What drove Venezuela’s decision to leave the ICC?

SaveSharefacebookxwhatsapp-strokecopylinkVenezuela's interim President Delcy Rodriguez addresses the media following the June 24 earthquakes that struck the country, in Caracas, Venezuela, July 2, 2026 [Marian Carrasquero/Reuters]By Tamara KhandakerPublished On 27 Jul 202627 Jul 2026Venezuela’s Foreign Minister Felix Plasencia announced on Friday that the country had formally notified the United Nations of its withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC). The instructions came from Interim President Delcy Rodriguez, said Plasencia on X, calling the decision “firm and irrevocable”.He said the ICC had shown a “demonstrated geographical bias” by disproportionately targeting countries in Africa and Latin America.Recommended Stories list of 4 itemslist 1 of 4World Bank estimates Venezuela earthquakes caused $19.6bn in damagelist 2 of 4US judge sets 2027 trial date for Venezuela’s Madurolist 3 of 4What’s next for Venezuela’s path to recovery from devastating earthquakes?list 4 of 4Venezuela to exit International Criminal Court, accusing it of ‘bias’end of listThe United States quickly welcomed the decision, praising Rodriguez for joining “American-led efforts to dismantle the corrupt and worthless ICC”. The US Department of State said in a statement that the court had spent years “investigating” former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro “with no result” and called on all ICC member states to withdraw from the Rome Statute.While Venezuela’s decision to leave the ICC is unlikely to stop a long-running investigation into alleged crimes against humanity, analysts say it’s the latest sign of the country’s rapidly changing foreign policy under Rodriguez, bringing Caracas closer to Washington while dealing another blow to a court already fighting for its future.The ICC has long faced criticism for disproportionately targeting countries in the Global South. However, Mark Kersten, a professor of human rights and international criminal law at the University of the Fraser Valley, said that argument is less convincing today.“There certainly was a time where that was more persuasive,” he told Al Jazeera on Monday, referring to the time when most of the leaders being pursued by the ICC were African. “But now you have [Russia’s] Vladimir Putin. You have [Israel’s] Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant. You have investigations into contexts that aren’t Global South contexts.”What the withdrawal changes — and what it doesn’tThe ICC told Al Jazeera it had not yet received formal notification through the UN treaty office. It said that, under the Rome Statute, any withdrawal takes effect one year after notification and does not affect investigations already under way or matters already before the court.That means the ICC can continue investigating alleged crimes against humanity in Venezuela despite the country’s decision to leave, according to Kersten and other experts who spoke to Al Jazeera.Still, the withdrawal adds to a growing sense of hopelessness among Venezuelans who have been looking to the court for accountability, and who have already been frustrated by how slowly the case has progressed, said Laura Dib, Venezuela programme director at the Washington Office on Latin America.“Thousands of victims have sent their testimonies. They have put their lives in danger to provide this information to the court,” she said, warning that repeated attacks on the court, including US sanctions on its judges and prosecutors, make it harder for the ICC to move cases forward by creating fears of retaliation.The ICC opened its investigation into Venezuela in 2021 after prosecutors found a reasonable basis to believe security forces and pro-government groups had committed crimes against humanity during a crackdown on anti-government protests beginning in 2017. Relations with Caracas were already strained in January last year, when the court closed its office in the country, saying authorities had not taken meaningful steps to investigate the alleged crimes. Then in December, Venezuela’s National Assembly voted to begin withdrawing from the Rome Statute.And while the move does not affect the court’s investigation, “the court’s practical capacity to act has always depended on state cooperation”, said Francisco Rodriguez, a senior research fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and founder of Oil for Venezuela, adding that the withdrawal signals a commitment not to cooperate.“That matters because many of the officials covered by the investigation are still in office, and several have been promoted,” he said. “The signal to them is that the accountability track has been closed as part of a bargain with Washington.”Washington’s growing influenceVenezuela’s announcement also comes as the administration of US President Donald Trump has intensified its attacks against the court, portraying it as illegitimate and vowing to dismantle it “brick by brick”.Against that backdrop, analysts say the timing of Venezuela’s formal withdrawal has added to evidence that Caracas is increasingly aligning its foreign policy with Washington.“I have argued before that Venezuela is a protectorate in all but name, and this ratifies it,” said Rodriguez. “A government that abandons a multilateral treaty commitment on the timetable of another country’s diplomatic campaign is not conducting a foreign policy of its own.”Rodriguez noted while the National Assembly’s December vote was “defensive, a way of insulating Maduro and senior officials from an investigation that was closing in on them”, the decision to formally notify the UN came after the Trump administration launched a public campaign urging countries to leave the ICC.Just two days before Venezuela’s announcement, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called ICC officials “lunatics and crazies” and warned the court would face “the consequences” if it tried to assert jurisdiction over Americans.“The US welcomed the withdrawal publicly and urged other states to follow, which tells you whose agenda is being advanced,” said Rodriguez, pointing to a broader pattern of policy moves under Delcy Rodriguez, including changes to Venezuela’s energy policy and its first official engagement with Israel since 2009.“I am not aware of a single meaningful decision this government has taken that Washington opposed,” he said. “If that is right, the ICC withdrawal does not require a separate explanation.”A court under pressureVenezuela’s withdrawal is one of the latest setbacks for the ICC as it faces mounting political and institutional challenges.On Monday, Chad also announced plans to withdraw from the ICC, saying its effectiveness had been “limited and uneven” and accused it of focusing disproportionately on African countries, pointing out that “the court has only seven people in custody, six of whom are being prosecuted in African situations”.Chad’s withdrawal follows similar moves by Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger last year, but Chad’s government said its decision came after Washington urged it to reconsider its membership.“The American side expressed its concerns about the functioning of this institution and called on Chad to review its accession to the Rome Statute,” a statement said on the foreign minister’s website on Thursday.On top of sustained pressure from the Trump administration, on Friday, the ICC also lost its elected chief prosecutor after member states voted to dismiss Karim Khan over allegations of sexual assault, which he denies.Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is wanted by the ICC over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, welcomed Khan’s dismissal and said he had spoken to Rubio, who reaffirmed to him Washington’s determination to act against what he described as an institution that “undermines justice”.But Kersten argued the bigger threat isn’t Washington itself.“It’s not US opposition that kills the ICC,” he said. “It’s going to be the silence and indifference of its member states.”Rather than trying to persuade the Trump administration to change course, he said countries that support the court should be working to bring more states into the ICC.“I think that’s the real response,” he said. “Not just a rhetorical one.”