Japan PM Sanae Takaichi Raises Concern Over US Sanctions on ICC

Key Points

• Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has expressed deep concern over sanctions imposed by US President Donald Trump’s administration on the International Criminal Court (ICC).
• Takaichi said the measures were incompatible with Japan’s longstanding commitment to the rule of law and its support for the ICC.
• Japan intends to maintain dialogue with Washington while providing necessary support to the international court so it can carry out its intended functions.
• Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi reiterated that Japan would continue working with the United States despite the difficult circumstances.
• Motegi was expected to hold telephone talks with ICC President Akane on Saturday to discuss Japan’s continued support for the court.
• The Japanese foreign minister was also expected to speak with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to communicate Tokyo’s position.
• Japan’s response highlights its effort to balance its alliance with the United States against its commitment to international law and the ICC.

The central development is Japan’s diplomatic response to US sanctions against the International Criminal Court. Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has publicly criticised the measures as inconsistent with Japan’s established position on international law, while Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi has indicated that Tokyo will continue engaging with Washington. Japan’s stated approach combines support for the court with continued diplomatic cooperation with the United States.

What Did Sanae Takaichi Say About the US Sanctions on the ICC?

Japan Daily Sun (JDS)  October 9, 2026 – Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has expressed deep concern over the Trump administration’s decision to impose sanctions on the International Criminal Court, saying the move conflicts with Japan’s longstanding support for international law. In a statement posted on X, Takaichi reaffirmed Tokyo’s commitment to the court and said Japan would continue engaging with Washington while providing the support necessary for the ICC to fulfil its mandate. Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi was also expected to hold discussions with ICC President Tomoko Akane and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio as Japan sought to communicate its position through diplomatic channels.

Takaichi’s statement reflects a diplomatic challenge for Japan, which relies on its alliance with the United States for security while also supporting international institutions that operate under the principle of the rule of law.

In her message, the prime minister said Japan had consistently attached great importance to upholding the rule of law internationally and supported the ICC’s role in that effort. She described the US measures as incompatible with Japan’s established position and stated that her government was deeply concerned.

Takaichi also pledged to continue reaching out to the United States and to provide the court with necessary support so it could carry out its functions as originally envisaged. She referred to continued communication with ICC President Akane and other relevant countries.

According to Jiji Press, as published by Nippon.com in its report on 9 October, Takaichi reiterated Japan’s support for the ICC following Washington’s decision to place the court itself under sanctions. The report also noted that the issue had been discussed during a meeting between Takaichi and US President Donald Trump in September.

The prime minister’s latest remarks are significant because the new measures extend pressure beyond individual court officials to the institution itself. They also place renewed attention on how countries that support the ICC will respond to restrictions imposed by one of the world’s most influential financial and diplomatic powers.

Why Has Japan Objected to Washington’s Decision?

Japan’s objection centres on its stated commitment to the international rule of law and its support for the ICC as a permanent international judicial institution.

The court, based in The Hague in the Netherlands, investigates and prosecutes individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression, subject to the limits of its jurisdiction. Its work is intended to address serious international crimes in circumstances where national legal systems are unable or unwilling to take appropriate action.

Japan joined the ICC in 2007 and has supported its work through diplomatic engagement and financial contributions. Its backing of the court is therefore an established element of its international policy rather than a position adopted solely in response to the latest sanctions.

Reporting by Bloomberg, republished by Free Malaysia Today on 10 October, said Takaichi had raised concerns about US pressure on the court during her September meeting with Trump. The report also described Japan’s response as a point of friction between the two countries, despite their close security relationship.

Tokyo’s position reflects a distinction between maintaining an alliance with Washington and agreeing with every measure taken by the US administration. Japanese officials have indicated that the government intends to keep diplomatic channels open while making clear that sanctions against the ICC do not align with Japan’s policy.

The question for Japan is how to translate its public support into practical assistance for the court without creating a wider dispute with its principal security ally.

