魯比奧：我們為什麼要拆解國際刑事法院
发表于 ： 周三 7月 15, 2026 9:26 pm
美國從未同意建立一個能夠淩駕於美國法院和《憲法》之上的世界法庭。
我們大多數人恐怕都很難想像這樣一個世界：美國士兵、員警、邊境巡邏人員，甚至民選領導人，會被拖到一個國際法庭，接受來自世界各地陌生國家法官的審判，根據我們既沒有同意、也無法控制的國際法律被判有罪，最後被關押在距離美國數千英里之外的監獄。
但如今，國際刑事法院（ICC）聲稱，它擁有這樣的權力。
國際刑事法院誕生於本世紀初。 最初，它被包裝成一個只針對最嚴重國際罪行的補充司法機制。 然而如今，國際刑事法院及其支援者所追求的，已經是一個擁有幾乎無限管轄權的常設世界法庭，可以淩駕於美國及其他主權國家的法院和憲法之上，並有權起訴和逮捕我們的公民。
美國人民從未同意過這一切。 美國兩大政黨都反對把起訴和監禁美國公民的權力交給一個遙遠的國際法庭。 克林頓總統當年拒絕將《羅馬規約》（國際刑事法院的創設條約）提交參議院批准，因為他認為該條約“存在重大缺陷”。 兩年後，美國參議院以跨黨派壓倒性多數通過《美國軍人保護法》，授權總統“使用一切必要手段”——包括軍事力量——阻止國際刑事法院拘留或逮捕美國公民。
然而，美國人最終還是成為國際刑事法院的目標。 二〇二〇年，國際刑事法院對阿富汗展開調查。 當時的首席檢察官、來自甘比亞的法圖·本蘇達宣佈，將調查“美國武裝部隊成員犯下的戰爭罪”，理由是美國政府沒有起訴足夠多的美國軍人，無法滿足國際刑事法院的要求。 換句話說，本蘇達把自己置於美國軍事政策以及整個美國司法制度的最終裁判者位置。
阿富汗調查，只是國際刑事法院衝擊美國自主治理的第一步。 國際刑事法院的背後，是一個強大的聯盟，包括左翼非政府組織、自命不凡的全球主義者，以及敵視美國的發展中國家政府。 他們因為共同反美而走到一起，並共同支持和運作這個法院。
進入川普第二任政府後，這類呼聲仍在不斷擴大。 去年，一些大型激進組織公開呼籲國際高級官員，「立即採取有意義的行動」，反對川普政府把暴力犯罪分子遣送至薩爾瓦多。 幾個月後，一名前國際刑事法院首席檢察官宣稱，川普針對毒品恐怖組織發動的軍事打擊構成“危害人類罪”，應按照國際法追究責任。 聯合國部分官員、大型左翼非政府組織，以及民主黨一些官員和政客，也紛紛呼應這一說法。 今年三月，總部設在華盛頓的「現在支持阿拉伯世界民主組織」甚至敦促伊朗政府請求國際刑事法院調查美國人員涉嫌犯下的“戰爭罪”。
更荒謬的是，美國反擊國際刑事法院非法干預的行為，反而被當成國際刑事法院進一步針對美國的理由。 當十二位美國聯邦參議員致函國際刑事法院檢察官，表達他們的關切時，檢察官辦公室竟然反過來指控這些參議員涉嫌犯罪。 當川普總統對國際刑事法院官員實施制裁時，一位前人權觀察組織負責人甚至表示：“國際刑事法院一百二十五個成員國都有法律義務，只要川普踏入其領土，就必須將他逮捕。 ”
國際刑事法院真正兌現這些威脅，只是時間問題。 那些負責驅逐暴力罪犯的美國邊境巡邏人員，那些冒著生命危險維護西半球安全的美國海軍陸戰隊官兵，那些致力於瓦解恐怖組織、保護美國本土安全的聯邦檢察官，都可能因為“保衛國家”而面臨國際刑事法院的起訴。
國際刑事法院干預美國軍事和執法行動，不只是嚴重超越了其所謂許可權，更意味著美國作為一個主權獨立國家的終結。 屆時，美國的決定和美國人民的命運，都將受制於國際刑事法院以及所謂“國際社會”的合作者。 接受國際刑事法院，就意味著放棄國家命運的自主權。
也許，一些更願意妥協、更順從的國家，可以接受這樣的安排。 但這裡是美國。 我們的先輩曾為了反抗外國政權“把我們押送海外，以莫須有罪名受審”而發動獨立戰爭。 獨立自主，是美國與生俱來的權利。 我們絕不會把這種權利，交給一個自封代表「國際法」的集團來統治。
川普政府將始終保護美國軍人免受這一威脅。 美國已經展開一場外交行動，傳遞一個明確的信息：主權國家高於全球主義。 那些享受美國安全保障的國家，不應該袖手旁觀，眼看著那些提供安全保障的人遭到攻擊。
這僅僅是開始。 美國政府將運用一切可以動用的工具，並與所有願意共同合作的盟友攜手，必要時一磚一瓦地拆解國際刑事法院。
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/why-were-dismant ... ?st=cxSgxT
Marco Rubio: Why We’re Dismantling the International Criminal Court
America never agreed to a world tribunal that can override our own courts and the Constitution.
