ICC is no ordinary international regulatory or institutional body. It has the unique potential to deter and punish "the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole" (article 5 (1)). However, this potential will only be realised through the full co-operation of States Parties, since there is no international "police force" to do the work of assisting the Court with its investigations and enforcing its orders. Therefore, special attention will need to be given to support the Court, and in particular to ensure that States Parties are able, in actuality, to meet their obligations under the Rome Statute. At the same time, the incidence of such crimes is much less than for "ordinary" crimes that are prosecuted regularly in States. So, as a general rule, many of the forms of co-operation listed in the Statute will be part of the usual work of national criminal justice systems and foreign affairs ministries, and so will not generally require additional resources.
Possible approaches to implementation
The process of implementing international treaty obligations varies significantly from State to State, according to the political and constitutional requirements of each State. Every State Party to the Rome Statute is free to choose how it will implement its treaty obligations, as long as it proceeds in good faith and the result is an ability to meet all of the obligations under the Statute.
Some States generally ratify treaties first, and then the rules included in the treaty automatically become a part of national law upon ratification and publication in an official journal (monist system). Other States, especially those in the Commonwealth, are obliged by their constitutions to prepare implementing legislation before ratifying or acceding to any international treaties (dualist system). Each particular system has its own advantages and disadvantages, which must be borne in mind during the ratification and implementation processes. For example, in some States the Executive branch of government may need the consent of the Legislature to ratify, or to consult with constitutional courts before ratifying. Such processes inevitably slow down the ratification and implementation process, but also provide an opportunity for more widespread consideration of the impact of certain treaties on that State.
Several States have revised their approach to ratification of international treaties in recent years, in order to increase the amount of consultation involving government members or with civil society, in light of an increased awareness of the significant impact that many of today's treaties have in the domestic sphere (see for example, Zimbabwe's revised Cabinet procedures between 1993 - 1997 and Australia's treatymaking reforms in 1996). This consultation process may lengthen the process of ratification and implementation in such States, yet it ensures that more people are better informed about the particular treaty once it is ratified.
2.1 Ratification First Versus Implementation First
Article 126 provides that the ICC will come into operation on the 1st day of the month after the 60th day after the deposit of the 60th instrument of ratification. From that time, the Court will have jurisdiction to try persons accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The sooner the Court is created, the sooner such persons will be deterred from committing such crimes, under threat of prosecution by the ICC. States can help to speed up the process of creating the Court by ensuring that they ratify the Rome Statute as quickly as possible.
Numerous examples of ICC ratification bills and the like have already been drafted by many States and can be used as a guide for others. These include examples from States that have already ratified, such as Ghana and Senegal, as well as States that are still in the pr
> 1 2 3 ... 220 221 222 ... 303 304 305
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
