LEGAL COMMITTEE IS TOLD PROSPECTS GOOD FOR EARLY COMPLETION OF PREPARATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Fifty-sixth General Assembly

Sixth Committee

25^th Meeting (PM)

LEGAL COMMITTEE IS TOLD PROSPECTS GOOD FOR EARLY COMPLETION

OF PREPARATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Progress in Number of Signatories, Ratifications; Governing Statute

May Soon Take Effect, with Early Opening Assembly of States Parties

The International Criminal Court must be ready to assume its responsibilities once its treaty entered into force, which could be as early as the end of this year or the beginning of 2002, the Chairman of the Preparatory Commission for the Court, told the Sixth Committee (Legal) this afternoon.

Philippe Kirsch, Canada, reporting on the Preparatory Commission's eighth session, held this year, said a total of 139 countries had signed the Rome Statute of the Court by the deadline of 31 December 2000.  The number of ratifications, out of the 60 required for the Statute to enter into force, stood at 46, with a number of other countries nearing the end of the domestic ratification process.

To date, he said, the Preparatory Commission had completed six out of the eight tasks assigned to it for practical arrangements for the establishment and coming into operation of the Court.  It was increasingly possible that the Rome Statute would enter into force before or during 2002, requiring the holding of the first Assembly of States Parties in the same year.  He hoped the Sixth Committee would take account of that possibility in deciding the timing of the Commission’s 2002 sessions.  Several countries recommended that two sessions of two weeks duration be scheduled for the Commission in 2002.

Among those addressing the Committee, the observer of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) noted that the ICRC had a recognized role in promoting adherence to the law of armed conflict.  He said there was need for the international community to possess a credible and effective institution to respond to crimes of an international dimension when States were unwilling or unable to so act.

The Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and the United Nations Legal Counsel, Hans Corell, gave an oral report on the preparations made by the Secretariat for the Preparatory Commission’s seventh and eighth sessions and the publication of reports of those sessions.

Speaking in the discussion this afternoon were the representatives of Sierra Leone, Liechtenstein, Norway, Chile (on behalf of the Rio Group), Belgium (on behalf of the European Union), Russian Federation, Libya, Mexico, South Africa, Hungary, Iran and China.

The Sixth Committee Chairman, Pierre Lelong, opened this afternoon’s meeting by expressing deepest condolences to the delegations of the United States and the Dominican Republic for the American Airlines plane crash in Queens, New York, this morning.  The Committee then observed a moment of silence in memory of the victims and those in mourning.

The representative of the United States thanked the Committee and said that while his Government did not yet know the cause of the plane crash, the United States remained resolved to work with its allies and the United Nations to rid the world of terrorism.

The Committee will meet next at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 13 November, to continue its debate on the report of the International Criminal Court Preparatory Commission.

Background

The Sixth Committee (Legal) met this afternoon to begin consideration of its agenda item on the establishment of the International Criminal Court.  It had before it a report of the Preparatory Commission on its eighth session, which took place at Headquarters from 24 September to 5 October (document PICNICC/2001/L.3/Rev.1 and Addendum 1).  The report covers the work and decisions taken at that session.

The Preparatory Commission adopted a report on its sixth to eighth sessions containing the draft texts of the Relationship Agreement between the Court and the United Nations, the Financial Regulations, the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Court, and the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly of States Parties (PCNICC/2001/1 and Add.1-4).  It took note of the oral reports of the coordinators of the working groups on the Principles Governing a Headquarters Agreement between the Court and the Government of the Netherlands (host country), the First Year Budget and the Crime of Aggression.

The Preparatory Commission noted that at its ninth session, to be held in 2002, there would be two additional working groups:  the Working Group on Assembly of States Parties Preparatory Documents and the Working Group on Financial Issues.  These would be in addition to the working groups on the First-Year Budget, Principles Governing a Headquarters Agreement and the Crime of Aggression.

During the eighth session, 19 delegates made use of the trust fund established by the General Assembly in 1998 to facilitate the participation of the least developed countries in the work of the Preparatory Commission.  An annex to the report contains a list of documents relating to items considered at the Commission's eighth session.

