Which Countries Are Not Part of the ICC? 2026 List and Status

As of November 14, 2026, 125 countries are States Parties to the ICC’s Rome Statute, according to the ICC and the UN Treaty Collection. That leaves 70 of the 193 UN member states outside the court, including the United States, China, India, Russia, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey and Indonesia. Six members have filed withdrawals that take effect in 2027.

This guide covers 18 major countries outside the ICC: the United States, China, India, Russia, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Vietnam, Myanmar, Ethiopia, Libya, Yemen, and Qatar.

But here’s the part many people miss: “not part of the ICC” does not mean one single legal status. A country may have:

• never signed the Rome Statute
• signed but not ratified
• withdrawn its signature
• or joined before and later left

That difference matters because the ICC can still reach non-member states in some cases, such as:

• crimes on the soil of an ICC member
• a UN Security Council referral
• a state’s own one-time acceptance of ICC jurisdiction

So if you’re asking, “Which countries are not part of the ICC?” the short answer is the list above.
If you’re asking, “What does that mean in legal terms?” the answer is more mixed.

Quick facts:

• 125 ICC States Parties as of November 14, 2026 (ICC and UN Treaty Collection)
• 70 UN member states outside the ICC; the 18 largest and most relevant are profiled here
• 3 in this group withdrew their signatures: United States, Russia, and Israel (Sudan did the same in 2008)
• 2 countries have fully left the ICC: Burundi (2017) and the Philippines (2019)
• 6 States Parties have pending withdrawals that take effect between June 18 and September 23, 2027: Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, Venezuela, Chad, and Nauru (Naoero)

Quick Comparison

In other words: some countries stayed out from day one, some signed and stopped, and some later pulled back. That’s the main point I’d make before getting into the country-by-country details.

What changed in 2026

• Hungary stayed in. Hungary notified the UN of its withdrawal on June 2, 2025, then withdrew that notice on May 29, 2026, days before it would have taken effect (UN notification C.N.180.2026).
• Six members filed exits. Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, Venezuela, Chad, and Nauru deposited withdrawal notices between June and September 2026. They remain States Parties until each notice takes effect one year later under Article 127.
• The United States sanctioned the court itself. On October 9, 2026, the U.S. Treasury Department’s OFAC added the International Criminal Court to its Specially Designated Nationals list under Executive Order 14203 (OFAC recent actions).
• Leaving does not erase past jurisdiction. ICC judges confirmed crimes against humanity charges against former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte on April 23, 2026, for conduct from the years the Philippines was a State Party.

If none of the six withdrawals is rescinded, the ICC will have 119 States Parties after September 23, 2027.

What it means to be outside the ICC

“Outside the ICC” means a country is not a State Party to the Rome Statute. In plain English, that can describe three different situations: a country never signed, signed but never ratified, or joined and later left.

Signing shows an intent to join, but it does not make the treaty binding in full. A signatory still must not act against the treaty’s purpose. Ratifying or acceding is the step that makes the Rome Statute legally binding and creates duties to cooperate.

Some countries signed the Rome Statute and later withdrew their signatures in a formal notice to the UN Secretary-General, saying they no longer planned to join. The United States did this in May 2002 under President George W. Bush, and Russia did the same in 2016. That’s why a simple status guide is useful: it helps separate non-signatories, non-ratifiers, and former members.

There is also a separate category for former States Parties that withdrew under Article 127. That withdrawal takes effect one year after the UN receives the notice, and it does not stop investigations that were already in progress. As of November 14, 2026, only Burundi (2017) and the Philippines (2019) have completed that process, and six more withdrawals are pending for 2027.

This distinction matters because the ICC can still act in narrow situations, even when a country is not a member. A non-member can still come under ICC jurisdiction through:

• territorial jurisdiction
• a UN Security Council referral
• a voluntary declaration accepting ICC jurisdiction

A good example is Vladimir Putin. The ICC issued a warrant for him on March 17, 2023, because Ukraine had accepted ICC jurisdiction through Article 12(3) declarations; Ukraine became a full State Party on January 1, 2025. Sudan shows another path: the UN Security Council referred Darfur to the ICC in 2005.

The next section breaks these statuses down country by country.

sbb-itb-39d39a6

How countries can be outside the ICC: a quick status guide

Here’s the quick status guide. The table below uses simple labels so you can see each country’s ICC status at a glance.

Never signed means the country has no treaty obligations under the Rome Statute.

Signed, not ratified means the country has not finished the steps needed to become a State Party, and its signature carries only a limited obligation.

Withdrew signature applies to countries that formally notified the UN Secretary-General that they no longer intend to join.

