The US withdrew its signature all the way back in 2002, the same year the ICC came into being.
It's only "their job" where they have jurisdiction.
This is like Ofcom trying to require overseas companies/providers to enforce the Online Safety Act.
The ICC doesn't even automatically have jurisdiction of signatory nations either -- it's only when that nation fails to actively pursue prosecutions in their own courts.
In this case, the ICC has jurisdiction because the alleged crimes were committed in the territory of a signatory (Palestine) and because Palestine indeed found itself unable to prosecute them.
Also: the US acting as a rouge state is not a power move it is a sign of moral decay, corruption and a critical failure to uphold the principles laid out in its own (wonderfully written!) Declaration of Independence.
It is just sad to see how hollowed out these great ideals have become.
These ideals were always hollow. There is no law between sovereign entities, only martial might and political game theory tactics. It’s why the EU struggles so heavily with tighter integration. None of those sovereign states who are members want to give up the ability to do what they want and be subordinate to another power.
Yeah, I guess international law was rather incompatible with their ambitions at the time. Fair play to them though, they certainly made the most of it.
All UN member states are de facto part of the ICJ. If you have a valid claim against a nation, the proper place to pursue that is the ICJ.
Hate what the US and Israel are doing or not, what the ICC is doing here is entirely political posturing and theater.
I don't necessarily agree with it either but what do you expect to happen in response to the ICC's action.
The ICC is trying to set a precedent that the US views as against its interests.
Go ahead and poke the bear.
"The bear" (rah rah, bro) is governed by laws. These sanctions are allegedly authorized under e.g. IEEPA and the National Emergencies Act. What's the emergency? Assume that's valid, then what powers are made available to the President in response to that emergency?
It's absolutely not clear at all that this action is "perfectly legal and enabled by acts of Congress."
This admin's last broad interpretation of IEEPA-originating powers was already struck down by SCOTUS.
The underlying executive order authorizing these sanctions was based on specific concerns about the actions of the ICC, including specific arrest warrants against government officials of a country the president believes is a close American ally. So it's not arbitrary and capricious.
Again, I emphasize that whether US law authorizes doing this does not at all answer the question of whether it's a good idea. In a healthy country, Trump would be impeached on the spot for trying to pick this fight, because even people who don't like the ICC would fear discrediting their ideology. But there's no question under US law that these sanctions are valid.