The presidency of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) to the Rome Statute conveyed its apprehension on Wednesday regarding the stated intention of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC). This move, they believe, could significantly undermine international efforts aimed at combating impunity.

In a formal declaration, ASP President Päivi Kaukoranta expressed regret over this initiative, stressing that the departure of these three states risks compromising global cooperation in criminal justice. She reiterated the ICC’s foundational role as a pillar of the international justice system and urged the three nations to remain parties to the Rome Statute, continuing their active participation in the Assembly’s work.

The presidency further underscored that member states possess established mechanisms to voice their concerns within the Assembly, advocating for a preference for dialogue. It also served as a reminder that withdrawing from the Rome Statute does not absolve a state from obligations incurred during the period it was a party to the treaty.

This official stance follows the formal notification of Niger’s withdrawal. The ICC confirmed receiving this notification, which was transmitted to the United Nations Secretary-General, the depositary of the Rome Statute, on June 18, 2026. In accordance with the treaty’s provisions, this withdrawal is scheduled to take effect on June 18, 2027.

In September 2025, the leaders of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), comprising Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, had announced their collective decision to exit the ICC. A joint communiqué, signed by the transitional president of Mali, General Assimi Goïta, who then held the rotating chairmanship of the AES, accused the Court of being ineffective in prosecuting the perpetrators of the most severe crimes. They further denounced what they termed “selective justice.” The AES also asserted that the ICC has evolved into an “instrument of neo-colonial repression,” criticizing its perceived silence on certain offenses while, in their view, disproportionately targeting actors outside the “circle of beneficiaries of institutionalized international impunity.”