2026-06-24 20:34:00 UTC / 路透社
作者：达芙妮·普萨莱达基斯
2026年6月24日 世界标准时间20:34 更新于3小时前
2025年9月22日在荷兰海牙拍摄的国际刑事法院外景。路透社/皮罗什·范·德·沃/资料图片
- 内容摘要
- 三名国际刑事法院法官于周三提起诉讼
- 诉讼称制裁举措非法
- 特朗普政府对国际刑事法院的反感可追溯至其首个任期
华盛顿6月24日路透电 — 三名国际刑事法院法官于周三就美国去年对他们实施的制裁起诉美国总统唐纳德·特朗普及其政府，称这些举措非法。
在曼哈顿联邦法院提起的诉讼中，来自加拿大的法官金伯利·普罗斯特、来自乌干达的索洛米·巴隆吉·博萨以及来自贝宁的莱恩·阿德莱德·索菲·阿拉皮尼-甘苏表示，此次制裁旨在施加法外压力，目的是惩罚并胁迫这些法官。
通过《每日案卷》新闻简报将最新法律新闻直接发送至您的收件箱，开启您的晨间阅读。点击此处订阅。
广告 · 滚动继续阅读
美国国务院、财政部和白宫并未立即回应置评请求。
特朗普政府去年对国际刑事法院的多名法官实施制裁，这是针对该战争罪法庭此前发出的针对以色列总理本杰明·内塔尼亚胡的逮捕令，以及此前开启调查美军在阿富汗涉嫌战争罪案件的前所未有的报复行为。
制裁严重阻碍个人开展甚至日常金融交易的能力，因为任何与美国有业务往来或以美元进行交易的银行都必须遵守相关限制措施。
广告 · 滚动继续阅读
国际刑事法院于2002年成立，有权对成员国境内发生的种族灭绝、危害人类罪和战争罪，或联合国安理会提交的局势行使国际管辖权。
尽管国际刑事法院在其125个成员国境内有权管辖战争罪、危害人类罪和种族灭绝罪，但包括美国、中国、俄罗斯和以色列在内的一些国家并不承认其管辖权。
特朗普政府对该法院的反感可追溯至特朗普的首个任期。2020年，华盛顿就该法院针对阿富汗的调查工作，对时任检察官法图·本苏达及其一名高级助手实施了制裁。
法官们质疑制裁的法律依据
诉讼辩称，制裁违反法律，因为它们超出了《国际紧急经济权力法》的适用范围，且并非基于真正的国家紧急状态或非同寻常的威胁。
blob:https://www.reuters.com/04b0142e-1187-4b8f-9cf0-b4ce24cb5c51
“该制裁制度……旨在针对这些法官及其在国际刑事法院同僚的金融和其他个人利益，对他们施加法外压力，目的是惩罚他们此前做出的司法判决，并胁迫他们将个人利益置于依据法律和事实审理案件之上，”诉讼文件中写道。
“根据《国际紧急经济权力法》遭受此类制裁无异于金融死刑。受制裁影响，普罗斯特法官、博萨法官和阿拉皮尼-甘苏法官除其他事项外，已无法使用信用卡、获取银行服务、使用亚马逊和谷歌等常见在线平台、预订旅行，在某些情况下甚至无法获得健康保险，”文件中写道。
法官们还表示，制裁禁止他们在待决或未来的审理程序中提交证据和进行辩论。
广告 · 滚动继续阅读
华盛顿的达芙妮·普萨莱达基斯报道；马修·刘易斯编辑
World court judges sue Trump administration over sanctions
2026-06-24 20:34:00 UTC / Reuters
By Daphne Psaledakis
June 24, 2026 8:34 PM UTC Updated 3 hours ago
An exterior of The International Criminal Court (ICC) is seen in The Hague, Netherlands, September 22, 2025. REUTERS/Piroschka van de Wouw/File Photo
- Summary
- Three ICC judges filed lawsuit on Wednesday
- Lawsuit argues sanctions were unlawful
- Trump administration’s dislike of ICC goes back to his first term
WASHINGTON, June 24 (Reuters) – Three International Criminal Court judges on Wednesday sued U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration over sanctions imposed on them last year, arguing the measures were unlawful.
In the lawsuit filed in the federal court in Manhattan, judges Kimberly Prost of Canada, Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda and Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini-Gansou of Benin said the sanctions were designed to exert extrajudicial pressure with the objective of punishing and coercing the judges.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The State and Treasury departments and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The Trump administration imposed sanctions on several judges at the International Criminal Court last year in an unprecedented retaliation over the war tribunal’s issuance of an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a past decision to open a case into alleged war crimes by U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
Sanctions severely hamper individuals’ abilities to carry out even routine financial transactions as any banks with ties to the United States, or that conduct transactions in dollars, are expected to have to comply with the restrictions.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The ICC, which was established in 2002, has international jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in member states or if a situation is referred by the U.N. Security Council.
Although the ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in its 125 member countries, some nations, including the U.S., China, Russia, and Israel, do not recognize its authority.
The Trump administration’s dislike of the court goes back to Trump’s first term. In 2020, Washington imposed sanctions on then-prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and one of her top aides over the court’s work on Afghanistan.
JUDGES CHALLENGE LEGAL BASIS
The lawsuit argues that the sanctions were against the law as they exceeded the scope of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and were not based on a genuine national emergency or extraordinary threat.
blob:https://www.reuters.com/04b0142e-1187-4b8f-9cf0-b4ce24cb5c51
“The Sanctions Regime … is designed to exert extra-judicial pressure on these judges and their colleagues on the ICC bench by targeting their financial and other personal interests, with the objective of punishing them for prior judicial decisions and coercing them into prioritizing their private interests over deciding cases on the basis of the law and facts,” the lawsuit said.
“Being subjected to such sanctions under IEEPA is tantamount to the financial death penalty. Due to the sanctions, Judges Prost, Bossa, and Alapini-Gansou are no longer able, among other things, to use credit cards; access banking services; use common online platforms, such as Amazon and Google; book travel; and in some cases, obtain health insurance,” it said.
The judges also said that the sanctions bar the submission of evidence and argument in any pending or future proceeding before them.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Reporting by Daphne Psaledakis in Washington; Editing by Matthew Lewis
发表回复