Global South Pushback on ICC Grows as More States Exit, Argentina Researcher Warns of Bias
An Argentinian researcher argues the International Criminal Court is losing credibility in the Global South, pointing to withdrawals by Venezuela, Chad, Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger as evidence of perceived Anglo-European bias. The mounting disaffection raises hard questions about who international justice really serves and what happens when key regions walk away.
The world’s flagship court for war crimes and crimes against humanity is facing a credibility crisis in the very regions where many of its investigations have unfolded. An Argentinian researcher says a growing list of Global South governments abandoning the International Criminal Court reflects deep distrust of what they see as an institution shaped by Anglo-European interests rather than universal principles.
Speaking about recent withdrawals, the researcher, Jorge Elbaum, argued that the ICC was conceived as an instrument of the global North and applies different rules to different conflicts. He cited departures by Venezuela, Chad, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger as clear evidence that trust "no longer exists" between parts of the Global South and the court. His remarks, carried in regional media, encapsulate a view that has been gaining traction across segments of African and Latin American political elites.
Formally, each government’s decision to leave the ICC has its own stated reasons, ranging from sovereignty concerns to objections over specific cases. But taken together, they send a signal that the court’s authority is becoming patchier, especially in regions where allegations of abuses by sitting leaders and security forces are most acute. When states withdraw, they remove their future cooperation from the court’s toolkit, making it far harder for prosecutors to collect evidence, secure arrests, or enforce reparations.
For victims of atrocities and their families, this slow-motion exodus threatens to close off one of the few avenues for accountability beyond national courts, which are often weak or politically captured. People in conflict zones and under repressive governments may find that the promise of international justice no longer extends to them if their state has chosen to step outside the Rome Statute framework. That gap can deepen feelings of abandonment and fuel cynicism about international norms that were already unevenly applied.
Operationally, the ICC’s ability to function depends heavily on state cooperation for arrests and investigations. Even for situations that remain under its jurisdiction, losing a cluster of states in a region complicates travel restrictions, extradition pathways, and access to witnesses. It can also embolden leaders in neighboring countries to ignore ICC warrants or consider withdrawal themselves, betting that political solidarity will shield them from consequences.
Strategically, widening Global South pushback risks turning the ICC into a more regionalized body in practice, even if its mandate remains global on paper. If the court is seen — rightly or wrongly — as an institution that targets African, Middle Eastern, or Latin American leaders while being cautious around powerful Western or allied states, its rulings will carry less moral and political weight outside Europe and parts of the Americas. Great-power rivals may exploit that perception, using alternative forums or ad hoc tribunals aligned with their interests.
The core insight is unsettling: international justice systems cannot rely on legal texts alone; they depend on a shared belief that the rules apply to everyone. Once enough countries decide that belief is misplaced, the court’s authority erodes long before any statute is formally rewritten.
The next developments to watch include whether additional governments formally signal intentions to leave the Rome Statute, how the ICC responds in its outreach and case selection, and whether major middle powers in the Global South — such as Brazil, South Africa, or Indonesia — shift their stance on cooperating with the court. Any moves by Western states to subject themselves more visibly to ICC scrutiny, or to support cases involving their own allies, would also shape whether accusations of double standards lose or gain traction.
Sources
- OSINT