When the distinguished Canadian jurist, Kimberly Prost, began her term as a judge of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2017, she could not have imagined what happened on 20 August 2025. That day, the United States imposed sanctions on her, putting her on a list alongside those implicated in terrorism and organized crime.
Judge Prost is one of eight ICC judges sanctioned by the US during 2025, along with the ICC prosecutor and two deputy prosecutors. They are all being penalised – without any due process – for performing their professional duties as mandated by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. They have all vowed to continue their work “absolutely undeterred and unfettered” by the sanctions.
Judge Prost is being punished for her part in the ICC’s March 2020 ruling to authorize an investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan since 2003. The investigation potentially could include war crimes committed by personnel of the US armed services and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
The attacks against the ICC are part of a wholesale US assault on international legal norms and institutions since the 20 January 2025 inauguration of President Donald J. Trump. Exactly a year later, Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney made a blunt statement at the World Economic Forum in Davos that the world order has been ruptured, and that we now face a “brutal reality where geopolitics among the great powers is not subject to any constraints.”
While Mr. Carney did not mention the ICC, he acknowledged that we knew that “the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient,” and “that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.” He proposed that “middle powers like Canada” have the capacity “to build a new order that embodies our values, like respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.”
This column considers what can be done to strengthen respect for human rights and to fulfil the promise of equal justice for the millions of victims of atrocity crimes around the world, who, as their last resort, seek accountability of perpetrators in the ICC.
Coercion of the ICC by the US and Russia
On 6 February 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14203, launching a series of harsh sanctions targeting the ICC. During 2025, sanctions were imposed on eight ICC judges, the ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan (of the United Kingdom), and Deputy Prosecutors Nazhat Shameem Khan (Fiji) and Mame Mandiaye Niang (Senegal). Persons and organizations cooperating with the Court have also been sanctioned, including the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, and three Palestinian human rights law organizations.
The US claims that the ICC has no jurisdiction over citizens of countries that are not States Parties to the Rome Statute, such as US or Israeli citizens. While this argument is longstanding, it holds no water. While the US and Israel have not ratified the Rome Statute, both Palestine and Afghanistan have. The Rome Statute gives the ICC jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide:
- committed on the territories of States Parties to the Rome Statute, regardless of their citizenship;
- committed by citizens of States Parties; or
- on referral by the UN Security Council.
The ICC may investigate such crimes only if relevant States cannot or will not do so.
The 2025 sanctions largely replicate the 2020 sanctions of the first Trump administration against former ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda. Those sanctions were lifted in 2021 by President Biden.
In September 2021, the new Prosecutor, Karim Khan, announced that due to limited resources the Afghanistan investigation would focus on the Taliban and Islamic State, deprioritising “other aspects” of the investigation. This decision chagrined human rights advocates and the victims of war crimes allegedly committed by US personnel. The Prosecutor’s measure did not satisfy the second Trump administration, which re-upped the sanctions in 2025 to try to force the ICC to fully shield US personnel. The US sanctions were also intended to shield “certain of its allies, including Israel” in the face of the ICC’s 21 November 2024 arrest warrants against Israeli officials.
The 2025 sanctions all relate to ICC investigations of crimes in Palestine since 13 June 2014 or Afghanistan since 1 May 2003. In December 2025, the Trump administration threatened to sanction the ICC as a whole unless it drops investigations related to US personnel in Afghanistan and Israeli leaders in Gaza, and unless the Rome Statute is amended to preclude investigation of President Trump and his senior officials. The Rome Statute can be amended only by its 125 States Parties.
Russia retaliated against the ICC after it issued arrest warrants for six Russian officials for war crimes in Ukraine. In December 2025, Russia placed nine current or former elected ICC officials on an international wanted list after sentencing them in absentia to lengthy prison terms.
Other attacks on the ICC include cyberattacks in 2023 and 2025 by unknown actors.
ICC sanctions as “civil death”
The US sanctions have been called civil death sentences, because sanctioned persons “can no longer participate in normal business and social life.” The sanctioned jurists cannot enter the US, and their US property and assets are blocked.
The sanctions have had a sweeping impact on the ICC, far beyond its investigations regarding Palestine and Afghanistan. For example, sanctioned Deputy Prosecutor Nazhat Shameen Khan was denied a visa to travel to New York for a 19 December 2025 UN Security Council session to report on the ICC investigation in Darfur, Sudan; she was able to give her report by video.
Several sanctioned judges have spoken about how the sanctions affect their lives. Judge Prost said,
You immediately lose your credit cards – it doesn’t matter where they were issued or by what bank… If you have assets in the United States, then they’re frozen … I can’t buy US dollars… I can’t buy some other kinds of currencies, because the transaction would go through the US system … it’s paralysing…
The purpose is clear. They have said, basically, we’re imposing these sanctions because of decisions you’ve taken in your role as a judge. So effectively, they are interfering directly with the independence of a judge…
Sanctioned French Judge Nicolas Guillou said, “The sanctions affect all aspects of my daily life. They prohibit any American… person or company, including their overseas subsidiaries, from providing me with services…” Sanctioned Peruvian Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza reported that, “we’re treated like pariahs, we are on a list with terrorists and drug dealers.”
