GA/L/3152

‘CRIME OF AGGRESSION’ ISSUE CONTINUES TO ENGAGE LEGAL COMMITTEE IN REVIEW OF PREPARATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Assurances Sought That Court Not Be Politicized

The issue of the definition of the crime of aggression was again raised by delegations as the Sixth Committee (Legal) continued its discussion on the progress made in the Preparatory Commission, which is laying the groundwork for the effective functioning of the International Criminal Court.

The representative of Syria said the question was important, and that definition of the crime of aggression should be elaborated under General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 1974. Syria did not deny the Security Council its role in determining the commission of aggression, as long as the issue was not politicized. The responsibilities assigned the Security Council under the Charter should not undermine the responsibilities of the International Criminal Court on that question, he said.

The representative of Philippines said the greatest pitfall for the Court would be to have an uneven hand in the application of its functions. Some had alluded to the possible danger of political abuse of the Court’s functions by the strong States, in order to dominate the weak States. While safeguards were established in the Court’s Statute and rules, the fairness of its future functioning would ultimately depend on the good faith of States parties to the treaty and the integrity of appointed judges and prosecutors.

The representative of Israel said his country’s hesitation to sign the Statute stemmed from the inclusion, in the list of the gravest war crimes, of formulations tailored to meet the political agenda of certain States. Such formulations also deviated from, if they did not ignore, the wording enshrined in the original instruments of international humanitarian law.

The International Criminal Court, which is to be a permanent judicial body with jurisdiction over genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by individuals, will become operational once the treaty establishing it -- commonly referred to as the Rome Statute –- receives 60 ratifications. So far, 114 countries have signed the treaty and 21 have deposited their instrument of ratification with the Secretary-General.

The Commission held its last session from 12 to 30 June. Its next session is scheduled for 27 November to 8 December. The Committee was informed by its

Sixth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/L/3152 12th Meeting (PM) 19 October 2000

Chairman yesterday that the Commission bureau felt that two sessions of two weeks in 2001 would be required to work on some of the rest of its mandate, in particular, the financial rules and regulations of the Court, its privileges and immunities, and the relationship agreement between the Court and the United Nations.

Also speaking this afternoon were the representatives of Chile, Ecuador, Argentina, Venezuela, Nigeria, Guinea, Israel, Burkina Faso, Libya and Japan.

The Committee will meet again tomorrow, 20 October, at 10 a.m. to conclude its debate on the Court. It will also take up the Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Convention of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts.

Sixth Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/L/3152 12th Meeting (PM) 19 October 2000

Committee Work Programme

The Sixth Committee (Legal) met this afternoon to continue its debate on its agenda item relating to the establishment of the International Criminal Court. [For background information, see Press Release GA/L/3149 of 18 October.]

Statements

JUAN GABRIEL VALDES (Chile) said his country had taken steps to clearly demonstrate its willingness to investigate grave crimes. It had encouraged the establishment of an International Criminal Court with an indisputable legitimacy in trying heinous crimes. That was an important step in the evolution of international law. By establishing the Court, the international community was declaring that there would no longer be impunity for those crimes.

He said he hoped the Preparatory Commission would continue its work of elaborating rules for the Court, taking account of the legitimate concerns of some States. There should be no effort to change the delicate balance of the provisions of the Statute achieved at the diplomatic conference in Rome.

Without prejudice to what had been achieved, he said, the Preparatory Commission still had a number of issues to deal with. They included the definition of the crime of aggression, and agreement between the Court and the host country, as well as the relationship agreement between the Court and the United Nations.

MARCELO VAZQUEZ (Ecuador) said his country was encouraged by the Preparatory Commission’s approval of the two documents relating to rules of procedure and evidence and elements of crimes within the time frame allocated to it. With a large number of State parties to the Statute and the work done by the Preparatory Commission, he said the international community was now moving towards making the establishment of the International Criminal Court a reality.

Ecuador, after the signing the Statute last October, had set in motion the processes for its eventual ratification. His delegation repeated its firm support for the early establishment of the Court, and undertook to contribute to the continuing work of the Preparatory Commission. It supported the holding of two 2-week sessions by the Commission next year, to ensure the completion of its agenda items.

