Washington’s Push Against the ICC Reaches Latin America

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was created to address a problem: how to make sure certain crimes don’t go unpunished when national courts lack the means  or the willingness  to prosecute the culprits?

For more than two decades since it started being active in 2002, the ICC has tried to be the solution to that question. Now, however, the institution is facing growing resistance, notably in the Americas.

Recently, U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth attended a conference in Panama and addressed members of the Americas Counter Cartel Coalition (ACCC), a U.S. led initiative to fight against cartels and transnational criminal organizations. Among his messages was a surprising one: he openly encouraged ACCC members to withdraw from the ICC.

Why?

The United States has long had a difficult relationship with the ICC. It is against the idea that the Court should be able to investigate or prosecute American soldiers and officials. This matters especially for a country with troops and military operations around the world, where U.S. personnel could potentially fall under ICC jurisdiction.

In the particular case of their activity in central and South America, it represents a potential source of legal obstacles and scrutiny over American military operations in the context of the fight against drug trafficking. 

ICC’s history

Throughout ICC's history, it has successfully convicted figures such as Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga and Lord's Resistance Army commander Dominic Ongwen, but it has no police force of its own.

However, the ICC has a big problem, it does not have a police force, it relies on member countries to enforce their ruling, meaning that unless the authorities cooperate, the ruling will not translate in action. 

That became clear when Vladimir Putin visited Mongolia in 2024 despite an ICC arrest warrant. Mongolia is an ICC member but did not arrest him. The Court found it in violation of its obligations but at the end Putin simply returned to Russia.

Ultimately, an ICC ruling is only as powerful as the states willing to enforce it.

Critiques

There is the perception that international justice was easier to apply to weaker states while powerful countries remained largely protected.

The investigation of British forces crimes in Iraq reinforced these concerns. The ICC Prosecutor found a reasonable basis to believe British forces had committed war crimes, including torture and cruel treatment, but did not open a full investigation after concluding it could not establish that British authorities were unwilling genuinely to investigate the allegations.

In the case of Colombia, there is a different controversy. After examining crimes committed during the country's armed conflict for almost a decade, the ICC closed its preliminary examination in 2021, concluding that Colombian institutions, notably the Special Jurisdiction for Peace created after the agreement with the FARC, were genuinely pursuing accountability.

Supporters saw this as respect for Colombia's own justice system. Critics argued that former guerrillas responsible for serious crimes were not receiving a sentence equally serious as the crimes they committed and the ICC did not do much to help grant true justice. 

These examples demonstrate that the institution might not be perfect. 

The reality the region faces

Cartels and transnational criminal organizations operate across borders, corrupt institutions, control territory and, in some cases, possess enough firepower to challenge the state. Governments therefore have strong incentives to deepen security cooperation with Washington.

The United States can provide intelligence, surveillance, weapons, training and military capabilities that few countries in the region can replicate.

The ICC offers something different: an external mechanism intended to limit how state power can be used when domestic accountability fails.

The two should not be incompatible. Governments should be able to fight organized crime effectively while remaining accountable for how they do so, but Washington's growing confrontation with the ICC is brings the two sides into tension.

It would not be accurate to say that Pete Hegseth gave governments an ultimatum of “leave the ICC or lose U.S. support.” but asking ACCC members to withdraw while simultaneously expanding security cooperation with them creates a clear political incentive.

Why Geopolitics Matter

This tension highlights a reality: international law exists according to the geopolitics of the moment. For countries confronting powerful criminal organizations, U.S. cooperation offers something immediate: greater capacity to confront today's security threats.

The ICC offers something less visible: protection against what could happen tomorrow if that power is abused. For countries in the Americas, keeping both may soon become more difficult.