(Rome Statute),[1] which founded the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 as a permanent international criminal court to "bring to justice the perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humankind – war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide", especially when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so.[2]
As of November 2016, 124 states are members of the Court.[3] Other states that have not become parties to the Rome Statute include India, Indonesia, and China.[3] On May 6, 2002, the United States, in a position shared with Israel and Sudan, having previously signed the Rome Statute formally withdrew its signature and indicated that it did not intend to ratify the agreement.[3]
United States policy concerning the ICC has varied widely. The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. The George W. Bush Administration, the U.S. administration at the time of the ICC's founding, stated that it would not join the ICC. The Obama Administration subsequently re-established a working relationship with the Court as an observer.[4] . .
Particular U.S. ratification contingencies
A treaty becomes part of the municipal law of a nation only when the treaty has been ratified, accepted, or acceded to. In the U.S., the Constitution gives the President power to negotiate treaties under the Treaty Clause of Article Two. The President must then submit a treaty to the Senate for advice and consent for ratification, and the Senate must approve the treaty by a two-thirds majority before it can take effect. The Senate may submit amendments, reservations, or explanations to the President regarding the treaty. Once ratified, treaties are generally self-executing—at least from the perspective of other nations—as the ratifying state fully binds itself to the treaty as a matter of the public international law and of national honor and good faith. In the U.S., however, a treaty does not immediately become effective as U.S. domestic law upon entry into force, which occurs only if the treaty is self-executing. In Foster v. Neilson 27 U.S. 253 (1829), the U.S. Supreme Court explained that treaties are self-executing if accompanying legislation is not necessary for implementation. A treaty requiring additional action is not self-executing; it would create an international obligation for the U.S., but would have no effect on domestic law. (Id. 314-315).'>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court
= new reply since forum marked as read
