Why the United States Refuses to Join the International Criminal Court

In today’s Rule of Law Brief, we dive into one of the most revealing contradictions in American foreign policy: the United States champions human rights and the laws of war, yet refuses to join the International Criminal Court—and in recent years has shifted from polite non-participation to open hostility.

Drawing on the history of the Rome Statute, the post-9/11 security environment, and the evolution of U.S. power, this episode examines:

* Why the United States helped build the ICC’s legal architecture but refused to join it.

* How the ICC almost certainly has valid jurisdiction over U.S. nationals for crimes committed on ICC-member territory—yet the U.S. has made clear it will not allow prosecutions.

* The role of hegemony, sovereignty, and strategic calculation in shaping U.S. resistance.

* Why complementarity doesn’t calm U.S. fears—and why the ICC doubts U.S. internal accountability.

* How U.S. allies became caught between their support for international justice and American pressure.

* How the Trump administration abandoned decades of diplomatic restraint and retaliated directly against ICC officials.

* Why this issue becomes even more acute as the United States drifts toward authoritarian tendencies.

* And finally, the uncomfortable truth: justice for thee, but not for me.

This is where the idealistic narrative of American rule-of-law leadership runs headlong into the realities of geopolitics.

If you care about human rights, national security, the rule of law, or how American power actually operates in the world, subscribe to the Rule of Law Brief. I cut through the mythology, challenge the comfortable narratives, and explain how law, war, and politics collide in the real world.

Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe