States parties to the Rome Statute

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.

  State party

  Signatory that has not ratified

  State party that subsequently withdrew its membership

  Signatory that subsequently withdrew its signature

  Non-state party, non-signatory

States parties

On 14 November 2023, Armenia formally ratified the Rome Statute. Its ratification will enter into force on 1 February 2024, bringing the number of states parties to 124.^[1] These include 33 from Africa, 19 from Asia-Pacific, 19 from Eastern Europe, 28 from Latin America & Caribbean, and 25 from the Western European and Others group.^[2][3]

State party^[2]	Signed	Ratified or acceded	Entry into force	A1^[4]	A2^[5]	A3^[6]	A4^[7]	A5^[8]	A6^[9]
Afghanistan	—	10 February 2003	1 May 2003	—	—	—	—	—	—
Albania	18 July 1998	31 January 2003	1 May 2003	—	—	—	—	—	—
Armenia^[A]	1 October 1999	14 November 2023	1 February 2024	—	—	—	—	—	—
Andorra	18 July 1998	30 April 2001	1 July 2002	In force	In force	Ratified	—	—	—
Antigua and Barbuda	23 October 1998	18 June 2001	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—		—
Argentina	8 January 1999	8 February 2001	1 July 2002	In force	In force	—	—	—	—
Australia	9 December 1998	1 July 2002	1 September 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Austria	7 October 1998	28 December 2000	1 July 2002	In force	In force	Ratified	—	—	—
Bangladesh	16 September 1999	23 March 2010	1 June 2010	—	—	—	—	—	—
Barbados	8 September 2000	10 December 2002	1 March 2003	—	—	—	—	—	—
Belgium	10 September 1998	28 June 2000	1 July 2002	In force	In force	Ratified	—	—	—
Belize	5 April 2000	5 April 2000	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Benin	24 September 1999	22 January 2002	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Bolivia	17 July 1998	27 June 2002	1 September 2002	—	In force	—	—	—	—
Bosnia and Herzegovina	17 July 1998	11 April 2002	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Botswana	8 September 2000	8 September 2000	1 July 2002	In force	In force	—	—	—	—
Brazil	7 February 2000	20 June 2002	1 September 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Bulgaria	11 February 1999	11 April 2002	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Burkina Faso	30 November 1998	16 April 2004	1 July 2004	—	—	—	—	—	—
Cambodia	23 October 2000	11 April 2002	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Canada	18 December 1998	7 July 2000	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Cape Verde	28 December 2000	10 October 2011	1 January 2012	—	—	—	—	—	—
Central African Republic	12 December 1999	3 October 2001	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Chad	20 October 1999	1 November 2006	1 January 2007	—	—	—	—	—	—
Chile	11 September 1998	29 June 2009	1 September 2009	In force	In force	—	Ratified	Ratified	Ratified
Colombia^[B]	10 December 1998	5 August 2002	1 November 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Comoros	22 September 2000	18 August 2006	1 November 2006	—	—	—	—	—	—
Congo, Democratic Republic of the	8 September 2000	11 April 2002	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Congo, Republic of the	17 July 1998	3 May 2004	1 August 2004	—	—	—	—	—	—
Cook Islands	—	18 July 2008	1 October 2008	—	—	—	—	—	—
Costa Rica	7 October 1998	7 June 2001	1 July 2002	In force	In force	—	—	—	—
Côte d'Ivoire^[C]	30 November 1998	15 February 2013	1 May 2013	—	—	—	—	—	—
Croatia	12 October 1998	21 May 2001	1 July 2002	In force	In force	Ratified	In force	In force	In force
Cyprus	15 October 1998	7 March 2002	1 July 2002	In force	In force	—	—	—	—
Czech Republic	13 April 1999	21 July 2009	1 October 2009	In force	In force	—	In force	In force	In force
Denmark^[D]	25 September 1998	21 June 2001	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Djibouti	7 October 1998	5 November 2002	1 February 2003	—	—	—	—	—	—
Dominica	—	12 February 2001	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Dominican Republic	8 September 2000	12 May 2005	1 August 2005	—	—	—	—	—	—
East Timor	—	6 September 2002	1 December 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Ecuador	7 October 1998	5 February 2002	1 July 2002	—	Ratified	—	—	—	—
El Salvador	—	3 March 2016	1 June 2016	In force	In force	—	—	—	—
Estonia	27 December 1999	30 January 2002	1 July 2002	In force	In force	—	—	—	—
Fiji	29 November 1999	29 November 1999	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Finland	7 October 1998	29 December 2000	1 July 2002	In force	In force	Ratified	—	—	—
France^[E]	18 July 1998	9 June 2000	1 July 2002	—	—	Ratified	—	—	—
Gabon	22 December 1998	20 September 2000	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Gambia, The^[F]	4 December 1998	28 June 2002	1 September 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Georgia	18 July 1998	5 September 2003	1 December 2003	In force	In force	—	—	—	—
Germany	10 December 1998	11 December 2000	1 July 2002	In force	In force	Ratified	Ratified	Ratified	Ratified
Ghana	18 July 1998	20 December 1999	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Greece	18 July 1998	15 May 2002	1 August 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Grenada	—	19 May 2011	1 August 2011	—	—	—	—	—	—
Guatemala	—	2 April 2012	1 July 2012	—	—	—	—	—	—
Guinea	7 September 2000	14 July 2003	1 October 2003	—	—	—	—	—	—
