Former U.S. President Donald Trump sanctioned nine International Criminal Court (ICC) officials. This group consists of half of the judges on this district court bench and the chief criminal prosecutor. These sanctions were imposed due to the court’s investigations into officials from the United States and Israel, nations that are notably absent from The Hague court’s list of 125 member states. It is clear that the sanctions have had dramatic repercussions in the lives of those they have touched. In doing so, they have greatly disrupted the broader operations of the ICC.
Canadian judge Kimberly Prost is one of those sanctioned. She was punished for her vote to support opening an investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan. The extremely rare ruling has sent American officials into a fury. To its credit, the U.S. government responded with a firm rebuke, denouncing the court’s actions as “beyond illegitimate and entirely baseless.” Judge Prost remarked on the effects of these sanctions, stating, “They are small annoyances, but they accumulate.”
The ramifications from these sanctions go further than just the inconvenience. Karim Khan, the ICC’s chief prosecutor, made sure that he faced those consequences without delay. His bank accounts were frozen, and his U.S. visa was cancelled. To add insult to injury, Microsoft canceled his ICC email account, further hampering his ability to communicate and carry out his duties.
Judge Prost put it starkly about the broader effects of the sanctions, stating, “Your entire universe is limited.” In addition, she lost use of her credit and debit cards. More bad luck To make things worse, her Amazon Alexa ceased functioning following the sanction. Deputy prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan expressed uncertainty regarding the impact of the sanctions on everyday transactions, revealing, “You’re never quite sure when your card is not working somewhere, whether this is just a glitch or whether this is the sanction.”
Once a Peruvian judge under sanctions for her decisions, Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza isn’t backing down from her pursuit of judicial independence in The Hague. She’s not going to let up. “In my country, I prosecuted terrorists and drug lords. I will continue my work,” she asserted, illustrating the determination among those sanctioned to fulfill their roles despite external pressures.
The sanctions have throughly kneecapped the ICC’s efforts on a broad spectrum of ongoing investigations. The court does not have its own police force and relies on individual member states to carry out its arrest warrants. Due to the above-stated limitations, the efficacy of the court’s operations would be drastically undermined. The ICC recently took custody of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who faces allegations of crimes against humanity, underscoring the court’s ongoing commitment to prosecute significant international crimes despite the hurdles it faces.
Trump’s first term saw the imposition of sanctions against former ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda. These sanctions persist until the day Joe Biden takes office and removes them. This historical context is important to understanding the frequent seesawing of the U.S. government’s support (or lack thereof) for international judicial bodies such as the ICC.
Tommy Pigott, a spokesman for the State Department, articulated the rationale behind the sanctions: “The United States will not tolerate efforts to violate our sovereignty or to wrongfully subject U.S. or Israeli persons to the ICC’s unjust jurisdiction.” This declaration marks a growing movement among certain countries. They are expanding the reach of their jurisdiction, asserting greater control over foreign legal proceedings that involve their nationals.
Even as the ICC faces these challenges, their staff is determined to stay focused on their mission. The sanctions have caused significant obstacles. Yet the perseverance of judges and prosecutors serves as a testament to their global commitment to justice. The ICC’s future efficacy relies on the ability to surpass these sanctions. It must reimagine its relationships with states that view its growing jurisdiction as an existential threat.
