Japan has expressed concern over the United States’ decision to impose sanctions on International Criminal Court (ICC) President Tomoko Akane, with Prime Minister Sanae Takahchi stating that the move is “not consistent with Japan’s position” but rejecting criticism that Tokyo’s response was insufficient. The sanctions, announced by the Trump administration on August 18, target Akane and other ICC officials, prompting a strong backlash in Japan’s media and political circles.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the sanctions, describing the ICC as "a corrupt and fatally politicized supranational court" that has "maliciously abused its authority and exceeded its mandate." However, Japanese editorialists across a broad spectrum of national newspapers have largely condemned Washington’s actions and called for a firmer stance from Tokyo. Leading newspapers such as the Asahi Shimbun and the Mainichi Shimbun urged the Japanese government to collaborate with other countries to demand the withdrawal of the sanctions and to resist allowing the U.S.-Japan alliance to limit Tokyo’s response. The Yomiuri Shimbun described the U.S. pressure as “unacceptable” and questioned whether Japan had shown adequate resolve to defend the rule of law and the integrity of its citizen fulfilling international duties. The Nikkei emphasized Japan’s continued support for the ICC, and even the conservative Sankei Shimbun indicated that the U.S. rationale for targeting the court "goes too far."

Despite the broad consensus opposing the sanctions, some voices have called for a more nuanced debate. The regional Hokkoku Shimbun, serving Ishikawa and Toyama prefectures, criticized the undue pressure on Akane but also questioned whether Japan should maintain its substantial support for the ICC without critically examining the court’s effectiveness and conduct. This perspective highlights a fundamental challenge facing the ICC: the difficulty of balancing legal authority with political realities in the international system.

Unlike domestic courts that benefit from enforcement mechanisms such as police, international law lacks a centralized coercive authority. The ICC depends heavily on state cooperation, and this reliance leaves international legal enforcement vulnerable to political pushback. With major powers such as the United States, Russia, and China outside the ICC’s Rome Statute framework, and Israel having signed but not ratified the treaty, the court’s jurisdictional reach is limited and politically sensitive. While the ICC retains legal authority to investigate crimes in certain contexts involving nonmember nationals or territories, pursuing cases against leaders from states rejecting its jurisdiction raises concerns about the court’s long-term legitimacy and effectiveness.

Japan has reportedly engaged Washington “to the very limit at various levels” over these concerns, and Prime Minister Takahchi conveyed solidarity with Akane’s position. Japan remains a significant supporter of the ICC and its Japanese president, but officials and observers suggest that support should also involve encouraging the court to adopt realistic, effective legal strategies that reinforce its credibility. The underlying objective extends beyond countering U.S. sanctions; it is to ensure the ICC can effectively uphold the international rule of law in a complex global environment where legal principles and power dynamics intersect.