Pull to refresh
Logo
Daily Brief
Following Why
Washington vs. The Hague: U.S. sanctions ICC judges to shield Israel case

Washington vs. The Hague: U.S. sanctions ICC judges to shield Israel case

Rule Changes
By Newzino Staff |

A widening showdown over Gaza war-crimes jurisdiction, enforcement, and the future of international courts.

December 18th, 2025: U.S. sanctions two more ICC judges

Overview

The U.S. just sanctioned two sitting International Criminal Court judges—because they helped keep the Israel-related Gaza case alive. It’s a rare thing in diplomacy: Washington using the same financial weapon it uses on oligarchs and terror networks against a courtroom.

The stakes aren’t only Israel and Gaza. This is a stress test for whether international courts can function when a superpower decides the judges themselves are fair game—and whether U.S. allies will quietly comply, openly resist, or split the difference with legal workarounds.

Key Indicators

2
ICC judges sanctioned on 2025-12-18
Gocha Lordkipanidze and Erdenebalsuren Damdin were added to the SDN list.
11
Total ICC senior officials under U.S. sanctions
Reuters reports the latest designations bring the running total to 11.
2026-01-17
OFAC wind-down deadline (12:01 a.m. EST)
General License 11 authorizes limited wind-down transactions until this date/time.
2015
Year Palestinian territories joined the ICC
Membership provides a jurisdictional pathway despite U.S./Israel non-membership.
2025-02-06
Executive Order 14203 signed
The order created the legal basis for ICC-related blocking and visa sanctions.

Interactive

Exploring all sides of a story is often best achieved with Play.

Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?

Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.

Sign Up

Debate Arena

Two rounds, two personas, one winner. You set the crossfire.

People Involved

Gocha Lordkipanidze
Gocha Lordkipanidze
International Criminal Court judge (Georgia) (U.S.-sanctioned (SDN-listed) as of 2025-12-18)
Erdenebalsuren Damdin
Erdenebalsuren Damdin
International Criminal Court judge (Mongolia) (U.S.-sanctioned (SDN-listed) as of 2025-12-18)
Marco Rubio
Marco Rubio
U.S. Secretary of State (Leading public face of the administration’s ICC pressure campaign)
Donald Trump
Donald Trump
President of the United States (Executive authority behind E.O. 14203 and the ICC sanctions architecture)
Karim A. A. Khan
Karim A. A. Khan
ICC Prosecutor (U.S.-sanctioned; temporarily stepped aside amid misconduct process)
Tomoko Akane
Tomoko Akane
President of the International Criminal Court (Defending the court amid U.S. and Russian pressure)
Benjamin Netanyahu
Benjamin Netanyahu
Prime Minister of Israel (Subject to ICC arrest warrant (issued in 2024))

Organizations Involved

International Criminal Court
International Criminal Court
International Governing Body
Status: Target of U.S. sanctions pressure over Israel and U.S.-related investigations

The Hague-based court prosecutes genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity when national systems fail.

US Department of the Treasury – OFAC
US Department of the Treasury – OFAC
Federal Agency
Status: Implemented the designations and issued a narrow wind-down authorization

OFAC turns foreign-policy targets into real-world banking and transaction prohibitions.

U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of State
Federal Agency
Status: Publicly justifying sanctions as sovereignty protection for U.S. and Israel

State Department frames ICC actions as political overreach and coordinates sanctions signaling.

White House
White House
Executive Office
Status: Created the ICC sanctions legal framework via E.O. 14203

The presidency set the policy: ICC pursuit of U.S./Israel triggers sanctions consequences.

Assembly of States Parties (Rome Statute)
Assembly of States Parties (Rome Statute)
Intergovernmental governing body
Status: Publicly opposing U.S. sanctions and defending ICC independence

The ICC’s member-state governance body, now acting as the court’s diplomatic shield.

Timeline

  1. U.S. sanctions two more ICC judges

    Rule Changes

    Rubio announced sanctions on Judges Lordkipanidze and Damdin; OFAC SDN-listed both and issued a wind-down license.

  2. ICC calls sanctions an attack on judicial independence

    Statement

    The court condemned the U.S. move as a “flagrant attack” that risks the international legal order.

  3. ICC rejects Israel attempt to halt Gaza probe

    Legal

    The court refused an Israeli bid to block the investigation path tied to Gaza-related allegations.

  4. U.S. threatens fresh sanctions and demands treaty changes

    Statement

    Reuters reported Washington warned the ICC of further penalties unless it curbs future U.S.-related exposure.

  5. ICC member states push back on sanctions

    Statement

    The Assembly of States Parties condemned U.S. measures targeting judges and deputy prosecutors.

  6. U.S. sanctions four ICC judges

    Rule Changes

    Rubio announced sanctions on four ICC judges tied to Afghanistan and Israel/Gaza-related decisions.

