As General Assembly Takes up International Courts’ Annual Reports, Delegates Commend Contributions to Rule of Law, Debate Challenges Facing Mandates
During a day-long debate in the General Assembly today, delegations took up the reports of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, commending those bodies for their contributions towards making the rule of law paramount in international relations, while considering challenges faced when carrying out their respective mandates.
More than 38 speakers delivered statements on the two Courts, whose work ranged from maritime border disputes to crimes against humanity.
Peter Tomka, President of the International Court of Justice, also referred to as the World Court, told the Assembly that when faced with cases with a high scientific content or where the factual background was a particularly complex one, the Court had made increasing use of the deliberation procedure provided for in article 1 of the resolution concerning the Internal Judicial Practice of the Court. Such deliberations effectively enabled the Court to identify any issue on which it would like further explanation or clarification during the hearings on the substance of the case. The World Court had held such a deliberation of the Whaling in the Antarctic case, as well as in other cases.
Japan’s representative, whose Government had been party to the Whaling case, told the Assembly that although the decision, which stated Japan’s whaling research programme did not fall within the relevant article of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, had been disappointing, his Government was abiding by the Court’s Judgment.
The theme of respectfully accepting the World Court’s judgment as just and fair, no matter the outcome, was also evident in Thailand’s response to a judgment issued on a land dispute with Cambodia centring on a temple. That country’s representative said that during the World Court’s oral proceedings and the reading of the Judgment last year, the Thai public had followed the proceedings through live broadcast from The Hague, with simultaneous interpretation into the Thai language. The role of the World Court as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations had thus become better understood in his country.
The representative of Peru said that the settlement of the maritime border dispute with Chile, which had been handed down this year, had been the quickest in the history of the Court, as both parties pinpointed the geographic coordinates of the maritime border. That work had been done within two months of the ruling. The manner in which the proceedings were conducted should serve as an example for the international community.
The Philippines representative also emphasized that if there was anything that the Charter, together with the Statute, jurisprudence and experience of the World Court had taught Member States, it was that “small nations”, if their cause was just, should have no fear of the “big Powers” because it was through the work of the Court that the rule of law had a chance to prevail, a point echoed by Germany, whose representative noted that the existence of the International Court of Justice and its success was the very antithesis of the idea, “might is right”.
During the debate on the International Criminal Court, its President, Sang‑Hyun Song, said that joining the Criminal Court was an insurance policy for a safer future, not a method for settling old scores. It was only through steadily building global support for the Rome Statute system that universality would be achieved, with no hiding place for the perpetrators of international crimes.
As peace and justice went hand in hand, so must the United Nations and the Criminal Court, he said. The partnership was indispensable for a strong international community and the protection of the interests of humanity as a whole. The Rome Statute was only as strong as States made it. Speaking directly to delegations, he said that they had the key to unlocking the Criminal Court’s full potential.
Kenya’s representative, nonetheless, took issue with the Criminal Court’s interpretation of the Rome Statute, saying that it was counterproductive and antagonistic to the Statue’s ideals. The Criminal Court had been created as an international institution meant to work for all signatory Member States, irrespective of size, wealth or political dispensation. Yet, the Court seemed driven by the parochial issues and political objectives of a small group of Member States.
However, the representative of Trinidad and Tobago, speaking for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), reminded those who had failed to honour their legally binding obligations to execute arrest warrants issued by the Court, and arrest and surrender individuals, that they were contributing to a culture of impunity and undermining the rule of law. No individual or State should fear the Criminal Court as it was a court of last resort.
Prior to consideration of the reports on the International Courts, a moment of silence was observed in memory of President Michael Chilufya Sata of Zambia, who passed away on 28 October of this year. Zambia’s representative said that the late President was a “grassroots politician in the true sense of the word”. His contribution to Zambia’s continued peace and tranquillity was unparalleled.
Delegations also offered remembrances of President Sata, with Malawi’s representative, speaking for the African States, underscoring that, “he devoted his whole life to the people of his country, the African countries and the whole world.” Calling attention to his work for the poor of Zambia, the representative of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), detailed how President Sata had carried out policies for the “have-nots”. “The world has lost a great politician,” he said.
Also paying tribute were representatives of Bolivia (on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China), Estonia (on behalf of the Eastern European States), Grenada (for the Latin American and Caribbean States), Sweden (on behalf of the Western European and other States) and the United States.
Also delivering statements were representatives of Iran (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), South Africa (on behalf of the African Group), Canada, Switzerland, Cuba, Romania, Sudan, Mexico, France, India, Nicaragua, Uganda, Nigeria, Chile, Uruguay, United States, Morocco, Madagascar, Russian Federation, Costa Rica, Algeria, Bolivia, Jamaica, Malaysia, Cambodia, Sweden (on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway) and the Republic of Korea. A representative of the European Union also delivered a statement.
