ICAO ANNEX 2?
Annex 2 is Rules of the Air.... which while being of great benefit to the management of aviation in general are not germaine to the question whether a plotting chart is necessary.
While the FAA may propose a procedure which is great for FAA aircraft to follow, unless it is an operating requirement of a particular airspace and promulgated as such, it is not binding on any other party.
A foreign aircraft operating into the US is obliged to comply with Part 91, and 129. Part 129 requires the aircraft to be also operated under OpSpecs as approved by the FAA, which does not include a plotting requirement.
Having crossed the ditch on a routine basis for some 30 years, I can state I haven't seen a plotting chart used, once. Polar, different deal, and I don't object to that, except for the lack of understanding of what is being done anyway by those furiously plotting positions per policy, and then burying the chart under dinner plates. NAT... different deal, no issue, specified procedure. With the initial introduction of Pacific flex tracks, there certainly was a case for plotting the track out, but it was not a specific requirement. (Polar tracks I-IV however has had MIL radar coverage since at least 26 Oct 1962... :| , Antarctic slightly less coverage).
If I appear blunt on this matter perhaps it stems from watching navigators furiously working on charts using data sources that were occasionally just awful, such as single ASN-42's, dopplers etc.
On the assumption of any reasonable level of cognition, above somnambulism, it is still difficult to see what the immediate gain is for a plot vs other means of cross checking of reasonableness. A check of total distances, L/L or track/distances for each leg between the FMC/FMCGS and the flight plan is sufficient to give a safeguard for gross procedural error and a basis for navigation reversion in the case of multiple system losses dumping you into a life of no GPS or INS, just the compass and clock.