Termination of Emergency With Respect to the International Criminal Court

Background

Executive Order 14022, issued in April 2021 by President Joseph R. Biden Jr., marked a significant policy shift concerning the United States' stance towards the International Criminal Court (ICC). Prior to this directive, the United States had maintained a stance of imposing economic sanctions and travel restrictions on ICC personnel and associates who sought to investigate alleged crimes by U.S. citizens and allied nations without consent. These measures were initially put in place under Executive Order 13928 during Donald Trump's presidency in 2020, reflecting a broader administration strategy to protect American service members and officials from international prosecution that the U.S. government deemed illegitimate.

The Biden administration's executive order, by terminating the national emergency declared by its predecessor, effectively dismantled these sanctions regimes. The Biden government acknowledged the United States' ongoing objections to the ICC's jurisdictional claims but aimed to alter the country's approach from punitive measures to more diplomatic engagements. This shift reflected an emphasis on using diplomatic channels and international cooperation rather than coercive economic tactics that critics argued strained alliances and impeded broader foreign policy goals. Government agencies, including the Department of State and the Department of Treasury, issued directives to wind down enforcement actions related to asset freezes and travel bans on ICC officials.

Operationally, the termination allowed for the rescission of ongoing investigations and penalties associated with the previous executive action. Authorities recalibrated their focus towards engaging with international counterparts and legal scholars to advocate for changes within the ICC framework through dialogue rather than sanctions. This approach, while more conciliatory, faced criticism from some quarters that feared reduced leverage over the ICC and potential emboldenment of the court in pursuing cases involving American and allied personnel. The nuanced policy shift aimed to balance U.S. sovereignty concerns with larger international legal norms and relationships.

Reason for Revocation

Donald Trump's decision to revoke Biden's executive order on his return to the presidency in January 2025 can be perceived as a reaffirmation of his administration's previous hardline posture towards the International Criminal Court. Trump's policy reinstatement indicates a broader ideological trend characterized by skepticism towards international institutions and a preference for American unilateralism. This ideological shift likely reflects an attempt to underscore national sovereignty, protecting American armed forces and government officials from international legal claims perceived as illegitimate interferences with U.S. jurisdiction.

The decision to withdraw Biden's directive may also stem from domestic political considerations, appealing to constituent bases that favor strong national defense stances and are wary of international entanglements. Revoking the order might signal to Trump's support base a return to prioritizing America's interests with an assertive foreign policy, where the U.S. does not see itself beholden to international courthouses that might challenge its military actions or national security measures.

Another layer to this revocation could be related to the broader geopolitical environment in 2025, which might have experienced escalations in international conflicts or renewed tensions involving U.S. and allied forces. In such contexts, the administration might argue that a stringent stance against the ICC serves as a preventive shield against potential claims and prosecutions that could arise from military engagements abroad.

Furthermore, Trump's decision likely aims to restore what he and his administration view as an essential tool in preventing undue foreign influence on American policy and judicial processes. By reinstating the national emergency and re-imposing sanctions, the administration reemphasizes its message that the United States will not tolerate attempted prosecutions of its citizens by international bodies that operate substantially outside of U.S. control or jurisdiction.

Winners

The revocation is likely to be welcomed by sectors within the defense and international security industries. Contractors providing services and support to U.S. military operations abroad may view the reinstatement of protective measures as reinforcing their positions, ensuring that their personnel are shielded from international legal scrutiny that might have otherwise emerged under the ICC's influence.

Political groups and advocacy organizations that have been critical of the ICC's perceived overreach will also find the revocation favorable. These entities, often operating within the right-wing of American politics, argue that national sovereignty must remain inviolate and see the ICC as an extension of foreign influence over domestic affairs. For them, the restored executive order is a validation of their policy preferences and lobbying efforts.

Moreover, individual beneficiaries might include former and current military personnel who perceive themselves at risk under the ICC's jurisdiction. These individuals, especially those deployed in contentious theaters, gain an added layer of reassurance that their actions, conducted under the authorization of U.S. military command, will remain insulated from external legal actions initiated by international bodies perceived as detached from the realities of military operations.

Losers

The revocation could pose challenges for international human rights organizations advocating for accountability and justice in war crimes and crimes against humanity. These groups, which had been cautiously optimistic about the Biden administration's cooperative approach, may see this policy reversal as a step back for global justice systems and potentially weakening the role of international legal frameworks aimed at ensuring contested actions are examined and adjudicated appropriately.

The decision is also likely to strain relationships with allied nations more supportive of the ICC's mandate and the enforcement of international law. Allies within Europe, who have integrated the ICC processes into their foreign policy mechanisms, may view this development as a setback, fostering renewed tensions in collaborations with the United States on broader international rule-of-law initiatives.

Within the diplomatic community, officials who have been working to mend and strengthen multilateral relationships might find their efforts undermined by an action that signals a retraction towards favoring unilateral action over collaboration. This could complicate negotiations on other international policies where coordinated legal frameworks and adherence to shared norms are necessary for achieving common goals.