That challenge has become more pressing as the United States has expanded its sanctions campaign from individual ICC officials to the institution as a whole.

What Sanctions Has the Trump Administration Imposed on the ICC?

The Trump administration announced broad sanctions against the ICC on 9 October 2026, escalating a campaign that had already targeted officials associated with the court.

According to Reuters’ reporting on the US decision, the measures were introduced amid Washington’s objections to ICC investigations involving American and Israeli officials. The administration has argued that the court is acting beyond its legitimate authority, particularly in matters involving countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the ICC.

The sanctions are intended to restrict the court’s access to US-linked financial services and other resources. Associated restrictions could also affect organisations and service providers that conduct business with the ICC.

The Associated Press reported that the measures include restrictions on transactions with the court and access to US financial services and technology. It also reported that American entities had been given a six-month period to end relevant business relationships, subject to the scope and exceptions of the measures.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has defended the administration’s position, arguing that the court’s actions threaten American sovereignty. The administration has also indicated that it intends to continue its campaign against the institution.

The ICC, in contrast, has rejected the sanctions and defended its independence. As reported by Reuters on 9 October, the court urged its member states to ensure that it could continue operating despite the new restrictions. It argued that the dispute concerned not only the institution itself but also the wider international legal framework underpinning accountability for serious crimes.

The sanctions create practical challenges for an international organisation that depends on cooperation among member states and on access to financial, technological and administrative services. Their full operational impact will depend on how financial institutions, suppliers, governments and other organisations interpret and implement the restrictions.

For Japan, the measures have added urgency to the question of how the ICC can continue its work while facing pressure from a country with which Tokyo maintains a close strategic partnership.

How Is Japan Planning to Respond Through Diplomacy?

Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi has emphasised that Japan will continue cooperating with the United States, even as Tokyo expresses concern over the sanctions.

In a statement, Motegi said: “Even under difficult circumstances, we will continue to work with the United States.”

His remarks indicate that the Japanese government intends to preserve bilateral cooperation while communicating its objections to Washington. Rather than immediately escalating the dispute through punitive measures of its own, Japan is pursuing direct diplomatic engagement.

Motegi was expected to hold telephone talks with ICC President Tomoko Akane on Saturday, 10 October, to discuss the situation and reaffirm Japan’s support for the court. He was also expected to speak by telephone with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to convey Tokyo’s position.

These planned conversations form part of Japan’s effort to address the issue through established diplomatic channels. The discussions could provide an opportunity for Japanese officials to explain the potential consequences of the sanctions for the court’s operations and to encourage continued engagement between Washington and countries supporting the ICC.

However, the announced plans should be distinguished from completed diplomatic outcomes. The information available at the time of reporting established that the calls were expected, but did not confirm their results.

Japan’s approach also reflects the importance it places on maintaining communication with both the court and the United States. Tokyo has an interest in ensuring that the ICC can continue its work while avoiding unnecessary damage to its wider international relationships.

The government’s immediate priority is therefore to communicate its position clearly and seek a diplomatic response to the dispute.

What Role Does ICC President Tomoko Akane Play in the Dispute?

Tomoko Akane, a Japanese national who serves as president of the ICC, is an important figure in the dispute because the US sanctions campaign had already targeted individual officials associated with the court before the latest measures were announced.

In August 2026, Washington imposed sanctions on Akane and other ICC personnel. Those measures prompted concern in Japan, where the government reaffirmed its support for the court and questioned the compatibility of the US action with its own position on international law.

The subsequent decision to impose broader sanctions on the ICC has increased the significance of Japan’s response.

An Associated Press report published in September described calls within Japan for the government to challenge the American measures more firmly. Former defence minister Gen Nakatani, a veteran lawmaker in the governing party, urged Takaichi to protest the sanctions and seek their withdrawal.