By Marco Rubio
Most of us would struggle to imagine a world in which U.S. soldiers, police officers, Border Patrol agents and elected leaders could be dragged before an international court, tried by judges from random countries across the globe, found guilty under international laws we neither consent to nor control, and then imprisoned thousands of miles from America.
But that is what the International Criminal Court now claims the power to do.
The ICC was born at the turn of the century. At first, it was marketed as a narrow backstop to prosecute the gravest crimes. Now the ICC and its allies seek a standing world tribunal with near-unlimited reach, empowered to override the courts and constitutions of the U.S. and other sovereign states—and to prosecute and arrest our citizens.
Americans never agreed to any of this. Both of our major political parties opposed the prospect of handing a distant global court the power to prosecute and jail our own citizens. President Clinton refused to submit the Rome Statute (the ICC’s founding charter) to the Senate for ratification due to his “concerns about significant flaws in the Treaty.” Two years later, a bipartisan Senate supermajority passed the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act, authorizing the president “to use all means necessary”—including military force—to prevent the ICC from detaining or arresting Americans.
Americans found themselves in the crosshairs anyway: In 2020 the ICC launched an investigation into what chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda of Gambia described as “war crimes by members of the United States armed forces” in Afghanistan, declaring that the U.S. government hadn’t prosecuted enough American soldiers to satisfy the court. In effect, Ms. Bensouda was anointing herself the final judge of U.S. military policy and the entire U.S. justice system.
The Afghanistan investigation was only the opening move in the assault against American self-government. The ICC is backed and run by a powerful network of leftist nongovernment organizations, smug globalists, and hostile Third World governments united by their enmity toward the U.S.
In the second Trump administration, these calls have continued to grow. Last year, major activist groups urged high-ranking international officials “to take immediate and meaningful action” against the Trump administration’s deportations of violent criminals to El Salvador. Months later, a former ICC chief prosecutor declared that President Trump’s strikes against narcoterrorists amounted to “a crime against humanity” and should be treated as such under international law—a line that was echoed by United Nations leaders, and major leftist nongovernmental organizations, Democratic Party officials and politicians. In March, the Washington-based Democracy for the Arab World Now urged the Iranian regime to request an ICC investigation of “apparent war crimes” committed by American personnel.
U.S. efforts to push back against the ICC’s illegitimate interventions have been framed as a further reason for the ICC to target Americans. When 12 U.S. senators wrote to the ICC prosecutor about their concerns, the prosecutor’s office accused them of crimes. When Mr. Trump imposed sanctions against ICC personnel, a former head of Human Rights Watch said that “all 125 ICC member states would have a legal duty to arrest him were he to show up.”
It is only a matter of time before the ICC begins making good on these threats. Border Patrol agents working to remove violent criminals from our country, U.S. Marines risking their lives to restore order in the Western Hemisphere, federal prosecutors working to dismantle terror networks plotting attacks on the American homeland—all would face the constant risk of persecution for the “crime” of defending our country.
The ICC’s interfering with American military and law enforcement operations isn’t only a grave overreach of its purported authorities. It would mean the death of the U.S. as a sovereign and independent nation. Our decision and our people would be at the mercy of the ICC and its collaborators in the “international community.” To accept the ICC is to surrender control of our national destiny.
Perhaps more polite and compliant nations could make their peace with that arrangement. But this is America. Our forefathers fought a revolution against a foreign power “transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.” Independence is our birthright. We don’t intend to trade it for rule by a self-appointed priesthood of “international law.”
The Trump administration will always protect American service members from this threat. The U.S. is launching a diplomatic campaign with a simple message—sovereign states over globalism. Those who benefit from American security must not stand idly by while those who provide that security are targeted. This is only the beginning. Using all the tools at our government’s disposal, working beside every ally with whom we can make common cause, we will dismantle the ICC—brick by brick, if necessary.
