States parties to the Rome Statute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Short description

File:ICC member states.svg
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  State party
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Signatory that has not ratified
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  State party that subsequently withdrew its membership
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Signatory that subsequently withdrew its signature
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Non-state party, non-signatory

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. 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.

States parties

As of June 2025, there are 125 states parties to the Rome Statute.[1]

State party[1] Signed Ratified or acceded Entry into force A1[2] A2[3] A3[4] A4[5] A5[6] A6[7] A7[8]
Template:Country data Afghanistan — Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Albania Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Andorra Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force Ratified — — — In force
Template:Country data Antigua and Barbuda Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Argentina Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force — — — — —
Template:Country data ArmeniaTemplate:Efn Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Australia Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Austria Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force Ratified — — — —
Template:Country data Bangladesh Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Barbados Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Belgium Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force Ratified Ratified Ratified Ratified Ratified
Template:Country data Belize Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Benin Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Bolivia Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — In force — — — — —
Template:Country data Bosnia and Herzegovina Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Botswana Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force — — — — —
Template:Country data Brazil Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Bulgaria Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Burkina Faso Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Cambodia Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Canada Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Cape Verde Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Central African Republic Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Chad Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Chile Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force — In force In force In force —
Template:Country data ColombiaTemplate:Efn Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Comoros Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Congo, Democratic Republic of the Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Congo, Republic of the Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Cook Islands — Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Costa Rica Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force — — — — —
Template:SortTemplate:Efn Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Croatia Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force Ratified In force In force In force In force
Template:Country data Cyprus Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force Ratified Ratified Ratified Ratified Ratified
Template:Country data Czech Republic Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force — In force In force In force —
Template:Country data DenmarkTemplate:Efn Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts Ratified Ratified Ratified Ratified Ratified Ratified Ratified
Template:Country data Djibouti Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Dominica — Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Dominican Republic Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Ecuador Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — In force — — — — —
Template:Country data El Salvador — Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force — — — — —
Template:Country data Estonia Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force Ratified Ratified Ratified Ratified Ratified
Template:Country data Fiji Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Finland Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force Ratified — — — —
Template:Country data FranceTemplate:Efn Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — Ratified — — — —
Template:Country data Gabon Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Gambia, TheTemplate:Efn Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Georgia Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force — — — — —
Template:Country data Germany Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force Ratified In force In force In force In force
Template:Country data Ghana Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Greece Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Grenada — Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Guatemala — Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Guinea Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Guyana Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force — — — — —
Template:Country data Honduras Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Hungary Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Iceland Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — In force — — — — —
Template:Country data Ireland Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — In force — — — — —
Template:Country data Italy Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force Ratified — — — —
Template:Country data Japan — Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Jordan Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Kiribati — Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Kenya Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Korea, South Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Latvia Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force Ratified In force In force In force —
Template:Country data Lesotho Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Liberia Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Liechtenstein Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force Ratified In force — — In force
Template:Country data Lithuania Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force Ratified Ratified Ratified Ratified Ratified
Template:Country data Luxembourg Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force — In force In force In force In force
Template:Country data Madagascar Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Malawi Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Maldives — Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Mali Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Malta Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force — — — — —
Template:Country data Marshall Islands Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Mauritius Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force — — — — — —
Template:Country data Mexico Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force — — In force In force In force —
Template:Country data Moldova Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Mongolia Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force — — — — —
Template:Country data MontenegroTemplate:Efn — Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Namibia Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Nauru Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Kingdom of the Netherlands Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force Ratified In force In force In force In force
Template:Country data New ZealandTemplate:Efn Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force — — In force In force In force In force
Template:Country data Niger Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — In force — — — — —
Template:Country data Nigeria Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data North Macedonia Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force — — — — —
Template:Country data Norway Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force — Ratified In force In force In force In force
Template:Country data PalestineTemplate:EfnTemplate:Efn — Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force — — — — —
Template:Country data Panama Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force — — — — —
Template:Country data Paraguay Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force — — — — —
Template:Country data Peru Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force — — — — —
Template:Country data Poland Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force — — — — —
Template:Country data Portugal Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force Ratified — — — In force
Template:Country data Romania Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force — Ratified In force In force In force In force
Template:Country data Saint Kitts and Nevis — Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Saint Lucia Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Saint Vincent and the Grenadines — Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Samoa Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force — — — — —
Template:Country data San Marino Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force — — — — —
Template:Country data Senegal Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Serbia Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Seychelles Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Sierra Leone Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Slovakia Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force Ratified In force In force In force —
Template:Country data Slovenia Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force Ratified In force In force In force In force
Template:Country data South AfricaTemplate:Efn Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Spain Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force Ratified — — — —
Template:Country data Suriname — Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Sweden Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force Ratified In force — — —
Template:Country data Switzerland Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force Ratified In force In force In force In force
Template:Country data Tanzania Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Tajikistan Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Timor-Leste — Template:Dts Template:Dts Ratified Ratified Ratified — — — —
Template:Country data Trinidad and Tobago Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force — — — — —
Template:Country data Tunisia — Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Uganda Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data UkraineTemplate:Efn Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts Ratified Ratified — Ratified Ratified Ratified Ratified
Template:Country data United KingdomTemplate:Efn Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Uruguay Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts In force In force Ratified In force In force In force In force
Template:Country data Vanuatu — Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Venezuela Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —
Template:Country data Zambia Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — — — — — — —

