Can you name the top 20 men’s bowlers in the world based on the International Cricket Council’s Test rankings?
There are plenty of big names but some less obvious answers too. There is also only one Englishman.
Have a go at our quiz and let us know your score in the comments.
Japan has issued an unusually direct criticism of its U.S. ally after Washington imposed sanctions on International Criminal Court President Tomoko Akane and senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye.
Japan’s foreign ministry described the sanctions as “very unfortunate” and reaffirmed Tokyo’s support for the ICC and its role in prosecuting serious international crimes. The statement marks a rare public disagreement between Tokyo and Washington over an issue of international law.
The dispute comes as the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump intensifies its campaign against the Hague based court. Washington has increasingly challenged the ICC over its investigations and arrest warrants involving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as its earlier investigation into U.S. personnel in Afghanistan.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
For Japan, however, the issue is particularly sensitive. Tokyo depends heavily on the United States for its national defence, yet it has consistently supported the ICC and the broader international legal framework surrounding it.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the sanctions targeted individuals involved in ICC efforts to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute officials from governments that have not consented to the court’s jurisdiction.
Among those sanctioned was Tomoko Akane, a Japanese judge who serves as ICC president. Abdoulaye Seye, a Senegalese senior trial lawyer, was also targeted. Seye was part of the prosecution team that sought an arrest warrant for Netanyahu and has been nominated for election as an ICC judge.
Washington argues that the ICC has exceeded its authority by pursuing officials from countries that have not accepted its jurisdiction.
The United States is not a member of the ICC and has repeatedly objected to the court’s actions involving American personnel and Israeli officials.
The latest sanctions therefore represent another escalation in Washington’s confrontation with the institution.
Japan joined the ICC in 2007 and has consistently supported its role in prosecuting war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.
Tokyo’s foreign ministry said Japan remains committed to strengthening the rule of law internationally while maintaining communication with countries involved in the dispute.
Japan’s position reflects its broader commitment to international institutions and rules based governance.
For Tokyo, the ICC is not simply a legal institution. It is part of a wider international order in which disputes and allegations of serious crimes are addressed through established legal mechanisms.
That creates an obvious tension with Washington’s increasingly confrontational approach.
Japan rarely criticises the United States publicly, particularly on issues involving national security.
The two countries maintain a close military alliance, with U.S. forces playing a central role in Japan’s defence and regional deterrence.
Japan’s decision to openly describe the sanctions as “very unfortunate” therefore carries diplomatic significance.
It does not indicate that Tokyo is abandoning Washington or challenging the broader alliance. Instead, it demonstrates that the two countries can maintain close security cooperation while disagreeing sharply over international law.
That distinction is becoming increasingly important as U.S. foreign policy under Trump diverges from the positions of several traditional allies.
Japan is not the only U.S. ally to object to the latest sanctions.
The Netherlands, which hosts the ICC, has also criticised Washington’s action. Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen said the Netherlands opposed the sanctions and invited Akane to discuss continued support for the court.
The development places Washington increasingly at odds with European partners as well as Japan.
The disagreement therefore extends beyond the U.S. relationship with a single international institution. It raises broader questions about how far America’s allies are willing to follow Washington when its policies conflict with international institutions they continue to support.
The sanctions have significant practical consequences.
They freeze any U.S. assets held by the targeted individuals and largely cut them off from the American financial system. Because most internationally active banks maintain close connections with the U.S. financial system, the effects can extend beyond American jurisdiction.
The U.S. Treasury Department has also authorized a temporary wind down of transactions involving Akane and Seye through September 17.
The measures therefore do more than express political disagreement. They can directly affect the ability of sanctioned individuals to conduct international financial activities.
The sanctions against Akane and Seye are part of a broader U.S. campaign against the court.
Washington previously imposed sanctions on several ICC prosecutors and judges after the court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant and pursued an earlier investigation involving U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
Rubio has also indicated that the administration intends to intensify efforts against the ICC through diplomatic pressure on other countries.
According to Reuters, Washington has sought to encourage countries to leave the institution, with at least five countries already responding to the call.
The strategy therefore goes beyond individual sanctions. It represents an attempt to challenge the ICC’s legitimacy and reduce its international reach.
Japan’s response is significant because Tokyo has generally been closely aligned with Washington on major strategic questions.
Japan faces a challenging regional security environment involving China, North Korea and wider tensions in the Indo Pacific. Maintaining a strong U.S. alliance remains central to Japanese security policy.
Yet Tokyo has also invested heavily in supporting international institutions and the rule of law.
The ICC dispute highlights the possibility that these two pillars of Japanese foreign policy can sometimes pull in different directions.
Japan may need American military power for its security while simultaneously disagreeing with Washington on how international law should operate.
That is not necessarily a crisis in the alliance, but it illustrates its increasingly complicated political foundations.
The ICC controversy could contribute to a wider pattern of disagreement between Washington and its traditional partners.
The United States is increasingly willing to use economic and diplomatic pressure against international institutions it considers hostile to American interests. Several European governments, by contrast, continue to view those institutions as essential components of the rules based international order.
Japan’s criticism adds an important Asian voice to that disagreement.
If more U.S. allies openly defend the ICC, Washington could face growing diplomatic isolation on the issue even while maintaining strong bilateral security relationships.
