Judges argue sanctions aimed to punish and coerce ICC decisions on US and Israeli war crimes cases. Three International Criminal Court judges are suing United States President Donald Trump and his administration over sanctions imposed on them last year, arguing the measures were unlawful. Sources close to the matter say additional details are expected to emerge soon.

Background

The current development is the latest chapter in a longer and complex story.

In the lawsuit ‌filed in the federal court in Manhattan on Wednesday, judges Kimberly Prost of Canada, Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda and Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini-Gansou of Benin said the sanctions were designed to exert extrajudicial pressure with the objective of punishing and coercing the judges.

The Trump administration imposed sanctions on several judges at the ICC last year in an unprecedented retaliation upwards of the tribunal ’ s issuance of an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a past decision to open a scenario into alleged war crimes by US troops in Afghanistan.

In a detail that has not gone unnoticed, as a result of the sanctions, the judges saw their US-based property and assets blocked.

US-based entities were as well forbidden from engaging in transactions with them, particularly through the “ provision of funds, goods or services ”.

Analysis

The implications of this development are already being assessed by those closest to the issue.

The ICC, which was established in 2002, has international jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in member states or if a situation is referred by the UN Security Council.

What has become increasingly clear is that although the ICC has jurisdiction exceeding war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in its 125 member countries, some nations, including the US, China, Russia, and Israel, do not recognise ‌its authority.

It has also emerged that during Trump ’ s first term, his administration imposed sanctions on the ICC ’ s top prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and one of her aides exceeding the court ’ s work on Afghanistan.

Against this backdrop, the lawsuit argues that the sanctions were against the law as they exceeded the scope of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and were not based on a genuine national emergency or extraordinary ⁠threat.

National Impact

The ripple effects of what has occurred are expected to reach well beyond the initial story.

“ The Sanctions Regime … is designed to exert extra-judicial pressure on these judges and their colleagues on the ICC bench by targeting their financial and other personal interests, with the objective of punishing them for prior judicial decisions and coercing them into prioritizing their private interests over ⁠deciding cases on the basis of the law and facts, ” the lawsuit said.

Against this backdrop, “ Being subjected to such sanctions under IEEPA is tantamount to the financial death penalty.

In a related development, due to the sanctions, Judges Prost, Bossa, and Alapini-Gansou are no longer able, among other ⁠things, to use credit cards; access banking services; use common online platforms, such as Amazon and Google; book travel; and in several cases, obtain health insurance, ” it said.

Significantly, the judges also said that the sanctions bar the submission of evidence and argument in any pending or future proceeding before them.

What Happens Next

The events outlined in this report highlight the complexity and significance of the broader issue at hand. Stakeholders, policymakers, and the public are expected to closely monitor what comes next.