Venezuela, under Interim President Delcy Eloina Rodriguez, formally notified the United Nations of its withdrawal from the Rome Statute on July 24, 2026, triggering the one-year countdown required under Article 127 of the treaty. Foreign Minister Felix Plasencia called the decision “firm and irrevocable,” accusing the International Criminal Court of showing a “demonstrated geographical bias” against nations in Africa and Latin America. The move deals another blow to the Hague-based court, which is already grappling with a growing legitimacy crisis amid a wave of withdrawals and intense political pressure from Washington.
What Is the International Criminal Court and the Rome Statute?
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is the world’s first permanent international court established to investigate and prosecute individuals responsible for the most serious crimes under international law. Headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands, the ICC was created through the Rome Statute, a multilateral treaty adopted at a United Nations conference in Rome in July 1998. The treaty entered into force on July 1, 2002, after being ratified by more than 60 countries.
The court has jurisdiction over four categories of crimes:
- Genocide, defined as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
- Crimes against humanity, which include murder, rape, torture, enslavement, enforced disappearances, and persecution when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population.
- War crimes, covering grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and serious violations of the laws of armed conflict, such as the use of child soldiers, torture of prisoners, and deliberate attacks on civilians.
- Crimes of aggression, referring to the use of armed force by one state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of another state.
As of 2026, the ICC has 124 member states plus the Palestinian territories, spanning Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe, and Latin America. Notable non-members include the United States, China, India, Russia, and Israel, all of which have refused to ratify the Rome Statute, citing concerns over sovereignty and the court’s potential for politicised prosecutions.
How the Court Works
The ICC operates on the principle of complementarity, meaning it only steps in when national courts are unwilling or unable to genuinely investigate and prosecute serious international crimes. It does not replace domestic legal systems but acts as a court of last resort.
The court can initiate investigations in three ways: a member state can refer a situation to the prosecutor; the UN Security Council can refer a situation from anywhere in the world; or the ICC Prosecutor can launch an investigation on their own initiative, known as proprio motu, with the approval of pretrial judges.
The ICC has 18 judges, each from a different member state, elected to non-renewable nine-year terms. The court is divided into three judicial divisions: Pre-Trial, Trial, and Appeals. It relies entirely on the cooperation of member states to arrest suspects and enforce its decisions, as it has no police force of its own. Convictions require a vote of at least two out of three trial judges, and sentences can go up to 30 years of imprisonment, with life sentences possible in exceptional cases.
The ICC’s annual budget for 2026 stands at nearly €197 million (approximately $210 million), funded primarily by member state contributions assessed using the same method as the UN.
Venezuela’s Relationship with the ICC: A Timeline
Venezuela was the first State from Latin America to sign the Rome Statute, doing so on June 7, 2000, and it became a full State Party to the treaty in 2002 after completing ratification. For nearly two decades, Venezuela maintained its membership, though tensions with the court grew steadily as political unrest escalated within the country.
The critical turning point came in 2017, when mass anti-government protests swept across Venezuela against the government of then-President Nicolas Maduro. Security forces and pro-government groups responded with a brutal crackdown. More than 120 people died during the protests, and reports of torture, arbitrary detentions, and extrajudicial killings emerged from human rights organisations.
In 2020, then-ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan determined there was a reasonable basis to believe that government and military officials had committed crimes against humanity in Venezuela since at least 2017. A formal investigation was opened in 2021 following a referral by several South American member states.
Venezuela initially sought to invoke complementarity, arguing that its domestic judicial system was capable of handling the case. The ICC temporarily paused its probe to allow Venezuela to demonstrate genuine national proceedings. However, in March 2024, the ICC ruled that Venezuela had failed to take meaningful steps and decided to proceed with the investigation. The court closed its field office in Caracas in early 2025, citing a lack of progress by Venezuelan authorities.
The political landscape shifted dramatically in January 2026 when Maduro was captured by US forces in a nighttime military operation. Delcy Eloina Rodriguez, who had served as Vice President since 2018, was sworn in as interim president by Venezuela’s Supreme Court. Rodriguez, a lawyer with deep ties to the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), quickly aligned the country’s foreign policy closer to Washington.
In December 2025, even before Rodriguez took power, Venezuela’s National Assembly had unanimously voted to repeal the domestic law that ratified the Rome Statute, laying the legal groundwork for withdrawal. Under Rodriguez’s leadership, the formal notification to the UN followed on July 24, 2026, and Foreign Minister Plasencia declared the decision “irrevocable.”
Why Is Venezuela Leaving the ICC?
Venezuela has advanced several justifications for its withdrawal, though analysts point to deeper political motivations behind the move.
The official line from Caracas centres on allegations of institutional bias. Foreign Minister Plasencia argued that the ICC has shown a “demonstrated geographical bias” by disproportionately targeting countries in Africa and Latin America. Venezuela’s government also claimed that its domestic judicial system is fully capable of investigating and prosecuting any alleged crimes without international oversight.
However, legal experts and human rights organisations have pushed back against these arguments. Mark Kersten, a professor of human rights and international criminal law at the University of the Fraser Valley, noted that while the ICC’s early years did see a heavy focus on African cases, the court’s recent docket includes investigations into situations in Russia, Israel, Myanmar, and Georgia, making the Global South bias argument less convincing today.
The more immediate driver appears to be the ongoing ICC investigation into alleged crimes against humanity committed by Venezuelan security forces since 2017. The investigation directly implicates senior government and military officials, many of whom remain in positions of power. Withdrawing from the Rome Statute sends a clear signal that these officials will not face accountability through the ICC.
