International Criminal Court

International Criminal Court Cour Pénale Internationale Template:Fr icon
Official logo
States Parties (dark green), light green denotes states where Rome Statute is ratified but not yet in force, orange denotes states where Rome Statute is signed but not ratified
Seat	The Hague, Netherlands
Working languages	English and French
Membership	116 states from 1 November 2011: 117 states
Leaders
• President	Song Sang-Hyun
• First Vice-President	Fatoumata Dembélé Diarra
• Second Vice-President	Hans-Peter Kaul
• Judges	Elizabeth Odio Benito Akua Kuenyehia Erkki Kourula Anita Ušacka Adrian Fulford Sylvia Steiner Ekaterina Trendafilova Daniel David Ntanda Nsereko Bruno Cotte Joyce Aluoch Sanji Mmasenono Monageng Christine Van Den Wyngaert Cuno Tarfusser René Blattmann
• Prosecutor	Luis Moreno Ocampo
• Deputy Prosecutor	Fatou Bensouda
• Head of Jurisdiction, Complementarity and Cooperation	Béatrice Le Fraper du Hellen
• Head of Investigations	Michel de Smedt
• Registrar	Silvana Arbia
Establishment
• Rome Statute adopted	17 July 1998
• Entered into force	1 July 2002
Website www.icc-cpi.int

The ICC in The Hague

The International Criminal Court (French: Cour Pénale Internationale; commonly referred to as the ICC or ICCt) is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression (although it cannot currently and will in no way before 2017 be able to exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression).

It came into being on 1 July 2002—the date its founding treaty, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, entered into force—and it can only prosecute crimes committed on or after that date. The Court's official seat is in The Hague, Netherlands, but its proceedings may take place anywhere.

As of February 2024, 124 states are parties to the Statute of the Court, including all the countries of South America, nearly all of Europe, most of Oceania and roughly half of Africa. Burundi and the Philippines were member states, but later withdrew effective 27 October 2017 and 17 March 2019, respectively. A further 31 countries have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute. The law of treaties obliges these states to refrain from "acts which would defeat the object and purpose" of the treaty until they declare they do not intend to become a party to the treaty. Four signatory states—Israel in 2002, the United States on 6 May 2002, Sudan on 26 August 2008, and Russia on 30 November 2016—have informed the UN Secretary General that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, have no legal obligations arising from their signature of the Statute.

Forty-one additional states have neither signed nor acceded to the Rome Statute. Some of them, including China and India, are critical of the Court. Ukraine, a non-ratifying signatory, has accepted the Court's jurisdiction for a period starting in 2013.

The Court can generally exercise jurisdiction only in cases where the accused is a national of a state party, the alleged crime took place on the territory of a state party, or a situation is referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council. It is designed to complement existing national judicial systems: it can exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes. Primary responsibility to investigate and punish crimes is therefore left to individual states.

To date, the Court opened investigations in Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, Côte d'Ivoire, Darfur in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Libya, Uganda, Bangladesh/Myanmar, Palestine, the Philippines, and Venezuela. Additionally, the Office of the Prosecutor conducted preliminary examinations in situations in Bolivia, Colombia, Guinea, Iraq / the United Kingdom, Nigeria, Georgia, Honduras, South Korea, Ukraine and Venezuela. Preliminary investigations were closed in Gabon; Honduras; registered vessels of Comoros, Greece, and Cambodia; South Korea; and Colombia on events since 1 July 2002.

It publicly indicted 57 people. Proceedings against 25 are ongoing: 20 are at large as fugitives and five are on trial. Proceedings against 32 have been completed: two are serving sentences, seven have finished sentences, four have been acquitted, seven have had the charges against them dismissed, four have had the charges against them withdrawn, and eight have died before the conclusion of the proceedings against them.

As of September 2011, the Lubanga trial regarding the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been concluded with the judgment pending. Two trials against three people are ongoing: the Katanga-Chui trial regarding the DR Congo and the Bemba trial regarding the Central African Republic. A fourth trial, the Banda-Jerbo trial in the situation of Darfur, Sudan, is anticipated to begin in 2012. While one confirmation of charges hearing against three of the so called "Ocampo Six" in the situation of Kenya (Ruto et al.) is ongoing, another confirmation of charges hearings (in the Mbarushimana case in the situation of the DR Congo begun on Sept 15, 2011. The Second Kenya election violence case began at the ICC on 21 Sep 2011 against the other three of the "Ocampo Six", Muthaura et al.. One of the high profile suspects is Uhuru Kenyatta, the son of Kenya's first president mzee Jomo Kenyatta.The third suspect is Major Gen Hussein Ali, a former commissioner of Police in Kenya.

History

The establishment of an international tribunal to judge political leaders accused of war crimes was first made during the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 by the Commission of Responsibilities. The issue was addressed again at conference held in Geneva under the auspices of the League of Nations on 1–16 November 1937, but no practical results followed. The United Nations states that the General Assembly first recognised the need for a permanent international court to deal with atrocities of the kind committed during World War II in 1948, following the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals. At the request of the General Assembly, the International Law Commission drafted two statutes by the early 1950s but these were shelved as the Cold War made the establishment of an international criminal court politically unrealistic.

Benjamin B. Ferencz, an investigator of Nazi war crimes after World War II and the Chief Prosecutor for the United States Army at the Einsatzgruppen Trial, one of the twelve military trials held by the U.S. authorities at Nuremberg, later became a vocal advocate of the establishment of an international rule of law and of an International Criminal Court. In his first book published in 1975, entitled Defining International Aggression-The Search for World Peace, he argued for the establishment of such an international court.

The idea was revived in 1989 when A. N. R. Robinson, then Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, proposed the creation of a permanent international court to deal with the illegal drug trade. While work began on a draft statute, the international community established ad hoc tribunals to try war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, established in 1994, further highlighting the need for a permanent international criminal court.

Following years of negotiations, the General Assembly convened a conference in Rome in June 1998, with the aim of finalizing a treaty. On 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining. The seven countries that voted against the treaty were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, United States, and Yemen.

