Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The states
parties to
the Rome
Statute of
the
International Criminal Court are those sovereign states that have ratified, or have otherwise become party
to, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Rome Statute is the treaty that established the
International Criminal Court, an international court that has jurisdiction over certain international crimes,
including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes that are committed by nationals of states
parties or within the territory of states parties. States parties are legally obligated to co-operate with the
Court when it requires, such as in arresting and transferring indicted persons or providing access to evidence
and witnesses. States parties are entitled to participate and vote in proceedings of the Assembly of States
Parties, which is the Court's governing body. Such proceedings include the election of such officials as
judges and the Prosecutor, the approval of the Court's budget, and the adoption of amendments to the Rome
Statute.
Contents
1 States parties
1.1 Withdrawal
1.2 Implementing legislation
1.3 Summary of signatures and ratifications/accessions
States parties
As of 6 January 2015, 123 states have ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute.[1]
State party[1]
Signed
Ratified or
acceded
Entry into
force
Amend. 1[2]
Amend. 2[3]
Afghanistan
10 February
2003
1 May 2003
Albania
18 July 1998
31 January
2003
1 May 2003
Andorra
1 July 2002
26 September
2013
26 September
2013
23 October
1998
1 July 2002
18 June 2001
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
17 July 2014
17 July 2014
Bangladesh
16
September
1999
Barbados
8 September 10 December
2000
2002
1 March 2003
Belgium
10
September
1998
28 June 2000
1 July 2002
26 November
2013
26 November
2013
Belize
1 July 2002
Benin
24
September
1999
1 July 2002
Bolivia
1 September
2002
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
1 July 2002
Botswana
8 September 8 September
2000
2000
1 July 2002
4 June 2013
4 June 2013
Brazil
7 February
2000
20 June 2002
1 September
2002
Bulgaria
11 February
1999
11 April 2002
1 July 2002
Burkina Faso
30 November
16 April 2004
1998
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
7 July 2000
1998
1 July 2002
Cape Verde
28 December 10 October
2000
2011
1 January
2012
12 December
3 October 2001 1 July 2002
1999
Chad
20 October
1999
1 January
2007
Chile
11 September
29 June 2009
1998
1 September
2009
Colombia[A]
10 December
5 August 2002
1998
1 November
2002
Central African
Republic
22 January
2002
1 November
2006
22
September
2000
1 November
2006
8 September
11 April 2002
2000
1 July 2002
1 August
2004
Cook Islands
18 July 2008
1 October
2008
Costa Rica
7 October
1998
7 June 2001
1 July 2002
5 February
2015
5 February
2015
Cte d'Ivoire[B]
30 November 15 February
1998
2013
1 May 2013
Croatia
12 October
1998
21 May 2001
1 July 2002
20 December
2013
20 December
2013
Cyprus
15 October
1998
7 March 2002
1 July 2002
25 September
2013
25 September
2013
Czech Republic
13 April
1999
21 July 2009
1 October
2009
Denmark[C]
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
12 May 2005
2000
1 August
2005
East Timor
6 September
2002
1 December
2002
Ecuador
7 October
1998
5 February
2002
1 July 2002
Estonia
27 December 30 January
1999
2002
1 July 2002
Fiji
29 November 29 November
1999
1999
1 July 2002
Finland
7 October
1998
1 July 2002
France[D]
1 July 2002
Gabon
22 December 20 September
1998
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
5 December
2014
Comoros
Congo, Democratic
Republic of the
Congo, Republic of
the
18 August 2006
29 December
2000
Germany
10 December 11 December
1998
2000
1 July 2002
3 June 2013
3 June 2013
Ghana
18 July 1998
20 December
1999
1 July 2002
Greece
1 August
2002
Grenada
19 May 2011
1 August
2011
Guatemala
2 April 2012
1 July 2012
Guinea
7 September
14 July 2003
2000
1 October
2003
Guyana
28 December 24 September
2000
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
1 July 2002
Japan
17 July 2007
1 October
2007
Jordan
7 October
1998
11 April 2002
1 July 2002
Kenya
11 August
1999
Korea, South
