Private Members' Business. - An Bille um an Tríú Leasú is Fiche ar an mBunreacht. 2001: An Dara Céim (Atógáil). Twenty-third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2001: Second Stage (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (28th Dáil) – Wednesday, 11 Apr 2001

Private Members' Business. - An Bille um an Tríú Leasú is Fiche ar an mBunreacht. 2001: An Dara Céim (Atógáil). Twenty-third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2001: Second Stage (Resumed).

Atairgeadh an cheist: "Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair anois."

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Currie

Before the debate was adjourned I tried to place the Bill on the proposed international criminal court in the context of our commitment to the United Nations. I recognised some of the weaknesses in that, as the victors write history, they usually escape punishment in these circumstances also. I drew attention to the fact that in the last war the Allies were also guilty of some terrible atrocities that amounted to war crimes which, in current circumstances, would have gone before the proposed international court. I also pointed out that those who were responsible for atrocities, such as Saddam Hussein, may not be amenable to justice and that the presence of the court might, in certain circumstances, be an incentive to commit war crimes in so far as the perpetrators might believe that victory must be achieved at all costs and that they might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.

I intend to bring us a little closer to home and to make some remarks that some people might describe as parochial but we have to learn the lessons wherever and whenever they can be learned. In his contribution the Minister detailed some of the barbarities the proposed court will try, some of which have been part of international conventions since 1948 and 1949. The Minister stated:

The definition of genocide is identical to that contained in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It involves the following acts when committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial or religious group: killing or causing serious bodily harm or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures to prevent birth within the group or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The concept of crimes against humanity also embraces particularly serious violations of human rights – violations such as murder, extermination, slavery, forcible transfer of population, unlawful imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, persecution of a group, enforced disappearance and apartheid – when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against the civilian population.

This is the point where I tend to get a little parochial. Let us examine the situation closer to home and, to be precise, on this island of ours over the past 30 years. Let us think of Enniskillen, where people who were gathered around the cenotaph commemorating their dead were blown to bits. Let us think of the Gospel Hall in South Armagh, where a congregation gathered together to worship their God were massacred as they sat in their pews. Let us think of Bessbrook, where people were lined up on the side of the road and asked their religion. One who answered correctly was allowed to leave and the rest shot down like dogs. Let us think of the innocents having a drink, doing their shopping or attending a wedding in a hotel who were blown into eternity. Let us think of the Omagh atrocity, which happened so recently, and the barbarity of that event.

Let us think also of the barbarities carried out by those on the other side in uniform and out of uniform. Let us think of the atrocities perpetrated in this State, in this city and in Monaghan, and the number of innocent people sent without warning to meet their maker. Let us think of the members of the Miami show band who were lined up on the side of the road and shot and bombed not because of any perceived terrorist involvement but because of their perceived religious adherence. Let us think of the totally innocent neighbours of mine, like Jim and Gertie Devlin, who committed no crime except that they were Catholics, who were murdered in cold blood at the entrance to their home. Let us think of the innocent Catholics of north Belfast or the murder triangle who were murdered by a policy not yet given a name but later, in another part of the world, to become known as ethnic cleansing. Let us think of Bloody Sunday, that example of a so-called civilised nation shooting unarmed and innocent people.

Let us think again about the Minister's definition of crimes under the heading of "genocide"– war crimes and crimes against humanity – and ask ourselves how many of those crimes, to a greater or lesser degree, have not been committed in this little island of ours, this so-called island of saints and scholars, in the past 30 years? How many of the perpetrators have been brought to justice? Though the distinction between winners and losers is not as clear as in national wars, have not many of the perpetrators been rewarded rather than been punished? Do we not see that some of the perpetrators, certainly some of those who organised atrocities and who supported and condoned them, have been given honoured positions and their involvement apparently condoned?

This is not a simple matter we are discussing here this evening. I am not saying that the Bill before us is perfect or that when, as I confidently believe, the people of this State vote in a referendum in favour of this Bill and the international court is set up that everything will be perfect but I support the legislation. I hope it will be supported overwhelmingly in a referendum by the people. I hope it will become part of international law and the necessary action to implement it will be taken under the aegis of the United Nations, if that, unfortunately, ever again becomes necessary. I am too well aware of the inhumanity of man to man and how difficult it is to prevent it.