The representative of Sudan spoke in exercise of the right of reply.
The General Assembly will meet again at 10 a.m. on Friday, 31 October, to continue its discussion of the annual report of the International Criminal Court.
Background
The General Assembly met today to consider the work of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court over the past year.
Before them were the reports of the International Court of Justice (document A/69/4); the Secretary-General’s report on the International Court of Justice (document A/69/337); a note by the Secretary-General on the International Criminal Court (document A/69/321); and reports by the Secretary-General on the International Criminal Court (documents A/69/324 and A/69/372).
The General Assembly also had before it a draft resolution (document A/69/L.5) entitled “Sport as a means to promote education, health, development and peace”.
International Court of Justice
PETER TOMKA, President of the International Court of Justice, said that during the reporting period, the total number of contentious cases pending before the Court was 13, of which hearings were held in four. Currently deliberating the merits of the case concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), the World Court was in the process of drafting its Judgment, which it planned to deliver ahead of the triennial renewal of its composition in February 2015.
Reporting on the Court’s main decisions during the last year, he said that the first Judgment to be delivered during the period under review was given on 11 November 2013 in the case concerning the Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand). Giving details of the case, he said that in the operative part of its Judgment, the Court found that Cambodia had sovereignty over the whole territory of the promontory of Preah Vihear, as previously defined, and that, in consequence, Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw from that territory its military or police forces, or other guards or keepers stationed there.
On a third Judgment concerning Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), he said that while the scientific research programme “JARPA II” under which Japan was accused by Australia of “continued pursuit of a large-scale program of whaling” could generally be characterized as a “scientific research” programme, the World Court concluded that the special permits granted by Japan for the killing, taking and treating of whales in connection with JARPA II were not “for purposes of scientific research” pursuant to article VIII, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
The World Court had made increasing use of the deliberation procedure provided for in article 1 of the resolution concerning the Internal Judicial Practice of the Court, he said. The deliberation effectively enabled the Court to identify any issue on which it would like further explanation or clarification during the hearings on the substance of the case. It was a procedure which was particularly useful in cases with a high scientific content or where the factual background was a particularly complex one. The World Court had held such a deliberation of the Whaling case, as well as in other cases.
During the reporting period, the World Court had also handed down three Orders, which he briefly presented, before turning to new cases. In one of them, the Marshall Islands had filed nine applications with the Court Registry, in which it accused nine States of failing to perform their obligations with respect to nuclear disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date. The number of new cases submitted brought the total number of cases currently on the World Court’s docket to 14.
He drew the attention to the importance of Member States in the composition of the World Court. They were called upon to choose and elect members of the Court. Thus, the quality of the principal judicial organ of the United Nations was dependent on Member States’ contribution in that respect. The number of States having made a declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the World Court as compulsory under Article 36 had remained at 70 during the period of review. He reiterated his invitation to the attendant diplomats to seek to encourage recourse to the World Court for the settlement of disputes.
Statements
GHOLAMHOSSEIN DEHGHANI (Iran), speaking for the Non-Aligned Movement, commended the International Court of Justice for its role in promoting the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Pointing out that the Security Council had not sought an advisory opinion from that body since 1970, he urged the 15‑nation body to make greater use of the World Court as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, as a source both of advisory opinions and the interpretation of relevant norms of international law, as well as on controversial issues. He further urged that the Council consider having its decisions reviewed by the Court, bearing in mind the need to ensure their adherence to the Charter and international law.
He also invited the General Assembly, other organs of the United Nations and specialized agencies duly authorized, to request advisory opinions of the Court on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities. He then reaffirmed the importance of the World Court’s unanimous opinion on the “Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons” that determined there was an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all aspects under strict and effective international control. In addition, he called upon Israel to respect the Court’s advisory opinion on “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” and on all States to respect the provisions therein.
JEREMIAH NYAMANE KINGSLEY MAMABOLO (South Africa), speaking for the African Group, said the World Court was the preeminent mechanism for the peaceful settlement of disputes at the international level. Its judgments and advisory opinions in accordance with its Statute contributed to the promotion and clarification of international law. He welcomed the confidence that States had shown in the Court’s ability to resolve their disputes, noting that the number of cases currently pending on its docket was a reflection of the esteem with which the States held the World Court. The Court continued to attract a wide range of cases, covering many areas, including cases pertaining to the demarcation of boundaries, such as the case that had been initiated by Peru versus Chile in January 2008.
