By Chris Merritt, Legal Affairs editor, The Australian, July 15, 2011 - One of the most glaring omissions is the court's inability to deal with acts of international terrorism by non-state parties.

Another omission has been the well-documented abuses by the Sri Lankan military during the final stages of that country's civil war. Both of these matters are beyond the limited jurisdiction of the ICC.

The court covers just four areas: genocide, war crimes, aggression and crimes against humanity. There had been an attempt to include terrorism but it had not yet succeeded, President Song said.

When asked if he would like to see terrorism brought within the court's reach, he declined to express a view because he said it was a matter for "the assembly of state parties", not the court.

On the final days of the Sri Lankan civil war, he said that country -- along with Israel and the US -- had not acceded to the Rome Statute.

So without a reference to the court by the UN Security Council, the ICC was unable to act.

"Whenever certain atrocities are committed in the corners of the world, everybody seems to refer to the ICC as an ultimate place to send that situation to," he said.

"We are very glad to notice all this growing recognition of the court. On the other hand we have to play by the rules that are specified in the Rome Statute."

Therefore the court was unable to act on matters from non-signatory states such as Sri Lanka, like Israel and the US.

More: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/court-of-last-res...