Skip to comments.Annan Urges States to Ratify War Crimes Court's Statute
Posted on 04/20/2002 5:40:29 AM PDT by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
Annan urges States to ratify war crimes court's statute, as preparatory panel ends session
19 April- As the preparatory body laying the groundwork for the world's first permanent war crimes court wrapped up its latest session today, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan praised the speedy ratifications of the Rome Statute and expressed hope that the tribunal would be functioning by mid-2003.
"Now with the unusually rapid entry of the Statute into force, we are witnessing a great victory for justice, and for world order - a turn away from the rule of brute force, and towards the rule of law," the Secretary-General said in his statement to the ninth session of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court.
Last week, 10 countries deposited their instruments of ratification with the United Nations, bringing to 66 the total number of approvals, six more than is needed to bring the Rome Statute into force on 1 July.
In his remarks today, Mr. Annan urged the remaining 73 signatories to the Rome Statute to ratify the accord as soon as possible. "Indeed, ultimately all States should become parties to the Statute," he said. "As I said in Rome last week, the best defence against evil will be a Court in which every country plays its part."
Since the treaty was adopted in July 1998 in Rome, the Commission has had the task of negotiating the practical and technical arrangements necessary to allow the Court to function.
At this latest session at UN Headquarters in New York, the Commission was in the last stages of negotiations on the final remaining issues, including a first-year budget for the Court and administrative and financial matters connected to the initial meeting of the Assembly of States Parties, now expected to take place in September in The Hague.
The Commission also dealt with arrangements for the nomination and election procedure for judges, the prosecutor and the registrar, as well as their remuneration; and a trust fund for victims and witnesses. In addition, final details were being worked out concerning the principles that should govern the headquarters agreement with the Host Country of the Court, the Netherlands.
WHO DOES HE THINK HE IS? THE ANTI-CHRIST?GOD? HITLER IN THE 21st Century?
War crimes by Yasser Arafat will be completely ignored.
Here the Imperial Leader of the UN (and his EU toadies)
line up to drink sputum from the mouth of Abd al-Rahman abd al-Bauf Arafat al-Qud al-Husseini
the chief Terrorist in the Middle East.
Abed Rabbo demands that Sharon, Ben-Eliezer and Mofaz be put on trial for war crimes in Jenin refugee camp (Reuters)
In what was widely hailed as an historic event, the 60th ratification of the Rome Statute was deposited with the United Nations today, paving the way for the creation of the world's first permanent war crimes court later this year.
During a solemn ceremony at UN Headquarters in New York, instruments of ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) were formally lodged by representatives from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Republic of the Congo, Ireland, Jordan, Mongolia, Niger, Romania and Slovakia. The UN Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, Hans Corell, accepted them on behalf of Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
The 10 instruments simultaneously deposited this morning bring the number of ratifications to 66, or six past the total required for the entry into force of the landmark treaty that had been adopted in Rome in July 1998. The Rome Statute will now enter into force on 1 July. The first conference of the States Parties will be held in September and the Court itself, to be based in The Hague, Netherlands, is expected to be established in 2003.
The treaty event this morning was witnessed by a group of ambassadors and delegates to the ICC preparatory session currently under way at UN Headquarters, as well as representatives of non-governmental organizations and the media.
"A page in the history of humankind is being turned," Mr. Corell said at the end of the ceremony. "May all this serve our society well in the years to come."
Joining Mr. Corell at a press conference later in the day, Ambassador Philippe Kirsch of Canada, Chairman of the Preparatory Commission for the ICC, stressed that the Statute's entry into force came a lot sooner than anyone had expected following the 1998 United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court in Rome, which had negotiated the text of the treaty.
That fact showed a real determination on the part of the international community "to finally put an end to this culture of impunity, and replace it with a culture of accountability for those crimes that are described in the statute - genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and eventually, also aggression," he said.
Another reason for the quick number of ratifications was that the Statute was much better understood than it had been some years ago, Ambassador Kirsch added, noting that it was a legal instrument designed to ensure the punishment of very serious crimes and to deter the future commission of those crimes.
The Statute was full of legal safeguards to ensure due process, including the principle of "complementarity," which meant that the Court would only step in if a national system were unable or unwilling to do so. "The primary responsibility for the punishment of crimes is with States and not with the international community," he stressed.
The Court will consist of 18 international judges elected for a nine-year term, and a team of prosecutors and investigators. It will not be part of the United Nations; instead it will be accountable to the countries that ratify the Statute, which have agreed to prosecute individuals accused of such crimes under their own laws, or to surrender them to the Court for trial.
Only laff I will get out of this horrific world scene is slick Willy being indicted in this kangaroo court.