Mr. Rubio is U.S. secretary of state.
我們大多數人恐怕都很難想像這樣一個世界：美國士兵、員警、邊境巡邏人員，甚至民選領導人，會被拖到一個國際法庭，接受來自世界各地陌生國家法官的審判，根據我們既沒有同意、也無法控制的國際法律被判有罪，最後被關押在距離美國數千英里之外的監獄。
但如今，國際刑事法院（ICC）聲稱，它擁有這樣的權力。
國際刑事法院誕生於本世紀初。 最初，它被包裝成一個只針對最嚴重國際罪行的補充司法機制。 然而如今，國際刑事法院及其支援者所追求的，已經是一個擁有幾乎無限管轄權的常設世界法庭，可以淩駕於美國及其他主權國家的法院和憲法之上，並有權起訴和逮捕我們的公民。
美國人民從未同意過這一切。 美國兩大政黨都反對把起訴和監禁美國公民的權力交給一個遙遠的國際法庭。 克林頓總統當年拒絕將《羅馬規約》（國際刑事法院的創設條約）提交參議院批准，因為他認為該條約“存在重大缺陷”。 兩年後，美國參議院以跨黨派壓倒性多數通過《美國軍人保護法》，授權總統“使用一切必要手段”——包括軍事力量——阻止國際刑事法院拘留或逮捕美國公民。
然而，美國人最終還是成為國際刑事法院的目標。 二〇二〇年，國際刑事法院對阿富汗展開調查。 當時的首席檢察官、來自甘比亞的法圖·本蘇達宣佈，將調查“美國武裝部隊成員犯下的戰爭罪”，理由是美國政府沒有起訴足夠多的美國軍人，無法滿足國際刑事法院的要求。 換句話說，本蘇達把自己置於美國軍事政策以及整個美國司法制度的最終裁判者位置。
阿富汗調查，只是國際刑事法院衝擊美國自主治理的第一步。 國際刑事法院的背後，是一個強大的聯盟，包括左翼非政府組織、自命不凡的全球主義者，以及敵視美國的發展中國家政府。 他們因為共同反美而走到一起，並共同支持和運作這個法院。
進入川普第二任政府後，這類呼聲仍在不斷擴大。 去年，一些大型激進組織公開呼籲國際高級官員，「立即採取有意義的行動」，反對川普政府把暴力犯罪分子遣送至薩爾瓦多。 幾個月後，一名前國際刑事法院首席檢察官宣稱，川普針對毒品恐怖組織發動的軍事打擊構成“危害人類罪”，應按照國際法追究責任。 聯合國部分官員、大型左翼非政府組織，以及民主黨一些官員和政客，也紛紛呼應這一說法。 今年三月，總部設在華盛頓的「現在支持阿拉伯世界民主組織」甚至敦促伊朗政府請求國際刑事法院調查美國人員涉嫌犯下的“戰爭罪”。
更荒謬的是，美國反擊國際刑事法院非法干預的行為，反而被當成國際刑事法院進一步針對美國的理由。 當十二位美國聯邦參議員致函國際刑事法院檢察官，表達他們的關切時，檢察官辦公室竟然反過來指控這些參議員涉嫌犯罪。 當川普總統對國際刑事法院官員實施制裁時，一位前人權觀察組織負責人甚至表示：“國際刑事法院一百二十五個成員國都有法律義務，只要川普踏入其領土，就必須將他逮捕。 ”
國際刑事法院真正兌現這些威脅，只是時間問題。 那些負責驅逐暴力罪犯的美國邊境巡邏人員，那些冒著生命危險維護西半球安全的美國海軍陸戰隊官兵，那些致力於瓦解恐怖組織、保護美國本土安全的聯邦檢察官，都可能因為“保衛國家”而面臨國際刑事法院的起訴。
國際刑事法院干預美國軍事和執法行動，不只是嚴重超越了其所謂許可權，更意味著美國作為一個主權獨立國家的終結。 屆時，美國的決定和美國人民的命運，都將受制於國際刑事法院以及所謂“國際社會”的合作者。 接受國際刑事法院，就意味著放棄國家命運的自主權。
也許，一些更願意妥協、更順從的國家，可以接受這樣的安排。 但這裡是美國。 我們的先輩曾為了反抗外國政權“把我們押送海外，以莫須有罪名受審”而發動獨立戰爭。 獨立自主，是美國與生俱來的權利。 我們絕不會把這種權利，交給一個自封代表「國際法」的集團來統治。
川普政府將始終保護美國軍人免受這一威脅。 美國已經展開一場外交行動，傳遞一個明確的信息：主權國家高於全球主義。 那些享受美國安全保障的國家，不應該袖手旁觀，眼看著那些提供安全保障的人遭到攻擊。
這僅僅是開始。 美國政府將運用一切可以動用的工具，並與所有願意共同合作的盟友攜手，必要時一磚一瓦地拆解國際刑事法院。
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/why-were-dismant ... ?st=cxSgxT
Marco Rubio: Why We’re Dismantling the International Criminal Court
America never agreed to a world tribunal that can override our own courts and the Constitution.