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.[9] 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”.[10]

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.[11]

As of April 2006, the following states had enacted or drafted implementing legislation:[12]

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, the Gambia, Guinea, Guyana, Liberia, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mongolia, Namibia, Nauru, North Macedonia, Paraguay, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste None None

Timeline of signatures and ratifications/accessions

File:ICC State Parties 2006-11-19.png
Total number of states parties from 1999 to 2006.
Date Signatures
31 December 1998 71
31 December 1999 92
31 December 2000 139
Date Ratifications/accessions Remaining signatories Denunciations
31 December 1998 0 71 0
31 December 1999 6 86
31 December 2000 27 112
31 December 2001 48 92
31 December 2002 87 55
31 December 2003 92 51
31 December 2004 97 46
31 December 2005 100 43
31 December 2006 104 41
31 December 2007 105
31 December 2008 108 40
31 December 2009 110 38
31 December 2010 114 34
31 December 2011 120 32
31 December 2012 121
31 December 2013 122 31
31 December 2014
31 December 2015 123
31 December 2016 124
31 December 2017 123 1
31 December 2018
31 December 2019 2
31 December 2020
31 December 2021
31 December 2022
31 December 2023 124 30
31 December 2024 125 29

States that have denounced the Rome Statute are no longer considered signatories.

Regional groups and minimum voting requirements

The number of states parties from the several United Nations regional groups has an influence on the regional minimum voting requirements during elections of judges. Paragraph 20(b) of the procedure for the nomination and election of judges of the Court[13] states that each Party must vote for at least as many candidates from a regional group as would be required to bring the number of judges from that group to two. If, however, more than 16 states parties belong to the group, this target is increased to three.

The following table lists how many states parties there are from each regional group Template:As of After the accession of the Maldives on 1 December 2011, the Asia–Pacific Group became the last regional group to reach the threshold size of 17 members, just in time to increase the minimum voting requirement for this group in the 2011 election.[14] Since then, the target for the regional minimum voting requirement has remained at three for all regional groups. This has resulted in at least three judges from each regional group sitting on the bench except during the term from 2020 to 2023, when there were only two judges from the Asia–Pacific group. Because only a single candidate from that group was nominated in the 2020 election, no minimum voting requirement was applied for the group, and the one nominee was not elected.

Group Number of states parties
African Group 33
Asia–Pacific Group 19
Eastern European Group 20
Latin American and Caribbean Group 28
Western European and Others Group 25

Withdrawal

Article 127 of 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 June 2025, five states have given formal notice of their intention to withdraw from the statute, although two rescinded the notification before it came into effect.[1]

State party[1] Signed Ratified or acceded Entry into force Withdrawal notified Withdrawal effective Withdrawal rescinded
Template:Country data Burundi Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts —
Template:Country data Gambia, The Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — Template:Dts
Template:Country data Philippines Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:DtsTemplate:Efn Template:Dts —
Template:Country data South Africa Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts — Template:Dts
Template:Country data Hungary Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dtsi —