The Rome Statute became a binding treaty on 11 April 2002, when the number of countries that had ratified it reached sixty. The Statute legally came into force on 1 July 2002, and the ICC can only prosecute crimes committed after that date. The first bench of 18 judges was elected by an Assembly of States Parties in February 2003. They were sworn in at the inaugural session of the Court on 11 March 2003. The Court issued its first arrest warrants on 8 July 2005, and the first pre-trial hearings were held in 2006.

During a Review Conference of the International Criminal Court Statute in Kampala, Uganda, two amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court were adopted on June 10 and June 11, 2010. The second amendment concerns the definition of the crime of aggression.

Membership

Main article: States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

See also: United States and the International Criminal Court

As of February 2024, 124 states are parties to the Statute of the Court, including all the countries of South America, nearly all of Europe, most of Oceania and roughly half of Africa. Burundi and the Philippines were member states, but later withdrew effective 27 October 2017 and 17 March 2019, respectively. A further 31 countries have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute. The law of treaties obliges these states to refrain from "acts which would defeat the object and purpose" of the treaty until they declare they do not intend to become a party to the treaty. Four signatory states—Israel in 2002, the United States on 6 May 2002, Sudan on 26 August 2008, and Russia on 30 November 2016—have informed the UN Secretary General that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, have no legal obligations arising from their signature of the Statute.

Forty-one additional states have neither signed nor acceded to the Rome Statute. Some of them, including China and India, are critical of the Court. Ukraine, a non-ratifying signatory, has accepted the Court's jurisdiction for a period starting in 2013.

Jurisdiction

Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court

Main article: International criminal law

Article 5 of the Rome Statute grants the Court jurisdiction over four groups of crimes, which it refers to as the "most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole": the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The Statute defines each of these crimes except for aggression. The crime of genocide is unique because the crime must be committed with 'intent to destroy'. Crimes against humanity are specifically listed prohibited acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population. The Statute provides that the Court will not exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until such time as the states parties agree on a definition of the crime and set out the conditions under which it may be prosecuted.

In June 2010, the ICC's first review conference in Kampala, Uganda adopted amendments defining "crimes of aggression" and expanding the ICC's jurisdiction over them. The ICC will not be allowed to prosecute for this crime until at least 2017. Furthermore, it expanded the term of war crimes for the use of certain weapons in an armed conflict not of an international character.

Many states wanted to add terrorism and drug trafficking to the list of crimes covered by the Rome Statute; however, the states were unable to agree on a definition for terrorism and it was decided not to include drug trafficking as this might overwhelm the Court's limited resources. India lobbied to have the use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction included as war crimes but this move was also defeated. India has expressed concern that "the Statute of the ICC lays down, by clear implication, that the use of weapons of mass destruction is not a war crime. This is an extraordinary message to send to the international community."

Some commentators have argued that the Rome Statute defines crimes too broadly or too vaguely. For example, China has argued that the definition of 'war crimes' goes beyond that accepted under customary international law.

Territorial jurisdiction

During the negotiations that led to the Rome Statute, a large number of states argued that the Court should be allowed to exercise universal jurisdiction. However, this proposal was defeated due in large part to opposition from the United States. A compromise was reached, allowing the Court to exercise jurisdiction only under the following limited circumstances:

• where the person accused of committing a crime is a national of a state party (or where the person's state has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court);
• where the alleged crime was committed on the territory of a state party (or where the state on whose territory the crime was committed has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court); or
• where a situation is referred to the Court by the UN Security Council.

Temporal jurisdiction

The Court's jurisdiction does not apply retroactively: it can only prosecute crimes committed on or after 1 July 2002 (the date on which the Rome Statute entered into force). Where a state becomes party to the Rome Statute after that date, the Court can exercise jurisdiction automatically with respect to crimes committed after the Statute enters into force for that state.

Complementarity

The ICC is intended as a court of last resort, investigating and prosecuting only where national courts have failed. Article 17 of the Statute provides that a case is inadmissible if:

"(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;

(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;

(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;

(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court."

Article 20, paragraph 3, specifies that, if a person has already been tried by another court, the ICC cannot try them again for the same conduct unless the proceedings in the other court:

"(a) Were for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court; or (b) Otherwise were not conducted independently or impartially in accordance with the norms of due process recognized by international law and were conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, was inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice."

Structure

The ICC is governed by an Assembly of States Parties. The Court consists of four organs: the Presidency, the Judicial Divisions, the Office of the Prosecutor, and the Registry.

Assembly of States Parties

The Court's management oversight and legislative body, the Assembly of States Parties, consists of one representative from each state party. Each state party has one vote and "every effort" has to be made to reach decisions by consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, decisions are made by vote. The Assembly is presided over by a president and two vice-presidents, who are elected by the members to three-year terms.

The Assembly meets in full session once a year in New York or The Hague, and may also hold special sessions where circumstances require. Sessions are open to observer states and non-governmental organisations.

The Assembly elects the judges and prosecutors, decides the Court's budget, adopts important texts (such as the Rules of Procedure and Evidence), and provides management oversight to the other organs of the Court. Article 46 of the Rome Statute allows the Assembly to remove from office a judge or prosecutor who "is found to have committed serious misconduct or a serious breach of his or her duties" or "is unable to exercise the functions required by this Statute".

The states parties cannot interfere with the judicial functions of the Court. Disputes concerning individual cases are settled by the Judicial Divisions.

At the seventh session of the Assembly of States Parties in November 2008, the Assembly decided that the Review Conference of the Rome Statute shall be held in Kampala, Uganda, during the first semester of 2010.

Presidency

Main article: Presidency of the International Criminal Court

Philippe Kirsch, President of the Court from 2003 to 2009

The Presidency is responsible for the proper administration of the Court (apart from the Office of the Prosecutor). It comprises the President and the First and Second Vice-Presidents—three judges of the Court who are elected to the Presidency by their fellow judges for a maximum of two three-year terms. The current President is Sang-Hyun Song, who was elected on 11 March 2009.