Does this ICC have perjury on their tyrannical list of laws?
|Participant||Signature||Ratification, Acceptance (A), Approval (AA), Accession (a)|
|Albania||18 Jul 1998|
|Algeria||28 Dec 2000|
|Andorra||18 Jul 1998||30 Apr 2001|
|Angola||7 Oct 1998|
|Antigua and Barbuda||23 Oct 1998||18 Jun 2001|
|Argentina||8 Jan 1999||8 Feb 2001|
|Armenia||1 Oct 1999|
|Australia||9 Dec 1998|
|Austria||7 Oct 1998||28 Dec 2000|
|Bahamas||29 Dec 2000|
|Bahrain||11 Dec 2000|
|Bangladesh||16 Sep 1999|
|Barbados||8 Sep 2000|
|Belgium||10 Sep 1998||28 Jun 2000|
|Belize||5 Apr 2000||5 Apr 2000|
|Benin||24 Sep 1999||22 Jan 2002|
|Bolivia||17 Jul 1998|
|Bosnia and Herzegovina||17 Jul 2000||11 Apr 2002|
|Botswana||8 Sep 2000||8 Sep 2000|
|Brazil||7 Feb 2000|
|Bulgaria||11 Feb 1999||11 Apr 2002|
|Burkina Faso||30 Nov 1998|
|Burundi||13 Jan 1999|
|Cambodia||23 Oct 2000||11 Apr 2002|
|Cameroon||17 Jul 1998|
|Canada||18 Dec 1998||7 Jul 2000|
|Cape Verde||28 Dec 2000|
|Central African Republic||7 Dec 1999||3 Oct 2001|
|Chad||20 Oct 1999|
|Chile||11 Sep 1998|
|Colombia||10 Dec 1998|
|Comoros||22 Sep 2000|
|Congo||17 Jul 1998|
|Costa Rica||7 Oct 1998||7 Jun 2001|
|Côte d'Ivoire||30 Nov 1998|
|Croatia||12 Oct 1998||21 May 2001|
|Cyprus||15 Oct 1998||7 Mar 2002|
|Czech Republic||13 Apr 1999|
|Democratic Republic of the Congo||8 Sep 2000||11 Apr 2002|
|Denmark2||25 Sep 1998||21 Jun 2001|
|Djibouti||7 Oct 1998|
|Dominica||12 Feb 2001 a|
|Dominican Republic||8 Sep 2000|
|Ecuador||7 Oct 1998||5 Feb 2002|
|Egypt||26 Dec 2000|
|Eritrea||7 Oct 1998|
|Estonia||27 Dec 1999||30 Jan 2002|
|Fiji||29 Nov 1999||29 Nov 1999|
|Finland||7 Oct 1998||29 Dec 2000|
|France||18 Jul 1998||9 Jun 2000|
|Gabon||22 Dec 1998||20 Sep 2000|
|Gambia||4 Dec 1998|
|Georgia||18 Jul 1998|
|Germany||10 Dec 1998||11 Dec 2000|
|Ghana||18 Jul 1998||20 Dec 1999|
|Greece||18 Jul 1998|
|Guinea||7 Sep 2000|
|Guinea-Bissau||12 Sep 2000|
|Guyana||28 Dec 2000|
|Haiti||26 Feb 1999|
|Honduras||7 Oct 1998|
|Hungary||15 Jan 1999||30 Nov 2001|
|Iceland||26 Aug 1998||25 May 2000|
|Iran (Islamic Republic of)||31 Dec 2000|
|Ireland||7 Oct 1998||11 Apr 2002|
|Israel||31 Dec 2000|
|Italy||18 Jul 1998||26 Jul 1999|
|Jamaica||8 Sep 2000|
|Jordan||7 Oct 1998||11 Apr 2002|
|Kenya||11 Aug 1999|
|Kuwait||8 Sep 2000|
|Kyrgyzstan||8 Dec 1998|
|Latvia||22 Apr 1999|
|Lesotho||30 Nov 1998||6 Sep 2000|
|Liberia||17 Jul 1998|
|Liechtenstein||18 Jul 1998||2 Oct 2001|
|Lithuania||10 Dec 1998|
|Luxembourg||13 Oct 1998||8 Sep 2000|
|Madagascar||18 Jul 1998|
|Malawi||2 Mar 1999|
|Mali||17 Jul 1998||16 Aug 2000|
|Malta||17 Jul 1998|
|Marshall Islands||6 Sep 2000||7 Dec 2000|
|Mauritius||11 Nov 1998||5 Mar 2002|
|Mexico||7 Sep 2000|
|Monaco||18 Jul 1998|
|Mongolia||29 Dec 2000||11 Apr 2002|
|Morocco||8 Sep 2000|
|Mozambique||28 Dec 2000|
|Namibia||27 Oct 1998|
|Nauru||13 Dec 2000||12 Nov 2001|
|Netherlands3||18 Jul 1998||17 Jul 2001 A|
|New Zealand4||7 Oct 1998||7 Sep 2000|
|Niger||17 Jul 1998||11 Apr 2002|
|Nigeria||1 Jun 2000||27 Sep 2001|
|Norway||28 Aug 1998||16 Feb 2000|
|Oman||20 Dec 2000|
|Panama||18 Jul 1998||21 Mar 2002|
|Paraguay||7 Oct 1998||14 May 2001|
|Peru||7 Dec 2000||10 Nov 2001|
|Philippines||28 Dec 2000|
|Poland||9 Apr 1999||12 Nov 2001|
|Portugal||7 Oct 1998||5 Feb 2002|
|Republic of Korea||8 Mar 2000|
|Republic of Moldova||8 Sep 2000|
|Romania||7 Jul 1999||11 Apr 2002|
|Russian Federation||13 Sep 2000|
|Saint Lucia||27 Aug 1999|
|Samoa||17 Jul 1998|
|San Marino||18 Jul 1998||13 May 1999|
|Sao Tome and Principe||28 Dec 2000|
|Senegal||18 Jul 1998||2 Feb 1999|
|Seychelles||28 Dec 2000|
|Sierra Leone||17 Oct 1998||15 Sep 2000|
|Slovakia||23 Dec 1998||11 Apr 2002|
|Slovenia||7 Oct 1998||31 Dec 2001|
|Solomon Islands||3 Dec 1998|
|South Africa||17 Jul 1998||27 Nov 2000|
|Spain||18 Jul 1998||24 Oct 2000|
|Sudan||8 Sep 2000|
|Sweden||7 Oct 1998||28 Jun 2001|
|Switzerland||18 Jul 1998||12 Oct 2001|
