The ICC was warned before picking on Israel, but it did not listen. Now they’re paying the consequences.
A lot of the US' bad things post WW2 were seen favorably by the governments that were already US-friendly, and who either way saw the US as a critical ally.
That has drastically changed in general. The situation is not remotely comparable.
Europe in particular is more confident, isn't bordered by a power that Europe believes it can't handle alone if it has to (a threat, yes, but not an existential one like the USSR). There isn't remotely the same sense of needing the US at all costs.
The ICC decisions simply wouldn't have been allowed to happen in a way that caused a rift with the US shortly after WW2. It'd have been inconceivable. That the ICC decisions have not just been allowed to happen but haven't caused uproar from most European governments is itself evidence of how much weaker the US position is seen by European eyes in particular.
But in terms of finance in particular, it's also just not the case that there is no one able to take its place.
Of the top 20 largest banks in the world by assets, only 5 are American, the top 4 largest are Chinese, and China has 7 total, UK 2, France 2, Japan 3, Spain 1.
Extend that list to the top 50, and it only adds one more US bank.
While the events on Oct 7th were horrific and undoubtedly deserved eliminating Hamas, Israel has collectively punished the civilian population of Gaza in the extreme (as they have been doing for years)
What the US has argued historically is that American people and institutions are not subject to it because the US has a functioning civilian and military justice system, and so prosecution for such crimes can be handled within it, even by foreign nations and NGOs.
Obviously that’s a load of bullshit, especially (but not only) these days, but “sovereignty for me but not for thee” has long been the rule and with its weakening international position the US may come to find that to be less achievable in the future.
Compared to how much of a mess most of the world's powers are on matters on sovereignty, the US is actually one of the more conservative ones here (e.g., see OFCOM in the UK).
Let me restate: The US position is that the US justice system “works” and thus *US persons and institutions* must be pursued *within the US system* even by foreign entities.
In other words, the US position is not that if (say) North Korea commits a crime against humanity they must be pursued in US courts; the US is fine with the ICC in that case. The US position is that if the US commits a crime against humanity that must be pursued in US courts, not the ICC.
It’s an obvious (and bullshit) double standard, but it’s also not a denial of the legitimacy of universal jurisdiction. It’s just the US, as usual, trying to have its cake and eat it too.
That this standard is complicated, and different from those that argue that international law should be the supreme law, doesn't make it a double standard. It's also not what is meant by universal jurisdiction, as it does not depend on overriding sovereignty.
Edit: Seeing your other comment, it's also worth noting this was a large reason why the US didn't sign the Rome statute, since as you note, the US isn't inherently opposed to the idea of international courts, only the supremacy of their jurisdiction.
On the other hand, the US didn’t try to prevent Slobodan Milošević from being tried at The Hague for war crimes and genocide, as Serbia wasn’t a vassal state or proxy.
Anybody can look into any country’s actions unless that country has authority over them and forbids it.
4 State immunity evolved in close connection to the development of the concept of sovereignty
and the territorial State. It can be traced back to the principle of par in parem non habet
imperium which was mentioned as early as 1354 by Bartolus de Saxoferrato in his Tractatus de
regimine civitatis. It stipulates that a sovereign should not have jurisdiction over another
sovereign.
[...]
22 State immunity entails that a State itself or its property is not subjected to the
proceedings of the court of another State. It does foreclose any proceedings or judgment on the
merits, but does not hinder the service of process and a court decision about the admissibility.
Likewise, it protects the property of a State against any measure taken in relation to the
proceedings.
Many others have already pointed out the fact here - that Palestine is under ICC jurisdiction.
Instead what I want to focus on is WHY YOU DID NOT KNOW THIS, despite the fact that the ICC literally ruled on this matter quite a while ago, specifically. The court itself approached this question, evaluated the evidence, and made a ruling. You missed all that?
The birth of Hamas was quite literally supported by Israel because they wanted to undermine the unity of the Palestinians
So is any atrocity allowable if you have enough civilian human shields?
Those "handful of countries" who do not recognize the ICC have more than 2/3rd of the world population btw.
[1] https://www.state.gov/releases/2025/08/imposing-further-sanc...
I don’t think the ICC was plotting to undermine US or Israel sovereignty. The dispute is about jurisdiction. The ICC has a pretty expansive theory that says it can go after nationals of non-member states if the alleged conduct happened on the territory of a member state. That theory has been around for years and mostly lived in briefs and conferences. What changed in 2025 is that the ICC started acting on it and advancing real cases that implicated non-members. At that point it stopped being academic and started looking like a real-world precedent with consequences for allies and potentially US personnel. That’s the slippery slope. The administration had already tried protests and non-recognition and concluded it was not changing behavior. The August sanctions were framed as a last-resort escalation to draw a hard line against what they saw as ongoing overreach, not as a response to some new hostile intent.
The ICC's jurisdictional claim is here is rather based on the idea that PA is the de facto government of Gaza, even though they never controlled it.
But really, it's not dubious at all: It's utterly absurd.
ICC claims that since PA claims to represent 'Palestine', and UNGA Resolution 67/19 "Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967", and that since they consider Gaza "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" (despite the fact that Gaza has certainly not been occupied by Israel for decades and a completely separate entity exercises sovereignty there), therefore 'Palestine' is a State Party properly represented by the PA and covered by its accession to the Rome Statute, and thus the ICC totally have jurisdiction over Gaza.[0]
Bonkers.
Anyway Israel never acceded to the Rome Statute and the doctrine of state immunity applies. Even if PA were sovereign in Gaza and had properly delegated that sovereignty to the ICC, ICC's claim that Article 12(2)(a) grants them jurisdiction over Israel and Israeli leaders for their actions in Gaza is still a brazen claim to jurisdiction not well supported by customary international law.
[0]: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/p...