Next, each country is broken down in the same order.

1. United States

ICC status: Withdrew signature

The U.S. is outside the ICC for a clear reason: it signed the Rome Statute on December 31, 2000, then told the UN on May 6, 2002, that it did not intend to ratify it and that its signature created no legal obligations.

Congress also passed the American Service-Members’ Protection Act in 2002, which limits U.S. cooperation with the ICC.

The main U.S. objections come down to sovereignty and due process: U.S. officials argue that an international court should not have authority over U.S. citizens without U.S. consent. Policy has swung between open hostility and limited engagement across administrations. On February 6, 2025, Executive Order 14203 authorized sanctions on ICC officials after the arrest warrants for Israeli leaders. On October 9, 2026, OFAC designated the International Criminal Court itself, with general licenses for a narrow set of transactions.

That said, being outside the court does not put Americans fully out of reach. The ICC can still prosecute U.S. citizens for crimes committed on the territory of a member state. So there is still room for ICC jurisdiction when a case is linked to member-state territory.

2. China

ICC status: Never signed

China never signed the Rome Statute. So, in most cases, the ICC has no direct jurisdiction there unless China agrees to it or the UN Security Council sends a case to the court.

China voted against the Rome Statute when it was adopted in 1998. Its main objection is simple: it says the court’s jurisdiction cuts into state sovereignty. And because China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, it can veto referrals to the ICC. That makes it much harder for the court to act in cases involving Chinese nationals or crimes on Chinese territory. In plain terms, that veto gives China another layer of protection from ICC referrals.

In practice, the ICC cannot prosecute crimes committed in China or by Chinese nationals in China unless China accepts the court’s jurisdiction or the Security Council refers the case.

3. India

ICC status: Never signed

India never signed the Rome Statute. It abstained at the Rome Conference, where the Statute was adopted with broad support.

This wasn’t just a case of paperwork left unfinished. India objected to key parts of the court’s design, especially the UN Security Council’s power to refer or defer cases. It also pushed for a broader list of ICC crimes, including terrorism.

Because India is outside the ICC, it has no legal duty to cooperate with the court or carry out its arrest warrants. Russian President Vladimir Putin made a state visit to New Delhi on December 4 and 5, 2025, for the 23rd India-Russia Annual Summit (Ministry of External Affairs), and India had no Rome Statute duty to arrest him.

India also does not have the usual ICC cooperation duty unless some other legal basis comes into play, such as territorial jurisdiction or a UN Security Council referral. Put simply, India is a clear non-signatory, not a country that signed first and then stopped before ratification.

4. Russia

ICC status: Signed but never ratified; signature withdrawn

Russia signed the Rome Statute on Sept. 13, 2000. But it never ratified the treaty. Then, on Nov. 30, 2016, it told the UN Secretary-General that it no longer planned to join.

Russia rejects the court’s authority, especially after the ICC treated Crimea as occupied Ukrainian territory.

Still, stepping away from the court did not shield Russian officials from ICC action. On March 17, 2023, the ICC issued warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova over the alleged unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia.

Those warrants cannot be enforced inside Russia. They do create problems for foreign travel. In September 2024, Mongolia, a State Party, hosted Putin without arresting him, and on October 24, 2024, ICC judges found that Mongolia had failed to comply with its duty to cooperate. Before the August 2023 BRICS summit in South Africa, Putin attended by video instead of in person. South African presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said:

“All heads of state would be expected to attend the summit. But now we have a spanner in the works in the form of this ICC warrant.”

Russia also holds another layer of protection at the UN. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, it can veto any referral to the ICC. At the same time, its case shows a hard truth: even countries outside the court can still run into ICC pressure once their leaders step onto the global stage.

5. Israel

ICC status: Signed but signature withdrawn

Israel is another case of a country that signed the Rome Statute and later pulled back. It signed on December 31, 2000. On August 28, 2002, Israel told the UN Secretary-General that it would not become a State Party and that its signature created no legal obligations.

Its main objection centered on the treaty’s war-crimes rule about transferring population into occupied territory. Israel saw that provision as aimed at its settlement policy.

Still, staying outside the treaty did not stop ICC action. The court says it has jurisdiction over crimes committed on Palestinian territory, which joined the ICC in 2015. On Nov. 21, 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The court said there were reasonable grounds to believe they deprived Gaza civilians of essential supplies, including food, water, medicine, fuel, and electricity.

Those warrants shape travel plans too, because ICC member states must arrest warrant targets who enter their territory. In April 2025, Netanyahu visited Hungary, then a State Party, and was not arrested. Hungary announced its withdrawal from the ICC during that visit, deposited the notice on June 2, 2025, and then reversed it on May 29, 2026, after a change of government.

