In the opening to her seminal work “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” Political Scientist Hannah Arendt speaks of the need for a “new political principle,” one that, in the wake of the destruction of WWII, implores nation-states to recognize the dignity of the individual regardless of their nationality, religion, or creed. This political principle is most aptly expressed in the then-emerging international human rights regime, which, in view of the historic barbarity committed in the name of state sovereignty, intended to reshape the context upon which state power could be justly imposed. Crucially, however, the international HR regime is, and could only have emerged as, a system of consent-based power forfeiture. Arendt’s new political principle, then, could be more precisely interpreted as the willingness of states to relinquish aspects of their monopoly on force in an effort to create a more rule-bound system of international interaction. As such, contemporary demonstrations of unwillingness or even disdain toward HR treaties–and their bodies of adjudication–should not be just a refusal to recognise the rights of the individual. In some cases, they demonstrate a proclamation of a state’s position that it will not be held liable for deviations in the international order.
In light of this fact, it bears substantial relevance to investigate the actions of the new United States administration in relation to the international HR regime. On February 6th, 2025, U.S. President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 14203 titled “Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court.” The order begins with a reaffirmation that neither the U.S. nor Israel recognises the jurisdiction of the ICC, and so the court’s recent actions in issuing an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu constitute an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” To their point, as Israel is not party to the Rome Statute, a warrant inciting member states to arrest their leader does violate the negotiated bounds of the court’s jurisdiction. With that said, the executive order directs the executive branch to freeze all property and interests of anyone determined by the Secretary of State to have worked for, materially supported, or acted on behalf of the ICC. Further, the order concludes that anyone found to have supported an individual being investigated for the aforementioned conduct is similarly liable.
This position regarding one of the most historic institutions of human rights law demonstrates a much more serious denunciation than any refusal to sign or ratify a treaty. The United States, for all intents and purposes, has basically declared those individuals who work for and or support the ICC as enemies of the state–individuals so dangerous to U.S. sovereignty that they must be blocked from entry into the country.
International reaction to this move signals a similar interpretation on the world stage. The day following EO14203, 79 countries–close U.S. allies including Canada, the UK, France, and Germany–reaffirmed their support of the ICC and made statements condemning the U.S. for “jeopardiz[ing] the confidentiality of sensitive information and the safety of. . . victims, witnesses, and court officials.” Crucially, a joint statement of Slovenia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Sierra Leone and Vanuatu highlights that this decision may “increase the risk of impunity for the most serious crimes and threaten to erode the international rule of law.” Indeed, an advisory opinion from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) identifies the risk of HR violations following a denunciation of an HR treaty. Take, for example, the case of Venezuela in its 2013 denunciation of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR). Following the formal withdrawal from the ACHR, a UN human rights report found evidence of “grave violations of economic, social, civil, political and cultural rights,” and more specifically of a “strategy ‘aimed at neutralizing, repressing and criminalizing political opponents and people critical of the Government.’” In this case, at least, distancing from an international HR treaty foretold of serious authoritarian repression.
EO14203 follows an identifiable trend in the U.S., and in the West in general, of democratic nations pulling away from the international order established at the end of WWII. A resurgence of isolationist, populist, and even nationalist rhetoric has subsumed Western politics over the last few decades and threatens to dissolve the consent-based human rights regime that defines contemporary Western foreign policy (see either this or this article). While the gesture itself is consequential enough to be reviewed here, the implications of this move bear more relevance to the everyday lives of human rights bearers in the world.
Over the last few months, U.S. treatment of its undocumented immigrant population has deteriorated significantly. Nationalist rhetoric aimed at a populist reshaping of the republican party has most recently manifested in the inaction of the Alien Enemies Act–a legal mechanism allowing the U.S. to apprehend, restrain, or secure all non-citizen Venezuelan residents over the age of 14. These detainees are subject to lessened protections of due process and may be arrested without suspicion of a specific crime. This act, for its far-reaching and grave legal implications, is generally restricted to use when at war with another sovereign state, although it is currently being enacted against the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. The powers now allocated to U.S. law enforcement under this act directly violate the universally-bound protections (jus cogens) of the right to fair trial and the prohibition of arbitrary detention. Most recently, this act has allowed for the alleged identification and deportation of Venezuelan immigrants based on their tattoos.
While U.S. sanctions on the ICC do not represent the same intention as a denunciation of the rights outlined in a signified treaty, a position of hostility towards such an established body of human rights adjudication should be heeded. The United States’ general move away from international cooperation and power-forfeiting agreements signals an intention to continue the derogation of individual rights. Political slogans like “America First” must be read as they are intended and have been demonstrated across history: an outward expression of a state’s intention to put its own interests above the interests of man.
Addendum, April 1, 2025 – On March 15th of this year, Mr. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a legal immigrant under protected status–a man married to a U.S. citizen with a 5-year-old citizen child–was deported to El Salvador and now resides in the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT). The Trump administration has acknowledged this “administrative error” and claims it has no recourse for the mistake. American courts lack legal jurisdiction to order Mr. Garcia’s release. In a post on X, Vice President JD Vance defended the deportation, claiming Mr. Garcia was “a convicted MS-13 gang member,” although he has never been to trial for that charge. Mr. Garcia’s wife filed a civil suit against the Trump administration last month, attempting to secure the release of her husband. In the court filing, the Department of Justice officials wrote that the request would “harm the public interest by preventing the executive from implementing a unified course of conduct.”
Edited by Emma Ristic and Norah Nehme.
