Washington's changing stance on ICC exposes a growing contradiction

US risks surrendering influence over international law by turning on the ICC

The United States has repeatedly backed the International Criminal Court when it serves American interests, yet denounced the same institution when its investigations have targeted close allies, raising questions about Washington's long-term commitment to the international legal order.

In 2023, President Joe Biden authorised US intelligence agencies to share evidence of alleged Russian war crimes with the ICC to help build a case against Russian President Vladimir Putin. The move marked a significant departure from decades of US policy, which had argued the Court lacked jurisdiction over citizens of countries—including the United States and Russia—that never ratified the Rome Statute.

That position shifted again after the ICC issued arrest warrants in late 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant. Biden condemned the decision as "outrageous" and reaffirmed unwavering US support for Israel.

Trump escalated pressure on the Court

The policy hardened further after Donald Trump returned to office.

His administration imposed sanctions on ICC officials, including asset freezes, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio later accused the Court of becoming "an instrument of lawfare."

By the end of 2025, sanctions had been imposed on 11 ICC judges and prosecutors, and the State Department subsequently launched a broader campaign aimed at weakening the Court.

The ICC operates only as a court of last resort

Supporters of the Court argue that much of the criticism overlooks one of its central legal principles.

Under the Rome Statute, the ICC intervenes only when national authorities fail to genuinely investigate or prosecute alleged war crimes or crimes against humanity themselves. This doctrine of "complementarity" means the Court is designed to supplement, not replace, domestic legal systems.

Critics argue that countries facing ICC scrutiny can often avoid international intervention simply by conducting credible investigations of their own.

Arrest warrants carry political weight

Although the ICC has no police force and cannot enforce arrests independently, its warrants can significantly restrict the movements and international legitimacy of political leaders.

Since the Court issued its warrant for Vladimir Putin, the Russian president has largely avoided travel to countries that are party to the Rome Statute, limiting his diplomatic options.

The warrant against Netanyahu similarly creates legal and diplomatic uncertainty whenever he considers visiting one of the 125 member states that recognise the Court's jurisdiction.

History suggests power offers only temporary protection

Supporters of international justice argue that political power rarely provides permanent immunity.

Former Chilean ruler Augusto Pinochet believed he was protected from prosecution until he was arrested in London in 1998 following an extradition request based on international torture laws.

Former Chadian dictator Hissène Habré was later convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by a special African court, while Serbian leader Slobodan Milošević ultimately stood trial in The Hague after losing power.

In each case, accountability came only after political protection had disappeared, reinforcing the argument that legal processes often outlast political careers.

America faces a strategic choice

The broader debate extends beyond any individual prosecution.

Unlike the United Nations Security Council, where Washington holds veto power, the ICC and the International Court of Justice operate independently of direct US control.

Critics of current US policy argue that refusing to engage with those institutions risks diminishing American influence over the future development of international law.

Supporters of Washington's position counter that the ICC has exceeded its mandate and has become increasingly politicised, making sanctions and resistance necessary to protect national sovereignty and close allies.

As global power becomes increasingly divided among competing blocs, the dispute highlights a larger strategic question: whether the United States can continue shaping the international legal order from the outside, or whether stepping away from institutions such as the ICC ultimately leaves other nations to write the rules.

SOURCE