Explaining Non-binding Signature of the Rome Statute

• In Event: The International Criminal Court at 25: Politics and Perceptions

Abstract

As the Rome Statute nears its 25th anniversary, we consider an often-overlooked dimension of the convention in this paper. Specifically, we ask what explains non-binding state signature of the Rome Statute. While Rome Statute ratification has been well considered by policymakers and academics, states had the precursor option to sign the treaty. Aside from attention to US ‘un-signing of the treaty’, little attention has been placed on the first commitment step towards joining the ICC. However, all but 17 of the 123 current States Parties to the Rome Statute signed before ratifying (the remaining States Parties acceded after the Statute entered into force without previously signing), while 31 of the 139 states that initially signed the Statute never ratified to complete the process of joining the Court. We explore motivations for non-binding signature, including negotiation participation, commitment to related international treaties, measures of government-sided civilian violence, and others domestic institutional measures. We pay special attention to the group of states that signed but never ratified the Statute to uncover any unique characteristics and trends in this group of states that did not fully commit to the Rome Statute ideals. This study contributes to our understanding of state engagement with the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court, and international law more broadly through the consideration of the first commitment step.

Authors

• M.P. Broache, University of North Carolina at Greensboro

• Audrey Lynn Comstock, Arizona State University