US vows to dismantle International Criminal Court 'brick by brick' in campaign condemned globally

At the turn of the century, more than a hundred countries voted in favour of establishing a court that would investigate and prosecute individuals accused of the gravest international crimes.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established to act as a court of last resort, trying individuals charged with genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression.

Back in 1998, the United States was one of seven countries that voted against its foundation.

Now, its leaders are vowing to dismantle the court "brick by brick", describing the ICC as an intolerable threat to US sovereignty.

It is a move that has drawn fierce criticism from around the world, with Amnesty International condemning the campaign as reprehensible.

While the campaign is in line with the Trump administration's America-first rhetoric, analysts say the renewed focus on fighting the ICC is predominantly for domestic politics purposes, with upcoming mid-term elections in November, and the looming spectre of a presidential race.

US says it's battling 'lunatics and crazies'

Since taking office for the second time in January 2025, US President Donald Trump has taken anti-international sentiment to the extreme, according to John Bellinger, a former adviser to the State Department during the George W Bush administration.

The US has cut funding to dozens of international organisations, permanently shuttered the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and exited the Paris Agreement, an international treaty on climate change.

These moves are "part and parcel of the same sort of anti-international sentiment" that has long been present in the Republican party, Mr Bellinger said.

"The Trump administration has simply taken it to the highest level ever," he said.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced in mid-July that the US would wage a campaign to systematically disable the ICC's ability to function.

"We are not members of that; we never signed on to that treaty; they need to understand that.

"Now, they're going to see the consequences of ignoring us."

The Trump administration was unhappy about the ICC's 2024 arrest warrant issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials, and imposed sanctions on 11 ICC officials in response.

Mr Trump late last week said the fresh efforts to dismantle the ICC were not aimed at defending himself, and that there was "no indication" the court was seeking to investigate or prosecute him.

"There's no information that they're after me. It could happen. I wouldn't be surprised," he said.

"[Rubio] is not trying to defend me. He is trying to defend Bibi [Mr Netanyahu] and various other people."

Since Mr Rubio's open declaration of war on the ICC, Venezuela and Chad have both announced plans to withdraw from the court, which is based in The Hague in the Netherlands.

Venezuela's plans to exit the court had already been in motion, according to Mr Bellinger, who is also an adjunct senior fellow in international law at the Council on Foreign Relations.

"I'm sure that the US, which is essentially now running Venezuela, put pressure on the new government to finish that process," he said.

'Perplexing' declaration motivated by domestic politics

Mr Bellinger said the Secretary of State's "scorched earth campaign" was perplexing and driven by domestic political concerns, rather than any foreign policy priority.

"The ICC has not done anything to provoke the United States directly in the last six years," he said.

He said the US had been unhappy with the ICC's arrest warrants for members of the Israeli cabinet, but noted that happened nearly two years ago.

"It's really not at all clear why Secretary Rubio decided to announce right now that the US is launching a campaign to dismantle the ICC," he said.

Mr Bellinger said Mr Rubio's own political ambitions may be playing a large part in the decision to wage war against the ICC.

"The Secretary of State, who is obviously a potential candidate for president in 2028, is trying to bolster his credentials among conservatives in the United States," he said.

He said Mr Rubio could claim success if he manages to persuade other countries to withdraw.

"By simply announcing a campaign and taking some actions as part of that campaign, he can now point to this and say, 'Look, I have stood up to protect Americans and the United States.'"

But Mr Bellinger said he doubted the Secretary of State would have luck persuading major European nations, or countries like Australia, to withdraw.

"It's just going to cause friction between the United States and our closer Western allies."

Record-low approval ratings for Mr Trump and the Republican Party are a major factor in the push to dismantle the ICC, according to associate professor Carrie McDougall from the University of Melbourne Law School, an expert on the ICC.

"What we've often seen in history is that when an administration, particularly one that has authoritarian tendencies, starts to get in trouble, is that it starts trying to identify external enemies," she said.

"And I think the Trump administration has said expressly that they have very little regard for international law and international institutions. So it makes [the ICC] a very obvious target as part of Trump's rhetoric."

US history with the ICC

Before Mr Trump started attacking the ICC during his first administration, the US had already had a complicated relationship with the international court.

Dr McDougall said various administrations had often criticised it publicly while providing behind-the-scenes support, but added that the complex relationship had become "increasingly hostile" under Mr Trump.

His administration imposed sanctions on the ICC prosecutor in June 2020, after an investigation into US personnel in Afghanistan was announced.

Those sanctions were lifted by then-president Joe Biden in 2021. Later that year the new ICC prosecutor Karim Khan, who has now been removed over sexual misconduct allegations, decided not to investigate US forces and the CIA for war crimes in Afghanistan.

"We can really only speculate about the reasons behind that deprioritisation," Dr McDougall said.

"It could be, as some have suggested, that it was a reflection of US pressure put on the office of the prosecutor, but I think it's very plausible that it is very difficult to investigate historic allegations when the states concerned are not cooperating."

She said it was yet to be seen whether the US would find any traction in pressuring its allies to follow suit and reject the ICC beyond Venezuela, but added that prospect was "very worrying".

"I think it's absolutely critical that ICC state parties stand up for the court," she said.

Mr Bellinger said although the ICC was a "flawed and politicised institution", it was ultimately the only venue for seeking justice for the worst international crimes.

The Australian government has reaffirmed its commitment to the ICC.

In a statement to the ABC, a spokesperson for the Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said Australia was a longstanding supporter of the International Criminal Court.

"We respect the court's independence and the important role it plays in upholding international law," they said.