  7. ICC appeals panel wrestles with Israel jurisdiction fight

    Legal

    An ICC Appeals Chamber panel ruled on Israel’s challenges, remanding jurisdiction issues to pre-trial judges.

  8. OFAC designates ICC Prosecutor Khan

    Rule Changes

    OFAC added ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan to the SDN list under E.O. 14203.

  9. Trump signs ICC sanctions order

    Rule Changes

    Executive Order 14203 created a sanctions and visa framework targeting ICC actions against the U.S. and Israel.

  10. ICC issues Israel leadership warrants

    Legal

    The ICC issued arrest warrants for Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant over alleged Gaza crimes.

Scenarios

1

Sanctions Spiral: U.S. targets more ICC leadership and support networks

Discussed by: Reuters reporting on escalating U.S. pressure; ongoing coverage by AP and major outlets

If the ICC continues issuing rulings that sustain the Israel/Gaza track—or pushes enforcement cooperation—Washington is likely to add more names (judges, prosecutors, senior staff) and tighten compliance guidance that scares vendors and banks away. The trigger is simple: any court decision that looks like momentum toward arrests, subpoenas, or broadened jurisdiction. The effect isn’t just symbolic; it’s operational disruption through financial isolation.

2

Allies Build a Shield: Europe keeps the ICC functioning despite U.S. penalties

Discussed by: ICC member-state statements via the Assembly of States Parties; European diplomatic reporting

If ICC member states treat U.S. sanctions as an existential threat to the Rome Statute system, they can respond with coordinated political backing, procurement choices, and practical workarounds (alternative banking channels, indemnities, or public commitments to cooperate). The trigger is broad fear that sanctioning judges becomes a repeatable tactic usable against any case. The court survives, but the world drifts toward rival legal blocs.

3

Compliance Chaos: Companies over-comply and the ICC’s day-to-day work slows

Discussed by: AP’s reporting on the lived impact of sanctions on ICC officials

Even without new sanctions, risk-averse banks and service providers can treat anything “ICC-adjacent” as toxic—delaying payroll, travel, IT services, and vendor contracting. The trigger is uncertainty: unclear boundaries, fear of secondary exposure, and automated sanctions screening. The outcome looks like bureaucratic suffocation: the ICC remains open, but moves slower, loses talent, and struggles to protect witnesses and victims at scale.

4

Arrest Crisis: A member state moves on an ICC warrant and ignites a diplomatic firestorm

Discussed by: Longstanding analyst debate on ICC enforcement; recurring media focus on travel risk for warrant subjects

If an ICC member state attempts to execute an Israel-related warrant—or even meaningfully advances cooperation—Washington and Jerusalem could respond with intense bilateral pressure and potentially punitive steps. The trigger is a trip, a transit stop, or a quiet enforcement attempt that becomes public. The immediate result would be a high-stakes test of whether treaty obligations beat alliance politics in the real world.

Historical Context

Trump’s first-term sanctions on ICC officials (Afghanistan investigation fight)

2020–2021

What Happened

After the ICC moved toward investigating alleged crimes linked to Afghanistan, the U.S. imposed sanctions and visa measures on ICC figures. The policy framed ICC scrutiny of U.S. personnel as illegitimate and dangerous.

Outcome

Short Term

ICC officials faced concrete disruption and diplomatic pressure.

Long Term

The episode normalized sanctions as a tool against international justice actors—now revived and expanded.

Why It's Relevant Today

It shows the playbook: you can weaken a court without defeating it in court.

American Servicemembers’ Protection Act (the “Hague Invasion Act” era)

2002

What Happened

Congress built legal guardrails against ICC jurisdiction over U.S. personnel, including restrictions on cooperation and strong protective language. It anchored a bipartisan instinct: the ICC is acceptable until it touches Americans or close allies.

Outcome

Short Term

U.S. cooperation with the ICC became selective and politically fragile.

Long Term

Successive administrations gained tools and precedent to confront the court when interests collide.

Why It's Relevant Today

Today’s sanctions are the financial enforcement version of a much older sovereignty doctrine.

Russia retaliates against the ICC after the Putin warrant

2023–2024

What Happened

After the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin, Russia responded with its own retaliatory legal actions targeting ICC figures. It treated the court not as neutral law, but as hostile statecraft.

Outcome

Short Term

ICC officials became personal targets of state retaliation.

Long Term

The ICC’s deterrence power became inseparable from geopolitics and counter-pressure.

Why It's Relevant Today

The U.S. move puts it in an uncomfortable club: states that answer legal exposure by punishing legal actors.

12 Sources:
+6
Reuters Associated Press U.S. Department of the Treasury — OFAC The White House United Nations (UNISPAL) / International Criminal Court Assembly of States Parties (ICC) Reuters U.S. Department of the Treasury — OFAC Reuters Reuters U.S. Department of the Treasury — OFAC Assembly of States Parties (ICC)