An Ceann Comhairle

I call Deputy Gormley who I understand is sharing time with Deputy Perry.

Mr. Gormley

I strongly welcome the Twenty-third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2001, which will allow this State to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This is a court which is urgently needed, a permanent international tribunal which will address and try some of the most heinous crimes committed against the international community: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression. For a very long time these crimes have been recognised, condemned and legislated against by the international community. Unfortunately, these crimes have also, for a very long time, continued to be committed, with apparently no one answerable for them, no one brought to trial or brought to account for criminal behaviour.

I am sure none of us is under any illusions that the establishment of this court will solve the problem of criminal accountability once and for all. It will not, but the international criminal court is a start and one which is a long time coming. Such a court was first mooted more than 50 years ago. World War II provided us with an abundance of atrocities, deliberate genocide, cruel and inhuman punishments and war crimes. Nuremberg was an attempt to address those atrocities. The trials at Nuremberg provided some powerful benchmarks on human rights. The word "Nuremberg" still today evokes an image, a potent symbol of humanity's attempt to cope with and redress some of the worst crimes human beings have ever committed against other human beings.

In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. In the same Resolution, Resolution 260, December 9, 1948, the General Assembly asked the International Law Commission to consider establishing an international court "for the trial of persons charged with genocide . . .". This, however, all foundered and here we are, in 2001, still trying to remedy the ad hoc system of war crime tribunals, for instance, in Rwanda and the Balkans, and to establish a permanent court.

I find it difficult to understand why it has taken the Government so long to ratify the Rome Statute. We signed it over two years ago, in 1998, and I understand about half of the 60 countries required to ratify the treaty before the court can be established have now done so. It is time Ireland added its name to the list and helped to ensure that the international criminal court can be established as quickly as possible.

This tendency to long finger human rights legislation has unfortunately become a trait of the current Government. Ireland is apparently the last state in the Council of Europe to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. A Bill to that effect is being published by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform only this week. There are over 40 states in the Council of Europe and Ireland is the last to incorporate this important legislation, despite having signed and ratified the convention almost 50 years ago. Human rights groups have long taken this and previous Governments to task over their tardiness and their lackadaisical attitude to human rights, with long delays in establishing the Human Rights Commission and in ratifying such basics as the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination – finally ratified just before Christmas – and the UN Convention on Torture, which is still waiting to be approved by the Government.

The Government has been heavily criticised over the delay in ratifying the Rome statute. Professor William Schabas, director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights at NUI Galway, last year referred to the delay as an embarrassment and stated that the EU had promised that all EU member states would have approved the statute by the end of 2000.

An international criminal court has been described by the United Nations as the missing link in the international legal system. The International Court at The Hague only deals with cases between states, not cases involving individuals. Individual responsibility and accountability must be dealt with. This issue could no longer be dealt with on an ad hoc basis and, with the establishment of the court, it no longer will be. Ad hoc tribunals involve long delays, crucial evidence can be destroyed, the accused can escape and witnesses can disappear or be intimidated. Such tribunals can also be limited in terms of time or place. For example, the Rwanda war crimes tribunal was limited to dealing with the events of 1994, even though thousands of Rwandan refugees were murdered outside that timeframe. A permanent court will help to rectify these deficiencies and ensure that perpetrators of crimes are brought to justice, even when national criminal justice institutions either fail or are unwilling to act.

There will be deficiencies with the new court. First, it is felt that it will never be able to operate to full effect if the United States is not on board. In the closing days of his Administration, President Clinton finally signed the treaty, after fighting it tooth and nail since its 1998 inception. Indeed, at one point during the negotiations in Rome, the US Defence Secretary, Mr. William Cohen, made it known that his country would reconsider its troop commitment to Europe if its concerns were not taken on board. However, the Bush Administration will never ratify the treaty. Mr. Jesse Helms, chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told The Washington Post that he would ensure “America's fighting men and women would be protected from the jurisdiction of what he has called ‘this international kangaroo court'”. Similar views, although not quite so colourful, have been expressed by the British military as the British Government prepares to steer the international criminal court through Westminster.

