Five countries announce departure from International Criminal Court on heels of US promise to ‘dismantle’ tribunal

Under the Rome Statute, departure generally becomes effective one year after the United Nations receives formal notification.

By Corey Walker, The Algemeiner

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is facing an accelerating revolt from within, with five member states moving to abandon the tribunal as accusations of political bias, a US campaign to dismantle it, and the dismissal of its scandal-plagued chief prosecutor deepen a crisis of credibility.

Chad on Monday became the latest country to begin formally withdrawing from the court, following Venezuela, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger.

The announcements come as the United States intensifies efforts to isolate the ICC and the tribunal faces heightened scrutiny after the removal of former chief prosecutor Karim Khan.

In a notice submitted to the United Nations Secretariat, Chad said it had made the “sovereign decision to withdraw from the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court” following an “in-depth review” of the institution’s record since it began operating in 2002.

The government described the court’s effectiveness as “limited and uneven” and accused it of concentrating its judicial activity on the Global South, particularly Africa, which it said had become a victim of the ICC’s “political instrumentalization.”

Chad noted that nine of the court’s 13 investigations have focused on African countries and that six of the seven defendants currently in ICC custody are being prosecuted in cases arising from the continent.

Venezuela has also announced its departure, similarly accusing the court of disproportionately targeting non-Western countries.

The decision came after the ICC opened an investigation into alleged crimes against humanity committed by the previous Venezuelan government.

The withdrawals will not take effect immediately. Under the Rome Statute, departure generally becomes effective one year after the United Nations receives formal notification.

Withdrawal also does not terminate obligations connected to investigations or proceedings that began before a country’s exit took effect.

Critics have long argued that the ICC has disproportionately focused on African and other non-Western states, particularly during its first two decades.

They contend that this pattern has created the perception of a double standard, with powerful Western nations and their allies facing comparatively little scrutiny.

Supporters counter that several African cases were referred by the governments involved and that the ICC has since expanded its work to conflicts in Europe, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East.

The departures come amid an aggressive US pressure campaign aimed at weakening the tribunal.

Earlier this month, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a broad effort to diminish the ICC’s influence, arguing that it had exceeded its mandate by targeting American personnel and Israeli leaders even though neither country is a party to the Rome Statute.

In a video address and Wall Street Journal opinion essay, Rubio said the administration would urge allied governments to reject the court’s jurisdiction and consider additional sanctions against individuals or countries that assist investigations involving the United States or its allies.

Rubio accused the ICC of “waging a war against our country, not with bullets or missiles” but through “the force of so-called international law” and vowed to dismantle the institution “brick by brick, if necessary.”

The State Department has also warned that countries benefiting from US law-enforcement cooperation, hosting an American military presence, or relying on the broader US security umbrella could face increased scrutiny if they continue recognizing the ICC’s authority over American citizens.

The confrontation has intensified over the court’s pursuit of Israeli leaders.

On Nov. 21, 2024, an ICC pretrial chamber issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over Israel’s conduct during the war against Hamas in Gaza.

The judges said there were reasonable grounds to believe the two leaders bore responsibility for the alleged war crime of starvation as a method of warfare and alleged crimes against humanity, including murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.

Israel has vehemently rejected the accusations, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction, that Israel has facilitated large quantities of humanitarian aid into Gaza, and that the warrants distort the conduct of a democratic country defending itself after the Hamas-led massacre of Oct. 7, 2023.

The United States has likewise rejected the warrants and accused the court of applying inconsistent legal standards to Israel while disregarding the country’s independent judicial system.

The ICC’s difficulties have been compounded by Khan’s dismissal following an investigation into allegations of serious misconduct.

His ouster, combined with the withdrawals and mounting pressure from Washington, has left the tribunal facing one of the gravest institutional crises in its history.

anti-Israelarrest warrantsICC