|Syrian Arab Republic||29 Nov 2000|
|Tajikistan||30 Nov 1998||5 May 2000|
|Thailand||2 Oct 2000|
|The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia||7 Oct 1998||6 Mar 2002|
|Trinidad and Tobago||23 Mar 1999||6 Apr 1999|
|Uganda||17 Mar 1999|
|Ukraine||20 Jan 2000|
|United Arab Emirates||27 Nov 2000|
|United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland||30 Nov 1998||4 Oct 2001|
|United Republic of Tanzania||29 Dec 2000|
|United States of America||31 Dec 2000|
|Uruguay||19 Dec 2000|
|Uzbekistan||29 Dec 2000|
|Venezuela||14 Oct 1998||7 Jun 2000|
|Yemen||28 Dec 2000|
|Yugoslavia||19 Dec 2000||6 Sep 2001|
|Zambia||17 Jul 1998|
|Zimbabwe||17 Jul 1998|
With regard to article 87, paragraph 1, of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Principality of Andorra declares that all requests for cooperation made by the Court under part IX of the Statute must be transmitted through the diplomatic channel.
With regard to article 87, paragraph 2, of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Principality of Andorra declares that all requests for cooperation and any supporting documents that it receives from the Court must, in accordance with article 50 of the Statute establishing Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish as the official languages of the Court, be drafted in French or Spanish or accompanied, where necessary, by a translation into one of these languages.
With regard to article 103, paragraph 1 (a) and (b) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Principality of Andorra declares that it would, if necessary, be willing to accept persons of Andorran nationality sentenced by the Court, provided that the sentence imposed by the Court was enforced in accordance with Andorran legislation on the maximum duration of sentences.
With regard to article 87, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the Argentine Republic hereby declares that requests for cooperation coming from the Court, and any accompanying documentation, shall be in Spanish or shall be accompanied by a translation into Spanish.
"Pursuant to aritcle 87, paragraph 2 of the Rome Statute the Republic of Austria declares that requests for cooperation and any documents supporting the request shall either be in or be accompanied by a translation into the German language."
Declaration concerning article 31, paragraph 1 (c):
Pursuant to article 21, paragraph 1 (b) of the Statute and having regard to the rules of international humanitarian law which may not be derogated from, the Belgian Government considers that article 31, paragraph 1 (c), of the Statute can be applied and interpreted only in conformity with those rules.
Declaration concerning article 87, paragraph 1:
With reference to article 87, paragraph 1, of the Statute, the Kingdom of Belgium declares that the Ministry of Justice is the authority competent to receive requests for cooperation.
Declaration concerning article 87, paragraph 2:
With reference to article 87, paragraph 2, the Kingdom of Belgium declares that requests by the Court for cooperation and any documents supporting the request shall be in an official language of the Kingdom.
"Pursuant to Article 87 (1) (a) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, Belize declares that all requests made to it in accordance with Chapter 9 be sent through diplomatic channels."
"1. Pursuant to article 87 (1) of the Rome Statute of the International [Criminal] Court, the Republic of Cyprus declares that requests from the Court may also be transmitted directly to the Ministry of Justice and Public Order.
2. Pursuant to article 87 (2) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Republic of Cyprus declares that requests from the Court for cooperation and any documents supporting them shall be transmitted also in English, which is one of the working languages of the Court."
