The International Criminal Court After Kampala 7-12-10

Channel: TheFederalistSociety   |   2010/07/13
Play Video
1
The International Criminal Court After Kampala 7-12-10
The International Criminal Court After Kampala 7-12-10
::2010/07/13::
Play Video
2
U.S. Policy Towards the Upcoming International Criminal Court Review Conference
U.S. Policy Towards the Upcoming International Criminal Court Review Conference
::2010/05/20::
Play Video
3
ICC welcomes the Philippines as a new State Party
ICC welcomes the Philippines as a new State Party
::2011/11/08::
Play Video
4
MaximsNewsNetwork: COALITION for the INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, ICC (UNTV)
MaximsNewsNetwork: COALITION for the INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, ICC (UNTV)
::2010/03/24::
Play Video
5
ICC Has No Evidence
ICC Has No Evidence'& the Lies, Behind War on Libya. (Interview).
::2011/10/15::
Play Video
6
The Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute
The Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute
::2012/12/03::
Play Video
7
Rome Statute Review Conference - Ambassador Christian Wenaweser, President of the ASP
Rome Statute Review Conference - Ambassador Christian Wenaweser, President of the ASP
::2010/05/27::
Play Video
8
ASP President: Press Conference, 27 June 2011
ASP President: Press Conference, 27 June 2011
::2011/06/28::
Play Video
9
ICC cases, what next for kenya
ICC cases, what next for kenya
::2013/11/17::
Play Video
10
ICC welcomes the Republic of Seychelles as a new State Party
ICC welcomes the Republic of Seychelles as a new State Party
::2010/11/01::
Play Video
11
Rome Statute Review Conference - William R. Pace, CICC, role played by NGOs
Rome Statute Review Conference - William R. Pace, CICC, role played by NGOs
::2010/05/26::
Play Video
12
Rome Statute Review Conference -  ICC President
Rome Statute Review Conference - ICC President
::2010/05/19::
Play Video
13
ICC welcomes the People
ICC welcomes the People's Republic of Bangladesh as a new State Party
::2010/11/12::
Play Video
14
President of ASP in Uganda, March 2010
President of ASP in Uganda, March 2010
::2010/03/11::
Play Video
15
Including Aggression in the Rome Statute - Consequences for the International System
Including Aggression in the Rome Statute - Consequences for the International System
::2009/05/29::
Play Video
16
ICC welcomes Tunisia as a new State Party
ICC welcomes Tunisia as a new State Party
::2011/09/16::
Play Video
17
Kenya pushing for ICC deferral bid at the assembly of state parties to the Rome Statute
Kenya pushing for ICC deferral bid at the assembly of state parties to the Rome Statute
::2013/11/18::
Play Video
18
Rome Statute Review Conference - Elisabeth Rehn, ICC Trust Fund for Victims
Rome Statute Review Conference - Elisabeth Rehn, ICC Trust Fund for Victims
::2010/05/12::
Play Video
19
MaximsNewsNetwork: ICC REVIEW: ROME STATUTE: BAN KI-MOON, WILLIAM PACE (UNTV)
MaximsNewsNetwork: ICC REVIEW: ROME STATUTE: BAN KI-MOON, WILLIAM PACE (UNTV)
::2010/05/01::
Play Video
20
ICC welcomes Grenada as a new State Party
ICC welcomes Grenada as a new State Party
::2011/08/23::
Play Video
21
Rome Statute Review Conference - William R. Pace, CICC, mission and projects
Rome Statute Review Conference - William R. Pace, CICC, mission and projects
::2010/05/26::
Play Video
22
Rome Statute Review Conference - Miia Aro-Sanchez, Embassy of Finland
Rome Statute Review Conference - Miia Aro-Sanchez, Embassy of Finland
::2010/05/20::
Play Video
23
Rome Statute Review Conference - William R. Pace, the CICC
Rome Statute Review Conference - William R. Pace, the CICC
::2010/05/26::
Play Video
24
Review Conference of the Rome Statute - ICC Prosecutor, press conference, 1 June 2010
Review Conference of the Rome Statute - ICC Prosecutor, press conference, 1 June 2010
::2010/06/02::
Play Video
25
Rome Statute Review Conference - Elena Bornard, Embassy of Chile
Rome Statute Review Conference - Elena Bornard, Embassy of Chile
::2010/05/20::
Play Video
26
Rome Statute Review Conference - Ambassador Mary Whelan, Embassy of Ireland
Rome Statute Review Conference - Ambassador Mary Whelan, Embassy of Ireland
::2010/05/27::
Play Video
27
Hague calling
Hague calling
::2011/01/25::
Play Video
28
Rome Statute Review Conference - William R. Pace, CICC
Rome Statute Review Conference - William R. Pace, CICC's role
::2010/05/26::
Play Video
29
Domestic and Regional Complementarity
Domestic and Regional Complementarity
::2010/04/15::
Play Video
30
ICC welcomes Cape Verde as a new State Party
ICC welcomes Cape Verde as a new State Party
::2012/01/20::
Play Video
31
ICC welcomes Maldives as a new State Party
ICC welcomes Maldives as a new State Party
::2011/12/06::
Play Video
32
Review Conference of the Rome Statute, opening, 31 May 2010, Kampala, Uganda
Review Conference of the Rome Statute, opening, 31 May 2010, Kampala, Uganda
::2010/05/31::
Play Video
33
Review Conference of the Rome Statute - ICC Prosecutor, speech, June 2010
Review Conference of the Rome Statute - ICC Prosecutor, speech, June 2010
::2010/06/03::
Play Video
34
ICC launches commemorations for 17 July - International Criminal Justice Day, 2012
ICC launches commemorations for 17 July - International Criminal Justice Day, 2012
::2012/07/06::
Play Video
35
Review Conference - Stocktaking, victims and affected communities, ICC Registrar - Part 2
Review Conference - Stocktaking, victims and affected communities, ICC Registrar - Part 2
::2010/06/03::
Play Video
36
National Assembly To Discuss Kenya
National Assembly To Discuss Kenya's Relations With The UK This Afternoon
::2013/11/20::
Play Video
37
Review Conference - Belgium, Denmark and Finland sign enforcement agreements with the ICC
Review Conference - Belgium, Denmark and Finland sign enforcement agreements with the ICC
::2010/06/01::
Play Video
38
Review Conference - Stocktaking, victims and affected communities, ICC Registrar - Part 1
Review Conference - Stocktaking, victims and affected communities, ICC Registrar - Part 1
::2010/06/03::
Play Video
39
ICC welcomes Guatemala as a new State Party
ICC welcomes Guatemala as a new State Party
::2012/07/13::
Play Video
40
The International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression - Panel 4
The International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression - Panel 4
::2009/10/19::
Play Video
41
Czech Republic joins the ICC, Oct 2009
Czech Republic joins the ICC, Oct 2009
::2009/10/15::
Play Video
42
Delivering on the promise of a fair, effective and independent International Criminal Court
Delivering on the promise of a fair, effective and independent International Criminal Court
::2010/03/23::
Play Video
43
Rome Statute Review Conference - William R. Pace, about the CICC
Rome Statute Review Conference - William R. Pace, about the CICC
::2010/05/26::
Play Video
44
ICC welcomes the Republic of Moldova as a new State Party
ICC welcomes the Republic of Moldova as a new State Party
::2011/02/11::
Play Video
45
Review Conference - ICC President, visit to north Uganda, performance by group from Lukodi village
Review Conference - ICC President, visit to north Uganda, performance by group from Lukodi village
::2010/06/04::
Play Video
46
The International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression - Panel 1
The International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression - Panel 1
::2009/10/19::
Play Video
47
UNSC Rejection: Gov
UNSC Rejection: Gov't Now Looks To The Assembly Of State Parties
::2013/11/17::
Play Video
48
Review Conference - ICC President speech, panel on co-operation, 3 June 2010
Review Conference - ICC President speech, panel on co-operation, 3 June 2010
::2010/06/03::
Play Video
49
Kenyatta, Ruto Exempted from Presence During Trial
Kenyatta, Ruto Exempted from Presence During Trial
::2013/11/27::
Play Video
50
The International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression - Panel 3
The International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression - Panel 3
::2009/10/19::
NEXT >>
RESULTS [51 .. 101]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The States Parties to the Rome Statute
  Parties
  Signed but not ratified
  Neither signed nor acceded

