State Parties of the International Criminal Court

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court are those countries that have ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. As of March 2007, 104 states are party to the Rome Statute and 41 states have signed but not ratified the treaty. Several other states have not signed the treaty but have indicated their intention to accede to it.

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 1 States Parties 1.1 Implementing legislation 2 Signatories 2.1 Bahrain 2.2 Cape Verde 2.3 Chile 2.4 Czech Republic 2.5 Israel 2.6 Philippines 2.7 Thailand 2.8 Ukraine 2.9 United States of America 2.10 Yemen 3 Accession states 3.1 Guatemala 3.2 Indonesia 3.3 Iraq 3.4 Japan 3.5 Nepal 3.6 Turkey 4 The position of other states 4.1 China 4.2 India 5 Notes and references

[edit] States Parties

As of January 2007, the following 104 countries have ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute:^[1][2]

• 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] 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.^[3] 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”.^[4]

Under the Rome Statute's complementarity principle, States Parties also have an obligation to implement national legislation to provide for the investigation and prosecution of crimes that fall under the jurisdiction of the court.^{[citation needed]}

As of April 2006, the following states had enacted or drafted implementing legislation:^[5]

Countries	Complementarity 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] Signatories

As of January 2007, 41 countries have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute:^[1][2]

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

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

• In the Americas: Bahamas, Chile, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Lucia and the United States.

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

However, two of these states — the United States and Israel — have indicated that they do not intend to ratify the treaty, which they have termed "unsigning" the treaty ^[2].

According to 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 ^[6][7].

[edit] Bahrain

The government of Bahrain originally announced in May 2006 that it would ratify the court in the session ending in July 2006.^[8] By December 2006 the ratification had not yet been completed, but the Coalition for the International Criminal Court said they expected ratification in 2007.^[9]

[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.^[10]

[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.^[11] 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".^[12]

[edit] Czech Republic

The Czech Republic signed the Rome Statute on 13 April 1999, but the national legislature has so far blocked ratification.^[13] Ratification will require a constitutional amendment.^[13] The Czech Republic is the only one of the 27 member states of the European Union that is not a State Party to the Rome Statute, a fact which was heavily criticised by the KDU–ČSL head of the Government Legislative Council Cyril Svoboda; he vowed to bring the issue up with ODS Minister of Justice Jiří Pospíšil.^[14] In March 2007 the Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek said they now had no reason to object to the court and would pass the proposal to ministries for comment in April so that it could be ratified before the Czech Republic assumed the Presidency of the European Council in January 2009. ^[15]

[edit] Israel

Israel voted against the adoption of the Rome Statute but later signed the Rome Statute. In 2002 it submitted a letter to the United Nations declaring that it did not intend to ratify the treaty, using the same wording as the similar letter from the United States.^[16]

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 not part of any of the UN Regional Groups.^[17]

[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. The United States' strong influence in the country is a strong factor in the decision to delay ratification. EU and other governments from countries state parties to the ICC have been pressing for immediate ratification. Having met Philippine government officials, including the President, Canadian government spokesperson Lawrence Alvarez Conmigo has been vigorously pushing for ratification in the Philippines and is leading the diplomatic delegation in this endeavour. Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has already introduced a Senate resolution calling for the ratification of the Rome Statute^[18]

[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. ^[19]

[edit] Ukraine

In October 2006, the Ambassador to the United Nations stated that Ukraine would submit a bill to the parliament to ratify the Statute.^[20] Ukraine ratified APIC without having ratified the Rome Statute on 2007-01-29.^[21]

[edit] United States of America

Main article: United States and the International Criminal Court

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,^[22][23] but indicated that he would not recommend that his successor, George W. Bush, submit it to the Senate for ratification.^[24] On 6 May 2002, the Bush administration announced it was nullifying the United States' signature of the treaty.^[25] However, public opinion polls routinely show strong popular support for the Court: the most recent poll, conducted in February 2005, found that 69% of Americans supported U.S. participation in the ICC.^[26]

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. As of 2 August 2006, the US Department of State reported that it had signed 101 of these agreements.^[27] The United States has cut aid to many countries which have refused to sign BIAs.^[27]

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.^[28] 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.^[28] 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.^[29]

[edit] Yemen

On 24 March 2007, the Yemeni parliament voted to ratify the Rome Statute.^[30] Provided the president endorses the bill, Yemen will become a State Party two months after ratification instruments are deposited with the United Nations.^[30]

[edit] 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.^[1] To date, five states — Afghanistan, Dominica, East Timor, Saint Kitts and Nevis and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines — have acceded to the treaty, and a number of other states have taken steps to do so:

[edit] 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"^[31]

[edit] 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”.^[32] In 2004, the 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.^[32] 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. ^[33]

[edit] Iraq

In February 2005 the Iraqi Transitional Government decided to ratify the court. However, two weeks later they reversed this decision,^[34] a move that the Coalition for the International Criminal Court claimed was due to pressure from the United States ^[35]

[edit] Japan

The government of Japan has indicated that it intends to put the question of accession to the Rome Statute before the national Diet in 2007. The government has already earmarked funds for contribution to the Court's budget in 2007, indicating that it intends to become a State Party by then.^[36]

[edit] 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.^[37]

[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.^[38] Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated in October 2004 that Turkey would soon ratify the court,^[39] and the Turkish constitution was amended in 2004 to explicitly allow nationals to be surrendered to the court.^[40]

[edit] The position of other states

[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 ^[41]

[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: ^[42]

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 ^[43]

[edit] Notes and references