Guyana	28 December 2000	24 September 2004	1 December 2004	In force	In force	—	—	—	—
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	—	In force	—	—	—	—
Ireland	7 October 1998	11 April 2002	1 July 2002	—	In force	—	—	—	—
Italy	18 July 1998	26 July 1999	1 July 2002	In force	In force	Ratified	—	—	—
Japan	—	17 July 2007	1 October 2007	—	—	—	—	—	—
Jordan	7 October 1998	11 April 2002	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Kiribati	—	26 November 2019	1 February 2020	—	—	—	—	—	—
Kenya	11 August 1999	15 March 2005	1 June 2005	—	—	—	—	—	—
Korea, South	8 March 2000	13 November 2002	1 February 2003	—	—	—	—	—	—
Latvia	22 April 1999	28 June 2002	1 September 2002	In force	In force	Ratified	In force	In force	In force
Lesotho	30 November 1998	6 September 2000	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Liberia	17 July 1998	22 September 2004	1 December 2004	—	—	—	—	—	—
Liechtenstein	18 July 1998	2 October 2001	1 July 2002	In force	In force	Ratified	In force	—	—
Lithuania	10 December 1998	12 May 2003	1 August 2003	In force	In force	—	—	—	—
Luxembourg	13 October 1998	8 September 2000	1 July 2002	In force	In force	—	In force	In force	In force
Madagascar	18 July 1998	14 March 2008	1 June 2008	—	—	—	—	—	—
Malawi	2 March 1999	19 September 2002	1 December 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Maldives	—	21 September 2011	1 December 2011	—	—	—	—	—	—
Mali	17 July 1998	16 August 2000	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Malta	17 July 1998	29 November 2002	1 February 2003	In force	In force	—	—	—	—
Marshall Islands	6 September 2000	7 December 2000	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Mauritius	11 November 1998	5 March 2002	1 July 2002	In force	—	—	—	—	—
Mexico	7 September 2000	28 October 2005	1 January 2006	Ratified	—	—	Ratified	Ratified	Ratified
Moldova	8 September 2000	12 October 2010	1 January 2011	—	—	—	—	—	—
Mongolia	29 December 2000	11 April 2002	1 July 2002	In force	In force	—	—	—	—
Montenegro^[G]	—	23 October 2006	3 June 2006	—	—	—	—	—	—
Namibia	27 October 1998	25 June 2002	1 September 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Nauru	13 December 2000	12 November 2001	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Netherlands	18 July 1998	17 July 2001	1 July 2002	In force	In force	Ratified	In force	In force	In force
New Zealand^[H]	7 October 1998	7 September 2000	1 July 2002	In force	—	—	In force	In force	In force
Niger	17 July 1998	11 April 2002	1 July 2002	—	Ratified	—	—	—	—
Nigeria	1 June 2000	27 September 2001	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
North Macedonia	7 October 1998	6 March 2002	1 July 2002	In force	In force	—	—	—	—
Norway	28 August 1998	16 February 2000	1 July 2002	In force	—	Ratified	In force	In force	In force
Palestine^[I]^[J]	—	2 January 2015	1 April 2015	In force	In force	—	—	—	—
Panama	18 July 1998	21 March 2002	1 July 2002	In force	In force	—	—	—	—
Paraguay	7 October 1998	14 May 2001	1 July 2002	In force	In force	—	—	—	—
Peru	7 December 2000	10 November 2001	1 July 2002	In force	In force	—	—	—	—
Poland	9 April 1999	12 November 2001	1 July 2002	In force	In force	—	—	—	—
Portugal	7 October 1998	5 February 2002	1 July 2002	In force	In force	Ratified	—	—	—
Romania	7 July 1999	11 April 2002	1 July 2002	In force	—	Ratified	In force	In force	In force
Saint Kitts and Nevis	—	22 August 2006	1 November 2006	—	—	—	—	—	—
Saint Lucia	27 August 1999	18 August 2010	1 November 2010	—	—	—	—	—	—
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	—	3 December 2002	1 March 2003	—	—	—	—	—	—
Samoa	17 July 1998	16 September 2002	1 December 2002	In force	In force	—	—	—	—
San Marino	18 July 1998	13 May 1999	1 July 2002	In force	In force	—	—	—	—
Senegal	18 July 1998	2 February 1999	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Serbia	19 December 2000	6 September 2001	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Seychelles	28 December 2000	10 August 2010	1 November 2010	—	—	—	—	—	—
Sierra Leone	17 October 1998	15 September 2000	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Slovakia	23 December 1998	11 April 2002	1 July 2002	In force	In force	Ratified	In force	In force	In force
Slovenia	7 October 1998	31 December 2001	1 July 2002	In force	In force	Ratified	Ratified	Ratified	Ratified
South Africa^[K]	17 July 1998	27 November 2000	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Spain	18 July 1998	24 October 2000	1 July 2002	In force	In force	Ratified	—	—	—
Suriname	—	15 July 2008	1 October 2008	—	—	—	—	—	—
Sweden	7 October 1998	28 June 2001	1 July 2002	In force	In force	Ratified	In force	—	—
Switzerland	18 July 1998	12 October 2001	1 July 2002	In force	In force	Ratified	In force	In force	In force
Tanzania	29 December 2000	20 August 2002	1 November 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Tajikistan	30 November 1998	5 May 2000	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Trinidad and Tobago	23 March 1999	6 April 1999	1 July 2002	In force	In force	—	—	—	—
Tunisia	—	24 June 2011	1 September 2011	—	—	—	—	—	—
Uganda	17 March 1999	14 June 2002	1 September 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
United Kingdom^[L]	30 November 1998	4 October 2001	1 July 2002	—	—	—	—	—	—
Uruguay	19 December 2000	28 June 2002	1 September 2002	In force	In force	Ratified	Ratified	Ratified	Ratified
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

