States parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

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 January 2012, 120 states are states parties to the Statute of the Court, including all of South America, nearly all of Europe and roughly half the countries in Africa.[1] The Statute will enter into force for its 120th state party, Vanuatu, on 1 February 2012. A further 32 countries, including Russia, have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute[1]; one of them, Côte d'Ivoire, has accepted the Court's jurisdiction.[2] The law of treaties obliges these states to refrain from “acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the treaty.[3] Three of these states—Israel, Sudan and the United States—have "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 former representatives' signature of the Statute.[1][4] 42 United Nations member states 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] The Palestinian National Authority, which neither is nor represents a United Nations member state, has formally accepted the jurisdiction of the Court.[7] It is unclear, however, if this acceptance is legally valid.[8]

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.

Contents

States parties

As of 1 January 2012, 120 states have ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute.[9] The Statute will enter into force for its 120th state party, Vanuatu, on 1 February 2012. The states parties are shown in alphabetical order according to their official name within the Assembly of States Parties.[10]

State party Signed Ratified or acceded Entry into force
 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
 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
 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
 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 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
 Croatia 12 October 1998 21 May 2001 1 July 2002
 Cyprus 15 October 1998 7 March 2002 1 July 2002
 Czech Republic 13 April 1999 21 July 2009 1 October 2009
 Democratic Republic of the Congo 8 September 2000 11 April 2002 1 July 2002
 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
 Ecuador 7 October 1998 5 February 2002 1 July 2002
 Estonia 27 December 1999 30 January 2002 1 July 2002
 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 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
 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
 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
 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
 Lithuania 10 December 1998 12 May 2003 1 August 2003
 Luxembourg 13 October 1998 8 September 2000 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
 Mexico 7 September 2000 28 October 2005 1 January 2006
 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
 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
 Republic of Korea 8 March 2000 13 November 2002 1 February 2003
 Republic of Moldova 8 September 2000 12 October 2010 1 January 2011
 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
 San Marino 18 July 1998 13 May 1999 1 July 2002
 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
 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
 Tajikistan 30 November 1998 5 May 2000 1 July 2002
 The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 7 October 1998 6 March 2002 1 July 2002
 Timor-Leste — 6 September 2002 1 December 2002
 Trinidad and Tobago 23 March 1999 6 April 1999 1 July 2002
 Tunisia — 24 June 2011 1 September 2011
 Uganda 17 March 1999 14 June 2002 1 September 2002
 United Kingdom 30 November 1998 4 October 2001 1 July 2002
 United Republic of Tanzania 29 December 2000 20 August 2002 1 November 2002
 Uruguay 19 December 2000 28 June 2002 1 September 2002
 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

Resentment in Africa

Several African states, including Comoros, Djibouti, and Senegal called on African states parties to withdraw en masse from the statute in protest at allegations that the Court targets Africa and specifically at the indictment of Sudanese President, Omar al-Bashir.[11]

Implementing legislation

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.[12] 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”.[13]

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.[14]

As of April 2006, the following states had enacted or drafted implementing legislation:[15]

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 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, United Republic of Tanzania None None

Summary of signatures and ratifications/accessions

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 2, 2011 120 32

Allocation of judges

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[16] 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 will already have consequences for the ICC judges election, 2011.[17]

Group Number of states parties Number of judges allocated
African Group 33 3
Asian Group 18 3
Eastern European Group 18 3
Latin American and Caribbean Group 26 3
Western European and Others Group 25 3

Acceptance of jurisdiction

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. 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[F] 1 October 2003 19 September 2002
 Palestine[G] 22 January 2009 1 July 2002

Signatories

Of the 139 states that had signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 32 have not ratified the treaty.[9]