RICARDO LUIS BOCALANDRO (Argentina) spoke of his country’s longstanding commitment to the International Criminal Court. Currently there was intense activity aimed at giving effect to the Rome Statute as soon as possible. As the Secretary-General had said, it was one of 25 instruments whose ratification was essential and urgent. Meanwhile, Argentina was concluding its own process of legislative approval, and would hopefully ratify the Rome Statute in the next few months.

He said the Court would give new momentum to national courts while endowing them with special responsibilities. It was therefore important to adopt internal legislation that supported the International Court. The Preparatory Commission now had to prepare further important documents that would complete the package of indispensable instruments and ensure that the Court was operational. Argentina would continue to look for consensus formulas, in order to find solutions that were acceptable to all.

MARTHA DI FELICE (Venezuela) said the Rome Statute was one of the most important achievements in the field of international law in recent times. Her country had actively participated in helping to bring it into being. Last June, her Government had deposited the instrument of ratification.

She said another important item for the Preparatory Commission at its next session was defining the crime of aggression. As with other crimes, it was essential to determine the constituent elements of aggression. An excellent base for a definition of that crime could be found in General Assembly resolution 3314. The Statute must continue to be the fundamental text of the Court, and its integrity must be protected.

R.O. AKEJU (Nigeria) said the adoption of the two important technical instruments in the June session paved the way for the Preparatory Commission to focus its attention on the composition of the Court. It would also enable it to concentrate on other related matters such as: financial regulations; the Headquarters agreement; immunities and privileges agreement; and agreement between the United Nations and the Court and its first year budget. He urged delegations to the November session to redouble their efforts to ensure that the entire mandate of the Commission was accomplished in a timely fashion.

He said Nigeria signed the Statute on 1 June, and was favourably disposed to ratifying it. Its domestic legislation processes were being examined, in order to translate that disposition into reality. There was speculation as to the type of relationship that would exist between the International Criminal Court and the international criminal tribunals. Such speculation was premature. But one thing was certain: when the International Criminal Court became operational, it would take advantage of the judicial literature already accumulated by the two tribunals.

OUSMANE DIAO BALDE (Guinea) said the ad hoc war crime tribunals had been playing important roles, but were established to address particular crimes within a specific timeframe. He said the establishment of the International Criminal Court would ensure the respect of human rights and international humanitarian law. The Court could play a role only if it was independent and universal.

He said the Court should be free from any political pressures and must apply its rules. Guinea’s position on the subject was made clear during the Millennium Summit, when it signed the Statute of the Court. It would ratify the Statute soon. He commended the recent adoption by the Preparatory Commission of the final version of two essential instruments for functioning of the Court, namely, rules of procedure and evidence, and elements of crimes under the Court’s jurisdiction.

He hoped the Commission would conclude negotiations on the crime of aggression and other issues on its agenda, as well as the agreement between the Court and the host country, the relationship agreement between the Court and the United Nations and on its financial rules and regulations. Adoption of those instruments would be a sign of the determination of the international community to put an end to impunity.

EHUD KEINAN (Israel) said his country had always been an active supporter of the idea of the International Criminal Court and of its realization in the form of the Rome Statute. His delegation’s deep concerns were made clear, however, during the final plenary meeting of the 1998 Rome Conference, as well as in discussions on the item at the United Nations in October. Those concerns were still present. Israel’s hesitations stemmed from the inclusion, in the list of the gravest war crimes, of formulations tailored to meet the political agenda of certain States. Such formulations also deviated from, if they did not ignore, the wording enshrined in the original instruments of international humanitarian law. It was thus unfortunate that the aims and functions of the Court reflected the view of certain States.

He said it was the same concern that led his delegation to suspect that the somewhat mitigating interpretive formula, adopted by the Preparatory Commission, could not really clear the “thick cloud of politicization” that overshadowed what was intended to be an impartial historical document benefiting all of mankind.

