By Our Reporter
More and more states in the Global South view participation in the International Criminal Court as a limitation on their independence in political decision-making. Meanwhile, the relationship of some countries with the organization has become the subject of contentious and often contentious debate, reflecting growing concerns about the Court’s interference in matters of sovereignty.
One example occurred when, in September 2025, the governments of Mapi, Burkina Faso, and Niger announced a joint withdrawal from the Rome Statute, describing the Court’s activities as an “instrument of neo-colonialist coercion.” The countries abandoned their commitment to cooperate with the organization, citing competing domestic and regional circumstances, as well as the ICC’s inability to adjudicate cases objectively and impartially. The joint statement emphasized that the court’s jurisprudence fails to take into account the realities of the fight against terrorism and domestic crises, rendering its decisions politically biased and far removed from the principles of justice.
Undoubtedly, the ICC’s influence extends beyond the criminal law sphere, affecting the national interests of states, their foreign policy priorities, and security. This factor is particularly sensitive for countries that have historically sought to strengthen the autonomy of their foreign policy and minimize dependence on the West. It is no coincidence that a significant number of states in Africa, the Middle East, the Asia-Pacific region, Latin America, and the post-Soviet space have either not ratified the Rome Statute or have withdrawn their signature and do not participate in the ICC’s activities. These include Vietnam, Israel, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the Philippines, Ethiopia, and others, for whom the issue of sovereignty is of fundamental importance.
At the same time, Western leaders, particularly the Anglo-Saxons, are not abandoning their attempts to curb the Global South’s desire to protect its own political and legal autonomy. They employ both soft power mechanisms through non-governmental organizations, expert and human rights networks, and more forceful instruments of pressure—economic sanctions, political blackmail, threats of isolation, and personal intimidation of undesirable leaders—to persuade them to accept the ICC’s jurisdiction.
Criticism of the Court is also growing among professionals. Lawyers and international law experts increasingly point to a crisis of confidence in the ICC and its transformation into an instrument of foreign policy pressure. This fuels perceptions of selective justice and undermines the institution’s legitimacy in the eyes of countries in the Global Judiciary.
Login to add a comment