PREPARATORY COMMITTEE ON ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT DISCUSSES INCLUSION OF WAR CRIMES IN LIST OF 'CORE CRIMES'
Press Release
L/2764
PREPARATORY COMMITTEE ON ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT DISCUSSES INCLUSION OF WAR CRIMES IN LIST OF 'CORE CRIMES'
19960326 The Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court began discussing the inclusion of war crimes in the list of "core crimes" over which the proposed court would enjoy inherent jurisdiction, with speakers saying that the definition of violations of laws and customs applicable in armed conflict should encompass both grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and other serious violations of the laws and customs of war.The representative of Egypt told the Committee that there were 43 different international Conventions regulating armed conflict, not all of which had risen to the level of customary international law. The statutes of the international tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda were useful guides, but the statute of the proposed court should specifically proscribe grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, so as to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Several speakers called for war crimes provisions in the court statute, which would blend reference to grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva statutes with references to violations of laws and customs of armed conflict.
Speakers were divided over whether the court should be empowered to prosecute war crimes committed in internal conflicts. Several speakers said that while Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, which deals with international conflicts, had become a component of customary international law, Protocol II, which would extend treaty provisions to internal conflict, had not. Crimes under customary international law applied to all States, while treaty-based crimes applied only to signatories.
The representative of the United Kingdom urged that the proposed court not become enmeshed in quasi-political disputes. The court should adjudicate clearly enumerated criminal acts which violated customary international law.
The representative of Italy urged that the court prosecute infringements of the Geneva Conventions relating to both international and internal armed conflicts. He said that the court statute should employ the list of crimes enumerated in Article 3 of the statute of the International Criminal Tribunal
International Criminal Court - 2 - Press Release L/2764 4th Meeting (PM) 26 March 1996
for the Former Yugoslavia. (That article prohibits: the use of poisonous weapons; wanton destruction of cities not justified by military necessity; attacks on undefended towns and villages; destruction of institutions dedicated to religion, charity education, science and works of art; and the plunder of private property.) The representatives of India and of the Russian Federation expressed doubt that the international criminal court should address internal conflicts. Many speakers stressed the need for a clear definition of the crimes to be covered under the category of serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflict. They said that it was not enough just to list those crimes. The representative of the Netherlands said that the court should limit itself to the prosecution of "serious" violations of international humanitarian law. Not all violations of those laws were "serious", nor did all constitute grave breaches. The representatives of China and of Canada called for the court statute to clearly draw that distinction. The representative of France said that he preferred to see an exhaustive listing of the crimes to be covered. The representative of the United States said that armed conflict, by its nature, was violent. It was, therefore, important to recognize the importance of military discipline in imposing the court's jurisdiction. That jurisdiction should extend to the military of a sovereign State only in the most exceptional circumstances. The representative of Australia said that the role of national jurisdiction in prosecuting members of their armed forces should be acknowledged, but in cases where national jurisdiction failed or was unable to prosecute, the criminal court should be able to do so. The representative of Sweden said that attention should be given to defining individual criminal responsibility for war crimes. The representative of Japan said that States -- not individuals -- were bound by treaties. It was a State's responsibility to ensure that their militaries conformed with international law. The prosecution of war crimes had two levels. If a sovereign State were to be found to be in violation of international law, it was the responsibility of that State to prosecute individual violators under national law. Also speaking this afternoon were the representatives of Switzerland, Finland, Hungary, Belarus, Israel, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Denmark, Ireland, Austria, Norway, and Slovenia. The observer of the International Committee of the Red Cross also spoke. The Preparatory Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 27 March, to continue its consideration of serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflict.
* *** *