Japan PM Takaichi Reaffirms Support for ICC After Trump Attack

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has reaffirmed Tokyo’s “consistent support” for the International Criminal Court (ICC), putting Japan’s position on international justice more clearly on record after US President Donald Trump urged ICC member states to leave the institution.

Speaking at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on September 22, Takaichi linked Japan’s support for the court to its broader postwar commitment to the rule of law and multilateral institutions. Her remarks came amid growing pressure from Japanese lawmakers and civil society groups for Tokyo to defend the ICC more openly after the United States imposed sanctions on ICC President Tomoko Akane, a Japanese national.

Trump sharply criticized the court in his own UN speech, describing it as an “out-of-control” institution and calling on every country belonging to the ICC to withdraw.

The contrasting positions highlight a delicate diplomatic issue for Japan. Tokyo has longstanding institutional and financial ties with the ICC, while its security relationship with Washington remains central to its approach to growing tensions in the Indo-Pacific, particularly over Taiwan and China’s military activity in the region.

Takaichi backs the ICC and Japan’s rule-of-law position

In her first General Debate speech at the UN since becoming prime minister, Takaichi said Japan had emphasized the rule of law in resolving international conflicts since the end of the Second World War.

She presented support for organizations such as the ICC as part of that broader commitment to a rules-based international order. Japan’s government has also described its support for the ICC as consistent with the country’s diplomatic approach to international law and multilateral cooperation.

Takaichi did not directly attack the Trump administration over its sanctions or repeat the stronger language used by some Japanese lawmakers. Instead, she framed Japan’s position around the principles that have guided its foreign policy.

That approach allows Tokyo to reaffirm its support for the court without turning the issue into a direct confrontation with Washington at a time when Japan is managing several sensitive security and economic issues with the United States.

Trump calls on ICC members to withdraw

Trump used his UN address to intensify his criticism of the ICC. He said the United States opposed what he called an “out-of-control institution” and called on countries that belong to the court to “officially resign” from it.

The Trump administration has repeatedly argued that the ICC has exceeded its authority by investigating or seeking to prosecute individuals connected with countries that are not parties to the court, including the United States and Israel.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has gone further, describing the ICC as a threat to US sovereignty and saying the administration intends to dismantle the institution.

The dispute is rooted in the ICC’s investigations involving alleged crimes connected to Israel and the United States. Washington does not recognize the court’s jurisdiction over American nationals, while the ICC maintains that it can exercise jurisdiction in certain circumstances provided for under its founding statute.

US sanctions target ICC President Tomoko Akane

The pressure on Japan intensified in August when Washington imposed sanctions on ICC President Tomoko Akane and senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye.

Akane is the first Japanese national to lead the ICC. The sanctions included financial restrictions affecting assets within US jurisdiction and access to the US-linked financial system, while also restricting entry to the United States.

The US government has justified the measures as part of its opposition to ICC actions involving American and Israeli personnel. The sanctions followed the court’s work concerning allegations of crimes in Afghanistan and proceedings involving Israeli officials, including an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The ICC condemned the US measures, arguing that pressure on judges and prosecutors threatens judicial independence and the wider international legal order.

Akane has also rejected the idea that sanctions would force the court to abandon its work. After the measures were announced, she said the ICC would not be defeated and would continue to pursue its judicial responsibilities.

Japanese lawmakers pressed Takaichi to defend the court

Takaichi’s latest statement followed growing pressure inside Japan for a stronger public response to the US sanctions.

A cross-party group of Japanese lawmakers urged the prime minister to use her UN address to support the ICC and ask Washington to withdraw the sanctions against Akane. Former defence minister Gen Nakatani, who co-chairs the parliamentary group, argued that the UN General Assembly provides an important forum for countries to state their positions on international issues.

The lawmakers’ campaign reflected a broader concern that Japan’s response to the sanctions could be viewed as inconsistent with its long-standing emphasis on international law.

Takaichi initially described the US measures against Akane as “very unfortunate.” She later said the sanctions were incompatible with Japan’s position and stressed that the government took the matter seriously.

She has also rejected criticism that Tokyo failed to act behind the scenes, saying Japanese officials had pressed Washington at various levels in an effort to prevent Akane from being sanctioned.

