Dismantling Justice "Brick by Brick": The U.S. Campaign Against the  International Criminal Court and the Crisis in The Hague

Rubio accused the tribunal, based in The Hague, of waging a legal war against American sovereignty and its allies using “the force of so-called international law.” For Washington, the campaign is not merely a diplomatic squabble; it represents a coordinated campaign involving visa revocations, financial sanctions, and intense diplomatic pressure on the 125 states parties to the Rome Statute to abandon or defund the court.

To understand how the world’s court of last resort reached this existential crossroads, one must look closely at Washington’s long-standing institutional aversion to external oversight, the dramatic tenure and eventual downfall of Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, and the uncertain future of international criminal justice.

The Roots of U.S. Hostility: Sovereignty vs. Global Jurisdiction

The United States’ resistance to the ICC is not new, but the Trump administration’s approach marks a shift from resistance to active destruction.

When the Rome Statute established the ICC in 1998, the U.S. under President Bill Clinton signed the treaty with heavy reservations, but President George W. Bush subsequently withdrew the signature in 2002. Washington’s foundational objection has always been the principle of territorial jurisdiction. Under the Rome Statute, the ICC can investigate alleged crimes committed on the territory of a member state, even if the perpetrator is a citizen of a non-member state (such as the U.S., Israel, Russia, or China).

To American legal strategists and lawmakers across both major parties, this principle violates several constitutional norms.

First is constitutional primacy: American political leaders maintain that no foreign tribunal can override the U.S. Constitution or judicial system.

The second reason is  protection of troops and personnel. Washington fears that American military personnel, intelligence officers, and elected officials operating abroad could be subjected to politically motivated prosecutions.  The American Service-Members' Protection Act (2002), informally dubbed the "Hague Invasion Act,"  explicitly authorizes the U.S. President to use "all means necessary" to free American or allied personnel detained by the ICC.

While the Biden administration adopted a more cooperative, case-by-case stance—notably praising the ICC’s actions against Russian war crimes in Ukraine—the return of President Donald Trump and the appointment of Marco Rubio signaled an aggressive campaign to eliminate the court entirely.

The Karim Khan Era: High Stakes and Escalation

Much of the political firestorm surrounding the ICC in recent years centers on the actions of its Chief Prosecutor, British barrister Karim Khan KC. Elected in 2021 to a nine-year term, Khan initially sought to streamline the prosecutor's office and focus resources on cases with strong prospects for enforcement.

However, his office soon found itself in the direct crosshairs of global superpowers.

In March 2023, Khan obtained arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Children's Rights Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova over the illegal deportation of Ukrainian children. While applauded by Western capitals, it drew fierce condemnation and criminal retaliation from Moscow.

But the definitive rupture between Washington and The Hague occurred in 2024, when Khan petitioned for arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, alongside Hamas leaders, concerning alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

The application for warrants against senior Israeli officials infuriated lawmakers in Washington. Bi-partisan threats of retaliation quickly turned into policy. The U.S. Congress passed sanction bills, and the administration imposed asset freezes and travel bans on ICC officials, framing the warrants as an illegitimate attack on a sovereign democratic state with its own functioning judicial system.

Misconduct Allegations and the Ouster of Karim Khan

Just as external pressure from the U.S. reached a boiling point, the court was struck by an internal scandal.

In late 2024, reports surfaced alleging that Karim Khan had engaged in sexual misconduct and coercive behavior toward a female staff member.

Khan vehemently denied all allegations, suggesting that the timing of the complaints coincided with intense geopolitical pressure aimed at undermining his office.

Despite his denials, the independent oversight body of the ICC launched a formal investigation. In June 2026, Khan was suspended from his duties, and the UK’s Bar Standards Board upheld a domestic suspension from legal practice pending formal inquiry.

The saga concluded in late July 2026 when the Assembly of States Parties convened in a historic closed-door session at UN Headquarters in New York. In an unprecedented vote, 82 out of 125 member states voted to remove Khan from office for serious misconduct and breach of duty.

Khan did not testify in person at the meeting because the US sanctions imposed against him also include a ban on entry to the United States.

According to documents seen by the Guardian, the disciplinary proceedings against Khan found no evidence to support claims that an assistant called Sarah, who made the harassment complaint, "was exploited by third parties, including intelligence agencies".

Khan’s ouster left the Office of the Prosecutor in administrative transition at the precise moment it faced its greatest political onslaught.

What Lies Ahead for the ICC?

The convergence of U.S. sanctions, diplomatic coercion, and internal leadership turmoil poses the gravest threat to the International Criminal Court since its creation in 2002.

With Karim Khan removed, deputy prosecutors have assumed interim management. The Assembly of States Parties faces the difficult task of selecting a new Chief Prosecutor who possesses both high legal credibility and the political fortitude to navigate pressure from global powers.

Valid warrants remain legally active. Despite Khan's removal and U.S. rhetoric, the legal actions taken during his tenure—including the arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Yoav Gallant—remain legally binding under international law. The judiciary of the court operates independently of the prosecutor's personal standing.

The U.S. strategy of pressuring states receiving American military or financial assistance to reject ICC jurisdiction could create serious divisions among member states. While traditional European allies continue to champion the court, developing nations or close U.S. allies may face intense pressure to withdraw from the Rome Statute.

Ultimately, the U.S. attempt to dismantle the ICC highlights a fundamental conflict between national sovereignty backed by power and universal legal accountability. If Washington succeeds in crippling the court, it risks dismantling one of the primary mechanisms built to prevent impunity for war crimes and genocide.

The European Union maintains a firm, official consensus in support of the International Criminal Court, viewing the tribunal as a cornerstone of the international rules-based order. Following U.S. declarations to neutralize and dismantle the ICC, the European Commission, European Council, and EU Foreign Affairs office issued strong public defenses of the tribunal. EU High Representative Kaja Kallas and European Council President António Costa reaffirmed that the court "stands against impunity, not against nations," insisting that the rule of law must prevail over extraterritorial economic or political power. All 27 EU member states remain signatories to the Rome Statute.