The States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court are those sovereign States that have ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the International Criminal Court. As of May 2013, 122 states[1] are states parties to the Statute of the Court, including all of South America, nearly all of Europe, most of Oceania and roughly half the countries in Africa.[2] A further 31 countries,[1] including Russia, have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute.[2] The law of treaties obliges these states to refrain from “acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the treaty until they declare they do not intend to become a party to the treaty.[3] Three of these states—Israel, Sudan and the United States—have informed the UN Secretary General that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, have no legal obligations arising from their former representatives' signature of the Statute.[2][4] 41 United Nations member states[1] have neither signed nor ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute; some of them, including China and India, are critical of the Court.[5][6] On 21 January 2009, the Palestinian National Authority formally accepted the jurisdiction of the Court.[7] On 3 April 2012, the ICC Prosecutor declared himself unable to determine that Palestine is a "state" for the purposes of the Rome Statute and referred such decision to the United Nations.[8] On 29 November 2012, the United Nations General Assembly voted in favour of recognising Palestine as a non-member observer state.[9]

The Court can automatically exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of a State Party or by a national of a State Party. States parties must co-operate with the Court, including surrendering suspects when requested to do so by the Court.

States Parties are entitled to participate and vote in proceedings of the Assembly of States Parties, which is the Court's governing body.

States parties[edit]

As of 1 May 2013, 122 states have ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute.[10]

