ICC President Asks Japan to Counter US Pressure on the War Crimes Court
The president of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Tomoko Akane, has asked Japan to push back against a US campaign pressuring member states to leave the court. Speaking by video link to reporters in Tokyo on August 26, 2026, Akane — herself hit with US sanctions just days earlier — noted that Japan is the court's biggest financial contributor and urged Tokyo to help neighboring ICC members resist the American pressure to withdraw (Al Jazeera).
The appeal follows sanctions announced one week prior by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio against Akane and ICC senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye. The sanctions freeze any US-based assets the two may hold and bar them and their families from traveling to the United States (Reuters). The move drew swift condemnation: the ICC published an official rejection on August 19 (ICC), the Presidency of the Assembly of States Parties (the ICC's governing body of member nations) expressed deep regret (ICC), UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he was seriously concerned (Reuters), and Human Rights Watch called the sanctions an affront to victims worldwide (HRW).
Akane also urged Japan to use its close relationship with the United States to discourage Washington from escalating further against the court. Japan had in fact tried to talk the US out of imposing the sanctions before the White House went ahead, according to reporting from August 20 (New York Times). That effort failed. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi called the sanctions "very unfortunate" but drew criticism from opposition parties, human rights groups, and some lawmakers within her own party for not defending the court more forcefully (Al Jazeera).
The United States, which is not a member of the ICC, has said it will intensify efforts to persuade countries to leave the court. At least five countries have already done so. The campaign stems from two sources of friction: the ICC's decision to seek an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and a past investigation into US troops in Afghanistan — both of which angered Washington (Al Jazeera).
The ICC was created in 2002 under the Rome Statute to prosecute war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Japan joined in 2007 and has since become its largest financial contributor — a role Akane highlighted to frame Tokyo's responsibility toward the court's survival. The US sanctions mechanism targeting ICC officials is not entirely new; the Trump administration first moved to impose sanctions on the court in early 2025, with additional designations announced in June 2025 (Reuters; ICC). The August 2026 sanctions extend that framework to the court's sitting president for the first time.
Akane's choice to address Tokyo directly, rather than the full Assembly of States Parties, is worth noting. Japan holds an unusual combination of roles: the ICC's top financial backer, a member in good standing, and a treaty ally of the United States with enough diplomatic weight to raise sensitive issues with Washington directly. The fact that Tokyo's effort to dissuade the White House before the sanctions landed did not succeed suggests that Japan's diplomatic channel, while active, has clear limits. Domestically, the backlash against Takaichi's restrained response shows the sanctions have become a live political issue in Japan, with growing pressure for a firmer stance — pressure that could complicate the broader management of the US-Japan alliance.
The five withdrawals secured under the US campaign, while a small fraction of the ICC's 125 member states, amount to a real erosion of the court's reach. If the campaign accelerates, the institutional question is whether the court can maintain its financial and political base without a strong counter-mobilization by its major stakeholders. Akane's framing of Japan as the court's biggest funder places the onus on Tokyo to lead that effort, whether through bilateral diplomacy with neighboring states, direct engagement with Washington, or multilateral channels within the Assembly of States Parties. Whether Takaichi's government shifts from expressing regret to applying active counter-pressure will be a leading indicator of how far the US campaign can go unchecked.
The broader context here is that the sanctions also raise a structural question about the ICC's operational independence. Targeting a sitting president and a senior trial lawyer with asset freezes and travel restrictions is designed to impose personal costs on the people responsible for the court's prosecutorial and institutional decisions. Akane has previously stated that US sanctions will not change how the court handles cases, a position she maintained as recently as December 2025 (Reuters). Sustaining that posture under escalating pressure — including the active US drive to shrink membership — will test the court's resilience in ways that go well beyond any single case.
Background: What Is the ICC?
The International Criminal Court, based in The Hague, is the world's only permanent tribunal for prosecuting individuals accused of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. It was established by the Rome Statute, a treaty that took effect in 2002. Countries that join the court — known as states parties — agree to cooperate with its investigations and prosecutions. The United States, China, and Russia are among the major nations that have not joined. The ICC is funded by contributions from its member states, proportional to their economic size, which is how Japan, as a major economy, became its largest contributor.
What Sanctions Mean in This Context
In international affairs, sanctions are punitive measures one country imposes on individuals, organizations, or other countries to pressure them into changing behavior. In this case, the US sanctions freeze any assets the targeted ICC officials may hold within US jurisdiction and block them and their families from entering the United States. The goal is to make the court's leadership bear personal costs for decisions Washington opposes — a tactic that, if effective, could deter the ICC from pursuing cases the US finds objectionable.
