Will the US kill the ICC?

The meme is getting old but Marco Rubio just got another item on his infinite to-do list, which already includes viceroy of Venezuela, regime change in Cuba, slashing State costs, mediating DRC-Rwanda spats, DJ-ing weddings, and featuring in UFO documentaries.

Now this week, he’s announced he’s trying to dismantle the International Criminal Court.

But… can Rubio really kill the ICC? Should he kill the ICC? 

It’s been around since 2002 and is designed to complement (not replace) national courts —the ICC only steps in if a national court can’t or won’t.

A quarter century later, it’s now got…

• 125 members (though not the US, China, Russia, India, Iran, or Israel), and

• It can prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression.

It’s also got a bit of a track record, issuing 61 arrest warrants, trying 34 cases, and convicting 13 (including on lesser crimes like witness-bribing):

• Thomas Lubanga (2012) got 14 years for using child soldiers in the Congo

• Dominic Ongwen (2021) got 25 years for war crimes in Uganda, and

• Ali Kushayb (2025) got 20 years for his atrocities in Darfur.

Some other spicy cases are still ongoing today, like the one against Philippine ex-president Duterte over his deadly war on drugs. Plus others remain at large, like Joseph Kony (remember him?), Sudan’s al-Bashir, Russia’s Putin and… Israel’s Netanyahu.

So right there, you might have a sense of why the ICC has its critics, like…

• It’s too slow (only 13 convictions in nearly 25 years?)

• It’s too biased (all 13 convictions stem from Africa??)

• It’s too weak (entirely reliant on members to arrest indictees???), and

• It’s too political (eg Italy just released a Libyan fugitive, presumably to keep Libya helpful in stemming irregular migration to Europe????).

Then throw in that the court’s chief prosecutor (Khan) is now suspended amid claims he was sleeping with a subordinate — he denies her allegation things ever got non-consensual, but member countries are due to vote on his ousting next week.

So okay… circling back to where this all began, is the US now angry on behalf of Khan’s alleged victim? Or the victims of endless impunity? Or the entire continent of Africa? No.

Rubio is angry on behalf of America, warning the ICC’s entire raison d'être (very hard to say that out-loud without sounding smug) goes against the founding principles of a sovereign and free America built upon your own government, laws, and jury.

Now… you might recall the ICC is only meant to complement (not replace) national courts, precisely as a compromise to address US and other fears of ICC over-reach. The result (Art 17) is partly why so many other like-minded states eventually felt comfortable joining.

So… what’s now changed? Probably three things:

First, the ICC authorised a 2020 probe into crimes in Afghanistan (an ICC member) by the Taliban, local armed forces, and… the US! After the Taliban’s subsequent return, the court then de-prioritised alleged US crimes, but a US line had already been crossed.

Then second, the ICC famously issued arrest warrants not only for the (now dead) Hamas leaders responsible for the deadly 2023 attacks on US ally Israel, but also for both Netanyahu and Gallant (ex-defence) over Israel’s deadly response.

Then third, there’s Trump 2.0 — sharper in asserting US sovereignty back home, but also sharper in asserting US force abroad (Maduro, narcoboats, Iran). One former prosecutor has already described those narcoboat strikes as possible crimes against humanity.

So okay… that’s why the US is back dunking on the ICC. But can the US really kill it?

DC has already adopted measures to shield itself, like the Bush 2-era American Service-Members' Protection Act, dubbed the Hague Invasion Act for the way it authorises “any means necessary” to free US personnel from ICC custody. Bush also pushed 100 countries to pledge not to hand US citizens over to international courts.

Plus Trump 2.0 already went further, slapping individual ICC judges and prosecutors (plus their immediate families) with unprecedented sanctions after the Israel warrants.

But Rubio is now talking about going harder. How? The most striking focus in his remarks is on pressuring allies — and anyone else relying on the US — to reject ICC authority.

Could that work?

No country has ditched the ICC under US pressure so far, and 125 actually ended up joining the court despite US pressure. So this time around, most have laid low, but the EU has come out in support of the court, slamming Rubio’s latest remarks as “not acceptable”.

Sound even smarter:

• Guatemala became the first country to convict its own ex-president (Ríos Montt) of genocide in 2013, though the verdict was soon annulled on procedural grounds, and he died in 2018 before a retrial could conclude.

• The above ICC arrest warrant for Netanyahu and Gallant is separate to South Africa’s International Court of Justice genocide case against Israel.

• Some ~60 nations are reportedly attending (at varying levels) Rubio’s Resurgence of Political Terrorism summit in DC today (Thurs), with a particular focus on what State describes as transnational far-left terrorism.