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.
Why Did the U.S. Sanction ICC Officials?
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.
Why Is Japan Supporting the ICC?
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.
Why Is This Significant for U.S. Japan Relations?
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.
The ICC Dispute Is Also Creating Friction in Europe
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.
What Do the Sanctions Actually Do?
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.
Washington’s Wider Campaign Against the ICC
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.
Why Does Japan’s Position Matter?
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.
Could the Dispute Deepen Divisions Among U.S. Allies?
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.
How Far Can Japan Disagree With Washington?
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.