Fine Gael whole-heartedly supports the ratification of the Rome Statute to establish the International Criminal Court. My initial focus was on the delay on the part of this Government in that it is almost three years since agreement was reached at a UN Conference in Rome and we are only now at the stage of debating the Bill to amend the Constitution to enable us to ratify.
My main concern is that amending the Constitution does not affect ratification. Other measures are necessary. Further legislation will be necessary as was made clear by the Taoiseach in response to questions I raised with him last year.
We need a Bill enacted similar to the War Crimes Tribunals Act, 1998. I have not seen such legislation and I want the Minister to tell me when that reply is to be circulated. I do not want to be told that this is a matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. That is only passing the buck. It is for the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Wallace, who is in the House dealing with this issue, to tell Members the full state of affairs. I want to know what kind of legislation there is, when we will see it and what provisions will be in it. I also want to know what kind of measures will be necessary to enable us to ratify it.
There is no evidence that anything has been done about legislation or about such administrative measures, and my main concern is that there will be further delay on the part of the Government even after the referendum process has been completed. It is normal at a time of constitutional change for a Government to circulate legislation underpinning the policy approach proposed. There is in this instance a gaping gap. Legislation has not been circulated nor have details been given. Neither do we have details of the administrative measures which the Taoiseach said last year would be completed at the earliest possible date. When the Taoiseach wants to rush things he can run as fast as anybody in Croke Park, but I want to see more interest taken in the detail of this ratification process.
As a general principle the people are entitled to the benefit of maximum information before being asked to vote on a constitutional measure. My main worry is that there will be further delays after referendum day before Ireland fulfils its international duty and ratifies the Rome Statute. I have immense enthusiasm for the International Court, so much so that I drafted a Bill to enable us to amend the Constitution. My approach involves fighting crime at home and abroad with a commitment to international law and order as well as law and order at home.
Establishing a permanent International Court will be a major contribution towards deterring crimes against humanity. At present there is no permanent international body to which the Pol Pots and Saddam Husseins of this world would be answerable. International tribunals such as those for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia are limited to one area in each case. It is entirely right that we should move away from an ad hoc system to permanent deterrents. As the Minister mentioned, ad hoc tribunals cannot be a substitute for a stable international judicial mechanism. This is clear also from the fact that in the half century since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, massive human rights and humanitarian law abuses have been committed and continue to be committed worldwide. It is time for the international community to demand official accountability for such acts. Once it is in place, the International Criminal Court will always be there to call the world's tyrants to account.
A permanent International Court is necessary for many reasons. It is time to end impunity since, despite the precedents of Nuremberg and Tokyo, it is clear that most perpetrators of gross human rights abuse and violations of humanitarian law are not punished by national or international bodies. Human rights and protections guaranteed under international humanitarian law will not be translated into practical behaviour unless potential offenders become aware that a price for violations must be paid. Impunity not only encourages the recurrence of abuses against human dignity but strips human rights and humanitarian law of their deterrent effect.
The International Criminal Court can provide a measure of relief to victims and their families and affected communities. Where populations are victims of atrocities the punishment of perpetrators is crucial to enable the process of reconciliation with other groups to begin. While, ideally, atrocities should be dealt with by the national authorities of the state in which they are committed, practice has shown that governments rarely call their own citizens to account for war crimes or similar atrocities especially when those responsible occupy positions of political or military authority. The situation in regard to President Milosevic is a case in point. There was no question of his being accountable to anyone until such time as he was ousted from office. No machinery of the state could bring him to justice and he is only now facing his just desserts, whether through domestic law or the ad hoc tribunal in the Hague. Milosevic will be better off if his case is transferred to the Hague as the death penalty does not apply there whereas it does in his home country.
The ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda were established precisely because domestic authorities would not or could not punish those responsible for atrocities. In any event, conflicts often lead to the disruption or even disintegration of domestic legal systems. Ad hoc tribunals cannot substitute for a permanent war crimes court. It is not possible to predict whether the UN Security Council will always have the political will or the logistical capacity to respond to massive human rights violations. As in Ireland, there is a danger that tribunal fatigue could set in in the UN.
Under the current system, one of the main failings of international criminal law is the lack of a permanent and effective enforcement mechanism and the establishment of the International Criminal Court is, therefore, a logical step in the development of the international legal order. The court will also serve as a model of justice and act as a standard-setting institution in the area of due process and fair trial rights, while at the same time acting as a major deterrent to the perpetration of serious crimes which are an affront to mankind.
We in Ireland, with our long record of UN service by our military peace-keepers, should recognise the benefit of such deterrence as providing, if not a shield, at least a measure of legal protective support for members of the Defence Forces and the Garda serving abroad. I welcome the specific reference to the role of peace-keepers and the provision that any attack on them will result in the perpetrators being brought before the International Criminal Court. We have a domestic interest in this area as many Irish people have served and will, hopefully, continue to serve as UN peace-keepers.
The statute itself, comprising 128 articles, appears somewhat intimidating at first sight. However, it logically combines the various provisions agreed for establishing the seat of the court in The Hague with jurisdiction initially focusing on cases of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Once a definition and the conditions under which the court will exercise jurisdiction are established, the crime of aggression will also be included. I particularly welcome the special focus on crimes against women and children in the statute. The absolute prohibition of crimes such as pillage, rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution and crimes against children, including enlisting them as child soldiers, is specifically outlined.
