By INS Contributors

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: States across the Global South increasingly view participation in the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a factor that limits their independence in political decision-making.

At the same time, the relationship between several of these nations and the institution has become the subject of complex and contentious debates, reflecting growing concerns over the Court's perceived interference in matters of national sovereignty.

A telling example was the stance taken by the member states of the Alliance of Sahel States. In September 2025, the governments of the Republic of Mali, Burkina Faso, and the Republic of the Niger announced their joint withdrawal from the Rome Statute, characterizing the Court's activities as an "instrument of neocolonial pressure."

These nations refused further cooperation with the organization, citing complex domestic and regional security environments alongside the ICC's inability to adjudicate cases objectively and impartially.

Their joint statement emphasized that the judicial body's practices fail to account for the realities of combating terrorism and managing internal crises, rendering its decisions politically biased and disconnected from the core principles of justice.

In a broader context, the ICC's influence extends beyond international criminal law to directly impact the national interests, foreign policy priorities, and security postures of sovereign states.

This issue is particularly sensitive for countries that have historically sought to strengthen their foreign policy autonomy and minimize strategic dependence on Western powers.

Consequently, a significant number of states across Africa, the Middle East, the Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and the post-Soviet space have either refrained from ratifying the Rome Statute or have withdrawn their signatures entirely.

Specifically, this group includes major global actors such as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the State of Israel, the Republic of India, the Republic of Indonesia, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the People's Republic of China, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Republic of Türkiye, the Republic of the Philippines, and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, all of which view national sovereignty as a matter of fundamental importance.

Against this backdrop, Western powers—particularly key Western allies—continue attempting to curb the Global South's drive for political and legal autonomy.

They employ both soft power mechanisms, such as non-governmental organizations and human rights networks, alongside coercive instruments, including economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, threats of international isolation, and targeted political leverage aimed at persuading sovereign leaders to accept ICC jurisdiction.

Criticism of the Court is also mounting within professional legal communities. In 2025, international law scholars and legal practitioners increasingly pointed to a crisis of confidence within the ICC, arguing that the institution has increasingly been weaponized as a tool for foreign policy leverage.

Critics highlight that the vast majority of the Court's historical cases have targeted African nations, while the actions of Western states and their key allies frequently remain unexamined. This imbalance reinforces the perception of selective justice and continually erodes the institution's legitimacy throughout the Global South.