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 March 2018 four states have given formal notice of their intention to withdraw from the statute,^[2] although two rescinded before it came into effect.

State party^[2]	Signed	Ratified or acceded	Entry into force	Withdrawal notified	Withdrawal effective	Withdrawal rescinded
Burundi	13 January 1999	21 September 2004	1 December 2004	27 October 2016	27 October 2017	—
Gambia, The	4 December 1998	28 June 2002	1 September 2002	10 November 2016	—	10 February 2017
Philippines	28 December 2000	30 August 2011	1 November 2011	17 March 2018^[M]	17 March 2019	—
South Africa	17 July 1998	27 November 2000	1 July 2002	19 October 2016	—	7 March 2017

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.^[14][15][16] 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.^[17][18]

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.^[19] 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).^[20] 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.^[21] The summit concluded that serving heads of state should not be put on trial, and that the Kenyan cases should be deferred.^[22] However, the summit did not endorse the proposal for a mass withdrawal due to lack of support for the idea.^[23] 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.^[24]

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.^[25] 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.^[2] 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.^[2] A parliamentary bill on ICC withdrawal was subsequently withdrawn by the government.^[26] The governing African National Congress party continued to support withdrawing,^[27] and in 2019 a new bill was put before Parliament to withdraw from the Statute,^[28] though this was also withdrawn in March 2023.^[29] 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,^[30] 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.^[31][32][33]

On March 14, 2018, Rodrigo Duterte, the Philippine President who is under preliminary examination by the ICC for his controversial war on drugs campaign, announced that the country would withdraw from the Rome Statute.^[34] 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;^[35] 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,^[12] was dismissed in a unanimous decision for being "moot and academic"^[13] two years after the country's official withdrawal from the tribunal. Bongbong Marcos, Duterte's successor as President, has stated that the country "has no intention of rejoining the ICC".^[36]

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.^[37] 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”.^[38]

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.^[39]

As of April 2006, the following states had enacted or drafted implementing legislation:^[40]

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

 

Total number of states parties from 1999 to 2006.

Date	Signatures
31 December 1998	72
31 December 1999	93
31 December 2000	139
Date	Ratifications/accessions	Remaining signatories
31 December 1998	0	72
31 December 1999	6	87
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	32
31 December 2018	123
31 December 2019	123	33
14 November 2023	124	32

Regional groups and 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^[41] 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 2011 judges election.^[42]

Group	Number of states parties	Number of judges allocated
African Group	34	3
Asian Group	19	3
Eastern European Group	18	3
Latin American and Caribbean Group	27	3
Western European and Others Group	25	3

Acceptance of jurisdiction

Pursuant to article 12(3) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, a state that is not a party to the Statute may, "by declaration lodged with the Registrar, accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court with respect to the crime in question." 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 six 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 has lost power following the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état that July, it did not have the authority to make the declaration.^[43][44]

State^[45]	Date of acceptance	Start of jurisdiction	End of jurisdiction	Date of membership
Côte d'Ivoire^[C]	18 April 2003	19 September 2002	Indefinite	1 May 2013
Palestine*^[I]	21 January 2009	1 July 2002	Indefinite	1 April 2015
Ukraine^[N]	9 April 2014	21 November 2013	22 February 2014	Non-member
Palestine^[I]	31 December 2014	13 June 2014	Indefinite	1 April 2015
Ukraine^[N]	8 September 2015	20 February 2014	Indefinite	Non-member
Armenia^[A]	15 November 2023	10 May 2021	Indefinite	1 February 2024

*	= Declaration has been deemed invalid by the Office of the Prosecutor.