8 March
2000
13 November
2002
1 February
2003
Latvia
22 April
1999
28 June 2002
1 September
2002
25 September
2014
25 September
2014
Lesotho
30 November 6 September
1998
2000
1 July 2002
Liberia
17 July 1998
1 December
2004
Liechtenstein
8 May 2012
8 May 2012
Lithuania
10 December
12 May 2003
1998
1 August
2003
Luxembourg
13 October
1998
8 September
2000
1 July 2002
15 January
2013
15 January
2013
Macedonia, Republic
7 October
1998
6 March 2002
1 July 2002
Madagascar
of
22 September
2004
Malawi
2 March
1999
19 September
2002
1 December
2002
Maldives
21 September
2011
1 December
2011
Mali
Malta
17 July 1998
1 February
2003
30 January
2015
30 January
2015
Marshall Islands
6 September 7 December
2000
2000
1 July 2002
Mauritius
11 November
5 March 2002
1998
1 July 2002
5 September
2013
Mexico
7 September 28 October
2000
2005
1 January
2006
Moldova
8 September 12 October
2000
2010
1 January
2011
Mongolia
29 December
11 April 2002
2000
1 July 2002
Montenegro[E]
23 October
2006
3 June 2006
Namibia
27 October
1998
25 June 2002
1 September
2002
Nauru
13 December 12 November
2000
2001
1 July 2002
Netherlands
1 July 2002
New Zealand[F]
7 October
1998
1 July 2002
1 July 2002
Niger
29 November
2002
7 September
2000
Nigeria
1 June 2000
27 September
2001
1 July 2002
Norway
28 August
1998
16 February
2000
1 July 2002
10 June 2013
Palestine[G][H]
Panama
Paraguay
7 October
1998
14 May 2001
1 July 2002
Peru
7 December
2000
10 November
2001
1 July 2002
Philippines
28 December
1 November
30 August 2011
2000
2011
Poland
9 April 1999
12 November
2001
1 July 2002
25 September
2014
25 September
2014
Portugal
7 October
1998
5 February
2002
1 July 2002
Romania
7 July 1999
11 April 2002
1 July 2002
Saint Lucia
27 August
1999
18 August 2010
1 November
2010
3 December
2002
1 March 2003
Samoa
17 July 1998
16 September
2002
1 December
2002
25 September
2012
25 September
2012
San Marino
1 July 2002
26 September
2011
14 November
2014
Senegal
18 July 1998
1 July 2002
Serbia
19 December 6 September
2000
2001
1 July 2002
Seychelles
28 December
1 November
10 August 2010
2000
2010
Sierra Leone
17 October
1998
15 September
2000
1 July 2002
Slovakia
23 December
11 April 2002
1998
1 July 2002
28 April 2014
28 April 2014
Slovenia
7 October
1998
31 December
2001
1 July 2002
25 September
2013
25 September
2013
South Africa
17 July 1998
27 November
2000
1 July 2002
Spain
18 July 1998
24 October
2000
1 July 2002
25 September
2014
25 September
2014
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
1 November
20 August 2002
2000
2002
Tajikistan
30 November
5 May 2000
1998
1 July 2002
23 March
1999
6 April 1999
1 July 2002
13 November
2012
13 November
2012
Tunisia
24 June 2011
1 September
2011
Uganda
17 March
1999
14 June 2002
1 September
2002
United Kingdom[I]
30 November
4 October 2001 1 July 2002
1998
Uruguay
19 December
26 September
26 September
2 February
1999
28 June 2002
1 September
2000
2002
2013
2013
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
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.[6] 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.[7] 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.[8] The summit concluded that serving heads of state should not be
put on trial, and that the Kenyan cases should be deferred.[9] However, the summit did not endorse the
proposal for a mass withdrawal due to lack of support for the idea.[10] 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.[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]
CoComplementarity
operation
legislation
legislation
States
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
Enacted
Draft
Enacted
None
Draft
Enacted
None
Enacted
Draft
Draft
None
Mexico
None
Draft
None
Date
Signatures
72
93
139
Date
72
87
27
112
48
92
87
55
92
51
97
46
100
43
104
105
108
40
110
38
114
34
120
121
41
32
122
31
123
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 already had consequences for the ICC judges election, 2011.[17]
Group
African Group
34
Asian Group
18
18
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, 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 made public four article 12(3) declarations.
