Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Creation of the Court
- 2 The Court becomes operational
- 3 Jurisdiction
- 4 Triggering the jurisdiction
- 5 Admissibility
- 6 General principles of criminal law
- 7 Investigation and pre-trial procedure
- 8 Trial and appeal
- 9 Punishment
- 10 Victims of crimes and their concerns
- 11 Structure and administration of the Court
- Appendices
- Appendix 1 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
- Appendix 2 States Parties and signatories to the Rome Statute
- Appendix 3 Declarations and reservations
- Appendix 4 Objections
- Bibliography
- Index
Appendix 4 - Objections
from Appendices
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Creation of the Court
- 2 The Court becomes operational
- 3 Jurisdiction
- 4 Triggering the jurisdiction
- 5 Admissibility
- 6 General principles of criminal law
- 7 Investigation and pre-trial procedure
- 8 Trial and appeal
- 9 Punishment
- 10 Victims of crimes and their concerns
- 11 Structure and administration of the Court
- Appendices
- Appendix 1 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
- Appendix 2 States Parties and signatories to the Rome Statute
- Appendix 3 Declarations and reservations
- Appendix 4 Objections
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
Finland
8 July 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Uruguay upon ratification:
The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of these interpretative declarations, in particular the statement that ‘as a State Party to the Rome Statute, the Eastern Republic of Uruguay shall ensure its application to the full extent of the powers of the State insofar as it is competent in that respect and in strict accordance with the Constitutional provisions of the Republic.’ Such a statement, without further specification, has to be considered in substance as a reservation which raises doubts as to the commitment of Uruguay to the object and purpose of the Statute.
The Government of Finland would like to recall Article 120 of the Rome Statute and the general principle relating to internal law and observance of treaties, according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
The Government of Finland 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 shall not preclude the entry into force of the Statute between Finland and Uruguay. The Statute will thus become operative between the two states without Uruguay benefiting from its reservation.
Germany
7 July 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Uruguay upon ratification:
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the Interpretative Declaration to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court made by the Government of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay at the time of its ratification of the Statute. […]
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- An Introduction to the International Criminal Court , pp. 506 - 509Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011