Israel’s case makes one point plain: being outside the Rome Statute does not fully shield officials from ICC reach.

6. Saudi Arabia

ICC status: Never signed

Saudi Arabia has never signed the Rome Statute, so it sits outside the ICC. As a non-State Party, it does not have to cooperate with ICC investigations or carry out arrest warrants unless the UN Security Council refers a case or Saudi Arabia accepts the court’s jurisdiction.

7. Pakistan

ICC status: Never signed

Pakistan is a clear non-signatory. It has never signed the Rome Statute, which means it sits outside the ICC.

Because of that, the ICC does not have direct jurisdiction over crimes committed on Pakistani territory or by Pakistani nationals. For the court to step in, one of two things would need to happen: the UN Security Council would have to refer the situation, or Pakistan would have to accept the court’s jurisdiction on its own.

So ICC involvement is possible, but only through those narrow, exceptional paths.

8. Turkey

ICC status: Never signed

Turkey has never signed or ratified the Rome Statute.

Because Turkey is not a State Party, the ICC has no jurisdiction over crimes committed on Turkish territory, unless Turkey accepts it or the UN Security Council refers the situation. The court can still act on crimes by Turkish nationals on the territory of a State Party. In this list, Turkey is a straightforward non-signatory.

9. Indonesia

ICC status: Never signed

Indonesia has never signed or ratified the Rome Statute, so it sits outside the ICC. In plain terms, the court doesn’t have automatic reach there.

For the ICC to step in, it would need an unusual legal route. The court can act only if the UN Security Council refers the case or Indonesia accepts jurisdiction.

Iraq follows next.

10. Iraq

ICC status: Never signed

Iraq has never signed the Rome Statute and remains outside the ICC.

That means the ICC has no automatic jurisdiction in Iraq. For the court to act on crimes there by Iraqi nationals, it needs either a UN Security Council referral or a declaration from Iraq accepting its jurisdiction.

Because Iraq is not part of the Rome Statute system, it has no duty under that treaty to work with ICC investigations or carry out ICC arrest warrants on its territory.

Next: Iran, which is also outside the ICC but for different reasons.

11. Iran

ICC status: Signed, not ratified

Iran signed the Rome Statute on Dec. 31, 2000, on the last day it was open for signature, but it never ratified the treaty. So, in practice, Iran remains outside the ICC. That puts it in a middle ground between countries that never signed at all and countries that signed first, then later pulled out.

Since Iran is still a signatory, it must not act against the treaty’s object and purpose. But that does not mean the ICC automatically has jurisdiction over crimes committed in Iran or by Iranian nationals. For the court to step in, the UN Security Council would need to refer a case, or Iran would need to accept the court’s jurisdiction.

Egypt comes next with a similar signed-but-not-ratified status.

12. Egypt

ICC status: Signed, not ratified

Egypt signed the Rome Statute on Dec. 26, 2000, but never ratified it. That means the country is still outside the ICC.

What does that mean in practice? Since Egypt is not a State Party, the ICC has no jurisdiction over crimes committed in Egypt unless Egypt accepts it. The court could step in through a UN Security Council referral, or if Egyptian nationals commit crimes on the territory of a State Party.

Next comes Vietnam, another country that has stayed outside the Rome Statute.

13. Vietnam

ICC status: Never signed

Vietnam has stayed outside the Rome Statute from the start. It has never signed the treaty, so its status is simple: non-signatory.

That matters for jurisdiction. Because Vietnam is not a State Party, the ICC cannot act on crimes committed in Vietnam unless the UN Security Council refers the case or Vietnam accepts the court’s jurisdiction.

Myanmar follows next with a similar never-signed status.

14. Myanmar

ICC status: Never signed

Myanmar has never signed or joined the Rome Statute. That means the ICC does not have automatic jurisdiction over crimes committed inside Myanmar. It can step in only if the UN Security Council refers the situation, or if part of the alleged conduct took place on the territory of a State Party.

The main exception is the Bangladesh/Myanmar situation. Bangladesh is a State Party, so on November 14, 2019, ICC judges authorized an investigation into the Bangladesh/Myanmar situation (ICC-01/19). The investigation focuses on the forced deportation and persecution of the Rohingya. The court found it had jurisdiction because part of the alleged deportation took place on Bangladeshi territory.

Because Myanmar is not a member, it has no Rome Statute duty to cooperate with the court, hand over evidence, or carry out arrest warrants. In November 2024, the ICC Prosecutor filed an application for an arrest warrant for Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, citing alleged crimes against humanity tied to the deportation and persecution of the Rohingya.