The political context is also significant. Under Rodriguez’s leadership, Venezuela has shifted its foreign policy markedly toward Washington. The United States has been the ICC’s most vocal adversary, and the Trump administration has actively campaigned to dismantle the court. The US State Department publicly welcomed Venezuela’s withdrawal, praising Rodriguez for joining “American-led efforts to dismantle the corrupt and worthless ICC,” and called on all ICC member states to follow suit.
Francisco Rodriguez, a senior research fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, described the withdrawal as part of a broader pattern of alignment with Washington’s agenda. “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,” he said.
What Happens to the Ongoing Investigation?
Under Article 127 of the Rome Statute, a state’s withdrawal takes effect one year after the date of receipt of the notification by the UN Secretary-General. This means Venezuela will formally cease to be a party to the statute approximately one year after its July 2026 notification.
Critically, the withdrawal does not terminate or affect any investigation or proceedings already under way. The Rome Statute explicitly states that withdrawal does not prejudice the court’s continued jurisdiction over crimes committed while the state was still a party. This means the ICC can continue to investigate and, if warranted, prosecute alleged crimes against humanity committed in Venezuela from at least 2017 onwards, as long as those crimes occurred while Venezuela remained a State Party to the statute.
The ICC confirmed this position, stating that its investigation into Venezuela would continue despite the withdrawal. However, in practical terms, Venezuela’s departure creates significant obstacles. The ICC relies entirely on state cooperation to arrest suspects, freeze assets, and gather evidence. With Caracas now signalling it will not cooperate, the practical capacity of the court to advance the investigation is severely weakened.
Human rights organisations have expressed deep concern. The UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela urged the government to reverse its decision, calling the withdrawal a step that “reinforces impunity for human rights violations.” The mission noted that Venezuela has taken no meaningful action to progress investigations into the “widely-documented gross violations and international crimes committed over more than a decade.”
Laura Dib, Venezuela programme director at the Washington Office on Latin America, highlighted the human cost: “Thousands of victims have sent their testimonies. They have put their lives in danger to provide this information to the court.” She warned that repeated attacks on the ICC, including US sanctions on its judges and prosecutors, make it harder for the court to move cases forward by creating fears of retaliation.
The Domino Effect: A Wave of ICC Withdrawals
Venezuela is not acting in isolation. Its withdrawal is part of a broader and accelerating trend of countries exiting the ICC, raising serious questions about the court’s future and the global architecture of international criminal justice.
Burundi became the first country to complete a withdrawal from the ICC in 2017, following the court’s decision to investigate the government’s violent crackdown on opposition protests. The Philippines followed in 2019, with then-President Rodrigo Duterte pulling his country out after the court launched an inquiry into his government’s war on drugs.
In 2025, three Sahel nations, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, formally initiated the one-year withdrawal process together, collectively labelling the ICC “a tool of neocolonial repression.” Shortly after, Chad also announced plans to withdraw, accusing the court of disproportionately focusing on African countries and pointing out that “the court has only seven people in custody, six of whom are being prosecuted in African situations.”
Chad’s government specifically noted that Washington had 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 from Chad’s foreign ministry said.
The US Campaign Against the Court
The Trump administration has emerged as the ICC’s most powerful adversary. In July 2026, the US State Department announced a “whole-of-government” effort to “systematically disable” the ICC, calling the court an “intolerable threat to US sovereignty.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that the US would pursue additional sanctions against court officials and increase scrutiny of allies that rely on US assistance yet decline to reject the court’s authority.
Washington’s opposition to the ICC is not new. The Bush administration withdrew the US signature from the Rome Statute in 2002 and passed the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, which authorised the president to use “all means necessary” to free Americans detained by the ICC. The Biden administration took a more conciliatory approach, lifting Trump-era sanctions, but Trump’s return to office in 2025 brought a return to aggressive hostility. He reimposed sanctions on the court and, in February 2025, Netanyahu became the first foreign leader to visit the White House during Trump’s second term.
Adding to the ICC’s troubles, in July 2026 the court’s member states voted to dismiss Chief Prosecutor 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 in Gaza, welcomed Khan’s dismissal and said he had spoken to Rubio, who reaffirmed Washington’s determination to act against the court.
With Venezuela’s withdrawal, ICC member states now face a court that is simultaneously losing members, losing its chief prosecutor, and facing an unprecedented campaign of dismantlement by the world’s most powerful nation. As Professor Kersten warned: “It is not US opposition that kills the ICC. It is going to be the silence and indifference of its member states.”
Key Takeaways
- Venezuela formally notified the UN of its withdrawal from the Rome Statute on July 24, 2026, under Article 127, which requires a one-year waiting period before the withdrawal takes effect.
- The ICC can continue investigating alleged crimes against humanity committed in Venezuela while it was still a State Party, since withdrawal does not affect ongoing or past proceedings.
- Venezuela became a State Party to the Rome Statute in 2002 and was the first Latin American country to sign the treaty in 2000.
- The ICC’s formal investigation into Venezuela, opened in 2021, centres on alleged crimes committed by security forces and pro-government groups during the 2017 anti-government protests.
- Venezuela is the seventh country to announce or begin the process of withdrawing from the ICC, following Burundi (2017), the Philippines (2019), Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, and Chad.
- The United States under the Trump administration has launched a “whole-of-government” campaign to “dismantle” the ICC, publicly welcoming Venezuela’s withdrawal and calling on all member states to follow suit.
