«Статус Римского статута Международного уголовного суда (Рим, 17 июля 1998 года)» [рус., англ.] (по состоянию на 15.05.2009)

eflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty."
4. See note 1 under "Montenegro" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.
5. For the Kingdom in Europe, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba.
6. 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.".
7. In a communication received on 26 August 2008, the Government of Sudan informed the Secretary-General of the following:
"..., Sudan does not intend to become a party to the Rome Statute. Accordingly, Sudan has no legal obligation arising from its signature on 8 September 2000."
8. In a communication received on 6 May 2002, the Government of the United States of America informed the Secretary-General of the following:
"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."
9. On 13 August 2008, the Government of France informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the declaration under article 124 made upon ratification. The text of the declaration reads as follows:
Pursuant to article 124 of the Statute of the International Court, the French Republic declares that it does not accept the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the category of crimes referred to in article 8 when a crime is alleged to have been committed by its nationals or on its territory.
10. The Secretary-General received communications with regard to the interpretative declaration made by Uruguay upon ratification from the following Governments on the dates indicated hereinafter:
Ireland (28 July 2003):
"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.
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.
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.
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."
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (31 July 2003):
"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 applicat



> 1 2 3 ... 24 25 26 27

	Поделиться:	Tweet