The United States announced sanctions on two judges from the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Gocha Lordkipanidze of Georgia and Erdenebalsuren Damdin of Mongolia. This decision, according to a statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, comes in response to what is perceived as the judges’ “illegitimate targeting of Israel.” The sanctions block their entry into the U.S. and freeze any U.S.-based assets. The move is part of ongoing pushback against ICC actions concerning Israel, reiterating a commitment outlined in Executive Order 14203.
This order allows the U.S. to sanction non-American individuals engaged in ICC activities that affect “protected persons” without consent from the person’s country of nationality. Rubio stated that the judges’ involvement fit this criterion, highlighting their votes against Israel’s appeal on December 15. Israel sought a new notification to account for post-October 7 events, a request rejected by the court based on a 2021 notification covering future incidents, as detailed in a report.
This latest action is part of the third round of sanctions by the Trump administration in connection with the Israel-Gaza conflict. The administration previously sanctioned ICC personnel including former chief prosecutor Karim Khan and several judges from various countries. These measures against ICC members, especially in cases involving Israel, have been criticized as undermining international justice. The Presidency of the Assembly of States Parties expressed regret, emphasizing the need for the court to fulfill its duties under the Rome Statute.
Criticism has also come from organizations like Human Rights Watch, which argues that such sanctions threaten the pursuit of justice on a global scale. Despite this, Secretary Rubio reaffirmed the U.S. stance, stating that since both the U.S. and Israel are not party to the Rome Statute, they do not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction in these matters. He emphasized that the U.S. will maintain significant repercussions for perceived overreach by the ICC.
This stance reflects a continuing conflict between U.S. foreign policy and international legal institutions, raising questions about the balance between national sovereignty and international accountability.