Judicial Divisions

Main article: Judges of the International Criminal Court

The Judicial Divisions consist of the 18 judges of the Court, organized into three divisions—the Pre-Trial Division, Trial Division and Appeals Division—which carry out the judicial functions of the Court. Judges are elected to the Court by the Assembly of States Parties. They serve nine-year terms and are not generally eligible for re-election. All judges must be nationals of states parties to the Rome Statute, and no two judges may be nationals of the same state. They must be “persons of high moral character, impartiality and integrity who possess the qualifications required in their respective States for appointment to the highest judicial offices”.

The Prosecutor or any person being investigated or prosecuted may request the disqualification of a judge from "any case in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be doubted on any ground". Any request for the disqualification of a judge from a particular case is decided by an absolute majority of the other judges. A judge may be removed from office if he or she "is found to have committed serious misconduct or a serious breach of his or her duties" or is unable to exercise his or her functions. The removal of a judge requires both a two-thirds majority of the other judges and a two-thirds majority of the states parties.

Office of the Prosecutor

The Office of the Prosecutor is responsible for conducting investigations and prosecutions. It is headed by the Prosecutor, who is assisted by two Deputy Prosecutors. The Rome Statute provides that the Office of the Prosecutor shall act independently; as such, no member of the Office may seek or act on instructions from any external source, such as states, international organisations, non-governmental organisations or individuals.

The Prosecutor may open an investigation under three circumstances:

• when a situation is referred to him by a state party;
• when a situation is referred to him by the United Nations Security Council, acting to address a threat to international peace and security; or
• when the Pre-Trial Chamber authorises him to open an investigation on the basis of information received from other sources, such as individuals or non-governmental organisations.

Any person being investigated or prosecuted may request the disqualification of a prosecutor from any case "in which their impartiality might reasonably be doubted on any ground". Requests for the disqualification of prosecutors are decided by the Appeals Division. A prosecutor may be removed from office by an absolute majority of the states parties if he or she "is found to have committed serious misconduct or a serious breach of his or her duties" or is unable to exercise his or her functions. However, critics of the Court argue that there are “insufficient checks and balances on the authority of the ICC prosecutor and judges” and “insufficient protection against politicized prosecutions or other abuses”. Henry Kissinger says the checks and balances are so weak that the prosecutor “has virtually unlimited discretion in practice”.

As of 16 June 2003, the Prosecutor has been Luis Moreno Ocampo of Argentina, who was elected by the Assembly of States Parties on 21 April 2003 for a term of nine years.

The election of the next prosecutor is scheduled for the session of the Assembly of States Parties to be held from 12 to 21 December 2011. A search committee for the position has been established, and is accepting nominations during the period from 13 June to 2 September 2011. Although the names of nominees are confidential for the time being, updates on the work of the search committee have been published on the web.

Registry

The Registry is responsible for the non-judicial aspects of the administration and servicing of the Court. This includes, among other things, “the administration of legal aid matters, court management, victims and witnesses matters, defence counsel, detention unit, and the traditional services provided by administrations in international organisations, such as finance, translation, building management, procurement and personnel”. The Registry is headed by the Registrar, who is elected by the judges to a five-year term. The current Registrar is Silvana Arbia, who was elected on 28 February 2009.

Headquarters, offices and detention unit

The official seat of the Court is in The Hague, Netherlands, but its proceedings may take place anywhere. The Court is currently housed in interim premises on the eastern edge of The Hague. The Court intends to construct permanent premises in the Alexanderkazerne, to the north of The Hague.

The ICC also maintains a liaison office in New York and field offices in places where it conducts its activities. As of 18 October 2007, the Court had field offices in Kampala, Kinshasa, Bunia, Abéché and Bangui.

The ICC's detention centre comprises twelve cells on the premises of the Scheveningen branch of the Haaglanden Penal Institution, The Hague. Suspects held by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia are held in the same prison and share some facilities, like the fitness room, but have no contact with suspects held by the ICC. The detention unit is close to the ICC's future headquarters in the Alexanderkazerne.

As of February 2011, the detention centre houses six suspects: Thomas Lubanga, Germain Katanga, Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Jean-Pierre Bemba, Callixte Mbarushimana and also former Liberian President Charles Taylor. Taylor is being tried under the mandate and auspices of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, but his trial is being held at the ICC's facilities in The Hague because of political and security concerns about holding the trial in Freetown.

The ICC does not have its own witness protection program, but rather must rely on national programs to keep witnesses safe.

Procedure

Rights of the accused

The Rome Statute provides that all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and establishes certain rights of the accused and persons during investigations. These include the right to be fully informed of the charges against him or her; the right to have a lawyer appointed, free of charge; the right to a speedy trial; and the right to examine the witnesses against him or her and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his or her behalf.

Some argue that the protections offered by the ICC are insufficient. According to one conservative think-tank, the Heritage Foundation, "Americans who appear before the court would be denied such basic constitutional rights as trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from double jeopardy, and the right to confront one's accusers." The Human Rights Watch argues that the ICC standards are sufficient, saying, “the ICC has one of the most extensive lists of due process guarantees ever written”, including "presumption of innocence; right to counsel; right to present evidence and to confront witnesses; right to remain silent; right to be present at trial; right to have charges proved beyond a reasonable doubt; and protection against double jeopardy". According to David Scheffer, who led the US delegation to the Rome Conference (and who voted against adoption of the treaty), "when we were negotiating the Rome treaty, we always kept very close tabs on, 'Does this meet U.S. constitutional tests, the formation of this court and the due process rights that are accorded defendants?' And we were very confident at the end of Rome that those due process rights, in fact, are protected, and that this treaty does meet a constitutional test."

To ensure "equality of arms" between defence and prosecution teams, the ICC has established an independent Office of Public Counsel for the Defence (OPCD) to provide logistical support, advice and information to defendants and their counsel. The OPCD also helps to safeguard the rights of the accused during the initial stages of an investigation. However, Thomas Lubanga's defence team say they have been given a smaller budget than the Prosecutor and that evidence and witness statements have been slow to arrive.

Victim participation and reparations

One of the great innovations of the Statute of the International Criminal Court and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence is the series of rights granted to victims. For the first time in the history of international criminal justice, victims have the possibility under the Statute to present their views and observations before the Court.