Several states have argued that the ICC is a tool of Western imperialism, only punishing leaders from small, weak states while ignoring crimes committed by richer and more powerful states.[15][16][17] This sentiment has been expressed particularly by African states, 34 of which are members of the ICC, due to a perceived disproportionate focus of the Court on Africa. Nine out of the ten situations which the ICC has investigated were in African countries.[18][19]

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 the indictment of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.[20] In September 2013, Kenya's National Assembly passed a motion to withdraw from the ICC in protest against the ICC prosecution of Kenyan Deputy President William Ruto and President Uhuru Kenyatta (both charged before coming into office).[21] 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.[22] The summit concluded that serving heads of state should not be put on trial, and that the Kenyan cases should be deferred.[23] However, the summit did not endorse the proposal for a mass withdrawal due to lack of support for the idea.[24] 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.[25]

In October–November 2016, Burundi, South Africa, and The Gambia all notified the UNSG of their intention to withdraw from the ICC. Burundi was the subject of an ongoing preliminary investigation by the ICC at the time.[26] South Africa's exit followed its refusal to execute an ICC warrant for Sudan's al-Bashir when he was in the country. Following The Gambia's presidential election later that year, which ended the long rule of Yahya Jammeh, The Gambia rescinded its withdrawal notification.[1] The constitutionality of South Africa's notice was challenged by the Democratic Alliance opposition party, which argued that the approval of parliament was required and not sought. The High Court of South Africa ruled in February 2017 that the government's notification was not legal, and it was required to revoke the notice effective 7 March 2017.[1] A parliamentary bill on ICC withdrawal was subsequently withdrawn by the government.[27] The governing African National Congress party continued to support withdrawing,[28] and in 2019 a new bill was put before Parliament to withdraw from the Statute,[29] though this was also withdrawn in March 2023.[30] Following the issuance of ICC arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova of Russia in March 2023, due to the deportation of children from Ukraine to Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine,[31] South African president Cyril Ramaphosa declared that his country had decided to withdraw from the treaty to allow Putin to visit their country without risk of arrest for the upcoming 2023 BRICS summit hosted in South Africa. However, it was subsequently clarified that such a decision had not been made.[32][33][34]

On March 14, 2018, Rodrigo Duterte, the Philippine President who was under preliminary examination by the ICC for his controversial war on drugs campaign, announced that the country would withdraw from the Rome Statute.[35] He argued that while the Statute was ratified by the Senate of the Philippines in 2011, it was never published in the Official Gazette of the Philippines, a requirement for penal laws (of which the Rome Statute subscribes as such) to take effect. Hence, he claimed that the Philippines was never a State Party ab initio. Additionally, he stated that the ICC was being utilized as a political tool against weak targets such as the Philippines. The United Nations received the official notification of withdrawal on March 17, 2018;[36] one year later (March 17, 2019), by rule, the Philippines' withdrawal became official. The legal validity of the withdrawal was challenged at the Supreme Court of the Philippines,[37] which dismissed the case in 2021 in a unanimous decision for being "moot and academic".[38] Nevertheless, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Philippines was obliged to cooperate with the ICC regarding acts committed while the Rome Statute was still in effect.[39] While Bongbong Marcos, Duterte's successor as President, initially stated that the country "has no intention of rejoining the ICC",[40] in 2023 he stated that he was studying the possibility of rejoining.[41] The Philippine government also confirmed that it would extradite Duterte to the ICC if the matter were transferred to Interpol.[42] When an arrest warrant was issued in March 2025, Duterte was arrested by Philippine police[43] and surrendered to the custody of the ICC shortly thereafter.[44] A spokesperson for president stated that the country had "not yet discussed any plan of rejoining the ICC".[45]

In February 2025, following the ICC prosecutor's request for arrest warrants against Supreme Leader Hibatullah Akhundzada and Chief Justice Abdul Hakim Haqqani, the Taliban government, which is not recognized by the United Nations, issued a decree purporting to withdraw Afghanistan from the ICC effective immediately and retroactively nullify the accession in 2003.[46]