The addendum to the report (PCNICC/2001/L.3/Rev.1/Add.1) states that the host State, the Netherlands, had secured a location for the permanent premises of the International Criminal Court.  Pending construction of those premises, interim arrangements were necessary.  The Government of the Netherlands had announced that it would make available temporary premises as from the date of establishment of the Court.  They were located opposite the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.  Detention facilities would be made available in a different location.

The report also states that the Government of the Netherlands had expressed its willingness to contribute financially to the initial meetings of the Assembly of States Parties.  States that had signed the Statute or the Final Act of the 1998 Rome United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court might attend the sessions of the Assembly as observers. The Statute was adopted at the Rome Conference.

The report indicates that 139 States had signed the Statute and 144 States had signed the Final Act. (Sixty States must ratify the Rome Statute for the Court to be established).  The Government of the Netherlands had expressed its commitment to fully finance the inaugural meeting of the Court.  An appendix to the addendum contains priority guidelines for the preparation of a revised draft first-year budget for the Court.

The Preparatory Commission was established by the General Assembly under resolution F adopted by the Rome Conference.  The Commission held three sessions in 1999 and 2000.  The Commission will remain in existence until the conclusion of the first meeting of Assembly of States Parties.

Philippe Kirsch (Canada) is Chairman of the Preparatory Commission.

Statements

HANS CORELL, Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and United Nations Legal Counsel, in an oral report, said the Secretariat was able to provide services for the two sessions of the Preparatory Commission as requested by the General Assembly in its resolution 55/155.  The proceedings of the Commission’s seventh session had been published in all languages under the symbol PCNICC/2001/L.1/Rev.1 and Addenda 1, 2 and 3, and those of its eighth session were contained in document PCNICC/2001/L.3 Rev.1 and Addendum 1.  A report on the two sessions would be issued in all official languages as document PCNICC/2001/1 and Addenda 1, 2, 3 and 4 by next January.

He said the Secretary-General had addressed circular letters to States requesting that those interested in making financial contributions to the two trust funds which facilitated participation in the Commission’s work by least developed and other developing countries should contact the Legal Counsel.  He said Denmark, the United Kingdom and the European Commission had made contributions to the trust fund for the least developed countries.  That allowed the fund to provide return tickets to a total of 34 delegates from the least developed countries who attended the seventh and eighth sessions of the Preparatory Commission.  No contributions had been received for the trust fund relating to other developing countries, he added.

PHILIPPE KIRSCH (Canada), Chairman of the Preparatory Commission, said that since he last addressed the Sixth Committee, a number of countries had signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, bringing the total signatories by the deadline of 31 December 2000 to 139.  As of this morning, the number of countries ratifying the Statute stood at 46.  Peru, Nauru and Poland were the most recent States parties.

He said the Statute was now only 14 ratifications short of the necessary 60 for the Court to be established.  It was his understanding that there were several other States whose internal ratification processes were at an advanced stage, and who could be expected to become parties sometime in the near future.

The rapid pace of ratification had been an incentive to all of them to work hard during the Preparatory Commission sessions.  He recalled that resolution F, adopted by the Rome Diplomatic Conference, established the mandate of the Preparatory Commission, namely to prepare proposals for practical arrangements for the establishment and coming into operation of the International Criminal Court.  The resolution also urged the Commission to discuss ways to enhance the effectiveness and acceptance of the Court.

He reported that on 5 October, the Preparatory Commission completed another significant portion of its work, adopting the following instruments:  a draft text of a Relationship Agreement between the Court and the United Nations; a draft text of the Financial Regulations of the Court, together with several draft resolutions to be considered by the Assembly of States Parties; a draft text of an Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Court; and a draft text of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly of States Parties.

That meant, he said, that out of the eight tasks assigned by the Rome Conference to the Preparatory Commission in the area of proposals for practical arrangements for the establishment and coming into operation of the Court, six had now been completed.  Although some of those issues were technically complicated, he said a constructive and positive atmosphere endured throughout the negotiations, enabling those key elements to be adopted by general agreement.

Although the Preparatory Commission had accomplished much, there was much left to do, he said.  The focus should now be on practical, immediate issues relating to the establishment of the Court.  He commended the useful work done independently by non-governmental organizations to identify issues that should be dealt with in preparation for entry into force of the Statute and beyond.

