Introduction: A Turning Point in U.S. Policy toward the ICC
The December 18, 2025, move by Secretary of State Marco Rubio to sanction two International Criminal Court (ICC) judges marks a provocative shift in how the United States navigates international justice. By targeting judges rather than the ICC as an institution, Washington signals that it will selectively engage with the court based on perceived alignment with U.S. policy interests. This development sits at the intersection of congressional sentiment, executive diplomacy, and the long-running debate over the ICC’s role in accountability for serious crimes.
Background: The ICC, Sanctions, and the Idea of Selective Engagement
The ICC was established to prosecute genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression. For many lawmakers, the court embodies a crucial mechanism for global justice. For others, it represents a potential constraint on national sovereignty. The United States has historically been wary of perceived jurisdiction creep and has used various tools—diplomatic pressure, sanctions, or non-cooperation—to shape ICC behavior. The recent sanctions appear to extend that toolkit by targeting individuals whose judicial decisions or conduct the administration deems problematic.
What Is Meant by “Selective Engagement”?
Selective engagement describes a policy posture where a state cooperates with international institutions when outcomes align with its strategic goals, while withholding or shaping cooperation when they do not. Critics warn that this approach erodes universal standards of accountability, potentially weaponizing international justice for partisan ends. Proponents argue that it protects national interests and prevents unwanted interference by external bodies in domestic matters.
The Sanctions: A Signal to Judges or a Broader Policy Statement?
The decision to sanction Gocha Lordkipanidze of Georgia and Erdenebalsuren Damdin of Mongolia—two judges with duties before the ICC—prompted immediate questions about scope, legality, and precedent. Are sanctions aimed at signaling concern over judicial independence, or do they threaten to chill ICC proceedings and other international judicial processes? The administration contends that the sanctions are a response to specific behaviors that undermine due process or undermine the court’s integrity. Critics counter that punitive actions against individual judges risk politicizing judicial roles and eroding the impartiality central to international justice.
Congressional Context: A Bipartisan Wariness of the ICC
Across the political spectrum, lawmakers have voiced concerns about the ICC’s reach and accountability mechanisms. Some lawmakers argue that the court has overstepped its mandate or disproportionately targeted certain states. Others defend the ICC as a necessary tool for accountability. The current approach—singling out judges—reflects a broader stance: the executive branch will use sanctions as leverage to shape international justice outcomes while Congress debates the legitimacy and effectiveness of the ICC’s jurisdiction.
<h2Implications for Accountability and Rule of Law
The sanctions raise fundamental questions about how to preserve accountability while balancing sovereign concerns. If a state threatens or punishes individual actors within an international court, what are the consequences for due process, transparency, and the protection of defendants’ rights? Moreover, how does this approach affect victims seeking justice for grave crimes, and how might it influence other international bodies facing political pressure?
Potential Pathways Forward: Reform, Dialogue, and Guardrails
To address the tensions, several pathways could help. First, formalizing clear criteria for sanctions that respect due process while addressing genuine concerns about fairness or integrity. Second, enhancing congressional oversight of U.S. engagement with international courts to ensure consistent, principled policy. Third, promoting ongoing dialogue with ICC leadership to resolve disputes through negotiation rather than punishment. These measures would aim to preserve international justice’s universal standards while guarding against strategic abuse of sanction tools.
Conclusion: The Future of International Justice and U.S. Engagement
The sanctions against ICC judges illuminate a broader debate about how the United States should engage with international justice institutions. The challenge lies in pursuing accountability and the rule of law without undermining the legitimacy of the courts themselves. As Congress and the administration continue their debate, the world will watch to see whether selective engagement becomes a durable feature of American policy or a temporary tactic in a tense political landscape.