It also dealt with incidental proceedings which were tending to grow in numbers, including requests for the indication of preliminary and provisional measures, such as that submitted by Timor-Leste in December 2013 in its case versus Australia, he said. In March of this year, the Court’s judgment in the case Australia versus Japan had contributed to the body of law governing the environment, particularly in respect of the Law of the Sea. The importance of advisory opinions on legal questions referred to the World Court could not be overstated in the pursuit of peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the Charter. It was therefore disappointing that during the period under review, no requests for advisory opinions had been made.
GILES NORMAN (Canada) also speaking for Australia and New Zealand, welcomed Member States’ willingness to turn to the World Court for peaceful settlement of their disputes and encouraged those who had not done so to accept its compulsory jurisdiction. That would enable it to fulfil its role more effectively, reducing jurisdictional disputes and allowing it to focus more on the substance of disputes.
He went on to unreservedly endorse the candidature of James Crawford for one of the two judicial vacancies of the Western European and other States Group that would be filled through a vote on 6 November. Urging support for that candidacy, he pointed out that Mr. Crawford had been the recipient of 27 nominations from the national groups of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, an indication of the esteem he held among the international legal fraternity.
VALENTIN ZELLWEGER (Switzerland) said that to encourage more Member States to recognize the World Court’s jurisdiction, his country, along with the Netherlands and the Secretariat, and other countries, had drawn up a practical guide underlining the Court’s benefits. Recently completed, it had been sent to all permanent missions in New York this week. An electronic version would soon be available in English, French and Spanish on the website of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (www.fdfa.ch) and, in 2015, a brochure would be available in other United Nations languages. Member States had three options to recognize the Court’s jurisdiction, fully explained in the brochure. They were: unilaterally accepting its jurisdiction; accepting its jurisdiction by treaty; or referring a dispute to the Court by compromise.
MANUEL DE JESÚS PÍREZ PÉREZ (Cuba), associating his delegation with the Non‑Aligned Movement, underscored his country’s commitment to the peaceful settlement of international disputes. In that regard, he recognized the work of the International Court of Justice for its work on the cases before it and its efforts towards the development of international law. Those cases were testament to the peaceful settlement of disputes. However, he noted with regret that there had been one decision involving a violation of the Charter, emphasizing that Members were required to abide by the Court’s decisions. Thus, there was concern that the effectiveness of the Court’s decisions could be criticized when some countries flouted them. Reform was needed to develop more guarantees for developing countries in enforcing the Court judgements. His Government gave great importance to the Court’s opinions, including its 1996 one on the threat of nuclear weapons in which the Court saw a need to conclude negotiations with strict international monitoring. He called for the necessary budget for the International Court of Justice and for the timely provision of resources.
SIMONA MIRELA MICULESCU (Romania) observed that the World Court’s decisions in the maritime dispute between Chile and Peru had been made after a painstakingly detailed analysis of agreements and other instruments. The current docket bore witness to the increased trust of the States in the Court, and her country had taken steps towards joining the ranks of countries accepting its compulsory jurisdiction. A public debate held in Romania last year on the topic showed support for the initiative among Romanian authorities, international law experts and the public. A draft law on filing a declaration accepting the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction was approved by the Chamber of Deputies in the Romanian Parliament and was now before the Senate for examination.
IDREES MOHAMMED ALI MOHAMMED SAEED (Sudan), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, expressed his Government’s appreciation for the role played by the International Court of Justice. Its role and great number of activities required Member States to provide political support and enough funds so it could perform its duties. The large number of trials or conflicts showed that there was growing confidence in the World Court and in its ability to resolve disputes. He urged the Court to pursue measures that would strengthen its capacity to deal with a higher number of cases, so as to be able to come to a decision quickly. States that had not yet recognized the Court’s jurisdiction should look favourably on that. Noting that the Security Council had not asked any advisory opinions since 1970, the Council should use the Court as a source of opinions regarding the interpretation of international law.
EDUARDO JOSE ATIENZA DE VEGA (Philippines), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, said the World Court, as the United Nations principal judicial organ, resolved disputes which could not otherwise be resolved by or through the Organization’s political organs. Beginning with the Corfu Channel case in 1947 until the adoption in 1982 of the Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes — a span of 35 years — the International Court of Justice had disposed of 49 contentious cases. Since 1982, however, its case load had increased, disposing of over 80 contentious cases in a comparably lesser period of 32 years. In the period under review, it had been seized of seven new contentious cases, bringing its docket to 13 cases. The sovereign parties to those cases came from all over the world, half of them from Latin America. If there was anything that the Charter, together with the Statute, jurisprudence and experience of the World Court taught Member States, it was that “small nations”, if their cause was just, should have no fear of the “big Powers” because it was through the work of the Court that the rule of law had a chance to prevail.