The debate has highlighted the political sensitivity of the issue within Japan. Support for the ICC is connected to the country’s stated commitment to international legal institutions, while its relationship with the United States remains central to its security policy.

Akane’s position also gives the dispute a direct Japanese dimension. The measures affect an international institution led by a Japanese national, increasing public and political interest in how Tokyo responds.

The planned communication between Motegi and Akane was therefore relevant not only to Japan’s general policy towards the ICC but also to coordination between the Japanese government and the court’s leadership.

Nevertheless, the effectiveness of Japan’s efforts will depend on the response from Washington and the willingness of other ICC member states to maintain practical support for the institution.

How Have Other Countries and International Organisations Reacted?

Japan’s concerns form part of a broader international response to the Trump administration’s sanctions.

Reuters reported on 9 October that the announcement had prompted criticism from several governments and international organisations. The ICC itself described the measures as an attack on its work, while European officials expressed concern about the implications for international justice and the rule of law.

According to Bloomberg’s reporting, Japan joined Canada, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom in a joint statement opposing Washington’s decision. The countries reaffirmed their support for the ICC’s independence, impartiality and integrity.

The Netherlands has a particular interest in the court because The Hague is its headquarters. European governments have also considered ways to limit the consequences of the sanctions for the ICC and those working with it.

The Associated Press reported that the Netherlands had prepared potential countermeasures, including consideration of an EU blocking statute intended to protect court personnel and related activities from the effects of certain foreign sanctions. The precise implementation and practical effect of any such measures remain dependent on subsequent decisions.

The international response has not been uniform. The Trump administration maintains that the ICC has exceeded its authority, while supporters of the court argue that its independence is essential to accountability for serious international crimes.

These competing positions reflect a wider disagreement over the limits of international judicial authority, particularly when investigations concern individuals from countries that have not joined the court.

For Japan, coordination with other governments could help strengthen diplomatic support for the ICC. However, statements of support do not automatically resolve the financial and operational difficulties created by sanctions.

The next stage will depend on whether governments can agree on practical arrangements that allow the court to continue its work while complying with their respective legal obligations.

What Could the Sanctions Mean for the ICC’s Daily Operations?

The impact of the US sanctions will depend on how they are implemented and how financial institutions, technology providers and other organisations respond.

The restrictions on access to US-linked financial services could complicate payments, contractual relationships and other administrative activities involving the court. Restrictions affecting technology and service providers could create additional challenges if organisations decide to discontinue relationships with the ICC to avoid potential legal or financial exposure.

Reuters and the Associated Press have reported that the court and its supporters are concerned about the consequences for its ability to carry out investigations and prosecutions. The ICC has called on member states to provide the support needed to preserve its operations.

The sanctions do not, by themselves, establish that the court must stop operating. Their practical consequences will depend on the services affected, the availability of alternatives, the scope of applicable exemptions and the assistance provided by member states.

For the ICC, maintaining access to essential administrative and technological infrastructure is important because investigations can involve extensive documentation, international cooperation, legal proceedings and the protection of victims and witnesses.

Countries supporting the court may therefore face decisions about financial contributions, alternative service arrangements and assistance to personnel affected by restrictions. Such measures would need to comply with applicable laws and the specific terms of the sanctions.

Japan’s stated willingness to provide necessary support is relevant in this context. As a longstanding supporter and financial contributor to the ICC, Tokyo has an established relationship with the institution. However, the exact form of any additional assistance was not specified in the announcement.

The wider concern is whether sustained pressure on the court could make it more difficult to investigate serious international crimes or maintain cooperation with countries and organisations that provide essential services.

The sanctions have therefore placed renewed emphasis on the role of ICC member states in supporting the institution’s continued operation.

What Is the Significance of Japan’s Position for International Law?

Japan’s response highlights the relationship between international legal commitments and national foreign policy.

The Japanese government has consistently presented the rule of law as an important principle of its international engagement. Support for international institutions forms part of that position, particularly in a global environment where governments disagree over sovereignty, jurisdiction and accountability.

