PRESS CONFERENCE SPONSORED BY NETHERLANDS ON INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Press Briefing

PRESS CONFERENCE SPONSORED BY NETHERLANDS ON INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

"The American people are not going to allow the United States to remain outside the new system of international justice that is being created", a coalition of non-governmental organizations told correspondents this morning at a Headquarters press conference on the subject of the International Criminal Court.

Attending the press conference, which was sponsored by the Mission of the Netherlands, were William Pace, the Convenor for the NGO Coalition for an International Criminal Court; Vahida Nainar, Director of the Women's Caucus for Gender Justice in the International Criminal Court; Richard Dicker, Associate Counsel for Human Rights Watch; and Betty Murungi, Legal Adviser of the Federation of Women Lawyers, Kenya.

Responding to a question from a journalist on whether the United States could severely hamper the operations of the Court if it pulled out of any dealings with it, Mr. Pace said "It would tremendously handcuff the ability of the United States to cooperate on international justice matters which they have always worked in favour of…The American people are not going to allow the United States to remain outside the new system of international justice that is being created. It is not similar to the past. Virtually all of the other major Powers will be at the first Assembly of the States parties. This Court will be able to be financed. The judicial expertise exists throughout the world now. The United States has just convened a meeting of 100 democracies around the world. It is not the same world of 1920 when the United States started the League of Nations and then refused to ratify it. It is a fundamentally different situation."

Mr. Dicker added that the breadth of support for the Court and the expertise that existed in dealing with international crime and justice were important factors. Noting that there was broad support for the Court across Africa, Latin America and parts of Asia, he said for the United States, "which undoubtedly has great leverage and influence, to go on the attack against the Court will cause major problems in its ability to build consensus and coalitions with its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) partners, 17 of whom will have signed and ratified the treaty." He added, "There is more bark than there is bite".

Mr. Dicker said the United States had proposed language for rule 98.2 in the rules of procedure and evidence as part of a two-pronged effort that would be combined later on with wording in a relationship agreement between the Court and the United Nations to secure "100 per cent exemption for United States nationals from prosecution by the Court". In proposing the rule, the United States had sought to create a bridge to that exemption, but the status of current negotiations on the text indicated that "what they got was a winding alley taking them back to the clear meaning of the limited exceptions contemplated by article 98.2".

When the rule was debated in the working group, 39 of the 45 delegations which spoke had raised concerns about the compatibility of the rule and faithfulness to the integrity of the Statute, he continued. Only Israel and

Criminal Court Press Conference - 2 - 29 June 2000

Turkey had supported the rule as it was introduced. The United States had been politically isolated. Moreover, the United States had been forced to publicly "delink" the proposed rule from any other international agreement text that would enshrine the exemption for United States nationals. That move would have implications for negotiations in the November Court session, during which the relationship agreement was to be negotiated, making it more difficult for the United States to obtain its special exemption should it decide to press the issue again at that next session.

Asked to give an update on the impact on United Nations negotiations of the legislation proposed by Senator Jesse Helms to bar United States cooperation with the Court, Mr. Dicker said the language the United States sought in exempting Americans had not come to pass. The issue should not be confused, however, with the protections citizens of the United States and other countries had under the treaty. "The fact of the matter is both in the negotiations in Rome and in the negotiations during the Preparatory Commission over the past 16 months, multiple safeguards have been introduced into this treaty so that the military of any country need not fear unwarranted, politically motivated prosecutions. And that is true across the board."

Mr. Pace added that the goal of the United States had been to secure enough support for it to be able to raise the issue next November when governments would begin negotiating the relationship agreement between the Court and the United Nations, including the Security Council. The like-minded countries and several others were anxious to keep the United States constructively engaged. "We'll know tomorrow evening if the United States thinks it received enough support to keep the line open until next November."

The introduction of the bill in Congress had been an effort to undermine United States negotiations at the Preparatory Commission, he continued. It would severely impede the United States ability to cooperate with the Court. The NGOs, the delegations and the United States administration hoped it would not be adopted by the United States Congress.

In response to another question on the fear that the United States might leave the negotiations, Mr. Pace said his impression was that the United States had requested "a four lane highway bridge" as well as informal agreement on a commitment through language in the relationship agreement that would give them 100 per cent protection. "I think what they may get tomorrow is a ‘tow line’ across the river so that they will be able to come back in November and continue to press." He added that in his opinion, nothing had been given away that had reopened the treaty.

The Preparatory Commission for the Court is required to complete their report on the Statute's Rules of Procedure and the Elements of Crimes by tomorrow. Mr. Pace said many countries' ratification would depend on the completion of those two texts. Mr. Dicker said the fact that the rules of procedure and evidence were to be adopted by consensus was an indication of the growing support and widening inclusiveness of the treaty. It would also make it more difficult for any State that participated in the consensus to later attack the Court.

As to the status of international support for the Court, Ms. Murungi told correspondents that so far 13 countries of the 60 necessary to bring the Court into being had ratified the treaty. Also, Sierra Leone had completed the internal process and simply had to register the ratification with the United Nations. Canada was expected to announce its ratification next week, with Argentina and Bangladesh to follow soon after. The Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of

American States, the Southern African Development Community and the European Union had all declared their support for early establishment of the Court. She said the Coalition hoped also for the support of the United States and other skeptical countries.

Ms. Nainar, who addressed the International Criminal Court negotiations over the wording of the “chapeau” covering crimes against humanity in the Statute's Elements of Crimes, said negotiations on such crimes as persecution, imprisonment, enslavement and sexual slavery were linked to final resolution of the language in the chapeau. The issue on "threshold" in the chapeau was of critical importance to the NGOs and the women's caucus in particular.

She said the requirement that a State or an organization "actively promote or encourage" the criminal conduct must be deleted from the chapeau. On the contrary, language should include "inaction or acquiescence" by the State or organization committing the crimes. Negotiations were being conducted on the basis of a compromise in response to a proposal by 11 Arab States and a few other countries, which essentially excluded prosecution of the aforementioned crimes when they were committed by family members as a matter of cultural or religious practice. That small group of "hard-liners" were dominating the negotiating process and the "like-minded" group had been compromising all along, she said. "We are concerned that if this language, or any version of it, prevails, it will seriously affect the prosecution of many crimes against humanity, and particularly crimes against women. Such language will continue the culture of impunity for these crimes."

A correspondent asked if there would be a vote on the chapeau since the States that had supported the proposal were not signatories and probably not likely to be. Ms. Nainar said it was not clear yet whether it would come to a vote or whether consensus could be reached.

* *** *