Taliban withdraw from the ICC’s Rome Statute

Analysts ICC still holds jurisdiction over past crimes.

On 20 February 2025, the Taliban’s deputy spokesperson, Hamdullah Fitrat, posted a statement on his official X account (formerly Twitter) regarding the group’s stance on the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Pashto, Dari, Arabic, and English. The statement asserts that the Taliban do not recognise any legal obligation under the Rome Statute and consider the former Afghan Republic government’s accession to it as “devoid of legal validity”. Later that day, the Taliban’s spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, reposted the statement.

“As an entity that upholds the religious and national values of the Afghan people within the framework of Islamic Sharia, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan does not recognize any obligation to the Rome Statute or the institution referred to as the ‘International Criminal Court’ (ICC), which is established thereupon”, the Taliban statement reads.

The Taliban justified their withdrawal from the Rome Statute of the ICC by arguing that the Court operates based on political interests rather than impartial justice. They claim the ICC has consistently failed to address atrocities committed against innocent civilians, particularly in Afghanistan, where war crimes by alleged occupying forces went unpunished.

Highlighting the destruction of villages, schools, mosques, and hospitals, as well as the killing of non-combatants, they argue that the Court has neglected its duty to investigate or prevent such crimes in Afghanistan. Furthermore, they assert that since many major powers are not ICC members, Afghanistan, having suffered historical occupation and oppression, should not be bound by its jurisdiction.

“In light of the aforementioned considerations, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan formally asserts that it does not recognize any legal obligation under the Rome Statute and deems the previous administration’s accession to this statute to be devoid of legal validity”, the Taliban statement concluded.

After the ICC Prosecutor announced on 23 January 2025 that his office had requested arrest warrants for the Taliban’s Supreme Leader and Chief Justice, the Taliban responded with a statement condemning the decision as:

“devoid of a just legal basis, duplicitous in nature, and politically motivated”.

Reactions to the Taliban’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute

Various Taliban and pro-Taliban accounts on X (formerly Twitter) shared the group’s statement on withdrawing from the Rome Statute, with many responding by expressing support for the decision. Several pro-Taliban accounts condensed the group’s statement into a single sentence and posted:

“The ICC is an unjust and powerless court; therefore, we are not obligated to it”.

On 23 February 2025, Hizb ut-Tahrir Afghanistan published an article on its official website welcoming the Taliban’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute. The group urged the Taliban to reject the entire “Western order”, including its treaties and institutions, and instead establish a Caliphate modelled after the Prophet Muhammad.

The Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) has not yet responded to the Taliban’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute. However, in late January 2025, after the Taliban condemned the ICC’s plan to issue arrest warrants for two of its top leaders, pro-ISKP propaganda channels accused the Taliban of hypocrisy.

They cited an official statement by the Taliban’s Chief Justice on 5 November 2023, in which he urged the ICC to investigate alleged Israeli atrocities against Palestinians in Gaza. The channels mocked the Taliban, arguing that they considered the ICC legitimate when filing complaints but now denounce it as unjust after facing its scrutiny.

On 21 January 2025, Nasir Ahmad Andisha, Afghanistan’s permanent representative to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva (appointed by the former government), dismissed the Taliban’s rejection of ICC jurisdiction as merely symbolic, given their lack of international recognition. He noted that while the Rome Statute allows for withdrawal under Article 127, it requires a formal written notification to the UN Secretary-General and takes a year to become effective. Additionally, he emphasised that withdrawal does not retroactively eliminate the ICC’s jurisdiction over crimes committed while Afghanistan was a party to the treaty.

Mahmoud Saikal, an Afghan diplomat and anti-Taliban figure who is close to the National Resistance Front (NRF), claimed on his X (formerly Twitter) account on 20 February 2025 that the Taliban’s rejection of the Rome Statute was motivated by fear of imminent arrest warrants for their leaders. “This is a blunt stunt to overshadow the coming arrest warrants”, he said.

Remarks

The Taliban’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute and rejection of the ICC’s jurisdiction highlights their opposition to what they view as politically driven international legal frameworks. While Taliban followers and Hizb ut-Tahrir, support their decision, the ISKP criticised the group for hypocrisy. The move is seen as symbolic due to the Taliban’s lack of international recognition and the complex process of withdrawing from the Rome Statute. Despite this, the Taliban’s stance challenges ICC authority, signalling their desire to assert sovereignty and distance Afghanistan from international legal oversight.