On 3 April 2025, Hungary announced that it would withdraw from the ICC, shortly after Benjamin Netanyahu, who was wanted by the court for his alleged war crimes in Gaza, arrived to the country for an official visit.[47][48] Prime Minister Viktor Orban stated that the court's decision to prosecute Netanyahu showed it had become a "political court".[49] On 20 May 2025, with 134 votes in favour, 37 against and 7 abstentions, the Hungarian National Assembly passed a bill approving withdrawal.[50] According to article 127 of the Rome Statute, withdrawal will take legal effect no earlier than one year from the date of notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and does not discharge Hungary from its obligations under the Statute until withdrawal becomes effective.[51] Hungary's withdrawal would be the first time a European Union member state decided to withdraw from the Rome Statute.

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." Even if the state that does so is not a State Party to the Statute, the relevant provisions of the statute would still be applicable on the accepting state, but only on an ad hoc basis.

To date, the Court has received seven article 12(3) declarations. Additionally, a declaration was submitted in December 2013 by the Freedom and Justice Party of Egypt seeking to accept jurisdiction on behalf of Egypt. However, the Office of the Prosecutor found that as the party had lost power following the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état that July, it did not have the authority to make the declaration on behalf of Egypt.[52][53]

State[54] Date of acceptance Start of jurisdiction End of jurisdiction Date of membership
Template:SortTemplate:Efn Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Sort Template:Dts
Template:Country data Palestine*Template:Efn Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Sort Template:Dts
Template:Country data UkraineTemplate:Efn Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts
Template:Country data State of PalestineTemplate:Efn Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Sort Template:Dts
Template:Country data UkraineTemplate:Efn Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Sort Template:Dts
Template:Country data ArmeniaTemplate:Efn Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Sort Template:Dts
Template:Country data LibyaTemplate:Efn Template:Dts Template:Dts Template:Dts —
* = Declaration was deemed invalid by the Office of the Prosecutor.

Signatories which have not ratified

Of the 139 states that had signed the Rome Statute, 29 have not ratified.[1] Of these, 4 have formally indicated that they no longer plan to ratify the treaty.

State[1] Signature
Template:Country data Algeria Template:Dts
Template:Country data Angola Template:Dts
Template:Country data Bahamas, The Template:Dts
Template:Country data Bahrain Template:Dts
Template:Country data Cameroon Template:Dts
Template:Country data Egypt Template:Dts
Template:Country data Eritrea Template:Dts
Template:Country data Guinea-Bissau Template:Dts
Template:Country data Haiti Template:Dts
Template:Country data Iran Template:Dts
Template:Country data Israel*Template:Efn Template:Dts
Template:Country data Jamaica Template:Dts
Template:Country data Kuwait Template:Dts
Template:Country data Kyrgyzstan Template:Dts
Template:Country data Monaco Template:Dts
Template:Country data Morocco Template:Dts
Template:Country data Mozambique Template:Dts
Template:Country data Oman Template:Dts
Template:Country data Russia*Template:Efn Template:Dts
Template:Sort Template:Dts
Template:Country data Solomon Islands Template:Dts
Template:Country data Sudan*Template:Efn Template:Dts
Template:Country data Syria Template:Dts
Template:Country data Thailand Template:Dts
Template:Country data United Arab Emirates Template:Dts
Template:Country data United States*Template:Efn Template:Dts
Template:Country data Uzbekistan Template:Dts
Template:Country data Yemen Template:Dts
Template:Country data Zimbabwe Template:Dts
* = 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 has "made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty".[55] Four signatory states (Israel, Russia, Sudan, and the United States) 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.[56] By December 2006, the ratification had not yet been completed, but the Coalition for the International Criminal Court said they expected ratification in 2007.[57]

Israel

Israel voted against the adoption of the Rome Statute but later signed it for a short period. In 2002, Israel notified the UN Secretary General that it no longer intended to become a party to the Rome Statute, and as such, it has no legal obligations arising from their signature of the statute.[58]

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.[59]

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.[60]