"Pursuant to article 87, paragraph 1 (a) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, requests for cooperation issued by the Court shall be transmitted to the Government Procurator's Office of the Democratic Republic of the Congo;
For any request for cooperation within the meaning of article 87, paragraph 1 (a) of the Statute, French shall be the official language."
"Pursuant to article 87 (1) of the Statute, Denmark declares that requests from the Court shall be transmitted through the diplomatic channel or directly to the Ministry of Justice, which is the authority competent to receive such requests.
Pursuant to article 87 (2) of the Statute, Denmark declares that requests from the Court for cooperation and any documents supporting such requests shall be submitted either in Danish which is the official language of Denmark or in English, which is one of the working languages of the Court."
1. Pursuant to article 87, paragraphs 1 and 2, the Arab Republic of Egypt declares that the Ministry of Justice shall be the party responsible for dealing with requests for cooperation with the Court. Such requests shall be transmitted through the diplomatic channel. Requests for cooperation and any documents supporting the request shall be in the Arabic language, being the official language of the State, and shall be accompanied by a translation into English being one of the working languages of the Court.
2. The Arab Republic of Egypt affirms the importance of the Statute being interpreted and applied in conformity with the general principles and fundamental rights which are universally recognized and accepted by the whole international community and with the principles, purposes and provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the general principles and rules of international law and international humanitarian law. It further declares that it shall interpret and apply the references that appear in the Statute of the Court to the two terms fundamental rights and international standards on the understanding that such references are to the fundamental rights and internationally recognized norms and standards which are accepted by the international community as a whole.
3. The Arab Republic of Egypt declares that its understanding of the conditions, measures and rules which appear in the introductory paragraph of article 7 of the Statute of the Court is that they shall apply to all the acts specified in that article.
4. The Arab Republic of Egypt declares that its understanding of article 8 of the Statute of the Court shall be as follows:
(a) The provisions of the Statute with regard to the war crimes referred to in article 8 in general and article 8, paragraph 2 (b) in particular shall apply irrespective of the means by which they were perpetrated or the type of weapon used, including nuclear weapons, which are indiscriminate in nature and cause unnecessary damage, in contravention of international humanitarian law.
(b) The military objectives referred to in article 8, paragraph 2 (b) of the Statute must be defined in the light of the principles, rules and provisions of international humanitarian law. Civilian objects must be defined and dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Protocol I) and, in particular, article 52 thereof. In case of doubt, the object shall be considered to be civilian.
(c) The Arab Republic of Egypt affirms that the term "the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated" used in article 8, paragraph 2 (b) (iv), must be interpreted in the light of the relevant provisions of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Protocol I). The term must also be interpreted as referring to the advantage anticipated by the perpetrator at the time when the crime was committed. No justification may be adduced for the nature of any crime which may cause incidental damage in violation of the law applicable in armed conflicts. The overall military advantage must not be used as a basis on which to justify the ultimate goal of the war or any other strategic goals. The advantage anticipated must be proportionate to the damage inflicted.
(d) Article 8, paragraph 2 (b) (xvii) and (xviii) of the Statute shall be applicable to all types of emissions which are indiscriminate in their effects and the weapons used to deliver them, including emissions resulting from the use of nuclear weapons.
5. The Arab Republic of Egypt declares that the principle of the non-retroactivity of the jurisdiction of the Court, pursuant to articles 11 and 24 of the Statute, shall not invalidate the well established principle that no war crime shall be barred from prosecution due to the statute of limitations and no war criminal shall escape justice or escape prosecution in other legal jurisdictions.
"Pursuant to Article 87, paragraph 1 of the Statute the Republic of Estonia declares that the requests from the International Criminal Court shall be transmitted either through the diplomatic channels or directly to the Public Prosecutor's Office, which is the authority to receive such requests.
Pursuant to 87, paragraph 2 of the Statute the Republic of Estonia declares that requests from the International Criminal Court and any documents supporting such requests shall be submitted either in Estonian which is the official language of the Republic of Estonia or in English which is one of the working languages of the International Criminal Court."
"Pursuant to article 87 (1) (a) of the Statute, the Republic of Finland declares that requests for cooperation shall be transmitted either through the diplomatic channel or directly to the Minsitry of Justice, which is the authority competent to receive such requests. The Court may also, if need be, enter into direct contact with other competent authorities of Finland. In matters relating to requests for surrender the Ministry of Justice is the only competent authority.
Pursuant to article 87 (2) of the Statute, the Republic of Finland declares that requests from the Court and any documents supporting such requests shall be submitted either in Finnish or Swedish, which are the official languages of Finland, or in English which is one of the working languages of the Court."
I. Interpretative declarations:
1. The provisions of the Statute of the International Criminal Court do not preclude France from exercising its inherent right of self-defence in conformity with Article 51 of the Charter.