Participation before the Court may occur at various stages of proceedings and may take different forms. Although it will be up to the judges to give directions as to the timing and manner of participation.

Participation in the Court's proceedings will in most cases take place through a legal representative and will be conducted "in a manner which is not prejudicial or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial".

The victim-based provisions within the Rome Statute provide victims with the opportunity to have their voices heard and to obtain, where appropriate, some form of reparation for their suffering. It is this balance between retributive and restorative justice that will enable the ICC, not only to bring criminals to justice but also to help the victims themselves obtain justice.

Article 43(6) establishes a Victims and Witnesses Unit to provide "protective measures and security arrangements, counseling and other appropriate assistance for witnesses, victims who appear before the Court, and others who are at risk on account of testimony given by such witnesses." Article 68 sets out procedures for the "Protection of the victims and witnesses and their participation in the proceedings." The Court has also established an Office of Public Counsel for Victims, to provide support and assistance to victims and their legal representatives. Article 79 of the Rome Statute establishes a Trust Fund to make financial reparations to victims and their families.

Participation of victims in proceedings

The Rome Statute contains provisions which enable victims to participate in all stages of the proceedings before the Court.

Hence victims may file submissions before the Pre-Trial Chamber when the Prosecutor requests its authorisation to investigate. They may also file submissions on all matters relating to the competence of the Court or the admissibility of cases.

More generally, victims are entitled to file submissions before the Court chambers at the pre-trial stage, during the proceedings or at the appeal stage.

The rules of procedure and evidence stipulate the time for victim participation in proceedings before the Court. They must send a written application to the Court Registrar and more precisely to the Victims' Participation and Reparation Section, which must submit the application to the competent Chamber which decides on the arrangements for the victims' participation in the proceedings. The Chamber may reject the application if it considers that the person is not a victim. Individuals who wish to make applications to participate in proceedings before the Court must therefore provide evidence proving they are victims of crimes which come under the competence of the Court in the proceedings commenced before it. The Section prepared standard forms and a booklet to make it easier for victims to file their petition to participate in the proceedings.

It should be stipulated that a petition may be made by a person acting with the consent of the victim, or in their name when the victim is a child or if any disability makes this necessary.

Victims are free to choose their legal representative who must be equally as qualified as the counsel for the defence (this may be a lawyer or person with experience as a judge or prosecutor) and be fluent in one of the Court's two working languages (English or French).

To ensure efficient proceedings, particularly in cases with many victims, the competent Chamber may ask victims to choose a shared legal representative. If the victims are unable to appoint one, the Chamber may ask the Registrar to appoint one or more shared legal representatives. The Victims' Participation and Reparation Section is responsible for assisting victims with the organisation of their legal representation before the Court. When a victim or a group of victims does not have the means to pay for a shared legal representative appointed by the Court, they may request financial aid from the Court to pay counsel. Counsel may participate in the proceedings before the Court by filing submissions and attending the hearings.

The Registry, and within it the Victims' Participation and Reparation Section, has many obligations with regard to notification of the proceedings to the victims to keep them fully informed of progress. Thus, it is stipulated that the Section must notify victims, who have communicated with the Court in a given case or situation, of any decisions by the Prosecutor not to open an investigation or not to commence a prosecution, so that these victims can file submissions before the Pre-Trial Chamber responsible for checking the decisions taken by the Prosecutor under the conditions laid down in the Statute. The same notification is required before the confirmation hearing in the Pre-Trial Chamber to allow the victims to file all the submissions they require. All decisions taken by the Court are then notified to the victims who participated in the proceedings or to their counsel. The Victims' Participation and Reparation Section has wide discretion to use all possible means to give adequate publicity to the proceedings before the Court (local media, requests for co-operation sent to Governments, aid requested from NGOs or other means).

Reparation for victims

For the first time in the history of humanity, an international court has the power to order an individual to pay reparation to another individual; it is also the first time that an international criminal court has had such power.

Pursuant to article 75, the Court may lay down the principles for reparation for victims, which may include restitution, indemnification and rehabilitation. On this point, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court has benefited from all the work carried out with regard to victims, in particular within the United Nations.

The Court must also enter an order against a convicted person stating the appropriate reparation for the victims or their beneficiaries. This reparation may also take the form of restitution, indemnification or rehabilitation. The Court may order this reparation to be paid through the Trust Fund for Victims, which was set up by the Assembly of States Parties in September 2002.

To be able to apply for reparation, victims have to file a written application with the Registry, which must contain the evidence laid down in Rule 94 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The Victims' Participation and Reparation Section prepared standard forms to make this easier for victims. They may also apply for protective measures for the purposes of confiscating property from the persons prosecuted.

The Victims' Participation and Reparation Section is responsible for giving all appropriate publicity to these reparation proceedings to enable victims to make their applications. These proceedings take place after the person prosecuted has been declared guilty of the alleged facts.

The Court has the option of granting individual or collective reparation, concerning a whole group of victims or a community, or both. If the Court decides to order collective reparation, it may order that reparation to be made through the Victims' Fund and the reparation may then also be paid to an inter-governmental, international or national organisation.

Co-operation by states not party to Rome Statute

One of the principles of international law is that a treaty does not create either obligations or rights for third states (pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt) without their consent, and this is also enshrined in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The co-operation of the non-party states with the ICC is envisioned by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to be of voluntary nature. However, even states that have not acceded to the Rome Statute might still be subjects to an obligation to co-operate with ICC in certain cases. When a case is referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council all UN member states are obliged to co-operate, since its decisions are binding for all of them. Also, there is an obligation to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law, which stems from the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I, which reflects the absolute nature of IHL. Although the wording of the Conventions might not be precise as to what steps have to be taken, it has been argued that it at least requires non-party states to make an effort not to block actions of ICC in response to serious violations of those Conventions. In relation to co-operation in investigation and evidence gathering, it is implied from the Rome Statute that the consent of a non-party state is a prerequisite for ICC Prosecutor to conduct an investigation within its territory, and it seems that it is even more necessary for him to observe any reasonable conditions raised by that state, since such restrictions exist for states party to the Statute. Taking into account the experience of the ICTY (which worked with the principle of the primacy, instead of complementarity) in relation to co-operation, some scholars have expressed their pessimism as to the possibility of ICC to obtain co-operation of non-party states. As for the actions that ICC can take towards non-party states that do not co-operate, the Rome Statute stipulates that the Court may inform the Assembly of States Parties or Security Council, when the matter was referred by it, when non-party state refuses to co-operate after it has entered into an ad hoc arrangement or an agreement with the Court.