State Signature
 Algeria 28 December 2000
 Angola 7 October 1998
 Armenia 1 October 1999
 Bahamas 29 December 2000
 Bahrain 11 December 2000
 Cameroon 17 July 1998
 Côte d'Ivoire[F] 30 November 1998
 Egypt 26 December 2000
 Eritrea 7 October 1998
 Guinea-Bissau 12 September 2000
 Haiti 26 February 1999
 Iran 31 December 2000
 Israel[H] 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[I] 8 September 2000
 Syrian Arab Republic 29 November 2000
 Thailand 2 October 2000
 Ukraine 20 January 2000
 United Arab Emirates 27 November 2000
 United States of America[J] 31 December 2000
 Uzbekistan 29 December 2000
 Yemen 28 December 2000
 Zimbabwe 17 July 1998

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.[18] 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

The government of Bahrain originally announced in May 2006 that it would ratify the Rome Statute in the session ending in July 2006.[19] By December 2006 the ratification had not yet been completed, but the Coalition for the International Criminal Court said they expected ratification in 2007.[20]

Israel

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.[21]

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.[22]

Kuwait

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.[23]

Thailand

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.[24]

Ukraine

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.[25] Ukraine ratified APIC without having ratified the Rome Statute on 2007-01-29.[26] This is despite a 2001 ruling of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine that the Rome Statute is inconsistent with the Constitution of Ukraine.[27]

United States

Main article: United States and the International Criminal Court

There is presently bipartisan consensus that the United States does not intend to ratify the Rome Statute.[28] Some US Senators have suggested that the treaty could not be ratified without a constitutional amendment.[29] 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.[30] 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,[31][32] but indicated that he would not recommend that his successor, George W. Bush, submit it to the Senate for ratification.[33] On 6 May 2002, the Bush administration announced it was nullifying the United States' signature of the treaty.[34] 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.[35] The United States has cut aid to many countries which have refused to sign BIAs.[35]

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.[36] 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.[36] 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.[37]

Yemen

On 24 March 2007, the Yemeni parliament voted to ratify the Rome Statute.[38][39] However, some MPs claim that this vote breached parliamentary rules, and have demanded another vote. It is unclear whether parliament has the right to vote again on the issue at this stage, or whether the President will proceed with ratification despite parliament's objections.[40][41]

Accession states

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, twelve states — Afghanistan, Cook Islands, Dominica, East Timor, Grenada, 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,[1][42] and a number of other states have taken steps to do so:

Guatemala

In July 2006, the United Nations Committee Against Torture noted assurances from the government of Guatemala that "necessary steps are being taken to ratify the Rome Statute".[43]

Indonesia

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”.[44] 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.[44] 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.[45]

Iraq

In February 2005 the Iraqi Transitional Government decided to ratify the Rome Statute. However, two weeks later they reversed this decision,[46] a move that the Coalition for the International Criminal Court claimed was due to pressure from the United States.[47]

Lebanon

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.[48]

Malaysia

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.[49]

Nepal

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.[50]

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.[51] Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated in October 2004 that Turkey would "soon" ratify the Rome Statute,[52] and the Turkish constitution was amended in 2004 to explicitly allow nationals to be surrendered to the Court.[53] 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.[54]

The position of other states

The PRC

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[55]

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:[56]

  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[57]

Pakistan

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 the world's largest supplier of peacekeepers) has, like the United States, expressed reservations about the potential use of politically motivated charges against peacekeepers.[58]

See also

Notes

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 did not apply to the Faroe Islands and Greenland until 1 October 2006 and 1 October 2004, respectively.
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.[59]
D Montenegro acceded to the Rome Statute on 3 June 2006 (the date of its independence) 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 Ivorian government submitted its declaration on 1 October 2003.[60] 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."[61]
G The Palestinian National Authority submitted a declaration on 22 January 2009.[62] The declaration is dated 21 January 2009 and accepts the Court's jurisdiction for "acts committed on the territory of Palestine since 1 July 2002."[63] However, since the Palestinian territories are not universally recognized as a sovereign state, it is unclear whether the Palestinian National Authority has the power to make such a declaration.[64]
H 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.
I 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.
J On 6 May 2002, the United States of America declared that it no longer intended to ratify the treaty and therefore no longer bears any legal obligations arising from its signature.

