Sept. 02, 2026, 2:09 p.m. ET
|
United Nations
The International Criminal Court has faced a host of challenging, high-profile cases in its first quarter of a century. But its current struggle might be the greatest yet.
As it has shifted its focus in recent years from African dictators and bad guys to some of the world’s most powerful leaders, its very survival is now in question.
The United States has made no secret of its opposition to the court, which sits in The Hague. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced in July that the U.S. was launching a campaign to dismantle the ICC, bringing hearty cheers from some quarters – and deep misgivings from others.
The International Criminal Court was set up to bring individuals to justice for war crimes. But its future is now being questioned by the United States. At issue is whether the U.S. should maintain its commitment to international justice or try to end an organization it sees as flawed and overreaching its authority.
The backers of the U.S. include those who have long since concluded that the court has become a den of anti-Israel zealots.
Moreover, court cases against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin for alleged war crimes have set off alarms within U.S. conservative foreign policy circles – including the White House.
Might an unchecked court decide to charge U.S. President Donald Trump with war crimes over the boat strikes targeting suspected drug runners in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific?
“We have lunatics and crazies involved in the ICC that are talking about charging members of the U.S. military, maybe even the president,” Mr. Rubio said in announcing the U.S. effort.
Opponents of the campaign, on the other hand, call it a betrayal of the U.S. commitment to international justice since the Nuremberg trials after the end of World War II, and they warn it foreshadows a dark international climate where criminal regimes and their senior officials fear no consequences for their atrocities.
“This is the United States turning its back on 80 years of international justice, on 80 years of supporting international justice institutions and advancing the concept of consequences for the world’s worst violators of human rights and international norms,” says Jennifer Trahan, director of international law and human rights at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs.
“Essentially,” she adds, “this is the United States declaring that the world’s worst of the worst should have impunity.”
The death in prison of convicted war criminal Ratko Mladić on Aug. 27 underscored for some the kind of international accountability that could be lost. Mr. Mladić, a Bosnian Serb general known as “the butcher of Bosnia,” was found guilty in 2017 of perpetrating the massacre of more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica during the 1990s Balkan wars.
Many international human rights and rule-of-law organizations have harshly criticized the U.S. effort, as have some governments, including the European Union.
The ICC has 125 members and was established in 2002 as a “court of last resort” to investigate and prosecute individuals accused of crimes including genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression.