State party[10] Signed Ratified or acceded Entry into force Amend. 1 Amend. 2
 Afghanistan 10 February 2003 1 May 2003
 Albania 18 July 1998 31 January 2003 1 May 2003
 Andorra 18 July 1998 30 April 2001 1 July 2002 Ratified Ratified
 Antigua and Barbuda 23 October 1998 18 June 2001 1 July 2002
 Argentina 8 January 1999 8 February 2001 1 July 2002
 Australia 9 December 1998 1 July 2002 1 September 2002
 Austria 7 October 1998 28 December 2000 1 July 2002
 Bangladesh 16 September 1999 23 March 2010 1 June 2010
 Barbados 8 September 2000 10 December 2002 1 March 2003
 Belgium 10 September 1998 28 June 2000 1 July 2002 Ratified Ratified
 Belize 5 April 2000 5 April 2000 1 July 2002
 Benin 24 September 1999 22 January 2002 1 July 2002
 Bolivia 17 July 1998 27 June 2002 1 September 2002
 Bosnia and Herzegovina 17 July 1998 11 April 2002 1 July 2002
 Botswana 8 September 2000 8 September 2000 1 July 2002 Ratified Ratified
 Brazil 7 February 2000 20 June 2002 1 September 2002
 Bulgaria 11 February 1999 11 April 2002 1 July 2002
 Burkina Faso 30 November 1998 16 April 2004 1 July 2004
 Burundi 13 January 1999 21 September 2004 1 December 2004
 Cambodia 23 October 2000 11 April 2002 1 July 2002
 Canada 18 December 1998 7 July 2000 1 July 2002
 Cape Verde 28 December 2000 10 October 2011 1 January 2012
 Central African Republic 12 December 1999 3 October 2001 1 July 2002
 Chad 20 October 1999 1 November 2006 1 January 2007
 Chile 11 September 1998 29 June 2009 1 September 2009
 Colombia[A] 10 December 1998 5 August 2002 1 November 2002
 Comoros 22 September 2000 18 August 2006 1 November 2006
 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 8 September 2000 11 April 2002 1 July 2002
 Congo, Republic of the 17 July 1998 3 May 2004 1 August 2004
 Cook Islands 18 July 2008 1 October 2008
 Costa Rica 7 October 1998 7 June 2001 1 July 2002
 Côte d'Ivoire[G] 30 November 1998 15 February 2013 1 May 2013
 Croatia 12 October 1998 21 May 2001 1 July 2002 Ratified Ratified
 Cyprus 15 October 1998 7 March 2002 1 July 2002 Ratified Ratified
 Czech Republic 13 April 1999 21 July 2009 1 October 2009
 Denmark[B] 25 September 1998 21 June 2001 1 July 2002
 Djibouti 7 October 1998 5 November 2002 1 February 2003
 Dominica 12 February 2001 1 July 2002
 Dominican Republic 8 September 2000 12 May 2005 1 August 2005
 East Timor 6 September 2002 1 December 2002
 Ecuador 7 October 1998 5 February 2002 1 July 2002
 Estonia 27 December 1999 30 January 2002 1 July 2002 In force In force
 Fiji 29 November 1999 29 November 1999 1 July 2002
 Finland 7 October 1998 29 December 2000 1 July 2002
 France[C] 18 July 1998 9 June 2000 1 July 2002
 Gabon 22 December 1998 20 September 2000 1 July 2002
 Gambia, The 4 December 1998 28 June 2002 1 September 2002
 Georgia 18 July 1998 5 September 2003 1 December 2003
 Germany 10 December 1998 11 December 2000 1 July 2002 Ratified Ratified
 Ghana 18 July 1998 20 December 1999 1 July 2002
 Greece 18 July 1998 15 May 2002 1 August 2002
 Grenada 19 May 2011 1 August 2011
 Guatemala 2 April 2012 1 July 2012
 Guinea 7 September 2000 14 July 2003 1 October 2003
 Guyana 28 December 2000 24 September 2004 1 December 2004
 Honduras 7 October 1998 1 July 2002 1 September 2002
 Hungary 15 January 1999 30 November 2001 1 July 2002
 Iceland 26 August 1998 25 May 2000 1 July 2002
 Ireland 7 October 1998 11 April 2002 1 July 2002
 Italy 18 July 1998 26 July 1999 1 July 2002
 Japan 17 July 2007 1 October 2007
 Jordan 7 October 1998 11 April 2002 1 July 2002
 Kenya 11 August 1999 15 March 2005 1 June 2005
 Korea, South 8 March 2000 13 November 2002 1 February 2003
 Latvia 22 April 1999 28 June 2002 1 September 2002
 Lesotho 30 November 1998 6 September 2000 1 July 2002
 Liberia 17 July 1998 22 September 2004 1 December 2004
 Liechtenstein 18 July 1998 2 October 2001 1 July 2002 In force In force
 Lithuania 10 December 1998 12 May 2003 1 August 2003
 Luxembourg 13 October 1998 8 September 2000 1 July 2002 In force In force
 Macedonia, Republic of 7 October 1998 6 March 2002 1 July 2002
 Madagascar 18 July 1998 14 March 2008 1 June 2008
 Malawi 2 March 1999 19 September 2002 1 December 2002
 Maldives 21 September 2011 1 December 2011
 Mali 17 July 1998 16 August 2000 1 July 2002
 Malta 17 July 1998 29 November 2002 1 February 2003
 Marshall Islands 6 September 2000 7 December 2000 1 July 2002
 Mauritius 11 November 1998 5 March 2002 1 July 2002 Ratified
 Mexico 7 September 2000 28 October 2005 1 January 2006
 Moldova 8 September 2000 12 October 2010 1 January 2011
 Mongolia 29 December 2000 11 April 2002 1 July 2002
 Montenegro[D] 23 October 2006 3 June 2006
 Namibia 27 October 1998 25 June 2002 1 September 2002
 Nauru 13 December 2000 12 November 2001 1 July 2002
 Netherlands 18 July 1998 17 July 2001 1 July 2002
 New Zealand[E] 7 October 1998 7 September 2000 1 July 2002
 Niger 17 July 1998 11 April 2002 1 July 2002
 Nigeria 1 June 2000 27 September 2001 1 July 2002
 Norway 28 August 1998 16 February 2000 1 July 2002 Ratified
 Panama 18 July 1998 21 March 2002 1 July 2002
 Paraguay 7 October 1998 14 May 2001 1 July 2002
 Peru 7 December 2000 10 November 2001 1 July 2002
 Philippines 28 December 2000 30 August 2011 1 November 2011
 Poland 9 April 1999 12 November 2001 1 July 2002
 Portugal 7 October 1998 5 February 2002 1 July 2002
 Romania 7 July 1999 11 April 2002 1 July 2002
 Saint Kitts and Nevis 22 August 2006 1 November 2006
 Saint Lucia 27 August 1999 18 August 2010 1 November 2010
 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 3 December 2002 1 March 2003
 Samoa 17 July 1998 16 September 2002 1 December 2002 In force In force
 San Marino 18 July 1998 13 May 1999 1 July 2002 In force
 Senegal 18 July 1998 2 February 1999 1 July 2002
 Serbia 19 December 2000 6 September 2001 1 July 2002
 Seychelles 28 December 2000 10 August 2010 1 November 2010
 Sierra Leone 17 October 1998 15 September 2000 1 July 2002
 Slovakia 23 December 1998 11 April 2002 1 July 2002
 Slovenia 7 October 1998 31 December 2001 1 July 2002 Ratified Ratified
 South Africa 17 July 1998 27 November 2000 1 July 2002
 Spain 18 July 1998 24 October 2000 1 July 2002
 Suriname 15 July 2008 1 October 2008
 Sweden 7 October 1998 28 June 2001 1 July 2002
  Switzerland 18 July 1998 12 October 2001 1 July 2002
 Tanzania 29 December 2000 20 August 2002 1 November 2002
 Tajikistan 30 November 1998 5 May 2000 1 July 2002
 Trinidad and Tobago 23 March 1999 6 April 1999 1 July 2002 In force In force
 Tunisia 24 June 2011 1 September 2011
 Uganda 17 March 1999 14 June 2002 1 September 2002
 United Kingdom[F] 30 November 1998 4 October 2001 1 July 2002
 Uruguay 19 December 2000 28 June 2002 1 September 2002 Ratified Ratified
 Vanuatu 2 December 2011 1 February 2012
 Venezuela 14 October 1998 7 June 2000 1 July 2002
 Zambia 17 July 1998 13 November 2002 1 February 2003

