A Comparative Study of the Compatibilities and Incompatibilities between the Rome Statute and Islamic Law, with Special Reference to Saudi Arabia

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (the ICC or the Court) was adopted in 1998 with the expectation that it would be ratified by a majority of states. Nonetheless, there has been reluctance among some Arab and Muslim countries to ratify the Rome Statute. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is one such country. Saudi Arabia has questioned the rights held by the Security Council to refer cases to the Court. It has also argued that the right of the Prosecutor of the Court to initiate the investigation of cases within the jurisdiction of the Court might violate a member state's right to sovereignty over its own territory. These issues of contention have been discussed in some previous research by writers interested in international criminal law. However, some commentators have suggested that Islamic law itself is not compatible with modern international law.
This study seeks to investigate compatibilities and incompatibilities between international criminal law (the Rome Statute) and Islamic law. It uses a comparative approach in an attempt to find commonalities and differences. The focus is placed on general principles and jurisdictions. This is because principles and jurisdictions are considered at the top of the legal pyramid of both legal systems, and the rest of the provisions fall under those principles/jurisdictions. Moreover, the general principles of law reflect the true picture of human rights.
The study aims to examine whether the absence of ratification by some Muslim countries was because of the non-conformity of the Rome Statute with Islamic law. The study makes clear that there is compatibility between the principles and jurisdiction of the Rome Statute and Islamic law. This study is the first of its kind to undertake such an investigation.