State[18]
Date of acceptance
Start of jurisdiction
End of jurisdiction
19 September 2002
Indefinite
Palestine[G]
21 January 2009
1 July 2002
Indefinite
Ukraine[J]
9 April 2014
21 November 2013
22 February 2014
Palestine[G]
31 December 2014
13 June 2014
Indefinite
Italicized entries signify that declaration has been deemed invalid by the Office of the Prosecutor.
State[1]
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*[K]
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
3 December 1998
Sudan*[L]
8 September 2000
Syria
29 November 2000
Thailand
2 October 2000
Ukraine[J]
20 January 2000
United States*[M]
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.[32]
Three signatory states (Israel, Sudan, and the United States of America) have informed the UN Secretary
General that they no longer intend to become parties to the Rome Statute, and as such have no legal
obligations arising from their signature.
Bahrain
The government of Bahrain originally announced in May 2006 that it would ratify the Rome Statute in the
session ending in July 2006.[33] By December 2006 the ratification had not yet been completed, but the
Coalition for the International Criminal Court said they expected ratification in 2007.[34]
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.[35]
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 was prevented from joining any of the UN Regional Groups.[36]
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.[37]
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.[38] Governments under former presidents Megawati Sukarnoputri and Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono both pledged to ratify the Statute, but Defense Minister Purnomo Yusgiantoro said in
May 2013 that "we need more time to carefully and thoroughly review the pros and cons of the
ratification".[39][40]
Ukraine
A 2001 ruling of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine held that the Rome Statute is inconsistent with the
Constitution of Ukraine.[41] 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.[42] Ukraine ratified
APIC without having ratified the Rome Statute on 2007-01-29.[43] 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
countrys constitution."[44] A bill to make the necessary constitutional amendments was tabled in Parliament
in May 2014.[45][46]
United States
There is presently bipartisan consensus that the United States does not intend to ratify the Rome Statute.[47]
Some US Senators have suggested that the treaty could not be ratified without a constitutional
amendment.[48] 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.[49] 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,[50][51] but indicated that he
would not recommend that his successor, George W. Bush, submit it to the Senate for ratification.[52] 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.[53] 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 nonnational 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.[54] The United States has cut aid to many countries
which have refused to sign BIAs.[54]
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.[55] 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.[55] 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.[56]
Yemen
On 24 March 2007, the Yemeni parliament voted to ratify the Rome Statute.[57][58] However, some MPs
claim that this vote breached parliamentary rules, and have demanded another vote. In that further vote, the
ratification was retracted.[59]
Azerbaijan
Iraq
Nepal
South Sudan
Belarus
Kazakhstan
Nicaragua
Sri Lanka
Bhutan
Kiribati
Pakistan
Swaziland
Brunei
Korea, North
Palau
Togo
China
Laos
Papua New
Tonga
Cuba
Lebanon
El Salvador
Libya
Qatar
Turkmenistan
Equatorial
Malaysia
Rwanda
Tuvalu
Mauritania
Saudi Arabia
Vatican City
Ethiopia
Micronesia
Singapore
Vietnam
India
Myanmar
Somalia
Guinea
Guinea
Turkey
Indonesia
China
The People's Republic of China has opposed the Court, on the basis that it goes against the sovereignty of
nation states, that the principle of complementarity gives the Court the ability to judge a nation's court
system, that war crimes jurisdiction covers internal as well as international conflicts, that the Court's
jurisdiction covers peacetime crimes against humanity, that the inclusion of the crime of aggression weakens
the role of the UN Security Council, and that the Prosecutor's right to initiate prosecutions may open the
Court to political influence.[60]
El Salvador
In early April 2012, the Foreign Ministry of El Salvador made a statement that the country is to ratify the
Rome Statute during 2012.[61] As of June 2014, parliament was considering ratifying the Statute.[62][63]
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 the broad definition adopted of crimes against humanity; the rights given to the
UN Security Council to refer and delay investigations and bind non-states parties; and the use of nuclear
weapons and other weapons of mass destruction not being explicitly criminalized.[64] Other anxieties about
the Court concern how the principle of complementarity would be applied to the Indian criminal justice