The prime minister said she and Trump also had a candid exchange about the ICC when they met on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

Why the ICC dispute matters for Japan

Japan’s position is significant because Tokyo is one of the ICC’s major supporters and has played an important role in the institution since becoming a member.

The court was established by the Rome Statute to prosecute individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and, under defined circumstances, aggression. It is separate from the International Court of Justice, which handles disputes between states.

The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute. Israel is also not a member of the court. Japan, by contrast, is a state party and has supported the ICC as part of its broader commitment to multilateral institutions.

That difference places Tokyo in a difficult diplomatic position. Japan wants to preserve its cooperation with Washington on security while also maintaining its stated support for international legal institutions.

The issue is particularly sensitive because Akane is Japanese. The US sanctions therefore have a direct connection to a Japanese national serving as head of an international judicial institution that Tokyo supports.

Japan also faces pressure over Taiwan and China

The ICC dispute is unfolding alongside increasingly complicated US-Japan discussions about security in the Indo-Pacific.

Takaichi has emphasized Japan’s support for a free and open international order and has raised concerns about security developments around Taiwan and the East and South China Seas. Japan regards stability around Taiwan as important to its own regional security and economic interests.

China claims Taiwan as part of its territory and has not ruled out the use of force to achieve what Beijing calls reunification. The United States maintains a long-standing policy of providing Taiwan with defensive capabilities, although the exact nature of any US response to a conflict remains a matter of strategic ambiguity.

Japanese officials are also closely watching US-China relations as Trump prepares for discussions with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Questions over Taiwan have become increasingly intertwined with Trade, technology and broader US-China negotiations.

For Tokyo, maintaining a strong US security relationship is therefore a major foreign-policy priority even as Japan seeks to defend its own positions on international law and multilateral institutions.

The wider fight over the ICC

The confrontation between Washington and the ICC is not new, but the Trump administration has significantly escalated its pressure on the court.

US officials argue that the ICC should not exercise authority over nationals of countries that have not accepted its jurisdiction. They have also objected to the court’s actions involving Israeli officials and American personnel.

The ICC and its supporters take a different view of the court’s legal authority. Under the Rome Statute, the court can exercise jurisdiction in specified circumstances even when the accused person’s country is not a member, including where alleged crimes occurred on the territory of a member state or where another accepted jurisdictional basis exists.

This disagreement is at the center of the current confrontation. It is not simply a dispute over individual cases but a larger argument about how international criminal jurisdiction should operate when governments disagree over the authority of an international court.

The US campaign has also raised concerns among other ICC members about the potential consequences of sanctions against judges, prosecutors and court personnel. The measures can create financial and operational difficulties because the court operates within an international system in which access to banking, travel and other services can be important to its work.

What Takaichi’s position means for Japan

Takaichi’s UN statement does not resolve the tension between Japan’s support for the ICC and its close relationship with the United States. It does, however, provide a clearer public statement of Tokyo’s institutional position.

Japan’s approach appears to be based on maintaining support for the ICC while avoiding language that would turn the issue into a direct diplomatic confrontation with Washington.

That distinction could become increasingly important if the US expands sanctions or continues encouraging ICC member states to leave the organization. Tokyo may face further pressure from lawmakers, international partners and the ICC itself to take a more active position.

At the same time, Japan must consider its wider strategic relationship with the United States, including cooperation over China, Taiwan, defence capabilities, trade and regional security.

A balancing act between Washington and international law

The dispute places Japan at the intersection of two important elements of its foreign policy: its alliance with the United States and its support for a rules-based international system.

Takaichi’s decision to emphasize Japan’s “consistent support” for the ICC while avoiding a direct rebuke of Trump reflects that diplomatic balance. The Japanese government can defend the court’s role without making the ICC dispute the defining issue in its relationship with Washington.

For the ICC, Japan’s position is particularly significant because Tokyo is not simply an observer. It is a member of the court and a major supporter of its work, while its president is a Japanese national who has become a direct target of US sanctions.

As Washington continues its campaign against the institution, Japan’s response will remain closely watched. The immediate question is whether Tokyo’s renewed public support will remain largely rhetorical or develop into stronger diplomatic efforts to defend the court and its officials.

For now, Takaichi has made clear that Japan continues to regard the ICC as part of the international legal framework it supports, even as the government seeks to preserve a close and strategically important relationship with the United States.