TOKYO — Japan has issued an unusually pointed rebuke of its closest security ally after the United States sanctioned International Criminal Court (ICC) President Tomoko Akane, calling Washington’s latest measures against the Japanese judge “very unfortunate.”
The diplomatic clash erupted after the Trump administration imposed sanctions on Akane and ICC senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye of Senegal, escalating Washington’s campaign against the Hague-based court.
Japan’s Foreign Ministry confirmed on Aug. 19 that Akane had been placed under U.S. sanctions and reaffirmed Tokyo’s long-standing support for the ICC and the international rule of law.
“Japan has consistently supported the ICC” in its efforts to prosecute the most serious international crimes and uphold the rule of law, Japan’s Foreign Ministry said. From that standpoint, it described the U.S. measures as “very unfortunate.”
The carefully worded statement is significant because Tokyo rarely confronts Washington publicly, particularly while the two countries remain tightly aligned on security and regional strategic issues.
Why Did the US Sanction Tomoko Akane?
The U.S. State Department said Akane and Seye were sanctioned because of their involvement in ICC efforts to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute officials from governments that have not accepted the court’s jurisdiction.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has accused the ICC of exceeding its mandate and described the court as politically motivated.
The latest action is part of the Trump administration’s wider campaign against the ICC, which has intensified following the court’s move against Israeli officials.
The ICC issued an arrest warrant in November 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity linked to the Gaza conflict. Israel rejects the allegations, while the United States has opposed the ICC’s jurisdiction over U.S. and Israeli nationals.
Akane, a Japanese judge who has served as ICC president since 2024, is now one of the most prominent figures caught in Washington’s sanctions campaign.
What Do the Sanctions Actually Do?
The sanctions freeze any assets belonging to the designated officials that are subject to U.S. jurisdiction and severely restrict their access to the American financial system.
The measures can have consequences beyond the United States because international financial institutions frequently operate through or interact with the U.S. financial system. Reuters reported that the sanctions effectively cut the targeted officials off from much of that system.
The move also adds Akane to a growing list of ICC officials targeted by Washington.
According to the ICC, the United States has now sanctioned 13 of its staff members, including nine of its 18 judges, along with senior prosecutors and other officials.
The Netanyahu Arrest Warrant Is at the Center of the Dispute
At the heart of the confrontation is the ICC’s decision to seek accountability for senior Israeli officials.
The court’s warrant for Netanyahu has become a major flashpoint between Washington and The Hague. The United States and Israel are not parties to the Rome Statute that established the ICC, and both governments reject the court’s jurisdiction in the cases involving their officials.
Washington argues that the ICC should not exercise authority over nationals of countries that have not consented to its jurisdiction.
The ICC, however, maintains that its mandate allows it to investigate and prosecute individuals in situations falling within its jurisdiction, including circumstances involving member states and territories covered by the court’s legal framework.
The disagreement has now evolved from a legal dispute into a broader confrontation over the future of international criminal justice.
ICC Fires Back
The ICC strongly condemned the latest U.S. measures, calling them a “flagrant attack” on the court’s independence.
The court warned that targeting judges and prosecutors for carrying out their judicial responsibilities threatens more than individual officials.
“When judicial actors are threatened for applying the law,” the ICC said, “the international legal order itself is placed at risk.”
The court has vowed to continue carrying out its mandate independently and impartially despite the pressure.
Japan Faces a Difficult Balancing Act
Japan’s response highlights a growing dilemma for Tokyo.
Japan joined the ICC in 2007 and has consistently supported the institution. At the same time, the United States remains Japan’s most important security ally, particularly as Tokyo confronts mounting strategic challenges in East Asia.
That makes the sanctions against Akane unusually sensitive.
Japan’s Foreign Ministry stopped short of directly attacking Washington’s broader policy, instead saying Tokyo would continue strengthening the international rule of law while maintaining dialogue with relevant countries.
The distinction matters: Tokyo is defending the ICC without signaling a rupture with Washington.
But the diplomatic message is unmistakable.
Japan is effectively saying that its alliance with the United States does not require abandoning its support for international legal institutions.
Europe Is Also Pushing Back
Japan is not alone in opposing Washington’s latest action.
The Netherlands, which hosts the ICC in The Hague, has also criticized the sanctions and reaffirmed its support for the court. Dutch Foreign Minister David van Weel invited Akane for discussions on continued support for the institution.
The growing resistance from U.S. partners underscores the widening diplomatic fallout surrounding Washington’s campaign against the ICC.
Reuters reported that five ICC member states have recently announced plans to withdraw from the court amid increasing U.S. pressure, although withdrawal takes time to become legally effective.
Washington Is Taking the Fight Further
The sanctions against Akane and Seye are not an isolated move.
The Trump administration has said it intends to pressure the ICC’s 125 member states to leave the institution and has threatened additional measures against organizations that cooperate with the court.
The administration argues that the ICC threatens U.S. sovereignty by claiming authority over nationals of countries that have not accepted its jurisdiction.
Critics counter that sanctions against judges and prosecutors risk weakening an institution designed to prosecute genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity when national justice systems are unable or unwilling to act.
Human Rights Watch and other organizations have also challenged the Trump administration’s campaign against the ICC in U.S. court.
Why This Matters Beyond Netanyahu
The latest confrontation is bigger than one arrest warrant.
It raises a fundamental question about the limits of international courts — and whether powerful countries can reject or punish institutions when those institutions investigate their officials or allies.
For Japan, the issue is particularly personal.
The ICC president being targeted is not an anonymous international official. She is a Japanese judge leading one of the world’s most important criminal courts.
And Tokyo has now publicly objected.
For Washington, however, the issue is sovereignty and jurisdiction. The Trump administration insists that the ICC has gone beyond its authority and says it will continue confronting the court.
That leaves Japan caught between two competing priorities: maintaining its critical alliance with Washington while defending the international legal order it has repeatedly supported.
And the next question may be even more consequential:
How far will Japan go if Washington’s campaign against the ICC expands further — and what happens if more U.S. allies are forced to choose sides?
Leave a Reply