Withdrawal[edit]

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 November 2013 no state had withdrawn from the statute.

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 allegations that the Court targets Africa, and specifically in response to the indictment of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.[11] In September 2013, Kenya's National Assembly passed a motion to withdraw from the ICC in protest against the ICC investigation in Kenya, although no law effecting withdrawal has been proposed.[12] 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.[13] The summit concluded that serving heads of state should not be put on trial, and that the Kenyan cases should be deferred.[14] However, the summit did not endorse the proposal for a mass withdrawal due to lack of support for the idea.[15] 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.[16]

Implementing legislation[edit]

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.[17] 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”.[18]

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.[19]

As of April 2006, the following states had enacted or drafted implementing legislation:[20]

States Complementarity legislation Co-operation legislation
Australia, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom Enacted Enacted
Colombia, Congo, Serbia, Montenegro Enacted Draft
Burundi, Costa Rica, Mali, Niger, Portugal Enacted None
France, Norway, Peru, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland Draft Enacted
Austria, Japan, Latvia, Romania None Enacted
Argentina, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Dominica, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Nigeria, Samoa, Senegal, Uganda, Uruguay, Zambia Draft Draft
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Honduras, Hungary, Jordan, Panama, Venezuela Draft None
Mexico None Draft
Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cyprus, Djibouti, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea, Guyana, Liberia, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mongolia, Namibia, Nauru, Paraguay, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sierra Leone, The Republic of Macedonia, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, United Republic of Tanzania None None

Summary of signatures and ratifications/accessions[edit]

Total number of states parties from 1999–2006.
Date Signatures
December 31, 1998 72
December 31, 1999 93
December 31, 2000 139
Date Ratifications/accessions Remaining signatories
December 31, 1998 0 72
December 31, 1999 6 87
December 31, 2000 27 112
December 31, 2001 48 92
December 31, 2002 87 55
December 31, 2003 92 51
December 31, 2004 97 46
December 31, 2005 100 43
December 31, 2006 104 41
December 31, 2007 105 41
December 31, 2008 108 40
December 31, 2009 110 38
December 31, 2010 114 34
December 31, 2011 120 32
December 31, 2012 121 32
December 31, 2013 122 31

Allocation of judges[edit]

The number of states parties from the several United Nations regional groups has an influence on the minimum number of judges each group is allocated. Paragraph 20(b) of the Procedure for the nomination and election of judges of the Court[21] states that any of the five regional groups shall have at least two judges on the court. If, however, a group has more than 16 states parties, there is a third judge allocated to that group.

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 Asian Group has become the last regional group to have three judges allocated. This already had consequences for the ICC judges election, 2011.[22]

Group Number of states parties Number of judges allocated
African Group 34 3
Asian Group 18 3
Eastern European Group 18 3
Latin American and Caribbean Group 27 3
Western European and Others Group 25 3

Acceptance of jurisdiction[edit]

Pursuant to article 12(3) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, a state that is not a party to the Statute may, "by declaration lodged with the Registrar, accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court with respect to the crime in question." The state that does so is not a State Party to the Statute, but the Statute is in force for the state as if it had ratified the Statute, only on an ad hoc basis. However, a state that lodges an article 12(3) declaration cannot refer a situation to the Court. This means that the Prosecutor can only open an official investigation after a State Party or the United Nations Security Council refer the situation to the Court. Alternatively, the Prosecutor can open an investigation after a Pre-Trial Chamber gives its consent to do so, but only after it is presented with preliminary evidence.

To date, the Court has only made public two article 12(3) declarations.

