As I understand it, the Rome Statute established the International Criminal Court (‘the Court’) (Article 1)[1] and gives the court international legal personality under which the Court is able to exercise power, as provided in this Statute, on the territory of any State (Article 4)[2] . Relevant to this, and indeed pertinent towards any key reforms aimed at making the project of international criminal justice stronger, more efficient, and more effective, are the rules governing recognition of statehood and jurisdiction which are an integral part of international law.

Now a contentious matter of interpretation, the Montevideo Convention, Article 2[3], explains the state as a person in international law whereby, under Article 3[4], it is argued that ‘even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence … and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts’. In defending their independence, many, if not the majority, of states have accepted the legal personality of, for example, Palestine and accordingly recognized Palestine with the rights determined by international law (the strong objections from Israel, noted).

Furthermore, regarding the effectiveness of the Court, Article 21[5] states that the ‘applicable law’ includes ‘applicable treaties and the principles and rules of international law, including the established principles of the international law of armed conflict’ and ‘failing that general principles of law derived by the Court from national laws of legal systems of the world including, as appropriate, the national laws of States that would normally exercise jurisdiction over the crime’. This would suggest that the Court does not have any jurisdiction, and nor does it challenge or partake in challenges regarding, any determinations of statehood made by any states under the Rome Statute. The issue then, in regards to reforming towards greater legitimacy and effectiveness of the Court would perhaps regard the political disputes over material facts - such as statehood and jurisdiction – in which the soft power of the Court is strengthened even if only as a preliminary occurrence prior to any legal proceedings. Referring back to Article 21[6], I hope this comment has made evident that I argue in this debate from an international law and thus, politics, perspective. To expand, the Rome Statute is now as it was when it was ratified and written. A shortcoming of this, from an international law perspective, is that when issues that are contentious such as statehood and jurisdiction are brought to the Court and regard recognition (soft law) rather than strict legality (hard law), the reforms necessary to make the court more effective – as asks this forum – regards, then, the competence of the Court as an ILP. Here I believe we would turn to NGOs as well as the tools available to the politics of international law such as diplomacy, coalitions and, as this forum evidences, the use of public forums, social media and educational platforms to look at and review the functions and powers of the Court (under the Rome Statue) measured broadly by incidences of international justice progress and areas where they need be.