system, the inclusion of war crimes for non-international conflicts, and the power of the Prosecutor to initiate
prosecutions.[65]
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.[66] 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.[66] 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.[67] 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".[68]
Iraq
In February 2005 the Iraqi Transitional Government decided to ratify the Rome Statute. However, two weeks
later they reversed this decision,[69] a move that the Coalition for the International Criminal Court claimed
was due to pressure from the United States.[70]
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.[71]
Malaysia
In 2011, Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, the Malaysian minister in charge of Law & Parliamentary Affairs,
stated that the government had agreed to ratify the Rome Statute.[72] 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.[73]
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.[74]
In March 2015 Narahari Acharya, Ministry of Law, Justice, Constituent Assembly and Parliamentary Affairs
of Nepal said that the government had "formed a taskforce to conduct a study about the process" of ratifying
the Statute, following a resolution from Parliament. However, he said that "it is possible only after
promulgating the new constitution", which is being debated by the 2nd Nepalese Constituent
Assembly.[75][76]
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 several objections, including the fact that the Statute
does not provide for reservations upon ratification or accession, the inclusion of provisional arrest, and the
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.[77]
South Sudan
South Sudan's President Salva Kiir Mayardit said in 2013 that the country would not join the ICC.[78]
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.[79] Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoan stated in October 2004 that Turkey would "soon" ratify the
Rome Statute,[80] and the Turkish constitution was amended in 2004 to explicitly allow nationals to be
surrendered to the Court.[81] However, in January 2008, the Erdoan government reversed its position,
deciding to shelve accession because of concerns it could undermine efforts against the Kurdistan Workers
Party.[82]
See also
List of Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the Assembly of States Parties of the International Criminal
Court
European Union and the International Criminal Court
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. On 1 October 2003 the Ivorian government submitted a declaration, dated 18 April 2003, accepting the Court's
jurisdiction for "acts committed on Ivorian territory since the events of 19 September 2002."[4] Cte d'Ivoire
subsequently acceded to the Rome Statute, on 15 February 2013, and therefore is now a state party.
C. The Rome Statute entered into force for the Faroe Islands on 1 October 2006 and for Greenland on 1 October 2004.
D. 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.
E. 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.
F. The Rome Statute is not in force for Tokelau.
G. The Palestinian National Authority submitted a declaration on 22 January 2009, dated the previous day, accepting the
Court's jurisdiction for "acts committed on the territory of Palestine since 1 July 2002."[19] However, on 3 April 2012
the Prosecutor of the ICC deemed the declaration invalid because the Rome Statute only permits sovereign states to
make such a declaration and Palestine was designated an "observer entity" within the United Nations (the body that is
the depositary for the Rome Statute) at the time.[20] On 29 November 2012, the United Nations General Assembly
voted in favour of recognising Palestine as a non-member observer state.[21] However, in November 2013 the Office
of the Prosecutor concluded that this decision did "not cure the legal invalidity of the 2009 declaration."[22] A second
declaration accepting the court's jurisdiction was reportedly submitted in July 2014 by Palestine's Justice Minister
Saleem al-Saqqa and General Prosecutor Ismaeil Jabr, but the Prosecutor responded that only the Head of State, Head
of Government or Minister of Foreign Affairs had the authority to make such a declaration. After failing to receive
confirmation from Minister of Foreign Affairs Riyad al-Maliki during an August meeting that the declaration had
been made on behalf of the Palestinian government, the Prosecutor concluded that the declaration was invalid
because it did not come from an authority with the power to make it.[23] On 2 September 2014, the Prosecutor
clarified that if Palestine filed a new declaration, or acceded to the Rome Statute, it would be deemed valid.[24] In
December 2014, the assembly of state parties of the ICC recognized Palestine as a "state".[25][26] A new declaration
was submitted 1 January 2015 by Palestine, dated 31 December 2014, accepting the court's jurisdiction effective 13
June 2014.[27] Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute on 2 January 2015, and therefore is now a state party.