Article 124 provides for an opt-out clause whereby a state may declare, on becoming a party to the statute, that it does not accept jurisdiction by the court over war crimes committed by its nationals or on its territory for a period of seven years. The Minister did not refer to the opt-out clause and I want him to give an undertaking to the House in his closing remarks that Ireland will not only refrain from exercising the opt-out clause but will raise its voice in encouraging other states to do likewise, particularly EU member states. France was primarily responsible for the inclusion of the opt-out clause and we should exert any influence we can, as EU members and colleagues of France on the Security Council, to encourage it and other countries not to invoke the clause. I am hopeful that when the court is up and running, other serious crimes such as drug trafficking and terrorism will be added to its jurisdiction arising from agreement at later review conferences. I appreciate this will take time.
Until the statute is universally ratified, it will not have universal jurisdiction. Regrettably, many of the nations on whose territory the crimes subject to the court's jurisdiction are likely to be committed or whose nationals are likely to be responsible for such crimes will not be among the early signatories to the statute. However, I hope this will be rectified in time with changes of Government.
The vote in Rome brought together strange bedfellows with the United States and Iraq being among the seven who voted against the statute. Iraq's position is perfectly understandable; its tyrannical dictator, Saddam Hussein, being a prime candidate for attention by the court. I would not expect that country to join until the government changes. However, the US is in a different category. I am glad President Clinton signed up before he left office, but ratification under the new US Administration may prove problematic. Senator Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, recently opposed accession to the statute, on the basis of protecting American men and women in uniforms from the jurisdiction of what he called "this kangaroo court". It may take some time for a view to emerge in Congress which is more sensitive to international opinion. All this points to the importance of Ireland giving a lead on this issue and not dragging its feet further in the completion of the ratification process. We should become a founder member of the court in order that from that position, allied to our membership of the UN Security Council, we can encourage others to join.
The idea of an international war crimes court has been in gestation for almost a century. After World War I, the Treaty of Versailles provided for the establishment of an international tribunal to try the German Emperor but Kaiser Wilhelm never stood trial. The international tribunals set up following World War II at Nuremberg and Tokyo to try major war criminals were far more successful. The Nuremberg Charter specified crimes which are still considered the key crimes under international law of crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. More important, those trials and judgments forever shattered the notion that state sovereignty could be used as a defence for acts considered outrages on the conscience of mankind.
Following the adoption of the genocide convention and the Geneva conventions in the late 1940s, the UN General Assembly asked the International Law Commission to examine the possibility of creating a permanent international criminal court. Unfortunately, by the time the commission produced draft statutes, further progress proved unfeasible during the political and ideological confrontations of the Cold War.
It is interesting that it was a small country which reopened the issue at the UN in 1980. Trinidad and Tobago proposed that efforts at drafting an international criminal court statute be resumed. The focus of attention at the time was drugs trafficking which, unfortunately, had to be dropped during the final complicated nego tiations on the statute but which, I hope, will at a later stage be included within the jurisdiction of the court.
While discussions continued over the years, the Security Council enhanced the prospects of establishing a permanent court when it set up the two ad hoc tribunals, thus signalling the international community commitment to supporting the principle of individual accountability for crimes under international law. Discussions culminated in their own statutes, setting out the terms of the treaty three years ago. Now we in Ireland have an opportunity to express our support for an international court to bring barbaric criminals to justice. Let us seize this opportunity with enthusiasm and ensure the constitutional legislation and referendum are both passed with huge majorities. This Government must also do its job by ensuring there will be no further delays in bringing forward the ancillary legislation and administrative measures to complete the process of ratifying the statute to create the international criminal court.
This brings me to the questions I want dealt with by the Minister of State in his reply. I wish to know the proposed date of the referendum. Subject to the foot and mouth situation, I am very happy to have an early referendum in relation to this change in the Constitution. I would also like him to deal with the possible confusion that may arise if the four referenda are taken together. I hope everyone will support this referendum and that the same will apply in the case of the death penalty. It is obvious at this stage that will not be the case in regard to the Nice Treaty where the usual suspects are gearing themselves up to promote their anti-European approach. Clearly there will be strong opposition to the treaty and, given that some of the smaller parties will get in on the act, there will be an anti-vote in this regard.
It seems clear there may be an anti-vote on the referendum on judicial conduct. I question the advisability of holding the four referenda together. I am particularly concerned that the referendum on the Nice Treaty should, first, be given an opportunity for proper discussion and, therefore, be deferred until the autumn and, second, that it should not be coupled with other referenda, thereby increasing the possible confusion that may arise or be deliberately caused in relation to the treaty.
I also want the Minister of State to deal with the date of ratification of the international criminal court. I have outlined my concerns that just passing the referendum to change the Constitution does not result in automatic ratification and that other measures must be taken. I wish to know the details of these measures and the details of the ancillary legislation, when this will be circulated and when is it proposed to have it passed through the Oireachtas. I want to know the details of the administrative measures to which the Taoiseach referred. What are they? There has been a vague reference to them but no details. The House and the people are entitled to know what exactly is involved. I want an absolute assur ance that Ireland will not declare to take the benefit of the opt-out clause 124, which a colleague described in a letter to me as the licence to kill declaration. Under no circumstances should we be involved in this. We need to be assured that we will do what we can to try to discourage others from using this clause.
I want this legislation to be adopted and the referendum to go through. I also want answers to the very legitimate questions I have raised because the House is entitled to such answers. It is a basic fundamental principle when any Bill to amend the Constitution is going before the people that every piece of information which could influence their judgment should be laid before the people and the House before asking them to vote. It is wrong to begin the process of seeking to amend the Constitution, the basic law of the State, without making all the information available. That has not been done in this case and I urge the Government to do so. Based, I hope, on a positive reaction from the Government in this regard, I will be supporting whole-heartedly an approach to have the Bill accepted by the Oireachtas and approved by the people at the earliest possible date.
