Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger Quit ICC as U.S. Targets Global Judges

On September 22, 2025, the military-led governments of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger jointly announced their withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC), declaring the tribunal an instrument of neo-colonial repression and selective justice. The three military juntas, which seized power in coups between 2020 and 2023, stated that the ICC had proven incapable of prosecuting war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and crimes of aggression. They further accused the court of disproportionately targeting African states, echoing earlier criticisms by leaders such as Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame.

The withdrawal will not take immediate effect. Under the Rome Statute, a country’s exit from the ICC becomes official one year after notification to the United Nations. The three states also announced plans to establish indigenous mechanisms for peace and justice, signaling their intent to replace international oversight with domestic or regional alternatives.

The decision comes amid escalating violence in the Sahel, where jihadist groups linked to al-Qaeda and the Islamic State continue to destabilize the region. While the militaries of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger are engaged in counterinsurgency operations, they have also been accused of committing abuses against civilians. The three juntas have consolidated their alliance through the Confederation of Sahel States, also known as the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), and have distanced themselves from Western powers, particularly France, while deepening ties with Russia.

The ICC, headquartered in The Hague, was established in 2002 to prosecute individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes of aggression. Since its inception, 32 of its 33 cases have involved African countries, reinforcing perceptions of bias among African leaders. The court has also issued high-profile arrest warrants, including one in 2023 against Russian President Vladimir Putin for alleged war crimes in Ukraine.

Parallel to the Sahel states’ withdrawal, the United States has escalated its own confrontation with the ICC. Washington is reportedly considering entity-wide sanctions against the court, which would represent the most severe punitive measure yet. Such sanctions could cripple the ICC’s ability to pay staff, access banking services, and use essential software. The ICC has already begun contingency planning, including paying staff salaries in advance through the end of 2025 and seeking alternative service providers. The potential sanctions follow earlier U.S. measures against individual ICC judges and prosecutors, including the court’s lead prosecutor Karim Khan, who was sanctioned in February 2025.

The U.S. campaign against the ICC intensified after the tribunal issued arrest warrants in 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes in Gaza, alongside charges against Hamas members. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the ICC as a national security threat and an instrument of lawfare against the U.S. and Israel. Several ICC member states have reportedly expressed concern over Washington’s threats, with some planning to raise the issue at the United Nations General Assembly, which is expected to take place this week.

In a related development, the U.S. has also expanded its use of sanctions against judicial figures in Brazil. Yesterday, September 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Treasury sanctioned Viviane Barci de Moraes, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, under the Global Magnitsky Act, and revoked the U.S. visa of Solicitor-General Jorge Messias. The sanctions also targeted a family-controlled financial entity, Lex Instituto de Estudos Juridicos, which U.S. officials alleged could be used to evade restrictions.

Justice Alexandre de Moraes led the investigation of the case that led to former President Jair Bolsonaro’s conviction and 27-year prison sentence for attempting a coup after losing the 2022 election. The U.S. State Department accused de Moraes of weaponizing the judiciary, suppressing free expression, and abusing his authority. Brazilian officials condemned the sanctions as an attack on sovereignty and judicial independence, with Solicitor-General Messias expressing the measures as unjust. The sanctions have deepened a diplomatic rift between Washington and Brazil, with Brazil’s Supreme Court denouncing the measures.

Together, these developments highlight a growing fragmentation of international justice. In Africa, states are rejecting the ICC as biased and neo-colonial, while in the Americas, the U.S. is using sanctions to punish foreign judges it accuses of political abuse. At the same time, Washington is preparing to escalate its confrontation with the ICC itself, raising questions about the future of international legal institutions.

The withdrawal of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger from the ICC and the U.S. escalation of sanctions against both the court and foreign judges represent a significant erosion of the international justice system. These moves undermine the legitimacy of the ICC and highlight how international law is increasingly being weaponized as a tool of geopolitical competition.

For the Sahel states, the decision to leave the ICC is not only a rejection of Western legal norms but also a strategic alignment with Russia. By framing the ICC as a neo-colonial instrument, the juntas are reinforcing their position of sovereignty and resistance to Western influence. This aligns with their broader geopolitical pivot away from France and toward Moscow, which has provided military support and political backing. The withdrawal also provides these regimes with greater freedom of action in their counterinsurgency campaigns, where their forces have been accused of abuses. Without ICC oversight, accountability for such actions will likely diminish, further entrenching authoritarian governance in the region.

The U.S. confrontation with the ICC illustrates how great power competition is reshaping international law. Washington’s threat to sanction the entire court reflects its determination to shield itself and its allies, particularly Israel, from legal scrutiny. This approach undermines the universality of the ICC and signals to other states that powerful countries can exempt themselves from international accountability. The ICC’s contingency planning, including pre-paying staff salaries and seeking alternative service providers, underscores the severity of the threat. If implemented, U.S. sanctions could cripple the court’s operations, effectively neutralizing one of the few global mechanisms for prosecuting war crimes.

The sanctions against Brazilian judicial figures further demonstrate how the U.S. is extending the use of lawfare as a foreign policy tool. By targeting Justice Alexandre de Moraes and his family, Washington is directly intervening in Brazil’s domestic judicial processes. This not only strains U.S.-Brazil relations but also sets a precedent for using economic sanctions against judges in democratic states. The move risks undermining judicial independence globally, as other governments may follow suit in punishing foreign judges whose rulings they oppose.

These developments collectively point to a fragmentation of international justice into competing spheres of influence. In Africa, the withdrawal of Sahel states from the ICC may encourage other governments to follow suit, particularly those facing accusations of human rights abuses. In Latin America, U.S. sanctions against Brazilian judges could embolden right-wing movements while weakening democratic institutions. At the global level, the U.S. campaign against the ICC threatens to paralyze the court, creating a gap in international accountability.

The broader implication is that international law is becoming another arena of the competition for geopolitical power. Russia benefits from African states rejecting the ICC, as it undermines the institution that has targeted President Putin. The U.S. benefits from weakening the ICC’s ability to pursue cases against Israel and its own officials. Meanwhile, smaller states are caught between competing legal orders, forced to choose between aligning with Western institutions or rejecting them in favor of sovereignty and alternative alliances.

This fragmentation has direct consequences for global stability. Without credible international mechanisms for accountability, conflicts are more likely to escalate unchecked. In the Sahel, the absence of ICC oversight could lead to greater impunity for atrocities, fueling cycles of violence. In the Middle East, the inability of the ICC to pursue cases against Israeli or Hamas leaders could deepen perceptions of injustice, exacerbating conflict. In Latin America, U.S. sanctions against judges risk destabilizing Brazil’s political system, with ripple effects across the region.

Ultimately, the erosion of international justice institutions reflects a broader trend of weakening multilateralism. As world powers increasingly use lawfare as a geopolitical tool, the credibility of international law diminishes. This not only undermines accountability for war crimes and human rights abuses but also accelerates the shift toward a fragmented, multipolar order where legal norms are subordinated to power politics.

- Mali

- Burkina Faso

- Niger

- International Criminal Court (ICC)

- United States

- Brazil

- Russia

- Israel