Sanctioned ICC President, Judge Tomoko Akane (of Japan) noted that when “judges are pressured, threatened, or undermined, the credibility of international law itself is weakened.”
“Chilling climate” for civil society
To build its cases, the ICC depends on researchers, lawyers, human rights defenders, victims, and witnesses. From January to July 2025, over 18,000 victims participated in the work of the ICC .
American and US-based human rights advocates face particular risks, including potential civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance with the sanctions. Some US-based human rights organizations have curtailed cooperation with the ICC or dismissed their American staff out of concern for potential prosecution. Risks are also faced by people cooperating with the ICC on investigations in Burundi, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Libya, Mali, Myanmar/Bangladesh, Nigeria, Philippines, Sudan (Darfur), Ukraine, and Venezuela.
The sanctions are unlawful
The US sanctions against ICC officials constitute offences under the Rome Statute, Article 70, which prohibits retaliation against or intimidation of ICC officials for purposes of “forcing or persuading the official not to perform, or to perform improperly, his or her duties…” Sanctions against the UN Special Rapporteur violate the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.
The sanctions violate rights to freedom of expression, association, assembly, and due process guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which is binding on the US. The sanctions also contravene UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, and the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.
Responses: A study in contrast
ICC judges, prosecutors, and other personnel are demonstrating exceptional resolve, carrying out their functions independently and impartially despite the sanctions, and building technical and financial resilience and autonomy. The ICC has consistently issued statements condemning the attempts to interfere with its work.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called for a halt to the US sanctions in July 2025, saying that “[e]ven in the face of fierce disagreement, UN Member States should engage substantively and constructively, rather than resort to punitive measures.” In August 2025, he again sought withdrawal of the sanctions, calling on the international community for measures to protect those sanctioned. So far, no such measures have been undertaken. Dozens of UN independent experts denounced the sanctions imposed on the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories as an unlawful and “direct attack on the integrity of the UN human rights system.”
Push-back by States Parties to the Rome Statute has been weak and inconsistent. Several States Parties whose citizens have been sanctioned have expressed solidarity with targeted judges.
In August 2025, the French government said it was “appalled” by the sanctions and called the US to withdraw them, saying they “are an attack on the Court and all 125 States Parties to the Rome Statute and are contrary to the principle of the independence of the judicial system.” In December 2025, France again called on the US to lift the sanctions.
Senegal expressed “astonishment” at the August 2025 sanctions which included Senegalese Deputy Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang. Senegal called on the US to lift the sanctions, saying they “constitute a serious violation of the principle of judicial independence.”
In October 2025, Slovenia stated that the sanctions “not only endanger the individuals concerned, including EU nationals, but strike at the heart of judicial independence and the international rule of law. Slovenia’s statement called on the EU “to stand united in defending those who serve justice on behalf of the international community.”
It is worth noting the response of China, which has not ratified the Rome Statute and is regularly criticized for human rights violations, including crimes against humanity. As an observer of the December 2025 Assembly of States Parties, China stated that it “…condemns unilateral sanctions that violate international law” and which place an “individual State’s own will and domestic laws above international law, and are detrimental to the international legal order.”
By contrast, the UK has expressed general “concern.” Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs issued a social media statement on 2 September 2025 which made no direct reference to the sanctions but indicated “utmost confidence” in Canadian Judge Kimberly Prost to be “objective and impartial in the performance of her duties.” At the Assembly of States Parties on 2 December 2025, Canada observed that “sanctions… against Court officials, including one Canadian citizen, have profound impacts on targeted individuals and a discouraging effect on staff, civil society, and other stakeholders…,” noting that “[d]efending the Court’s independence is… about safeguarding our entire rules-based international order.”
Canada’s tepid responses to the US sanctions differ dramatically from its vaunted “pivotal role” in the development of the Rome Statute during the 1990s. Judge Prost was personally engaged in its negotiation on behalf of Canada. Canada was one of its founding signatories and ratified it in 2000 after enacting the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act to implement it in Canadian law. While Canada has used the law to prosecute several individuals, it is seen as underused. Instead of seeking accountability in Canada of persons suspected of atrocity crimes, Canada’s practice has been to bar their entry or deport them.
Reluctance by individual states to challenge US bullying is understandable given the climate of fear of economic retaliation. Joint action by the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute in December 2025 achieved stronger language in a consensus resolution that “condemns any threats, attacks, incitement or interference thereto, including sanctions or measures of a similar effect, against the Court, its personnel or those cooperating with it, including civil society.”
