UN Defends International Criminal Court as U.S. Secretary of State Launches Campaign to Dismantle It

On Monday, the United Nations rolled out a robust defense of the International Criminal Court (ICC) while the United States rolled out a new diplomatic push to dismantle it.

In a brief press briefing, UN spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric told reporters that, although the ICC operates independently from the UN Secretariat, it remains a "critical cog in the international justice system." He added that the court is backed by a large number of Member States and helps bring accountability for serious crimes.

The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, the 1998 treaty that created the ICC and is based in The Hague, Netherlands. In a recent opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the United States never agreed to a world tribunal that could override U.S. courts and the Constitution. He described the campaign as a push for "sovereign States over globalism" and warned that the ICC was "evolving into a supranational body seeking to override the authority of sovereign states."

Rubio’s remarks come after Washington imposed sanctions last year on nine ICC personnel—including judges, the prosecutor and deputy prosecutors—in connection with investigations into alleged war crimes by U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Israeli actions in Gaza. The sanctions were part of a broader diplomatic effort to limit the court’s influence over U.S. military and law‑enforcement operations.

In response to Rubio’s characterization of the ICC, Dujarric cited the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Rome Statute as instruments created by sovereign Member States. He said these instruments have "brought protection, relief to millions of people" and are "under threat and under attack," echoing the Secretary‑General’s frequent remarks on the fragility of international law.

The ICC, established in 2002, is the first permanent international court with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. It can only exercise jurisdiction when national courts are unwilling or unable to do so. As of October 2024, 125 states are parties to the Rome Statute, while the United States, China, India, and Russia remain non‑party.

Rubio’s campaign has drawn criticism from international law experts and human‑rights advocates. They argue that sanctions against ICC judges and prosecutors undermine the court’s ability to pursue accountability for the world’s most serious crimes. The U.S. has also faced calls to withdraw sanctions and repeal executive orders that target ICC personnel.

The United Nations has repeatedly emphasized that the ICC complements, rather than replaces, national judicial systems. The court’s annual report, presented to the General Assembly in November 2025, highlighted ongoing investigations and the challenges of enforcing its rulings.

At present, the U.S. continues to pursue its diplomatic strategy to limit the ICC’s reach, while the UN stresses the court’s role in global justice. The outcome of this confrontation will shape the future of international criminal accountability and the balance between national sovereignty and collective legal mechanisms.

The ICC remains an independent institution located in The Hague, and its jurisdiction is limited to situations where the accused is a national of a state party, the alleged crime occurred on the territory of a state party, or the United Nations Security Council refers a case. The court’s work is guided by the Rome Statute, which entered into force on 1 July 2002.

The United Nations and the ICC continue to monitor developments in U.S. policy and the broader international community’s response to the court’s mandate.