Is the International Criminal Court a joke?

Should the United States determine the legal standard for the rest of the globe? Duh!

What are you a frickin communist!

The ICC Is No Judicial Superhero

On balance, the court probably makes the world less just and more dangerous.

By Eugene Kontorovich, WSJ

July 23, 2026

After Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced in these pages the new U.S. policy of “dismantling” the International Criminal Court, the organization’s defenders are arguing that America is putting its interests ahead of global justice. They’re half right: Ending the ICC is in America’s interests. But dissolving it won’t harm global justice—because the ICC doesn’t help it.

Some imagine the ICC to be a judicial superhero, dispensing justice to arch villains around the world. It is anything but. In its nearly 25 years of existence, the ICC has secured only six final convictions for atrocity crimes after appeals. All were African warlords or militiamen. The ICC hasn’t successfully prosecuted a single head of state, nor has it deterred crimes in continuing conflicts.

The crimes the ICC deals with are typically committed in conflicts between states or ethnic groups. Those committing them know they face a high risk of a violent and, as in the case of Moammar Gadhafi, potentially gruesome demise if they lose the conflict or otherwise miscalculate. Because the ICC has no army or police force, it can prosecute leaders only if they fall from power or badly blunder.

More people wanted by the tribunal have died at the hands of their enemies than have been sentenced and imprisoned by the ICC for atrocity crimes. Israel alone terminated more ICC proceedings by airstrikes last year than the court did with convictions. That is because war crimes are committed by those with power and can be stopped only through the exercise of power—something the ICC’s European backers have no interest in doing.

The ICC’s defenders point to its indictments of Russian and Taliban leaders as proof of its importance. But these are the clearest demonstrations of its impotence. The ICC waited eight years from Ukraine’s 2015 acceptance of its jurisdiction to indict Vladimir Putin, while giving him a pass on the invasion of Georgia, a member-state.

The 2023 warrant against Mr. Putin hasn’t moderated Russia’s conduct in Ukraine. If anything, it has strengthened his resolve to stay in power to ensure that he avoids prosecution. Civilian casualties in Ukraine have risen significantly since the indictment.

Taliban Supreme Leader Haibatullah Akhundzada, indicted by the ICC last year for persecuting women, isn’t worried that the ICC will scoop him up from Kabul as the U.S. did with Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro. Nor is the reclusive cleric suffering because he can’t visit the Louvre or London Bridge.

The ICC’s record compares poorly with the international courts that inspired it—from the Nuremberg tribunals to the courts the United Nations Security Council created for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, which both convicted dozens of defendants in a relatively short time. Those prosecutions depended on the successful exercise of significant military force and the coercion of involved governments.

If the ICC disappeared tomorrow, the world wouldn’t become a more dangerous place. To the contrary, the court may create negative deterrence. It can try murderous leaders only when they are deposed. But in such a situation, the prospect of falling into the hands of The Hague doesn’t look so bad. The ICC offers a refuge during protracted proceedings that may well be bungled, while their enemies offer certain death.

Things look different for democratic leaders because they naturally rotate out of power, leaving them vulnerable to arrest. This imbalance tips the scales against democracies when they fight unfree regimes.

Democratic rotation is also why the clock is ticking on Mr. Rubio’s strategy. The ICC’s defenders claim the administration’s “dismantling” is unnecessary because no U.S. nationals have been prosecuted. Others say it shows the Trump administration knows it is committing serious crimes and should be prosecuted. But the ICC would be prudent enough not to bring indictments until Mr. Trump’s term ends. Does anyone believe a President Gavin Newsom would attack the Netherlands to rescue former Trump officials arrested on vacation?

The ICC isn’t good at putting away dictators, but it is excellent at self-preservation. The European Union has a quasireligious attachment to the ICC and will exert pressure to keep states from quitting, as it successfully did with Hungary. Given that it takes a year for a country’s announced exit to become effective, the ICC’s defenders will try to wait out the Trump administration. If Mr. Rubio is serious about his new policy, he will have to act quickly to implement measures such as institutionwide sanctions and penalties on member states.

Mr. Kontorovich is a professor at George Mason University’s Scalia Law School and a Senior Legal Fellow at Advancing American Freedom.