State Parties of the International Criminal Court

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The State Parties of the International Criminal Court are those countries that have ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

State Parties are entitled to participate and vote in proceedings of the Court's Assembly of State Parties including the nomination and voting for Judges and Prosecutors of the court. The court is allowed to prosecute relevant crimes where they are committed either in the territory of a State Party or by a national of a State Party. State Parties must co-operate with the court's prosecutions including surrender of suspects to the court if requests.

Contents 1 Ratifications 2 Implementation and cooperation legislation 3 Progress towards ratification 3.1 Bahrain 3.2 Cape Verde 3.3 Chile 3.4 Czech Republic 3.5 Guatemala 3.6 Iraq 3.7 Japan 3.8 Nepal 3.9 Philippines 3.10 Thailand 3.11 Turkey 3.12 Ukraine 3.13 Yemen 4 Position of other countries 4.1 China 4.2 India 4.3 United States 5 External links 6 Notes and references

[edit] Ratifications

As of 1 November 2006, the following 104 countries have ratified or acceded to the ICC Statute:

• In Europe: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom

• In Africa: Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Comoros, Djibouti, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia.

• In the Americas: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela

• In Asia: Afghanistan, Cambodia, Jordan, Mongolia, South Korea, Tajikistan

• In Oceania: Australia, East Timor, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Samoa

[edit] Implementation and cooperation legislation

Under the treaty that established the court, member countries have a general obligation to cooperate with the court in the investigation and prosecution of crimes, including the arrest and surrender of suspects. ^[1]

The treaty also allows member countries to exercise jurisdiction and to prosecute their own nationals for relevant crimes under the principle of "complementarity". In order to do this, countries must first establish "implementing legislation" which creates the equivalent crimes in national law.

The current status for implementing and cooperation legislation is: ^[2]

Countries	Implementing Legislation	Co-operation Legislation
Australia, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom	Enacted	Enacted
Colombia, Republic of Congo, Serbia, Montenegro	Enacted	Draft
Burundi, Costa Rica, Mali, Niger, Portugal	Enacted	None
France, Norway, Peru, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland	Draft	Enacted
Austria, Latvia, Romania	None	Enacted
Argentina, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Dominica, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, South Korea, 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, East Timor, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea, Guyana, Liberia, Macedonia, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mongolia, Namibia, Nauru, Paraguay, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Tajikistan, Tanzania	None	None

[edit] Progress towards ratification

The following 40 countries have signed the Rome Statute but not yet ratified the treaty. Under customary international law 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. The U.S. and Israel originally signed the treaty but have since "unsigned" it in order to avoid these obligations.

Europe: Armenia, Czech Republic, Moldova, Monaco, Russia and Ukraine

Africa: Algeria, Angola, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt, Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Morocco, Mozambique, São Tomé and Príncipe, Seychelles, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

Americas: Bahamas, Chile, Guatemala, Haiti, Jamaica and Saint Lucia .

Asia: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Iran, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Oman, Philippines, Solomon Islands, Syria, Thailand, United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan.

[edit] Bahrain

The government of Bahrain announced in May 2006 that it would ratify the court in the session ending in July 2006.^[3]

[edit] Cape Verde

The parliament of Cape Verde has concluded that it would be necessary to amend the constitution before the court was ratified to allow for surrender of suspects and to lift the immunity of political leaders from prosecution. ^[4]

[edit] Chile

Before Chile can ratify the court treaty it must first amend its constitution. A constitutional reform bill is currently in progress through the Senate, but in August 2006 it was referred to the Senate Defense Committee amid fears of US sanctions should Chile ratify.^[5] Sen. Juan Antonio Coloma (UDI) said "this treaty has security implications that we have to evaluate ... We are dependent on the United States in defense matters, and there are laws that will be applied if we ratify the treaty"^[6]

[edit] Czech Republic

Although the Czech Republic is a member of the European Union, whose Common Foreign and Security Policy backs the court, the parliament rejected the ratification bill when it was tabled in 2001. The governing Civic Democratic Party opposes the court, arguing that the court may lead to complications in international conflicts and may deter dictators from standing down. ^[7] It is the only member state of the European Union not to have ratified the Rome Statute.

[edit] Guatemala

In a report from the United Nations Committee Against Torture in July 2006, the Committee noted assurances from the government of Guatemala that "necessary steps are being taken to ratify the Rome Statute"^[8]

[edit] Iraq

In February 2005 the Iraqi Transitional Government decided to ratify the court. However, two weeks later they reversed this decision,^[9] a move that the Coalition for the International Criminal Court claimed was due to pressure from the United States ^[10]

[edit] Japan

The government of Japan announced its intention to ratify and accede to the Court by July 2007.^[11] The national Diet will vote on its regular session beginning on January 2007 to consider ratification, along with approval of series of implementing legislations. A total of 1.9 billion yen (approx. USD 16.2 million) for appropriation to the Court has already been requested for the fiscal 2007 budget.^[12]

[edit] Nepal

The Nepalese Parliament unanimously endorsed the court in July 2006, asking the government to ratify the court immediately.^[13]

[edit] Philippines

The Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Philippines, José de Venecia, Jr. said in August 2006 that he supported ratification, but a series of dialogues were necessary with the armed forces and police prior to ratification in light of the various ongoing insurgencies involving the New People's Army, Abu Sayyaf and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.^[14]

[edit] Thailand

Former Senator Kraisak Choonhavan called in November 2006 for Thailand to ratify the court and to accept retrospective jurisdiction, so that former premier Thaksin Shinawatra could be investigated for crimes against humanity connected to 2,500 alleged extra-judicial killings carried out in 2003 against suspected drug dealers. ^[15]

[edit] Turkey

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.^[16] Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated in October 2004 that Turkey would soon ratify the court,^[17] and the Turkish constitution was amended in 2004 to explicitly allow nationals to be surrendered to the court.^[18]

[edit] Ukraine

In a statement ^[19] in October 2006 the Ambassador to the United Nations stated that Ukraine would submit a bill to the parliament to ratify that court.

[edit] Yemen

The Yemeni parliament voted in January 2006 to consider ratification in the 2006 session.^[20] The Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee presented its report to Parliament on 31 July but FIDH stated they did not expect the Parliament to consider this report before December.^[21]

[edit] Position of other countries

[edit] China

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 ^[22]

[edit] India

The government of India has consistently opposed the court. It abstained in the vote adopting of the statute in 1998, saying it objected to: ^[23]

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 principal 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 ^[24]

[edit] United States

Main article: United States and the International Criminal Court

[edit] External links

• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court - Signatories

• Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court - Signatories

[edit] Notes and references