STATUS REPORT

ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

(Rome, 17/07/1998)

ENTRY INTO FORCE : 01 JULY 2002

Depositary: United Nations

Last updated by PacLII: 07/04/06
Parties Date of Signature Date of ratification
/
Other
Entry Into Force Domestication Legislation
(where available)
Fiji 29 Nov 1999 29 Nov 1999    
Marshall Islands 6 Sep 2000 7 Dec 2000    
Nauru 13 Dec 2000 12 Nov 2001    
Samoa 17 Jul 1998 16 Sep 2002    
Solomon Islands 3 Dec 1998      
 
" In accordance with Article 77, paragraph 1 (e) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the United States requests that this note be communicated to all States which are entitled to become parties to the Convention."        
" Second, the United States notes that the Secretary-General's communication suggests that it is "established depositary practice" that only signatory States or contracting States may object to a proposed correction. The United States does not seek to object to any of the proposed corrections, or to the additional corrections that were made earlier and without formal notice, although this should not be taken as an endorsement of the merits of any of the corrections proposed. The United States does note, however, that insofar as arguably substantive changes have been made to the original text without any notice or procedure, as noted above in relation to Articles 12 and 93, if any question of interpretation should subsequently arise it should be resolved consistent with A/CONF.183/C.1/L.76, the text that was actually adopted        
"At the time of the deposit of its instrument of ratification, the Eastern Republic of Uruguay made two statements which are called "interpretative declarations", at the first of which states that "as a State party to the Rome Statute, the Eastern Republic of Uruguay shall ensure its application to the full extent of the powers of the State insofar as it is competent in that respect and in strict accordance with the Constitutional provisions of the Republic"        
"First, the United States wishes to draw attention to the fact that, in addition to the corrections which the Secretary-General now proposes, other changes had already been made to the text which was actually adopted by the Conference, without any notice or procedure. The text before the Conference was contained in A/CONF.183/C.1/L.76 and Adds. 1-13. The text which was issued as a final document, A/CONF.183/9, is not the same text. Apparently, it was this latter text which was presented for signature on July 18, even though it differed in a number of respects from the text that was adopted only hours before. At least three of these changes are arguably substantive, including the changes made to Article 12, paragraph 2(b), the change made to Article 93, paragraph 5, and the change made to Article 124. Of these three changes, the Secretary-General now proposes to "re-correct" only Article 124, so that it returns to the original text, but the other changes remain. The United States remains concerned, therefore, that the corrections process should have been based on the text that was actually adopted by the Conference        
"Ireland has examined the text of the interpretative declaration made by the Eastern Republic of Uruguay upon ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court        
"More fundamentally, however, as a matter of general principle and for future reference, the United States objects to any correction procedure, immediately following a diplomatic conference, whereby the views of the vast majority of the Conference participants on the text which they have only just adopted would not be taken into account. The United States does not agree that the course followed by the Secretary-General in July represents "established depositary practice" for the type of circumstances presented here. To the extent that such a procedure has previously been established, it must necessarily rest on the assumption that the Conference itself had an adequate opportunity, in the first instance, to ensure the adoption of a technically correct text. Under the circumstances which have prevailed in some recent conferences, and which will likely recur, in which critical portions of the text are resolved at very late stages and there is no opportunity for the usual technical review by the Drafting Committee, the kind of corrections process which is contemplated here must be open to all        
