Trump Is Not the Only Threat to the International Criminal Court, Analysis Says

The International Criminal Court is facing growing pressure from the United States and other governments, but the court’s future may depend just as much on the willingness of its international supporters to defend it.

In a new opinion article, legal scholar Mark Kersten argues that US President Donald Trump’s campaign against the ICC should not be viewed as the court’s only existential challenge. He suggests that countries that publicly support international justice must also take concrete steps to protect the institution.

The Trump administration has significantly increased pressure on the ICC, including sanctions targeting court officials and threats against countries that cooperate with investigations involving the United States and its allies. US officials have repeatedly questioned the court’s authority over American citizens.

The pressure comes as the ICC faces a broader institutional crisis. Several countries have recently announced plans to leave the court, adding to concerns over its financial resources, international legitimacy and ability to conduct investigations. Chad became the fifth country to announce its withdrawal from the ICC in a recent wave of departures.

Supporters of the court argue that the ICC remains an important institution for prosecuting individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes when national courts are unwilling or unable to act. Critics, meanwhile, have accused the court of political bias and questioned its jurisdiction.

The debate has intensified following the ICC’s actions involving Israeli leaders and amid continuing international disputes over the court’s investigations. The United States and Israel are not members of the ICC, but Washington has continued to oppose the court’s efforts involving US citizens and close allies.

The future of the ICC may therefore depend on whether its member states are prepared to provide stronger political, financial and diplomatic support. As pressure from Washington grows, the court’s supporters face a broader question: whether defending international justice will remain a priority when doing so carries political costs.