2. The provisions of article 8 of the Statute, in particular paragraph 2 (b) thereof, relate solely to conventional weapons and can neither regulate nor prohibit the possible use of nuclear weapons nor impair the other rules of international law applicable to other weapons necessary to the exercise by France of its inherent right of self-defence, unless nuclear weapons or the other weapons referred to herein become subject in the future to a comprehensive ban and are specified in an annex to the Statute by means of an amendment adopted in accordance with the provisions of articles 121 and 123.
3. The Government of the French Republic considers that the term 'armed conflict' in article 8, paragraphs 2 (b) and (c), in and of itself and in its context, refers to a situation of a kind which does not include the commission of ordinary crimes, including acts of terrorism, whether collective or isolated.
4. The situation referred to in article 8, paragraph 2 (b) (xxiii), of the Statute does not preclude France from directing attacks against objectives considered as military objectives under international humanitarian law.
5. The Government of the French Republic declares that the term "military advantage" in article 8, paragraph 2 (b) (iv), refers to the advantage anticipated from the attack as a whole and not from isolated or specific elements thereof. 6. The Government of the French Republic declares that a specific area may be considered a "military objective" as referred to in article 8, paragraph 2 (b) as a whole if, by reason of its situation, nature, use, location, total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, taking into account the circumstances of the moment, it offers a decisive military advantage.
The Government of the French Republic considers that the provisions of article 8, paragraph 2 (b) (ii) and (v), do not refer to possible collateral damage resulting from attacks directed against military objectives.
7. The Government of the French Republic declares that the risk of damage to the natural environment as a result of the use of methods and means of warfare, as envisaged in article 8, paragraph 2 (b) (iv), must be weighed objectively on the basis of the information available at the time of its assessment.
II. Declaration pursuant to article 87, paragraph 2:
Pursuant to article 87, paragraphe 2, of the Statute, the French Republic declares that requests for cooperation, and any documents supporting the request, addressed to it by the Court must be in the French language.
III. Declaration under article 124:
Pursuant to article 124 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, the French Republic declares that it does not accept the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the category of crimes referred to in article 8 when a crime is alleged to have been committed by its nationals or on its territory.
"The Federal Republic of Germany declares, pursuant to article 87 (1) of the Rome Statute, that requests from the Court can also be transmitted directly to the Federal Ministry of Justice or an agency designated by the Federal Ministry of Justice in an individual case. Requests to the Court can be transmitted directly from the Federal Ministry of Justice or, with the Ministry's agreement, from another competent agency to the Court.
The Federal Republic of Germany further declares, pursuant to article 87 (2) of the Rome Statute, that requests for cooperation to Germany and any documents supporting the request must be accompanied by a translation into German."
"... the Government of the Republic of Hungary makes the following declaration in relation to Article 87 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome, 17 July 1998):
Requests of the Court for cooperation shall be transmitted to the Government of the Republic of Hungary through diplomatic channel. These requests for cooperation and any documents supporting the request shall be made in English."
"Being an active consistent supporter of the concept of an International Criminal Court, and its realization in the form of the Rome Statute, the Government of the State of Israel is proud to thus express its acknowledgment of the importance, and indeed indispensability, of an effective court for the enforcement of the rule of law and the prevention of impunity.
As one of the originators of the concept of an International Criminal Court, Israel, through its prominent lawyers and statesmen, has, since the early 1950's, actively participated in all stages of the formation of such a court. Its representatives, carrying in both heart and mind collective, and sometimes personal, memories of the holocaust - the greatest and most heinous crime to have been committed in the history of mankind - enthusiastically, with a sense of acute sincerity and seriousness, contributed to all stages of the preparation of the Statute. Responsibly, possessing the same sense of mission, they currently support the work of the ICC Preparatory Commission.
At the 1998 Rome Conference, Israel expressed its deep disappointment and regret at the insertion into the Statute of formulations tailored to meet the political agenda of certain states. Israel warned that such an unfortunate practice might reflect on the intent to abuse the Statute as a political tool. Today, in the same spirit, the Government of the State of Israel signs the Statute while rejecting any attempt to interpret provisions thereof in a politically motivated manner against Israel and its citizens. The Government of Israel hopes that Israel's expressions of concern of any such attempt would be recorded in history as a warning against the risk of politicization, that might undermine the objectives of what is intended to become a central impartial body, benefiting mankind as a whole.
Nevertheless, as a democratic society, Israel has been conducting ongoing political, public and academic debates concerning the ICC and its significance in the context of international law and the international community. The Court's essentiality - as a vital means of ensuring that criminals who commit genuinely heinous crimes will be duly brought to justice, while other potential offenders of the fundamental principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience will be properly deterred - has never seized to guide us. Israel's signature of the Rome Statute will, therefore, enable it to morally identify with this basic idea, underlying the establishment of the Court.
Today, [the Government of Israel is] honoured to express [its] sincere hopes that the Court, guided by the cardinal judicial principles of objectivity and universality, will indeed serve its noble and meritorious objectives."