Signatories which have not ratified

Of the 139 states that had signed the Rome Statute, 30 have not ratified.^[2]

State^[2]	Signature
Algeria	28 December 2000
Angola	7 October 1998
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*^[O]	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*^[P]	13 September 2000
São Tomé and Príncipe	28 December 2000
Solomon Islands	3 December 1998
Sudan*^[Q]	8 September 2000
Syria	29 November 2000
Thailand	2 October 2000
Ukraine^[N]	20 January 2000
United Arab Emirates	27 November 2000
United States*^[R]	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 has "made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty".^[58] 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.^[59] By December 2006, the ratification had not yet been completed, but the Coalition for the International Criminal Court said they expected ratification in 2007.^[60]

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.^[61]

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.^[62]

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.^[63]

Russia

Russia signed the Rome Statute in 2000. On 14 November 2016 the ICC published a report on its preliminary investigation of the Russian military intervention in Ukraine 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".^[64] 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".^[65][66] Formal notice was given on 30 November 2016.^[67]

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.^[2] 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.^[68]

On 4 August 2021, the Sudanese government approved unanimously a draft bill to join the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.^[69]

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.^[70]

Ukraine

A 2001 ruling of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine held that the Rome Statute is inconsistent with the Constitution of Ukraine.^[71] 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.^[72] Ukraine ratified Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Court (APIC) without having ratified the Rome Statute on 2007-01-29.^[73] 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 country's constitution."^[74] A bill to make the necessary constitutional amendments was tabled in Parliament in May 2014.^[75][76] Article 8 of the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement, which was signed in 2014, requires Ukraine to ratify the Rome Statute. In 2016 the Ukrainian parliament adopted the necessary constitutional amendments to allow for ratification of the Rome Statute; however, they will not enter into force for three years.^[77] Following his election as president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy's administration pledged in 2019 that ratifying the Rome Statute was a priority.^[78] However, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Andriy Smyrnov, head of the Ukrainian President's Office, said that ratification would be postponed until after the war was over, as the court would "receive a bunch of statements from the aggressor country about alleged (I emphasize – alleged) crimes committed by our military. And the same International Criminal Court will be obliged to assess these events."^[79]

United States

Main article: United States and the International Criminal Court

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."^[80] 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.^[81] 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."^[82] This letter is sometimes called the "unsigning" of the treaty, but legal opinions on its actual legal effects differ,^[83] with some scholars arguing that the president does not have the power to unilaterally "unsign" treaties.^[84]

The United States "adopted a hostile stance towards the Court throughout most of the Bush presidency."^[85] 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."^[85] 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."^[85] 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.^[85] 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.^[85] "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)."^[85] As of December 2006, the U.S. State Department reported that it had signed 102 BIAs.^[86] 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.^[87] 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.^[87] 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.^[88]

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."^[85] 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."^[85]

The 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.^[89]

Yemen

On 24 March 2007, the Yemeni parliament voted to ratify the Rome Statute.^[90][91] However, some MPs claim that this vote breached parliamentary rules, and demanded another vote. In that further vote, the ratification was retracted.^[92]

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,^[93] there are 41 which have neither signed nor acceded to the Statute:

•   Azerbaijan
•   Belarus
•   Bhutan
•   Brunei
•   China
•   Cuba
•   Equatorial Guinea
•   Ethiopia
•   India
•   Indonesia
•   Iraq
•   Kazakhstan
•   Korea, North
•   Laos
•   Lebanon
•   Libya
•   Malaysia^[S]
•   Mauritania
•   Micronesia
•   Myanmar
•     Nepal
•   Nicaragua
•   Niue
•   Pakistan
•   Palau
•   Papua New Guinea
•   Qatar
•   Rwanda
•   Saudi Arabia
•   Singapore
•   Somalia
•   South Sudan
•   Sri Lanka
•   Swaziland
•   Togo
•   Tonga
•   Turkey
•   Turkmenistan
•   Tuvalu
•    Vatican City
•   Vietnam

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

•   Guernsey – a Crown dependency of the United Kingdom
•   Jersey – a Crown dependency of the United Kingdom
•   Tokelau – a territory of New Zealand

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.^[96]

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.^[97] 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.^[98]

