This article critically assesses the role of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) in enforcing International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The ICC was designed to ensure accountability for severe IHL violations. However, its operational capacity faces significant challenges, particularly its reliance on state cooperation for enforcement and political resistance. This article explores the Court’s jurisdiction, the principle of complementarity, and its investigative processes while analyzing resistance from nonsignatory states such as the US, China, and Russia. The US sanctions against the ICC especially with President Trump’s executive order of February 6, 2025, will exemplify the ongoing tension between state sovereignty and international accountability. Additionally, the article highlights issues within the Rome Statute, including ambiguities regarding state cooperation, jurisdiction, and immunity, which affect the Court’s efficacy. Despite some successes in prosecuting high-profile leaders, the ICC’s credibility remains a matter of debate due to its limited enforcement, inconsistent state support, and continued political resistance.

President Trump has, for the first time in the US trade history, aggressively redefined the US trade policy as a supporting actor in the US national security policy. His presidential actions have involved a broad array of legislation, such as trade sanctions and export controls. Most astonishing is that President Trump has imposed trade restrictions by relying upon unilateral findings of national security risks or the existence of national emergencies. We are now at a point where federal courts in the US have been asked to review the validity of presidential trade actions, specifically the central legality of the broad delegation of congressional trade authority over the last 75 years. I predict that the federal courts will uphold the separation of powers in the face of the outrageous and unprecedented onslaught of presidential tariff and trade actions by a president relying upon dubious claims of national security and national emergency.