US vows to dismantle ICC, misrepresenting its limited jurisdiction

WASHINGTON, 21 SEPTEMBER 2026 —

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has declared in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that Washington will dismantle the International Criminal Court (ICC) “brick by brick if necessary,” escalating a decades-old US campaign to undermine the Hague-based tribunal.

The US, as a permanent Security Council member, could veto any such referral, leaving the Court powerless to investigate alleged crimes by Americans on US soil.

---

The US has long opposed the ICC, dating back to the Clinton administration. President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute in 2000—knowing the US Senate would never ratify it—while the Bush administration actively sabotaged the Court. In 2002, then-UN Ambassador John Bolton “unsigned” the treaty, and President George W. Bush signed the “Hague Invasion Act,” threatening sanctions against ICC officials. The US also abstained from a 2005 Security Council referral of Darfur to the Court.

The Obama administration adopted a more pragmatic stance, avoiding outright hostility but never rejoining the Rome Statute. The Biden administration has gone further, directing the Pentagon—over its objections—to cooperate with the ICC’s investigation into alleged war crimes by Russian forces in Ukraine. Yet even this limited engagement has not led to US accession.

The Trump administrations were the most overtly hostile. In 2020, former President Donald Trump imposed sanctions against ICC staff investigating US and allied forces in Afghanistan. Then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo labeled the Court a “thoroughly broken and corrupted institution” and imposed sanctions on ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and a colleague to block the Afghanistan inquiry.

--- Rubio’s latest threat coincides with speculation that the ICC may investigate alleged crimes by US personnel during the 2024 aborted coup attempt in Venezuela, where US forces briefly detained former President Nicolás Maduro. The US has also condemned the ICC’s recent arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Galant over alleged war crimes in Gaza.

Despite its limited prosecutorial success, the ICC’s existence has reshaped global norms by challenging the long-standing principle of state sovereignty over justice. The Court’s establishment in 2002 followed the ad hoc tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, which former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali called a “Grotian Moment”—a shift away from state impunity for atrocity crimes. The US has historically supported this framework, recognizing its foreign policy value, as seen in its cooperation on Ukraine.

--- For Malaysian businesses and policymakers, the US-ICC standoff carries indirect but growing relevance. While Malaysia, as a non-party to the Rome Statute, has no direct obligation to the Court, the broader debate over international justice could influence future cooperation on human rights and conflict resolution in Southeast Asia. The ICC’s limited reach means its dismantling would not immediately disrupt Malaysian legal or diplomatic frameworks.

However, the precedent of a major power rejecting international accountability could weaken global trust in multilateral institutions—a risk for all nations.

The real damage from Washington’s campaign lies in its erosion of the post-Cold War consensus against impunity, a norm the US itself helped create. Rubio’s claims that the ICC poses a threat to US personnel—particularly border agents—are legally baseless, as the Court’s jurisdiction over Americans depends on either their country’s ratification of the Rome Statute (which the US has not done) or a Security Council referral (which the US would veto).

The ICC’s existence, flawed as it may be, remains a critical bulwark against unchecked state power—a principle that, if abandoned, could have far-reaching consequences for global governance.