Amnesties and national reconciliation processes

It is unclear to what extent the ICC is compatible with reconciliation processes that grant amnesty to human rights abusers as part of agreements to end conflict. Article 16 of the Rome Statute allows the Security Council to prevent the Court from investigating or prosecuting a case, and Article 53 allows the Prosecutor the discretion not to initiate an investigation if he or she believes that “an investigation would not serve the interests of justice”. Former ICC President Philippe Kirsch has said that "some limited amnesties may be compatible" with a country's obligations genuinely to investigate or prosecute under the Statute.

It is sometimes argued that amnesties are necessary to allow the peaceful transfer of power from abusive regimes. By denying states the right to offer amnesty to human rights abusers, the International Criminal Court may make it more difficult to negotiate an end to conflict and a transition to democracy. For example, the outstanding arrest warrants for four leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army are regarded by some as an obstacle to ending the insurgency in Uganda. Czech politician Marek Benda argues that "the ICC as a deterrent will in our view only mean the worst dictators will try to retain power at all costs". However, the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross maintain that granting amnesty to those accused of war crimes and other serious crimes is a violation of international law.

Relationship with the United Nations

The UN Security Council has referred the situation in Darfur to the ICC

Unlike the International Court of Justice, the ICC is legally and functionally independent from the United Nations. However, the Rome Statute grants certain powers to the United Nations Security Council. Article 13 allows the Security Council to refer to the Court situations that would not otherwise fall under the Court's jurisdiction (as it did in relation to the situations in Darfur and Libya, which the Court could not otherwise have prosecuted as neither Sudan nor Libya are state parties). Article 16 allows the Security Council to require the Court to defer from investigating a case for a period of 12 months. Such a deferral may be renewed indefinitely by the Security Council.

The Court cooperates with the UN in many different areas, including the exchange of information and logistical support. The Court reports to the UN each year on its activities, and some meetings of the Assembly of States Parties are held at UN facilities. The relationship between the Court and the UN is governed by a “Relationship Agreement between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations”.

Relationship with Nongovernmental Organizations

During the 1970s and 1980s, international human rights and humanitarian Nongovernmental Organizations (or NGOs) began to proliferate at exponential rates. Concurrently, the quest to find a way to punish international crimes shifted from being the exclusive responsibility of legal experts to being shared with international human rights activism.

NGOs helped birth the ICC through advocacy and championing for the prosecution of perpetrators of crimes against humanity. NGOs closely monitor the organization's declarations and actions, ensuring that the work that is being executed on behalf of the ICC is fulfilling its objectives and responsibilities to civil society. According to Benjamin Schiff, "From the Statute Conference onward, the relationship between the ICC and the NGOs has probably been closer, more consistent, and more vital to the Court than have analogous relations between NGOs and any other international organization."

There are a number of NGOs working on a variety of issues related to the ICC. The NGO Coalition for the International Criminal Court has served as a sort of umbrella for NGOs to coordinate with each other on similar objectives related to the ICC. The CICC has 2,500 member organizations in 150 different countries. The original steering committee included representatives from the World Federalist Movement, the International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, Parliamentarians for Global Action, and No Peace Without Justice. Today, many of the NGOs with which the ICC cooperates are members of the CICC. These organizations come from a range of backgrounds, spanning from major international NGOs such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, to smaller, more local organizations focused on peace and justice missions. Many work closely with states, such as the International Criminal Law Network, founded and predominantly funded by The Hague municipality and the Dutch Ministries of Defense and Foreign Affairs. The CICC also claims organizations that are themselves federations, such as the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH).

CICC members ascribe to three principles that permit them to work under the umbrella of the CICC, so long as their objectives match them:

• Promoting worldwide ratification and implementation of the Rome Statute of the ICC
• Maintaining the integrity of the Rome Statute of the ICC, and
• Ensuring the ICC will be as fair, effective and independent as possible

The NGOs that work under the CICC do not normally pursue agendas exclusive to the work of the Court, rather they may work for broader causes, such as general human rights issues, victims' rights, gender rights, rule of law, conflict mediation, and peace. The CICC coordinates their efforts to improve the efficiency of NGOs' contributions to the Court and to pool their influence on major common issues. From the ICC side, it has been useful to have the CICC channel NGO contacts with the Court so that its officials do not have to interact individually with thousands of separate organizations.

NGOs have been crucial to the evolution of the ICC, as they assisted in the creation of the normative climate that urged states to seriously consider the Court's formation. Their legal experts helped shape the Statute, while their lobbying efforts built support for it. They advocate Statute ratification globally and work at expert and political levels within member states for passage of necessary domestic legislation. NGOs are greatly represented at meetings for the Assembly of States Parties and they use the ASP meetings to press for decisions promoting their priorities. Many of these NGOs have reasonable access to important officials at the ICC because of their involvement during the Statute process. They are engaged in monitoring, commenting upon, and assisting in the ICC's activities.

The ICC many time depends on NGOs to interact with local populations. The Registry Public Information Office personnel and Victims Participation and Reparations Section officials hold seminars for local leaders, professionals and the media to spread the word about the Court. These are the kinds of events that are often hosted or organized by local NGOs. Because there can be challenges with determining which of these NGOs are legitimate, CICC regional representatives oftentimes have the ability to help screen and identify trustworthy organizations.

