Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
4. They signed it but haven't ratified it
Mon Feb 18, 2013, 01:11 PM
Feb 2013

Here is the UN link:

http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10&chapter=18&lang=en

And as to what that signature means:

The most common objection to the ICC recommendation was that a referral was impossible without UN Security Council agreement which would not be forthcoming. The argument is straightforward. Syria is not a state party to the ICC. The Court therefore has no jurisdication to indict its citizens without referral from the Security Council. Russian and Chinese support for Damascus means that the Security Council will not authorize such a referral. The ICC, therefore, can not play a role and an ultimatum would be an empty bluff. I was aware of all this when I wrote the report, obviously, so why did I nevertheless call for referrring Syrian officials to the ICC?

First, there actually is a legal argument for involving the ICC even if the Security Council stays blocked, which rests on the fact that Syria, unlike Libya, is a signatory to the Treaty of Rome even if it has not acceded to the Court. Its 2000 signature does create some obligations, as a colleague of mine explains:

"the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) governs the obligations of states that have signed but not ratified a treaty. Article 18 says they must "refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty" (unless they have signaled their intent not to ratify it). That would seem to be the legal obligation on Syria at this point."

Another international lawyer friend of mine proposes a second path (*):

"if the Syrian National Council were recognized as the legitimate representative of Syria, then this could support an article 12(3) filing by the SNC to the ICC to accept jurisdiction for the conflict here--they can do this without formal ratification of the Rome Statute (and the fact that Syria did sign the treaty could help give this some legal heft), and it would then allow an initiation of an investigation without the SC."

http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/04/syria_and_the_icc

The only problem may be dipsydoodle Feb 2013 #1
Syria is a member oberliner Feb 2013 #2
I used this for reference dipsydoodle Feb 2013 #3
They signed it but haven't ratified it oberliner Feb 2013 #4
The US falls into the same category. David__77 Feb 2013 #6
Interesting oberliner Feb 2013 #8
Not going to happen jzodda Feb 2013 #5
And even if, christx30 Feb 2013 #7
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Time to refer Syrian war ...»Reply #4