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”.^[99] 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.^[99] 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.^[100] 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".^[101]

Iraq

In February 2005, the Iraqi Transitional Government decided to ratify the Rome Statute. However, two weeks later they reversed this decision,^[102] a move that the Coalition for the International Criminal Court claimed was due to pressure from the United States.^[103]

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.^[104]

Malaysia

Malaysia submitted an instrument of accession to the Rome Statute on 4 March 2019, which was to enter into force on 1 June.^[94] 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.^[95] 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.^[105]

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.^[106]

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.^[107][108]

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.^[109]

South Sudan

South Sudan's President Salva Kiir Mayardit said in 2013 that the country would not join the ICC.^[110]

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.^[111] Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated in October 2004 that Turkey would "soon" ratify the Rome Statute,^[112] and the Turkish constitution was amended in 2004 to explicitly allow nationals to be surrendered to the Court.^[113] 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).^[114]

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

1. On 15 November 2023 the Armenian government submitted a declaration, dated the same day, accepting the Court's jurisdiction for "genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes ... starting from 10 May 2021."^[57]
2. 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.
3. 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."^[10] Côte d'Ivoire subsequently acceded to the Rome Statute, on 15 February 2013, and therefore is now a state party.
4. The Rome Statute entered into force for the Faroe Islands on 1 October 2006 and for Greenland on 1 October 2004.
5. 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.
6. The Gambia formally notified the depositary of its intentions to withdraw from the Statute, effective 10 November 2017. However, this notification was rescinded effective 10 February 2017.
7. 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.
8. The Rome Statute is not in force for Tokelau.
9. 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."^[46] 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.^[47] On 29 November 2012, the United Nations General Assembly voted in favour of recognising Palestine as a non-member observer state.^[48] However, in November 2013 the Office of the Prosecutor concluded that this decision did "not cure the legal invalidity of the 2009 declaration."^[49] 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.^[50] 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.^[51] In December 2014, the assembly of state parties of the ICC recognized Palestine as a "state" without prejudice to any legal or other decisions taken by the court or any other organization.^[52][53] A new declaration was submitted 1 January 2015 by Palestine, dated 31 December 2014, accepting the court's jurisdiction effective 13 June 2014.^[54] Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute on 2 January 2015, and the prosecutor accepted Palestine as state party. However, the court has not made a ruling on the legal validity of this decision.
10. Canada filed a declaration stating that it does not recognize Palestine as a state and as such it does not consider the Rome Statute to be in force between it and Palestine.^[11]
11. South Africa formally notified the depositary of its intentions to withdraw from the Statute, effective 19 October 2017. However, this notification was rescinded effective 7 March 2017.
12. The Rome Statute entered into force for Akrotiri and Dhekelia; Anguilla; Bermuda; the British Virgin Islands; the Cayman Islands; the Falkland Islands; Montserrat; the Pitcairn Islands; Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha; and the Turks and Caicos Islands on 11 March 2010. The Statute entered into force for the Isle of Man on 1 February 2013. The Statute entered into force for Gibraltar on 20 April 2015.
13. The legal validity of the Philippines' withdrawal was challenged at the Supreme Court of the Philippines,^[12] but was dismissed in a unanimous decision for being "moot and academic"^[13] two years after the country's official withdrawal from the tribunal.
14. Ukraine submitted a declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the Court for a limited time period on 17 April 2014.^[55] Another declaration accepting jurisdiction indefinitely was submitted on 8 September 2015.^[56]
15. On 28 August 2002, Israel 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.^[2]
16. On 30 November 2016, Russia 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.^[2]
17. 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.^[2]
18. On 6 May 2002, the United States 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.^[2]
19. Malaysia submitted an instrument of accession to the Rome Statue on 4 March 2019, which was to enter into force on 1 June.^[94] However, on 29 April 2019 Malaysia submitted a notice withdrawing its instrument of accession effective immediately, preventing it from acceeding.^[95] For more details see § Malaysia

