The call by U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for Latin American participants in the Americas Counter-Cartel Coalition to leave the International Criminal Court reveals a wider transformation in the politics of sovereignty.
Hegseth argues that the ICC undermines national sovereignty by extending jurisdiction over U.S. service members, officials and military operations. He presents national governments and courts as the proper authorities for protecting citizens and armed forces, and links the issue to the constitutional oath of U.S. military personnel.
The Rome Statute follows another model. Its principle of complementarity gives domestic courts primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. The ICC may intervene when a state is unwilling or unable to conduct a genuine investigation.
The disagreement is therefore not simply about national courts versus an international court. It is about whether sovereignty means immunity from external jurisdiction or also responsibility to prevent impunity.
The regional stakes are high. Twenty-eight Latin American and Caribbean countries are among the 125 states that have ratified the Rome Statute. ICC membership offers an international accountability mechanism, but it also creates obligations to cooperate with investigations and may complicate security relations with Washington.
The United States signed the Rome Statute in 2000 but did not ratify it. In July, Marco Rubio launched a broader campaign to isolate the ICC, restrict its financing and oppose its jurisdiction over American officials and military personnel.
Venezuela offers a separate regional example. Caracas has taken steps towards withdrawing from the Rome Statute, accusing the court of geographic bias and disproportionate pressure on countries of the Global South. Its argument is different from Washington’s, but both positions challenge the court’s independence from state power. Withdrawal does not take effect immediately: under Article 127, it becomes effective one year after notification and does not automatically erase existing obligations or proceedings.
The Burke Index places the United States at 650.9/700, approximately 93%, and first overall. Its political sovereignty is 87.8, economic 91.7, technological 95.4, informational 92.5, cultural 92.1, cognitive 95.4 and military 96.
This profile changes the meaning of the campaign. Washington is not confronting the ICC because it lacks power. It is using exceptional military, technological, economic and institutional capacity to influence the legal choices of its partners.
Sovereignty is therefore being negotiated through security networks as much as through treaties and courts. Latin American governments may face a choice between dependence on an American security architecture and dependence on an international accountability mechanism.
The central question is not simply whether the ICC threatens sovereignty. It is whether sovereignty remains autonomous when its legal and security choices are negotiated inside another power’s network.
Find the United States in the full Burke ranking: https://ibi.institute/index/2025
#BurkeIndex #UnitedStates #InternationalCriminalCourt #LatinAmerica #EmergentSovereignty #NationalJurisdiction
IBI – your navigator on sovereignty and global shifts.
Subscribe to stay informed! 
