The US Government Fights the International Criminal Court
The US Government Fights the International Criminal Court
美國政府對抗國際刑事法院
Introduction
President Donald Trump wants to stop the International Criminal Court (ICC). He wants to protect the United States.
唐納德·川普總統想要停止國際刑事法院（ICC），他希望能保護美國。
Main Body
The US does not agree with the ICC. The US says the court cannot judge American people. The court looked at US soldiers in Afghanistan. The court also wants to arrest leaders from Israel. This makes the US angry.
美國不認同國際刑事法院。美國表示該法院不能審判美國人。該法院調查了在阿富汗的美國士兵。該法院還想逮捕以色列的領導人。這讓美國感到憤怒。
The US government has a plan. They will stop ICC workers from traveling. They will take away visas. The US will also tell other countries to stop helping the court. If these countries help the ICC, the US will be unhappy.
美國政府有一個計劃。他們將阻止國際刑事法院的工作人員旅行，並取消其簽證。美國還會要求其他國家停止幫助該法院。如果這些國家幫助國際刑事法院，美國將會感到不滿。
Some experts say the ICC is not attacking the US now. They think the US is acting too fast. Other people say this plan is bad for world law.
一些專家表示，國際刑事法院目前並未攻擊美國。他們認為美國行動太快。其他人則認為這個計劃對世界法律不利。
Conclusion
The United States is using money and power to make the ICC weak.
美國正利用金錢與權力使國際刑事法院變得弱小。
Vocabulary Learning
⚡️ The 'Want' Pattern
In this text, we see a very useful way to talk about goals and desires. It is simple: Someone + want(s) + to + action
Examples from the text:
- President Trump wants to stop the court.
- The court wants to arrest leaders.
💡 Quick Rule
- Use want for I, You, We, They.
- Use wants for He, She, It (The US government = It).
Simple Shift:
- I want to help → He wants to help.
- We want to go → She wants to go.
🛠 Word Power
Look at these actions used after 'want to':
- stop → make something end
- protect → keep something safe
- arrest → take someone to jail
Vocabulary Learning
The United States Government Starts a Broad Strategy to Weaken the International Criminal Court
美國政府展開全面策略以削弱國際刑事法院
Introduction
The administration of President Donald Trump has announced a planned effort to stop the International Criminal Court (ICC) from operating effectively in order to protect American sovereignty.
唐納·川普總統的政府已宣布了一項計劃，旨在阻止國際刑事法院（ICC）有效運作，以保護美國主權。
Main Body
The United States believes that the ICC interferes too much with national independence. This position is based on the fact that the U.S. has not signed the Rome Statute, which is the treaty that created the court. However, the ICC claims it still has the power to investigate U.S. citizens in countries that are members. Tensions increased because of a 2020 investigation into U.S. personnel in Afghanistan and the issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli officials in November 2024.
美國認為國際刑事法院對國家獨立干預過多。這一立場是基於美國未簽署創立該法院的《羅馬規約》。然而，國際刑事法院聲稱，對於在成員國內的美國公民，其仍擁有調查權。由於 2020 年對美國在阿富汗人員的調查，以及 2024 年 11 月對以色列官員發出逮捕令，導致緊張局勢升溫。
To reduce these threats, the State Department has proposed a coordinated government response. These measures include using more sanctions, travel bans, and canceling visas for ICC staff. Furthermore, the administration plans to use diplomatic pressure on partner nations, especially those that receive U.S. military aid, to reject the court's authority. Consequently, countries that continue to support the ICC may face stricter relations with the U.S.
為了減少這些威脅，國務院提出了一項協調的政府回應。這些措施包括採取更多制裁、旅行禁令以及取消國際刑事法院職員的簽證。此外，政府計劃對合作夥伴國家（尤其是接收美國軍事援助的國家）施加外交壓力，要求其拒絕法院的管轄權。因此，繼續支持國際刑事法院的國家可能會面臨與美國更緊張的關係。
Some experts suggest that the U.S. is acting preemptively, as the ICC has not taken any new actions against U.S. interests since January 2025. While some believe the U.S. is taking advantage of internal problems within the ICC to make the court fail, human rights advocates argue that these actions damage the international legal system established after World War II.
