![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't want to change this without discussing it first, but the plural of “state party” is “states parties”, and it's “party to”, not “party of”.
Can we move this page to States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court?
Maybe with redirects from States Parties to the Rome Statute and States Parties to the International Criminal Court?
Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This article and the main ICC article currently state that there are 105 states parties to the Rome Statute. This is not strictly true: Japan acceded to the Statute on 17 July 2007, but the Statute won't enter into force for Japan until 1 October. As such, Japan is not currently a State Party. Crimes committed by Japanese nationals or on Japanese territory before 1 October will not fall under the ICC's jurisdiction (barring, of course, a Security Council referral or a declaration by the Japanese government, etc).
I'm aware that the UN treaties website says there are 105 Parties to the Rome Statute, but this ICC press release is more specific: "On 1st October 2007, when the Statute will enter into force for Japan, the total number of States Parties to the Rome Statute will be 105." Moreover, the ICC's list of States Parties doesn't include Japan.
Can I suggest we reword it to "As of July 2007, 104 states are party to the Rome Statute. Japan will become a state party on 1 October 2007, bringing the total to 105." ?
This might be a little unwieldy (and I might be accused of nit-picking) but I think it's important we get basic figures like the number of states parties correct. Sideshow Bob Roberts 00:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Chad is not colored on the map but it is listed as a member in the article, somebody please correct this.
(Chad is above Central African Republic, west of Sudan, below Libya, and east of Niger) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.133.192 ( talk) 06:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we detail anywhere whcih countries have opted out of war crimes jurisdiction? If so this source [3] may be usable Colombia's position. AndrewRT( Talk) 21:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following line: There is presently bipartisan consensus that the United States does not intend to ratify the Rome Statute.
My reason for this is threefold:
-- Fandyllic ( talk) 03:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Since the Cook Islands are not a sovereign nation (I know they have the right to declare independence if they want, but as of right not they are territory of New Zealand), should they really be listed? I know the term "country" doesn't meant only sovereign nations, but it still seems misleading. 104 "countries" may be members of the ICC, but only 103 sovereign nations. TJ Spyke 02:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Should we have a section for it? I don't see one here. Here's an example of a country that didn't do either. [4] Ominae ( talk) 08:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted this edit, which claims that Chile's ratification of the Rome Statute is "not official". The government of Chile has deposited its instrument of ratification with the UN Secretariat, which is as final and official as it gets. Both the UN and the ICC confirm that Chile has ratified the treaty. [5] [6] If anyone wants to claim that the ratification is "not official", please cite a reliable, published source that says so. Polemarchus ( talk) 00:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Media are reporting that Klaus has signed and so they have ratified. Presumably the deposition is imminent. [7] AndrewRT( Talk)( WMUK) 02:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn’t ‘States Party to…’ be more grammatically plausible than ‘States Parties to…’? Ian Spackman ( talk) 11:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi @ Zntrip: What is it about Ukraine on this map that you find misleading? It think it is helpful in illustrating the article to depict all the ways that the court can be granted jurisdiction under the Rome Statue. Is your issue the limited window in time in which jurisdiction was granted? Personally I believe that there are several benefits to the svg map, so if you could clarify what the problem is it would be preferential to fix it rather than reverting to the old png. TDL ( talk)
States_parties_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court#United_States indicates that "Some US Senators have suggested that the treaty could not be ratified without a constitutional amendment."; however, the citation does not mention U.S. Senators at all. Squideshi ( talk) 22:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
While it is true that for most States, the effective date of jurisdiction is the date it enters into force for that State, it IS possible that a State may append a declaration accepting Jurisdiction prior to that date as early as July 1, 2002. Given this, wouldn't it be a good idea to add a column to this effect? I would do it unilaterally, but I really don't have the time right now. 36.235.150.99 ( talk) 09:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on States parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Zntrip: In your latest edit, you turned every space into a double space which I don't think you were trying to do, so I've undone it but tried to preserve the actual changes you were trying to make - as far as I can tell, that was adding {{-}} beneath the lead, and changing two instances of {{flag|The Gambia}} to {{flag|Gambia, The}}. Did I miss anything? DanCherek ( talk) 20:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
International Criminal Court has ruled that it indeed has authority over crimes committed in Palestine (all of Gaza and West Bank, including East Jerusalem). - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 18:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
There were some reports from Taliban-controlled medias say that Afghan is considering to withdraw their "ratifiction, accession and entry into force status" of Rome Statute, but I don't know whether they can be reliable for indicating here. Liuxinyu970226 ( talk) 06:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Sooner or later the official UN page https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10&chapter=18&clang=_en should get updated for Armenia - and then that will be a good source. Boud ( talk) 17:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't want to change this without discussing it first, but the plural of “state party” is “states parties”, and it's “party to”, not “party of”.
