| The International Criminal Court in The Hague. Ilvy Njiokiktjien for The New York Times |
The U.S. goes all-in against the International Criminal Court
By Amanda Taub
The United States has always had a tricky relationship with the International Criminal Court, which tries people accused of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.
It helped create the court but never joined the tribunal, partly because of fears that such a move would expose Americans, especially those in the military, to politically motivated prosecutions. Many U.S. politicians, particularly on the right, have treated it as a threat.
And yet at times, the U.S. has been one of the court’s most important partners. It has provided intelligence, diplomatic assistance and other support when doing so served U.S. interests. The Biden administration provided crucial help in the court’s investigation of Russian actions in Ukraine, for example.
Under the Trump administration, however, the relationship has shifted from complicated to outright hostile.
On Tuesday, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on the president of the court, as well as a senior trial lawyer in the prosecutor’s office. That brings the total number of court officials under U.S. sanctions to 13, including half of its judges.
Rubio has gone even further, announcing that the U.S. intends to dismantle the I.C.C. — “brick by brick, if necessary” — including by pressuring member states to leave the court. Within days of that announcement last month, Venezuela announced its exit, followed by Chad.
| Judge Tomoko Akane, president of the International Criminal Court. Pool photo by Eva Plevier |
The Trump administration’s targeting of an international institution is not new. But the I.C.C. seems particularly vulnerable.
The court is almost entirely dependent on a delicate, consensus-based system of norms to do its work. The Trump administration has often been actively hostile to that system, let alone any suggestion that the U.S. should abide by its rules.
The pressure on the court has risen sharply in Trump’s second term, after it issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and at least one other Israeli official. The I.C.C. has also been rocked by a sexual misconduct scandal involving its former chief prosecutor. That raises a very real question: Can the I.C.C. survive the Trump era?
A court dependent on cooperation
The I.C.C. has no police force and no subpoena powers. Its investigators cannot visit crime sites to gather evidence without permission from the country where the sites are located. It can detain suspects only if they willingly surrender, or if states arrest them on the court’s behalf. And it relies on member states for its funding.
The result is that the I.C.C. can function effectively only when states cooperate. Member states have a treaty obligation to assist the court, but if they don’t, there is little the I.C.C. can do. And yet until now, states have often helped the court — because international norms demanded it, and because the reputational harm of refusing would be severe.
Now, the U.S. is taking direct aim at those norms.
Venezuela, for example, remained a member state after the I.C.C. prosecutor’s decision in 2021 to investigate whether its government had committed crimes against humanity. So observers took note when it withdrew last month — perhaps because of U.S. pressure, or because the U.S. assault on the court gave its leaders cover, or possibly some combination of the two.
“Some countries that might otherwise support the court will now find it too costly to do so,” if the U.S. imposes consequences on those that remain, said Kate Cronin-Furman, who studies human rights in international affairs. Others that already wanted to pull out may now find it easier.
Countries that strongly support the I.C.C.’s mission, and oppose Trump’s foreign policy, will probably increase their support for the court, she said.
But that support may not help in the long run. One of the biggest challenges for the I.C.C. has been combating the perception — held by the Trump administration, among others — that it’s just another vehicle for politics. That challenge will only grow if the I.C.C. comes to be seen as an anti-Trump institution, rather than a neutral arbiter of justice.
| President Trump has accused the I.C.C. of illegitimate actions. Al Drago for The New York Times |
A small part of a big project
If the I.C.C. is damaged or even destroyed, the world won’t feel the consequences immediately. The court, which handles long and complex investigations, has tried only a small number of cases since its founding in 2002. Regardless of the I.C.C.’s fate, most perpetrators of atrocities will never end up in its courtroom.
But the indirect consequences, for the cause of international justice and the principles of the international order, would be more significant, experts say.
The I.C.C. is a small but important part of a broader project that says that the conduct of international affairs should be guided by laws and rules, rather than simply power. It’s a project the Trump administration has long argued ties the hands of one of the world’s most powerful countries.
Countries around the world were already “de-prioritizing” their commitments to international justice, said Alex Whiting, a Harvard law professor. That is partly because of other, more pressing issues, such as Europe’s need to increase its defense spending. But there is also more general loss of faith in international solutions and institutions, he said.
Because the court is an organization built on belief — in trust in a now-fading system — there may ultimately be no need for the Trump administration to dismantle it brick by brick. It has already undermined the structures that made the I.C.C. possible; if they start to collapse, that might well be enough.