State Date of acceptance Start of jurisdiction
 Côte d'Ivoire[G] 1 October 2003 19 September 2002
 Palestine[H] 22 January 2009 1 July 2002

Signatories[edit]

Of the 139 states that had signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 31 have not ratified the treaty.[10]

State Signature
 Algeria 28 December 2000
 Angola 7 October 1998
 Armenia 1 October 1999
 Bahamas, The 29 December 2000
 Bahrain 11 December 2000
 Cameroon 17 July 1998
 Egypt 26 December 2000
 Eritrea 7 October 1998
 Guinea-Bissau 12 September 2000
 Haiti 26 February 1999
 Iran 31 December 2000
 Israel[I] 31 December 2000
 Jamaica 8 September 2000
 Kuwait 8 September 2000
 Kyrgyzstan 8 December 1998
 Monaco 18 July 1998
 Morocco 8 September 2000
 Mozambique 28 December 2000
 Oman 20 December 2000
 Russia 13 September 2000
 São Tomé and Príncipe 28 December 2000
 Solomon Islands 3 December 1998
 Sudan[J] 8 September 2000
 Syria 29 November 2000
 Thailand 2 October 2000
 Ukraine 20 January 2000
 United Arab Emirates 27 November 2000
 United States[K] 31 December 2000
 Uzbekistan 29 December 2000
 Yemen 28 December 2000
 Zimbabwe 17 July 1998
= States which have declared that they no longer intend to ratify the treaty

According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a state that has signed but not ratified a treaty is obliged to refrain from "acts which would defeat the object and purpose" of the treaty, however, these obligations do not continue if the state makes clear that it does not intend to become a party to the treaty.[23] As such, three states which have unsigned the Rome Statute (Israel, Sudan, and the United States of America) and have indicated that they no longer intend to become states parties, have no legal obligations arising from their signature of the Statute.

Bahrain[edit]

The government of Bahrain originally announced in May 2006 that it would ratify the Rome Statute in the session ending in July 2006.[24] By December 2006 the ratification had not yet been completed, but the Coalition for the International Criminal Court said they expected ratification in 2007.[25]

Israel[edit]

Israel voted against the adoption of the Rome Statute but later signed it for a short period. In 2002, the United States and Israel "unsigned" the Rome Statute, indicating that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, they have no legal obligations arising from their signature of the statute.[26]

Israel states that it has "deep sympathy" with the goals of the Court. However, it has concerns that political pressure on the Court would lead it to reinterpret international law or to "invent new crimes". It cites the inclusion of "the transfer of parts of the civilian population of an occupying power into occupied territory" as a war crime as an example of this, whilst at the same time disagrees with the exclusion of terrorism and drug trafficking. Israel sees the powers given to the prosecutor as excessive and the geographical appointment of judges as disadvantaging Israel which is prevented from joining any of the UN Regional Groups.[27]

Kuwait[edit]

At a conference in 2007, the Kuwaiti Bar Association and the Secretary of the National Assembly of Kuwait, Hussein Al-Hereti, called for Kuwait to join the Court.[28]

Thailand[edit]

Former Senator Kraisak Choonhavan called in November 2006 for Thailand to ratify the Rome Statute and to accept retrospective jurisdiction, so that former premier Thaksin Shinawatra could be investigated for crimes against humanity connected to 2,500 alleged extrajudicial killings carried out in 2003 against suspected drug dealers.[29]

Ukraine[edit]

A 2001 ruling of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine held that the Rome Statute is inconsistent with the Constitution of Ukraine.[30] Notwithstanding, in October 2006, the Ambassador to the United Nations stated that the Ukrainian government would submit a bill to the parliament to ratify the Statute.[31] Ukraine ratified APIC without having ratified the Rome Statute on 2007-01-29.[32] On 4 April 2012, the Foreign Minister of Ukraine told the President of the International Criminal Court that "Ukraine intends to join the Rome Statute once the necessary legal preconditions have been created in the context of the upcoming review of the country’s constitution."[33]

United States[edit]

There is presently bipartisan consensus that the United States does not intend to ratify the Rome Statute.[34] Some US Senators have suggested that the treaty could not be ratified without a constitutional amendment.[35] Therefore, US opponents of the ICC argue that the US Constitution in its present form does not allow a cession of judicial authority to any body other than the Supreme Court. In the view of proponents of the ICC there is no inconsistency with the US Constitution, arguing that the role of the US Supreme Court as final arbiter of US law would not be disturbed. Before the Rome Statute, opposition to the ICC was largely headed by Republican Senator Jesse Helms.[36] Other objections to ratification have included that it violates international law, is a political court without appeal, denies fundamental American human rights, denies the authority of the United Nations, and would violate US national sovereignty.

Although the US originally voted against the adoption of the Rome Statute, President Bill Clinton unexpectedly reversed his position on 31 December 2000 and signed the treaty,[37][38] but indicated that he would not recommend that his successor, George W. Bush, submit it to the Senate for ratification.[39] On 6 May 2002, the Bush administration informed the UN Secretary General that the US no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, have no legal obligations arising from their former representatives' signature of the Statute.[40] The country's main objections are interference with their national sovereignty and a fear of politically motivated prosecutions.

In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which contained a number of provisions, including prohibitions on the U.S. providing military aid to countries which had ratified the treaty establishing the Court (exceptions granted), and permitting the President to authorize military force to free any U.S. military personnel held by the Court, leading opponents to dub it the "Hague Invasion Act." The act was later modified to permit U.S. cooperation with the ICC when dealing with U.S. enemies.

The U.S. has also made a number of Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs, also known as "Article 98 Agreements") with a number of countries, prohibiting the surrender to the ICC of a broad scope of persons including current or former government officials, military personnel, and U.S. employees (including non-national contractors) and nationals. None of these agreements preclude the prosecution of Americans by any nation where they are believed to have committed any crime. As of 2 August 2006, the US Department of State reported that it had signed 101 of these agreements.[41] The United States has cut aid to many countries which have refused to sign BIAs.[41]

In 2002, the United States threatened to veto the renewal of all United Nations peacekeeping missions unless its troops were granted immunity from prosecution by the Court.[42] In a compromise move, the Security Council passed Resolution 1422 on 12 July 2002, granting immunity to personnel from ICC non-states parties involved in United Nations established or authorized missions for a renewable twelve-month period.[42] This was renewed for twelve months in 2003 but the Security Council refused to renew the exemption again in 2004, after pictures emerged of US troops abusing Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib, and the US withdrew its demand.[43]

Yemen[edit]

On 24 March 2007, the Yemeni parliament voted to ratify the Rome Statute.[44][45] However, some MPs claim that this vote breached parliamentary rules, and have demanded another vote. In that further vote, the ratification was retracted.[46]

Non-signatory states[edit]

The deadline for signing the Rome Statute expired on 31 December 2000. States that did not sign before that date have to accede to the Statute in a single step. To date, 13 states — Afghanistan, Cook Islands, Dominica, East Timor, Grenada, Guatemala, Japan, the Maldives, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Tunisia and Vanuatu — as well as Montenegro (which had seceded from the state party of Serbia and Montenegro) have acceded to the treaty,[2] and a number of other states have taken steps to do so.

