The title of this legislation is somewhat misleading because the International Criminal Court is already in existence; we are discussing its jurisdiction. The preamble to the explanatory memorandum states: "The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the provisions of the Statute of the International Criminal Court concluded at Rome on 17 July 1998." Ireland signed the statute on 7 October 1998 and ratified it on 11 April 2002. However, as with most international conventions, we seem to be quite slow in transposing it into domestic legislation. It is six years since the statute was concluded. It is often the case that much of the material that was relevant when the framework was put together is not quite as fresh when the convention is finally transposed into domestic law. I would prefer a more expeditious approach to dealing with international legislation.
The statute contains 128 articles in 11 parts. It covers the establishment, jurisdiction and general principles of investigation, prosecution, enforcement and penalties. Its remit is quite wide. It also refers to the offences that are appropriate to the ICC. They are offences of the most serious nature, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It is hard to believe we in Ireland are only now establishing a statute in this matter, which was first suggested in 1948 in the context of the aftermath of the Second World War and the terrible crimes that were committed at that time. In this regard many of us think about the Holocaust, which gave rise to the designation of the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
However, such atrocities did not start in the 20th century and are not peculiar to the Second World War. Similar atrocities were committed during the First World War and in the 19th century during the process of colonisation. Many of the atrocities committed during the scramble for Africa and the Far East would be covered by this legislation. These atrocities were perpetrated by countries that were above reproach in the international sphere in terms of diplomacy and so on. Very often they presented the problem as the white man's burden in trying to deal with people who needed civilisation. However, side by side with so-called civilisation was a process of atrocity, genocide and people being slaughtered by modern technology available in western countries at the time. All of this was romanticised and was not seen in the context of an international criminal court which would deal with the perpetrators of these crimes.
Going back further in our own history to the times of the plantations, whole swathes of people were removed from areas to make way for the new planters. This process was often accompanied by mass slaughter. While the concept is not new, it does not mean it is not still happening. While a legislative framework and structures with an international dimension were put in place to deal with these type of atrocities on a cross-border basis, nevertheless, the same atrocities are taking place up to the present time. We are aware of the terrible slaughter which took place in Rwanda where millions of people were killed. We know the atrocities and slaughter that took place in the former Yugoslavia and where war criminals are still being sought. The position is the same in regard to the war which is currently taking place in Iraq. Wholesale bombing of the civilian population, where the casualties are not immediately visible to those who perpetrate the crimes, are crimes against humanity. We must be more definitive in the way we look at these issues. Can a country with massive superior technology use its huge powerhouse of so-called "daisy cutter" bombs or "cluster" bombs to destroy everything in sight, including men, women and children? While we hear about "smart" bombs, these other bombs are also being used. We are not dealing with something that happened in the past, we are talking about a current issue. For that reason, it is extremely important to sign up to our international commitments.
Almost 60 years ago, the United Nations drew up proposals to establish an international criminal court, including the ad hoc tribunals that have been established in the process. While there is a distinction between a court of justice dealing with crimes perpetrated by States and a court dealing with crimes perpetrated by individuals, both areas must be addressed. It is important that individuals should not be able to plead that they were carrying out orders, that they were subject to a superior command structure and, therefore, they are not amenable to the rule of international law.
It is important that any international legislation of this nature should be complementary to the State's domestic legislation. Where a State is in a position to deal with this type of mass offence, it should do so. Structures should be enhanced and supported to enable countries to deal with problems of large-scale slaughter, genocide or crimes committed within their own borders if they have the administration and capability to do so. Where countries are not in that position, the international community has a responsibility to ensure the perpetrators do not get away scot-free. It is important to have a framework and permanent structure in place, including an administration and secretariat, to deal with these matters. It should be able to deal with issues under the auspices of the United Nations where there is referral from the Security Council.
The United Nations is the body which should deal with the international dimension when there are problems of international conflicts, war, international crime and so on. However, there is a problem when one of the major participants of the UN Security Council, namely, the United States does not wish to sign up to an international criminal court. That is a serious matter. The world community of nations should do everything in its power to convince the United States that it is a law-abiding international citizen just like every other country and that given that it is such a powerful country, it should not become the modern day colonial power, which it often appears to be just as we had the powers in the scramble for Africa in the 19th century when colonial powers were vying with each other to gather the most territory under their wings. In the process, serious damage is done to the structures in these countries, lawlessness is created, as we have seen in Afghanistan and in many countries that have become destabilised in Central America, the Middle East and now Iraq.
There is a need for the United States to recognise its great power and responsibilities. Given that since the end of the Cold War there is no longer a balance of power in the world, the last thing we want is the European Union to establish itself as a power which is vying for some form of comparable strength with the United States. We do not want to see it going down that road. However, a vacuum exists while the United States maintains its powerful position without exercising the same level of responsibility that a powerful nation with such strength should exercise. We saw the tension this caused in the conflict in Iraq when there was pressure on the European Union to get involved in some way. It is not desirable to push the European Union into such a position. The European Union should play a harmonious and holistic role without these extraneous matters impinging and interfering with it.
That the United States does not sign up to the international criminal court is a fatal flaw for any international convention or structure that we are trying to have as an all-encompassing body. The Minister should tell the House the number of states that have subscribed to the International Criminal Court. What states have signed up to the 1998 Treaty of Rome containing the statute of the International Criminal Court? How many states have at some stage either accepted, ratified or given effect in legislation to this statute? How many countries refuse to have anything to do with the International Criminal Court? What are the procedures in place internationally, if any, to persuade countries including member states of the EU to sign up? Could the Minister give us a picture of where we are at right now? It is extremely important that we get the maximum number of states signed up to it.
Amnesty International has circulated documentation on the legislation. It constantly claims that it was not consulted or that the Minister did not want to give it consultative status on the matter, and that the Bill was prepared by the Department without consultation with any human rights body including the Human Rights Commission. If we have given effect to a statutory body that has as its function the proofing of human rights in domestic legislation, with a comparable body in Northern Ireland set up under the auspices of the Good Friday Agreement, then the Minister will have to pay some attention to that body. It does not help things when the Minister uses colourful language, claiming that the submissions are tendentious and I do not know what else.
