By Yap Lay Sheng in East Asia Forum
At the heart of Malaysia’s otherwise commendable efforts to protect international law lies a glaring inconsistency — the country has yet to properly embrace the international law it professes to defend.
In January 2025, sitting alongside the South African Minister for International Relations and Cooperation and representatives from six other nations, Malaysia’s Ambassador to the Netherlands proudly unveiled a new international alliance to reverse the backsliding in global accountability for atrocity crimes. In its founding statement, the ‘Hague Group’, comprising Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia, Senegal and South Africa, vowed to uphold the international rule of law and resist impunity for international crimes being committed in Gaza.
The group’s initiative comes in the face of a concerted onslaught against longstanding international accountability mechanisms. Poland refused to act on an International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the United States issued an executive order that authorises sanctions against ICC staff and their family members and France invoked a dubious interpretation of immunity from ICC’s legal actions to justify continued engagement with Netanyahu.
As traditional powers retreat from their responsibilities, the Hague Group, formed primarily by countries in the Global South, is stepping up to defend international law. But a glaring inconsistency stands out. Malaysia is not a state party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that underpins the ICC and the international system it seeks to champion.
Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim now has an opportunity to seize this moment and fully commit to international justice by acceding to the ICC’s Rome Statute.
As a predominantly Muslim country, Malaysia has long positioned itself as a vocal ally for Palestinian rights, consistently condemning Israeli atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank while calling for international accountability. Malaysia was an early proponent for the ICC to act against Israel and supported South Africa’s efforts at the International Court of Justice, commencing in 2023, to hold Israel responsible for alleged war crimes and genocide. Yet Malaysia’s refusal to accede to the Rome Statute fundamentally undermines its credibility in these efforts.
Malaysia participated in the July 1998 Rome Conference, which adopted the Rome Statute, and sent a delegation to a 2010 Review Conference — yet ultimately did not ratify the treaty. But in 2018, the newly elected Pakatan Harapan government announced plans to accede to the Rome Statute after dislodging the United Malays National Organisation, the party that had ruled for the previous 60 years.
The move was short-lived. Within weeks, intense domestic backlash from ethnonationalist groups forced the government to rescind its planned accession. Critics argue that Article 28 of the statute — which holds commanders criminally liable for crimes committed by subordinates — would expose the constitutional monarch, the titular Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, to prosecution.
Malaysia’s monarchs are traditionally seen as guardians of ethnic Malay interests and acceding to the Rome Statute was framed as a challenge to the monarch’s standing, thereby undermining Malaysia’s deeply rooted ethnoreligious political order.
But this understanding is erroneous. As Malaysia’s Attorney General at the time explained, Article 28 targets individuals with decision-making power over military operations — meaning that it applies to the government of the day, not constitutional monarchs whose roles over Malaysia’s military are largely ceremonial.
For Malaysia to have influence, its international commitments must match its rhetoric on the global stage. Anwar should recommit to the ICC and demonstrate that Malaysia is serious about fighting impunity. Without being an ICC state party, Malaysia has no formal standing within the international court to push for investigations, submit referrals or participate in proceedings within the court’s framework. This relegates Malaysia to a passive role on Palestine — merely a cheerleader on the sidelines while other nations engage.
On the regional front and as the current ASEAN chair, Malaysia’s refusal to accede to the Rome Statute undermines its ability to seek justice for the crimes being committed in Myanmar, including the genocide of Rohingya Muslims — a persecuted minority whose situation parallels that of the Palestinians. To his credit, Anwar has repeatedly issued vocal condemnations of the Myanmar military’s atrocities. But as a member of the ICC, Malaysia would be able to refer the situation in Myanmar to the Chief Prosecutor — a move that all existing members of the court have failed to do.
Some members of Anwar’s cabinet have continued to champion Malaysia’s middle-power status, arguing that middle powers should band together and take up the ‘historic mission to ensure that the world’s superpowers do not go to the brink on our doorstep’. Multilateral institutions such as the ICC are venues where middle powers can unite to have an outsized influence on global affairs and where the ‘might equals right’ worldview proselytised from Washington to Moscow can be challenged.
As a member of the Hague Group, Malaysia can and must provide a counterweight to arrest the decline of the international legal order. But it must concurrently ensure that its walk matches its talk on justice for atrocity crimes.
This article was originally published in East Asia Forum.