President Trump has never liked the International Criminal Court. In his first term, he called it a “threat” to American sovereignty. Secretary of State Marco Rubio this week accused it of being “corrupt and fatally politicized.”
But the administration hasn’t stopped at words. After announcing sanctions on the court’s chief prosecutor and nine of its judges this year, the Trump administration this week imposed sanctions on the court’s president and senior trial lawyer, too.
To its detractors, the court attempts to exercise illegitimate authority over sovereign nations; to its supporters, it’s a powerful symbol of the rules-based international order that the Trump administration has sought to undermine. Today, my colleague Amanda Taub writes about whether it can survive the Trump era, and why that matters.
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.
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.
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.
ASK A CORRESPONDENT
Send us your questions about the Iran war
The U.S. and Israel attacked Iran on Feb. 28, starting a war that has spread to neighboring countries, halted oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz and rattled the global economy.
As the conflict nears the six-month mark, we want to hear from our readers.
What questions do you have about the state of the war? Are you concerned about its impact near you? Are you wondering about the options for Washington, Tehran, or other countries in the region? Send us your questions and we will take them to our correspondents in the Middle East, the U.S. and elsewhere.
MORE TOP NEWS
Harry and Meghan will return
Prince Harry, his wife Meghan and their two children are moving back to Britain in the upcoming weeks, according to two people familiar with their decision. There will be no change in their status as non-working royals, and they will remain as private individuals while they reside in Britain, both of the people said.
Six years ago, the couple left for the U.S. amid a clash with other members of the royal family and intense press scrutiny of Meghan.
In the intervening years, tensions with the family have remained: Harry wrote a tell-all book, “Spare”; the pair fronted a Netflix docuseries; and several efforts at reconciliation failed.
See a timeline of the break from their royal roles.
More on the royals: Queen Camilla, in rare public comments about King Charles’s cancer, talked about how difficult his diagnosis had been for her, particularly before the news became public.
OTHER NEWS
-
The United Arab Emirates is halting all trade with Iran as the Trump administration tries yet again to ramp up economic pressure on Iran.
-
Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine’s popular young defense minister who was fired by President Volodymyr Zelensky last month, called for elections.
-
A new mRNA vaccine could prevent skin cancer from returning, Moderna and Merck said.
-
Trade talks between Canada and the U.S. showed signs of progress ahead of an extended tariff deadline set for midnight on Friday.
-
After a Gen Z outcry in Vietnam, the government said that a former Communist Party official was behind a car crash that killed a teenager.
-
The North Korean leader’s sister and adviser dismissed Trump’s decision to scale back major military drills with South Korea, saying the overture “holds no interest for us.”
-
Cecilia Kang, who covers technology for The Times, traveled to the “data center capital of the world” outside Washington to see how the A.I. boom is affecting the area. Watch her video.
“With all my heart, Natalie.”
Natalie Harp is always by Trump’s side. The White House aide never takes a day off. She texts with world leaders on the president’s behalf. She has written him letters and concluded one with the above sign-off. Last week, she was revealed as one of the lucky few who joined the president on his secret flight out of Turkey. So, what exactly does she do?
If you had imagined 20 years ago what Shania Twain’s audience would look like today, you might have pictured something middle-aged. But at Wembley Stadium in London this summer, where she opened for Harry Styles, there were gaggles of girls and women of all varieties — moms and daughters, glitter-covered teenagers, young professionals in cosplay — and plenty of leopard print.
Twain’s young fans often see her as a glamorous, self-actualized champion whose songs are explicitly feminist statements. There’s only one wrinkle: Twain does not entirely identify with all of this. Read the interview.
‘Ted Lasso’ tackles the women’s game
Football is big business, and while the women’s game still lags in ticket sales and attendance, the gap is closing. In fact, women’s football is predicted to become a top-five global sport by the end of this decade. “Women’s sports are part of this cultural zeitgeist,” one expert said.
The latest season of “Ted Lasso,” the popular Apple TV sports comedy, taps into that zeitgeist by placing the Lady Greyhounds, a fictional women’s football team, at the heart of the show. This presents an opportunity and a challenge: pleasing old fans while welcoming new ones. Read more about why everyone’s watching.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Browse: A family-built, two-story boathouse in Ontario comes with a sauna.
Discover: This violinist and composer’s blazingly technical caprices are inspired by Kendrick Lamar and Nina Simone.
The inspiration for this sesame soy chicken with garlic-scallion noodles comes from cha chaan teng, the noisy Hong Kong diners known for cheap meals and brusque service. The sauce is the engine here: Make it once and it keeps all week.