References

  1. ^ a b c d United Nations Treaty Database entry regarding the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Retrieved 10 March 2010.
  2. ^ ICC press release on Côte d'Ivoire's acception of jurisdiction. Retrieved 6 April 2011.
  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 23 November 2006.
  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. http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/74EEE201-0FED-4481-95D4-C8071087102C/279777/20090122PalestinianDeclaration2.pdf. Retrieved 2011-04-06. 
  8. ^ Simons, Marlise (2009-02-10). "War court asked to examine Gaza war". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/world/africa/10iht-hague.4.20086185.html. Retrieved 2011-04-06. 
  9. ^ a b "Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court". United Nations Treaty Collection. 2011-12-05. http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10&chapter=18&lang=en. Retrieved 2011-12-05. 
  10. ^ "The States Parties to the Rome Statute". International Criminal Court. 2011-09-22. http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ASP/states+parties/. Retrieved 2011-09-22. 
  11. ^ African ICC Members Mull Withdrawal Over Bashir Indictment, Voice of America, 2009-06-08
  12. ^ Amnesty International, Implementation. Accessed 2007-01-23. See also Article 86 of the Rome Statute
  13. ^ Part 9 of the Rome Statute. Accessed 2007-01-23.
  14. ^ [See Article 17 of the Rome Statute
  15. ^ Amnesty International, The International Criminal Court: Summary of draft and enacted implementing legislation. Accessed 2007-01-23.
  16. ^ 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.
  17. ^ Note verbale regarding the change of minimum voting requirement for Asia-Pacific states. 13 October 2011. Retrieved 17 October 2011.
  18. ^ Part II §1 Art. 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
  19. ^ The ratification and implementation of the Statute of the International Criminal Court in Bahrain, FIDH, 2006-07-10.
  20. ^ Rights push for key court pact, Gulf Daily News, 2006-12-21.
  21. ^ The American Non-Governmental Organizations Coalition for the International Criminal Court. Ratifications & Declarations. Accessed 2006-12-04.
  22. ^ Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 30 June 2002. Israel and the International Criminal Court. Accessed 2002-06-30.
  23. ^ Lawyers urge Kuwait to become ICC member, Kuwait Times, 2007-03-26, accessed on 2007-04-05
  24. ^ War on drugs returns to bite Thaksin, Bangkok Post, 2006-11-23
  25. ^ Statement by Ukraine regarding the Report of the International Criminal Court, UN, 2006-10-09.
  26. ^ http://www.iccnow.org/documents/CICC_APIClist_current.pdf
  27. ^ "Decision of Constitutional Court of Ukraine (Ukrainian)". Zakon1.rada.gov.ua. http://zakon1.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi?nreg=v003v710-01. Retrieved 2011-11-04. 
  28. ^ "Clinton's statement on war crimes court". BBC News. 2000-12-31. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1095580.stm. 
  29. ^ "Article III | LII / Legal Information Institute". Law.cornell.edu. 2011-10-24. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html#section2. Retrieved 2011-11-04. 
  30. ^ 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
  31. ^ Amnesty International. US Threats to the International Criminal Court. Accessed 2006-11-23.
  32. ^ Brett D. Schaefer, 9 January 2001. Overturning Clinton's Midnight Action on the International Criminal Court. The Heritage Foundation. Accessed 2006-11-23.
  33. ^ 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.
  34. ^ John R Bolton, 6 May 2002. International Criminal Court: Letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. US Department of State. Accessed 2006-11-23.
  35. ^ a b Coalition for the International Criminal Court, 2006. Status of US Bilateral Immunity Acts. Accessed 2006-11-23.
  36. ^ a b Human Rights Watch, The ICC and the Security Council: Resolution 1422. Accessed 2007-01-11.
