December 8, 2000
Peru, Citing Recent Positive Political Changes, Announces Signing of Treaty; Other Countries Said to be Moving in That Direction As the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court wound up its latest session in New York this afternoon, the representative of Peru announced his country's signing of the treaty establishing the Court. He credited recent "positive political developments" in Peru for the decision.
The Chairman of the Preparatory Commission, Philippe Kirsch (Canada), who also informed delegates that the Marshall Islands had ratified the treaty, said the number of signatures and ratifications was a clear indication of the importance and priority being given by governments to the establishment of the Court.
The representative of Cameroon announced that a technical committee had been created in his country to study the implementation of the Court's Statute and draft a law on its ratification.
The International Criminal Court is to be a permanent judicial body with jurisdiction over the most serious international crimes -- war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide -- committed by individuals. It will become operational once the treaty establishing it -- commonly referred to as the Rome Statute -- receives 60 ratifications. So far, 118 countries have signed the treaty and 24 have ratified it.
During the two-week Preparatory Commission session which ended today, Germany announced that it also had ratified the treaty, and would deposit its ratification on 11 December, thereby officially making it the 25th country to ratify. Also during the session, the United Arab Emirates and Syria informed the Commission that they had signed the treaty. The treaty remains open for signature until 31 December.
The Preparatory Commission, which has the task of negotiating certain practical and technical agreements to allow the Court to function, completed a first reading of draft agreements on three specific issues at this session: a relationship agreement between the Court and the United Nations; financial regulations for the Court; and, privileges and immunities of the Court. Negotiating texts on those agreements have been prepared for discussion at the Commission's next two sessions in 2001, from 26 February to 9 March, and from 24 September to 5 October.
The coordinators for the Working Groups on those issues presented oral reports as did the coordinator for the Working Group on the crime of aggression. The Rapporteur introduced the Commission's report. The Preparatory Commission's officers are: Philippe Kirsch (Canada), Chairman; George Winston (Trinidad and Tobago), Medard R. Rwelamira (South Africa) and Muhamed Sacirbey (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Vice-Chairmen. Salah Suheimat (Jordan) is the Rapporteur.
The Commission's sixth session began on 27 November.
Reports from Coordinators
CRISTIAN MAQUIEIRA (Chile), Coordinator for the Working Group on a Relationship Agreement between the Court and the United Nations, said the Group had held eight formal and three informal meetings, on the basis of the draft prepared by the Secretariat, as well a number of written proposals from delegations. The relationship agreement raised a number of important issues. He said the Group had decided to undertake an overall first reading before moving on to informal consultations, and redrafting of the articles. The Coordinator had prepared a revised text for articles 1 to 7 and 9 to 21. Article 8 had raised some fundamental questions regarding the issue of immunity, and more time was needed before a revised text could be prepared. The report consisted of two parts and one annex. The first part contained a Coordinator's revised text of articles 1 to 7 and 9 to 12, based on the discussions and the proposals submitted. The second part contained the revised text for articles 13 to 21, also based on discussions and proposals. The annex contained proposals made by some delegations in the last substantive day of work which the Group did not have enough time to consider. He said there was no selectivity nor priority with respect to any of the proposals. All proposals would be discussed at the next meeting beginning in February. He added that there would be a need to appoint other coordinators who would be in charge of specific topics within the context of the relationship agreement.
GEORG WITSCHEL (Germany), Coordinator for the Working Group on Financial Rules and Regulations, recalled his earlier report that the Group had given a first reading to the basic discussion paper before it. An additional meeting had been held at which the draft discussion paper had been adopted. It reflected the substantive progress made and indicated areas that required further discussions. At the same meeting there was discussion of four core areas relating to financial regulations and rules.
It had been recommended, he said, that the Working Group be allowed to consider at its future session the composition, tasks and proceedings of the Committee on Budget and Finance of the Assembly of States Parties. In addition, the Group would like to work on rules on drafting the budget of the Assembly, the establishment of the Trust Fund under article 79 of the Statute and other funds, and the elaboration of criteria for receiving and utilizing voluntary contributions in accordance with article 116 of the Statute.
He said the Working Group was prepared to assume its responsibilities. He proposed that the Working Group should be entrusted with work on those issues. At the next session it would first attempt to resolve the outstanding issues on the discussion paper, before moving on to the additional questions.
PHILIPPE KIRSCH (Canada), said that because of the close relationship between those issues and the financial regulations and rules, it was reasonable to let the Working Group consider them.
