
Crimes within the Court's Jurisdiction
| The crime of genocide | Crimes against humanity |
| The crime of aggression | Crimes against United Nations and associated personnel |
| War crimes | Other categories of crimes |
At the heart of the effort to establish the first permanent international criminal court in history is the question of the scope of the Court's jurisdiction. What crimes will be covered? And how will they be defined?
The draft statute contains two provisions concerning the Court's jurisdiction upon which there is broad agreement. One emphasizes that the Court is intended to have jurisdiction over only "the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole". The second emphasizes that the Court is intended to be complementary to national criminal justice systems, i.e., the Court would exercise its jurisdiction only in cases where States do not exercise their national jurisdiction, because they are unable or unwilling to do so. This is referred to as the principle of complementarity. The principle is of great importance, because most countries would like to ensure that their own jurisdiction will not be superceded unnecessarily.
Many reasons have been put forward for restricting the Court's jurisdiction to only "the most serious crimes" of concern to the international community. Such reasons include the need to strengthen universal acceptance of the Court, which would pave the way for early ratification of the statute and establishment of the Court, and to avoid overburdening the Court and trivializing its role and function.
The crime of genocide
Support for the inclusion of the crime of genocide is virtually universal. Establishing an
international criminal court where such crimes could be tried is felt by many to be an important
reason for establishing the Court. Punishing the crime of genocide has been on the agenda of the
United Nations since its formation.
Although crimes qualifying as genocide have been perpetrated since the earliest history of humankind, the term "genocide" is relatively new. It is said to combine the Greek genos, which means race or tribe, and the Latin cide, which means killing, and was coined to describe the Nazi activity in occupied Europe. Following the extermination of many Jews and members of other groups deemed undesirable by the Nazis in the Second World War, the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal recognized "persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds" as one of two categories of crimes against humanity, and established the principle of individual criminal responsibility for such crimes. As early as 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed the principles of international law recognized by the Charter and Judgment of the Nürnberg Tribunal (the Nürnberg principles). In 1948, it adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which defined genocide and proclaimed it a crime against international law, "whether committed in time of peace or in time of war". It was in the resolution adopting that Convention that the United Nations General Assembly first considered the establishment of an international criminal court. The General Assembly recognized that there would be an increasing need for an international judicial organ to try "certain crimes" under international law.
There is broad agreement to use the wording of the Genocide Convention in the draft statute for the Court. Article 5 of the draft statute has been taken directly from the Convention:
". . . Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
The crime of aggression
There is support for the inclusion of the crime of aggression in the Court's jurisdiction, and there
is opposition. Part of the debate centers on finding an acceptable definition of the crime of
aggression. While arguments to include aggression centre on its extreme gravity and
international repercussions, arguments against its inclusion centre on the lack of a sufficiently
precise definition. Another part of the debate focused on the role of the Security Council in this
regard. Pursuant to Article 39 of the UN Charter, the Security Council "shall determine" the
existence of an "act of aggression". Consequently, the issue is inseparably linked to the role of
the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security. It has been a difficult
task to find an acceptable way to reflect in a balanced manner the responsibility of the Security
Council, on the one hand, and the judicial independence of the Court, on the other.
The Nürnberg Tribunal condemned a war of aggression in the strongest terms: "To initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." It held individuals accountable for "crimes against peace", defined as the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing...." When the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed the Nürnberg principles in 1946, it affirmed the principle of individual accountability for such crimes.
Early efforts in the United Nations to create an international criminal court were set aside while the international community set out to define aggression. In 1974, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a definition of aggression. It defined aggression as necessarily being the act of a State, and described the specific actions of one State against another which constitute aggression. In its work on the draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, the United Nations International Law Commission, echoing the Nürnberg Tribunal, also concluded that individuals could be held accountable for acts of aggression. The Commission indicated the specific conduct for which individuals could be held accountable -- initiating, planning, preparing or waging aggression -- and that only those individuals in positions of leadership who order or actively participate in the acts could incur responsibility. Its definition focused on individual accountability rather than on the rule of international law which prohibits aggression by a State.
The difficulty, according to some, lies in framing a workable definition of aggression which would apply to a wide range of situations. The definition must be precise enough for individuals to know what acts are prohibited; and it must be general enough to cover a wide variety of acts which may occur in the future, and which may not yet have been conceived of. It must also describe the magnitude of the violation of the prohibition of the use of force contained in Article 2 of the UN Charter that would constitute the crime of aggression for which individuals may be held responsible and punished.
Some States are of the view that excluding aggression would leave a significant gap in the Court's jurisdiction. Another reason supporting its inclusion is also one of the strongest reasons put forward for creating the Court: to break the cycle of impunity. To hold individuals accountable for war crimes or crimes against humanity while granting impunity to the architects of the conflict in which those crimes occurred is not justifiable. Others also hope that holding individuals responsible for the crime of aggression will act as a deterrent, and that by deterring an aggressor from beginning a conflict that may lead to a conflagration, the attendant war crimes and crimes against humanity might therefore also be prevented. Some also believe that it would be retrogressive to adopt a statute that does not include the crime of aggression 50 years after Nürnberg recognized such conduct as an international crime.
Some of those seeking a way to include aggression have proposed lessening the need for a definition by allowing the determination of an act of aggression to rest with the Security Council. The argument is, if States commit aggression for which individuals can be held accountable, then the Security Council should determine whether an act of aggression has been committed by a State and the Court should determine whether an individual was responsible for that act. This proposal elicits a concern regarding Security Council involvement which is also heard in other contexts: linking the work of the Court to the Security Council may lead to politicization of the Court. Some States are concerned regarding any connection between the Security Council and the Court.