  37. ^ BBC News, 20 March 2006. Q&A: International Criminal Court. Accessed 2007-01-11.
  38. ^ gulfnews.com, 26 March 2007. “Yemen becomes fourth Arab country to ratify ICC statute”. Accessed 27 March 2007.
  39. ^ Amnesty International, 27 March 2007. Amnesty International urges Yemen to complete the ratification of the Rome Statute. Accessed 2007-04-01.
  40. ^ News Yemen, 8 April 2007. “Legal controversy in Parliament over ICC Rome Statute”. Accessed 2007-04-10.
  41. ^ gulfnews.com, 9 April 2007. “Yemen parliament recants vote for ICC”. Accessed 2007-04-10.
  42. ^ "Global NGO Coalition Welcomes Grenada’s Accession to the Rome Statute" (PDF). Coalition for the International Criminal Court. http://www.iccnow.org/documents/CICC_11_05_Grenada_Accession_PR_FINAL.pdf. Retrieved 2011-05-20. 
  43. ^ United Nations Committee Against Torture, 25 July 2006. Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 19 of the Convention. PDF, HTML. Accessed 2007-01-23.
  44. ^ a b Amnesty International, Fact sheet: Indonesia and the International Criminal Court. DOC, HTML. Accessed 2007-01-23.
  45. ^ RI to join global criminal court, Jakarta Post, 2007-02-11, accessed on 2007-02-11
  46. ^ Iraq Pulls Out Of International Criminal Court, Radio Free Europe, 2005-03-02
  47. ^ Groups Urge Iraq to Join International Criminal Court, Common Dreams, 2005-08-08
  48. ^ Justice campaigners say US urged Lebanon not to join International Criminal Court, Daily Star (Lebanon), 2009-03-12
  49. ^ CICC: Asia Update Issue 7. Retrieved 1 November 2011.
  50. ^ 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.
  51. ^ Council Common Position on the International Criminal Court, American Coalition for the International Criminal Court, 2003-06-13
  52. ^ Turkey, EU and the International Criminal Court, Journal of Turkish Weekly, 2005-04-14
  53. ^ Constitutional Amendments, Secretariat-General for EU Affairs (Turkey), 2004-05-10
  54. ^ Turkey shelves accession to world criminal court, Zaman, 2008-01-20, accessed on 2008-01-20
  55. ^ “China's Attitude Towards the ICC”, Lu Jianping and Wang Zhixiang, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2005-07-06.
  56. ^ Explanation of vote on the adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, Embassy of India, 1998-07-17
  57. ^ India and the ICC, Usha Ramanathan, Journal of International Criminal Law, 2005.
  58. ^ http://www.amicc.org/docs/Pakistan1422Stmt12June03.pdf
  59. ^ See German Federal Gazzette (Bundesgesetzblatt) 2009 II, p. 38.
  60. ^ "Communications, Referrals and Preliminary Examinations: Côte d'Ivoire". International Criminal Court. http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Structure+of+the+Court/Office+of+the+Prosecutor/Comm+and+Ref/C%C3%B4te+dIvoire/. Retrieved 2011-04-06. 
  61. ^ "Declaration by the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire Accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court" (PDF). International Criminal Court. 2003-04-18. http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/7DA08D8E-FF5E-40C8-92D7-F058D5B032F3/279844/ICDEENG.pdf. Retrieved 2011-04-06. 
  62. ^ "Communications, Referrals and Preliminary Examinations: Palestine". International Criminal Court. http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Structure+of+the+Court/Office+of+the+Prosecutor/Comm+and+Ref/Palestine/. Retrieved 2011-04-06. 
  63. ^ "Declaration by the Palestinian National Authority Accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court" (PDF). International Criminal Court. 2009-01-21. http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/74EEE201-0FED-4481-95D4-C8071087102C/279777/20090122PalestinianDeclaration2.pdf. Retrieved 2011-04-06. 
  64. ^ Simons, Marlise (2009-02-10). "War court asked to examine Gaza war". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/world/africa/10iht-hague.4.20086185.html. Retrieved 2011-04-06.