ALBERTO DIENER SALA (Mexico) expressing his deep gratitude for the International Court of Justice, said its intensive work in the last year was testament to its importance. Of the 17 cases heard, eight involved States in Latin America and the Caribbean. One was resolved, and one was withdrawn. That was testament to his region’s commitment to the Court in its settlement of disputes. The World Court served as the primary source for opinions in international law. States repeatedly had resorted to alternatives available under the Statute, and the Court’s determination was critical to prevent new disputes. That was clear, judging by the many cases that had been decided in the Court in the past year. He called on the General Assembly to continue provide the International Court of Justice with the proper resources to continue its work and to fund the celebration of its anniversary.
VIRACHAI PLASAI (Thailand) said this year’s report concerned a case to which Thailand was a party, namely the case, Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, or “Phra Viharn” as it was known in the Thai language. The judgment, which was considered to be based on well-grounded reasoning, had helped clarify several points of law which were useful. The Temple interpretation case remained an important issue in Thailand, and during oral proceedings and the reading of the Judgment last year, the Thai public had followed the World Court’s proceedings through live broadcast from The Hague, with simultaneous interpretation into the Thai language. The role of the World Court as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations had become better understood in his country, and it was his Government’s hope that the Judgment would contribute to good neighbourliness between Thailand and Cambodia.
FRANÇOIS ALABRUNE (France) underscored that all judgments of the Court were binding by the authority. However, compliance and implementation by the States also had to do with the quality of the Court. In the case involving Cambodia and Thailand on the Temple of the Preah Vihear, the Judgement should help in the smoothing over of the dispute over their common boundary. In addition, maritime disputes had taken on growing importance in the Court, such as those between Peru and Chile, and between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, as well as the case recently filed by Somalia against Kenya regarding the Indian Ocean. Diverse subject matters before the Court included four cases on the obligation to negotiate, such as Bolivia and Chile on Pacific Ocean access. The obligation to negotiate was one of the cornerstones of international law. Regarding Article 38, paragraph 5, the procedures were once again being utilized by States, with 12 Orders and three Judgements. The unique remedy to the World Court showed the quality of the underlying foundation of its judgements and the balance of its solutions.
NEERU CHADHA (India) said that the judgements delivered by the International Court of Justice had played an important role in the interpretation and clarification of the rules of international law, as well as in the progressive development and codification of international law. She emphasized that the acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction of the Court was a means to secure and promote peaceful settlement of disputes. Therefore, the filing of cases that sought universal objectives in complete disregard of the premise of Article 36(2) and Article 59 raised very serious issues for States that had accepted its compulsory jurisdiction. Noting that the total number of contentious cases before the World Court stood at 13, she also pointed out that the Court’s second function, of providing advisory opinion on legal questions, further added to its important role in clarifying key international legal issues.
GUSTAVO MEZA-CUADRA (Peru) encouraged those who had not recognized the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to do so and expressed gratitude for the intense work carried out by its Registry. The constant high volume of work at the World Court was a testament to the prestige it enjoyed. The settlement of the maritime border dispute with Chile, which had been handed down this year, had been the quickest in the history of the Court, as both parties pinpointed the geographic coordinates of the maritime border. That work had been done within two months of the ruling. The manner in which the proceedings were conducted should serve as an example for the international community.
MOTOHIDE YOSHIKAWA (Japan) said that international law provided parties concerned with a common language. There were mounting expectations across the globe for international law to serve as a device to disentangle the tensions of heated controversies. Cases referred to the World Court involved a wide variety of subject matters, including territorial and maritime disputes, and violations related to international humanitarian and human rights law, among other issues. The Court had delivered its judgment this year in the case concerning Whaling in the Antarctic. Although the decision that Japan’s whaling research programme did not fall within the relevant article of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling had been disappointing, his Government was abiding by the Court’s Judgment.
Ms. ARGUELLO (Nicaragua), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) said his country was a party in 5 of the 13 cases registered in the General Registry of the International Court of Justice. In all cases, Nicaragua had faithfully fulfilled its obligations, and he expected reciprocity in the fulfilment of the obligation to abide by the Court’s rulings. In recognition of the obligatory jurisdiction of the World Court, he welcomed the joining of States each year, but regretted that the number of those States at 70 was little in comparison to the number of Member States. The celebration of the seventieth anniversary of the World Court scheduled for April 2016 would provide a unique opportunity for more States to make their statements in accordance with the Statute or withdraw their reservations. It was clear that the increasing workload of the Court would imply the necessity to adjust its financial and human resources.
RICHARD NDUHUURA (Uganda), addressing the issues raised in the report regarding “Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda)”, said that his country had a standing negotiating team seized with the matter and was continuing to report to the International Court of Justice on the status of those talks. He also welcomed the improvements which had resulted in the efficient handling of matters before the Court, noting that the delivery of justice needed to be timely, “because justice delayed is justice denied”. As a result of that engagement, his country was living at peace with the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Furthermore, the countries had collaborated on various matters of mutual interest, such as security and trade.