However, NGOs are also "sources of criticism, exhortation and pressure upon" the ICC. The ICC heavily depends on NGOs for its operations. Although NGOs and states cannot directly impact the judicial nucleus of the organization, they can impart information on crimes, can help locate victims and witnesses, and can promote and organize victim participation. NGOs outwardly comment on the Court's operations, "push for expansion of its activities especially in the new justice areas of outreach in conflict areas, in victims' participation and reparations, an in upholding due-process standards and defense 'equality of arms' and so implicitly set an agenda for the future evolution of the ICC." The relatively uninterrupted progression of NGO involvement with the ICC may mean that NGOs have become repositories of more institutional historical knowledge about the ICC than have national representatives to it and have greater expertise than some of the organization's employees themselves. While NGOs look to mold the ICC to satisfy the interests and priorities that they have worked for since the early 1990s, they unavoidably press against the limits imposed upon the ICC by the states that are members of the organization. NGOs can pursue their own mandates, irrespective of whether they are compatible with those of other NGOs, while the ICC must respond to the complexities of its own mandate as well as those of the states and NGOs.

Another issue has been that NGOs possess ""exaggerated senses of their ownership over the organization and, having been vital to and successful in promoting the Court, were not managing to redefine their roles to permit the Court its necessary independence." Additionally, because there does exist such a gap between the large human rights organizations and the smaller peace-oriented organizations, it is difficult for ICC officials to manage and gratify all of their NGOs. "ICC officials recognize that the NGOs pursue their own agendas, and that they will seek to pressure the ICC in the direction of their own priorities rather than necessarily understanding or being fully sympathetic to the myriad constraints and pressures under which the Court operates." Both the ICC and the NGO community avoid criticizing each other publicly or vehemently, although NGOs have released advisory and cautionary messages regarding the ICC. They avoid taking stances that could potentially give the Court's adversaries, particularly the US, more motive to berate the organization.

Finance

Contributions to the ICC's budget, 2008

The ICC is financed by contributions from the states parties. The amount payable by each state party is determined using the same method as the United Nations: each state's contribution is based on the country’s capacity to pay, which reflects factors such as a national income and population. The maximum amount a single country can pay in any year is limited to 22% of the Court's budget; Japan paid this amount in 2008.

The Court spent €80.5 million in 2007, and the Assembly of States Parties has approved a budget of €90,382,100 for 2008 and €101,229,900 for 2009. As of September 2008, the ICC’s staff consisted of 571 persons from 83 states.

Investigations

Main article: International Criminal Court investigations

ICC investigations (as of August 2011)
Green: Official investigations
Yellow: Pending request for authorization
Light red: Ongoing preliminary examinations
Dark red: Closed preliminary examinations

The Court has received complaints about alleged crimes in at least 139 countries, but, as of March 2011, the Prosecutor of the Court opened investigations in Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, Côte d'Ivoire, Darfur in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Libya, Uganda, Bangladesh/Myanmar, Palestine, the Philippines, and Venezuela. Additionally, the Office of the Prosecutor conducted preliminary examinations in situations in Bolivia, Colombia, Guinea, Iraq / the United Kingdom, Nigeria, Georgia, Honduras, South Korea, Ukraine and Venezuela. Preliminary investigations were closed in Gabon; Honduras; registered vessels of Comoros, Greece, and Cambodia; South Korea; and Colombia on events since 1 July 2002.

Summary of investigations and prosecutions by the International Criminal Court (as of June 2011)

Situation	Publicly indicted	Ongoing procedures				Procedures finished, due to ...			PTC	TCs
		Not before court	Pre-Trial	Trial	Appeal	Death	Acquittal	Conviction
Democratic Republic of the Congo	5	1	1	3	0	0	0	0	I	I, II
Uganda	5	4	0	0	0	1	0	0	II
Central African Republic	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	II	III
Darfur, Sudan	6	3	2	0	0	0	1	0	I	IV
Kenya	6	0	6	0	0	0	0	0	II
Libya	3	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	I
Côte d'Ivoire	Authorization by Pre-Trial Chamber pending								III
Total	26	11	9	4	0	1	1	0

Notes

Detailed summary of investigations and prosecutions by the International Criminal Court

