The United States has escalated its confrontation with the International Criminal Court by sanctioning the institution itself, moving beyond earlier measures against individual judges and prosecutors. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says Washington will prohibit transactions with what he called a “rogue court,” while the Treasury has provided a six-month grace period and exemptions for some activities. The ICC has condemned the measure, and several US allies, along with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, have opposed it.
Washington’s objections to the Court are longstanding. The United States never ratified the Rome Statute and rejects the proposition that its citizens, or nationals of non-member allies such as Israel, can be prosecuted without their governments’ consent.
Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute in 2015. ICC judges subsequently held that the Court’s territorial jurisdiction extends to Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. In November 2024, the Court rejected Israel’s jurisdictional challenges and issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant. The judges found reasonable grounds to believe they bore responsibility for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. Neither man has been convicted. Washington is free to dispute that reasoning. Using American financial power against the Court because its judges did not accept the US position takes the dispute well beyond legal argument.
These sanctions can make banks, insurers, technology companies and other service providers reluctant to deal with the ICC. The Court has already been reducing its dependence on American services and making alternative financial and technological arrangements. The selective application of international justice is the larger concern. The ICC has pursued Russian officials, Taliban leaders and suspects from conflicts in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Western governments have strongly supported accountability when Russian forces are accused of crimes in Ukraine. The credibility of that position suffers when judicial scrutiny of an ally produces sanctions against the institution carrying it out. Gaza is central to the present confrontation. The warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant concern alleged crimes including starvation as a method of warfare, murder, persecution and other inhumane acts. The ICC has also pursued Hamas figures for alleged crimes including murder, hostage-taking, torture and sexual violence arising from the October 7 attacks. Its Palestine investigation has not been confined to Israeli conduct. None of this places the ICC beyond scrutiny. Its slow proceedings, dependence on states to enforce warrants and record of uneven enforcement have attracted criticism for years.
American diplomacy continues to invoke international law when discussing Ukraine, Sudan and Afghanistan. Such arguments carry less authority if international criminal justice is welcomed against adversaries and resisted through economic coercion when it reaches a close ally.