Russia

Russia signed the Rome Statute in 2000. On 14 November 2016 the ICC published a report on its preliminary investigation of the Russo-Ukrainian War which found that "the situation within the territory of Crimea and Sevastopol factually amounts to an on-going state of occupation" and that "information, such as reported shelling by both States of military positions of the other, and the detention of Russian military personnel by Ukraine, and vice-versa, points to direct military engagement between Russian armed forces and Ukrainian government forces that would suggest the existence of an international armed conflict in the context of armed hostilities in eastern Ukraine".[61] In response, a presidential decree by Russian President Vladimir Putin approved "sending the Secretary General of the United Nations notice of the intention of the Russian Federation to no longer be a party to the Rome Statute".[62][63] Formal notice was given on 30 November 2016.[64]

Sudan

Sudan signed the Rome Statute in 2000. In 2005 the ICC opened an investigation into the war in Darfur, a region of Sudan. Omar al-Bashir, the President of Sudan, was indicted in 2009. On 26 August 2008, Sudan notified the UN Secretary General that it no longer intended to ratify the treaty and therefore no longer bears any legal obligations arising from its signature.[1] Following the 2019 Sudanese coup d'état, Sadiq al-Mahdi a former Prime Minister of Sudan who backs the opposition, called for Sudan to join the ICC.[65]

On 4 August 2021, the Sudanese government approved unanimously a draft bill to join the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.[66]

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.[67]

United States

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

The United States signed the Rome Statute in December 2000 (under President Bill Clinton), but Clinton decided not to submit the treaty to the United States Senate for ratification, stating: "I will not, and do not recommend that my successor [George W. Bush] submit the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied."[68] Opponents of the ICC in the U.S. Senate are "skeptical of new international institutions and still jealously protective of American sovereignty"; before the Rome Statute, opposition to the ICC was largely headed by Republican Senator Jesse Helms.[69] On May 6, 2002, the Bush administration stated that the U.S. did not intend to become a state party to the ICC; in a letter to Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton stated that "the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty," and that "the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000."[70] This letter is sometimes called the "unsigning" of the treaty, but legal opinions on its actual legal effects differ,[71] with some scholars arguing that the president does not have the power to unilaterally "unsign" treaties.[72]

The United States "adopted a hostile stance towards the Court throughout most of the Bush presidency."[73] In 2002, Congress enacted the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which was signed into law on August 2, 2002; the "overriding purpose of the ASPA was to inhibit the U.S. government from supporting the ICC."[73] Major provisions of the ASPA blocked U.S. funding of the ICC and required the U.S. "to enter into agreements with all ICC signatory states to shield American citizens abroad from ICC jurisdiction, under the auspices of Article 98 of the Rome Statute," which bars the ICC "from prosecuting individuals located on the territory of an ICC member state, where such action by the Court would cause the member state to violate the terms of any other bilateral or multilateral treaty to which it is a party."[73] Traditionally, Article 98 was used in relation to traditional status of forces agreements (SOFAs) and status of mission agreements (SOMAs), in which nations hosting U.S. military personnel by invitation agreed to immunize them from prosecution in foreign courts.[73] The Bush administration, supported by opponents of the ICC in Congress, adopted a new strategy of aggressively pursuing Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs), "which guarantee immunity from ICC prosecution for all American citizens in the country with which the agreement is concluded" rather than just U.S. military forces.[73] "Under the original ASPA, nations who refused to conclude BIAs with the United States were subject to sanctions, including the loss of military aid (though these provisions have since been repealed)."[73] As of December 2006, the U.S. State Department reported that it had signed 102 BIAs.[74] 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.[75] 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.[75] 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.[76]

Under the Obama administration, the U.S. did not take moves to ratify the Rome Statute, but did adopt a "cautious, case-by-case approach to supporting the ICC" by supporting cases before the ICC. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the U.S. encouraged "effective ICC action in ways that promote U.S. interests by bringing war criminals to justice."[73] U.S. steps in support of the ICC undertaken under the Obama administration included participating in the annual Assembly of States Parties as an observer; using the U.S.'s permanent seat on the UN Security Council to support the referral of cases to the ICC (including Libya in 2011); "sharing intelligence on fugitives and providing other substantial in-kind support" to the ICC; and expanding the War Crimes Rewards Program."[73]