To facilitate the Preparatory Commission’s work, a “roadmap” had been prepared by its Bureau, setting out the work that lay ahead.  The roadmap identified three areas where provisional rules were needed to allow the Court to begin its work:  human resources and administration, budget and finance issues, and operational issues.  Focal points had been appointed for each of those three areas, he said.

A four-member sub-committee of the Bureau had also been established to act as an interlocutor between the Preparatory Commission and the host Government (the Netherlands).  The sub-committee would meet in The Hague later this year.  It was also expected that the past practice of holding open-ended inter-sessional meetings to facilitate the work of the Preparatory Commission would continue in the areas he had mentioned.

On the question of future sessions of the Preparatory Commission, he suggested two sessions of two weeks in 2002.  Those additional sessions were critical to ensure the preparation of all necessary documents before the entry into force of the Statute.  At the next session, he said the two working groups that met for the first time at the last Preparatory Commission -- on the First Year Budget and on the Principles for the Headquarters Agreement -- would continue their work.

Two more working groups would begin their work, and would deal with documents that must be prepared prior to the first meeting of the Assembly of States Parties.  The documents covered the Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties, the Secretariat of the Assembly, procedures for nomination and election of Judges and the Prosecutor of the Court, and an agenda for the First Assembly.  The Preparatory Commission would also continue to carry out its mandate of preparing proposals for a provision on aggression, as well as discussion of ways to enhance the effectiveness and acceptance of the Court.

He said it was increasingly possible that the Rome Statute would enter into force before or during 2002, requiring the holding of the first Assembly of States Parties in the same year.  He hoped that the Sixth Committee, in deciding the timing of the Commission’s session in 2002, would take into account the possibility of the early entry into force of the Statute.

The success of the Preparatory Commission depended on continuing to be guided by the following principles:  the need to establish an effective Court as expeditiously as possible; the importance of securing universal acceptance of the Court; and to work in partnership with all States, international organizations and representatives of civil society to build a Court to end impunity and to bring real justice to victims.

The events of 11 September were on the minds of all delegates to this year’s session of the Preparatory Commission, he said, adding that those events had put their work into perspective.  The need to create a permanent international criminal court with jurisdiction over the most serious international crimes was a pressing one, he said.  The Preparatory Commission must continue its efforts in the coming months so that the Court was ready to assume the responsibilities it had been given as soon as it was established, he declared.

ALLIEU KANU (Sierra Leone) said that while it was clear that the International Criminal Court would not have jurisdiction over the crimes committed in his country, the negotiations for its establishment had created greater awareness in the international community of the significant role that accountability mechanisms could play, in the consolidation of peace and reconciliation.  That awareness, he believed, had motivated the current negotiations on a special court for Sierra Leone.  He thanked those who had strongly supported the creation of the International Criminal Court and asked them to lend their political and financial support to the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

In welcoming the numerous ratifications of the Rome Statute, he also expressed appreciation for decisions in the Preparatory Commission’s draft agreements that allowed for both rigour and flexibility.  He cited in particular the additional appropriation line in the Financial Regulations for unforeseen expenditures and the recommendation to the Assembly of States Parties to consider the introduction of a contingency mechanism.  As the date of entry into force approached, delegates should more closely rely on the experience of the two existing international Tribunals and draw lessons from a careful analysis of their shortcomings, to avoid repeating their mistakes.

JONATHAN HUSTON (Liechtenstein) said the Committee should allocate two more Preparatory Commission sessions of two weeks each in 2002, and he hoped next year would see the inaugural session of the Assembly of States Parties.  Countries must avoid a scenario in which the Statute might become legally operative, but the Court was functionally not.  He commended the work of the Bureau in drafting a well considered road map to the early establishment of the International Criminal Court and said it would provide valuable guidance.

Referring to national efforts toward implementation of the Rome Statute, he said the Court’s effectiveness relied on solid domestic laws that allowed unfettered cooperation with the Court, whose objectives could be met only if domestic law allowed local investigation and prosecution of the offenses enumerated in the Statute.  He noted that the Council of Europe was acting as a discussion forum and information clearinghouse for domestic implementing legislation.  The outcome of a recent meeting of that Council in September would be circulated as an official United Nations document.  In a closing reference to 11 September, he said that while he did not believe that any judicial mechanism alone, whether domestic or international, could serve as a sufficient deterrent against the commission of such crimes, he believed that institutions such as the International Criminal Court were vitally essential both to provide recourse to those victimized, and to draw a clear line in the sand delineating behaviour that was acceptable from behaviour that was unacceptable in any circumstances.