H. Canada filed a declaration stating that it does not recognize Palestine as a state and as such it does not considers the
Rome Statute to be in force between it and Palestine.[5]
I. 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.
J. Ukraine submitted a declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the court for a limited time period on 17 April
2014.[28][29] A bill to extend the jurisdiction was approved by Parliament in February 2015.[30][31]
K. 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.[1]
L. 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.[1]
M. 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.[1]
References
19. "Declaration by the Palestinian National Authority Accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court"
(http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/74EEE201-0FED-4481-95D4C8071087102C/279777/20090122PalestinianDeclaration2.pdf) (PDF). ICC. 2009-01-21. Retrieved 2014-09-05.
20. ICC "Prosecutor's Update on the situation in Palestine" (http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/C6162BBF-FEB94FAF-AFA9-836106D2694A/284387/SituationinPalestine030412ENG.pdf) (PDF). ICC. 2012-04-03. Retrieved
2014-09-05.
21. "Q&A: Palestinians' upgraded UN status" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13701636). BBC News.
2012-11-30. Retrieved 2014-09-05.
22. "Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2013" (http://www.icccpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/Documents/OTP%20Preliminary%20Examinations/
OTP%20-%20Report%20%20Preliminary%20Examination%20Activities%202013.PDF) (PDF). Office of the
Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. 2013-11-25. Retrieved 2014-08-18.
23. "Is the PA stalling Gaza war crimes probe?" (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/09/pa-leadershipspeaking-with-two-voices-2014911101131329372.html). Al Jazeera. 2014-09-12. Retrieved 2014-10-11.
24. Bensouda, Fatou (2014-08-29). "Fatou Bensouda: the truth about the ICC and Gaza"
(http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/29/icc-gaza-hague-court-investigate-war-crimes-palestine).
The Guardian. Retrieved 2014-09-01.
25. "ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
- THIRTEENTH SESSION" (http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/ASP13/OR/ICC-ASP-13-20-ENG-OR-VolI.pdf) (PDF). International Criminal Court. 2014-12-17. Retrieved 2014-12-31.
26. "Hague-based ICC accepts Palestine's status" (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2014/12/hague-based-iccupgrades-palestine-status-201412819334914439.html). Al Jazeera. 2014-12-09. Retrieved 2014-12-29.
27. "Declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court" (http://www.icccpi.int/iccdocs/PIDS/press/Palestine_A_12-3.pdf) (PDF). International Criminal Court. 2014-12-31. Retrieved
2015-01-04.
28. "Ukraine declaration" (http://www.icccpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/Documents/997/declarationRecognitionJuristiction0
9-04-2014.pdf) (PDF). Embassy of Ukraine. 2014-04-09. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
29. "Ukraine accepts ICC jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed between 21 November 2013 and 22 February
2014" (http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/Pages/pr997.aspx). ICC.
2014-04-17. Retrieved 2014-09-05.
30. "
,
36. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 30 June 2002. Israel and the International Criminal Court
(http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2002/Pages/Israel%20and%20the%20International%20Criminal%20Court.aspx). Accessed 2002-06-30.
37. Lawyers urge Kuwait to become ICC member (http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?
newsid=MTgxOTI3NDY1OA==), Kuwait Times, 2007-03-26, accessed on 2007-04-05
38. War on drugs returns to bite Thaksin (http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=114443),
Bangkok Post, 2006-11-23
39. Kusuma Sundari, Eva (2013-12-16). "Support the ratification of the Rome Statute, generals"
(http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/12/16/support-ratification-rome-statute-generals.html). The Jakarta Post.
Retrieved 2015-04-03.
40. Aritonang, Margareth (2013-05-21). "Govt officially rejects Rome Statute"
(http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/05/21/govt-officially-rejects-rome-statute.html). The Jakarta Post.
Retrieved 2015-04-03.
41. "Decision of Constitutional Court of Ukraine (Ukrainian)" (http://zakon1.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi?
nreg=v003v710-01). Zakon1.rada.gov.ua. Retrieved 2011-11-04.