The 41 UN member states which have neither signed, nor acceded to the Statute are:

China[edit]

The People's Republic of China has opposed the Court, on the basis that:

  1. It goes against the sovereignty of nation states
  2. The principle of complementarity gives the Court the ability to judge a nation's court system
  3. War crimes jurisdiction covers internal as well as international conflicts
  4. The Court's jurisdiction covers peace-time crimes against humanity
  5. Inclusion of the crime of aggression weakens the role of the Security Council in this regard
  6. The prosecutor's right to initiate prosecutions may open the Court to political influence[47]

El Salvador[edit]

In early April 2012, the Foreign Ministry of El Salvador made a statement that the country is to ratify the Rome Statute during 2012.[48]

India[edit]

The government of India has consistently opposed the Court. It abstained in the vote adopting of the statute in 1998, saying it objected to:[49]

  1. The broad definition adopted of crimes against humanity
  2. The right given to the Security Council to refer cases, delay investigations and bind non-State Parties.
  3. The use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction not being explicitly outlawed

Other anxieties about the Court concern:

  1. How the principle of complementarity would be applied to the Indian criminal justice system
  2. The inclusion of non-international conflicts - and hence Kashmir and other disputes within India - in the category of war crimes
  3. The power of the prosecutor to initiate prosecutions[50]

Indonesia[edit]

Indonesia has stated that it supports the adoption of the Rome Statute, and that “universal participation should be the cornerstone of the International Criminal Court”.[51] In 2004, the President of Indonesia adopted a National Plan of Action on Human Rights, which states that Indonesia intends to ratify the Rome Statute in 2008.[51] This was confirmed in 2007 by Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda and the head of the Indonesian People's Representative Council's Committee on Security and International Affairs, Theo L. Sambuaga.[52] In May 2013, Defense Minister Purnomo Yusgiantoro stated that the government needed "more time to carefully and thoroughly review the pros and cons of the ratification".[53]

Iraq[edit]

In February 2005 the Iraqi Transitional Government decided to ratify the Rome Statute. However, two weeks later they reversed this decision,[54] a move that the Coalition for the International Criminal Court claimed was due to pressure from the United States.[55]

Lebanon[edit]

In March 2009, Lebanese Justice Minister said the government had decided not to join for now. The Coalition for the International Criminal Court claimed this was due in part to "intense pressure" from the United States, who feared it could result in the prosecution of Israelis in a future conflict.[56]

Malaysia[edit]

In its Asia Update no. 7, the Coalition for the International Criminal Court reported that the Malaysian government had agreed on 21 March 2011 that Malaysia should join the Rome Statute system. It reported that, in Malaysia, the cabinet is the authority which can ratify international treaties. The CICC expected Malaysia to soon deposit its instrument of ratification with the UN Secretary-General.[57]

Nepal[edit]

On 25 July 2006, the Nepalese House of Representatives directed the government to ratify the Rome Statute. Under Nepalese law, this motion is compulsory for the Executive.[58]

Pakistan[edit]

Pakistan has supported the aims of the International Court and voted for the Rome Statute in 1998. However, Pakistan has not signed the agreement on the basis of reservations.

  1. The fact that the Statute does not provide for reservations by countries.
  2. The arbitrary nature of the initiations of proceedings.
  3. Provisional arrest; something which is against the Pakistani legal system, where a person has to be charged within 24 hours.
  4. Lack of immunity for heads of state.

In addition, Pakistan (which is one of the world's largest supplier of peacekeepers) has, like the United States, expressed reservations about the potential use of politically motivated charges against peacekeepers.[59]

Turkey[edit]

Turkey is currently a candidate country to join the European Union, which has required progress on human rights issues in order to continue with accession talks. Part of this has included pressure, but not a requirement, on Turkey to join the Court which is supported under the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy.[60] Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated in October 2004 that Turkey would "soon" ratify the Rome Statute,[61] and the Turkish constitution was amended in 2004 to explicitly allow nationals to be surrendered to the Court.[62] However, in January 2008, the Erdoğan government reversed its position, deciding to shelve accession because of concerns it could undermine efforts against the Kurdistan Workers Party.[63]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

