The ICC is the International Criminal Court ( https://www.icc-cpi.int/ ), created in 2002 by the Rome Statute.
It's the first permanent international court for prosecuting various war crimes and "crimes against humanity" (e.g. genocide). Prior to its creation, there had been a host of ad-hoc tribunals, such as Nuremberg trials, Tribunal for Yugoslavia & Tribunal for Rwanda.
Here's the thing:
animosity to the ICC is not unique to Trump. So this isn't *quite* in the same class as the other IOs and treaty commitments that Trump as criticized (
is a dated list from @CNN) https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/01/politics/nuclear-treaty-trump/index.html


When President Bill Clinton signed it in 2000, he offered a key reservation: "The United States should have the chance to observe and assess the functioning of the court, over time, before choosing to become subject to its jurisdiction."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1095580.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1095580.stm
The administration of George W Bush then revoked the signature https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/05/06/united-states-unsigning-treaty-war-crimes-court
Obama's administration was more cooperative towards the court: it didn't seek to oppose its actions. Even then, the US did not rejoin the ICC. https://www.lawfareblog.com/was-president-obamas-visit-kenya-snub-international-criminal-court
And now @realDonaldTrump is taking on the ICC in full: not just "avoiding it", but imposing sanctions against members of it https://thehill.com/policy/defense/514823-trump-administration-imposes-sanctions-on-icc-prosecutor-investigating-alleged
So what problem does the US have with the ICC?
In a word: Afghanistan https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-war-afghanistan
In a word: Afghanistan https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-war-afghanistan
There has been a consistent concern that the ICC could be used to prosecute US forces operating in Afghanistan (and elsewhere). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/12/08/the-icc-will-investigate-alleged-u-s-war-crimes-in-afghanistan/
Note that prior to the ICC, tribunals were "ad-hoc". This often required support of the major powers to create.
Conceptually, we would say that such institutions had lower "sovereignty costs" https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/hard-and-soft-law-in-international-governance/EC8091A89687FDF7FC9027D1717538BF
Conceptually, we would say that such institutions had lower "sovereignty costs" https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/hard-and-soft-law-in-international-governance/EC8091A89687FDF7FC9027D1717538BF
Creating a permanent court raises the prospects of losing some control of what the court does (namely, who it chooses to prosecute) https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/credible-commitments-and-the-international-criminal-court/116A140C1A2A1C46B6982E6703BE7F0E
In short, while Trump has escalated US opposition to the ICC, US opposition to the ICC is not new.
[END]
[END]