Five countries are leaving the ICC. None has left yet

Five countries have notified the United Nations that they intend to leave the International Criminal Court, but none has left the Rome Statute yet. The first withdrawals are scheduled to take effect on June 18, 2027, not in 2026.

The notices from Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, Venezuela and Chad come as the United States increases pressure on the court and several governments accuse it of selective justice. Legally, however, a notice is not an immediate departure. Article 127 of the Rome Statute creates a one-year interval and preserves important obligations connected to the period when each country was a party.

What the five notices say

The United Nations Treaty Collection lists these notification and effective-withdrawal dates:

• Niger: notified June 18, 2026; withdrawal effective June 18, 2027.
• Burkina Faso: notified June 24, 2026; withdrawal effective June 24, 2027.
• Mali: notified June 24, 2026; withdrawal effective June 24, 2027.
• Venezuela: notified July 24, 2026; withdrawal effective July 24, 2027.
• Chad: notified July 27, 2026; withdrawal effective July 27, 2027.

As of September 13, 2026, all five notices remain pending. The depositary record lists all five countries among the parties that have notified the U.N. of a decision to withdraw, with the effective dates one year later.

Why the one-year delay matters

Article 127(1) says a state ceases to be a party one year after written notification is received by the U.N. secretary-general, unless the notice specifies a later date. That means the announcement date, the depositary notification date and the effective withdrawal date should not be treated as the same event.

Until each effective date, the country remains a party to the Rome Statute. The distinction also matters because the ICC’s legal authority and its practical ability to act are not the same thing. A state can be moving toward withdrawal while still having treaty-based duties to cooperate.

What can survive withdrawal

Article 127(2) provides that withdrawal does not discharge a state from obligations arising from the Rome Statute while it was a party. It also says withdrawal does not affect cooperation with the Court in connection with criminal investigations and proceedings that began before the withdrawal became effective.

The same paragraph says withdrawal does not prejudice the continued consideration of matters already under consideration by the Court before the effective date. ICC judicial reasoning has treated those provisions as safeguards against using withdrawal to erase responsibilities tied to earlier conduct or to halt matters already before the Court.

That does not mean every future ICC action involving one of the five countries will proceed automatically. The timing of alleged crimes, the scope of a situation or case, and the Court’s jurisdiction still matter. But a withdrawal notice does not erase past conduct, automatically terminate an investigation or end every cooperation duty.

Venezuela shows why timing matters

Documentation from the ICC Assembly of States Parties states that the Office of the Prosecutor’s investigation into the Venezuela I situation was continuing and that investigative activities were anticipated to continue in 2026.

That makes Venezuela’s July 24, 2027, effective date more than a formal deadline. Depending on the matter and the applicable jurisdictional rules, activity or issues already under consideration before that date may remain protected by Article 127 after withdrawal takes effect.

What may weaken after 2027

The larger practical risk is reduced cooperation after the effective dates. The Court may face greater difficulty obtaining arrests, evidence, records, access and other assistance from governments that no longer have the same treaty-based relationship with it.

Those are possible practical consequences, not automatic legal results of every withdrawal. The ICC has no independent police force and relies heavily on states to execute arrest warrants, preserve evidence and facilitate investigations. Legal authority can therefore survive in circumstances where enforcement becomes harder.

A political challenge as well as a legal process

Associated Press reported that the five withdrawals came as Washington intensified its campaign against the ICC, including sanctions on court personnel and calls for member states to leave. Chad’s foreign minister said a U.S. official had asked Chad to reconsider its membership before the country announced its withdrawal.

AP also reported that Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger accused the Court of selective justice and described it as an instrument of neocolonial repression. Those are political claims by governments leaving the treaty, not established legal findings about the ICC.

The next milestones are the five effective dates in 2027. Until then, the countries remain parties. The Court’s ability to pursue existing matters will depend on Article 127’s protections, the cooperation it can secure and the political decisions governments make during the transition.

Sources

• United Nations Treaty Collection: Rome Statute withdrawal notices
• International Criminal Court: Rome Statute
• ICC Assembly of States Parties: Venezuela I report
• Associated Press: ICC faces confidence crisis as member states withdraw

Look for updates to this story

Related News

• ICJ finishes hearings on Germany’s objections in Nicaragua case
• African development lenders seek longer-term financing through deposit-fund alliance
• Morocco’s Parliamentary Election Heads Toward Sept. 23 Vote
• Global mpox vaccine stockpile launched ahead of September operations