ANACLETO REI LACANILAO (Philippines) said that while no one would disagree with the goals for the establishment of the International Criminal Court, there were doubts and concerns in the minds of some on how the Court would ultimately pursue its mandate. Some delegations had alluded to the possible danger of political abuse of the Court’s functions by the strong States in order to dominate the weak States. While safeguards were established in the Court’s Statute and rules, the fairness of its future functioning would ultimately depend on the good faith of States parties to the treaty and the integrity of appointed judges and prosecutors.

He said the upcoming discussion of the crime of aggression was an important concern for developing countries. The Court should be free from political pressure and questions before it must be resolved purely on legal grounds. However, politics had reared its head in the discussion of the crime of aggression. It had taken the form of a proposal to insert the highly politicized process of the Security Council as a pre-condition in the jurisdiction of the Court over the crime aggression. The idea that the Council would have any role at all in the determination of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court would fan the fears of some that the Court would become a political tool used to dominate weak States.

ALAIN EDOUARD TRAORE (Burkina Faso) said the November session of the Preparatory Session would deal with outstanding issues related to the Rome Statute. His country wanted a strict distinction between discussions on the crime of aggression and the other issues, which were of an administrative nature. It was essential to protect weak countries and the crime of aggression was the most serious of all crimes.

He said his country also wanted to separate itself from any position that called the integrity of the Statute into question. It would not be responsible to be equivocating about positions, which sought to exclude certain nationals from jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court or have the Court subject to the Security Council. What good was the Court if it would be subjected to political authority that restricted its own authority? he asked.

MOHAMED HAQ IBRAHIM (Syria) said his country would like to see the International Criminal Court become fully independent and free from political pressures and influences to ensure its impartiality.

He referred to “crimes perpetrated by Israel” in southern Lebanon and those committed in the last ten days against the populations, including children, with “unprecedented brutality,” simply because they were demonstrating against occupation. He said cities had been besieged by tanks and the Palestinian airport closed.

His delegation welcomed the adoption by the Preparatory Commission of the final version of the rules of procedure and evidence and elements of crimes that would allow court to begin functioning.

He said the issue of the crime of aggression was important, following the adoption of the Statute. Its definition should be elaborated under General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 1974.

Syria did not deny the Security Council its role in determining commission of aggression, as long as the issue was not politicized, he said. The responsibilities assigned the Security Council under the Charter should not undermine the responsibilities of the International Criminal Court on that question. His delegation supported proposal that the Preparatory Commission meet twice, each for a duration of two weeks next year to continue its work.

AHMED ELMESSALLATI (Libya) said his country had always worked for the establishment of an International Criminal Court that would deal with dangers to international peace and security. The Statute as presently elaborated, could deal only with the weak and not reach the strong States.

He said account should be taken of the deep reservations expressed by some delegations, including his own about the Statute. Its main shortcoming related to the provisions linking it to the Security Council, which was a political body. That could undermine the work of the future Court.

He said Libya over the last seven years had suffered a great deal under actions taken by the Council. The Statute as presently elaborated did not represent hope for the weak. Its provisions did not encompass serious crimes such as collective massacres of innocents, drug trafficking, nuclear terrorism or State terrorism in all its forms, and the crime of aggression should be under the jurisdiction of the Court.

Despite those shortcomings, he said, his country had participated in the work of the Preparatory Commission. Its achievements would not be complete if the question of the definition of crime of aggression was not resolved.

SHUICHI AKAMATSU (Japan) said the completion of the Rome Statute was a historic achievement. Now was the time to crystallize that achievement and make the Court more effective and credible, in accordance with the realities of the world. The finalization of the two documents did not conclude the preparatory work; other important tasks needed attention. None was easy. The financial regulations and rules were especially important. Without a proper financial basis, the Court would not be able to conduct its work.

He said the Court must enjoy universal support. Without that, it would not be effective or credible, even if more than the minimum of 60 ratifications was attained. He hoped the Court would, therefore, win the blessings of the international community as a whole. Japan intended to contribute as much as possible to advance its work.

* *** *

United Nations