Courts and Tribunals

The recent U.S. sanctions against two International Criminal Court (ICC) judges—Gocha Lordkipanidze of Georgia and Erdenebalsuren Damdin of Mongolia—offer a revealing case study in the contradictions that underpin much of the discourse on human rights and the rule of law. Ostensibly imposed to defend Israel’s sovereignty, the sanctions in practice constitute a direct assault on judicial independence, revealing a deeper truth: that the modern state, especially its executive arm, cannot be presumed to be a neutral or benevolent guardian of human rights. The U.S. State Department, through Secretary of State Marco Rubio, justified the sanctions by accusing the judges of advancing ICC investigations into Israeli nationals—actions the U.S. deems “illegitimate” because they lack Israel’s consent. However, this framing presumes that a state’s approval is a prerequisite for accountability—a notion that directly contradicts the foundational purpose of international criminal law. The ICC exists precisely because states cannot always be trusted to police themselves. When atrocities are committed not by rogue individuals but by state institutions—through military operations, occupation policies, or systemic discrimination—the executive branch is rarely the solution; it is often the source. This episode underscores a long-overlooked reality in human rights discourse: human rights abuses are, at their core, state crimes. They are not incidental deviations from governance but structured expressions of state power. Whether through excessive force, forced displacement, or denial of basic rights, violations are frequently codified in policy, implemented by security forces, and defended through legalistic obfuscation. In such contexts, viewing the executive branch as a promoter […]