ICC President Akane Hits Back at Trump Sanctions in Remote UN Address
ICC President Judge Tomoko Akane briefed the UN remotely on 2 November because of US sanctions, accusing the Trump administration of trying to obstruct international justice and calling on all 193 member nations to defend the court.
The president of the International Criminal Court has accused the Trump administration of trying to obstruct international justice by imposing penalties on the tribunal — and she did it from a screen, not a podium. ICC President Judge Tomoko Akane of Japan briefed the United Nations remotely on Monday, 2 November, because of US sanctions, and vowed that the attempt to subdue the court would not succeed the Associated Press reported on 2 November, via La Nacion.
Highlights
- Remote by necessity: ICC President Judge Tomoko Akane of Japan briefed the UN remotely on Monday, 2 November because of US sanctions.
- Her charge: The Trump administration is trying to obstruct international justice by imposing penalties on the tribunal — and, she vowed, it will not succeed.
- Her appeal: All 193 UN member nations, not just the 125 ICC parties, should take concrete action in defence of the court.
- The timing she stressed: Sweeping sanctions on the court were announced on 9 October, the day the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to former ICC judge Navi Pillay.
- Washington’s stated aim: Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the US would ban transactions with what he called a “rogue court,” cutting off its resources.
An address delivered remotely — and why that is the story
Akane’s remote address to the UN General Assembly was itself a result of what she called the “extraordinary” and “unprecedented” US steps threatening judges, prosecutors and the ICC itself as an institution the Associated Press reported. She was presenting the court’s annual report to the General Assembly, TRT World reported on 2 November, addressing the assembly virtually on Monday.
The administration has imposed a series of sanctions on ICC officials and then targeted the entire court last month, as part of its campaign to dismantle the tribunal over investigations into the United States and its allies, including Israel according to the Associated Press. TRT World adds that the move followed sanctions on 13 independent judges and prosecutors, including Akane herself, and that the sweeping sanctions were imposed on 9 October TRT World reported.
Her core charge was stated plainly:
“It is an attempt to obstruct the course of justice and to prevent the court from doing what it was created to do,”
That line, reported by TRT World on 2 November, goes beyond a complaint about travel or banking restrictions. Akane is arguing that sanctioning judges for their work attacks the function of the court itself — a point she reinforced by warning, in TRT World’s reporting, that when judges are punished for their decisions, judicial independence itself is targeted, not only those judges.
The appeal: all 193 nations, not just the court’s members
Akane called on all 193 UN member nations — not just the 125 countries that are part of the ICC — in these words the Associated Press reported:
“to take concrete action, individually and collectively, in defense of the court.”
That distinction matters. A defence mounted only by the court’s own member states would be the institution’s supporters talking to themselves. By addressing all 193 UN members, Akane framed the sanctions as a question for the wider UN system — the same system in whose hall she was speaking, remotely. It is also a practical problem for the court: the ICC was set up in 2002 to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide when countries are unwilling or unable to do so, and the United States is not a party to the court the Associated Press noted. A court that depends on state cooperation, but whose judges are sanctioned by a major power outside its membership, needs defenders beyond its own treaty list.
The appeal lands in a week when Washington’s foreign policy is being watched on several fronts at once, including the Iran–US Doha talks, where Tehran has warned a new war could last longer — another file where US pressure and international institutions are colliding in public.
9 October: the contrast Akane kept returning to
Akane stressed the timing of the Trump administration announcing sweeping new sanctions on the court on 9 October. That was the day the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to South African jurist Navi Pillay, a former ICC judge, for her efforts to promote peace and international law the Associated Press reported. TRT World likewise notes the sanctions were imposed on 9 October, the same day the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the prize to Pillay TRT World reported.
“The contrast could not be starker,”
“On the one hand, global recognition of the value of international justice, on the other, an attempt to subdue the institution that embodies it.”
Both quotes are Akane’s, as reported by the Associated Press on 2 November. The pairing is deliberate rhetoric, but it is also a factual juxtaposition she did not have to invent: the date of the sanctions and the date of the prize are the same, and she is asking member states to notice it.
Washington’s position, in Rubio’s words
The administration has not hidden its intent. In announcing the latest sanctions, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the US, in the Associated Press’s reporting:
“will ban transactions with this rogue court, cutting off their resources and crippling its ability to operate against us.”
That quote, reported by the Associated Press, is the clearest statement of the strategy Akane was answering: not a legal argument inside the court, but a resource squeeze outside it. The State Department had no immediate comment on Akane’s remarks, the Associated Press added.
The political backdrop in Washington is also moving fast, with the US midterms one day away and early voting already past 53 million — a reminder that the administration’s fight with the court is one front in a much larger political week, not an isolated legal dispute.
Support in the hall, and Akane’s closing vow
Akane was not the only voice in the General Assembly. The European Union and other supporters stepped to the podium at the UN General Assembly to strongly support the ICC and its work seeking justice for humanity’s worst crimes the Associated Press reported. That is genuine, reported support inside the room — though it is not yet the “concrete action” from all 193 members that Akane asked for, and the difference between speeches of support and measures that offset sanctions is where this story will be decided.
Her own closing position left no room for ambiguity:
“Let me be clear: The court will continue to fully discharge its mandate with independence and impartiality, acting only on the basis of the law and the evidence, for the sake of the countless victims of grave crimes.”
That vow, reported by the Associated Press on 2 November, is the line the next phase will be judged against. Sanctions can restrict travel, transactions and resources; they cannot, by themselves, withdraw a case or change a legal standard. Whether the court’s work slows in practice — and whether other states move from podium support to concrete counter-measures — is what to watch next. For now, the court’s president has said, from a distance Washington imposed, that distance will not change the mandate.
