Political Language and the ICC in the Trump Era: Competing Discourses in the United States, Japan, and China

Abstract

This paper examines competing political perspectives on the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the United States, Japan, and China. Rather than focusing simply on whether political actors support or oppose the ICC, the paper analyzes how they conceptualize the Court and the principles underlying its role in international affairs. Particular attention is given to the tension between idealistic and pragmatic approaches. From an idealistic perspective, the ICC represents universal principles of international justice, accountability, and the rule of law. From a pragmatic perspective, however, its legitimacy and effectiveness are understood in relation to national sovereignty, political interests, power relations, and the realities of international politics. By comparing the discourse of political figures, international institutions, journalists, and other commentators, this study explores how different actors construct and justify their positions toward the ICC. Particular attention is given to President Donald Trump, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, ICC President Judge Tomoko Akane, and selected Japanese commentators. The paper argues that disagreements over the ICC reflect a broader tension between universalist conceptions of international law and state-centered approaches grounded in national interests and political realities. It further argues that political language does not merely reflect existing attitudes toward the ICC. Through rhetorical framing, political actors help construct the meaning, legitimacy, and political significance of the Court itself.