PHAKISO MOCHOCHOKO (Lesotho), Coordinator of the Working Group agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Court, said that in the course of three meetings, the Group concluded preliminary examination of the of the Secretariat paper which formed the basis for its discussions. A more detailed reading of the paper, including the articles, followed. A number of proposals were submitted which were now reflected in document PCNICC/2000/APIC/RT.1. There was also a number of proposals now the subject of conflicting views. This morning, the Working Group examined a discussion paper submitted by the Coordinator. It constituted the basis for work at the next session. Consequently he recommended that the working paper be included among documentation for the next session of the Preparatory Commission.
TUVAKO MANONGI (United Republic of Tanzania), Coordinator of the Working Group on Aggression, said that it held four meetings altogether, as well as four informal consultations. The group had before it several proposals, including those contained in the consolidated text of proposals on the crime of aggression reproduced in Annex II to the proceedings of the fifth session of the Preparatory Commission (document PCNICC/2000/L.3/Rev.1). There were also two additional documents issued at the current session –- an informal paper by Germany (PCNICC/2000/WGCA/DP.4) and an explanatory paper by Greece relating to its 1999 proposal on the crime of aggression, jointly submitted with Portugal (PCNICC/2000/WGCA/DP.5).
He said strong preference was again expressed this week for a definition of the crime of aggression based squarely on existing international customary law. Delegations differed on the content of that law. While delegations agreed that the Preparatory Commission could venture into progressive development of international law, it could not radically depart from the existing customary law, he said. It was pointed out that unless a consensus-based definition was attained, there was a risk of turning the Court into a political forum for the discussion of the legality of the use of force in general, in a way that could prove fatal to the Court.
That concern was also reflected in discussions on the conditions for the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction, the Chairman of the Working Group said. Delegations still differed on the proper interpretation of Article 39 of the Charter. He said one key difference lay in the nature of the competence of the Security Council to determine the existence of an act of aggression. For some delegations, that was entirely within the exclusive competence of the Council and any other interpretation would be inconsistent with the Charter and would amount to amending the Charter through the Court's Statute.
Some delegations, however, favoured a more liberal reading of Article 39 whereby the issue was "primarily", but not "exclusively", the province of the Security Council. Therefore, in situations where the Security Council for any reason did not act, the Court or other United Nations organs, such as the General Assembly or the International Court of Justice, could step in to make such determination. A further proposal involved a possible role of the advisory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in such cases.
The Working Group Chairman reported that the Group had moved beyond a simple exploration of positions to a coalescing of views into several broad trends, with significant support being thrown behind one or more of the proposals on the table. Political will and the necessary flexibility on the part of all concerned was needed to take the Working Group to the next level, he said.
ZSOLT HETESY (Hungary), Contact Point for the basic principles governing the Headquarters agreement, and also for other general issues, said only general ideas had been expressed at this stage. Delegates felt comfortable that the issue could be dealt with at a later stage. On the topic of general issues, only one delegation had approached him who was deliberating whether further issues concerning the Court's proceedings could later be discussed in the Preparatory Commission. That proposal was contained in PCNICC/2000/DP1.
Statements
AUGUSTO CABRERA (Peru) said that contrary to the opinion of sceptics, the Court was becoming a reality. Describing the adoption of the Court's Statute as an unprecedented step, he said recent positive political developments in his country had been determining factors in giving impetus to the talks on the Court. As a result of those talks, he was pleased to announce that yesterday Peru had become the 118th country to sign the treaty.
YAMIRA CUETO (Cuba) said time limits often led to compromises and conditionalities, and the Preparatory Commission had not been able to escape that reality. In the past two weeks, delegations had been confronted with proposals that supposedly promoted universality but were in fact flagrant violations of the law of treaties, as well as acting against the spirit and letter of the Statute. Those proposals demonstrated in real terms that developing countries continued to face the danger of political manipulation of the Court by powerful States. Cuba agreed with those who advocated a definition of the crime of aggression that reflected not only the progressive development of international customary law but also the legitimate interests of the international community as a whole. The negotiations had become controversial because they had become the hostage of a small group of countries who sought to accommodate one State's possible participation or cooperation with the Court. Cuba rejected the attempts to alter the integrity of the Rome Statute and trusted that at the end of the process, the necessary impartiality and prestige of the Court would prevail.
JEAN D. NTSAMA (Cameroon) announced that on 4 December the head of State of his country signed a decree creating an ad hoc technical committee on the implementation of the Court's Statute. The mandate of the committee included drafting of a law on the Statute's ratification to be submitted in due course to the National Assembly. The committee was also to prepare a draft on the adaptation of the Statute's provisions to domestic law, and the organization of regional seminars. The committee was to submit its report by June next year.