TIWATOPE ADELEYE ELIAS-FATILE (Nigeria), associating himself with the African Group, said that he considered the International Court of Justice the pre‑eminent mechanism for a peaceful settlement of disputes among States. However, it was cause for concern that out of 193 United Nations Member States which were parties to the Statute of the Court, only 70 had made declarations recognizing its jurisdiction as compulsory. Furthermore, the Court’s budget should be commensurate to its needs and obligations, supporting its independence to render vital services to the international community. In that context, he noted with appreciation that most of the Court’s budgetary requests had been accepted by the United Nations, thus enabling it to carry out its mission unhindered.
CLAUDIO TRONCOSO (Chile) reiterated the principle that the Pact of Bogota had been negotiated in the belief that it may not be applied to matters already settled by arrangement between parties or by arbitral award or to those which were governed by agreements or treaties. He recalled the statement by his delegation after the International Court of Justice delivered its Judgement on 27 January of this year regarding the maritime dispute between Peru and Chile. His country abided by the Judgement, highlighting those aspects that would require work by the parties to ensure full enforcement. The two Governments had announced that they would jointly be submitting a map detailing the geographic coordinates of the points on the maritime boundaries to the United Nations. Regulatory changes were also being made to ensure more effective application of the Law of the Sea in accordance with the spirit and meaning of the Court’s Judgement. In regards to a recent request on sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean submitted by Bolivia to the World Court, Chile had raised preliminary objections to the competence of the Court in that case. He asked again that the Court provide Spanish versions of its judgements.
GONZALO KONCKE (Uruguay) said that the report of the World Court highlighted the important work that had been done this year, underscoring that it was the main judicial body of the United Nations system. His country had been among the very first countries to accept the jurisdiction of the Court, as early as 1921 when the Court’s predecessor was created in the framework of the League of Nations. Its work was valuable in avoiding conflicts and wars which had generally been settled by force before it come into existence. He voiced hope that more States would accept the jurisdiction of the World Court to settle their disputes.
CAROL HAMILTON (United States) said she was struck at how active the International Court of Justice had been in the past year. There were 13 cases on the Court’s list covering a wide range of issues. The cases were growing in legal complexity, and she noted the care the Court was taking to fact-finding, which should increase confidence in its workings. She expressed hope that the World Court would continue to receive resources as well as continue its outreach to key sectors of society to help increase the understanding of its work. The recordings covering the Court were available live and on-demand on the United Nations Web TV. That had helped promote an understanding of international law.
OMAR HILALE (Morocco), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, said that States bi- and even trilaterally bringing cases to the International Court of Justice showed that they had trust in it. As for advisory opinions, the Security Council, the General Assembly and other United Nations organs were empowered to request them. Many conflicts had been solved because the parties had suggested sending the disputes to the World Court. The Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda had had a dispute; when told that, if the parties could not agree on a remedy, reparations would be settled by the Court, the parties held negotiations so as to avoid that. The World Court encouraged negotiations and offered parties an opportunity to settle disputes themselves. The World Court also helped strengthen international law and made contributions to the rule of law for the sake of peace, complementing the work of the Security Council.
ZINA ANDRIANARIVELO-RAZAFY (Madagascar), associating with the Africa Group, said the International Criminal Court, as the judicial body of the United Nations, was an integral part of the Organization. Its mandate and its universal nature made it the strategic mechanism to settle disputes peacefully, and its growing volume of cases demonstrated the States’ confidence in its body. Improved access to justice was essential in the links of law and the United Nations system. The Court’s broad jurisdiction extended to all affairs, and it gave Member States an effective instrument to settle their differences. There were 70 Member States, including Madagascar, who recognized its jurisdiction, and he called on those States that had not done so to take steps in that direction. The various initiatives that the Court took during visits of dignitaries, as well as other efforts to educate the world in the area of its workings and international law, were commendable. He voiced support of the Court’s financing for its seventieth anniversary and was pleased at the prospect of celebrating the prestigious institution.
EVGENY T. ZAGAYNOV (Russian Federation) voiced appreciation for the work of the World Court as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. The report showed that States had a high degree of trust in the Court. For years now, the Court had been extremely busy, and its subjects were varied, deciding on all sorts of issues. Its full agenda had not affected the quality of its work. Everything the World Court did was designed to encourage the rule of law. Events to commemorate the seventieth anniversary of the World Court should be high on the agenda for next year, and the General Assembly should carefully respond to the concerns voiced by its President on material support for the Court and its judges.
