ICC Exit Delayed: AES States Keep the Rome Statute in Limbo

What Happened on 22 September 2025

On 22 September 2025, Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger publicly announced a joint withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC), presenting the move as taking effect “immediately”. In their messaging, the Court was framed as a political instrument rather than a neutral judicial forum. Three months later, however, the exit has not been formally recorded through the treaty channel.

The gap between a political announcement and a treaty act is not unusual in international affairs. Yet, in this case, the contrast is striking: the declaration was designed to be decisive, while the follow‑through appears slow. For observers of West African diplomacy, this time lag has become the story.

Rome Statute Withdrawal: The UN Notification Requirement

Leaving the ICC is not executed by press statement. The legal path runs through the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the Court. For a withdrawal to be recognised, each state must send a formal notification to the UN Office of Legal Affairs, which serves as the treaty depositary for the Statute.

In the absence of such a notification, the state remains a party to the treaty, whatever the domestic or regional political narrative. This is why the current situation is best described as a limbo: a strong political intent has been proclaimed, but the legal act required to trigger the procedure has not been completed, according to the reformulated source text.

Why “Immediate Effect” and Treaty Timelines Don’t Match

The phrase “with immediate effect” carries weight in political communication, especially in moments when governments want to project sovereignty and strategic autonomy. But international treaties operate on written instruments, registries and dated notifications, where immediacy is mostly rhetorical unless accompanied by formal paperwork.

This mismatch can be costly in perception terms. If a government presents a decision as final and instantaneous, the absence of the expected diplomatic step becomes a point of scrutiny. It invites questions about capacity, prioritisation, or tactical signalling—without necessarily proving any single explanation.

A Coordinated Political Signal, Uncoordinated Legal Steps

The withdrawal was announced jointly by the three members of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), underscoring a preference for collective posture. Yet the Rome Statute mechanism is individual: each sovereign party must notify the depositary separately. Coordination in narrative does not automatically translate into synchronised treaty practice.

This distinction matters for analysts tracking how new regional alignments translate into operational diplomacy. Joint communiqués can demonstrate unity, but treaty law demands state-by-state execution. The current delay therefore highlights a familiar tension between bloc politics and the administrative realities of international legal order.

Diplomatic Readings of a Prolonged Silence

In multilateral arenas, silence is rarely neutral. A delayed notification may be read as a pause for internal arbitration, a bargaining posture, or an attempt to keep options open while maintaining political momentum at home. It can also reflect the heavy workload of ministries and the procedural rigor required for treaty acts.

At the same time, the absence of an official letter to the UN can be interpreted as a message to partners: the decision is announced, but the door is not entirely closed. In diplomacy, preserving ambiguity can be a tool, though it can also generate uncertainty for investors, donors and security partners who track legal commitments.

What the Delay Changes for the ICC Relationship

As long as the withdrawal notification is not filed, the relationship remains governed by the existing treaty status described in the reformulated source. Practically, this maintains the formal framework that would otherwise begin to unwind. Politically, it sustains an unresolved narrative: withdrawal promised, but not yet operationalised.

For the ICC, such situations are not only legal questions but also reputational ones, because they reflect the contested legitimacy the Court faces in some capitals. For the AES states, the delay keeps them exposed to critiques that the decision is either incomplete or still under consideration, depending on the observer’s lens.

Context Box: The Sahel, Sovereignty and International Justice

Contexte: The announcement was framed by the AES states as a rejection of what they described as an externalised, politically driven justice system. This language places the ICC debate within a broader regional push to redefine partnerships and recalibrate relations with global institutions, as reflected in the reformulated text.

Contexte: The episode also illustrates how legal instruments can become symbols in strategic communication. Even before any formal notification, the statement itself acts as a diplomatic signal directed at domestic audiences, regional peers and international interlocutors.

Calendar Box: From Announcement to Possible Filing

Calendrier: 22 September 2025 marks the date of the joint announcement, staged as a major political moment in the reformulated source. The period that follows is characterised by the absence of a formal request submitted to the UN treaty office by any of the three states.

Calendrier: Three months after that announcement, the withdrawal has still not been formalised through the required channel. This timeline is central because it separates declaration from execution, and it is the factual basis for the ongoing debate about whether the move is delayed or strategic.

Actors Box: Who Holds the Pen

Acteurs: Each state government is the decisive actor for its own treaty notification, because the Rome Statute process is country-specific. In practice, the work typically involves the relevant ministries and the diplomatic machinery that transmits formal instruments to the UN depositary.

Acteurs: The UN treaty depositary function—referenced in the reformulated source as the UN treaty office—plays a procedural role rather than a political one: receiving, registering and circulating notifications in line with established treaty practice.

Scenarios Box: Three Plausible Paths from Here

Scénarios: One path is administrative completion, where the states proceed to notify the UN, aligning legal reality with political messaging. A second path is continued delay, maintaining ambiguity while sustaining the domestic narrative of rupture.

Scénarios: A third path is recalibration, where the rhetoric remains firm but the legal step is postponed indefinitely, allowing engagement with international partners without formally severing treaty ties. The reformulated source does not specify which option is preferred, so any reading remains cautious.

A Note on Method: Reading Treaties Behind Headlines

The episode offers a reminder that international commitments are shaped by both political theatre and legal choreography. Announcements can be immediate, but treaties are procedural. For practitioners, the key indicator is not the rhetoric but the instrument filed with the depositary.

Until the notification is transmitted, the most accurate description is neither a definitive exit nor a reversal, but an unresolved process. In the Sahel’s evolving diplomatic landscape, that grey zone is itself a form of signal—one that partners and institutions will continue to parse carefully.