The Assembly of States Parties, which serves as the oversight body for the International Criminal Court (ICC), has issued a public appeal to Chad and Venezuela, urging both nations to reverse their recent moves to withdraw from the Rome Statute. The Rome Statute is the treaty that established the ICC, and the oversight body argues that the exit of these nations significantly weakens the court’s ability to hold individuals accountable for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity on a global scale.

The situation is complicated by a broader geopolitical context. The United States has been actively intensifying its campaign against the tribunal, questioning the court's jurisdiction over non-member states and its overall efficacy. While the ICC maintains that its mandate is essential for maintaining international order, critics of the court—including the current administrations in Chad and Venezuela—have characterized the institution as a tool for political interference rather than a neutral arbiter of justice.

There is a notable disagreement regarding the motivation behind these withdrawals. The ICC oversight body frames the departures as a retreat from international human rights obligations. Conversely, representatives from the withdrawing nations have historically suggested that the court’s focus is disproportionately aimed at developing nations, leading to what they describe as a biased application of international law. As the diplomatic standoff continues, the ICC faces a critical challenge in maintaining its legitimacy while major powers and regional players actively distance themselves from its authority.