"The Government of the Kingdom of Norway has examined the interpretative declaration made by the Government of Uruguay upon ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court        
"This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998, that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000. The United States requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty."        
"[...] The United States wishes to note a number of concerns and objections regarding the procedure proposed for the correction of the six authentic texts and certified true copies        
1. On 6 November 1998, the Secretary-General received from the Government of the United States of America the following communication dated 5 November 1998, relating to the proposed corrections to the Statute circulated on 25 September 1998        
2. With a territorial exclusion to the effect that "Until further notice, the Statute shall not apply to the Faroe Islands and Greenland"        
3. On 28 August 2002, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Israel, the following communication: ".....in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on 17 July 1998, [...] Israel does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, Israel has no legal obligations arising from its signature on 31 December 2000. Israel requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty."        
4. For the Kingdom in Europe, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba        
5. With a declaration to the effect that "consistent with the constitutional status of Tokelau and taking into account its commitment to the development of self-government through an act of self-determination under the Charter of the United Nations, this ratification shall not extend to Tokelau unless and until a Declaration to this effect is lodged by the Government of New Zealand with the Depositary on the basis of appropriate consultation with that territory."        
6. In a communication received on 6 May 2002, the Government of the United States of America informed the Secretary-General of the following        
7. The Secretary-General received communications with regard to the interpretative declaration made by Uruguay upon ratification from the following States on the dates indicated hereinafter        
Accordingly, it is very clear that the above-mentioned Act imposes no limits or conditions on the application of the Statute, fully authorizing the functioning of the national legal system without detriment to the Statute        
Accordingly, the Government objects to the above-quoted reservation by the Eastern Republic of Uruguay. However, this objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Rome Statute between the United Kingdom and Uruguay        
Afganistan   10 Feb 2003 a    
Albania 18 Jul 1998 31 Jan 2003    
Algeria 28 Dec 2000      
Andorra 18 Jul 1998 30 Apr 2001    
Angola 7 Oct 1998      
Antigua and Barbuda 23 Oct 1998 18 Jun 2001    
Argentina 8 Jan 1999 8 Feb 2001    
Armenia 1 Oct 1999      
Article 120 of the Rome Statute expressly precludes the making of reservations. In addition, it is a rule of international law that a state may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as a justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations        
Australia 9 Dec 1998 1 Jul 2002    
Austria 7 Oct 1998 28 Dec 2000    
Bahamas 29 Dec 2000      
Bahrain 11 Dec 2000      
Bangladesh 16 Sep 1999      
Barbados 8 Sep 2000 10 Dec 2002    
Belgium 10 Sep 1998 28 Jun 2000    
Belize 5 Apr 2000 5 Apr 2000    
Benin 24 Sep 1999 22 Jan 2002    
Bolivia 17 Jul 1998 27 Jun 2002    
Bosnia and Herzegovina 17 Jul 2000 11 Apr 2002    
Botswana 8 Sep 2000 8 Sep 2000    
Brazil 7 Feb 2000 20 Jun 2002    
Bulgaria 11 Feb 1999      
Burkina Faso 30 Nov 1998      
Burundi 13 Jan 1999      
Cambodia 28 Oct 2000 11 Apr 2002    
Cameroon 17 Jul 1998      
Canada 18 Dec 1998 7 Jul 2000    
Cape Verde 28 Dec 2000      
Central African Republic 7 Dec 1999 3 Oct 2001    
