Olwyn Enright
Question:64 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when the International Criminal Court will come into being. [21532/02]
Ceisteanna – Questions (Resumed). Priority Questions. - International Criminal Court.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which has jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the most horrific of crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, entered into force on 1 July 2002. The statute currently has 82 states parties, including all European Union member states. Ireland ratified the statute on 11 April 2002 following the decision of the people in June 2001 to amend the Constitution to allow for such ratification. Following its entry into force, the first session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Statute was convened in New York from 3 to 10 September to put in place arrangements necessary to ensure the effective functioning of the court. The assembly adopted a number of resolutions, inter alia adopting the rules of procedure and evidence of the court, the elements of crimes which provide an interpretative guide to the crimes set out in the statute, a relationship agreement between the court and the United Nations and the financial rules and regulations of the court.
The assembly also adopted two resolutions on procedures for the nomination and election of judges, the prosecutor and deputy prosecutor of the court. The closing date for nominations for election of judges and the prosecutor is 30 November and the elections are scheduled to take place at the resumed first session of the Assembly of States Parties, to be convened in New York from 3 to 7 February 2003.
Currently 22 candidates have formally been nominated as judges, while no candidate has yet been nominated for the position of prosecutor. Ireland has nominated Judge Maureen Harding Clark for election to the court. Judge Clark, who is one of Ireland's leading criminal lawyers, is currently serving as a judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, having been elected to that position by the General Assembly of the United Nations in June 2001.
On the date of the entry into force of the statute an advance team was sent to The Hague, where the court will be situated, to make practical arrangements to ensure the smooth functioning of the court. On 14 October 2002, the director of the division of common services appointed by the Assembly of States Parties took his office at the seat of the court and the advance team completed its functions at the end of October. Pending the election of the registrar of the court in April 2003, the director will perform the functions of the registrar and he is currently recruiting staff.
Once the judges and senior officials of the court have been elected in the first half of 2003 and the necessary staff recruited, the court will become fully operational. Ireland will continue its strong support for the court in this implementation phase and beyond and I look forward to an effective and efficient court.
I thank the Minister for his reply and ask if he is aware that Amnesty International claims that the United States is pressing states around the world to enter into impunity agreements not to surrender US nationals to the International Criminal Court. They say that in many cases the US Government is threatening to withdraw military assistance from countries which will not agree. Amnesty International claims that such agreements are unlawful under international law and that they threaten to undermine international efforts to stop criminals from ever again planning the worst crimes known to humanity. Given that the Minister is aware of such claims, will he tell the House what assessment he has made of them? Is the Government concerned about these claims? What steps are being taken to address this issue?
The EU common position has been to deal with the principle of impunity. There have been discussions between the EU and the United States about the matter and the EU has tried to accommodate the concerns of the US in a manner which is consistent with the statute. The Government believes that the US concerns can be satisfied under the Rome Statute and by means of other international instruments. We will continue to work with the United States and other UN member states to allay concerns and to ensure the effective functioning of the court without delay. The US position on this matter has not met with the agreement of other countries and the European Union. However, discussions have taken place to try to ensure that we make clear that we do not agree with the idea of people being able to avoid coming before the court in the complementary jurisdiction that it provides. We want to make sure that all nations live up to the statute.
Does the Minister accept that East Timor, a country that Members of the House are greatly interested in, had to give a guarantee to the United States that it would practice impunity before it could declare its independence? Does he agree that that was quite appalling? Is it not a fact that the EU Council of Foreign Ministers changed its position? Although the Ministers initially defended the Rome Statute, when they came under pressure they changed their position by reaching an agreement with the United States that left individual countries free to reach an accommodation.
No, that is not what happened.
Does the Minister agree that the current policy of the United States seems to be to try to torpedo the International Criminal Court?
Yes.
Does the Minister think that bilateral agreements have a legal status? Such agreements are supposed to be legal under Article 98 of the Rome Statute, but that Article was not included to facilitate bilateral agreements that provide impunity. What is the Irish position, bilaterally with the United States, and regarding the EU? What is our position regarding the American attitude to the International Criminal Court? Should we not stand up for the court in every way we can?
Can I ask the Minister if, having ceded the principle to allow the United Nations mission in Kosovo to continue over a temporary timeframe, we have accepted that members of the American military cannot be indicted and convicted of war crimes? It is a sad principle for a country like Ireland to hold regarding the practice of our foreign policy.
Will the Minister tell the House if any EU member states have entered into such an agreement with the United States?
The question can also include candidate countries.
Will the Minister assure the House that Ireland will never sign such a bilateral agreement?
I will try to answer all questions, although a number of different issues were raised. The Common Position is that the Union wants to see the matter resolved in a way that does not cede the principle of impunity. We are trying to achieve that precise objective. We have asked legal experts to use their expertise to provide for such an outcome. It is not true to say that the Foreign Ministers have ceded the principle, as we certainly have not and will not do so. We are seeking to accommodate the situation in a manner that is consistent with the court and a fair degree of legal expertise will be required to see if that is possible. We are prepared to work in every way we can, but not on the basis of ceding the principle. It is incorrect to suggest that we have ceded the principle.
The EU Foreign Affairs Ministers, through the Danish Presidency, have made clear their position regarding the principle and it is unfair to suggest otherwise. Many of the concerns of the United States do not require bilateral agreements. We have asked the European Union's legal experts to deal with the situation in a consistent manner and we have asked all member states not to sign any bilateral agreements until we can get a Common Position, as outlined by the Danish Presidency. I think we have adopted a fair and open position.
What countries have signed bilateral agreements?
The Romanians have signed such an agreement.
The Deputy is absolutely right.