"Declaration pursuant to article 87, paragraph 1 (a) of the Statute, concerning the central authority:
Requests of the Court made pursuant to article 87, paragraph 1 (a) of the Statute, shall be transmitted to the central authority for cooperation with the International Criminal Court, namely the Ministry of Justice of the Government of the Principality of Liechtenstein.
Declaration pursuant to article 87, paragraph 1 (a) of the Statute, concerning direct service of documents:
Pursuant to article 87, paragraph 1 (a) of the Statute, the Court may serve in decisions and other records or documents upon recipients in the Principality of Liechtenstein directly by mail. A summons to appear before the Court as a witness or expert shall be accompanied by the Rule of Procedure and Evidence of the Court on self-incrimination; this Rule shall be given to the person concerned in a language that the person understands.
Declaration pursuant to article 87, paragraph 2 of the Statute, concerning the official language:
The official language in the sense of article 87, paragraph 2 of the Statute is German. Requests and supporting documentation shall be submitted in the official language of the Principality of Liechtenstein, German, or translated into German.
Declaration pursuant to article 103, paragraph 1 of the Statute:
Pursuant to article 103, paragraph 1 of the Statute, the Principality of Liechtenstein declares its willingness to accept persons sentenced to imprisonment by the Court, for purposes of execution of the sentence, if the persons are Liechtenstein citizens or if the persons' usual residence is in the Principality of Liechtenstein".
"1. The Government of New Zealand notes that the majority of the war crimes specified in article 8 of the Rome Statute, in particular those in article 8 (2) (b) (i)-(v) and 8 (2) (e) (i)-(iv) (which relate to various kinds of attacks on civilian targets), make no reference to the type of the weapons employed to commit the particular crime. The Government of New Zealand recalls that the fundamental prinicple that underpins international humanitarian law is to mitigate and circumscribe the cruelty of war for humanitarian reasons and that, rather than being limited to weaponry of an earlier time, this branch of law has evolved, and continues to evolve, to meet contemporary circumstances. Accordingly, it is the view of the Government of New Zealand that it would be inconsistent with principles of international humanitarian law to purpot to limit the scope of article 8, in particular article 8(2) (b), to events that involve conventional weapons only.
2. The Government of New Zealand finds support for its view in the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996) and draws attention to paragraph 86, in particular, where the Court stated that the conclusion that humanitarian law did not apply to such weapons "would be incompatible with the intrinsically humanitarian character of the legal principles in question which permeates the entire law of armed conflict and applies to all forms of warfare and to all kinds of weapons, those of the past, those of the present and those of the future."
3. The Government of New Zealand further notes that international humanitarian law applies equally to aggressor and defender states and its application in a particular context is not dependent on a determination of whether or not a state is acting in self-defence. In this respect it refers to paragraphs 40-42 of the Advisory Opinion in the Nuclear Weapons Case."
"1. With reference to Article 87, paragraph 1 (a), the Kingdom of Norway hereby declares that the Royal Ministry of Justice is designated as the channel for the transmission of requests from the Court.
2. With reference to Article 87, paragraph 2, the Kingdom of Norway hereby declares that requests from the Court and any documents supporting the request shall be submitted in English, which is one of the working languages of the Court."
... with the following declaration
In accordance with Article 87 paragraph 2 of the Statute the Republic of Poland declares that applications on cooperation submitted by Court and documents added to them shall be made in Polish language.
"... with the following declarations:
The Portuguese Republic declares the intention to exercise its jurisdictional powers over every person found in the Portuguese territory, that is being prosecuted for the crimes set forth in article 5, paragraph 1 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, within the respect for the Portuguese criminal legislation.
With regard to article 87, paragraph 2 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Portuguese Republic declares that all requests for cooperation and any supporting documents that it receives from the Court must be drafted in Portuguese or accompanied by a translation into Portuguese. "
[Waiting for translation]
"Pursuant to Article 87, paragraph 2 of the Statute the Slovak Republic declares that requests from the Court for cooperation and any documents supporting such requests shall be submitted in English which is one of the working languages of the Court along with the translation into Slovak which is the official language of the Slovak Republic.
Pursuant to Article 103, paragraph 1 (b) of the Statute the Slovak Republic declares that it would accept, if necessary, persons sentenced by the Court, if the persons are citizens of the Slovak Republic or have a permanent residence in its territory, for purposes of execution of the sentence of imprisonment and at the same time it will apply the principle of conversion of sentence imposed by the Court."
Declarations under article 87, paragraphs 1 and 2:
In relation to article 87, paragraph 1, of the Statute, the Kingdom of Spain declares that, without prejudice to the fields of competence of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice shall be the competent authority to transmit requests for cooperation made by the Court or addressed to the Court.
In relation to article 87, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the Kingdom of Spain declares that requests for cooperation addressed to it by the Court and any supporting documents must be in Spanish or accompanied by a translation into Spanish.