JUAN CARLOS MENDOZA-GARCÍA (Costa Rica), thanking the World Court’s President for his report, noted that the period covered had been very intense. The peaceful settlement of international disputes was an essential purpose of the United Nations; therefore, the role of the Court was crucial, as was the support of the Member States for it to carry out its tasks. Most of the requests for its budget had been accepted. He encouraged consideration of adding the Spanish language as an official language of the World Court. He also noted that States should abide by the Court’s decisions, complying in full and good faith, and to consolidate the Court’s uncontested role in assuring peace. Though 193 countries were parties to the Court, only 70 had made statements to the Court. Since 1973, Costa Rica had accepted the Court’s jurisdiction. Over the years, the number of States that recognized the Court had not increased. He respectfully invited the Member States that had not done so, to do so.
MOHAMED SALAH EDDINE BELAID (Algeria) remarked that the work of the International Court of Justice had grown significantly through the years and had been entrusted to resolve many contentious cases from all over the world. He reiterated Algeria’s full support for the Court’s key role in ensuring the implementation of the provisions of international law, adjudicating disputes between States and providing advisory opinions. All States, without exception, should abide by their legal obligations and comply with the decisions of the World Court in cases to which they were party. It was also important for the United Nations, particularly the Security Council, to request advisory opinions from the Court. The high moral and legal value of its advisory opinions would promote both the international peace and security and the rule of law.
SACHA SERGIO LLORENTTY SOLÍZ (Bolivia) said that, as a pacifist State, his Government adhered to the World Court’s principles, as the Court was one of best pathways for peaceful settlement of disputes. International law was the basis of the Court, which was why his Government expressed compliance with its decisions. It was equally important to highlight the need for budgetary resources for the World Court to function and for provisions to be made in a timely way. He reaffirmed Bolivia’s peaceful adherence to the Charter’s provisions.
SHEILA SEALY MONTEITH (Jamaica) said that the variety of issues presented before the International Court of Justice had grown in complexity over the years. During this judicial year alone, the World Court had been presented with issues including delimitation and border dispute matters, violations of sovereign rights, and genocide, matters concerning road construction, and seizure and detention of certain documents and data, as well as aerial herbicide spraying. Six out of the 13 cases dealt with in the past year related to territorial disputes within the Caribbean and Latin American region. Commending the World Court for its use of various media in publicizing its work, she added that the decisions and opinions delivered were far-reaching in effect and significantly impacted the daily lives of ordinary men and women.
HUSSEIN HANIFF (Malaysia), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, noted his own country’s recourse to the International Court of Justice to settle disputes with its neighbours. He encouraged the organs of the United Nations to take advantage of the Court’s advisory opinions, as contentious political issues benefitted from an authoritative legal opinion. The Court’s 1996 opinion that the threat or use of nuclear weapons was contrary to the rules of international law was a milestone in international efforts aimed at nuclear disarmament. Since that opinion had been issued, Malaysia had tabled a resolution on its follow-up each year. Marking the tenth anniversary of the Court’s advisory opinion on the “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”, he reaffirmed its conclusion that Israel could not rely on a right of self-defence or on State necessity to preclude the wrongfulness of that construction, which was contrary to international law.
RY TUY (Cambodia) recalled the 2013 World Court Judgement regarding interpretation of the Temple of Preah Vihear case. The Court had declared that Cambodia had sovereignty over the whole territory of the promontory of the Preah Vihear and that Thailand was under obligation to withdraw its military forces. That was an important step forward for his country to find a peaceful resolution to the dispute with Thailand. He reiterated the statement of Cambodia’s Prime Minister then who said that, regardless of the outcome of the International Court of Justice, the two countries would abide by the decision and maintain friendship between them and their people. Both sides had agreed to further discuss within the competent mechanisms, the implementation of the World Court’s Judgement. Furthermore, the two Governments had committed to pay special attention to avoid any act that would affect the movement of people on both sides, commercial exchange, investment, transport and other areas of cooperation.
MARTIN NEY (Germany) said the existence of the International Court of Justice and its success was the very antithesis of the idea, “might is right”. His country had been an ardent supporter of the Court for a long time. The recent international conference of the World Court was an example of its importance, as it brought together its President, two other judges, four previous judges and leading experts. One of the issues discussed concerned consent-limited jurisdiction and its impact on the ability to contribute to a sustainable settlement. In some cases, the Court’s jurisdiction could be derived only from a specific international instrument covering a very specific subject, such as jurisdiction under the Genocide Convention. Hence, other international legal aspects underlying a genocide case would remain a priori outside of the World Court’s jurisdiction, resulting in a somewhat lopsided coverage of the legal ground. The best way to prevent that was to accept the general jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36, paragraph 2. Germany had done so in 2008. An increase in such declarations would further enable the Court to enhance its function in peaceful dispute resolution.