References

1. "Armenia joins the ICC Rome Statute". International Criminal Court. 2023-11-17. Retrieved 2023-11-18.
2. "Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court". United Nations Treaty Collection. 2019-05-16. Retrieved 2019-05-16.
3. "The States Parties to the Rome Statute". International Criminal Court. Retrieved 15 October 2022.
4. "Amendment to article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court". United Nations Treaty Collection. 2018-09-29. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
5. "Amendments on the crime of aggression to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court". United Nations Treaty Collection. 2019-09-26. Retrieved 2019-09-26.
6. "Chapter XVIII, Penal Matters 10.c: Amendment to article 124 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court". United Nations Treaty Collection. 2019-05-17. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
7. "CHAPTER XVIII, PENAL MATTERS 10. d Amendment to article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Weapons which use microbial or other biological agents, or toxins)". United Nations Treaty Collection. 2020-07-15. Retrieved 2020-07-16.
8. "CHAPTER XVIII, PENAL MATTERS 10. e Amendment to article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Weapons the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments undetectable by x-rays in the human body)". United Nations Treaty Collection. 2020-07-15. Retrieved 2020-07-16.
9. "CHAPTER XVIII, PENAL MATTERS 10. f Amendment to article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Blinding laser weapons)". United Nations Treaty Collection. 2020-07-15. Retrieved 2020-07-16.
10. "Declaration by the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire Accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court" (PDF). International Criminal Court. 2003-04-18. Retrieved 2011-04-06.
11. "Depository Notification C.N.57.2015.TREATIES-XVIII.10" (PDF). United Nations. 2015-01-23. Retrieved 2015-01-31.
12. "SC sets oral debates on PH withdrawal from ICC". 2018-07-26. Retrieved 2018-07-28.
13. "Press Release". Supreme Court of the Philippines. 16 March 2021. Retrieved 16 March 2021. Pangilinan, et al. v. Cayetano, et al. (G.R. Nos. 238875, 239483, and 240954)
    In a unanimous decision [...], the Supreme Court dismissed the Petition questioning the unilateral withdrawal for being moot and academic.
14. . Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 5 May 2016.
15. Reuters African Union accuses ICC prosecutor of bias
16. Sicurelli, Daniela (2010). The European Union's Africa Policies. ISBN 9781409400981. Retrieved 5 May 2016.
17. 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/
18. Europe - From Lubanga to Kony, is the ICC only after Africans?. France 24 (2012-03-15). Retrieved on 2014-04-28.
19. , Voice of America, 2009-06-08
20. "Kenya MPs vote to withdraw from ICC". BBC. 2013-09-05. Retrieved 2013-09-11.
21. "African Union summit on ICC pullout over Ruto trial". BBC News. 2013-09-20. Retrieved 2013-09-23.
22. "Africans urge ICC not to try heads of state". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2021-09-21.
23. Fortin, Jacey (2013-10-12). "African Union Countries Rally Around Kenyan President, But Won't Withdraw From The ICC". International Business Times. Retrieved 2013-10-12.
24. Kaberia, Judie (2013-11-20). "Win for Africa as Kenya agenda enters ICC Assembly". Capital News. Retrieved 2013-11-23.
25. "Burundi". International Criminal Court. Retrieved 2016-12-05.
26. Selfe, James (2017-03-14). "South Africa: DA Welcomes Withdrawal of the Rome Statute Repeal Bill". allAfrica. Retrieved 2017-03-16.
27. Abdur Rahman Alfa Shaban (2017-07-05). "South Africa's ruling party supports ICC exit ahead of al-Bashir ruling". Africanews. Retrieved 2017-07-06.
28. Ncana, Nkululeko (2019-10-30). "South Africa Revives International Criminal Court Withdrawal Plan". Bloomberg. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
29. Makinana, Andisiwe (2023-03-15). "Government withdraws International Crimes Bill". SowetanLIVE. Retrieved 2023-03-17.
30. "Statement by Prosecutor Karim A. A. Khan KC on the issuance of arrest warrants against President Vladimir Putin and Ms Maria Lvova-Belova". International Criminal Court. 17 March 2023. from the original on 18 March 2023. Retrieved 19 March 2023.
31. "S Africa backtracks on quitting ICC, blames communications error". Al Jazeera Media Network. 26 April 2023.
32. Bartlett, Kate (26 April 2023). "South Africa's President Walks Back Vow to Leave ICC". Voice of America.
33. Deutsch, Anthony; van den Berg, Stephanie (20 March 2023). "Explainer: What does the ICC arrest warrant mean for Putin?". Retrieved 23 March 2023 – via www.reuters.com.
34. "Philippines formally informs UN of ICC withdrawal". The Philippine Star. 2018-03-16. Retrieved 2018-03-17.
