A phone call made from Washington on July 23 was enough for Chad, an East African country that has been a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC) since 2007, to announce four days later that it is leaving. It now says it is “selective in its activity towards the global south.” On July 24, Venezuela, which was the first Latin American country to join this court when it opened its doors in 2002, did the same. It claimed that the court “perpetuates the persecution against the Venezuelan people.” Both decisions have been welcomed “with satisfaction” by the United States, which has launched a campaign to dismantle an institution it considers harmful to its national interests ―and those of its great ally Israel― although it is not part of it.
Read more Six earthquakes mark the night in Granada after Tuesday’s magnitude 4.8 earthquake
U.S. authorities sanctioned Tomoko Akane, president of the ICC and of Japanese nationality, this Tuesday, adding her to the eight judges and four prosecutors already penalized by Washington. These punishments exclude those affected from the U.S. financial system, with which most banks work internationally. They also reach all those — whether companies, institutions, or individuals — who collaborate with them and directly impact support for the victims of crimes prosecuted by the ICC: genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and armed aggression. However, the court resists in its work to protect justice and the international rule of law, but depends more than ever on its members to defend its work and independence.
After Frank García, U.S. Deputy Secretary for African Affairs, urged Chad to “reconsider its adherence to the Rome Statute,” the founding text of the ICC, the Chadian government claimed that the court’s effectiveness “has been limited and variable in relation to the expectations created with its creation.” And that it is “undeniably selective” in its activity towards the global south. Venezuela, under U.S. tutelage after the arrest of Nicolás Maduro, maintains, on the other hand, that the court, besides “perpetuating the persecution” against its citizens, “worsens the inequalities that international justice should correct.”
In a statement issued this Wednesday, the ICC calls the new round of sanctions a “blatant attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution acting in accordance with the mandate conferred by its 125 member States from all regions” of the world. The note adds that these coercive measures “also affect the victims’ ability to obtain justice,” and emphasizes that the ICC “is not intimidated (…) and values the constant shows of solidarity from the States Parties, civil society, and all those who support the rule of law and justice for victims of international crimes.”
The President of the European Council, António Costa, also spoke this Wednesday. “President [of the European Commission] Ursula von der Leyen and I stand firmly with the International Criminal Court, its president Tomoko Akane, and the officials who defend its mission,” he wrote on the social network X (formerly Twitter). “The ICC helps bring justice to victims of some of the world’s most horrific crimes. To carry out this essential work, its judges and officials must be able to act independently and without external pressures.”
In his first interview since both departures were announced, and also since the U.S. campaign to dismantle the ICC began, Osvaldo Zavala, its secretary, explains to EL PAÍS that the organization understands that “defending justice is even more important when it is difficult to do so.” “We feel that we are receiving blows that are fundamentally aimed at multilateralism and the international rule of law,” he adds.
The Ecuadorian jurist describes it this way: “The attacks we are receiving from the great powers at different levels reflect not only the relevance but also the independence and impartiality with which the ICC acts.” To be clear, Zavala emphasizes that the court’s work “can always be seen from a political perspective, but it is a judicial organization.”
García’s phone call was preceded by statements from Marco Rubio, U.S. Secretary of State, who considered the ICC “a threat to his country’s national sovereignty.” Later, he advocated dismantling it “brick by brick, if necessary.”
The current situation of relations with the United States, Zavala adds, “joins the problems of the last three and a half years, starting with Russia, which initiated criminal proceedings against the court’s jurists, culminating [in 2025] with prison sentences of up to 15 years for nine” of them. In 2023, the ICC issued an arrest warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin for war crimes related to the illegal deportation of Ukrainian children to Russian territory.
“In 2023, we suffered a cyberattack, and then came the whole discussion about sanctions,” recalls the secretary of the Hague-based organization (Netherlands). He refers to the nine judges and four prosecutors currently sanctioned by Donald Trump, along with those who collaborate with the court. At the same time, the secretary points out the following: “There is a lot of support from member states, and that can also be read as a political message. The Court’s budget is currently paid at 95%; and it is very rare for an international organization to have that degree of liquidity.”
Read more The challenge of the next 72 years
The ICC therefore continues forward. Zavala, in fact, emphasizes that the court “is working on technical solutions to be able to function, because the sanctions generate extraterritoriality in European territory by affecting any entity that provides material support.”
Burkina Faso, Niger, and Mali — three countries in the African Sahel — as well as Burundi and the Philippines, had already expressed their intention to leave the ICC, although these cases are not related to U.S. pressures. Withdrawals become effective one year after notification and do not affect investigations initiated earlier, which continue their course. The announcement by Chad and Venezuela coincides with the dismissal of Karim Khan as ICC chief prosecutor for inappropriate sexual conduct.
“Not all these withdrawals are the same,” explains Reed Brody, a lawyer specializing in war crimes, by phone. “Burundi and the Philippines tried to evade investigations into their own crimes but did not succeed.” Proof of this, he says, is that former Philippine President [Rodrigo] Duterte will have to appear before the ICC starting in November for the killings committed during the war on drugs in his country.
The American jurist considers that the three Sahel countries, governed by military juntas, “are withdrawing as a sign of break with the West.” In Venezuela and Chad, “the hand of Washington is visible.” “The Chadian statement itself acknowledges that the United States asked it to ‘reexamine’ its adherence and the Venezuelan government is today under Washington’s orders,” Brody details.
For Alette Smeulers, a professor expert in the study of international crimes at the University of Groningen, the United States is trying to move towards a new world order “in which the strongest decide without any kind of limitation.” At this moment, the Trump Administration “is trying to dismantle the international legal order by dismantling the ICC.” And that attitude, she indicates, “gives others the opportunity to do the same and gain more power for themselves.”
Both experts agree on the perverse nature of a world order “where ‘the good guys’ would be the countries loyal to Trump,” in Smeulers’ words. Because, contrary to what Washington claims, the ICC does not limit state sovereignty: “It only limits the actions of States by not allowing them to commit serious human rights violations and the most serious crimes it prosecutes, in the territory of the court’s member states.”
On January 8, Trump made clear the only check on his authority as commander-in-chief: “My own morality; my own mind or judgment is the only thing that can stop me.” For the professor at the University of Groningen, speaking like this “is almost like psychological manipulation.” The leader says his rejection of the ICC “is to protect freedom and democracy, when what he tries to do is dismantle all checks and balances that ensure that there is no unchecked governance.”
Brody advocates for the prompt implementation of the European Union Blocking Statute to neutralize U.S. sanctions against ICC jurists. At the same time, he proposes that “the UN General Assembly condemn these sanctions and request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on their legality.” Smeulers, in turn, supports “forming a common front of all ICC member states to see how they will protect it.” “European countries, Western countries, and many African and Latin American countries support it,” she opines.
The ICC lacks its own police force to execute an arrest warrant, whether against the less apparently powerful African suspect; Russian President Vladimir Putin; or Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “There is an uneven commitment to the court, but even the countries most lenient with Israel for historical reasons, like Germany, have the defense of international law in their DNA,” Brody concludes.
Read more Is that what the opposition wants?
