Writer Brian Hudson warned that the campaign by US President Donald Trump’s administration against the International Criminal Court may be more costly than it appears, arguing that the attempt to weaken the court not only threatens an international legal institution, but may also undermine part of the influence on which the United States has built its global standing for decades.
In an article published on Common Dreams, Hudson stated that Trump clarified during his visit to Camp David on July 31 that Washington's move against the International Criminal Court was aimed at defending Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and "other people," not at protecting him personally. He added that Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated that five countries had announced plans to withdraw from the court since the start of the latest US campaign against it.
Hudson: The dispute is no longer about a single court or case, but rather about the United States' position within the international system, and whether Washington will continue to support international institutions and rules only when they serve its interests or the interests of its allies.
The author believes that the dispute is no longer about a single court or case, but rather about the position of the United States within the international system, and whether Washington will continue to support international institutions and rules only when they serve its interests or the interests of its allies.
He explained that the power of great powers depends not only on military and economic capabilities and alliances, but also on their ability to influence the shaping of international rules and convince others that they are defending a system that transcends national interests. He added that the legal and institutional framework established after World War II became part of American power, helping Washington isolate its adversaries, strengthen its alliances, and present its policies as a defense of a broader global order.
Hudson pointed out that the current US position is in stark contrast to its approach to Russia. Under President Joe Biden, Washington supported efforts to hold Moscow accountable for war crimes in Ukraine, and Congress eased restrictions on cooperation with the International Criminal Court regarding investigations related to Ukraine.
But the American position changed, according to the writer, after the court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant in November 2024. He added that in 2025 Trump issued an executive order allowing for sanctions related to the court's proceedings against the United States and Israel, before the pressure later expanded to include travel restrictions, additional sanctions, and diplomatic pressure on countries that continue to support the court.
Hudson pointed out that there are American legal arguments against the court's jurisdiction, noting that the United States and Israel are not signatories to the Rome Statute, and that American officials have objected for years to the trial of citizens of non-member states of the court without the consent of their governments.
In contrast, the International Criminal Court asserts its jurisdiction over the occupied Palestinian territories, including the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. The author argues that there is a difference between challenging the court's jurisdiction and punishing its officials and pressuring other states to abandon it, noting that the latter could weaken the institution itself.
Hudson said that the United States' credibility suffers when it appears to demand the application of international rules to its adversaries while rejecting them when they affect its allies. He quoted former EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell as saying, after the arrest warrants were issued for Netanyahu and Gallant, that court rulings are binding on EU member states.
He added that this contradiction is becoming increasingly apparent outside the Western world , where countries of the Global South use the international legal institutions that Western countries helped to establish, but sometimes do so in ways that do not align with the expectations of Washington and its allies.
The author noted that critics of international law argue that it has always been tied to the balance of power, and that courts lack effective enforcement mechanisms against major powers. However, he emphasized that history demonstrates that political influence does not forever preclude accountability, citing the arrest of former Chilean President Augusto Pinochet in London, the trial of former Chadian President Hissène Habré, and the trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milošević.
Hudson emphasized that the value of the International Criminal Court is not measured solely by the number of people it arrests or prosecutes, explaining that arrest warrants can influence leaders' movements and political calculations. He cited the court's issuance of an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2023, which contributed to his absence from the BRICS summit in South Africa.
He pointed out that the international system is undergoing a rapid transformation, with the decline of the Western countries’ monopoly on setting standards of international legitimacy, explaining that South Africa’s case before the International Court of Justice regarding Israel is an example of how countries of the Global South are using international legal institutions in new ways.
The author concluded by saying that Washington’s current gamble is on its ability to weaken the institutions of the international legal system without losing its influence within it, warning that weakening those institutions could ultimately reduce the United States’ own ability to influence the shape of the future world order.
He stressed that military and economic power will remain key factors, but legitimacy will remain a crucial element in a world where countries compete to interpret and apply international rules.
Tags:
america