The international criminal court will have jurisdiction over crimes committed by the nationals of governments that ratify the treaty or over crimes committed in their territories. It will be able to put on trial any individual responsible for such crimes, whether that person is a civilian or a president, a foot soldier or a five star general. It is understandable that many states might be uneasy about this. War crimes are broadly defined as including "intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life, or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, or widespread long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated". It also states that "a military commander . is responsible for offences committed by forces under his effective command and control . as a result of his failure to exercise control properly over such forces". The treaty is not retrospective.

Most of history's atrocities have never been atoned for. The majority of the villains go scot free because many of them hold positions of authority. Everyone can recall incidents or events which could be viewed as war crimes or genocide, but which have never been properly accounted for in a court of law. The names of Pol Pot, Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Suharto and Pinochet spring to mind; but so also do those of Henry Kissinger, Margaret Thatcher, the perpetrators of Bloody Sunday and of other crimes committed in this jurisdiction. In the case of the Kosovo war, one would have thought that purposely targeting chemical plants and causing enormous pollution to rivers or purposely targeting television stations would qualify for some sort of legal accountability.

Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction raise similar issues. The International Court of Justice at The Hague found that the use of nuclear weapons would undoubtedly be illegal under international humanitarian law. What then are the implications for the Western European Union which supports the use of nuclear weapons and which is being incorporated into the European Union? How does this impact on Ireland's position? The Ploughshares Project women who damaged nuclear armed submarines in Faslane in Scotland were acquitted by a Scottish court because they were deemed to be attempting to prevent a far greater crime – a crime against humanity – from being committed.

I am interested in discovering how this new international criminal court might deal with such questions. However, considering the safeguards in the treaty, I can see this would be difficult. In Kosovo, for example, the current Yugoslav tribunal, which apparently has stronger powers of investigation and prosecution than those provided for the ICC, has said no action needs to be taken. Safeguards in the ICC include article 8 which states that war crimes would generally not be prosecuted unless "committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes". Article 16 allows the UN Security Council – of which Ireland is now a member – to defer an ICC investigation of prosecution.

Adam Roberts, Montague Burton Professor of international relations at Oxford University, recently reviewed the possible workings of the ICC and reached to the following conclusions: in relation to the My Lai massacre in 1968, the ICC could investigate only if killings were planned; the 1982 sinking of the General Belgrano could not be investigated because the target was legitimate; the 1991 US bombing of the Amariya bunker in Baghdad – which I visited – could not be investigated because the civilian deaths were not intended – I am not sure about that – the 1991 rebel killings in Sierra Leone could be investigated; the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo, which took place between 1992 and 1999, could be investigated; the 1994 genocide in Rwanda could be investigated; and the killing of Kosovars in 1999 by NATO bombs could not be investigated because civilian deaths were not intended. The ICC's powers will, therefore, be limited. However, its establishment will be most welcome.

Amnesty International regards the Rome statute as "one of the greatest ever advancements in international law". It is good that Ireland will at last ratify the statute via a resounding yes vote in the forthcoming referendum. I hope there will be a resounding no vote in the referendum on the Treaty of Nice.

Mr. Perry

I thank Deputy Gormley for sharing time. 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 Saddam Hussein or those like him are answerable. International tribunals such as those established to investigate events in Rwanda and Yugoslavia are limited in scope. It is right that we should move away from an ad hoc system to one of permanent deterrence. Ad hoc cannot in any way be a substitute for a stable international judicial mechanism.

