U.S. Senator Marco Rubio has recently declared that the Trump administration aimed to “dismantle” the International Criminal Court (ICC), underscoring longstanding American opposition to the court’s jurisdiction. Rubio emphasized bipartisan resistance within both the White House and Congress against U.S. participation in the ICC, highlighting the principle that the United States has never consented to be bound by the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the court.

Rubio’s position reflects a core tenet of international law that states are generally not subject to treaties they have not ratified. The United States has consistently maintained that it should not be subject to the ICC’s authority since it never ratified the Rome Statute, a stance formally reinforced in 2002 when Congress passed legislation authorizing the president to use all necessary means, including force, to free Americans and allies detained by or on behalf of the ICC.

However, critics argue that this position overlooks historical U.S. actions supporting international criminal justice mechanisms that imposed jurisdiction on nonconsenting states. The United States played a leading role in establishing several ad hoc international tribunals—such as those for Nuremberg and Tokyo after World War II, and the United Nations tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia—that operated under mandates compelling countries to submit to their jurisdiction absent formal consent. Additionally, the U.S. did not block the Security Council’s 2005 referral of the Darfur situation to the ICC, despite Sudan’s refusal to join the Rome Statute.

Proponents of the ICC contend that, notwithstanding its imperfections and criticisms of prosecutorial conduct—including allegations of bias or incomplete investigations involving the U.S. and Israel—the court upholds critical principles of international law and human rights protections. They urge the United States to engage directly with the ICC and its members to address concerns constructively and support reforms aimed at strengthening the court’s legitimacy and effectiveness.

Legal experts have called on both ICC advocates and opponents like Rubio to engage in more substantive dialogue. They stress the importance of acknowledging the court’s limitations while collaborating to improve its operations rather than dismissing its mission outright. Such engagement, they argue, could facilitate the evolution of the ICC into a more credible and functioning institution that ensures accountability for grave crimes, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

The debate reflects broader tensions over international law and sovereignty, illustrating the challenges facing global efforts to enforce accountability across national borders amid differing political and legal perspectives.