ARNE B. HONNINGSTAD (Norway) said the need for the rapid establishment of the International Criminal Court had been demonstrated all too often, most recently by the terrorist attacks on 11 September.  Those abhorrent acts belonged to the realm of crimes against humanity as defined in the Rome Statute.  A permanent global institution like the proposed Court could significantly enhance deterrence, not least by reducing the reaction time of the international community when confronted with mass atrocities.  The interests of predictability would also be better served through a prospective judicial system, rather than the arduous and lengthy process of establishing retrospective ad hoc tribunals.

Norway had consistently been supportive of measures which would prevent the Court from becoming a tool for political purposes.  The Statute provided for credible protection against biased or arbitrary prosecutions.  It also provided for important procedural safeguards, including for the protection of sensitive military or other sources.  Referring to practical arrangements for the Court, he said the results achieved so far by the Preparatory Commission provided a firm foundation for Norway’s unfailing conviction that the future Court would build on legitimacy, credibility and the broadest possible support.  He appealed to States to ratify or accede to the Rome Statute and renewed his country’s offer to share its ratification experience with any State that might be interested. 

JUAN GABRIEL VALDES (Chile), speaking on behalf of the Member States of the Rio Group, said the difficult negotiations that preceded the adoption of the Rome Statute had created a balanced mechanism that took account of the interests of all States concerned, and responded to the international committee’s appeal.  The International Criminal Court was a valuable tool for combating the culture of impunity that had often favoured the authors of heinous crimes offensive to the conscience of humanity.  It was the Group’s belief that the establishment of the Court would also be a powerful deterrent against future authors of such atrocities.  The Court was therefore a critical instrument for strengthening the rule of law and promoting a stable peace. 

He said the Rio Group welcomed the acceleration in the pace of ratifications of the Statute to the point where it was now likely that the current session of the General Assembly would be the last before the entry into force of the Court’s Statute.  It was necessary that the Preparatory Commission had sufficient time next year to adequately complete its work.  The Rio Group believed that it should have at least two additional sessions during 2002.  It hoped that a resolution to be adopted by the current General Assembly would authorize the Secretary-General to convene such sessions.  The Group supported the establishment of a sub-committee to act as an interlocutor between the Preparatory Commission and the host country.

He said the Rio Group urged States to ratify the Rome Statute and also to review their domestic measures to implement the Statute in fulfilment of their obligation to cooperate with the future Court.

STEPHANE DE LOECKER (Belgium), speaking for the European Union and its associated States, said recent events had once more demonstrated the urgency of effectively establishing the International Criminal Court.  When the essential values of the international community were under attack, and when the most fundamental rules of international law, of humanitarian law and of human rights were violated, the international community could not stand idly by.  The Rome Statute rightly asserted that it was primarily the responsibility of States to ensure that those rights were respected and that violations were punished.  However, complementary to national responsibility and especially when States failed to act, the Court would fulfil a role of primary importance.

Noting that ratification of the Rome Statute and its incorporation into national legal systems could be a complex task, he said the European Union was ready to share its experience and provide assistance with the means at its disposal.  It also supported, including at a financial level, the outstanding work of civil society and non-governmental organizations in all regions of the world in favour of the Court.  Since the outlook for the early establishment of the Court was particularly encouraging, he said countries were thus obliged to redouble efforts so that the Court become operational as soon as possible after entry into force of the Rome Statute.  He asked that sufficient resources be allocated to the Preparatory Commission, including the scheduling of two sessions of two weeks each in 2002.

VLADIMIR TARABRIN (Russian Federation) said his delegation attached importance to the creation of the International Criminal Court.  The entry into force of the Court’s Statute would truly open a new chapter in international law.  He was convinced that the Court would promote human rights, international equity and the rule of law.  It would help to ensure an effective mechanism for cooperation among States in the prevention of heinous and inhumane crimes.  The Court would serve as a warning to the perpetrators of those crimes.  The complex and balanced Statute of the Court would also promote the goals of the United Nations.

