NGO PRESS BRIEFING ON INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

The impact of United States challenges to the new International Criminal Court dominated a briefing for correspondents held by a group of non-governmental organization supporters of the Court this morning. 

“It is a great disappointment, again, that the nation that did not show yesterday has nevertheless succeeded in casting a very depressing pall over what would otherwise and should be a celebratory meeting of governments”, Bill Pace, Convenor of the NGO Coalition for the International Criminal Court said, referring to the first meeting of the Assembly of States Parties to the treaty that created the Court.

Others attending the Headquarters press briefing, which was sponsored by the Mission of Canada, were:  Marie-Claire Lehman, Programme Officer, Parliamentarians for Global Action; Richard Dicker, Director of the International Justice Program, Human Rights Watch; and, Vahida Nainar, Executive Committee Member, Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice.

Mr. Dicker questioned the legality of the bilateral agreements that the United States Government was trying to negotiate in order to gain immunity from the Court for US citizens.  Those agreements, known as article 98 agreements, were contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty and were therefore “illegal contracts”.  “Let me be clear about this, the United States is pressing States to this treaty to enter into illegal contracts with them”.

He then cited the campaign by United States administration officials to threaten retribution against candidates for NATO membership that didn’t sign article 98 agreements as well as the US threat to withhold support from peacekeeping operations in the Balkans.  “That is how high the threat has gone up and I ask you, if these so-called article 98 agreements were lawful under the treaty, would all this strong-arming be necessary?  You do the math”, he said.

NGOs were very concerned that the British Government “was playing a behind the scenes role in championing an unprincipled and unacceptable compromise with the United States on the basis that the US will withdraw its troops from the Balkans if the European Union does not give in to their bullying tactics”, he said.  He also expressed concern about the European Union Danish presidency statement that it did not need a common legal opinion from the European Union Council of Ministers on the legality of the article 98 agreements.

There was resistance to the pressure, though, he said.  Tomorrow at 1:15 p.m there would be an important informal discussion for States to exchange views on the article 98 agreements.  It could be a chance for States to get together and overcome the “divide and conquer” technique.

Regarding Security Council resolution 1422, which Ms. Lehman said was passed in July, Ms. Lehman said that although it was portrayed in the media and by certain countries as a compromise, it was actually a very divisive move that left

many concerned with the Council’s action of interfering with international treaties.  Many countries and NGOs were debating the legality of the resolution and hoped to prevent its annual renewal, she said.     

Asked if there was any strong opposition within the European Union to the British, Italian and Danish positions, Mr. Dicker said there was strong support within the EU for a coordinated, principled, legally grounded position for opposing what the United States was doing.  He cited in particular the Governments of Germany, Sweden, Ireland, Belgium and France.  Switzerland and Norway had also weighed in with strong statements against US demands.

He told another correspondent that at the end of the day, it would be the ICC that determines the lawfulness of the article 98 agreements, the Court itself which will have the competence and authority to rule on them.  “That does not preclude however the importance of preventing these agreements from spreading like weeds”, he added.      

If efforts to stop article 98 agreements were successful, what would be the implications for United States participation in a lot of international activities? Would the US then go back to the Security Council for a different kind of resolution?, a correspondent asked. 

Mr. Dicker stressed that the Court’s supporters both within the EU and beyond it who were opposed to the agreements were not motivated by any desire to frustrate US intentions but rather by a desire and commitment to preserve and defend the integrity of the treaty.  “I wish my imagination were grand enough to comprehend the threat inflation that would ensue…  What the US might do if they don’t get their way, I can’t predict.  But I do know that concession after concession made by US allies to try to appease Washington’s antagonism towards this Court has succeeded in actually obtaining nothing”, he said.

Describing the threat to remove troops from the Balkans as a serious one and questioning the connection to United States plans concerning Iraq, he said there was a good deal of bluff in the United States strategy and believed it was about time to call the bluff.

Ms. Lehman added that in certain situations the United States would have other concerns as well, such as national security interests, that it would have to consider and might not be able to follow up on its bluff and would have to

re-evaluate all the different pressures of its position.

Mr. Pace described the first meeting of the Assembly of States Parties to the ICC treaty as another historic milestone in the effort to create a new system of international justice.  At the centre of that new system was the new International Criminal Court.  The meeting was being attended by

80 countries who had ratified the treaty and another 50 or 60 who were participating as observers.  Those nations who had ratified the treaty would now have the legal, political and financial responsibility for the Court.  

The Assembly’s first meeting had been divided into three sessions, he said. The first, currently taking place, would run from 3 to 10 September.  Several

ministers were expected to make statements on the closing days.  The Assembly was also expected to decide upon the procedure for nominating and electing judges. Judges would be elected at the second session to be held in February.  The Court itself would then be inaugurated in The Hague in March.  At the final session, in either April or May, the Registrar and Deputy Prosecutors would be chosen.  The Assembly had already adopted a budget of some $33 million for the Court’s first

16 months. 

Ms. Nainar, in briefing on the Assembly’s current agenda, said that NGOs had been concerned about portions of some of the documents but had recognized the need to adopt the documents without reopening them to negotiation at this time.  The focus was now on the election procedure for judges, which would probably be agreed upon by Friday.

The NGO Coalition believed the bench should reflect the Court’s international character and therefore placed a high importance on the provisions of article 36 that called for a fair balance between male and female judges as well as geographic representation.

Mr. Pace said the Western Group had proposed many candidates for judgeships.  Their candidates at this point were all men and could not win if the principles of regional representation or gender representation were applied.  It was a shocking abandonment of principle on both counts, he said, adding “We are going to be fighting very intensely for the next four months to try to insist on some very effective principles to be established.  We may not change it all around but I promise you that the transparency and the exposing of some of the deal-making that is going on, I think will have an impact -- if not on this election then on the whole process in future elections.”

On the issue of the Court’s Prosecutor, he told a correspondent that so far only two names had been mentioned, and neither one had expressed a willingness to be a candidate -- Judge Richard Goldstone of South Africa and Justice Louise Arbour of Canada.

Stating that the Prosecutor would be absolutely critical to the success of the Court in its early years, he lamented the lack of a strategy for a worldwide search for the most qualified candidate.

* *** *