42. Statement by Ukraine regarding the Report of the International Criminal Court
(http://www.un.int/ukraine/news/releases/2006/statement091006.htm), UN, 2006-10-09.
43. http://www.iccnow.org/documents/CICC_APIClist_current.pdf
44. ICC President meets Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine (http://icc-cpi.int/NR/exeres/1E158E8B-1072-4B82891F-226F2CFB69EF.htm). ICC. 4 April 2012. Retrieved 4 April 2012.
45. " 124 (
)" (http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc4_1?pf3511=50903). Verkhovna Rada. Retrieved 2014-11-18.
46. " 124 (
)" (http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc4_1?pf3511=53621). Verkhovna Rada. Retrieved 2015-01-28.
47. "Clinton's statement on war crimes court" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1095580.stm). BBC News. 2000-12-31.
48. "Article III | LII / Legal Information Institute"
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html#section2). Law.cornell.edu. 2011-10-24.
Retrieved 2011-11-04.
49. U.S. News & World Report: "The Brief for a World Court
(http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/971006/archive_007985_2.htm), A permanent war-crimes tribunal is
coming, but will it have teeth?" By Thomas Omestad; Posted 9/28/97
50. Amnesty International. US Threats to the International Criminal Court (http://web.amnesty.org/pages/iccUS_threats-eng). Accessed 2006-11-23.
51. Brett D. Schaefer, 9 January 2001. Overturning Clinton's Midnight Action on the International Criminal Court
(http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/EM708.cfm). The Heritage Foundation. Accessed
2006-11-23.
52. Curtis A Bradley, May 2002. U.S. Announces Intent Not to Ratify International Criminal Court Treaty
(http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh87.htm). The American Society of International Law. Accessed 2006-11-23.
53. John R Bolton, 6 May 2002. International Criminal Court: Letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan (http://20012009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/9968.htm). US Department of State. Accessed 2006-11-23.
54. Coalition for the International Criminal Court, 2006. Status of US Bilateral Immunity Acts
(http://www.iccnow.org/documents/CICCFS_BIAstatusCurrent.pdf). Accessed 2006-11-23.
55. Human Rights Watch, The ICC and the Security Council: Resolution 1422
(http://hrw.org/campaigns/icc/docs/1422legal.htm). Accessed 2007-01-11.
56. BBC News, 20 March 2006. Q&A: International Criminal Court (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3834237.stm).
Accessed 2007-01-11.
57. gulfnews.com, 26 March 2007. Yemen becomes fourth Arab country to ratify ICC statute
(http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/03/26/10113614.html). Accessed 27 March 2007.
58. Amnesty International, 27 March 2007. Amnesty International urges Yemen to complete the ratification of the Rome
Statute (http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=ENGMDE310042007). Accessed 2007-04-01.
59. Almotamar.net, 9 April 2007. [1] (http://www.almotamar.net/en/2330.htm). Accessed 2021-05-19.
60. Lu, Jianping; Wang, Zhixiang (2005-07-06). "China's Attitude Towards the ICC"
(http://jicj.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/3/608). Journal of International Criminal Justice (Oxford University Press) 3
(3): 608620. doi:10.1093/jicj/mqi056 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1093%2Fjicj%2Fmqi056). Retrieved 2014-09-26.
61. Information on ratification and implementation of the Rome Statute (http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?
u=8758bcde31bc78a5c32ceee50&id=d155f6c4cc). Coalition for the International Criminal Court. Retrieved 26 April
2012.
62. "Asamblea someter a consulta ratificacin del Estatuto de Roma" (http://www.asamblea.gob.sv/noticias/archivo-denoticias/asamblea-sometera-a-consulta-ratificacion-del-estatuto-de-roma). Legislative Assembly of El Salvador.
2014-06-09. Retrieved 2015-04-03.
63. "Asamblea inicia proceso de estudio sobre ratificacin del Estatuto de Roma"
(http://www.asamblea.gob.sv/noticias/archivo-de-noticias/asamblea-inicia-proceso-de-estudio-sobre-ratificacion-delestatuto-de-roma). Legislative Assembly of El Salvador. 2014-06-23. Retrieved 2015-04-03.
