Venezuela has formally notified the United Nations of its decision to withdraw from the International Criminal Court, marking a significant development in the country’s relationship with the international justice system and raising wider questions about the future of multilateral legal institutions.
Foreign Minister Felix Plasencia announced on Friday that Caracas had submitted what he described as an irrevocable notification of withdrawal from the court. In a statement published on the social media platform X, he argued that the ICC demonstrates what he characterised as a geographical bias by disproportionately pursuing cases involving countries in Africa and Latin America.
Acting President Delcy Rodríguez reiterated the government’s position during a public address, stating that the Venezuelan administration no longer regarded the court as an impartial institution. She argued that the ICC had become politicised and had been used as a mechanism to target the Venezuelan state and its people.
The decision follows a vote by Venezuela’s National Assembly in December 2025 to repeal legislation incorporating the Rome Statute into domestic law. The Rome Statute is the treaty that established the International Criminal Court and provides the legal framework for its jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression where national judicial systems are unwilling or unable to prosecute such offences.
The ICC has been examining allegations of crimes against humanity in Venezuela for several years. In 2020, the Office of the Prosecutor concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that members of the country’s civilian authorities, security forces and individuals aligned with the government may have committed crimes against humanity since at least 2017. A formal investigation was subsequently opened in 2021 under Prosecutor Karim Khan.
The Venezuelan government has consistently rejected both the investigation and the court’s jurisdiction over the matter, maintaining that its domestic institutions are capable of addressing any alleged violations and arguing that the investigation lacks impartiality.
In January 2025, the ICC closed its office in Caracas, citing insufficient cooperation from the Venezuelan authorities. The closure occurred during a period of significant political transition in Venezuela, following the removal of former President Nicolás Maduro from office and the appointment of Delcy Rodríguez as acting president.
The notification of Venezuela’s withdrawal coincided with another significant development at the court. According to Reuters, member states of the ICC voted to dismiss Prosecutor Karim Khan following allegations of sexual misconduct. Khan has denied the allegations. Reuters reported, citing diplomatic sources, that 82 of the court’s 125 member states supported his removal.
Venezuela’s withdrawal comes amid a broader international debate regarding the legitimacy, effectiveness and perceived consistency of international justice mechanisms. Several African governments and policymakers have, over the past two decades, questioned whether the ICC has applied international criminal law evenly across regions. While supporters of the court argue that it remains an essential institution for accountability where national justice systems fail, critics have maintained that its caseload has historically reflected an imbalance that has disproportionately affected states in Africa and parts of the Global South.
The debate has contributed to wider discussions across African diplomatic and legal circles regarding reform of international governance institutions, including questions of representation, procedural fairness and equitable application of international law. Many African legal scholars and policymakers have argued that strengthening domestic judicial institutions alongside regional accountability mechanisms remains an important component of achieving durable justice while preserving national sovereignty.
Venezuela’s formal withdrawal initiates a legal process under the Rome Statute. Although the withdrawal takes effect after the prescribed notice period, it does not automatically terminate obligations arising from proceedings or investigations that began while the state was still a party to the treaty.
The development is likely to intensify international discussion over the future of multilateral justice institutions and the continuing challenge of balancing accountability, state sovereignty and perceptions of fairness within the global legal order.