International Criminal Court
SANG-HYUN SONG, President of the International Criminal Court, said that the international community had reached many milestones over the last 12 months. There were six cases at the trial stage of proceedings at the Criminal Court; Ukraine had become the second non-State party to lodge a declaration accepting its jurisdiction; and another seven States parties had ratified the amendments to the Rome Statute on the crime of aggression. In addition, six States parties had ratified the amendments which made the use of chemical weapons in non-international conflicts a war crime punishable by the Criminal Court.
Giving a brief overview of the situations in which the Criminal Court was involved, he noted that it was a court of last resort, and that domestic courts had jurisdictional primacy. He reviewed the status of cases from a number of countries, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic, Uganda, Darfur in Sudan, Kenya, Libya, Côte d’Ivoire, and Mali. On Côte d’Ivoire, the Pre-Trial Chamber I had confirmed four charges against Laurent Gbagbo, and the trial date would be set in due course. In the case of Simone Gbagbo, an admissibility challenge filed by the Government of Côte d’Ivoire was pending.
As peace and justice went hand in hand, so must the United Nations and the Criminal Court, he went on to say. The partnership was indispensable for a strong international community and the protection of the interests of humanity as a whole. It was a great strength of the Criminal Court that its judicial bench was rejuvenated with six new judges every three years, guaranteeing a balance of continuity and fresh energy. The Criminal Court was an institution in constant movement; it had to be if the international community wished to respond effectively to the ever-changing challenges facing it.
The Rome Statute was only as strong as States made it, he stressed. Speaking directly to delegations, he said that they had the key to unlocking the Criminal Court’s full potential. The Criminal Court had no enforcement powers of its own. As President of the Criminal Court, he had reached out to many States not yet party to encourage them to join the Rome Statute, underlining the principle of non-retroactivity.
That meant that joining the Criminal Court was an insurance policy for a safer future, not a method for settling old scores, he said. It was only through steadily building global support for the Rome Statute system that universality would be achieved, with no hiding place for the perpetrators of international crimes. In that context, it was of great concern that requests for arrest and surrender issued by the Criminal Court remained outstanding for 13 persons.
Looking back on the creation of the Criminal Court’s creation, he reminisced that, at the time, he had wondered if the international community would be able to turn the Criminal Court from a court on paper to an active judicial institution, and whether it would be able to have an impact. It was his dream to see the entire world united in a strong system of international criminal justice that would, above all, help the international community prevent the worst crimes from happening altogether.
GILLES MARHIC (European Union) said that with 21 cases in eight situations at different stages of the proceedings, and a further 10 situations under preliminary examinations, the International Criminal Court was facing an increasing workload. Although no new State had ratified the Rome Statue or the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Court during the reporting period, eight States had ratified the amendments on the crime of aggression, and nine States had ratified amendments on certain crimes in non-international armed conflicts. Furthermore, he welcomed that Ukraine, a non-State party, had accepted the jurisdiction of the Court through a declaration in April of this year on alleged crimes committed on its territory from 21 November 2013 to 22 February 2014.
The universality of the Rome Statute was essential for ensuring accountability for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, he said. Since 2003, the European Union had provided more than €30 million to global ratification campaigns undertaken by the civil society and to the Court’s projects. Complementarity was a core principle in the Rome Statue; to make it operational, all States parties must prepare and adopt effective national legislation to implement the Statute in their national systems. Cooperation with the Court and the enforcement of its decisions were equally essential for the Court to carry out its mandate. In that context, he was concerned that arrest warrants issued by the Court remained outstanding.
EDEN CHARLES (Trinidad and Tobago), speaking for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), expressed support for the mandate of the International Criminal Court, noting that his country’s late Prime Minister and President had pioneered work leading to adoption of the Rome Statute establishing the Criminal Court. He called for the Organization to meet the costs associated with referrals by the Security Council, consistent with provisions of the Rome Statute and the Relationship Agreement between the Court and the Organization. He further welcomed the Court’s policy on sexual and gender-based violence, the first such document issued by an international court or tribunal. Pointing out the Criminal Court’s democratic traditions, he urged States parties to vote only for candidates in the upcoming election of judges who met the criteria under article 36 of the Rome Statute and who would enhance the Court’s credibility.
Welcoming the verdict against and subsequent sentencing of Germain Katanga this spring for war crimes and crimes against humanity, he reminded those who failed to honour their legally binding obligations to execute arrest warrants issued by the Court, and arrest and surrender individuals who continued to evade justice, that they were contributing to a culture of impunity and undermining the rule of law. Noting that cooperation with the Criminal Court was needed from all Member States of the United Nations, he underscored that the Court’s jurisdiction was only invoked when States were unable or unwilling to prosecute individuals accused of the most severe crimes. No individual or State should fear the Criminal Court as it was a court of last resort. He also called on all States parties to the Rome Statute to ratify the Kampala amendments.
