The Hague, Netherlands — The International Criminal Court (ICC) has expressed strong opposition to recent sanctions imposed by the United States on its judges and prosecutors, calling the actions a significant violation of the court’s independence. The sanctions, announced Wednesday by the U.S. State Department, specifically target two judges and two prosecutors.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the ICC as a threat to national security, alleging it engages in a “lawfare” campaign against American and Israeli citizens. This assertion follows the ICC’s decision to issue arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for their alleged roles in war crimes linked to the ongoing conflict in Gaza. Netanyahu welcomed the U.S. actions, framing them as necessary against what he called a deceitful smear campaign aimed at Israel.

France, meanwhile, has joined the ICC in condemning the U.S. sanctions, expressing dismay that one of its own judges, Nicolas Guillou, is among those affected. The State Department has criticized the ICC for its “politicization” and “illegitimate judicial overreach,” part of a broader pattern of U.S. sanctions that have previously targeted senior officials in the court.

In addition to Guillou, the other officials identified for sanctions include Canadian judge Kimberly Prost and deputy prosecutors Nazhat Shameem Khan from Fiji and Mame Mandiaye Niang from Senegal. The U.S. claims these individuals engaged in actions that are contrary to its interests, including warrants against Israeli leaders and investigations into U.S. personnel in Afghanistan.

The ICC has described the sanctions as a blatant attack on its impartiality and a challenge to the principles of international law. In its response, the court emphasized that such measures not only undermine its operations but also disregard the rights of countless victims worldwide seeking justice.

France’s foreign ministry criticized the sanctions as inconsistent with the foundational principle of judicial independence. The U.S. restrictions mean that the sanctioned officials cannot hold property or financial interests in the United States.

This development marks a continuation of tensions between the U.S. and the ICC, which has previously faced criticism from both American officials and lawmakers who question its legitimacy and motives. Earlier this year, similar sanctions were imposed against the ICC’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, along with other judges.

Calls for the U.S. to reconsider its stance have been echoed by various human rights advocates, including the United Nations’ human rights chief, who argued that the sanctions undermine respect for the rule of law. In a related matter, the U.S. also sanctioned Francesca Albanese, a U.N. Human Rights Council special rapporteur, for her criticism of Israel’s military actions in Gaza.

In a strong statement made on social media, Albanese reaffirmed her commitment to justice, indicating that her work is rooted in a tradition of judicial integrity that she aims to uphold. As geopolitical tensions continue to escalate, the interplay between U.S. foreign policy and international legal frameworks remains a focal point of international discourse.