Chad 20 Oct 1999      
Chile 11 Sep 1998      
Colombia 10 Dec 1998 5 Aug 2002    
Comoros 22 Sep 2000      
Congo 17 Jul 1998      
Costa Rica 7 Oct 1998 7 Jun 2001    
Croatia 12 Oct 1998 21 May 2001    
Cyprus 15 Oct 1998 7 Mar 2002    
Czech Republic 13 Apr 1999      
Cфte d'Ivoire 30 Nov 1998      
Demark (21 August 2003)        
Democratic Republic of the Congo 8 Sep 2000 11 Apr 2002    
Denmark has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by Eastern Republic of Uruguay upon ratifying the Statute of the IInternational Criminal Court        
Denmark has noted that Uruguay effectively condition its application of provisions of the Statute on their accordance with the Constitution of Uruguay. The Government of Denmark believes that an interpretative declaration to this effect in substance must be understood as a reservation to the Statute, which if accepted would be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Statute. In addition, Article 120 of the Statute expressly precludes the making of reservations to the Statute        
Denmark2 25 Sep 1998 21 Jun 2001    
Djibouti 7 Oct 1998 5 Nov 2002    
Dominica   12 Feb 2001 a    
Dominican Republic 8 Sep 2000      
Ecuador 7 Oct 1998 5 Feb 2002    
Egypt 26 Dec 2000      
Eritrea 7 Oct 1998      
Estonia 27 Dec 1999 30 Jan 2002    
Finland 7 Oct 1998 29 Dec 2000    
For these reasons Denmark objects to the reservation made by the Eastern Republic of Uruguay to the Statute of the International Criminal Court        
France 18 Jul 1998 9 Jun 2000    
Gabon 22 Dec 1998 20 Sep 2000    
Gambia 4 Dec 1998 28 Jun 2002    
Georgia 18 Jul 1998 5 Sep 2003    
Germany 10 Dec 1998 11 Dec 2000    
Ghana 18 Jul 1998 20 Dec 1999    
Greece 18 Jul 1998 15 May 2002    
Guinea 7 Sep 2000 14 Jul 2003    
Guinea-Bissau 12 Sep 2000      
Guyana 28 Dec 2000      
Haiti 26 Feb 1999      
Honduras 7 Oct 1998 1 Jul 2002    
Hungary 15 Jan 1999 30 Nov 2001    
Iceland 26 Aug 1998 25 May 2000    
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 31 Dec 2000      
Ireland 7 Oct 1998 11 Apr 2002    
Ireland (28 July 2003)        
Ireland notes that the said interpretative declaration provides that the application of the Rome Statute by the Eastern Republic of Uruguay shall be subject to the provisions of the Constitution of Uruguay. Ireland considers this interpretative declaration to be in substance a reservation        
Ireland therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Eastern Republic of Uruguay to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Statute between Ireland and the Eastern Republic of Uruguay. The Statute will therefore be effective between the two states, without Uruguay benefiting from its reservation."        
It is noted for all necessary effects that the Rome Statute has unequivocally preserved the normal functioning of national jurisdictions and that the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is exercised only in the absence of the exercise of national jurisdiction        
Italy 18 Jul 1998 26 Jul 1999    
Jamaica 8 Sep 2000      
Jordan 7 Oct 1998 11 Apr 2002    
Kenya 11 Aug 1999      
Kuwait 8 Sep 2000      
Kyrgyzstan 8 Dec 1998      
Lastly, mention should be made of the significance that Uruguay attaches to the Rome Statute as a notable expression of the progressive development of international law on a highly sensitive issue        
Latvia 22 Apr 1999 28 Jun 2002    
Lesotho 30 Nov 1998 6 Sep 2000    
Liberia 17 Jul 1998      
Liechtenstein 18 Jul 1998 2 Oct 2001    
Lithuania 10 Dec 1998 12 May 2003 22 Feb 2004  
Luxemburg 13 Oct 1998 8 Sep 2000    
Madagascar 18 Jul 1998      
Malawi 2 Mar 1999 19 Sep 2002    
Mali 17 Jul 1998 16 Aug 2000    
Malta 17 Jul 1998 29 Nov 2002    
Mauritius 11 Nov 1998 5 Mar 2002    
Mexico 7 Sep 2000      
Monaco 18 Jul 1998      
Mongolia 29 Dec 2000 11 Apr 2002    
Morocco 8 Sep 2000      
Mozambique 28 Dec 2000      
Namibia 27 Oct 1998 25 Jun 2002    
Netherlands4 18 Jul 1998 17 Jul 2001 A    
New Zealand5 7 Oct 1998 7 Sep 2000    
Niger 17 Jul 1998 11 Apr 2002    
Nigeria 1 Jun 2000 27 Sep 2001    
Norway 28 Aug 1998 16 Feb 2000    
Norway (29 August 2003)        
Notes        
Oman 20 Dec 2000      
