Among the ironies of our time, few are more stark than the United States’ position as the architect of the postwar international order, yet increasingly its most consistent violator. While Washington projects itself as the defender of liberty and law, its behavior on the global stage reveals a pattern of exceptionalism that borders on outright rogue conduct. Through its rejection of international legal institutions, selective engagement with treaties, and deliberate undermining of multilateral frameworks, the U.S. has placed itself outside the moral and legal structures it once championed. It is not a rogue state in the traditional sense of irrational belligerence, but a rogue superpower: one that acts with impunity, claims special exemption from global norms, and expects deference without accountability.

Nowhere is this more visible than in the United States’ relationship with the two primary institutions of international justice – the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICC, established in 2002 to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, was initially shaped with U.S. involvement. Yet when it became clear that the Court could assert jurisdiction over American officials and soldiers, Washington turned hostile. Under the George W. Bush administration, the U.S. “unsigned” the Rome Statute. Two decades later, the Trump administration went so far as to impose sanctions on ICC officials investigating alleged U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, a breathtaking rejection of international accountability.

The ICJ, which adjudicates disputes between states, has faced similar rebuke. In 1986, after the Court found the U.S. guilty of unlawful use of force in its covert war against Nicaragua, the Reagan administration withdrew from the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction altogether. This pattern of participation-when-convenient and withdrawal-when-challenged defines American behavior toward supranational courts. While the U.S. demands accountability from adversaries, condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or China’s abuses in Xinjiang, it immunizes itself from any comparable scrutiny. This is not justice. It is legal imperialism.

This attitude extends well beyond the courts. The U.S. has refused to join, or has actively sabotaged, numerous treaties and international organizations when their mandates threaten to constrain American power. It never ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), despite abiding by its provisions in practice, because the treaty might impede U.S. naval dominance and deep-sea exploitation rights. It signed but never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, then withdrew from the Paris Agreement under Trump—undermining global climate efforts at a critical juncture. It refused to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty, unsigned the ICC, and withdrew from UNESCO and the UN Human Rights Council under various pretexts, only to rejoin later with little reflection. This stop-start diplomacy, driven by domestic politics rather than principled internationalism, has eroded trust in the United States as a stable global partner.

Nowhere has this erosion been more visible than during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, at the height of a global health emergency, the Trump administration withdrew from the World Health Organization (WHO), accusing it of pro-China bias. The move was as symbolic as it was destructive, signaling to the world that the United States would rather abandon multilateral coordination than tolerate criticism or compromise. Though President Biden reversed that decision, the damage to global confidence in American leadership was profound.

What makes all this especially corrosive is that the United States does not retreat from these institutions out of isolationism or irrelevance, but from an inflated sense of exceptionalism. The underlying logic, whether expressed by a Republican or Democratic administration, is that the U.S. is a unique force for good and must therefore not be bound by the same rules as others. This belief animates laws like the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, which authorizes military force to free any American detained by the ICC. It is the rationale behind the rejection of nuclear disarmament treaties like the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. It fuels the refusal to ratify core labor rights conventions under the International Labour Organization. This is not principled leadership. It is institutionalized impunity.

The consequences of this behavior ripple outward. When the world’s most powerful democracy refuses legal oversight, it licenses others, Russia, China, Israel, even allies like Saudi Arabia, to do the same. It weakens the authority of the very institutions designed to prevent war, protect civilians, and resolve disputes peacefully. It turns what should be universal norms into optional guidelines for the weak, and ignites a global cynicism toward international law as a whole.

America’s rogue status is not merely a theoretical concern for academics or human rights lawyers. It is a real and present danger to global order. The United States wields extraordinary influence over international finance, trade, and military alliances. When it breaks the rules, it doesn’t just bend them, it reshapes the entire system. The result is a world where power substitutes for principle, and might defines right.

If the United States wishes to restore its global standing, not as a bully, but as a builder, it must recommit to the legal frameworks it once helped design. That means rejoining and respecting the jurisdiction of the ICC and the ICJ. It means honoring treaties even when inconvenient. It means ending the era of selective multilateralism and embracing the responsibilities that come with its global reach.

Until that shift occurs, the United States will remain a paradox in the international system: the indispensable nation behaving, more often than not, like a rogue one.

Sources:
• ICC Rome Statute: https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library/documents/rome-statute-of-the-international-criminal-court
• ICJ Nicaragua v. United States (1986): https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/70
• UN Treaty Collection: https://treaties.un.org
• Human Rights Watch: https://www.hrw.org
• Arms Control Association: https://www.armscontrol.org
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): https://unfccc.int
• Congressional Research Service: https://crsreports.congress.gov