ANDERS RÖNQUIST (Sweden), speaking also for Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway, said that the Court had become the most important international actor in efforts to fight impunity and in the development of international criminal law. As victims were a key issue, particularly those subjected to sexual and gender‑based crimes, he encouraged States and other actors to contribute to the International Criminal Court Trust Fund for Victims, as the Nordic countries continued to do, in order to provide those persons access to their right to reparation. As the Criminal Court was complementary to national criminal jurisdictions, “ideally, it should have no cases”, he said. However, many States lacked the resources to conduct such criminal proceedings on such complex and large scale crimes. Thus, it was important to build capacity in States parties.
He emphasized the importance of the upcoming judicial elections and of the need to increase resources for the increased workload of the Court. The high number of outstanding arrest warrants was of concern and there needed to be better cooperation with the Court, including the Prosecutor’s Office. He also called for States to fully comply with Security Council resolution 1593(2005) concerning the situation in Darfur and the Government of Sudan and other parties to cooperate with the Court and the Prosecutor. Enhanced support was needed from the Security Council in cases of non-cooperation with the Criminal Court as well as better follow-up on the cases it referred. It was a matter of priority for all States parties and non-States parties to ratify and observe the Court’s Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities. Welcoming the Court’s intention to increase its presence in the field, he said it required sufficient resources for effective outreach.
HAHN CHOONGHEE (Republic of Korea) reiterated his highest appreciation for the long service of International Criminal Court Judge Sang-Hyun Song who would be retiring next year, who had served in the Court as a judge since 2003 and as President since 2009. He also expressed his condolences for the recent passing of Judge Hans-Peter Kaul of Germany. The Court had demonstrated notable achievements in eight situations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic, Kenya, Cote d’Ivoire, Sudan, Libya and Mali. He welcomed progress in the case of Laurent Gbagbo and noted that the caseload of the Chambers and the Office of the Prosecutor had increased significantly. The Criminal Court had completed its first final judgement and sentence in the conviction of Germain Katanga, sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment. The Appeals Chamber had also been performing its essential function of judicial supervision. However, much needed to be done, and he urged the Criminal Court and the United Nations to strengthen their relationship further.
Mr. ELIAS-FATILE (Nigeria) welcomed the International Criminal Court’s fight against impunity and its trailblazing contributions in developing international law. The objective of the Court was based on the idea that everyone should be held accountable for their actions. He commended Uhuru Kenyatta, President of Kenya, who appeared at The Hague this October as a private citizen. However, he was concerned that, despite having failed to establish a case against President Kenyatta, the Court had not dismissed the case against him. He called on the Court to show more respect for African leaders and to engage with the African Union and African States on a mutual and respectful basis. Thirty-four of the 122 States Parties to the Rome Statute were African States and should not be alienated. His country was faithfully committed to the ideals of the Criminal Court.
MACHARIA KAMAU (Kenya) said it was “truly depressing to imagine” that the International Criminal Court would stand before Member States and say, in its tenth and most recent report, that it had finalized just one judgement and rendered representation for only 8,040 victims in the past decade. Something radical had to be urgently done if the Criminal Court was to survive long-term as a viable and credible international institution. He also said he was deeply concerned by the current interpretation and implementation of the Rome Statute, which could be the Court’s undoing and was counterproductive and antagonistic to the Statue’s ideals. One of the Court’s first actions was to “unshackle itself from a pernicious group of countries” that had hijacked its operational mandate and created a distorted institution that sought to represent the moral, ethical and, most disturbingly, political values of “this group of countries”, he said. The Criminal Court was created as an international institution meant to work for all signatory Member States, irrespective of size, wealth or political dispensation. Yet the Court seemed more interested in quasi-judicial theatre that was not pursuing justice or the fight against impunity. It seemed to be driven by the parochial issues and political objectives of a small group of Member States.
Right of Reply
In exercise of the right of reply, a representative of Sudan responded the statement made by Sweden, also speaking for Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway, which asked that the Government of Sudan cooperate with the International Criminal Court. He underscored that those countries had imposed themselves as speakers on behalf of the Criminal Court, thinking they would implement criminal justice. They should focus on their own internal issues and not on what had to do with Africa. Silence was predominant by those countries, because they violated international justice and they were above international law. Sudan was not a party to the Rome Statue and not concerned with the judgements of the Criminal Court. The practice of the Court had nothing to do with justice. Rather, it had become a tool of international conflict. The representation of the Court in the Security Council reflected double standards. The resolution by the Security Council referred a country to Court was the same resolution that exempted other citizens from reaching the Criminal Court. The International Criminal Court was not international; it only targeted the leaders and countries of Africa. That was Africa’s experience with the Court until now. Systems to combat impunity were already established in domestic systems and that principle was implemented without double standard.