To President Trump! August 2, 2026 "The Rome Statute and the Vienna Convention share the same Article 34, making them almost like twins, but their character is extremely strict."** [A Strange Coincidence—The Commonality of "Article 34"] The Rome Statute and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, while inheriting the structure of the international legal system, stipulate the principles concerning third states in the same number, "Article 34." Since the ICC Rome Statute is also a "treaty," it must be subject to the general principles of treaty law. (Yasuhiro Nagano)

 To President Trump!

2026ns9月14日 [Proposal of the Day] Focusing on the curious coincidence that both the Rome Statute and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties rely on "Article 34" as the common article number governing principles regarding third states amidst the intense controversy surrounding the legal jurisdiction of the International Crimi-nal Court (ICC) over non-member states and their nationals, this proposal calls for strictly discerning legal justice and correcting the distortions in the international legal order. (Yasuhiro Nagano)

1 [Introduction—Time to Know the Truth] A fierce controversy has erupted surround-ing the legal jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) over non-member states and their nationals. Both the ICC side and President Trump's side rely on the exact same article number, "Article 34." (Yasuhiro Nagano)

2 [A Curious Coincidence—The Commonality of "Article 34"] The Rome Statute and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, in inheriting the structural framework of the international legal system, both stipulate principles concerning third states un-der the identical article number, "Article 34." As the ICC Rome Statute is also a "treaty," it must be subject to the general rules of treaty law. (Yasuhiro Nagano)

3 [The Phase of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties] Concluded in 1969, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties serves as the fundamental law, akin to a constitution for all international treaties worldwide. Its Article 34 establishes the root of international law: "A treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third State without its consent." (Yasuhiro Nagano)

4 [The Content of the "Absolute Principle" of International Law] The principle signi-fied by Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is extremely clear. Namely, "a treaty binds only within the scope consented to by the contracting par-ties," "no obligations can be imposed on non-member states," and "obligations do not extend to the nationals of non-member states." This constitutes the absolute princi-ple supporting the stability of international order. (Yasuhiro Nagano)

5 [Definition of Article 34 of the Rome Statute] Article 34 of the Rome Statute, the founding document of the ICC, directly incorporates this major principle of interna-tional law. Therefore, the ICC Statute cannot exist independently of the structure and principles of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and it is strictly con-strained by them. (Yasuhiro Nagano)

6 [Lack of Legal Effect on Non-Member States] Following this principle, ICC non-member states such as the United States are not bound by the Rome Statute. The ICC cannot impose direct legal obligations on nationals of non-member states, and lacking the explicit consent of those states, it has no authority to investigate or pros-ecute their nationals. (Yasuhiro Nagano)

7 [Structural Background of the Treaty System] The Rome Statute was modeled after the framework of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to maintain coher-ence within the international legal order. All treaties should be interpreted based on the rules of treaty law, and their interpretation must not be distorted for the conven-ience of any specific organization. (Yasuhiro Nagano)

8 [Limits of Authority Faced by the ICC] Due to the existence of the principle in Arti-cle 34, there are clear limits to the ICC's authority. It should be impermissible under international law for the ICC to unilaterally impose "obligations to cooperate with in-vestigations," "obligations to arrest and extradite suspects," or "obligations to submit evidence" upon non-member states. (Yasuhiro Nagano)

9 [The Principle of Non-Exercise of Authority Against Non-Member States] Exercising direct jurisdiction by the ICC over major countries that have not joined the Rome Statute—such as the United States, Israel, and Russia—is legally contradictory. This is the fundamental principle of international law defining state sovereignty and the relative effect of treaties. (Yasuhiro Nagano)

10 [The ICC's Deployment of "Exception Theories"] In reality, however, the ICC in-troduces "exceptions" in its investigations against non-member states to assert juris-diction. Representative examples include applying "territorial jurisdiction" on the grounds that a crime occurred within the territory of a member state, or utilizing "ad hoc declarations" independently made by non-member states. (Yasuhiro Nagano)

11 [Direct Clash Between Exception Theories and Article 34] These exceptions as-serted by the ICC directly clash with the principle of Article 34 of the Vienna Conven-tion on the Law of Treaties. Even if an event occurs within a member state, entan-gling nationals of non-member states to impose obligations or disadvantages upon them violates the principle that treaties do not prejudice third parties. (Yasuhiro Na-gano)

12 [The Inherent Contradiction of Ad Hoc Declarations] Ad hoc declarations by non-member states are based merely on those countries' own political and temporary judgments, differing in nature from universal treaty consent across the entire inter-national community. Expanding obligations to individuals of third-state nationalities based on such declarations is tantamount to evading the system of treaty law. (Ya-suhiro Nagano)

