In 2017, the plenary organ of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), adopted Resolution ICC-ASP/16/Res.5, deciding to activate the Court’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression; and confirming an interpretation of the Rome Statute of the ICC (“Rome Statute”). While the characterization of this Resolution as either a subsequent agreement or subsequent practice under Articles 31(3) and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1959 (“VCLT”) may be of relevance to treaty interpretation of the Rome Statute, this article submits that this Resolution is clearly a Rule of the International Organization, made by one of its organs. Resolution ICC-ASP/16/Res.5 may constitute a ‘relevant rule’ of interpretation with regard to the Rome Statute, thereby taking precedence over the general rules of interpretation in Articles 31 and 32 of the VCLT, particularly when the interpreter is an organ of the ICC. If a dispute arises with regard to the interpretation of the Rome Statute on the crime of aggression, two separate regimes at the ICC exist for the settlement of disputes depending on whether the dispute is one concerning the judicial functions of the Court. In the event that the dispute may be other than a ‘judicial function’, the ASP may be a mechanism for dispute settlement, along with other mechanisms of dispute settlement under international law.

2017年，国际刑事法院（ICC）全体会议，缔约国大会（ASP）通过了ICC-ASP / 16 / Res.5号决议，决定启动法院对侵略罪的管辖权; 并确认对ICC罗马规约（“罗马规约”）的解释。根据1959年《维也纳条约法公约》第31条第3款和第32条的规定，本决议既是其后的协议又是其后的惯例（“ VCLT”）可能与《罗马规约》的条约解释有关，本条认为，该决议显然是国际组织的一个机构制定的规则。关于《罗马规约》，ICC-ASP / 16 / Res.5号决议可构成解释的“相关规则”，从而优先于《VCLT》第31条和第32条中的一般解释规则，尤其是在口译员为国际刑事法院的机关。如果对《罗马规约》关于侵略罪的解释发生争议，国际刑事法院有两个独立的制度是否存在解决争端的依据，取决于争端是否涉及法院的司法职能。如果争端可能不是“司法职能”，则ASP可能是争端解决的机制，也是国际法规定的其他争端解决机制。