一些專家認為美國是在採取預防性行動，因為國際刑事法院自 2025 年 1 月以來尚未採取任何針對美國利益的新行動。雖然有人認為美國是在利用國際刑事法院內部的問題使其失敗，但人權倡導者認為，這些行動損害了第二次世界大戰後建立的國際法律體系。
Conclusion
The United States is currently using diplomatic, economic, and legal pressure to systematically weaken the ICC.
美國目前正利用外交、經濟和法律壓力，系統性地削弱國際刑事法院。
Vocabulary Learning
The 'Cause and Effect' Upgrade
An A2 student usually connects ideas with 'because' or 'so'. To reach B2, you need Logical Connectors. These words act like bridges, making your writing sound professional and fluid rather than like a list of simple sentences.
⚡ The Power Shift
Look at how the text moves from a reason to a result. Instead of saying "The U.S. wants to protect itself, so they use sanctions," the text uses:
*"Consequently, countries that continue to support the ICC may face stricter relations..."
Why this matters: Consequently tells the reader that the result is a direct, logical outcome of the previous action. It is a 'high-level' replacement for 'so'.
🛠️ Building Your B2 Toolset
From this article, we can extract three different ways to link complex ideas:
-
Adding Information:
Furthermore- A2 style: "They use sanctions. They also use travel bans."
- B2 style: "They use sanctions. Furthermore, they plan to use diplomatic pressure."
-
Showing Contrast:
While- A2 style: "Some people think X. But other people think Y."
- B2 style: "While some believe the U.S. is taking advantage... human rights advocates argue..."
-
The Result:
Consequently- A2 style: "The U.S. doesn't like the court, so it weakens it."
- B2 style: "The U.S. disagrees with the court's authority; consequently, it is implementing sanctions."
💡 Pro-Tip for Growth
Stop using 'and', 'but', and 'so' at the start of every sentence. Replace them with these three anchors to immediately shift your tone from 'Basic' to 'Upper-Intermediate'.
Vocabulary Learning
The United States Government Initiates a Comprehensive Strategy to Neutralize the International Criminal Court.
美國政府採取全面策略，旨在癱瘓國際刑事法院
Introduction
The administration of President Donald Trump has announced a systemic effort to obstruct the operational capacity of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to protect American sovereignty.
川普總統的政府宣布了一項系統性計劃，旨在阻礙國際刑事法院 (ICC) 的運作能力，以保護美國主權。
Main Body
The current strategic posture of the United States is predicated on the assertion that the ICC constitutes an impermissible infringement upon national sovereignty. This position is underscored by the fact that the United States is not a signatory to the Rome Statute. Despite this, the ICC maintains that it possesses the jurisdiction to investigate U.S. citizens within the territories of member states. A primary catalyst for this friction is the 2020 investigation into alleged misconduct by U.S. personnel in Afghanistan, a probe that remains open despite a reduction in priority. Furthermore, the court's issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli officials in November 2024 has exacerbated tensions.
美國目前的策略立場是基於一個論點，即 ICC 構成了對國家主權的不允許侵犯。此立場是由於美國並非《羅馬 statut》的簽約國。儘管如此，ICC 仍堅持其擁有對成員國領土內的美國公民進行調查的管轄權。導致此摩擦的主要催化劑是 2020 年針對美國人員在阿富汗涉嫌違規行為的調查，儘管優先級已降低，但該調查仍處於開啟狀態。此外，法院於 2024 年 11 月對以色列官員發出的逮捕令加劇了緊張局勢。
To mitigate these perceived threats, the State Department has proposed a 'whole-of-government' response. The proposed measures include the imposition of expanded sanctions, travel prohibitions, and visa revocations targeting ICC personnel and affiliated entities. Additionally, the administration intends to leverage diplomatic pressure, urging partner nations—specifically those receiving U.S. security assistance or hosting U.S. military forces—to repudiate the court's purported authority. Should these nations maintain their support for the ICC, they may be subject to increased bilateral scrutiny.