Declaration under article 103, paragraph 1(b):
Spain declares its willingness to accept at the appropriate time, persons sentenced by the International Criminal Court, provided that the duration of the sentence does not exceed the maximum stipulated for any crime under Spanish law.
"In connection with the deposit of its instrument of ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and, with regard to the war crimes specified in Article 8 of the Statute which relate to the methods of warfare, the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden would like to recall the Advisory Opinion given by the International Court of Justice on 8 July 1996 on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, and in particular paragraphs 85 to 87 thereof, in which the Court finds that there can be no doubt as to the applicability of humanitarian law to nuclear weapons."
"With regard to Article 87, paragraph 1, of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Kingdom of Sweden declares that all requests for cooperation made by the Court under part IX of the Statute must be transmitted through the Swedish Ministry of Justice.
With regard to Article 87, paragraph 2, of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Kingdom of Sweden declares that all requests for cooperation and any supporting documents that it receives from the Court must be drafted in English or Swedish, or accompanied, where necessary, by a translation into one of these languages."
Requests for cooperation made by the Court under article 87, paragraph 1 (a), of the Statute shall be transmitted to the Central Office for Cooperation with the International Criminal Court of the Federal Bureau of Justice.
The official languages within the meaning of article 87, paragraph 2, of the Statute, shall be French, German and Italian.
The Court may serve notice of its decisions and other procedural steps or documents on the persons to whom such decisions or documents are addressed in Switzerland directly through the mail. Any summons to appear in Court as a witness or expert shall be accompanied by the provision of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Court concerning self-incrimination; that provision shall be provided to the person concerned in a language which he or she is able to understand.
In accordance with article 103, paragraph 1, of the Statute, Switzerland declares that it is prepared to be responsible for enforcement of sentences of imprisonment handed down by the Court against Swiss nationals or persons habitually resident in Switzerland.
"The United Kingdom understands the term "the established framework of international law", used in article 8 (2) (b) and (e), to include customary international law as established by State practice and opinio iuris. In that context the United Kingdom confirms and draws to the attention of the Court its views as expressed, inter alia, in its statements made on ratification of relevant instruments of international law, including the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12th August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) of 8th June 1977.
The United Kingdom declares, pursuant to article 87 (2) of the Statute, that requests for co-operation, and any documents supporting the request, must be in the English language."
1. On 6 November 1998, the Secretary-General received from the Government of the United States of America the following communication dated 5 November 1998, relating to the proposed corrections to the Statute circulated on 25 September 1998:
"[...] The United States wishes to note a number of concerns and objections regarding the procedure proposed for the correction of the six authentic texts and certified true copies:
"First, the United States wishes to draw attention to the fact that, in addition to the corrections which the Secretary-General now proposes, other changes had already been made to the text which was actually adopted by the Conference, without any notice or procedure. The text before the Conference was contained in A/CONF.183/C.1/L.76 and Adds. 1-13. The text which was issued as a final document, A/CONF.183/9, is not the same text. Apparently, it was this latter text which was presented for signature on July 18, even though it differed in a number of respects from the text that was adopted only hours before. At least three of these changes are arguably substantive, including the changes made to Article 12, paragraph 2(b), the change made to Article 93, paragraph 5, and the change made to Article 124. Of these three changes, the Secretary-General now proposes to "re-correct" only Article 124, so that it returns to the original text, but the other changes remain. The United States remains concerned, therefore, that the corrections process should have been based on the text that was actually adopted by the Conference.
" Second, the United States notes that the Secretary-General's communication suggests that it is "established depositary practice" that only signatory States or contracting States may object to a proposed correction. The United States does not seek to object to any of the proposed corrections, or to the additional corrections that were made earlier and without formal notice, although this should not be taken as an endorsement of the merits of any of the corrections proposed. The United States does note, however, that insofar as arguably substantive changes have been made to the original text without any notice or procedure, as noted above in relation to Articles 12 and 93, if any question of interpretation should subsequently arise it should be resolved consistent with A/CONF.183/C.1/L.76, the text that was actually adopted.
"More fundamentally, however, as a matter of general principle and for future reference, the United States objects to any correction procedure, immediately following a diplomatic conference, whereby the views of the vast majority of the Conference participants on the text which they have only just adopted would not be taken into account. The United States does not agree that the course followed by the Secretary-General in July represents "established depositary practice" for the type of circumstances presented here. To the extent that such a procedure has previously been established, it must necessarily rest on the assumption that the Conference itself had an adequate opportunity, in the first instance, to ensure the adoption of a technically correct text. Under the circumstances which have prevailed in some recent conferences, and which will likely recur, in which critical portions of the text are resolved at very late stages and there is no opportunity for the usual technical review by the Drafting Committee, the kind of corrections process which is contemplated here must be open to all.
" In accordance with Article 77, paragraph 1 (e) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the United States requests that this note be communicated to all States which are entitled to become parties to the Convention."