This is also clear from the fact that it is half a century since the Nuremberg trials. Humanitarian abuses have been and continue to be committed world wide. People are astonished at what is happening now, given the information and technology available. It is unjust that many people suffer at the whim of corrupt countries. It is time for the international community to demand official accountability for such acts. The international criminal court will always be there to call the world's tyrants to account. A permanent international criminal court is necessary and we have an obligation to put it in place. Ireland is a member of the United Nations. It is past time to ratify the establishment of a new international criminal court. We are behind other European countries, several of which have ratified the Rome Statute which underpins the new court. The EU has promised that all member states will approve it by the end of this year. It is important to prepare the necessary legislation.

The international criminal court will resemble the ad hoc tribunals set up to try crimes against humanity and war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. It will be empowered to prosecute people responsible for serious human rights violations, such as the deposed leader Milosevic, in cases where national courts fail to assume their responsibilities. It is important to establish such a body. It will have jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of states that ratify the statute and over crimes committed outside their territory by nationals of those states. The enabling law will come into effect when 60 Governments ratify it and 29 have done so to date. Ratification will permit Ireland to participate in the election of judges, prosecutors and other court personnel. However, if the Government fails to give approval by the time the court is created, which will probably be in late 2001, it will not be able to propose candidates for these important positions. That would be a mistake. It is important to be able to appoint a judge to this important court.

Legislative changes will be required to allow for judicial co-operation in areas such as the surrender of suspects and on-site investigations. Irish legislators can draw on successful models in other countries with similar legal systems, such as Canada and New Zealand. There could be some minor constitutional issues. The President, for example, would lose his or her immunity. The Rome Statute excludes immunity based on official status, a principle already recognised by most national courts and reaffirmed in the recent Pinochet case. Several months ago the Attorney General indicated a constitutional amendment might be required to address the fact that the Constitution provides for trial by jury, whereas those accused by the international criminal court would be tried by a panel of judges. Perhaps this area could be clarified.

Once the treaty is universally ratified, it will 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 parties to the Rome Treaty. The vote in Rome brought together strange bedfellows including the United States. It is disappointing that America will not ratify it. It had agreed under President Clinton to ratify it, but some questions are now being asked.

An international court is an important response to genocide. It is important for countries which need reconstruction, such as East Timor, which underlines the need for an international justice system. All peoples are united by common bonds. This court will help in that regard. Part of East Timor's reconstruction will be the judicial pursuit of those responsible for the deaths of an estimated 7,000 people. Moves towards establishing a war crimes tribunal for East Timor have already been made. UN investigators are reported to have started amassing evidence on and planning interviews with soldiers suspected of having organised the militia death squads.

It is important for people to have access to an independent international court which is underpinned by the Governments of 60 countries. Ireland has an important voice on the UN Security Council. I am sure this referendum will be endorsed. We must speak with justice and fairness. It is disappointing that only 29 countries have ratified this when 60 countries are required to do so. The independence of the court must be clearly established. Ad hoc bodies will be set up in different areas. I am delighted Milosevic has been placed under house arrest for the torture he perpetrated in Yugoslavia. That he and all the people associated with his regime will be brought to justice shows he will not get away with the atrocities committed over many years.

I am delighted to speak on this Bill. I look forward to it being fully ratified and to the introduction of amending legislation so that we will be in a position to appoint a judge to this important body.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Ms Hanafin)

As this is one of four amendments to the Constitution which will be put to the people shortly, it is worthy of our careful consideration. This amendment will probably command the highest majority of votes because everyone would be happy to see brought to justice, people who are guilty of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

It is not only necessary but important to make this amendment to our Constitution because it is in keeping with the principles of our Constitution when it was first written. I am a great fan of the Constitution which has served us well and continues to serve the people well in the rights and principles it establishes for us as a nation. It was far seeing at the time it was written, which was close to World War Two, in that it affirms Ireland's devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation. It establishes that we are committed to international justice and morality. It sets out that we adhere to the principles of peaceful settlement, that we agree with international arbitration and judicial determination and that the rule we adopt in our relations with other states is that of international law. Various treaties have been signed by us and by other countries in the past 50 years. Our commitment to the United Nations has been evident since it was set up. That we will now be party to an international criminal court, which is part of the United Nations, shows our commitment to peace and upholding human rights and international humanitarian law.