That could make the dispute increasingly difficult to contain as a narrow disagreement between the United States and an international court.
Japan’s criticism of the ICC sanctions should not be interpreted as a fundamental rupture in the U.S. Japan alliance.
Tokyo remains heavily dependent on Washington for defence and security, and there is little indication that the ICC dispute will fundamentally alter that relationship.
Its importance lies elsewhere.
Japan is signalling that alliance solidarity does not necessarily require complete alignment on international law.
For Tokyo, supporting the ICC is consistent with a broader foreign policy objective: maintaining an international system governed by rules and institutions rather than purely by the power of individual states.
Washington’s position is increasingly different. The Trump administration views the ICC as a potential threat to American sovereignty and to officials from the United States and allied governments who could face prosecution by the court.
This creates an unusual strategic contradiction.
The United States and Japan remain closely aligned against major security challenges in the Indo Pacific, yet they are increasingly capable of finding themselves on opposite sides of debates over the international legal order.
The consequences could extend beyond the ICC itself.
If Washington continues using sanctions and diplomatic pressure against international institutions while its allies continue defending them, the United States may find that its strategic partnerships remain strong militarily but become more divided politically.
For Japan, the challenge will be maintaining its essential alliance with Washington without abandoning its support for the international legal institutions it considers important.
The ICC dispute therefore reveals a broader tension within the U.S. alliance system: strategic partners may remain united on security while increasingly disagreeing over the rules and institutions that are supposed to govern international politics.
With information from Reuters.
Aug. 18 (UPI) — The United States on Tuesday sanctioned two senior officials of the International Criminal Court, as the Trump administration cracks down on the global tribunal it calls a threat to U.S. sovereignty.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the rest of the Trump administration has aggressively targeted the court over arrest warrants it issued in November 2024 for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, on allegations of war crimes committed during the war in Gaza.
Though not a member of the court, the United States has rejected the warrants, even under the former Biden administration, and has been critical of its jurisdiction over U.S. citizens and potential for politicization. Under the administration of President Donald Trump, Washington has used its powers to target the court with punitive measures.
On Tuesday, Rubio unveiled sanctions against ICC President Tomoko Akane and ICC Senior Trial Lawyer Abdoulaye Seye on accusations that they were “directly engaged in efforts by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute officials whose government has not consented to ICC jurisdiction.”
“The ICC has repeatedly attempted to assert authority over nationals of the United States and other countries that have not consented to its jurisdiction or ratified the Rome Statute,” he said in a statement, referring to the international treaty that established the court in 2002 to try individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression.
“This sets a dangerous precedent.”
UPI has contacted the Hague-based court for comment.
The sanctions, which freeze all property of those designated, come under an authority given to the secretary of state by an executive order Trump signed in the presence of Netanyahu at the White House in February 2025, during his third week back in office.
Last month, Rubio announced the launch of a whole-of-government campaign to dismantle the threat the Trump administration alleges it poises to the United States. Along with increased sanctions and visa revocations of ICC personnel, the campaign includes encouraging other countries to exit the court and increased scrutiny of countries that receive U.S. assistance but do not criticize the ICC, as well as nations under the so-called U.S. security umbrella are also being urged to reject the ICC’s authority to prosecute U.S. officials and service members.
“The ICC has become a kangaroo court that cloaks its abuse of power in language of international law while undermining the very principles of justice,” said Netanyahu, whom the ICC has accused of using starvation as a weapon of war and crimes against humanity, including murder and persecution.
“I commend Secretary of State Marco Rubio for leading the Trump administration’s determined efforts against the ICC’s illegitimate overreach, and for making clear that the corrupt officials who lead the ICC will face consequences,” he added in the statement.
The court described Trump’s executive order in February as an unprecedented attack that undermines its ability to administer justice and a threat to international law that protects millions of victims.
Following the announcement Tuesday, the Netherlands came to the court’s defense while international human rights organizations chastised the United States.
“International courts and tribunals must be able to freely carry out their mandates,” Foreign Affairs Minister Tom Berendsen of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, said in a statement, saying he has invited Akane to discuss the country’s support.
“We fully support the court and its staff,” he said.
Margaret Satterthwaite, the United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, said she was “alarmed” by the sanctions being imposed on judicial operators for doing their jobs.
“Sanctioning independent judges and lawyers for their work to end impunity and ensure justice for the most grave crimes is a shocking betrayal of the Nuremberg promise and a violation of the human rights guarantee of fair trial and access to justice,” she said in a statement.
Erika Guevara Rosas, senior director for research, advocacy, policy and campaigns at Amnesty International, rebuked the punitive action as a “reprehensible assault” on the international justice system that was part of an intimidation campaign meant to obstruct its work.
“These sanctions are not about sovereignty. They are about shielding powerful actors from accountability and punishing those tasked with investigating and prosecuting the gravest crimes under international law,” she said.
Kenneth Roth, senior fellow at Yale University and former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said in a statement that Trump was sanctioning the court “so that American and Israeli officials can commit war crimes (and worse) with impunity.”
“No one should accept this utter lawlessness,” he said.
Last week, HRW and three other human rights groups sued the Trump administration over sanctioning judges and prosecutors of the ICC.
