The states parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court are those sovereign states that have ratified, or have otherwise become party to, the Rome Statute. The Rome Statute is the treaty that established the International Criminal Court, an international court that has jurisdiction over certain international crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes that are committed by nationals of states parties or within the territory of states parties. States parties are legally obligated to co-operate with the Court when it requires, such as in arresting and transferring indicted persons or providing access to evidence and witnesses. States parties are entitled to participate and vote in proceedings of the Assembly of States Parties, which is the Court's governing body. Such proceedings include the election of such officials as judges and the prosecutor, the approval of the Court's budget, and the adoption of amendments to the Rome Statute.
States parties As of September 2026, there are 125 states parties to the Rome Statute.
State party Signed Ratified or acceded Entry into force A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — In force In force Ratified In force In force In force In force — — — — — — — In force In force — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — In force In force Ratified — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — In force In force Ratified In force In force In force In force — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — In force — — — — — — — — — — — — In force In force — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — In force In force — In force In force In force — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — In force In force — — — — — — — — — — — — In force In force Ratified In force In force In force In force In force In force Ratified In force In force In force In force In force In force — In force In force In force — In force In force Ratified In force In force In force In force — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — In force — — — — — — In force In force — — — — — In force In force Ratified In force In force In force In force — — — — — — — In force In force Ratified — — — — — — Ratified — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — In force In force — — — — — In force In force Ratified In force In force In force In force — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — In force In force — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — In force — — — — — Ratified In force Ratified Ratified Ratified Ratified Ratified In force In force Ratified — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — In force In force Ratified In force In force In force In force — — — — — — — — — — — — — — In force In force Ratified In force — — In force In force In force Ratified In force In force In force In force In force In force — In force In force In force In force — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — In force In force — — — — — — — — — — — — In force — — — — — — In force — — In force In force In force — — — — — — — — In force In force — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — In force In force Ratified In force In force In force In force In force — — In force In force In force In force — In force — — — — — — — — — — — — In force In force — — — — — In force — Ratified In force In force In force In force — In force In force — — — — — In force In force — — — — — In force In force — — — — — In force In force — — — — — In force In force Ratified Ratified Ratified Ratified Ratified In force In force Ratified — — — In force In force — Ratified In force In force In force In force — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — In force In force — — — — — In force In force Ratified In force In force In force In force — — — — — — — — — — — — — — In force In force Ratified In force In force In force In force — — — — — — — In force In force Ratified In force In force In force — In force In force Ratified In force In force In force In force — — — — — — — In force In force Ratified Ratified Ratified Ratified Ratified — — — — — — — — In force In force Ratified In force — — — In force In force Ratified In force In force In force In force — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — In force In force Ratified — — — — In force In force — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — In force In force — In force In force In force In force — — — — — — — In force In force Ratified In force In force In force In force — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Implementing legislation The Rome Statute obliges states parties to cooperate with the Court in the investigation and prosecution of crimes, including the arrest and surrender of suspects.Amnesty International, Implementation . Accessed 2007-01-23. See also Article 86 of the Rome Statute Part 9 of the Statute requires all states parties to “ensure that there are procedures available under their national law for all of the forms of cooperation which are specified under this Part”.Part 9 of the Rome Statute. Accessed 2007-01-23.
Under the Rome Statute's complementarity principle, the Court only has jurisdiction over cases where the relevant state is unwilling or unable to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute the case itself. Therefore, many states parties have implemented national legislation to provide for the investigation and prosecution of crimes that fall under the jurisdiction of the Court.See Article 17 of the Rome Statute
As of October 2024, 68 states have adopted at least one piece of complementarity legislation, 59 have adopted at least one cooperation law, 52 have adopted neither, and 55 have adopted both, whereas 13 have implemented complementarity only and 4 have implemented cooperation only.