Can we move this page to States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court?
Maybe with redirects from States Parties to the Rome Statute and States Parties to the International Criminal Court?
Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This article and the main ICC article currently state that there are 105 states parties to the Rome Statute. This is not strictly true: Japan acceded to the Statute on 17 July 2007, but the Statute won't enter into force for Japan until 1 October. As such, Japan is not currently a State Party. Crimes committed by Japanese nationals or on Japanese territory before 1 October will not fall under the ICC's jurisdiction (barring, of course, a Security Council referral or a declaration by the Japanese government, etc).
I'm aware that the UN treaties website says there are 105 Parties to the Rome Statute, but this ICC press release is more specific: "On 1st October 2007, when the Statute will enter into force for Japan, the total number of States Parties to the Rome Statute will be 105." Moreover, the ICC's list of States Parties doesn't include Japan.
Can I suggest we reword it to "As of July 2007, 104 states are party to the Rome Statute. Japan will become a state party on 1 October 2007, bringing the total to 105." ?
This might be a little unwieldy (and I might be accused of nit-picking) but I think it's important we get basic figures like the number of states parties correct. Sideshow Bob Roberts 00:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Chad is not colored on the map but it is listed as a member in the article, somebody please correct this.
(Chad is above Central African Republic, west of Sudan, below Libya, and east of Niger) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.133.192 ( talk) 06:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we detail anywhere whcih countries have opted out of war crimes jurisdiction? If so this source [3] may be usable Colombia's position. AndrewRT( Talk) 21:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following line: There is presently bipartisan consensus that the United States does not intend to ratify the Rome Statute.
My reason for this is threefold:
-- Fandyllic ( talk) 03:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Since the Cook Islands are not a sovereign nation (I know they have the right to declare independence if they want, but as of right not they are territory of New Zealand), should they really be listed? I know the term "country" doesn't meant only sovereign nations, but it still seems misleading. 104 "countries" may be members of the ICC, but only 103 sovereign nations. TJ Spyke 02:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Should we have a section for it? I don't see one here. Here's an example of a country that didn't do either. [4] Ominae ( talk) 08:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted this edit, which claims that Chile's ratification of the Rome Statute is "not official". The government of Chile has deposited its instrument of ratification with the UN Secretariat, which is as final and official as it gets. Both the UN and the ICC confirm that Chile has ratified the treaty. [5] [6] If anyone wants to claim that the ratification is "not official", please cite a reliable, published source that says so. Polemarchus ( talk) 00:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Media are reporting that Klaus has signed and so they have ratified. Presumably the deposition is imminent. [7] AndrewRT( Talk)( WMUK) 02:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn’t ‘States Party to…’ be more grammatically plausible than ‘States Parties to…’? Ian Spackman ( talk) 11:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi @ Zntrip: What is it about Ukraine on this map that you find misleading? It think it is helpful in illustrating the article to depict all the ways that the court can be granted jurisdiction under the Rome Statue. Is your issue the limited window in time in which jurisdiction was granted? Personally I believe that there are several benefits to the svg map, so if you could clarify what the problem is it would be preferential to fix it rather than reverting to the old png. TDL ( talk)
States_parties_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court#United_States indicates that "Some US Senators have suggested that the treaty could not be ratified without a constitutional amendment."; however, the citation does not mention U.S. Senators at all. Squideshi ( talk) 22:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
While it is true that for most States, the effective date of jurisdiction is the date it enters into force for that State, it IS possible that a State may append a declaration accepting Jurisdiction prior to that date as early as July 1, 2002. Given this, wouldn't it be a good idea to add a column to this effect? I would do it unilaterally, but I really don't have the time right now. 36.235.150.99 ( talk) 09:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on States parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Zntrip: In your latest edit, you turned every space into a double space which I don't think you were trying to do, so I've undone it but tried to preserve the actual changes you were trying to make - as far as I can tell, that was adding {{-}} beneath the lead, and changing two instances of {{flag|The Gambia}} to {{flag|Gambia, The}}. Did I miss anything? DanCherek ( talk) 20:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
International Criminal Court has ruled that it indeed has authority over crimes committed in Palestine (all of Gaza and West Bank, including East Jerusalem). - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 18:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
There were some reports from Taliban-controlled medias say that Afghan is considering to withdraw their "ratifiction, accession and entry into force status" of Rome Statute, but I don't know whether they can be reliable for indicating here. Liuxinyu970226 ( talk) 06:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Sooner or later the official UN page https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10&chapter=18&clang=_en should get updated for Armenia - and then that will be a good source. Boud ( talk) 17:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)