In that 50 years all of us abhor the inhuman treatment of vulnerable people throughout the world. Following the Second World War we would have hoped never again to have witnessed horrific crimes against humanity. Yet, we have had to resort to tribunals in Rwanda and Yugoslavia to investigate and to apportion blame. Those tribunals fulfilled a function but they are not sufficient in dealing with the type of problems we are still witnessing. Some of the perpetrators of such crimes will never face trial.

This court will attempt to ensure that guilty people do not escape. Modern day criminals are well known to us all. There are warrants for the extradition of people like Slobodan Milosevic waiting to be employed should he ever set foot in this country. People like him cannot be safe, wherever they go. The court will ensure that these people have no escape and ordinary people will be able to see that justice is done.

I welcome the fact that the court will be in Europe, in the Hague, with 18 judges and an independent prosecutor. Prosecutions may be brought in three ways: by the state party, by the Security Council or the prosecutor can initiate a prosecution. This covers any loopholes that might exist in any legislation or international treaties to ensure that cases can be taken.

This court will not take the prime responsibility for investigating crimes and bringing people to justice. That responsibility rests with the member states. Whereas this international criminal court will have very broad jurisdiction, it will not interfere with national systems of justice but will complement them.

Having looked at the way it will be established, it is far more important to know what it will investigate. We know that it will deal with genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It is frightening to think that we have to employ the definition of genocide today as applied in 1948 when the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide was defined because genocide is still continuing.

Recently, in Stockholm I attended a European conference on intolerance. A horrifying video was shown, which depicted racist activity among young people throughout Sweden today. Other countries could empathise with this. Visions of nazi and fascist activities of the 1930s were to be seen today in modern day Sweden, a country which many would regard as far seeing and liberal. It makes us realise that in our own backyards, strong racism still exists and fascist movements are still there. It is just one step removed from the type of activity seen in the Second World War, which we all abhor.

The definition talks of "acts with the intent to destroy an national ethnic, racial or religious group". That is precisely what those vicious young thugs are trying to do today. They are killing or causing serious bodily harm to members of the group, leaving people in terror. This is happening in a European country where we know what is happening. There are plenty of places in the world where we have no evidence and no up to date information. The definition goes on to talk about "deliberately inflicting on the group, conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or part". We recently witnessed that in the former Yugoslavia. It also mentions "imposing measures to prevent birth within the group or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." Some 50 years after that definition was written, these things are still happening. It is incumbent on us as a modern democratic nation to ensure that we can bring the perpetrators of such crimes to justice.

The second type of crime covers crimes against humanity. These are crimes that can be committed both in times of war and peace. In looking at that list, I am particularly concerned about sexual violence and slavery. This month the Trocaire Lenten campaign focused on the abolition of slavery. Young women and girls are victims of slavery in the 21st century. People might try to justify this on the basis of economics or culture but it should be seen for what it is.

The third type of crime is war crimes. These are crimes against humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. We think of Irish forces, who are always at risk when on peacekeeping missions. Just this week, the Taoiseach saw off an Army group leaving from Templemore. They are risking their lives in the interest of the greater good. Listed under war crimes are attacks directed against religious, educational or cultural buildings. Whereas buildings are in no way as precious or valuable as people, it saddened all of us to see the great 1,500 year old Buddhas being destroyed simply because they were monuments to a religion. They cannot be replaced. Also listed are rape and sexual slavery. The treatment of women as slaves or commodities is something that is going on in many countries. Enforced prostitution continues and I hope this court will help to ensure that it stops.

As Minister for State with responsibility for children, it particularly saddens me to read of other countries where child soldiers are being used. We see pictures of countries where children as young as seven or eight years of age have become part of a very vicious system and are not allowed to enjoy their childhood and are not given the opportunity to grow into adulthood. There are people who are willing to abuse those children for their own selfish ends. These type of crimes will now come within the jurisdiction of an international criminal court. I hope it will mean that there is no escape for the perpetrators of such crimes. Establishment of this court is a significant step in the right direction, but I am sure there will always be people who will get away. Each country has to be vigilant. Ireland can continue to play a very important role as a member of the Security Council. We can draw attention to the way in which women and children are being treated throughout the world.

