measures:

• All U.S.-based assets held by the judges are frozen.
• Entry to the U.S. is barred for them and close family members.
• American individuals and entities are prohibited from “transacting” with them .

Rubio defended the move as necessary to protect sovereignty and shield “allies” from ICC overreach. He labeled the court’s actions as “illegitimate” and politically driven .

3. U.S.’ Continued Campaign Against the ICC

This action builds on a broader U.S. stance:

• February 2025: Trump issued executive orders imposing travel bans and asset freezes on ICC prosecutor Karim Khan—the first time sanctions targeted a senior ICC official over Gaza-related investigations .
• Routine threats of wider institution-wide sanctions, including on banking and IT services vital to court operations .

These moves stem from longstanding U.S. opposition to the ICC’s jurisdiction over American and allied personnel. The court’s investigation into war crimes by U.S. forces in Afghanistan previously prompted similar ire .

4. ICC’s Rebuttal: Independence at Stake

The ICC responded swiftly and forcefully:

• It condemned the sanctions as “an unprecedented attack on judicial independence” and called on member states and civil society to defend international justice .
• Pointed out that neither the U.S. nor Israel are parties to the Rome Statute, questioning Washington’s moral authority to penalize its judges.
• ICC officials expressed fears that ongoing sanctions could cripple operations—especially if they expand to block access to U.S.-based banking, cloud services like Microsoft Azure, or IT support .

Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, currently embroiled in unrelated internal allegations, highlighted how previous sanctions had already hindered investigations into crises such as Sudan. A spokesman said the court was “planning for a worst-case scenario” of further U.S. measures .

5. Global Backlash and Legal Contours

The U.S. approach provoked criticism and backlash internationally:

• Human Rights Watch called the sanctions an assault on accountability .
• Several EU countries, including the UK, Canada, Germany, and Mexico, issued joint statements decrying U.S. interference and affirming support for ICC independence .
• The EU considered using its blocking statute to protect affiliated companies from complying with U.S. measures, signaling a potential trade-law standoff .

Legal experts warn these sanctions might violate international protocols that shield judges from political reprisal, citing independence under the Rome Statute and customary international law. It raises questions: Can state powers undermine a judicial body to thwart accountability for alleged war crimes?

6. Implications for Israel, the ICC, and International Law

The sanctions mark a significant pivot:

• Israel, under heavy public scrutiny, welcomed the U.S. move. Netanyahu personally thanked Trump and Rubio as defenders of national security .
• ICC enters a risky new chapter—pressed, isolated, and possibly operationally hamstrung amid growing reliance on U.S. infrastructure.
• Global justice had long focused on crimes in Ukraine, Sudan, Afghanistan. This action shifts attention to Israel-Palestine, complicating broader geopolitics and the court’s already fragile standing.

For supporters of international law, the sanctions are a sign the ICC’s reach still challenges powerful state actors.

7. What’s Next: Tensions Rising

Looking ahead, we face several key flashpoints:

1. Legal pushback – ICC officials may pursue countermeasures under EU law, and member states might bolster court infrastructure to insulate against U.S. tech/banking sanctions.
2. Diplomatic strain – The U.S. risks alienating longstanding allies in Europe, pressuring future cooperation in Ukraine and global security frameworks.
3. Political implications in Washington – While current sanctions align with conservative foreign policy, a possible change in U.S. leadership could reverse course—or deepen U.S. commitment to shielding allies.
4. ICC credibility – If the court appears to buckle under U.S. pressure, it could deter future indictments of powerful figures.

8. Conclusion

The U.S. sanctions on four ICC judges represent a watershed moment in the international justice landscape. They follow earlier punitive actions against ICC leadership and deepen a long-running dispute over accountability for state actors. As the court attempts to press ahead with high-profile investigations—including Gaza, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Myanmar—it now must confront the reality of losing access to essential infrastructure.

This juncture tests whether international legal institutions can withstand calculated political pushback from major powers. As G7 and EU countries scramble to strengthen protective mechanisms—from blocking statutes to alternate infrastructure—the next moves will define whether the ICC emerges from this confrontation weakened—or emboldened.