Please TAKE ACTION RIGHT NOW and send your letter to the UN Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide and the International Criminal Court Prosecutor.
As the alternate formulation for the crime of aggression makes clear – with the jurisdictional provisions that for State referrals or proprio motu investigations inter alia States Parties can opt out of accepting the Court’s jurisdiction over aggression by that State Party, and that the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over non-States Party’s nationals or territory – States knew how to limit the Court’s jurisdiction vis-à-vis non-State Party nationals if they wanted; they wanted no such limitation for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Non-member States – including those who objected to the text of article 12(2) – are also on notice that the Court is vested with jurisdiction over nationals of non-member States for conduct that occurs on the territory of a State Party…
Article 12(2) of the Statute states clearly that the Court can exercise its jurisdiction over the crimes enumerated in article 5 when there exists a “special link” with the crime. The territoriality principle is one of the most widely accepted principles of international law. The construction of article 12(2) makes clear that the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction is not limited to either the territory of its Member States nor the nationals of such States; the ICC can exercise jurisdiction over the national of a State Party who commits a crime specified in article 5 of the Statue on the territory of a non-Member State when other preconditions are met, and likewise can exercise jurisdiction over nationals of non-Member States when they commit an article 5 crime on the territory of a Member State.
Continue reading at https://www.icc-cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2020_01171.PDF