4. With a declaration to the effect that "consistent with the constitutional status of Tokelau and taking into account its commitment to the development of self-government through an act of self-determination under the Charter of the United Nations, this ratification shall not extend to Tokelau unless and until a Declaration to this effect is lodged by the Government of New Zealand with the Depositary on the basis of appropriate consultation with that territory.".
my caption might have been:
"Annan frothing at the mouth as he pummels States to ratify war crimes court's statute, as preparatory panel ends session, to avenge the humiliation and detention by those Jeewwwws and the Americans of his lover, Arabfat"
STILL can't get that grotesque image of him and Arabfat with their mouths wide open as their faces meet to suck the wind out of each other. ew. ew. ew. ew.
8 April The first permanent international court designed to investigate and prosecute individuals for war crimes is on the verge of becoming a reality, a key negotiator said today as the UN panel laying the groundwork for the Court's establishment opened its session in New York.
The President of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court (ICC), Ambassador Philippe Kirsch of Canada, who had helped to steer negotiations leading to the 1998 adoption of the Court's Statute in Rome, announced that a ceremony would be held on Thursday, when the number of countries ratifying the Statute is likely to reach - or top - the necessary 60 for the Court to come into effect. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who will be in Rome at the time of the ceremony, will participate via teleconference.
If the ratifications are deposited as planned, as of 1 July crimes within the Court's jurisdiction - including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity - would become subject to possible international prosecution. States parties to the Rome Statute, along with the Security Council and the Court's Prosecutor, will have the power to bring cases before the ICC, which will have judges from 18 countries and an independent prosecutor.
"Ours is a race against time," Mr. Kirsch told the Commission, which has had the task of negotiating the practical and technical arrangements to allow the Court to function. The group is in the last stages of negotiations on the final remaining issues, such as a first-year budget for the Court and administrative and financial matters related to the initial meeting of the Assembly of States Parties, now expected to take place in The Hague in September 2002. The Commission is also dealing with arrangements for the nomination and election procedure for judges, the prosecutor and the registrar, as well as their remuneration; and a trust fund for victims and witnesses.
The ICC will be set up at a designated site in The Hague, Netherlands, which has initiated an international architectural competition for the design of the Court building. The new 30,000-square-metre building, which will comprise 30,000 square metres, is expected to be completed by 2007. Until then, the Court will be located in premises across the street from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
What a fitting date to bring this up, Kofi !
Anniversary of that "Shot heard 'round the world" back in 1775 along the road back to Boston from Concord Bridge.
The Patriots won the day and the Brits learned a lesson.
Now we've got the UN another regime the Brits helped set up!
Any US official, who signs on to this UN attack on US sovereignty, will be guilty of serious crimes.
We are a Constitutional Republic and our Constitution is quite clear on such issues. So is the "Oath of Office" that our Federocrats take!
I never realized the 4/19th significance.
How sick Kofi the tyrant is.
I'd vote for calling it "Blue Helmet Alert"
Depends on how you define EVIL! I define the UN as an EVIL group of Jewish Bashers.
"Beam me Up" "Unbeliveable Mr. Speaker"
News reports have President Bush NOT ratifying. But we need a constituitional lawyer to decipher the U.S. text at the bottom of post # 15.
Yes, we do. Someone to translate the legaleze.
This is my UN ping list. Anyone wanting on or off,
PLease freepmail me.
Here is my UN ping list.
backhoe; Sabertooth;Travis McGee,monkeyshine, William Tell, Mo1, Stultis, SauronOfMordor, Joe Brower, gilor, Dick Bachert, tacticalogic, csvset, lavaroise, PatrioticAmerican,
Liberty Ship, Hangfire, B4Ranch, glock rocks, Euro-American Scum, Hoosier Patriot, dennisw, ChareltonHest, TheUglyAmerican, Fish out of Water, Dr. Eckleburg, jadimov, boris, metesky, mrsmith, Phil V., Fred Mertz, Brownie74,
Victoria Delsoul, Prodigal Daughter, DrLiberty, Thinkin' Gal, Jeremiah Jr, Governor StrangeReno, 2sheep, Cincinatus' Wife, Jemian, ZULU, Libertarianize the GOP, Askel5,
sarcasm, Ethan Allen, Carry_Okie, yoe, TwoStep, DoughtyOne, Kay Ludlow, PRND21, Don Myers, SNOW BUNNY, Bigun, Taxman, gwynapnudd, Knighthawk, Free Vulcan, BARLF, vikingchick,
MeeknMing, Bump in the night, Constitutional Patriot, WRhine, seamole, Marine Inspector, Iowa Granny,
A work in progress. Anyone wanting on or off, please freepmail me.
What proven track record do they hold ? On Justice ? On Judiciary issues ?
That UN outfit is dis-functional. It's a sad affair...
make that UNfUNctional!