He said the results of the work of the Preparatory Commission would ensure the ability of the Court to carry out its mandate without hindrance.

The documents adopted at the Commission’s eighth session agreed with the letter and spirit of the Rome Statute, and reflected the practice of similar international documents.  It was noteworthy that the documents were adopted by consensus.  He hoped the constructive atmosphere at that session would continue to help States come up with generally acceptable decisions, and that that atmosphere would prevail, particularly as the Commission neared the end of its work.

He said Russia attached great importance to the definition of the crime of aggression; the issue could not be discussed separately.  The United Nations Charter provisions regarding the determination of aggression by the Security Council must be an essential element both of the definition of the crime of aggression and of the Court’s work on the question.

He said that Russia did not support the view that the International Court of Justice should make a determination in the question of the crime of aggression.  That Court, under its Statute, had jurisdiction only in inter–State disputes.  The jurisdiction of the Security Council over the crime of aggression could not be questioned.  The activities of the future International Criminal Court should be carried out in close cooperation with the Security Council, taking into account the Council’s prerogatives.

He said broad support for the Court’s Statute and the growing number of its ratifications gave grounds for optimism.

EMHEMED JALIDI (Libya) stressed the need for justice, equity and non-alignment in the application of international rules.  Libya looked for cultural diversity and the legitimate rights of peoples in the application of international rules of justice.  The world must put behind any selective approach and double standards in the application of international law.  The position of his country had been consistent on that question.

He said those guilty of flagrant violation of international law that endangered lives must be punished.  There was an urgent need for an effective mechanism to punish those responsible for genocide and crimes against humanity.  The Statute of the International Criminal Court was a compromise document adopted after hard negotiations.  It fell short of hopes and aspirations, and was further undermined by political maneuvering.  The provisions of the Statute failed to cover such crimes as massive massacres, use of nuclear weapons, and terrorism.

ALFONSO ASCENCIO (Mexico) said that the Commission’s preparatory work for the Court was moving forward, as was the rapid process of ratifications.  The important work that would allow the Court to become operational had either been completed or was in an advanced stage.  Mexico was exerting considerable efforts to become a State party soon.  The necessary constitutional reform had been completed and the Government hoped to submit the Court treaty to the Senate for ratification in the first half of 2002.  Stating that amending a constitution was always a complex task, he said Mexico had sought the most effective way to incorporate the Rome Statute into its national legislation.

He said that, like many other countries, Mexico wished to participate as a member in Assembly of States Parties.  He expressed concern about article 126, paragraph 2, of the treaty, which provided that for each State that ratified or acceded to the treaty after its entry into force, the treaty would apply for the State on the first day of the next month.  Under certain time-frames, he said, that meant that some States could be prevented from participating in the meetings of the Assembly of State Parties, where important decisions would be taken.  Notwithstanding those provisions in article 126, he appealed for prudent timetables for Assembly of States Parties meetings and recognition of the countries that were making genuine efforts towards ratification.

ALBERT HOFFMANN (South Africa), noting that some of the important preparatory documents for the Court had not yet been finalized, said it was therefore absolutely necessary that the Commission be given adequate time and facilities in 2002 to accomplish its mandate.  South Africa had signed the Rome Statute on 18 July 1998 and had ratified it on 27 November 2000.  It was currently finalizing a bill on the implementation of the Rome Statute which would probably be enacted into law before the entry into force of the Rome Statute.

South Africa looked forward to be being among the founding members of the Assembly of States Parties and therefore able to influence the course of the International Criminal Court.  He urged States that had not yet ratified the Statute to do so as soon as possible, and thus ensure their participation in that important first meeting of the Assembly of States Parties.  He believed that the Court would act as an important legal mechanism to deal with international terrorism and other crimes against humanity, and was worthy of being supported by all States. 

ARPAD PRANDLER (Hungary) informed the Committee that his Parliament had decided on 6 November to ratify the Rome Statute and would be depositing its instrument of ratification with the Secretary-General by the end of the month.  The accelerated pace of ratifications meant that the Preparatory Commission would have to work under a certain time pressure.  It would require, as never before, a cooperative effort, and speedy and goal-oriented action from the Preparatory Commission and the Court’s host country. 

