The Alliance of Sahel States and the ICC: A Shift in Global Justice
On 22 September, the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), which includes Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, announced its withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC). This decision marks a significant shift in the region’s approach to international justice. The move follows their earlier exit from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the ECOWAS Court of Justice seven months prior. The AES claims that their decision is based on a desire for local and endogenous mechanisms to address issues of peace, justice, and accountability.
At the United Nations General Assembly, Mali’s Prime Minister Abdoulaye Maïga emphasized the AES’ commitment to a multilateral system, provided all nations are included. His remarks were echoed by the prime ministers of Burkina Faso and Niger. However, none of them directly addressed the ICC during their speeches. The joint communiqué announcing the withdrawal was issued by Malian President Assimi Goïta, who serves as the AES President.
The AES stated that they believe the ICC has applied “selective” justice, a claim that has been raised before by African countries and the African Union (AU). Between 2009 and 2015, the court faced backlash for focusing primarily on African cases. In 2022, Amnesty International warned that the perception of double standards could threaten the court’s future. Despite this, the ICC managed to avoid a mass withdrawal by African states at that time.
It remains unclear whether the AES’ decision will inspire other African member states to follow suit. However, given the recent condemnation of U.S. sanctions against the ICC, it seems unlikely that many African countries would consider leaving the court.
Historical Context and Evolution of the ICC
African countries played a crucial role in shaping the ICC. They were instrumental in developing the Rome Statute, which established the court in 1998. At the time, a third of the 120 states that voted in favor of the statute were African, making them the largest single bloc. Since then, the number of ICC member states has grown to 125, with 33 from Africa. Four African countries have joined in the past 15 years.
Despite this growth, the path to universal ratification has not been smooth. Countries like Burundi and the Philippines left the court in 2017 and 2019, respectively. Hungary initiated a withdrawal process in May 2025 but has not followed through. Kenya, South Africa, and The Gambia have expressed intent to withdraw, but most have either reversed their decisions or never proceeded.
The Role of African States in the ICC
African ICC member states have long advocated for reforms to improve the court’s operations and advance international justice. These efforts have led to investigations beyond Africa, including in Palestine, Ukraine, Georgia, Bangladesh/Myanmar, and the Philippines. However, the majority of ICC investigations and cases remain focused on Africa, often due to self-referrals by affected countries.
Mali was the fifth African country to refer a situation within its borders to the ICC. This referral was supported by seven ECOWAS member states. If the AES countries proceed with their withdrawal, the ICC may still work on active cases in Mali, but without full cooperation from Malian authorities, this will be challenging.
The Rise of Regional Alternatives
The sharp change in direction for the three Sahelian countries has been building since the coups that brought their current junta-led governments to power. Burkina Faso’s leader, Ibrahim Traoré, has long criticized Western institutions, including the ICC, and has gained popularity through a Pan-Africanist message. The AES communiqué reiterates the view that international institutions are tools of Western imperialism that apply double standards.
In June this year, the AES announced plans to establish a Sahel Criminal and Human Rights Court, seen by some analysts as an initial step toward ICC withdrawal. The AES claims its proposed court will be grounded in local realities and immune from the influence of imperialist powers.
However, human rights groups have raised concerns about the potential for increased impunity. Without independent accountability mechanisms, the AES’ withdrawal from the ICC could widen the gap for victims of war crimes and crimes against humanity, especially in Burkina Faso and Mali.
The Implications of Withdrawal
The contrast between the three states’ aspirations for global accountability in 1998 and their recent rejection of the ICC is stark. For decades, these countries were at the forefront of advancing international justice as a fairer, global platform for accountability. They were among the first to sign and ratify the Rome Statute.
Although their withdrawal was announced as “immediate,” the Rome Statute provides for a 12-month notice period before the decision takes effect. This period has seen countries like South Africa reverse their withdrawal. However, the AES is unlikely to change its stance, given their consistent actions in leaving ECOWAS.
Their decision is a blow to the ICC and the broader international justice system. While the AES is entitled to assert its sovereignty, the implications for accountability remain uncertain. Does sovereignty without responsibility to citizens risk degenerating into authoritarianism?
The Future of International Justice
The ICC faces valid criticisms, but it was never intended to replace national or regional jurisdictions. Instead, it was designed to complement them. Having multiple spaces for accountability—whether through truth-seeking, transitional justice, criminal justice, rehabilitation, or reparations—remains essential.
Whether local, endogenous, or transregional, any new mechanisms must enshrine three key principles underpinning international justice: no one is above the law, complementary jurisdictions can provide victims with options, and victims’ rights to participate and seek reparations must be assured.
Unless these principles are factored into any new mechanisms, withdrawal from the ICC risks undermining the foundation of international justice.