64. Explanation of vote on the adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court
(http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/ICC/ICC_Adoption_July_17_1998.html), Embassy of India, 1998-07-17
65. Ramanathan, Usha (2005-06-21). "India and the ICC" (http://jicj.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/3/627). Journal of
International Criminal Justice (Oxford University Press) 3 (3): 627634. doi:10.1093/jicj/mqi055
(https://dx.doi.org/10.1093%2Fjicj%2Fmqi055). Retrieved 2014-09-26.
66. Amnesty International, Fact sheet: Indonesia and the International Criminal Court. DOC
(http://www.amnesty.org.hk/html/uploads/ICC_Indonesia.doc), HTML
(http://web.archive.org/web/20070928195400/http://www.amnesty.org.hk/html/uploads/ICC_Indonesia.doc).
Accessed 2007-01-23.
67. RI to join global criminal court (http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailheadlines.asp?fileid=20070210.B08&irec=7),
Jakarta Post, 2007-02-11, accessed on 2007-02-11
68. Aritonang, Margareth (2013-05-21). "Govt officially rejects Rome Statute"
(http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/05/21/govt-officially-rejects-rome-statute.html). The Jakarta Post.
Retrieved 2013-07-09.
69. Iraq Pulls Out Of International Criminal Court (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/03/52ea521c-4b82-4f8c8611-ca137c3606ed.html), Radio Free Europe, 2005-03-02
70. Groups Urge Iraq to Join International Criminal Court (http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?
file=/headlines05/0808-06.htm), Common Dreams, 2005-08-08
71. Justice campaigners say US urged Lebanon not to join International Criminal Court
(http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=1&article_id=99992), Daily Star (Lebanon), 200903-12
72. Pandiyan, Veera (2015-01-28). "Ratify the Rome Statute" (http://www.thestar.com.my/Opinion/Columnists/AlongThe-Watchtower/Profile/Articles/2015/01/28/Ratify-the-Rome-Statute-Ensuring-justice-for-victims-of-MH17-isamong-the-reasons-why-Malaysia-shoul/). The Star. Retrieved 2015-04-03.
73. CICC: Asia Update Issue 7 (http://iccnow.org/documents/Asia_Update_Issue7.pdf). Retrieved 1 November 2011.
74. 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 (http://www.pgaction.org/uploadedfiles/Final%20Document%20MANILA.pdf),
HTML
(http://web.archive.org/web/20070927051334/http://www.pgaction.org/uploadedfiles/Final%20Document%20MANI
LA.pdf) 16 August 2006. Accessed 2007-01-23.
75. "Govt to ratify Rome Statute soon: Minister" (http://www.myrepublica.com/politics/item/17343-govt-to-ratify-romestatute-soon-minister.html). Repblica. 2015-03-17. Retrieved 2015-04-03.
76. "Wait for consensus cannot exceed two months: Acharya" (http://thehimalayantimes.com/rssReference.php?
headline=Wait+for+consensus+cannot+exceed+two+months%3A+Acharya&NewsID=448729). The Himalayan
Times. 2015-03-21. Retrieved 2015-04-03.
77. http://www.amicc.org/docs/Pakistan1422Stmt12June03.pdf
78. McNeish, Hannah (2013-05-23). "South Sudan's President Says 'Never' to ICC"
(http://www.voanews.com/content/south-sudan-president-says-never-to-icc/1667226.html). Voice of America.
Retrieved 2015-04-03.
79. Council Common Position on the International Criminal Court
(http://www.amicc.org/docs/EUCommonPos6_03.pdf), American Coalition for the International Criminal Court,
2003-06-13
80. Turkey, EU and the International Criminal Court (http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=794), Journal of
Turkish Weekly, 2005-04-14
81. Constitutional Amendments (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?
q=cache:hS0Df1zrdjAJ:www.abig.org.tr/images/constitutional%2520amendments.doc), Secretariat-General for EU
Affairs (Turkey), 2004-05-10
82. Turkey shelves accession to world criminal court (http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?
load=detay&link=130916), Zaman, 2008-01-20, accessed on 2008-01-20