Trump’s attack on the ICC is really an attack on the rule of law
Posted on May 19 2026The Financial Times has reported that during discussions with Xi Jinping, Donald Trump suggested that the US, China and Russia should effectively collaborate against the International Criminal Court (ICC). As the paper put it:
During his summit with Xi, Trump also suggested that the US, China and Russia should join forces to combat the ICC, saying their interests were aligned, according to the people familiar with the talks.
The same report noted that the Trump administration has described the ICC as engaging in “politicisation”, “abuse of power”, “disregard for US national sovereignty” and “illegitimate judicial over-reach”.
Whether or not Trump actually intended these comments to become public is almost beside the point. What matters is what they reveal about the worldview now shaping much of global politics. The hostility here is not simply towards one court. It is towards the idea that there should be laws capable of constraining power, whether exercised by politicians, states, corporations or military alliances.
Spud then chunters on about all of this and it’s terrible, break of international whatever and so on.
Without actually noting that the US, China nd Russia are not party to the ICC anyway. While they signed the relevant treatry they’ve since withdrawn or in the US casae the Senate never ratified it.
Sigh.
It would be better for the world if Trump took over the other ICC and wrest cricket out of the malign hands of India.
There is no rule of law. I think there was once, maybe, and it would be nice if there were, but we can see from the way they act when in power that the left doesn’t believe in it at all, so the inevitable conclusion is that it’s just some made up shit that the winners get to define (a bit like history).
Attacking the ICC = attack on the rule of law
Attacking the ISDS = governments must govern
Logical
The International Cricket Council and the International Sheep Dog Society?
We’d all be better off with Shep in charge than the current fucking shower.
A border collie wouldn’t have answered “Henry VII” to “Who acceded to the English throne at the age of nine on the death of his father Henry VIII in 1547?”
…
There’s also the little point that in the US, American law is sovereign. It doesn’t recognise any foreign jurisdiction.
And why should it recognize others. That’s the whole point of being sovereign. You set the rules, hopefully in a way that benefits your citizens (but it’s up to you), and don’t hand power to another political entity that says “no you can’t do that, it’s against our higher law.”
Fortunately supremacy of EU law over UK law was rescinded in 2028 and one day ECHR will follow. There remain however another 15 or so other international courts that stick their noses in where they can. Anything that diminishes them hence reduces the surface are lawyers can exploit to grow richer has to be a worthy direction.
What supremacy of EU law over UK? The closest we have to that is some EU law which overrides some UK law because other UK law says so. At all times the supreme law is UK law.
True but vacuous. In practice this wasn’t an act that Parliament could simply vote to repeal, despite the attractive theory that past Parliaments cannot bind their successors. It was in essence a constitutional sort of law, and what it enacted gave Brussels and the ECJ powers over British law that are quite unlike anything the Yanks have accepted to be inflicted on them by anyone.
Well, there are binding treaty obligations, provided the treaty is properly executed and adopted.
I think Spud has a magic 8 ball or something similar. Each morning the topic of today’s rant pops up.
“The same report noted that the Trump administration has described the ICC as engaging in “politicisation”, “abuse of power”, “disregard for US national sovereignty” and “illegitimate judicial over-reach”. “
…and did so accurately
I don’t remember the specific arguments but didn’t Steven Den Beste point out that the US couldn’t ratify the ICC treaty without amending the constitution? Not a question of won’t ratify, but can’t.
Ratifying international treaties is one of the three ways to amend the constitution. It’s the quiet, sneaky, backdoor way. That’s why it’s always very important who sits in the senate.
But like amendments it requires two thirds majority in the Senate to ratify. The only way the states get a look in is by the appointment of Senators. Which the 14th amendment changed…
Ah. Thanks.
Actually, my language was too strong (should always reread the big C before posting).
Ratification of treaties doesn’t amend the constitution but it does make them the “law of the land”, as with federal legislation being supreme over state legislation. So senators are still vital to monitor the executive attempting backdoor law-making or foreigners slipping shit in.
Article VI, second bit:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
And now I see again the part that caught my eye. Article VI specifies that the Laws of the United States shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, but makes no such requirement for Treaties. A notable difference and the one that put the notion into my mind of treaties being equal to the constitution as the supreme law.
I’d like to ask Clarence Thomas about that difference.
Treaties that violate the constitution will be struck down by the USSC as such. They may try severance, in order to preserve the constitutional parts, but treaties can not be used to back door illegal laws.
Sadly, it seems more like the Supreme Court spends a considerable amount of its time referencing international law to justify progressive decisions, even if the laws in question have no explicit authorisation from Congress.
The influence of international customary law on the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisprudence
https://www.lawjournals.org/assets/archives/2023/vol9issue6/9216-1701078947053.pdf
I searched the web for examples of the SC stiking down international treaties but either the Senate did its job or the search engines would rather talk about Trump losing the tariff case.
“all Treaties made …shall be the supreme Law of the Land … any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
That’s the bit that worries me. Treaties over-ride the Consitution.
No they do not. Treaties still have to be implemented into law, to start with. Treaty language is not CFR and it requires penalties for violations to be set – no good making something illegal in there is no penalty for it (see: flag code).
And like any law it can be challenged in the courts, if found unconstitutional it is void.
You’ve misinterpreted the second part after the semi colon. It’s merely saying that the supreme Law of the Land (as described in the first part) is superior to the constitutions and laws of the individual states.
All the states that make up the US have their own constitutions and laws, and they are all inferior to the US Constitution (plus Federal law, plus treaties).
My limited understanding of US constitutional principles is that, although a ratified and operative treaty will over-ride the law of particular states, and prior Federal laws (which are why the Founders required a super-majority Senate approval), it only has a weak ability to affect the Federal Constitution.
From what I’ve read, a treaty can grant the Federal government powers that are not specifically granted to it in the Constitution, but it cannot allow it to do anything that it is specifically forbidden from doing in the Constitution.
So a treaty can only “amend the constitution” in those areas on which the constitution is silent.
Therefore a treaty cannot restrict speech, or religion, or the right to bear arms, or (relevant for the ICC) the various protections of fair trials and due process. It can’t create a new state, or change who can be President, or a member of Congress or the Supreme Court, or how they are selected.
You are correct, Bloke in South Dorset, as further reading of the thread shows. I was wrong about the constitutional amending powers of treaties; it’s their ability to become the Law of the Land that gives them influence over Americans.
There was a case, 1920s I think, where the Supreme Court specifically said that treaties cannot overide the Constitution.
At the end of the day the only power the ICC has is that given by the support of other countries. So why not cut out the middleman? Those other countries can act directly rather than pretending?
The pretenses of the ‘rules based order’ types is what got us here in the first place.