Situation	Individuals indicted	Indicted					Transfer to ICC Initial appearance	Confirmation of charges hearing Result	Trial Result	Appeal hearings Result	Current status	Ref.
		Date	G	CAH	WC	OAJ
Democratic Republic of the Congo Investigation article	Thomas Lubanga Dyilo	10 February 2006	—	—	3	—	17 March 2006 20 March 2006	9-28 November 2006 confirmed 29 January 2007	26 January 2009 – 26 August 2011 convicted 14 March 2012 sentenced 10 July 2012	19–20 May 2014 verdict and sentence confirmed 1 December 2014	Convicted and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment; decision final; reparations regime established; ICC-related sentence served (after 14 years)
	Bosco Ntaganda	22 August 2006 13 July 2012	—	3	7	—	22 March 2013 26 March 2013	10-14 February 2014 confirmed 9 June 2014	2 September 2015 - 30 August 2018 convicted 8 July 2019 sentenced 7 November 2019	Verdict and sentence confirmed 30 March 2021	Convicted and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment; decision final; in custody of Belgian authorities; release between 2033 and 2043
	Germain Katanga	2 July 2007	—	3	6	—	17 October 2007 22 October 2007	27 June–18 July 2008 confirmed 26 September 2008	24 November 2009 – 23 May 2012 convicted 7 March 2014 sentenced 23 May 2014	Appeals by Prosecution and Defence discontinued	Convicted and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment; decision final; reparations regime established; ICC-related sentence served (after 8 years, 4 months); remained in custody of DRC authorities due to other charges
	Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui	6 July 2007	—	3	6	—	6 February 2008 11 February 2008		24 November 2009 – 23 May 2012 acquitted 18 December 2012	21 October 2014 acquittal confirmed 27 February 2015	Acquitted; decision final
	Callixte Mbarushimana	28 September 2010	—	5	6	—	25 January 2011 28 January 2011	16-21 September 2011 dismissed 16 December 2011			Proceedings finished with charges dismissed, released
	Sylvestre Mudacumura	13 July 2012	—	—	9	—					Not in ICC custody, reportedly died on 17/18 September 2019
Uganda Investigation article	Joseph Kony	8 July 2005	—	12	21	—					Not in ICC custody
	Okot Odhiambo		—	3	7	—					Proceedings finished due to death
	Raska Lukwiya		—	1	3	—					Proceedings finished due to death
	Vincent Otti		—	11	21	—					Proceedings finished due to death
	Dominic Ongwen		—	3	4	—	21 January 2015 26 January 2015	21–27 January 2016 confirmed 23 March 2016	6 December 2016 – 12 March 2020 convicted 4 February 2021 sentenced 6 May 2021	14-18 February 2022 verdict and sentence confirmed 15 December 2022	Convicted and sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment; decision final; in custody of Norwegian authorities, release between 2033 and 2043
Central African Republic	Jean-Pierre Bemba	23 May 2008 10 June 2008	—	3	5	—	3 July 2008 4 July 2008	12-15 January 2009 confirmed 15 June 2009	22 November 2010 – 13 November 2014 convicted 21 March 2016 sentenced 21 June 2016	9-16 January 2018 acquitted 8 June 2018	Acquitted; decision final
		20 November 2013	—	—	—	2	23 November 2013 27 November 2013	in writing confirmed 11 November 2014	29 September 2015 – 2 June 2016 convicted 19 October 2016 sentenced 22 March 2017 partially re-sentenced upon appeal 17 September 2018	Verdicts modified and re-sentencing partially remanded to Trial Chamber 8 March 2018 re-sentencing confirmed 27 November 2019	Convicted and sentenced to one year of imprisonment and a fine of 300,000 USD; decision final; sentence served
	Aimé Kilolo Musamba		—	—	—	2	25 November 2013 27 November 2013				Convicted and sentenced to a fine of 30,000 USD; decision final
	Fidèle Babala Wandu		—	—	—	2					Convicted and sentenced to six months of imprisonment; decision final; sentence served
	Jean-Jacques Mangenda Kabongo		—	—	—	2	4 December 2013 5 December 2013				Convicted and sentenced to eleven months of imprisonment; decision final; sentence served
	Narcisse Arido		—	—	—	2	18 March 2014 20 March 2014				Convicted and sentenced to eleven months of imprisonment; decision final; sentence served
Darfur, Sudan Investigation article	Ahmed Haroun	27 April 2007	—	20	22	—					Not in ICC custody
	Ali Kushayb		—	22	28	—	9 June 2020 15 June 2020	24-26 May 2021 confirmed 9 July 2021	5 April 2022 –		In ICC custody, charges confirmed, trial before Trial-Chamber I ongoing
	Omar al-Bashir	4 March 2009 12 July 2010	3	5	2	—					Not in ICC custody
	Bahr Idriss Abu Garda	7 May 2009 (summons)	—	—	3	—	18 May 2009	19-29 October 2009 dismissed 8 February 2010			Proceedings finished with charges dismissed
	Abdallah Banda	27 August 2009 (summons) 11 September 2014 (warrant of arrest)	—	—	3	—	17 June 2010	8 December 2010 confirmed 7 March 2011			At large under warrant of arrest, previously appeared voluntarily, charges confirmed, trial before Trial Chamber IV to begin
	Saleh Jerbo	27 August 2009 (summons)	—	—	3	—					Proceedings finished due to death
	Abdel Raheem Muhammad Hussein	1 March 2012	—	7	6	—					Not in ICC custody
Kenya Investigation article	William Ruto	8 March 2011 (summons)	—	4	—	—	7 April 2011	1-8 September 2011 confirmed 23 January 2012	10 September 2013 – 5 April 2016 (terminated)		Proceedings terminated with no prejudice to re-prosecution, appeal possible
	Joshua Sang		—	4	—	—
	Henry Kosgey		—	4	—	—		1-8 September 2011 dismissed 23 January 2012			Proceedings finished with charges dismissed
	Francis Muthaura	8 March 2011 (summons)	—	5	—	—	8 April 2011	21 September – 5 October 2011 confirmed 23 January 2012			Proceedings finished with confirmed charges withdrawn before trial
	Uhuru Kenyatta		—	5	—	—
	Mohammed Hussein Ali		—	5	—	—		21 September – 5 October 2011 dismissed 23 January 2012			Proceedings finished with charges dismissed
	Walter Barasa	2 August 2013	—	—	—	3					Not in ICC custody
	Paul Gicheru	10 March 2015	—	—	—	6	3 November 2020 6 November 2020	confirmed 15 July 2021	15 February 2022 – 27 June 2022		Proceedings finished due to death
	Philip Kipkoech Bett		—	—	—	4					Not in ICC custody
Libya Investigation article	Muammar Gaddafi	27 June 2011	—	2	—	—					Proceedings finished due to death
	Saif al-Islam Gaddafi		—	2	—	—					Not in ICC custody
	Abdullah Senussi		—	2	—	—					Proceedings finished with case held inadmissible
	Al-Tuhamy Mohamed Khaled	18 April 2013	—	4	3	—					Proceedings finished due to death
	Mahmoud al-Werfalli	15 August 2017 4 July 2018	—	—	7	—					Proceedings finished due to death
Ivory Coast	Laurent Gbagbo	23 November 2011	—	4	—	—	30 November 2011 5 December 2011	19–28 February 2013 confirmed 12 June 2014	28 January 2016 – 15 January 2019 acquitted 15 January 2019	Acquittal confirmed 31 March 2021	Acquitted; decision final
	Charles Blé Goudé	21 December 2011	—	4	—	—	22–23 March 2014 27 March 2014	29 September – 2 October 2014 confirmed 11 December 2014
	Simone Gbagbo	29 February 2012	—	4	—	—					Proceedings finished with charges withdrawn
Mali Investigation article	Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi	18 September 2015	—	—	1	—	26 September 2015 30 September 2015	1 March 2016 confirmed 24 March 2016	22–24 August 2016 convicted and sentenced 27 September 2016		Convicted and sentenced to nine years imprisonment; decision final; reparations regime established; ICC-related sentence served (after seven years)
	Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz	27 March 2018	—	4	4	—	31 March 2018 4 April 2018	8–17 July 2019 confirmed 30 September 2019	14 July 2020 – 25 May 2023 convicted 26 June 2024 sentence to be delivered		In ICC custody, convicted, to be sentenced by Trial-Chamber X
	Iyad Ag Ghaly	18 July 2017	—	6	4	—					Not in ICC custody
Central African Republic II	Alfred Yekatom	11 November 2018	—	6	7	—	17 November 2018 23 November 2018	19 September 2019 – 11 October 2019 confirmed 11 December 2019	16 February 2021 –		In ICC custody, charges confirmed, trial before Trial-Chamber V ongoing
	Patrice-Edouard Ngaïssona	7 December 2018	—	7	9	—	23 January 2019 25 January 2019
	Maxime Mokom	10 December 2018	—	9	13	—	14 March 2022 22 March 2022	22–24 August 2023			Proceedings finished with charges withdrawn
	Mahamat Said Abdel Kani	7 January 2019	—	8	6	—	24 January 2021 28–29 January 2021	12–14 October 2022 confirmed 9 December 2021	26 September 2022 –		In ICC custody, charges confirmed, trial before Trial-Chamber VI ongoing
	Noureddine Adam	7 January 2019	—	5	1	—					Not in ICC custody
Georgia Investigation article	Mikhail Mindzaev	24 June 2022	—	—	5	—					Not in ICC custody
	Gamlet Guchmazov		—	—	5	—					Not in ICC custody
	David Sanakoev		—	—	2	—					Not in ICC custody
Burundi											Investigation initiated
Bangladesh/Myanmar											Investigation initiated
Afghanistan Investigation article											Investigation initiated
Palestine Investigation article											Investigation initiated
Philippines											Investigation initiated
Venezuela I Investigation article											Investigation initiated
Ukraine Investigation article Arrest warrants article	Vladimir Putin	17 March 2023	—	—	2	—					Not in ICC custody
	Maria Lvova-Belova		—	—	2	—					Not in ICC custody
	Viktor Sokolov	5 March 2024	—	1	2	—					Not in ICC custody
	Sergey Kobylash		—	1	2	—					Not in ICC custody
	Sergei Shoigu	24 June 2024	—	1	2	—					Not in ICC custody
	Valery Gerasimov		—	1	2	—					Not in ICC custody