The ICC is an independent international court established under the Rome Statute. Its jurisdiction is governed by that treaty and other applicable legal provisions. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, and Washington has long opposed the court exercising authority over American nationals without US consent.

The latest sanctions have intensified that longstanding disagreement.

Japan’s position does not mean that Tokyo has adopted Washington’s interpretation of the ICC’s authority. Instead, Takaichi has explicitly stated that the measures are incompatible with Japan’s policy and that her government will continue supporting the court.

At the same time, Motegi’s commitment to continued cooperation with Washington indicates that Japan does not intend to abandon its broader bilateral relationship because of the dispute.

The approach reflects the difficulty of defending international legal principles when a close ally takes a conflicting position. Japan must consider the consequences of its response for the ICC, its diplomatic credibility and its security partnership with the United States.

The issue may also affect how other countries assess the consistency of Japan’s foreign policy. If Tokyo continues to advocate for the rule of law while providing meaningful support to international institutions, it can demonstrate that its stated principles remain relevant even when disagreements involve a major ally.

However, the extent to which Japan can influence Washington remains uncertain. The sanctions are a decision of the US administration, and their reversal would require action by the relevant American authorities.

For now, Japan has chosen public criticism combined with continued diplomatic engagement.

Background: How Did the Dispute Between the United States and the ICC Develop?

The current dispute follows a series of disagreements between Washington and the ICC over the court’s investigations and its authority to pursue cases involving nationals of countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute.

The ICC was established to prosecute individuals accused of the most serious international crimes within its jurisdiction. Its work has repeatedly brought it into political conflict with governments whose officials or nationals have become the subject of investigations.

In 2026, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on individual ICC officials, including President Tomoko Akane. The measures were linked to Washington’s objections to the court’s actions involving American and Israeli officials.

Japan criticised the sanctions against Akane before the United States extended its measures to the court itself. The Japanese government said the earlier action was inconsistent with its support for international law and continued to provide diplomatic backing to the institution.

The latest sanctions, announced on 9 October, represent a broader step because they target the ICC as an institution rather than focusing exclusively on individual personnel.

Reporting by The Japan Times on 10 October described the decision as a renewed challenge for Takaichi, given the importance of the US alliance to Japanese security policy. The report also placed the latest dispute in the context of earlier American sanctions against Akane.

The developments have prompted Japan and other countries to consider how they can preserve the court’s independence and operations while managing their relationships with Washington.

Japan’s latest statement represents a continuation of its existing support for the ICC, accompanied by a stronger expression of concern about the scope of the new measures.

Prediction: How Could the US Sanctions Affect Japan, the ICC and International Justice?

The immediate effect of the sanctions will depend on their implementation, the availability of alternative services and the response of countries that support the ICC.

For Japan, the most immediate consequence is likely to be continued diplomatic pressure to reconcile its commitment to international law with its close security relationship with the United States. The government has already stated that it intends to communicate its position to Washington while continuing to support the court.

For the ICC, the central concern will be maintaining essential services and securing cooperation from member states. If financial institutions or service providers withdraw from relationships with the court, the institution may face additional administrative and operational difficulties. The scale of those difficulties cannot be established from the sanctions announcement alone.

For other governments, the dispute could increase the importance of coordination over financial assistance, technology services and legal protections for organisations working with the ICC. Any measures adopted in response will need to account for the applicable legal restrictions.

For international justice more broadly, the dispute may intensify disagreements over the authority of international courts and the extent to which governments should cooperate with investigations involving powerful states.

Japan’s ability to influence the outcome remains uncertain. Diplomatic engagement could help maintain communication with Washington, but there is no confirmed indication that the US administration intends to withdraw the sanctions.

The next significant developments will include the outcome of the planned discussions between Motegi, Akane and Rubio, as well as any practical steps Japan and other ICC supporters take to help the court continue its work.