The draft statute contains two options concerning the definition of aggression. One possible definition lists the specific acts for which an individual in a position of responsibility could be held accountable for aggression. The following acts would constitute the crime of aggression under this definition: planning, preparing, ordering, initiating, or carrying out an armed attack, or the use of force, or a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties or agreements, by a State, against the territorial integrity of another State, against the provisions in the UN Charter.
A second possible definition provides a list of acts constituting aggression, which includes the following:
War crimes
The draft statute enumerates four different categories of war crimes. The first two categories
apply to international armed conflicts and are largely based on well-established principles of
international law. There is broad support for their inclusion:
A. Grave breaches of the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949
B. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflicts (largely derived from the Hague law, limiting the methods of waging war).
The third and fourth categories of war crimes apply to armed conflicts not of an international character. These categories are drawn from Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Second Additional Protocol to the four Geneva Conventions, respectively. The inclusion of these two provisions is still being debated.
C. In case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (which bars specified acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities)
D. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law (based largely on the Second Additional Protocol to the four Geneva Conventions).
A. Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions
The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 extend special protections to certain categories of persons
-- wounded and sick in armed forces in the field; wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of
armed forces at sea; POWs; and civilians during wartime. The ICC draft statute enumerates "grave breaches" as "any of the following acts against persons or property
protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
B. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflicts
As noted previously, these provisions are derived largely from the Hague law. The list is quite
extensive, and largely consists of rules of warfare recognized since the turn of the century or
before, but also takes into account more recent developments in international humanitarian law.
It enumerates as crimes such acts as:
Proposals have been made to include the following acts: the transfer by an occupying power of civilians into or out of certain territories; the use of particular weapons, such as poison or poisoned weapons, gas weapons, chemical weapons and bacteriological weapons; the use of anti-personnel mines, blinding laser weapons and nuclear weapons; and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment", or, more specifically, rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, enforced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions.
C. In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions
Article 3 which is common to all four Geneva Conventions applies specifically to armed
conflicts not of an international character. It sets out protection for those not taking an active part
in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those
placed hors de combat (out of the combat) by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause. It
enumerates four categories of prohibited acts:
D. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an
international character
This category is largely derived from the second Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions
of 1949, which specifically protects victims of non-international conflicts. In large part, this
section of the draft statute resembles the text regarding serious violations of the laws and
customs applicable in armed conflict in section B above, but applies to non-international conflict.
It would prohibit acts such as:
Proposals have been made to include provisions prohibiting using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, intentionally launching an attack knowing that such an attack would cause loss of life or injury to civilians, and slavery and the trade slave.
Crimes against humanity
The definition of crimes against humanity in article 5 of the draft statute is based on the
Nürnberg Charter and takes into account subsequent developments of international law,
particularly relating to the recent ad hoc international criminal tribunals. Proposals for the
definition of crimes against humanity include acts which would constitute such a crime when
committed in a widespread and/or systematic manner, and/or on a massive scale, and/or on
specified grounds.
The definition of crimes against humanity contained in the Nürnberg Charter included the requirement that the prohibited acts be committed in connection with crimes against peace or war crimes. A decision has yet to be made as to whether the definition of crimes against humanity contained in the Statute will also include such acts when committed in peacetime. In this regard, the Yugoslavia Tribunal stated, "It is by now a settled rule of customary international law that crimes against humanity do not require a connection to international armed conflict."
According to the draft statute, the definition of this crime would include the following prohibited acts:
In the draft statute, extermination is defined as including the infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population.
Torture may be defined as it is in the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984, which requires that the acts be committed by a public official. Or torture may be defined as the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, but excluding pain and suffering arising only from lawful sanctions.
The increasing number of forced disappearances of persons throughout the world prompted the United Nations General Assembly to adopt, in 1992, the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Under the Declaration, the term enforced disappearance also covers situations when persons are arrested, detained or abducted against their will by or with the approval of a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that abduction has taken place and the denial of information on the fate of those abducted, thereby placing them outside the protection of the law.
Crimes against United Nations and associated personnel
Concern for the safety of United Nations and associated personnel has escalated since the early
1990s, as peacekeepers, humanitarian workers and civilian staff of the United Nations and its
agencies increasingly face threats and are targeted for kidnapping or murder.
On 9 December 1994, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, which sets out the respective rights and duties of States parties, and of United Nations and associated personnel, and affirms individual criminal responsibility for attacks against such personnel. The Convention itself does not, however, provide any protection or guarantee that perpetrators will be brought to justice. There is, therefore, a need to include crimes against United Nations and associated personnel in the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
Other categories of crimes
Terrorism
In the draft statute, the crime of terrorism is defined in three paragraphs:
Crimes involving the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances
Some countries are interested in including the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances, for particularly serious offences. The consequences of such drug trafficking for the
world population are quite serious. The proposed definition of these crimes contained in the draft
statute is largely drawn from the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 19 December 1988.
These crimes will be further discussed at the Rome Conference.
For more information, please contact:
Development and Human Rights Section
Department of Public Information
Room S-1040
United Nations
New York, NY 10017
Tel.: (212) 963-0499 or 963-1786
Fax: (212) 963-1186
E-mail: mcguffie@un.org or vasic@un.org
Prepared by the United Nations Department of Public Information
May 1998