Notes

Palestinian Authority

On 22 January 2009, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court received an official communication from the Minister of Justice of the Palestinian Authority (PA), Ali Kashan, which expressed the PA's readiness to recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC over “the territory of Palestine.” The PA's declaration purported to invoke Article 12 (3) of the Rome Statute, which specifically enables "a state which is not a party to this Statute" to request that the ICC exercise its jurisdiction on an ad hoc basis with respect to an alleged crime on that state’s territory or involving its nationals.

In other words, the PA's declaration to the Office of the Prosecutor amounted to an official request to confirm that the PA can be considered a state for purposes of ICC jurisdiction.

Resentment in Africa about "double standard"

The fact that so far the International Criminal Court has only investigated African countries and only indicted Africans is creating resentment in some African countries, even in countries which are state parties to the Court. At a meeting of 30 African ICC member states in June 2009, several African countries, including Senegal, Djibouti and the Comoros, called on African ICC members to withdraw from the Court in protest of the fact that the Court allegedly targets Africa only, and especially of the indictment against Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir. The Peace and Security Commissioner of the African Union, Ramtane Lamamra, said that the Prosecutor of the ICC was applying "a double standard in pursuing cases against some leaders while ignoring others".

Further reading

• Bruce Broomhall, International Justice and the International Criminal Court: Between Sovereignty and the Rule of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2003). ISBN 019927424X.
• Anne-Marie de Brouwer, Supranational Criminal Prosecution of Sexual Violence: The ICC and the Practice of the ICTY and the ICTR. Antwerp – Oxford: Intersentia (2005). ISBN 90-5095-533-9.
• Antonio Cassese, Paola Gaeta & John R.W.D. Jones (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2002). ISBN 978-0-19-829862-5.
• Hans Köchler, Global Justice or Global Revenge? International Criminal Justice at the Crossroads. Vienna/New York: Springer, 2003, ISBN 3-211-00795-4.
• Helmut Kreicker: Immunität und IStGH: Zur Bedeutung völkerrechtlicher Exemtionen für den Internationalen Strafgerichtshof; Zeitschrift für internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik (ZIS) 7/2009, available at.
• Helmut Kreicker: Völkerrechtliche Exemtionen: Grundlagen und Grenzen völkerrechtlicher Immunitäten und ihre Wirkungen im Strafrecht. 2 vol., Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-86113-868-6. See also.
• Steven C. Roach (ed.) Governance, Order, and the International Criminal Court: Between Realpolitik and a Cosmopolitan Court. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2009). ISBN 978-0-199-54673-2.
• Roy S Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute. The Hague: Kluwer Law International (1999). ISBN 90-411-1212-X.
• Roy S Lee & Hakan Friman (eds.), The International Criminal Court: Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence. Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers (2001). ISBN 1-57105-209-7.
• Madeline Morris (ed.), "The United States and the International Criminal Court", Law and Contemporary Problems, Winter 2001, vol. 64, no. 1. Retrieved 2007-07-24.
• William A Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2004). ISBN 0-521-01149-3.
• Benjamin N. Schiff. Building the International Criminal Court. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2008) ISBN 978-0-521-694472-8.
• Nicolaos Strapatsas, "Universal Jurisdiction and the International Criminal Court", Manitoba Law Journal, 2002, vol. 29, p. 2.
• Lyal S. Sunga, "The Crimes within the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (Part II, Articles 5–10)", European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 377–399 (April 1998).
• Lyal S. Sunga, "The Emerging System of International Criminal Law: Developments in Codification and Implementation" (Brill) (1997).
• Averting Palestinian Unilateralism: The International Criminal Court and the Recognition of the Palestinian Authority as a Palestinian State, Ambassador Dore Gold with Diane Morrison, October 2010

External links

• Official website of the ICC
• United Nations website on the Rome Statute
• International Criminal Court, International Committee of the Red Cross.
• The Coalition for the International Criminal Court
• The International Criminal Court by Amnesty International USA
• Victims' Rights Working Group
• "Transnational Crime." Oxford Bibliographies Online: Criminology.