為了緩解這些被視為威脅的因素，國務院提出了「全政府」回應方案。擬議措施包括對 ICC 人員及相關實體實施擴大制裁、旅行禁令及撤銷簽證。此外，政府打算利用外交壓力，敦促合作夥伴國家——特別是那些接受美國安全援助或駐紮美國軍隊的國家——否認該法院所謂的權限。若這些國家維持對 ICC 的支持，可能會面臨更嚴格的雙邊審查。
External analysis suggests a divergence between the administration's rhetoric and the court's recent activity. Legal scholars have noted that the ICC has not initiated actions against U.S. or allied interests since January 2025, suggesting that the current campaign may be preemptive. Some assessments indicate that the U.S. may be exploiting internal institutional vulnerabilities within the ICC, specifically scandals involving the lead prosecutor, to accelerate the tribunal's decline. Conversely, human rights advocates argue that such actions undermine the post-WWII international legal framework.
外部分析顯示，政府的言論與法院近期的活動之間存在分歧。法律學者指出，ICC 自 2025 年 1 月以來未對美國或盟友利益採取行動，暗示目前的行動可能是預防性的。部分評估認為，美國可能在利用 ICC 內部的制度漏洞，特別是涉及首席檢察官的醜聞，以加速該法庭的衰落。相反，人權倡議者認為，此類行動損害了二戰後的國際法律框架。
Conclusion
The United States is currently pursuing a policy of systematic destabilization of the ICC through diplomatic, economic, and legal pressures.
美國目前正透過外交、經濟及法律壓力，採取系統性地使 ICC 不穩定的政策。
Vocabulary Learning
The Architecture of 'Institutional Distancing'
To transition from B2 to C2, a student must move beyond simple synonymy and master Lexical Precision in High-Stakes Discourse. The provided text is a masterclass in euphemistic clinicalism—the art of describing aggressive political actions using a detached, academic, and bureaucratic register to maintain an air of objective legitimacy.
⚡ The Pivot: From 'Action' to 'Posture'
At B2, a writer says: "The US is trying to stop the ICC because they don't like its rules." At C2, the writer employs Nominalization and Stative Verbs to transform a conflict into a 'strategic state'.
"The current strategic posture of the United States is predicated on the assertion..."
Analysis: Notice the use of "predicated on". This isn't just 'based on'; it implies a logical, foundational premise. By using "strategic posture," the author removes the human element (Trump/Administration) and replaces it with a systemic entity. This is the hallmark of C2 diplomacy: removing agency to imply inevitability.
🔍 The Nuance of 'Mitigation' vs. 'Attack'
Observe the choice of "mitigate these perceived threats."
- Mitigate: Usually means to make something less severe (e.g., mitigating a disaster).
- Perceived: A critical C2 qualifier. It signals that the 'threat' may not actually exist, but is viewed as such by the actor.
By framing sanctions and visa revocations as "mitigation," the text converts an offensive act into a defensive necessity. This is semantic repositioning.
🛠️ C2 Syntactic Sophistication: The 'Causal Chain'
Look at the phrase: "...a probe that remains open despite a reduction in priority."
This is a concessive clause compressed into a noun phrase. Instead of saying "Although the priority has been reduced, the probe is still open," the author uses "despite a reduction in priority" as a post-modifier. This increases the information density of the sentence, a requirement for C2 proficiency.
Key Vocabulary for the C2 Arsenal:
- Repudiate (v.): Not just to 'deny,' but to reject the very validity or authority of something.
- Exacerbated (v.): To make a problem worse (far more precise than 'increased').
- Divergence (n.): A clinical way to describe a disagreement or contradiction between two sets of data/rhetoric.