He noted that the second International Workshop towards Ratification of the Statute of the International Criminal Court was held in Budapest from

15-16 October.  It had explored practical steps in preparation for the ratification of the Rome Statute, including issues such as immunity and surrender of nationals and implementing legislation.  Such regional conferences would not only facilitate the early ratification of the Statute but would also help develop a more uniform approach to its practical implementation. 

He reaffirmed the need for universal acceptance of the Court, which would ensure its full effectiveness.  In that regard, he noted with satisfaction that all States which had participated at the Diplomatic Conference in Rome, including those States which had not voted for the adoption of the Statute, had also taken part actively in the work of the Preparatory Commission.

SAEID MIRZAEE-YENGEJEH (Iran) said the Preparatory Commission had entered a new stage of its activities, as was evident from the significant progress made at its eighth session, and from the increased number of ratifications of the Rome Statute.  The documents produced at that session were essential for the establishment of the Court.  He felt the Preparatory Commission would be able to accomplish its mandate during the proposed two sessions in 2002.

He said the Commission should make every effort to accomplish its mandate in respect of the definition of the crime of aggression in the context of the Court’s Statute.  He said that should the Preparatory Commission be unable to do so, its working group on the topic should prepare a comprehensive report on the progress made with appropriate recommendations regarding continuation of the work by the Assembly of States Parties.  It was his hope that with that approach, the first review conference on the Statute, to be convened seven years after its entry into force, would be able to approve the definition of the crime of aggression.  Consequently, the Court would be able to exercise its jurisdiction over that crime, he said.

At its second session in 2002, he said, the Preparatory Commission session should take account of the provisions of resolution F of the Rome Diplomatic Conference that it should submit a report to the first meeting of the Assembly of States Parties on matters within its mandate.  Sufficient time and resources should be allocated for that exercise, he said.  He also suggested that, for practical reasons, the first session of the Assembly of States Parties should be convened at United Nations Headquarters in New York with the Secretariat providing conference services.

QI DAHAI (China) said his country, which had always supported the idea of setting up the International Criminal Court, was satisfied with the results achieved by the Preparatory Commission.  China hoped to make a contribution, in the discussions, to the establishment of an independent, just and efficient court which had universal applications.

He said the work of the Commission on the issue of the crime of aggression was a matter of great concern to all countries.  An appropriate threshold should be set for the crime, which constituted individual criminal responsibility.  The basis for doing so should be customary international law.  In the meantime, it should also be brought in line with the international realities.

The International Criminal Court must first of all determine whether an act of aggression by a State existed.  In accordance with the Charter, it was the responsibility of the Security Council to make such a determination.  Therefore, the definition of the crime of aggression, and the conditions governing the Court’s jurisdiction over the crime, were interrelated and indivisible.

As to the conditions governing jurisdiction, he said that if it were left to the Court to determine whether a State committed an act of aggression after the Council had failed to do so within a given period of time, the Court might run the risk of being politicized.  He also questioned the proposal made by certain countries that the advisory opinions or findings of the International Court of Justice be used as the basis of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

DANIEL HELLE, observer of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said that the ICRC was mandated by the international community to provide protection and assistance to the victims of armed conflict.  It also had a recognized role in promoting the development of and adherence to the law of armed conflict.  It therefore welcomed the establishment of an institution that would articulate and enforce that legal regime.  Early entry into force and universal ratification of the Rome Statute, together with the adoption of all necessary implementation measures, should remain among the international community’s highest priorities.  To that end, the ICRC advisory service on international humanitarian law provided advice and technical assistance to States on ratification and implementation of the Rome Statute.

In its work to promote the International Criminal Court Statute, the advisory service also encouraged States to create domestic offences of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, if those did not already exist.  He reminded States that complying with the requirements of the Court might not be sufficient to satisfy all the obligations incumbent upon them by virtue of existing humanitarian law instruments.  That did not, however, detract from the need for the international community to possess a credible and effective institution to respond to crimes of an international dimension when States were unwilling or unable to so act.  Such an institution was essential to not only express the universality of opprobrium but also to lend credibility to the consistent administration of neutral justice.

* *** *