International Criminal Court Judges Sue US Over Sanctions Imposed by Trump Administration
Overview of the Lawsuit and Background
By Daphne Psaledakis
WASHINGTON, June 24 (Reuters) - Three International Criminal Court judges on Wednesday sued U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration over sanctions imposed on them last year, arguing the measures were unlawful.
Details of the Lawsuit
In the lawsuit filed in the federal court in Manhattan, 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.
US Government Response
The State and Treasury departments and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Background on the Sanctions
The Trump administration imposed sanctions on several judges at the International Criminal Court last year in an unprecedented retaliation over the war tribunal's issuance of an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a past decision to open a case into alleged war crimes by U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
Impact of Sanctions on Financial Transactions
Sanctions severely hamper individuals' abilities to carry out even routine financial transactions as any banks with ties to the United States, or that conduct transactions in dollars, are expected to have to comply with the restrictions.
The Role and Jurisdiction of the ICC
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 U.N. Security Council.
Countries Not Recognizing ICC Authority
Although the ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in its 125 member countries, some nations, including the U.S., China, Russia, and Israel, do not recognize its authority.
History of US-ICC Relations
The Trump administration's dislike of the court goes back to Trump's first term. In 2020, Washington imposed sanctions on then-prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and one of her top aides over the court's work on Afghanistan.
Legal Arguments and Effects of Sanctions
Judges Challenge Legal Basis
JUDGES CHALLENGE LEGAL BASIS
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.
Allegations of Extrajudicial Pressure
"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.
Consequences for Judges' Daily Lives
"Being subjected to such sanctions under IEEPA is tantamount to the financial death penalty. 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 some cases, obtain health insurance," it said.
Impact on Judicial Proceedings
The judges also said that the sanctions bar the submission of evidence and argument in any pending or future proceeding before them.
(Reporting by Daphne Psaledakis in Washington; Editing by Matthew Lewis)
