Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) - Non-Members

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Non-party, non-signatory states Signatories which have not ratified Of the 139 states that had signed the Rome Statute, 31 have not ratified. Azerbaijan Belarus Bhutan Brunei China Cuba El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia India Indonesia Iraq Kazakhstan Kiribati Korea, North Laos Lebanon Libya Malaysia Mauritania Micronesia Myanmar Nepal Nicaragua Pakistan Palau Papua New Guinea Qatar Rwanda Saudi Arabia Singapore Somalia South Sudan Sri Lanka Swaziland Togo Tonga Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvalu Vatican City Vietnam SOURCE -  Wikipedia   Angola Armenia Bahamas Bahrain Cameroon Egypt Eritrea Guinea-Bissau Haiti Iran Israel*[J] Jamaica Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Monaco Mozambique Oman Russia São Toméan Algeria d Príncipe Solomon Islands Sudan*[K] Syria Thailand Ukraine[I] United Arab Emirates United States*[L] Uzbekistan Yemen Zimbabwe Israel Israel voted against the adoption of the Rome Statute but later signed it for a short period. In 2002, the United States and Israel "unsigned" the Rome Statute, indicating that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, they have no legal obligations arising from their signature of the statute. Israel states that it has "deep sympathy" with the goals of the Court. However, it has concerns that political pressure on the Court would lead it to reinterpret international law or to "invent new crimes". It cites the inclusion of "the transfer of parts of the civilian population of an occupying power into occupied territory" as a war crime as an example of this ... United States There is presently bipartisan consensus that the United States does not intend to ratify the Rome Statute.  Some US Senators have suggested that the treaty could not be ratified without a constitutional amendment.  Therefore, US opponents of the ICC argue that the US Constitution in its present form does not allow a cession of judicial authority to any body other than the Supreme Court. In the view of proponents of the ICC there is no inconsistency with the US Constitution, arguing that the role of the US Supreme Court as final arbiter of US law would not be disturbed. Before the Rome Statute, opposition to the ICC was largely headed by Republican Senator Jesse Helms.  Other objections to ratification have included that it violates international law, is a political court without appeal, denies fundamental American human rights, denies the authority of the United Nations, and would violate US national sovereignty. EXTRACTS ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE -  Wikipedia Israel understandably objects, as Israel is transferring civilian population as an occupying power into occupied territory (which is presumably what the illegal settlements drama is all about). USA hides behind the Constitution and a host of other arguments, for good measure.  Best one is 'violates US national sovereignty.' Senator Jesse Helms Southern Baptist Journalist WWII Navy Recruiter Democrat 1942-1970 Republican 1970-2008 [Wikipedia]