The first Trump administration strained relations with the ICC, stating it would revoke visas for any ICC staff seeking to investigate Americans for war crimes. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated that such revocations could be applied to any staff involved with investigating war crimes committed by Israel or other allied nations as well.[77]

Yemen

On 24 March 2007, the Yemeni parliament voted to ratify the Rome Statute.[78][79] However, some MPs claim that this vote breached parliamentary rules, and demanded another vote. In that further vote, the ratification was retracted.[80]

Non-party, non-signatory states

The deadline for signing the Rome Statute expired following 31 December 2000. States that did not sign before that date have to accede to the Statute in a single step.

Of all the states that are members of the United Nations, observers in the United Nations General Assembly, or otherwise recognized by the Secretary-General of the United Nations as states with full treaty-making capacities,[81] there are 41 which have neither signed nor acceded to the Statute:

Template:Div col

Template:Div col end

Additionally, in accordance with practice and declarations filed with the Secretary-General, the Rome Statute is not in force in the following dependent territories:

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.[82]

India

The government of India has consistently opposed the Court. It abstained in the vote adopting 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.[83] 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.[84]

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”.[85] 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.[85] 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.[86] 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".[87]

Iraq

In February 2005, the Iraqi Transitional Government decided to ratify the Rome Statute. However, two weeks later they reversed this decision,[88] a move that the Coalition for the International Criminal Court claimed was due to pressure from the United States.[89]

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.[90] Following the outbreak of the Gaza war which triggered clashes between Israel and the Lebanese armed group Hezbollah, in April 2024 Lebanon's cabinet decided to submit a declaration to the ICC accepting the court's jurisdiction over crimes committed on Lebanese territory since 7 October 2023. However, the following month this decision was reversed, and the declaration was not submitted.[91]

Malaysia

Malaysia submitted an instrument of accession to the Rome Statute on 4 March 2019, which was to enter into force on 1 June.[92] However, on 29 April 2019, Malaysia submitted a notice withdrawing its instrument of accession effective immediately to the Secretary General of the United Nations, preventing it from acceding.[93] Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad explained that the withdrawal was due to concerns over its constitutionality as well as possible infringement of the sovereignty of the Malay Rulers.[94]

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.[95]

Following a resolution by Parliament requesting that the government ratify the Statute, Narahari Acharya, Ministry of Law, Justice, Constituent Assembly and Parliamentary Affairs of Nepal, said in March 2015 that it had "formed a taskforce to conduct a study about the process". However, he said that it was "possible only after promulgating the new constitution", which was being debated by the 2nd Nepalese Constituent Assembly.[96][97]

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 (one of the largest suppliers of UN peacekeepers) has, like the United States, expressed reservations about the potential use of politically motivated charges against peacekeepers.[98]

South Sudan

South Sudan's President Salva Kiir Mayardit said in 2013 that the country would not join the ICC.[99]

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.[100] Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated in October 2004 that Turkey would "soon" ratify the Rome Statute,[101] and the Turkish constitution was amended in 2004 to explicitly allow nationals to be surrendered to the Court.[102] 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 (PKK).[103]

