Vol. 514 No. 4
16 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the progress, if any, made with regard to the establishment of an international war crimes court; when Ireland will ratify the convention in that regard; when sufficient countries will have ratified it to allow for its establishment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4331/00]
The Statute of the International Criminal Court was concluded at Rome on 17 July 1998 and was signed, subject to ratification, by Ireland on 7 October 1998. It will enter into force approximately two months after 60 states have become party to it. My information is that to date 94 states have signed the statute and, of these, six have ratified it.
The establishment of a permanent international criminal court has been supported by Ireland for many years. Accordingly, considerable resources were made available to ensure that Ireland was represented at and participated in the negotiations which led to the conclusion of the statute. Ireland continues to be represented at the Preparatory Commission set up after the Rome conference to deal with matters necessary for the effective operation of the court when the statute enters into force.
Ireland was anxious to sign the statute at an early date to signal our strong political support for the court, as were our EU partners and our partners in the 66 member like-minded group, which was set up to advance the conclusion of the statute and its timely entry into force.
With regard to the ratification process, the statute is a long and complex document which includes 13 Parts and 128 Articles. A careful and detailed examination of the statute by the Department of Foreign Affairs, together with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the office of the Attorney General and other appropriate bodies, is necessary to determine the precise nature and scope of the legal and administrative measures which may need to be adopted in order for Ireland to be in a position to meet its obligations under the statute.
At the international level, this matter is also being discussed by delegations at the Preparatory Commission with the aim of ensuring that the necessary domestic measures are taken by states not only in a timely fashion, but also in a comprehensive and consistent manner.
Ireland may proceed to ratify the statute only when all the necessary legal and administrative measures have been put in place, including any necessary changes to the Constitution. I am not in a position at this point to state definitively how long this process might take, but I assure the Deputy that the timely ratification and entry into force of the statute will continue to be given a high priority by the Department.
The supplementary question I want to ask raises the hoary old chestnut again. May we envisage any change in the policy, by which, as the Minister stated, the State must put in place the legal and administrative procedures before it moves to ratify, which would enable the State to ratify it? Other countries, including some of the six which have ratified, have a process by which they ratify and then make the legal and administrative changes. I have not ever discovered any constitutional inhibition to this in the Irish case. It is just one of those practices which was conveyed into the politics of foreign affairs. Will the Minister list the six countries which have ratified the statute?
The Minister stated that the detail was being discussed in a number of countries. Would the Minister agree that the blockage has been put in place and the detailed discussion of the establishment of the courts amounts to a veto? I refer to one of the significant powers.
I am not aware of a veto in regard to any significant partners. Regarding the first part of the Deputy's question, until the Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted it was impossible to predict the precise rules which would apply to it and therefore it would not have been possible to carry out any definitive preparatory work on ratification.
What is the approach of the US towards the international criminal court? Has there been any discussion between the Government and the US in this regard?
Now the Deputy is on to it.
Ireland would be unable to comply with the provisions of the statute if the necessary domestic provisions were not in place.
I think the Minister missed my question.
To put it in a more pithy way, Mr. Jesse Helms stated that the US may need to watch out if the international court began telling US citizens what to do and he suggested that the US might have to leave the UN if this happened. To amalgamate my question and that of Deputy Mitchell, would the Minister agree that the obstructive attitude on the part of the US towards the detail of the operations is close to constituting a veto on the process of establishment of the court?
Perhaps the Minister did not hear me. I asked had the Government had any contact with the US regarding its attitude to the international criminal court.
The US has been opposed to the statute—
Now we are getting somewhere.
—and previously indicated that it does not intend to sign as it stands, but I am not aware of—
Mr. Jesse Helms.
—any more specific details than that.
There is a sophisticated foreign policy.
