Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has communicated to the International Criminal Court (ICC) that the United States will not recognize the tribunal's authority over its citizens or comply with its extradition requests.

代理司法部長 Todd Blanche 已告知國際刑事法院 (ICC)，美國將不承認該法庭對其公民的權力，亦不會配合其引渡要求。

The current diplomatic posture is predicated upon the United States' status as a non-signatory to the Rome Statute. Acting Attorney General Blanche asserts that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over U.S. nationals globally, characterizing any attempt to exercise such authority as an infringement upon national sovereignty. This position is legally anchored in the American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002, which prohibits cooperation with the court and authorizes executive measures to secure the release of detained U.S. personnel.

目前的外交姿態是基於美國非《羅馬規約》簽署國的身份。代理司法部長 Blanche 主張 ICC 對全球美國國民缺乏管轄權，並將任何行使此類權力的嘗試定格為對國家主權的侵犯。此立場在法律上錨定於 2002 年的《美國軍人保護法》，該法禁止與法院合作，並授權採取行政措施以確保被拘留的美國人員獲釋。

Historically, the U.S. has maintained a consistent skepticism toward the ICC, though the current administration has intensified this approach through the imposition of economic sanctions. These penalties have targeted court officials and entities—including Palestinian rights organizations—alleged to be facilitating investigations into U.S. allies, specifically Israel. This friction is exacerbated by the ICC's issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli leadership and its assertion that it may investigate crimes committed on the territory of member states regardless of the perpetrator's nationality.

從歷史上看，美國對 ICC 一直保持一致的懷疑態度，儘管現任政府透過實施經濟制裁強化了這一做法。這些處罰針對法院官員和實體——包括巴勒斯坦權利組織——據稱他們在協助調查美國盟友，特別是以色列。由於 ICC 發布了針對以色列領導層的逮捕令，並聲稱無論犯罪者國籍為何，只要是在成員國領土內 commit 的罪行，其均有權調查，這使得摩擦更加劇烈。

Institutional tensions have further escalated following a lawsuit filed in a Manhattan federal court by three ICC judges, who contend that U.S. sanctions constitute an attempt to exert extrajudicial coercion. While the U.S. administration characterizes the ICC as an unaccountable body driven by political imperatives and selective enforcement, proponents of the court argue that such international mechanisms are essential when domestic judicial systems are unable or unwilling to prosecute grave international crimes.

在三名 ICC 法官於曼哈頓聯邦法院提起訴訟後，體制間的緊張局勢進一步升級，他們認為美國的制裁構成一種企圖施加法外強權的行為。雖然美國政府將 ICC 形容為一個不受問責、由政治需求和選擇性執法驅動的機構，但法院的支持者認為，當國內司法系統無法或不願起訴嚴重國際罪行時，此類國際機制至關重要。

The United States remains committed to a policy of non-cooperation with the ICC, maintaining that its judicial authority is vested exclusively in domestic courts.

美國仍致力於不與 ICC 合作的政策，堅持其司法權限僅由國內法院行使。