On December 18, 2025, the United States escalated its confrontation with the International Criminal Court (ICC) by imposing sanctions on two of its judges, Gocha Lordkipanidze of Georgia and Erdenebalsuren Damdin of Mongolia. The move, announced by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, drew swift condemnation from the ICC and reignited a heated debate over the boundaries of international justice and national sovereignty.
According to Reuters and multiple international outlets, the sanctions were enacted under Executive Order 14203, a directive signed by President Donald Trump in February 2025. This executive order specifically targets ICC officials involved in efforts to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute nationals of states that do not accept the court’s jurisdiction. In this case, the US targeted Lordkipanidze and Damdin for their roles in a recent ICC panel that rejected Israeli legal challenges against a probe into alleged war crimes committed during the Gaza conflict.
"Today, I am designating two International Criminal Court (ICC) judges, Gocha Lordkipanidze of Georgia and Erdenebalsuren Damdin of Mongolia, pursuant to Executive Order 14203," Rubio stated, as cited by Reuters. He continued, "These individuals have directly engaged in efforts by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute Israeli nationals, without Israel’s consent." The Secretary of State’s statement left little doubt about Washington’s rationale: defending Israeli officials from what it views as overreach by an international body whose authority the US does not recognize.
The timing of the sanctions is notable. Just days earlier, Lordkipanidze and Damdin were part of an ICC panel that refused to overturn a lower court’s decision. That decision allowed the prosecution’s investigation to include alleged crimes committed after the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas. The investigation, which has been a point of tension for months, aims to scrutinize actions by all parties in the conflict, including Israeli officials, for possible war crimes and crimes against humanity.
This latest round of US sanctions marks the fourth such measure against ICC officials in 2025 alone, bringing the total number of sanctioned senior court figures to 11. The penalties are significant: any US-based assets held by the designated individuals are frozen, and both the judges and their families are barred from entering the United States. These restrictions, while largely symbolic in terms of immediate financial impact, send a powerful diplomatic message and further isolate the ICC from two of the world’s most influential powers, the US and Israel.
The ICC, for its part, did not mince words in its response. In a strongly worded statement, the court declared, "These sanctions are a flagrant attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution." The statement continued, warning that "the measures put the international legal order at risk" and amount to direct interference in the administration of justice. The ICC has repeatedly argued that its mandate is to hold individuals accountable for the world’s gravest crimes—genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity—regardless of political pressure or the nationality of the accused.
The core of the dispute lies in a fundamental clash of legal philosophies. The United States and Israel are not members of the ICC and do not recognize its authority over their citizens. Both countries argue that the court lacks jurisdiction to investigate alleged crimes committed by their nationals, especially when those actions take place outside the territory of ICC member states. However, the ICC maintains that it has the right to proceed with investigations at the request of member states—such as the Palestinian territories, which joined the court in 2015.
That membership has proven consequential. In 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense chief Yoav Gallant, accusing them of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the use of starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza. These warrants, which have no legal force in countries that do not recognize the ICC, nonetheless carry significant symbolic weight and have fueled fierce debate over the reach and legitimacy of international justice mechanisms.
From the US perspective, the ICC’s actions are seen as politically motivated and a violation of state sovereignty. The American government has long maintained that its own legal system is capable of investigating and prosecuting alleged crimes by its citizens and allies. The imposition of sanctions, as outlined by Rubio, is intended to deter what Washington views as illegitimate attempts to target Israeli officials for actions taken in the context of national defense.
Meanwhile, the ICC and its supporters argue that no state should be above the law when it comes to the gravest violations of human rights. They contend that the court’s independence is essential to ensuring accountability and preventing impunity for war crimes, regardless of the political sensitivities involved. The ICC’s statement following the sanctions underscored this position, emphasizing the risks to the global legal order if powerful states are allowed to intimidate or punish judges for carrying out their duties.
The Palestinian territories, admitted as an ICC member state a decade ago, have played a pivotal role in these proceedings. By requesting investigations into alleged crimes committed during the ongoing conflict with Israel, Palestinian authorities have sought to leverage international legal mechanisms to hold Israeli leaders accountable. This has further complicated the already fraught dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, drawing in global powers and raising questions about the future of international criminal justice.
As for the practical impact of the sanctions, some observers note that most ICC judges and officials have limited exposure to US financial systems and rarely travel to the United States. However, the broader implications are hard to ignore. The move could chill cooperation between the US and other international legal bodies, embolden other states to take similar measures against international judges, and deepen divisions between proponents of multilateral justice and advocates of national sovereignty.
Ultimately, the latest sanctions underscore the enduring tensions at the heart of the international legal system. As the ICC continues its investigations—undeterred by diplomatic pressure—the clash between powerful states and international institutions is likely to intensify. With more rounds of sanctions possible and the stakes growing ever higher, the world is left to grapple with a fundamental question: who holds the ultimate authority to judge the actions of nations and their leaders?