Argument for Dissolution of the ICC: The US Administration Is Wrongfully Exerting Pressure
The Trump administration is once again ramping up pressure on the International Criminal Court, which holds individuals criminally responsible for ordering and carrying out war crimes. Although the U.S. is not a member of the ICC, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has conducted a policy of pressuring member nations to withdraw, vowing to “dismantle the ICC – brick by brick, if necessary.” This unjustly challenges the rule of law that forms the foundation of the international order and it cannot be ignored.
The ICC was established in 2002, following massacres in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. It was formed because the International Court of Justice, which adjudicates disputes between states, was unable to hold individuals criminally responsible for perpetrating crimes against humanity, such as the slaughter of citizens and ethnic groups, justifying their actions as the exercise of government authority.
The ICC’s reason for being is as a last resort to prosecute criminal atrocities that the ICJ cannot deal with.
The Russian military’s invasion of Ukraine, and the Israeli military’s attack on the Palestinian territory of Gaza, are allegedly war crimes, and arrest warrants have been issued for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
However, the Trump administration has been hostile to the ICC since Trump’s first term, imposing repeated economic sanctions on the court’s judges and other parties related to the court. This hostility stems from concerns that U.S. military personnel and high-ranking Israeli officials with special ties to the U.S., risk prosecution.
Rubio pointed out that the ICC's authority “threatens American sovereignty,” but since the ICC's jurisdiction only extends to cases in which U.S. Armed Forces and similar entities commit crimes within the territory of member nations, the claims of non-member states are misdirected. Pressuring member nations to withdraw is a strike against their sovereignty and a threat to diplomatic freedom.
The U.S. has exercised military force against Venezuela and Iran claiming they are “threats to the United States,” and has been criticized for violating the sovereignty of both nations by detaining and murdering their leaders.
Making light of the sovereignty of other nations while prioritizing one’s sovereignty above all others is typical for a country that touts “rule by force.” It is precisely these leaders who oppress citizens and ethnic groups in the name of such countries that should be punished by the ICC under the law.
In 2020 and 2025, dozens of countries and regions opposed to U.S. pressure toward the ICC drafted a joint statement in protest, but the Japanese government did not participate, choosing to overlook the Trump administration's reckless behavior.
The Japanese government is the ICC's biggest financial supporter, and moreover, Japanese judge Tomoko Akane is an interested party, so to speak. Even if the Trump administration demands withdrawal and that the parties join in the pressure exerted on the ICC, Japan should persuade the U.S. to instead cooperate with the international organization.
The ICC was established in 2002, following massacres in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. It was formed because the International Court of Justice, which adjudicates disputes between states, was unable to hold individuals criminally responsible for perpetrating crimes against humanity, such as the slaughter of citizens and ethnic groups, justifying their actions as the exercise of government authority.
The ICC’s reason for being is as a last resort to prosecute criminal atrocities that the ICJ cannot deal with.
The Russian military’s invasion of Ukraine, and the Israeli military’s attack on the Palestinian territory of Gaza, are allegedly war crimes, and arrest warrants have been issued for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
However, the Trump administration has been hostile to the ICC since Trump’s first term, imposing repeated economic sanctions on the court’s judges and other parties related to the court. This hostility stems from concerns that U.S. military personnel and high-ranking Israeli officials with special ties to the U.S., risk prosecution.
Rubio pointed out that the ICC's authority “threatens American sovereignty,” but since the ICC's jurisdiction only extends to cases in which U.S. Armed Forces and similar entities commit crimes within the territory of member nations, the claims of non-member states are misdirected. Pressuring member nations to withdraw is a strike against their sovereignty and a threat to diplomatic freedom.
The U.S. has exercised military force against Venezuela and Iran claiming they are “threats to the United States,” and has been criticized for violating the sovereignty of both nations by detaining and murdering their leaders.
Making light of the sovereignty of other nations while prioritizing one’s sovereignty above all others is typical for a country that touts “rule by force.” It is precisely these leaders who oppress citizens and ethnic groups in the name of such countries that should be punished by the ICC under the law.
In 2020 and 2025, dozens of countries and regions opposed to U.S. pressure toward the ICC drafted a joint statement in protest, but the Japanese government did not participate, choosing to overlook the Trump administration's reckless behavior.
The Japanese government is the ICC's biggest financial supporter, and moreover, Japanese judge Tomoko Akane is an interested party, so to speak. Even if the Trump administration demands withdrawal and that the parties join in the pressure exerted on the ICC, Japan should persuade the U.S. to instead cooperate with the international organization.
Previous article![]( "Washington’s Smartest Move Is To Keep Israel out of the War")
Next article![]( "Trump’s Iran Disaster")