A Colombia made use of article 124 of the Rome Statute to exempt war crimes committed by its nationals or on its territory from the jurisdiction of the Court for a period of seven years. The relevant declaration came into force with the coming into force of the Rome Statute, for Colombia, on 1 November 2002 and expired on 31 October 2009.
B The Rome Statute entered into force for the Faroe Islands on 1 October 2006 and for Greenland on 1 October 2004.
C France made use of article 124 of the Rome Statute to exempt war crimes committed by its nationals or on its territory from the jurisdiction of the Court for a period of seven years. The relevant declaration came into force with the coming into force of the Rome Statute, for France, on 1 July 2002. France withdrew its declaration on 13 August 2008 with effect from 15 June 2008.[64]
D Montenegro succeeded to the Rome Statute on 3 June 2006, the date of its independence from Serbia and Montenegro, per a declaration it sent to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, which was received on 23 October 2006.
E The Rome Statute does not apply to Tokelau.
F The Rome Statute entered into force for Anguilla; Bermuda; the British Virgin Islands; the Cayman Islands; the Falkland Islands; Montserrat; the Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands; Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha; the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia; and the Turks and Caicos Islands on 11 March 2010. The Statute entered into force for the Isle of Man on 1 February 2013.
G The Ivorian government submitted its declaration on 1 October 2003.[65] The declaration is dated 18 April 2003 and accepts the Court's jurisdiction for "acts committed on Ivorian territory since the events of 19 September 2002."[66] The Statute entered into force for Côte d'Ivoire on 1 May 2013, so it is now a state party.
H The Palestinian National Authority submitted a declaration on 22 January 2009,[67] dated the previous day, accepting the Court's jurisdiction for "acts committed on the territory of Palestine since 1 July 2002."[68] However, since the Rome Statute only permits "states" to make such a declaration, the State of Palestine's non-universal recognition as a sovereign state made it unclear whether the Palestinian National Authority had the authority to accept the ICC's jurisdiction.[69] In April 2012, the Prosecutor of the ICC reached the conclusion that "it is for the relevant bodies at the United Nations or the Assembly of States Parties to make the legal determination whether Palestine qualifies as a State" and that Palestine's status within the UN was not that of a "non-member state".[70] Later that year, on 29 November, the United Nations General Assembly voted in favour of recognising Palestine as a non-member observer state.[71] According to The Jerusalem Post, "had the ICC accepted the PA's recognition of its jurisdiction, it would have also tacitly accepted its statehood."[72]
I On 28 August 2002, Israel declared that it no longer intended to ratify the treaty and therefore no longer bears any legal obligations arising from its signature.
J On 26 August 2008, Sudan declared that it no longer intended to ratify the treaty and therefore no longer bears any legal obligations arising from its signature.
K On 6 May 2002, the United States declared that it no longer intended to ratify the treaty and therefore no longer bears any legal obligations arising from its signature.