35. Calyag, Keith (21 March 2018). "Duterte's claim on Rome Statute ratification 'grossly incorrect'". Sun Star Manila. Retrieved 21 March 2018. The United Nations said Monday, March 19, that it received the official notification of the Philippines' decision but "the withdrawal shall take effect for the Philippines one year after the date of receipt, i.e., on March 17, 2019."
36. "'Philippines has no intention of rejoining the ICC': Marcos Jr". Al Jazeera. 2022-08-01. Retrieved 2022-08-06.
37. Amnesty International, Implementation 2006-12-14 at the Wayback Machine. Accessed 2007-01-23. See also Article 86 of the Rome Statute
38. Part 9 of the Rome Statute. Accessed 2007-01-23.
39. [See Article 17 of the Rome Statute
40. Amnesty International, The International Criminal Court: Summary of draft and enacted implementing legislation. Accessed 2007-01-23.
41. Verbal note from the President of the Assembly of States Parties 2011-06-24 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 27 August 2011. From page 3 on, the Procedure for the nomination and election of judges of the International Criminal Court is contained.
42. Note verbale regarding the change of minimum voting requirement for Asia-Pacific states 2012-09-19 at the Wayback Machine. 13 October 2011. Retrieved 17 October 2011.
43. "ICC Weekly Update #208" (PDF). International Criminal Court. 2014-04-21. Retrieved 2016-05-25.
44. "The determination of the Office of the Prosecutor on the communication received in relation to Egypt". International Criminal Court. 2014-05-08. Retrieved 2016-05-25.
45. "Declarations Art. 12(3)". International Criminal Court. Retrieved 2015-02-01.
46. "Declaration by the Palestinian National Authority Accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court" (PDF). ICC. 2009-01-21. Retrieved 2014-09-05.
47. "Prosecutor's Update on the situation in Palestine" (PDF). ICC. 2012-04-03. Retrieved 2014-09-05.
48. "Q&A: Palestinians' upgraded UN status". BBC News. 2012-11-30. Retrieved 2014-09-05.
49. "Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2013" (PDF). Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. 2013-11-25. Retrieved 2014-08-18.
50. "Is the PA stalling Gaza war crimes probe?". Al Jazeera. 2014-09-12. Retrieved 2014-10-11.
51. Bensouda, Fatou (2014-08-29). "Fatou Bensouda: the truth about the ICC and Gaza". The Guardian. Retrieved 2014-09-01.
52. "ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT - THIRTEENTH SESSION" (PDF). International Criminal Court. 2014-12-17. Retrieved 2014-12-31.
53. "Hague-based ICC accepts Palestine's status". Al Jazeera. 2014-12-09. Retrieved 2014-12-29.
54. "Declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court" (PDF). International Criminal Court. 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2015-01-04.
55. . ICC. 2014-04-17. Archived from the original on May 17, 2014. Retrieved 2014-09-05.
56. . ICC. 2015-09-08. Archived from the original on Sep 17, 2015. Retrieved 2015-09-08.
57. "Armenia joins the ICC Rome Statute". ICC. 2023-11-17. Retrieved 2023-11-17.
58. Part II §1 Art. 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
59. The ratification and implementation of the Statute of the International Criminal Court in Bahrain, FIDH, 2006-07-10.
60. Rights push for key court pact, Gulf Daily News, 2006-12-21.
61. The American Non-Governmental Organizations Coalition for the International Criminal Court. Ratifications & Declarations. Accessed 2006-12-04.
62. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 30 June 2002. Israel and the International Criminal Court. Accessed 2002-06-30.
63. Lawyers urge Kuwait to become ICC member 2012-02-08 at the Wayback Machine, Kuwait Times, 2007-03-26, accessed on 2007-04-05
64. "Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2016" (PDF). International Criminal Court. 2016-11-14. Retrieved 2017-08-27.
65. "Распоряжение Президента Российской Федерации от 16.11.2016 № 361-рп". President of Russia. 2016-11-26. Retrieved 2016-11-26.
66. "Russia to Withdraw From the International Criminal Court". The Moscow Times. 2016-11-16. Retrieved 2016-11-26.
67. "Reference: C.N.886.2016.TREATIES-XVIII.10 (Depositary Notification)" (PDF). United Nations. 2016-11-30. Retrieved 2016-11-30.
68. "Opposition demands Sudan join ICC as talks held on civilian rule". Al Jazeera. 2019-04-27. Retrieved 2019-04-27.
69. "Sudan takes 1st step towards joining International Criminal Court". Al Jazeera. 4 August 2021.
70. War on drugs returns to bite Thaksin, Bangkok Post, 2006-11-23
71. "[Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine]" (in Ukrainian). Verkhovna Rada. 2001-07-11. Retrieved 2016-05-20.
72. Statement by Ukraine regarding the Report of the International Criminal Court, UN, 2006-10-09.
74. ICC President meets Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine 2012-04-05 at the Wayback Machine. ICC. 4 April 2012. Retrieved 4 April 2012.
75. "Проект Закону про внесення змін до статті 124 Конституції України (щодо визнання положень Римського статуту)" (in Ukrainian). Verkhovna Rada. Retrieved 2016-05-20.
