The Jurisdictional Dilemma Of The Rome Statue Over Non-parties From The America-afghanistan Situation

In November 2017,the prosecutor submitted a request for authorization to investigate crimes committed in Afghanistan since May 1,2003 and crimes related to armed confliction in the state parties to the Rome Statute since July 1,2003.America fell into the scope of ICC's jurisdiction with its special regulation while it is not the state party.America rejected to accept this kind of jurisdiction with rough attitude and methods.Confronting great external pressure,PTC finally rejected the request on April 12,2019.Instead of the problem of jurisdiction or admissibility,the main consideration of PTC is the authorization would not serve the interest of justice.On March 5,2020,the Appeals Chamber changed its sentence,not only authorizing the prosecution to investigate,but also stating that the Chamber only reviewed the factual description of the crime and whether the potential case(s)arising from such investigation would appear to fall within the Court's jurisdiction.This is different from the negative review in the precedent and the active review the Pre-Trial Chamber concluded.The thesis,a case analysis,discusses the jurisdictional dilemma of the Rome Statue over non-parties from the America-Afghanistan Situation.There are three chapters.In terms of content,the first two chapters describe the specific dilemma from two perspectives respectively.The third chapter explains the causes and effects.In terms of objects,the first two chapters focus on America-Afghanistan Situation,and the third chapter extends to non-parties.The first chapter introduces the jurisdictional dilemma from the United States.The United States,a non-party of the Rome Statue and permanent member of the UN Security Council,refused to cooperate with ICC in adopting multiple methods such as enacting domestic laws,concluding treaties,and diplomatic non-cooperation.Based on past experience,there is still the possibility of using the Security Council to postpone the investigation in the future.The second chapter analyzes the judicial dilemma.Without considering external interference,the PTC and the Appeals Chamber have given different answers to the question of what factors in the proprio motu should be reviewed by the Chamber.This is innovative interpretation but reflects the consideration of the relationship between the Chamber and prosecutor.In addition,the PTC lacks rationality for the elements contained in the ‘interest of justice' discussion.The third chapter explains the reasons and effects of the dilemma from three aspects.First,through comparison with the other four situations,it is found that the court's judgment standards are different.But independence and justice shall be demonstrated by holding the purpose of eliminating impunity and adopting the same standards.Secondly,it is difficult to break through the relativity of the treaty.On the basis of the doubts about the source of the power of the parties to submit the situation,it is more hard to obtain non-parties' support in the proprio motu.Thirdly,the supplementary jurisdiction has the paradox that the jurisdictional mechanism can only be activated when a non-party is unwilling to govern,but it became a non-party because of the state's unwillingness to be governed by ICC.When the country is involved in the situation,there is a conflict between national interests and the protection of human rights,but the International Criminal Court cannot bow its head to politics.Instead,it must maintain fair justice in such situation,even if it is currently hindered.The crimes may will be punished in the future,and the justice will be come true eventually.