See also

Notes

Template:Notelist

References

Template:Reflist

Template:International Criminal Court

  1. ↑ a b c d e f g h i Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  2. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  3. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  4. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  5. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  6. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  7. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  8. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  9. ↑ Amnesty International, Implementation Template:Webarchive. Accessed 2007-01-23. See also Article 86 of the Rome Statute
  10. ↑ Part 9 of the Rome Statute. Accessed 2007-01-23.
  11. ↑ [See Article 17 of the Rome Statute
  12. ↑ Amnesty International, The International Criminal Court: Summary of draft and enacted implementing legislation. Accessed 2007-01-23.
  13. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  14. ↑ Note verbale regarding the change of minimum voting requirement for Asia-Pacific states Template:Webarchive. 13 October 2011. Retrieved 17 October 2011.
  15. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  16. ↑ Reuters African Union accuses ICC prosecutor of bias
  17. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  18. ↑ Africa and the International Criminal Court: A drag net that catches only small fish?, Nehanda Radio, By William Muchayi, 24 September 2013, http://nehandaradio.com/2013/09/24/africa-and-the-international-criminal-court-a-drag-net-that-catches-only-small-fish/
  19. ↑ Europe - From Lubanga to Kony, is the ICC only after Africans?. France 24 (2012-03-15). Retrieved on 2014-04-28.
  20. ↑ African ICC Members Mull Withdrawal Over Bashir Indictment, Voice of America, 2009-06-08
  21. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  22. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  23. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  24. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  25. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  26. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  27. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  28. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  29. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  30. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  31. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  32. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  33. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  34. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  35. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  36. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  37. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named philSC
  38. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named GR238875
  39. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  40. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  41. ↑ Template:Citeweb
  42. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  43. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  44. ↑ Template:Citeweb
  45. ↑ Template:Citeweb
  46. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  47. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  48. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  49. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  50. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  51. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  52. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  53. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  54. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  55. ↑ Part II §1 Art. 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
  56. ↑ The ratification and implementation of the Statute of the International Criminal Court in Bahrain, FIDH, 2006-07-10.
  57. ↑ Rights push for key court pact, Gulf Daily News, 2006-12-21.
  58. ↑ The American Non-Governmental Organizations Coalition for the International Criminal Court. Ratifications & Declarations. Accessed 2006-12-04.
  59. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  60. ↑ Lawyers urge Kuwait to become ICC member Template:Webarchive, Kuwait Times, 2007-03-26, accessed on 2007-04-05
  61. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  62. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  63. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  64. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  65. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  66. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  67. ↑ War on drugs returns to bite Thaksin, Bangkok Post, 2006-11-23
  68. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  69. ↑ Thomas Omestad, "The Brief for a World Court: A permanent war-crimes tribunal is coming, but will it have teeth?", U.S. News & World Report (September 28, 1997).
  70. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  71. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  72. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  73. ↑ a b c d e f g h Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  74. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  75. ↑ a b Human Rights Watch, "The ICC and the Security Council: Resolution 1422". Accessed 2007-01-11.
  76. ↑ BBC News, 20 March 2006. Q&A: International Criminal Court. Accessed 2007-01-11.
  77. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  78. ↑ gulfnews.com, 26 March 2007. “Yemen becomes fourth Arab country to ratify ICC statute Template:Webarchive”. Accessed 27 March 2007.
  79. ↑ Amnesty International, 27 March 2007. Amnesty International urges Yemen to complete the ratification of the Rome Statute. Accessed 2007-04-01.
  80. ↑ Almotamar.net, 9 April 2007. “[1]”. Accessed 2021-05-19.
  81. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  82. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  83. ↑ Explanation of vote on the adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, Embassy of India, 1998-07-17
  84. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  85. ↑ a b Amnesty International, Fact sheet: Indonesia and the International Criminal Court. DOC, HTML. Accessed 2007-01-23.
  86. ↑ RI to join global criminal court, Jakarta Post, 2007-02-11, accessed on 2007-02-11
  87. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  88. ↑ Iraq Pulls Out Of International Criminal Court, Radio Free Europe, 2005-03-02
  89. ↑ Groups Urge Iraq to Join International Criminal Court Template:Webarchive, Common Dreams, 2005-08-08
  90. ↑ Justice campaigners say US urged Lebanon not to join International Criminal Court, Daily Star (Lebanon), 2009-03-12
  91. ↑ Template:Citeweb
  92. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  93. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  94. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  95. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  96. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  97. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  98. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  99. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  100. ↑ Council Common Position on the International Criminal Court, American Coalition for the International Criminal Court, 2003-06-13
  101. ↑ Turkey, EU and the International Criminal Court Template:Webarchive, Journal of Turkish Weekly, 2005-04-14
  102. ↑ Constitutional Amendments, Secretariat-General for EU Affairs (Turkey), 2004-05-10
  103. ↑ Turkey shelves accession to world criminal court Template:Webarchive, Zaman, 2008-01-20, accessed on 2008-01-20
Retrieved from "http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=States_parties_to_the_Rome_Statute&oldid=3221482"