In future there may be other crimes that this court can investigate. It is to be hoped that drug trafficking, international terrorism and anything that crosses borders can be investigated there. While there are various courts and various European methods of co-operation and co-ordination on drug trafficking, anything that can be done on an international level is to be welcomed.

The signatories to this statute and the countries that are willing to become a part of it are taking a very significant step towards strengthening the organs of justice in our member states and on an international level. By doing it as part of the United Nations we are further showing our commitment to that body. In doing it by referendum, we are ensuring that the Irish people are lending their support to this court. Táim lán cinnte go mbeidh muintir na hÉireann lán tsásta vótáil ar son na cúirte seo agus go mbeidh siad sásta tacaíocht iomlán a thabhairt dí. Mar a dúirt mé, beidh ceithre cheist os a gcomhair. Sé an ceann seo agus an ceann chun deireadh a chur leis an bpíonóis báis an dá cheann is mó a bheidh muintir na hÉireann ag tabhairt tacaíochta dó, is dócha. It is important that people understand exactly what can happen. It is our responsibility to ensure they understand the importance of this court.

Mr. Ring

I wish to share my time with Deputy Finucane.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has a 15 minute slot as I am obliged to call the Minister at 9.45 p.m..

Mr. Ring

I wish to make a brief contribution. I am delighted to hear the Minister of State speak so strongly about women. I have spoken in this House about the abuse of women in Ireland and throughout the world. We may have entered a new century but the way women are treated here and abroad one would think we were in an earlier century. The rights of women here and abroad have been and continue to be abused. Many people have not moved into the new millennium.

It is a disgrace that people will be faced with four ballot papers in the referendum. We should introduce measures in this House to ensure no more than two ballot papers are put before people during referenda or elections. There will be great confusion, people will not know what to vote for and will simply walk out. We never learn; we simply want to get this through whether by confusion or something else. The Minister and Government should take another look at this and ensure that no more than two ballots are held on any one day. People do not turn up to vote because they are confused and embarrassed by the number of ballot papers.

The whole point of the referendum on the Twenty-third Amendment of the Constitution is to establish an international criminal court which is to be welcomed. I hope this convention will be ratified all over the world. We witnessed many terrible crimes in Israel recently about which nobody appears to be doing anything; we see photographs of dead children in newspapers every day of the week. It is time we dealt with those who commit such serious crimes.

The Government has taken a softly, softly approach to those who committed terrible crimes, such as Omagh, Bloody Sunday and many others. Some of these people, identified by the media, cannot be identified by the Garda or brought to justice but they can meet with Government Ministers and sometimes they are invited to Government Buildings. That is outrageous. The innocent people murdered in Monaghan, Dublin and throughout the country may get their justice in another jurisdiction. This Government has failed to bring the generals of crime in this country to justice. Some of the people involved in the bombing at Enniskillen remain free today. They are even invited to Government Buildings which is outrageous. We must do something about this.

It is right that we should establish an international court to deal with those criminals who cannot be brought to justice in their own country. There should be no safe havens for them. We witnessed the serious crime committed against a journalist – an innocent woman was murdered on the streets of our city – and the dispersal of criminals all over Europe. The Government met with great difficulty in convicting these people. It is difficult to watch these people remain free, running businesses, importing drugs and committing serious crimes here and abroad. We should also ensure Ireland is not a safe haven for other criminals. I welcome anything that can be put in place to bring these people to justice. They should not be protected; all countries should sign up to this convention.

We all remember the tragedy of those travelling by plane from America when a bomb went off over Scotland. It took years and years for those involved to be brought to justice which caused great distress to the families. Negotiations were held on the location of the trial and some of those involved were eventually convicted and the families felt they had received justice. I met a relative of a person involved in the bombing in Monaghan at my clinic recently. The family still suffers as a result of that tragedy. What hurts them most is that those who committed the crime remain free. The media are constantly identifying criminals who live abroad and have massive powers here. They have not been brought to justice for the serious crimes they committed.