A Security Council referral is unlikely, since China and Russia would veto it. For now, that leaves a major impunity gap.

Ethiopia follows, with the same never-signed status.

15. Ethiopia

ICC status: Never signed

Ethiopia has never signed the Rome Statute and is not an ICC member.

That puts Ethiopia outside the ICC’s automatic jurisdiction. In plain terms, the court could step in only if the UN Security Council made a referral, or if Ethiopia filed an ad hoc declaration accepting ICC jurisdiction.

Ethiopia hosts the African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa but has stayed outside the Rome Statute. It does not have to cooperate with ICC requests unless another legal basis applies, which leaves domestic courts responsible for prosecution.

Libya follows. It never signed, yet the ICC has jurisdiction there on two separate grounds.

16. Libya

ICC status: Never signed (Article 12(3) declaration covering 2011 to 2027)

Libya never signed the Rome Statute and is not a State Party. On May 15, 2025, the ICC announced that Libya had lodged an Article 12(3) declaration accepting the court’s jurisdiction over alleged crimes on its territory from 2011 to the end of 2027.

The ICC has investigated Libya since 2011. Membership is not the deciding factor here: UN Security Council Resolution 1970 (2011) referred the situation to the court, and Article 13(b) of the Rome Statute gives the ICC jurisdiction over a referred situation even when the state is not a member.

The tougher issue is enforcement. Because Libya has no treaty duty to cooperate, requests for evidence and arrest warrants depend on voluntary cooperation or outside pressure. And the ICC cannot carry out arrests on its own. So if cooperation does not happen, warrants can sit there without being enforced.

Yemen follows next.

17. Yemen

ICC status: Signed, not ratified

Yemen signed the Rome Statute on December 28, 2000, but never ratified it. That means Yemen is not a State Party.

So what does that mean in practice? The ICC does not get automatic jurisdiction over crimes committed on Yemeni territory. The court could only step in if the UN Security Council made a referral or if Yemen filed an Article 12 declaration accepting ICC jurisdiction. Neither has happened.

Yemen also has no treaty duty to cooperate with ICC investigations or carry out arrest warrants.

For now, alleged crimes in Yemen remain outside the ICC’s reach unless one of those jurisdiction triggers happens.

Qatar follows, as a non-signatory.

18. Qatar

ICC status: Never signed

Qatar has never signed the Rome Statute and is not a State Party.

Because Qatar is not a member, it has no treaty duty to cooperate with the ICC or enforce its warrants. The ICC also has no automatic jurisdiction over crimes in Qatar or crimes committed by Qatari nationals abroad unless another legal basis applies, such as a UN Security Council referral or crimes committed on the territory of an ICC State Party.

ICC status at a glance: comparison table for all 18 countries

These 18 countries are outside the ICC, so the court has no automatic jurisdiction over them. Here is the same information in a compact table, current as of November 14, 2026.

A couple of patterns jump out. Three countries (the United States, Russia, and Israel) formally withdrew their signatures. Twelve never signed, and three (Iran, Egypt, and Yemen) signed but never ratified.

That split matters most when jurisdiction gets tested in actual cases.

Why some countries stay outside the ICC

Governments stay outside the Rome Statute for a few recurring reasons.

Sovereignty is the biggest sticking point. Major powers say an international court should not have authority over their citizens.

Military exposure is another concern. States worry ICC cases could go after soldiers or senior officials.

In the U.S., critics also say the Rome Statute clashes with constitutional due process.

Regional politics matter too. Nine of the first ten situations the ICC investigated involved African countries, which fed claims that the court targets weaker states. In 2009, after the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, the African Union decided its members would not cooperate in his arrest. The same argument returned in 2026: Burkina Faso and Chad cited selectivity and bias in their withdrawal notices.

This mix of motives helps explain why staying outside the ICC doesn’t always mean a country has zero exposure to the Court. It also shapes cooperation, enforcement, and arrest risk.

What non-membership means in practice

Non-members can still face ICC action, but the court’s reach is narrower.

The core rule: the ICC cannot investigate crimes committed on a non-member state’s territory by its own nationals unless that state consents. There are two big exceptions.

If a national of a non-member state commits crimes on the territory of a member state, the ICC can still go after that person. And the UN Security Council can refer any situation to the ICC, whether or not the country involved signed the Rome Statute. That’s how the court got jurisdiction over Sudan in 2005 through Resolution 1593 and Libya in 2011.

So while non-members sit outside the treaty, they aren’t completely out of reach.

