Summary: Information / Discussion
International Criminal Court
The first speaker of the Informational Session on the International Criminal Court held on Thursday was Mr. Philip Kirsch, the Canadian Ambassador to Sweden and member of the International Criminal Court Preparatory Commission. For him, July had been a busy month not only due to the Preparatory Committee's last session and the statute that went into force July 1st but especially because of the attack by the USA that followed.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is the result of decades of efforts to put in place a judicial instrument to deal with the most serious crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes whenever the countries involved are not willing or able to act. Mr. Kirsch discussed the view of the opponents of the court who fear that it would be used as a political rather than judicial tool. However, his analysis of the American concerns over the court suggested that the issue of the vulnerability of peacekeepers is irrelevant. As the USA has the judicial means to try such matters, soldiers on peacekeeping missions would not fall within the jurisdiction of the ICC, and American reasoning appears to be unfounded. For him, it is inconceivable that the court would act upon political reasons and that, in fact, there were a number of legal safeguards to protect the state's sovereignty. His arguments alluded to the fact that the USA has attempted to undermine the court as a result of fear of a global system to judge their military actions.
The second speaker, Mr. Bill Pace of the Coalition for an International Criminal Court, a union of some 1000 NGOs in favour of the ICC, pointed out that the reason behind the US attacks could be that the ICC cannot prohibit the possession of nuclear weapons but it could bring judgement against the outcomes of their use. Mr. Pace suggested that the Coalition for an ICC set a good example for co-operative and efficient working between governmental, non-governmental and international organizations, as shown by their initiative to promote further ratification of the Rome Statute. Mr. Pace indicated that he saw a certain hypocrisy in the agreement made by the UN Security Council to grant immunity to American soldiers on peacekeeping missions, as powerful and small states should be treated equally, something supported by the secretary-General of the UN. Mr. Pace stressed that the high number of ratifications has to continue in order to ensure the legitimacy of the court, and he added that education and training, especially within smaller states, were needed.
Conclusions
Both speakers agreed that the ICC had made considerable progress in the past few years as demonstrated by the speed at which constitutional change has occurred within signatory states. The speakers commented on the different perspectives of the respective countries. For example, Canada did a lot of work during the Rome Conference to encourage ratification, whereas Great Britain backed the USA in its attempt to weaken the court.
Presenters' Documents Available
  18.30_kirsch_philippe.doc (29 K)
 Click
here for all available presenters' documents
Click
here for all available summaries
 Please
read about the summaries
|
