As the first permanent international criminal court, the International Criminal Court plays a central role in realizing transnational criminal justice and combating impunity. However, its effectiveness depends on resolving fundamental legal and political challenges arising from its interaction with State sovereignty. One of the most important challenges is States’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute and its effects on the continuation of the Court’s jurisdiction. Using an analytical-descriptive method and emphasizing key provisions of the Rome Statute, particularly Articles 11, 12, 24, 27 and 127 the principles of State international responsibility, and the jurisprudence of international institutions, this article examines this issue. The Philippines case concerning Rodrigo Duterte’s drug war shows that withdrawal from the Statute, although interpretable as a political act to evade accountability, has no legal effect on the Court’s inherent jurisdiction over crimes committed during the State’s membership. This conclusion rests on the principle prohibiting reliance on domestic law to justify breach of international obligations, Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and Article 127(2) of the Rome Statute. The article ultimately concludes that although the Court faces serious challenges in State cooperation and limitations on sovereignty, existing jurisprudence emphasizes that withdrawal from treaties cannot be considered extinction of responsibility arising from past acts. This reading aligns with the Court’s approach in previous cases and the principle of continuing responsibility. This issue itself constitutes an important step toward realizing the ultimate goal of international law: establishing an order based on justice and accountability.