I hope people will vote in favour of this court in this referendum. As I said earlier, it is outrageous that people are to be faced with four ballot papers on the one day. This problem arose before, it created great confusion and when people were unable to make a decision they simply walked out. We should ensure that no more than two ballot papers are put before the people in any given election.

I hope the establishment of this court will ensure those guilty of committing serious crimes – the thugs who murdered innocent people in this State – will be brought to justice in another jurisdiction if they cannot be dealt with here.

Mr. Finucane

It is timely that we are discussing this very important matter. I am absolutely confident that the Irish people will ensure this is unanimously passed in the referendum. We have all been very conscious, through the media in particular, of what has been happening in other countries. We all remember the tragedy in Rwanda. The judicial system there is unable to cope with the number of prisoners imprisoned in cramped conditions. Justice is being meted out there in a gradual manner.

Many of us remember very vividly – we never thought we would witness it in a European context – the tragedy in Yugoslavia. We witnessed terrible scenes in Bosnia and Kosovo. The international criminal court brought many criminals there to justice. This is important but then we look at what is happening in Iraq where Saddam Hussein continues in power and the atrocities continue, particularly against the Kurdish population. Saddam reigns with impunity amidst much poverty. We have a situation where ordinary people are penalised by international sanctions which prevent medication entering countries. This particularly affects young people and babies. It is unfortunate when the innocent suffer as the price of conflict, as has happened in the case of Iraq.

The recent review of the United Nations peacekeeping force was referred to by the Minister. Ireland has a proud record of service with peacekeeping forces over many years in many countries. The most significant contribution has been in Lebanon. Our soldiers are very proud of being Irish when abroad and they are well respected. They earned great recognition in Lebanon. We have seen peace restored to Lebanon recently, and I hope that continues. Our peacekeeping duties will be replaced soon with Partnership for Peace duties as part of a rapid reaction force. This is a significant development in a European con text and will bolster peace and stability throughout Europe.

Members have expressed concerns in the House about the rapid reaction force. They see a link with NATO and perhaps there is an element of scaremongering on this issue which I do not see as valid. It will be a decision for this House whether we operate as part of any rapid reaction force. It is important for the morale of the Army to have the benefit of overseas service. If that was ever lost there would be a drop in Army morale. I welcome the recent upgrading of military equipment, particularly the contract for armoured carriers. This is significant and there should be upgrading across the Defence Forces. The Air Corps should be looked at. There has been a significant erosion of morale in the Air Corps over time on the basis of certain events.

It is sad when we see instability in much of the African continent and television shots of child soldiers in Sierra Leone, some as young as eight years old. We have many despotic regimes in African countries where Irish development aid goes. There should be effective monitoring to ensure that overseas aid is used well and not for armaments or the benefit of a despotic ruler. International slavery was referred to by the Minister. There are young people in countries where there has been progress at some levels, such as India, working at the age of eight or ten for buttons, doing adult's work and finding their existence warped due to a system that should not prevail.

There is much to be done internationally in the area of human rights. The international criminal court will focus closely on acts of genocide and similar issues. There are many other instances of oppression and they must be looked at also. The international criminal court will have a lot of work to do. I want to praise US President Clinton for accepting the court. I am disappointed with the attitude of the Republican head of the Foreign Relation Commission of the US Senate, Mr. Jesse Helms, who has said that he will not accept it and that he hopes to overturn this "kangaroo court". That is a deplorable description for a significant court which has vast international standing and will have strong United Nations backing.

Although I admire the United States and what it has done in international conflict, I wonder why it is worried about this issue as there is obvious merit to the international criminal court. The US should think again about its reservations. This court has been long needed and it is important that we in Ireland ratify it. I hope the referendum will do that. The people have always been fair and tolerant when it came to the rights of people. They will gladly address this matter and support it in the referendum.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen)

I want to thank Deputies who contributed to the debate. The debate has demonstrated the significance of the Rome statute, of the international criminal court as a development of international law and its importance for the protection of human rights throughout the world. It now falls on us to provide an amendment of the Constitution which will be put to the people in early summer and, if passed – as I hope it will be – will enable Ireland to ratify the statute.

