In the aftermath of the Omar al Bashir case, South Africa’s engagement with the International Criminal Court (hereafter the ICC) is at an anti-climax. Conventional perspectives from the decisions of the ICC assert the sanctity of treaty obligations. However, alternative perspectives can be explored. There is a need to address continuing dissatisfaction with and limitations of the Rome Statute. Dissent by States parties may signal need for review of the treaty and introduction of new procedures for conducting consultations with States to improve compliance. The Rome Statute does not deal with resolving on-going armed conflicts and should be complemented by alternative processes for addressing such threats to peace and security. Withdrawal from treaties is a normal fact of life in the international legal system. States exit from treaties when changed circumstances, shifting domestic priorities, or dissatisfaction with treaty-based institutions create tensions between national interests and international commitments. This would not necessarily be regarded as retrogressive. Exit by a significant number of important states may be the catalyst required for reform of contentious aspects of the treaty system. Therefore, South Africa’s proposed exit from the Rome Statute can be a potentially positive development.

在发生Omar al Bashir案后，南非与国际刑事法院（以下简称ICC）的交往处于反高潮。从国际刑事法院的决定中得出的传统观点维护条约义务的神圣性。但是，可以探索其他观点。有必要解决对《罗马规约》的持续不满和限制。缔约国的异议可能表示需要对条约进行审查并采用新程序与各国进行磋商以改善履约情况。《罗马规约》不涉及解决持续发生的武装冲突，应辅之以替代程序，以解决对和平与安全的此类威胁。退出条约是国际法律体系中常有的事实。当情况发生变化，国内优先事项转移或对基于条约的机构不满意时，国家就会退出条约，这会在国家利益与国际承诺之间造成紧张关系。这不一定被认为是倒退的。大量重要国家退出可能是改革条约体系有争议方面所需要的催化剂。因此，南非提议的退出《罗马规约》可能是一个潜在的积极发展。