Panama 18 Jul 1998 21 Mar 2002    
Paraguay 7 Oct 1998 14 May 2001 8 Jun 2004  
Peru 7 Dec 2000 10 Nov 2001    
Philippines 28 Dec 2000      
Poland 9 Apr 1999 12 Nov 2001 9 Mar 2004  
Portugal 7 Oct 1998 5 Feb 2002    
Republic of Korea 8 Mar 2000 13 Nov 2002    
Republic of Moldova 8 Sep 2000      
Romania 7 Jul 1999 11 Apr 2002    
Russian Federation 13 Sep 2000      
Saint Lucia 27 Aug 1999      
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines   3 Dec 2002 a    
San Marino 18 Jul 1998 13 May 1999    
Sao Tome and Principe 28 Dec 2000      
Senegal 18 Jul 1998 2 Feb 1999 6 Jan 2004  
Serbia and Montenegro 19 Dec 2000 6 Sep 2001    
Seychelles 28 Dec 2000      
Sierra Leone 17 Oct 1998 15 Sep 2000    
Slovakia 23 Dec 1998 11 Apr 2002 22 Feb 2004  
Slovenia 7 Oct 1998 31 Dec 2001    
South Africa 17 Jul 1998 27 Nov 2000    
Spain 18 Jul 1998 24 Oct 2000    
Sudan 8 Sep 2000      
Sweden 7 Oct 1998 28 Jun 2001    
Switzerland 18 Jul 1998 12 Oct 2001    
Syrian Arab Republic 29 Nov 2000      
Tajikistan 30 Nov 1998 5 May 2000    
Thailand 2 Oct 2000      
The Eastern Republic of Uruguay, by Act No. 17.510 of 27 June 2002 ratified by the legislative branch, gave its approval to the Rome Statute in terms fully compatible with Uruguay's constitutional order. While the Constitution is a law of higher rank to which all other laws are subject, this does not in any way constitute a reservation to any of the provisions of that international instrument        
The Fomer Yogoslav Republic of Macedonia 7 Oct 1998 6 Mar 2002    
The Government of Norway notes that the interpretative declaration purports to limit the application of the Statute within national legislation, and therefore constitutes a reservation        
The Government of Norway recalls that according to Article 120 of the Statute, no reservations may be made to the Statute        
The Government of Norway therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of Uruguay upon ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Statute in its entirety between the Kingdom of Norway and Uruguay. The Statute thus becomes operative between the Kingdom of Norway and Uruguay without Uruguay benefiting from the reservation."        
The Government of the United Kingdom has given careful consideration to the so-called interpretative declaration quoted above. The Government of the United Kingdom is obliged to conclude that this so-called interpretative declaration purports to exclude or modify the legal effects of the Rome Statute in its application to the Eastern Republic of Uruguay and is accordingly a reservation. However, according to Article 120 of the Rome Statute, no reservations may be made thereto        
The interpretative declaration made by Uruguay upon ratifying the Statute does not, therefore, constitute a reservation of any kind        
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Statute between Denmark and the Eastern Republic of Uruguay. The Statute will be effective between the two states, without the Eastern Republic of Uruguay benefiting from its reservations        
Timor-Leste   6 Sep 2002 a 12 May 2004  
Trinidad and Tobago 23 Mar 1999 6 Apr 1999    
Uganda 17 Mar 1999 14 Jun 2002 17 Dec 2003  
Ukraine 20 Jan 2000   24 Jan 2004  
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 30 Nov 1998 4 Oct 2001 17 Feb 2004  
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (31 July 2003)        
United Republic of Tanzania 29 Dec 2000      
United States of America6 31 Dec 2000      
Uruguay 19 Dec 2000 28 Jun 2002    
Uruguay (21 July 2003)        
Uzbekistan 29 Dec 2000      
Venezuela 14 Oct 1998 7 Jun 2000 20 Apr 2004  
Yemen 28 Dec 2000      
Zambia 17 Jul 1998 13 Nov 2002    
Zimbabwe 17 Jul 1998      
Keys:
  • Accession (a)
  • Acceptance (A)
  • Approval (AA)
  • Definitive Signature (s)
  • Formal confirmation (c)
  • Participation (P)
  • Notification (of provisional application, of special undertaking, etc) (n)
  • Ratification (Rt)
  • Reservation (r)
  • Succession (d)

© 1998 University of the South Pacific

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback| Report an error
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pits/en/status_pages/1998-5.html