Timeline of signatures and ratifications/accessions
DateSignatures 31 December 199871 31 December 199992 31 December 2000139 Date Ratifications/accessions Remaining signatories Denunciations 31 December 1998 0 71 0 31 December 1999 6 86 31 December 2000 27 112 31 December 2001 48 92 31 December 2002 87 55 31 December 2003 92 51 31 December 2004 97 46 31 December 2005 100 43 31 December 2006 104 41 31 December 2007 105 31 December 2008 108 40 31 December 2009 110 38 31 December 2010 114 34 31 December 2011 120 32 31 December 2012 121 31 December 2013 122 31 31 December 2014 31 December 2015 123 31 December 2016 124 31 December 2017 123 1 31 December 2018 31 December 2019 2 31 December 2020 31 December 2021 31 December 2022 31 December 2023 124 30 31 December 2024 125 29
States that have denounced the Rome Statute are no longer considered signatories.
Regional groups and minimum voting requirements The number of states parties from the several United Nations regional groups has an influence on the regional minimum voting requirements during elections of judges. Paragraph 20(b) of the procedure for the nomination and election of judges of the Court states that each Party must vote for at least as many candidates from a regional group as would be required to bring the number of judges from that group to two. If, however, more than 16 states parties belong to the group, this target is increased to three.
The following table lists how many states parties there are from each regional group After the accession of the Maldives on 1 December 2011, the Asia–Pacific Group became the last regional group to reach the threshold size of 17 members, just in time to increase the minimum voting requirement for this group in the 2011 election.Note verbale regarding the change of minimum voting requirement for Asia-Pacific states . 13 October 2011. Retrieved 17 October 2011. Since then, the target for the regional minimum voting requirement has remained at three for all regional groups. This has resulted in at least three judges from each regional group sitting on the bench except during the term from 2020 to 2023, when there were only two judges from the Asia–Pacific group. Because only a single candidate from that group was nominated in the 2020 election, no minimum voting requirement was applied for the group, and the one nominee was not elected.
Group Number of states parties African Group 33 Asia–Pacific Group 19 Eastern European Group 20 Latin American and Caribbean Group 28 Western European and Others Group 25
Withdrawal Article 127 of the Rome Statute allows for states to withdraw from the ICC. Withdrawal takes effect one year after notification of the depositary, and has no effect on prosecution that has already started. As of September 2026, 11 states have given formal notice of their intention to withdraw from the statute, although three rescinded their notification before it came into effect.
State party Signed Ratified or acceded Entry into force Withdrawal notified Withdrawal effective Withdrawal rescinded Withdrawals — — — — — — — — — — —
Burundi, South Africa, and the Gambia Several states have argued that the ICC is a tool of Western imperialism, only punishing leaders from small, weak states while ignoring crimes committed by richer and more powerful states.Reuters African Union accuses ICC prosecutor of bias This sentiment has been expressed particularly by African states, 34 of which are members of the ICC, due to a perceived disproportionate focus of the Court on Africa. Nine out of the ten situations which the ICC has investigated were in African countries.Africa and the International Criminal Court: A drag net that catches only small fish?, Nehanda Radio, By William Muchayi, 24 September 2013, http://nehandaradio.com/2013/09/24/africa-and-the-international-criminal-court-a-drag-net-that-catches-only-small-fish/Europe - From Lubanga to Kony, is the ICC only after Africans?. France 24 (2012-03-15). Retrieved on 2014-04-28.
In June 2009, several African states, including Comoros, Djibouti, and Senegal, called on African states parties to withdraw en masse from the statute in protest against the indictment of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.African ICC Members Mull Withdrawal Over Bashir Indictment, Voice of America, 2009-06-08 In September 2013, Kenya's National Assembly passed a motion to withdraw from the ICC in protest against the ICC prosecution of Kenyan Deputy President William Ruto and President Uhuru Kenyatta (both charged before coming into office). A mass withdrawal from the ICC by African member states in response to the trial of Kenyan authorities was discussed at a special summit of the African Union in October. The summit concluded that serving heads of state should not be put on trial, and that the Kenyan cases should be deferred. However, the summit did not endorse the proposal for a mass withdrawal due to lack of support for the idea. In November the ICC's Assembly of State Parties responded by agreeing to consider proposed amendments to the Rome Statute to address the AU's concerns.