The most obvious effect shows up in travel. ICC member states must arrest warrant targets who enter their territory. When a member fails to do so, ICC judges can refer the failure to the Assembly of States Parties, as they did with Mongolia in October 2024 after Putin’s visit.

That is where the difference becomes concrete. A non-member state does not have to help the ICC under the Rome Statute. It does not have to carry out arrest warrants, share intelligence, or hand over evidence. Enforcement turns on travel risk, UN Security Council referrals, and voluntary action.

The table below sums up the main differences between member and non-member states:

In practice, the biggest gaps come down to arrest duties, cooperation, and territorial jurisdiction.

The ICC also acts only when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute. That’s the complementarity principle. It helps explain why ICC jurisdiction can still matter even when a country is outside the Rome Statute.

Can a country’s ICC status change?

Yes. These statuses are current, not permanent. A country’s ICC status can change over time. States can join, withdraw, or pull back a withdrawal notice.

Countries join through ratification or accession. Ratification applies to countries that signed the Rome Statute earlier. Accession applies to countries that never signed it. Armenia ratified the Rome Statute on November 14, 2023, and became the 124th State Party on February 1, 2024. Ukraine ratified on October 25, 2024, and became the 125th State Party on January 1, 2025.

The reverse can happen too. A State Party can withdraw by notifying the UN Secretary-General. That withdrawal takes effect one year later. But a country can also rescind that notice before the deadline.

Hungary did exactly that. It notified the UN of its withdrawal on June 2, 2025, then withdrew that notification on May 29, 2026, days before it would have taken effect. South Africa also rescinded its withdrawal notice in March 2017 after a domestic court ruled that it was unconstitutional without parliamentary approval.

The 2026 withdrawals run the other way. Niger (June 18), Burkina Faso and Mali (June 24), Venezuela (July 24), Chad (July 27), and Nauru (September 23) deposited notices in 2026, according to UN depositary notifications. Each takes effect one year after deposit, and each state can still reverse course before then, as Hungary did.

Conclusion

Put side by side, these examples make one thing clear: being “outside the ICC” doesn’t mean just one legal status. It can mean a state never signed the Rome Statute, signed it but never ratified it, withdrew its signature, or joined and later left.

That distinction matters. Each status comes with different legal effects. It shapes whether the ICC can act through treaty duties, territorial jurisdiction, or a Security Council referral. It also affects cooperation, arrest risk, and how far ICC jurisdiction can extend.

As of November 14, 2026, there are 125 States Parties to the Rome Statute, and six of them have withdrawals pending for 2027. ICC status changes over time, so this list is a snapshot, not a permanent ranking.

FAQs

Can the ICC prosecute people from non-member countries?

Yes. The ICC can prosecute people from non-member countries in some cases.

In most situations, the court has jurisdiction when the alleged crime happened in a member state, no matter the person’s nationality.

It can also investigate a case if:

• The United Nations Security Council refers the situation
• The non-member state accepts the court’s jurisdiction for that specific situation

What is the difference between signing and ratifying the Rome Statute?

Signing the Rome Statute shows that a country intends to join the International Criminal Court. But signing alone does not make the treaty legally binding.

It does, however, mean the country should avoid actions that would undermine the treaty’s purpose.

Ratification is the formal step that makes a country a full ICC member. That’s the point when the country becomes legally bound by the court’s rules and jurisdiction.

Can a country join or leave the ICC later?

Yes. A country can join the International Criminal Court by ratifying or acceding to the Rome Statute, which makes it a State Party. And if a country signed the treaty but didn’t ratify it at the time, it can still ratify it later.

A State Party can also leave the court. To do that, it must formally notify the United Nations Secretary-General. The withdrawal takes effect one year after the notice is received, or on a later date if the notice names one (Article 127).

How many countries are in the ICC in 2026?

125 countries are States Parties to the Rome Statute as of November 14, 2026, according to the ICC and the UN Treaty Collection. Six of them (Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, Venezuela, Chad, and Nauru) have filed withdrawals that take effect between June 18 and September 23, 2027.

Is the United States a member of the ICC?

No. The United States signed the Rome Statute on December 31, 2000, and told the UN Secretary-General on May 6, 2002, that it does not intend to become a party. On October 9, 2026, the U.S. Treasury added the ICC itself to its sanctions list.

Related Blog Posts

• How to Choose the Right Jurisdiction for Your Business
• Extradition Risks for Dual Citizens
• Which Countries Allow Dual Citizenship? The 2026 Global List
• 11 Offshore Jurisdictions With Strongest Privacy Laws