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c The sum of (a) states parties, (b) signatories and (c) non-signatory United Nations member states is 194. This number is one more than the number of United Nations member states (193) due to the Cook Islands being a state party but not a United Nations member state.
  2. ^ a b c d United Nations Treaty Database entry regarding the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Retrieved 10 March 2010.
  3. ^ The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 18. Accessed 23 November 2006.
  4. ^ John R Bolton, 6 May 2002. International Criminal Court: Letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. US Department of State. Accessed 2006-11-23.
  5. ^ China's Attitude Towards the ICC”, Lu Jianping and Wang Zhixiang, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2005-07-06.
  6. ^ India and the ICC, Usha Ramanathan, Journal of International Criminal Law, 2005.
  7. ^ "Declaration by the Palestinian National Authority Accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court" (PDF). International Criminal Court. 2009-01-21. Retrieved 2011-04-06. 
  8. ^ ICC Prosecutor's update on the situation in Palestine. 3 April 2012. Retrieved 12 April 2012.
  9. ^ Q&A: Palestinians' upgraded UN status. BBC. 30 November 2012. Retrieved 8 December 2012.
  10. ^ a b c "Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court". United Nations Treaty Collection. 2013-02-01. Retrieved 2013-02-01. 
  11. ^ African ICC Members Mull Withdrawal Over Bashir Indictment, Voice of America, 2009-06-08
  12. ^ "Kenya MPs vote to withdraw from ICC". BBC. 2013-09-05. Retrieved 2013-09-11. 
  13. ^ "African Union summit on ICC pullout over Ruto trial". BBC News. 2013-09-20. Retrieved 2013-09-23. 
  14. ^ http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2013/10/africans-urge-icc-not-try-heads-state-201310125566632803.html
  15. ^ Fortin, Jacey (2013-10-12). "African Union Countries Rally Around Kenyan President, But Won’t Withdraw From The ICC". International Business Times. Retrieved 2013-10-12. 
  16. ^ KABERIA, Judie (2013-11-20). "Win for Africa as Kenya agenda enters ICC Assembly". Retrieved 2013-11-23. 
  17. ^ Amnesty International, Implementation. Accessed 2007-01-23. See also Article 86 of the Rome Statute
  18. ^ Part 9 of the Rome Statute. Accessed 2007-01-23.
  19. ^ [See Article 17 of the Rome Statute
  20. ^ Amnesty International, The International Criminal Court: Summary of draft and enacted implementing legislation. Accessed 2007-01-23.
  21. ^ Verbal note from the President of the Assembly of States Parties. Retrieved 27 August 2011. From page 3 on, the Procedure for the nomination and election of judges of the International Criminal Court is contained.
  22. ^ Note verbale regarding the change of minimum voting requirement for Asia-Pacific states. 13 October 2011. Retrieved 17 October 2011.
  23. ^ Part II §1 Art. 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
  24. ^ The ratification and implementation of the Statute of the International Criminal Court in Bahrain, FIDH, 2006-07-10.
  25. ^ Rights push for key court pact, Gulf Daily News, 2006-12-21.
  26. ^ The American Non-Governmental Organizations Coalition for the International Criminal Court. Ratifications & Declarations. Accessed 2006-12-04.
  27. ^ Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 30 June 2002. Israel and the International Criminal Court. Accessed 2002-06-30.
  28. ^ Lawyers urge Kuwait to become ICC member, Kuwait Times, 2007-03-26, accessed on 2007-04-05
  29. ^ War on drugs returns to bite Thaksin, Bangkok Post, 2006-11-23
  30. ^ "Decision of Constitutional Court of Ukraine (Ukrainian)". Zakon1.rada.gov.ua. Retrieved 2011-11-04. 
  31. ^ Statement by Ukraine regarding the Report of the International Criminal Court, UN, 2006-10-09.
  32. ^ http://www.iccnow.org/documents/CICC_APIClist_current.pdf
  33. ^ ICC President meets Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine. ICC. 4 April 2012. Retrieved 4 April 2012.
  34. ^ "Clinton's statement on war crimes court". BBC News. 2000-12-31. 
  35. ^ "Article III | LII / Legal Information Institute". Law.cornell.edu. 2011-10-24. Retrieved 2011-11-04. 
  36. ^ U.S. News & World Report: "The Brief for a World Court, A permanent war-crimes tribunal is coming, but will it have teeth?" By Thomas Omestad; Posted 9/28/97
  37. ^ Amnesty International. US Threats to the International Criminal Court. Accessed 2006-11-23.
  38. ^ Brett D. Schaefer, 9 January 2001. Overturning Clinton's Midnight Action on the International Criminal Court. The Heritage Foundation. Accessed 2006-11-23.
  39. ^ Curtis A Bradley, May 2002. U.S. Announces Intent Not to Ratify International Criminal Court Treaty. The American Society of International Law. Accessed 2006-11-23.
  40. ^ John R Bolton, 6 May 2002. International Criminal Court: Letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. US Department of State. Accessed 2006-11-23.
  41. ^ a b Coalition for the International Criminal Court, 2006. Status of US Bilateral Immunity Acts. Accessed 2006-11-23.
  42. ^ a b Human Rights Watch, The ICC and the Security Council: Resolution 1422. Accessed 2007-01-11.
  43. ^ BBC News, 20 March 2006. Q&A: International Criminal Court. Accessed 2007-01-11.
  44. ^ gulfnews.com, 26 March 2007. “Yemen becomes fourth Arab country to ratify ICC statute”. Accessed 27 March 2007.
  45. ^ Amnesty International, 27 March 2007. Amnesty International urges Yemen to complete the ratification of the Rome Statute. Accessed 2007-04-01.
  46. ^ Almotamar.net, 9 April 2007. “[1]”. Accessed 2021-05-19.
  47. ^ China's Attitude Towards the ICC”, Lu Jianping and Wang Zhixiang, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2005-07-06.
  48. ^ Information on ratification and implementation of the Rome Statute. Coalition for the International Criminal Court. Retrieved 26 April 2012.
  49. ^ Explanation of vote on the adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, Embassy of India, 1998-07-17
  50. ^ India and the ICC, Usha Ramanathan, Journal of International Criminal Law, 2005.
  51. ^ a b Amnesty International, Fact sheet: Indonesia and the International Criminal Court. DOC, HTML. Accessed 2007-01-23.
  52. ^ RI to join global criminal court, Jakarta Post, 2007-02-11, accessed on 2007-02-11
  53. ^ Aritonang, Margareth (2013-05-21). "Govt officially rejects Rome Statute". The Jakarta Post. Retrieved 2013-07-09. 
  54. ^ Iraq Pulls Out Of International Criminal Court, Radio Free Europe, 2005-03-02
  55. ^ Groups Urge Iraq to Join International Criminal Court, Common Dreams, 2005-08-08
  56. ^ Justice campaigners say US urged Lebanon not to join International Criminal Court, Daily Star (Lebanon), 2009-03-12
  57. ^ CICC: Asia Update Issue 7. Retrieved 1 November 2011.
  58. ^ Asian Parliamentarians’ Consultation on the Universality of the International Criminal Court, “An action plan for the Working Group of the Consultative Assembly of Parliamentarians for the ICC and the rule of law on the universality of the Rome Statute in Asia”. PDF, HTML 16 August 2006. Accessed 2007-01-23.
  59. ^ http://www.amicc.org/docs/Pakistan1422Stmt12June03.pdf
  60. ^ Council Common Position on the International Criminal Court, American Coalition for the International Criminal Court, 2003-06-13
  61. ^ Turkey, EU and the International Criminal Court, Journal of Turkish Weekly, 2005-04-14
  62. ^ Constitutional Amendments, Secretariat-General for EU Affairs (Turkey), 2004-05-10
  63. ^ Turkey shelves accession to world criminal court, Zaman, 2008-01-20, accessed on 2008-01-20
  64. ^ See German Federal Gazzette (Bundesgesetzblatt) 2009 II, p. 38.
  65. ^ "Communications, Referrals and Preliminary Examinations: Côte d'Ivoire". International Criminal Court. Retrieved 2011-04-06. 
  66. ^ "Declaration by the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire Accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court" (PDF). International Criminal Court. 2003-04-18. Retrieved 2011-04-06. 
  67. ^ "Communications, Referrals and Preliminary Examinations: Palestine". International Criminal Court. Retrieved 2011-04-06. 
  68. ^ "Declaration by the Palestinian National Authority Accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court" (PDF). International Criminal Court. 2009-01-21. Retrieved 2011-04-06. 
  69. ^ Simons, Marlise (2009-02-10). "War court asked to examine Gaza war". The New York Times. Retrieved 2011-04-06. 
  70. ^ ICC Prosecutor's Update on the situation in Palestine. 3 April 2012. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
  71. ^ Q&A: Palestinians' upgraded UN status. BBC. 30 November 2012. Retrieved 8 December 2012.
  72. ^ ICC: No Cast Lead probe as PA not a state
Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL License

Mashpedia enables any individual or company to promote their own Youtube-hosted videos or Youtube Channels, offering a simple and effective plan to get them in front of our engaged audience.

Want to learn more? Please contact us at: hello@mashpedia.com

Powered by YouTube
LEGAL
  • Mashpedia © 2014