“We’ll tear it down brick by brick”: How U.S. Pressure on the Hague Court Will Hinder Putin’s Punishment

"Shelter" asked what the risks are of U.S. pressure on the ISS and whether it will affect the investigation into Russian war crimes against Ukraine. 

How did the ICC anger Washington? 

On July 13, the website of the American publication The Wall Street Journal published a high-profile op-ed by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio titled “Why Are We Abolishing the International Criminal Court?” Through this column, President Donald Trump’s administration expressed its belief that the ICC’s actions allegedly threaten U.S. sovereignty and independence.

In his column, Rubio claimed, without providing any evidence, that the court is driven by “a powerful network of left-wing non-governmental organizations, self-righteous globalists, and hostile Third World governments, united by their hostility toward the United States.”

The Secretary of State noted that the court’s interference in the activities of the U.S. military and law enforcement constitutes a “serious overreach” of its authority, and concluded with a threat: “Using every tool at our government’s disposal and working with every ally with whom we can join forces, we will dismantle the ICC—brick by brick, if necessary.”

The main stumbling block in the current escalation between the U.S. and the ICC has been the arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, issued in November 2024 for “crimes against humanity and war crimes”committed in the Gaza Strip. Washington has repeatedly criticized this decision, defending its key ally, and recently this issue has once again taken center stage.

On July 20, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced that he was considering the possibility of arresting Netanyahu if he visits the city to attend the UN General Assembly in September. In response, Trump stated that the Israeli prime minister would not be arrested on U.S. soil “under any circumstances.”

However, this conflict between Washington and The Hague did not begin today—it dates back to Trump’s first term. The court’s then-Chief Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, launched an investigation into alleged crimes committed by U.S. armed forces during the war in Afghanistan, in response to which Trump imposed sanctions against ICC staff members. The next U.S. president, Joe Biden, lifted these restrictions after the court halted its investigation into the events in Afghanistan.

Does the U.S. pose a threat to the court’s work?

The International Criminal Court, located in The Hague, is the primary international institution for holding individuals accountable for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The idea of establishing the court emerged against the backdrop of the bloody events of the 1990s—the civil war in Yugoslavia and the genocide in Rwanda. The legal foundation for the ICC was the Rome Statute, adopted in 1998, and the court itself officially began its work in July 2002. 

As of today, 125 states are parties to the Rome Statute, including Ukraine. Although Kyiv signed the document back in 2000, it delayed its ratification for years. In August 2024, the Verkhovna Rada finally approved this decision, enabling Ukraine to become a full member of the ICC as of January 1, 2025.

The United States, however, is not a member of the ICC. The U.S. government signed the Rome Statute in 2000 during Bill Clinton’s presidency, but he immediately stated that ratification would take place only after the court’s work had been tested in practice. As early as 2002, the administration of George W. Bush withdrew the U.S. signature altogether. The White House explained its decision as a measure to protect American military personnel.

Now, the U.S. State Department has announced a campaign to “eliminate the threat posed by the International Criminal Court to American sovereignty.” Measures will include revoking visas and imposing entry bans into the United States for ICC personnel, as well as tightening sanctions against the court and its affiliated organizations. 

The State Department’s official statement contains another interesting point: a call for allies under the U.S. security “umbrella” to reject the ICC’s jurisdiction over Americans. Those who refuse to do so but continue to receive assistance from Washington face the threat of “enhanced scrutiny.”

It is worth noting that in February 2025, Trump signed an executive order imposing sanctions against the court for “persecuting the U.S. and its allies.” Since then, the White House has only intensified the pressure by imposing sanctions against individual ICC judges and officials, including financial and visa restrictions. 

Kateryna Busol, a lawyer and head of the Ukrainian program at the International Center for Transitional Justice, explained to “Shelter” that previously, the U.S. had imposed only personal sanctions against individual ICC officials. This, for example, prevented the use of Visa or Mastercard payment cards registered in the U.S. However, Washington’s current threats consist of an institutional offensive that could affect the court’s entire operations.

According to her, if American technology companies cease cooperation with the ICC, the court will need to take specific practical steps—such as switching to alternative European software or satellite imagery from companies not affiliated with the U.S. 

Oksana Synyuk, an international lawyer and head of the analytical department at the ZMINA Human Rights Center, also told “Shelter” that the measures chosen by Washington will definitely not benefit the ICC’s operations. 

She noted that the sanctions will affect the court’s staff’s ability to travel for criminal investigations, their personal accounts with the Registry, the storage of information on cloud services such as Google or Microsoft, and the institution’s funding.

The expert specifically noted that U.S. pressure will affect EU countries and the United Kingdom, which cooperate with Washington on intelligence sharing and nuclear security but support the ICC.

Synyuk views the White House’s actions as a consequence of the radicalization of Washington’s position, “which has always been that international justice applies to others, but not to the U.S.”

What does this mean for Ukraine and the investigation into Russia’s crimes?

U.S. pressure on the ICC also raises the question of whether holding Russia accountable for its aggression against Ukraine will be compromised by this conflict.

Back in March 2023, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and the so-called Children’s Rights Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova on suspicion of deporting Ukrainian children to Russia.

Subsequently, former Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Chief of the Russian General Staff Valery Gerasimov came under the court’s scrutiny for strikes on Ukraine’s civilian and energy infrastructure.

Amid Washington’s attack on the ICC, Ukrainian human rights activists and war victims signed a joint statement calling for the court to be protected from pressure and sanctions.

They noted that the ICC is facing attacks and threats for carrying out the work entrusted to it by the international community, including Ukraine. 

Lawyer Kateryna Busol emphasized that, under its statutory obligations, the ICC cannot legally terminate investigations that have already begun—regardless of sanctions, potential peace agreements, or amnesties.

In addition, she emphasized that the ICC and the Special Tribunal on the Crime of Aggression by the Russian Federation, which is currently being established, are complementary elements. 

Since the ICC, under its statute, cannot consider the crime of aggression without Russia’s consent, this function must be assumed by the Special Tribunal. At the same time, the Special Tribunal does not have the authority to investigate war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, which fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

For her part, Oksana Synyuk acknowledged that the U.S. actions will complicate the practical and technical aspects of investigations in Ukraine. The Ukrainian national system investigates the bulk of crimes but requires the ICC’s assistance in complex cases involving the Russian Federation’s top leadership and in matters concerning the deportation of Ukrainian children.

The expert emphasized that the ICC is the only international body that is not subject to immunity restrictions regarding sitting heads of state.

“The Special Tribunal has opened up another avenue through which Russia’s top leadership could be prosecuted after these individuals leave office. But when that will happen—or whether it will happen at all before they die—remains an open question. The ICC has no such restrictions. Regarding the issue of the deportation of children, we have an arrest warrant for President Putin. And if he were on the territory of a country where he could be arrested, the ICC—even while he is still the sitting president—could hear a case against him. For now, this is the only international body that would have the authority to do so,” she said. 

Synyuk concluded that Ukraine has a strong interest in ensuring that the ICC continues to function as a vital component of the system for holding perpetrators of international crimes accountable.