Concern was expressed during the debate that the people be well informed on the international criminal court prior to the holding of a referendum. The Government has approved the setting up of a referendum and for each of the other referenda to be held on the same date. The function of the Referendum Commission will be those provided for in the Referendum Act, 1998. The Referendum Commission will provide information to the people on the implications of ratification of the Rome statute. I am certain that the Referendum Commission will perform its task well. The ballot papers will be clearly distinguishable from one another. I am confident that confusion will not ensue as a result of the holding of the four referenda on the same day.

Questions were raised concerning the implementing legislation which will also be required before the State may ratify the Rome statute. That is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and I am informed that a preliminary examination of the statute with a view to preparing the necessary legislation is already taking place within his Department. My Department will offer whatever assistance it can. It is not possible to state definitively when Ireland will be in a position to ratify the statute. However, I will use my best endeavours in seeking to ensure that Ireland can ratify the statute within a reasonable timeframe. There are current legislative priorities within the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Rome statute is a long and complex document and, as a result, all steps towards the ratification of the statute require adequate time and consideration.

Reference was also made to Article 124 of the Rome statute. It should be noted that Article 124 is headed "Transitional Provision". Article 124 permits states to declare that for a period of seven years after the entry into force of the statute for the state concerned, it does not accept the jurisdiction of the court with respect to war crimes when it is alleged that they are committed by its nationals or on its territory. As Deputy Jim O'Keeffe rightly acknowledged, this provision was included to permit France to bring its domestic law with respect to war crimes into line with the statute after ratification. Ireland does not propose to make a declaration under Article 124.

As to how matters will be referred to the court, it will be possible for the United Nations Security Council, acting under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, to refer a situation in which a crime appears to have been committed to the prosecutor of the court. It will also be possible for states/parties to refer such a situation to the prosecutor and the prosecutor will have the power to initiate an investigation of his or her own accord. At the diplomatic conference in Rome, Ireland strongly supported the view that the prosecutor be given this independent power of investigation. Where war crimes have been committed the court will have jurisdiction both when they have occurred in the course of international and non-international armed conflict.

Several Deputies raised questions about the relationship between the court and the UN and the manner in which the court will be funded. Both of these topics were the subject of extensive negotiation at the preparatory commission for the international criminal court in which Ireland participated and will continue to participate. The Government and its EU partners have sought to ensure that the financial rules and regulations and the relationship agreement which will ultimately emerge from the preparatory commission's work will respect the statute's integrity and the court's independence.

On the adequacy of funding, the court will be funded by contributions from states' parties and the UN. Voluntary contributions may also be accepted. Deputies can rest assured that it is of concern to Ireland that this funding proves adequate.

On the court's powers to bring persons before it, the court may request the co-operation of a state party in this regard. States' parties are under an obligation to fully co-operate with the court in its investigation and prosecution of crimes within its jurisdiction. This means, for example, that when the court requests the arrest and surrender of a person or the production of evidence, states' parties are under an international obligation to comply with the request. As Deputies are undoubtedly aware, Part 9 of the statute concerns international co-operation and judicial assistance. States' parties will also have a role in the enforcement of the court's judgments; the issue of enforcement is dealt with in Part 10 of the statute.

The European Union strongly supports the early establishment of the court and has undertaken to assist countries associated with the Union to ratify or accede to the statute. The EU is also urging the USA to ratify the statute and Ireland continues to support its efforts.

The proposed amendment of the Constitution constitutes a major step in Ireland's ratification process. By amending our Constitution to allow for ratification of the Rome Statute of the international criminal court, we will demonstrate our ongoing commitment to the statute and, by doing so, will reaffirm the principles outlined at the beginning of Article 29 of the Constitution. These principles include co-operation on the basis of international justice and morality and adherence to pacific settlement of international disputes and the generally recognised principles of international law, according to which the international relations of this State are to be conducted.

Cuireadh agus aontaíodh an cheist.

Question put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 Apr 2001