International context: US weaponization of State power
Attacks against the ICC are part of a broader failure of States, particularly great powers like the US, Russia and China, to give meaningful financial or political support to the fundamental principles enshrined in the 80-year-old UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and human rights treaties and mechanisms.
The assault against the ICC is part of the Trump administration’s comprehensive siege against the rule of law and international institutions. The President withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council within a week of his inauguration. Closure of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has devastated humanitarian and development programs around the world, including rule of law, legal aid, and human rights projects.
In early January 2026, President Trump withdrew from 66 international organizations and treaties. This followed on the heels of aggression against Venezuela and threats to invade Greenland, which fundamentally violate the UN Charter. President Trump continues his threats against Canada’s economy and sovereignty (albeit short of military invasion).
At home, the Trump administration’s systematic and discriminatory campaign to deport immigrants and asylum seekers is accompanied by shocking levels of arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, excessive use of force, and extrajudicial killings.
Analysts now characterise the US under the Trump administration as authoritarian, or even as a rogue great power that weaponizes military, economic, and political power against any person, entity, or State that offends President Trump or opposes his will.
Measures to protect the ICC
Blocking statutes
Among the recommendations to curb the impact of the ICC-related sanctions are calls to create and adopt blocking statutes. The European Union could activate its blocking regulation as advocated on 19 December 2025 by the EU Commission Subcommittee on Human Rights. This would protect ICC judges and personnel from extra-territorial application of the US sanctions while they are resident in EU countries.
Canada, too, has a blocking statute, the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act. The Attorney General of Canada could use this statute to prohibit compliance (or overcompliance) with the ICC-related sanctions in Canada.
Laws to protect human rights lawyers and defenders
Canada and other States could adopt and implement laws to protect human rights defenders, according to the model law drafted by the Geneva-based International Service for Human Rights. Canada’s “Voices at Risk” policy for protection of human rights defenders could be activated to seek protection of any human rights defenders affected by the sanctions.
Linking arms to uphold human rights
The durability of the ICC is linked to the viability of other human rights institutions, including the UN Human Rights Council. It remains to be seen how middle powers will respond to Prime Minister Carney’s call to link arms to create “a new order that embodies… respect for human rights…”
Coalitions of States
Diplomacy to protect the ICC must go beyond quiet, back-channel communications, and oblique statements of general support. To prevent further erosion of the international rule of law, small and middle powers, including Canada, need to join forces to uphold international human rights law and institutions. Any such coalition must engage the 125 States Parties to the Rome Statute – which comprise 65 percent of the 193 UN member States. All Rome Statute member States are obligated by the treaty to cooperate with the ICC, e.g., through timely payment of ICC financial obligations; compliance with rulings; fulfilment of arrest warrants; and active measures to protect ICC judges and officials, UN experts, human rights defenders, and victims who provide the Court with evidence and legal analysis.
Civil society coalitions including independent reporting
The real hope is in the vigour of civil society around the world. There are encouraging prospects for strategic international alliances of civil society, including the legal profession, to push governments to uphold human rights. Inspiration can be drawn from US civil society, including legal challenges and nonviolent civil resistance to the Trump administration’s human rights violations.
Independent reporting of violations, court challenges, and citizens’ nonviolent resistance have resulted in steady decline of public support for the Trump administration’s abuses. Some of President Trump’s staunchest political, church-based, and media allies have issued recent denunciations. Other supporters are “sneaking away” quietly.
Coalitions of legal experts
Research and analysis by independent legal academics and experts provide important guidance for States. Lawyers in the US have been tireless in taking up cases to protect victims of government overreach. Legal experts are seeking ways to encourage media outlets to publicise their recommendations. Lawyers are increasingly supporting human rights organizations working to uphold the rule of law.
Human rights organizations have issued statements denouncing the sanctions. The international Coalition for the ICC has issued statements opposing the US sanctions, endorsed by NGOs from around the world. The international coalition for the Day of the Endangered Lawyer, marked annually on 24 January, focused on the US in 2026. Its recommendations include a call to lift ICC sanctions.
Concluding reflection
Cynical resignation or arm-chair sneers at governments, the UN, or the ICC provide no answers. The UN and the ICC are creatures of States – large and small. Governments cannot effectively rule without consent, cooperation, or silence of sufficiently large number of citizens.
Civil society, including lawyers, can join hands to push Canadian and other governments to cooperate to firmly uphold international law, particularly human rights law and institutions, including the world’s court of last resort for accountability for what the Rome Statute calls “unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity.” Those whose consciences are shocked by current events can find ways to move beyond paralysis, joining with others to uphold the rule of law.
The post Attacks Against the International Criminal Court: Who Cares About Victims of Atrocity Crimes? appeared first on Slaw.