13 [The Legitimacy of U.S. Criticism] Viewed from this perspective, the ICC's excep-tion theories effectively hollow out the principle of Article 34, and it must be said that U.S. legal criticism is an extremely legitimate argument from the viewpoint of the in-ternational legal order. (Yasuhiro Nagano)

14 [To Correct the Distortions of the International Legal Order] The current operation of the ICC, which broadly interprets formal exceptions to pressure non-member states, carries the danger of undermining the stability of international law. It is time to return to the rule of law and strictly review the scope of application of the rules. (Yasuhiro Nagano)

15 [Concluding Remarks] Do not be misled by superficial information circulated by the media and certain commentators. In light of the spirit of Article 34 of the Vienna Convention—the fundamental principle of international law—we must discern legal justice based on calm and objective facts. (Yasuhiro Nagano)

Part 1 Related URL

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties

I will write again tomorrow.

Yasuhiro Nagano (English)

1. Weekday Edition (Logical Contradictions in Immigration Law Violation Cases - Chapters 1-2)

Part 2: The Immigration Control Act Violation Case [Weekday Edition]

Japan’s judicial system and immigration administration involve severe human rights violations that challenge international standards. Through my own experience, I strongly question Japan's status as a constitutional state governed by the rule of law.

Please first read how I was wrongfully implicated in a case of "Aiding and Abetting the Violation of the Immigration Control Act" in 2010.

Read the full text here: To World Media

https://toworldmedia.blogspot.com/

[Chapter 1] Case Overview

Autumn 2008: My company (where I serve as President) executed an employment contract with Chinese students holding student visas, promising to hire them upon their university graduation the following spring.

Late 2008: The Lehman Brothers bankruptcy triggered a global financial crisis, resulting in the abrupt cancellation of our upcoming system development projects.

2009: Due to the severe economic downturn, we were forced to rescind the job offers. Consequently, the graduated students had no choice but to continue working at the restaurants where they had been employed part-time during their studies.

May 2010: These former Chinese students were arrested for "Activities Other Than Those Permitted Under the Status of Residence" (Violation of Article 70 of the Immigration Control Act).

June 2010: I and our Chinese recruitment manager were also arrested. The charge brought against us was "Aiding and Abetting" (under the Penal Code) their unauthorized technical employment.

The Prosecution’s Logic: The prosecution asserted that our prior issuance of the employment contract constituted a "false document," which subsequently aided their unauthorized work.

[Chapter 2] Fatal Flaws in Judicial Interpretation

This indictment and subsequent judgment completely disregard fundamental legal principles, relying on an entirely arbitrary interpretation of the law.

Under Article 22-4, Paragraph 1, Item 4 of the Immigration Control Act at that time, submitting false documents merely granted the Minister of Justice the authority to revoke a residency status as an administrative disposition (leading to deportation). The act of submitting false documents itself was not codified as a criminal offense. Logically, one cannot be convicted of "aiding and abetting" an act that is not a crime in itself.

The court’s reasoning followed a convoluted chain of causality:

A residency status was obtained via a false employment contract.

The individuals resided in Japan based on that status.

Consequently, they engaged in unauthorized part-time work.

Therefore, the issuer of the initial contract aided and abetted the unauthorized work.

This is a far-fetched, flawed causal link that completely violates the principles of modern legal logic.

[My Argument]

Confusion of Administrative Dispositions and Criminal Penalties: The Immigration Control Act explicitly designates the consequences for false documentation as administrative measures (revocation of status and deportation). The legal process concludes there.

Absence of a Principal Offender: The actual employers of the restaurants where the students worked were never prosecuted for "Encouraging Illegal Employment" (Article 73-2 of the Immigration Control Act). Under the principle of equality under the law, it is a legal contradiction to punish us for aiding and abetting when the principal employers themselves were not prosecuted.

This same flawed legal doctrine was later improperly applied to diplomats and embassy staff.

Continued in the Saturday Edition.

Part 3: A New Business Model via Special Economic Zones

I propose the establishment of "Special Economic Zones" designed to accept refugees and migrants as "temporary migrant workers," with their residency restricted to these designated zones.

This framework offers a dual benefit: advanced nations secure low-cost labor to drive economic growth, while migrants receive human dignity, secure jobs, and free access to housing, food, healthcare, and education.

Global Special Zone Project NO2

https://world-special-zone.seesaa.net/

Nagano Opinion NO1

https://naganoopinion.blog.jp/

For details on Parts 4 through 10, please refer to the Sunday Edition.

Yasuhiro Nagano

Archive Blog (Past Articles): To World Media

https://toworldmedia.blogspot.com/

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us!

enzai_mirai@yahoo.co.jp