By Marco Rubio
Most of us would struggle to imagine a world in which U.S. soldiers, police officers, Border Patrol agents and elected leaders could be dragged before an international court, tried by judges from random countries across the globe, found guilty under international laws we neither consent to nor control, and then imprisoned thousands of miles from America.
But that is what the International Criminal Court now claims the power to do.
The ICC was born at the turn of the century. At first, it was marketed as a narrow backstop to prosecute the gravest crimes. Now the ICC and its allies seek a standing world tribunal with near-unlimited reach, empowered to override the courts and constitutions of the U.S. and other sovereign states—and to prosecute and arrest our citizens.
Americans never agreed to any of this. Both of our major political parties opposed the prospect of handing a distant global court the power to prosecute and jail our own citizens. President Clinton refused to submit the Rome Statute (the ICC’s founding charter) to the Senate for ratification due to his “concerns about significant flaws in the Treaty.” Two years later, a bipartisan Senate supermajority passed the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act, authorizing the president “to use all means necessary”—including military force—to prevent the ICC from detaining or arresting Americans.
Americans found themselves in the crosshairs anyway: In 2020 the ICC launched an investigation into what chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda of Gambia described as “war crimes by members of the United States armed forces” in Afghanistan, declaring that the U.S. government hadn’t prosecuted enough American soldiers to satisfy the court. In effect, Ms. Bensouda was anointing herself the final judge of U.S. military policy and the entire U.S. justice system.
The Afghanistan investigation was only the opening move in the assault against American self-government. The ICC is backed and run by a powerful network of leftist nongovernment organizations, smug globalists, and hostile Third World governments united by their enmity toward the U.S.
In the second Trump administration, these calls have continued to grow. Last year, major activist groups urged high-ranking international officials “to take immediate and meaningful action” against the Trump administration’s deportations of violent criminals to El Salvador. Months later, a former ICC chief prosecutor declared that President Trump’s strikes against narcoterrorists amounted to “a crime against humanity” and should be treated as such under international law—a line that was echoed by United Nations leaders, and major leftist nongovernmental organizations, Democratic Party officials and politicians. In March, the Washington-based Democracy for the Arab World Now urged the Iranian regime to request an ICC investigation of “apparent war crimes” committed by American personnel.
U.S. efforts to push back against the ICC’s illegitimate interventions have been framed as a further reason for the ICC to target Americans. When 12 U.S. senators wrote to the ICC prosecutor about their concerns, the prosecutor’s office accused them of crimes. When Mr. Trump imposed sanctions against ICC personnel, a former head of Human Rights Watch said that “all 125 ICC member states would have a legal duty to arrest him were he to show up.”
It is only a matter of time before the ICC begins making good on these threats. Border Patrol agents working to remove violent criminals from our country, U.S. Marines risking their lives to restore order in the Western Hemisphere, federal prosecutors working to dismantle terror networks plotting attacks on the American homeland—all would face the constant risk of persecution for the “crime” of defending our country.
The ICC’s interfering with American military and law enforcement operations isn’t only a grave overreach of its purported authorities. It would mean the death of the U.S. as a sovereign and independent nation. Our decision and our people would be at the mercy of the ICC and its collaborators in the “international community.” To accept the ICC is to surrender control of our national destiny.
Perhaps more polite and compliant nations could make their peace with that arrangement. But this is America. Our forefathers fought a revolution against a foreign power “transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.” Independence is our birthright. We don’t intend to trade it for rule by a self-appointed priesthood of “international law.”
The Trump administration will always protect American service members from this threat. The U.S. is launching a diplomatic campaign with a simple message—sovereign states over globalism. Those who benefit from American security must not stand idly by while those who provide that security are targeted. This is only the beginning. Using all the tools at our government’s disposal, working beside every ally with whom we can make common cause, we will dismantle the ICC—brick by brick, if necessary.
Mr. Rubio is U.S. secretary of state.