美国启动“拆除”国际刑事法院全球行动，施压盟友退出
华盛顿以“主权威胁”为由，要求各国拒绝ICC管辖权，否则面临援助审查，此举或重塑国际司法合作格局。
美国国务卿马尔科·鲁比奥于7月13日宣布，美国政府已启动一场旨在“系统性瘫痪”国际刑事法院（ICC）的全面行动，包括对ICC官员及其关联组织实施签证限制、旅行禁令和扩大制裁，并以外交手段施压各国退出《罗马规约》。美国国务院声明称，ICC“对美国主权构成不可容忍的威胁”，因其声称有权起诉甚至监禁执行美国国家利益的军人和官员。鲁比奥在《华尔街日报》撰文及视频讲话中指责ICC已从“有限的后备机制”演变为“由未经选举的全球主义官僚把持的全球法庭”，并称将“在必要时一砖一瓦地拆除”该机构。
美方立场根植于其长期拒绝接受ICC管辖的历史。美国从未批准《罗马规约》，国会两党曾通过《美国军人保护法》授权总统使用一切必要手段阻止美国公民被ICC逮捕或审判。华盛顿方面特别指出，ICC在2020年对美军在阿富汗涉嫌战争罪行的调查，以及近期对以色列总理内塔尼亚胡等官员发出逮捕令，是越权行为。美国国务院匿名官员对路透社表示，那些依赖美国安全援助却拒绝否定ICC“虚假权威”的国家“可能面临更严格的审查”，并强调“没有任何外交选项会被排除”。
国际社会反应呈现明显分化。ICC发言人现阶段拒绝置评，但三名遭美国制裁的ICC法官已在纽约提起诉讼，指控制裁旨在施加“法外压力”。欧洲多国作为ICC主要支持方，尚未公开回应，但此前曾批评美国制裁破坏国际法治。与此同时，匈牙利、布基纳法索、马里和尼日尔等国已宣布退出ICC，称其为“新殖民主义镇压工具”。在亚洲，日本、韩国等美国盟友是ICC成员国，可能面临选边压力；而中国、印度、俄罗斯等大国均非缔约国，北京历来对ICC持谨慎态度，强调主权豁免原则，但未必公开支持拆解该机构。
此举若全面推行，将严重削弱ICC对战争罪、危害人类罪等暴行的追责能力，并可能引发国际司法体系的碎片化。美国正通过国务卿、副国务卿及驻外使节向各国政府发起外交攻势，要求其退出ICC并切断资金支持。目前，这场以“主权国家高于全球主义”为口号的行动尚处初期阶段，各国如何权衡安全依赖与多边承诺，将决定ICC的未来运作空间。
| 大西洋／英语圈媒体 | −0.20 | neutral |
|---|---|---|
| 伊朗及相关媒体 | −0.80 | critical |
| 欧洲大陆媒体 | −0.60 | critical |
| 中国媒体 | −0.30 | critical |
The Atlantic press acknowledges the legitimacy of American concerns over sovereignty, but does not hide that the ICC has long been opposed by Washington.
Factual reporting mixed with editorial cues like 'bête noire' suggests that US hostility toward the ICC is long-standing, framing the campaign as part of a pattern.
Voices supporting the ICC and the context of the court's investigations into US war crimes in Afghanistan are absent.
Iran denounces the US campaign as an act of aggression against international justice, siding with the ICC as a victim of US bullying.
The language of threat and war frames the US as a hostile power attacking international law, mobilizing sympathy for the ICC and opposition to US hegemony.
Justifications for US actions, such as the ICC's investigations of US personnel or the sovereignty argument, are omitted.
Europe denounces the US escalation against the ICC, defending international law and warning of the consequences of a systematic attack on the court.
Direct quotes of Rubio's war language highlight the aggressive stance, and US actions are framed as a threat to the rule of law, positioning Europe as a defender of international institutions.
The US perspective on sovereignty and the ICC's investigations of US officials, as well as the fact that the US has not ratified the Rome Statute, are omitted.
China observes the US campaign with detachment, noting the accusation of threat to sovereignty, but implicitly criticizes Washington's unilateralism.
The neutral reporting style highlights the US's own language of 'intolerable threat', allowing readers to infer US aggression without direct editorializing.
Discussions of the ICC's legitimacy or the US's historical opposition, as well as the perspective of ICC supporters, are absent.