76. "Проект Закону про внесення змін до статті 124 Конституції України (щодо визнання положень Римського статуту)" (in Ukrainian). Verkhovna Rada. Retrieved 2016-05-20.
77. "Rada amends Constitution of Ukraine in part of justice". Interfax-Ukraine. 2016-06-02. Retrieved 2016-06-04.
78. Matviyishyn, Iryna (2019-08-30). "Ukraine Urged to Get Ready for Post-Conflict Justice". Balkan Insight.
79. "Ukraine needs to ratify the Rome Statute as soon as possible – Ukrainian Nobel laureate". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. 2022-11-23. Retrieved 2023-04-09.
80. "Clinton's statement on war crimes court". BBC News. 2000-12-31.
81. Thomas Omestad, "", U.S. News & World Report (September 28, 1997).
82. Bolton, John R. (May 6, 2002). "International Criminal Court: Letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan". United States Department of State.
83. Keppler, Elise (2009). The United States and the International Criminal Court: The Bush Administration's Approach and a Way Forward Under the Obama Administration. Stefan A. Riesenfeld Symposium. Berkeley Law.
84. McLaurin, Luke A. (January 2006). "Can the President 'Unsign' a Treaty? A Constitutional Inquiry"". Washington University Law Review. 84 (7).
85. Lambert, Caitlin (March 4, 2014). . International Justice Project. Archived from the original on 2019-01-22.
86. (PDF). Coalition for the International Criminal Court.
87. Human Rights Watch, "The ICC and the Security Council: Resolution 1422". Accessed 2007-01-11.
88. BBC News, 20 March 2006. Q&A: International Criminal Court. Accessed 2007-01-11.
89. "Trump admin to ban entry of International Criminal Court investigators". NBC News. 2019-03-15. Retrieved January 25, 2020.
90. gulfnews.com, 26 March 2007. “Yemen becomes fourth Arab country to ratify ICC statute 2007-09-29 at the Wayback Machine”. Accessed 27 March 2007.
91. Amnesty International, 27 March 2007. Amnesty International urges Yemen to complete the ratification of the Rome Statute. Accessed 2007-04-01.
92. Almotamar.net, 9 April 2007. “[1]”. Accessed 2021-05-19.
93. "Organs Supplement", (PDF), United Nations, p. 10, archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-10-19, retrieved 2015-09-20
94. "Depositary Notification - Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Malaysia: Accession" (PDF). United Nations Treaty Collection. 2019-03-04. Retrieved 2019-05-18.
95. "Depositary Notification - Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Malaysia: Withdrawal of the Instrument of Accession" (PDF). United Nations Treaty Collection. 2019-05-15. Retrieved 2019-05-16.
96. Lu, Jianping; Wang, Zhixiang (2005-07-06). "China's Attitude Towards the ICC". Journal of International Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press. 3 (3): 608–620. doi:10.1093/jicj/mqi056.
97. Explanation of vote on the adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, Embassy of India, 1998-07-17
98. Ramanathan, Usha (2005-06-21). "India and the ICC". Journal of International Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press. 3 (3): 627–634. doi:10.1093/jicj/mqi055.
99. Amnesty International, Fact sheet: Indonesia and the International Criminal Court. DOC, . Accessed 2007-01-23.
100. RI to join global criminal court, Jakarta Post, 2007-02-11, accessed on 2007-02-11
101. Aritonang, Margareth (2013-05-21). "Govt officially rejects Rome Statute". The Jakarta Post. Retrieved 2013-07-09.
102. Iraq Pulls Out Of International Criminal Court, Radio Free Europe, 2005-03-02
103. Groups Urge Iraq to Join International Criminal Court 2006-11-23 at the Wayback Machine, Common Dreams, 2005-08-08
104. Justice campaigners say US urged Lebanon not to join International Criminal Court, Daily Star (Lebanon), 2009-03-12
105. hermesauto (2019-04-05). . The Straits Times. Archived from the original on Apr 6, 2019. Retrieved 2019-05-01.
106. (PDF). Parliamentarians for Global Action. 16 August 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on Sep 27, 2007. Retrieved 2007-01-23.
107. . República. 2015-03-17. Archived from the original on Apr 7, 2015. Retrieved 2015-04-03.
108. . The Himalayan Times. 2015-03-21. Archived from the original on 2017-07-01. Retrieved 2015-04-03.
109. Akram, Munir (12 June 2003). (PDF). American Non-Governmental Organizations Coalition for the International Criminal Court (AMICC). Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 November 2012.
110. McNeish, Hannah (2013-05-23). "South Sudan's President Says 'Never' to ICC". Voice of America. Retrieved 2015-04-03.
111. Council Common Position on the International Criminal Court, American Coalition for the International Criminal Court, 2003-06-13
112. Turkey, EU and the International Criminal Court 2013-06-19 at the Wayback Machine, Journal of Turkish Weekly, 2005-04-14
113. Constitutional Amendments^{[permanent dead link]}, Secretariat-General for EU Affairs (Turkey), 2004-05-10
114. Turkey shelves accession to world criminal court 2009-03-14 at the Wayback Machine, Zaman, 2008-01-20, accessed on 2008-01-20