Mr Lloyd:   I am very pleased to be here today with you.  I believe that this is a genuinely historic occasion.  The nations of the world are gathered to undertake the final process, the final stage of negotiation on the establishment of a major new body, one that fills a very important gap in the existing array of international institutions.  The UK is a very strong supporter of the creation of an effective international criminal court for trying crimes of the most serious nature.  Atrocities sadly continue to be committed.  The international community has responded to two of the worst cases, namely the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, by setting up ad hoc tribunals, but there is clearly a need for an institution that is able to act when heinous crimes are committed.  The UK has been one of the most active proponents of the court.  It forms a key part of the British Government’s ethical foreign policy and the UK has tabled a number of papers in the preparatory committees, published a policy statement in February which gave a clear lead to others in formulating their position.  It has also contributed to the United Nations Trust Fund for least developed countries and to the coalition of an international criminal court to enable those who might not have been able to participate to put their views across.  There are three main reasons for wanting the court.  Firstly, it will ensure that justice is done.  If the principles of international humanitarian law are to be upheld effectively, we must ensure that those who commit the most serious crimes cannot do so with impunity.  Secondly, it will act as a deterrent;  at least some of those tempted to commit atrocities in future will think twice before doing so.  Thirdly, it will help to bring about reconciliation.   The knowledge that those who have committed atrocities are being brought to justice, may help some of those who have suffered at the hands to put the past behind them.  The UK supports a court which is fully effective with some basic safeguards to ensure that this operates efficiently and properly.  It should reinforce, not redefine existing arrangements for maintaining international peace and security.  It must have sensible limits to its jurisdiction, focused on the crimes of greatest international concern, namely war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.  These should include war crimes committed in internal conflicts in passing increasingly the pattern of modern conflict.  Appropriate gender related crimes and recruitment of children into armed groups.  The UK also supports the inclusion of digression in cases where the Security Council is determined that digression has taken place and subject, of course, to a satisfactory definition being promulgated at this conference.  The court is not intended to substitute the national level systems, it should have jurisdiction only where national systems are unable, or unwilling to investigate such crimes and to bring a prosecution if that appears necessary.  It is not intended to allow states to avoid holding politically embarrassing or financially costly trials at home.  It must however have the powers and needs to be effective.  Those who are dear to the court should not be allowed to pick and choose which crimes to accept, nor to pick and choose which prosecutions may proceed and when to cooperate or not.  Nor should it be possible for state parties acting in bad faith to resist requests for disclosure of information on manifestly ill-founded national security grounds.  The UK is committed to a successful conclusion to this diplomatic conference and will do its utmost to secure this during these negotiations.  Thank you very much and now open to questions from the floor.
 

TAGESZEITING, BERLIN, AND BBC GERMAN SERVICE: Amnesty International released a statement last night in which they described the UK still as being part of the group of the P5, some were trying to subordinate this ICC UNDER the Security Council.  I was surprised to read that.  Could you please clarify what the UK’s position on this is and how much it differs from the other P4?

MR LLOYD:  Well I must tell you, I am also a little surprised to be so described.  But there is no doubt that Britain, as the only member of the Security Council which is part of the like-minded group has, I think, a very differentiated position to others and within those, I think I am tempted to say, ridiculous as a charge, but it is also perhaps inevitable in the heightened circumstances in the lead up to a conference of this kind, that the focus shifts on to, not necessarily unimportant, but narrow points, rather than the broad picture.  One of the things that is certain, is that the United Kingdom does see a role for the Security Council and we can see that I think in two particular areas and this increasingly, in any case is getting support from the international community, including the NGOs.  The first case where the Security Council I think has a legitimate role is in the event, for example, of conflicts where the Security Council may ask the prosecution be stayed, not cease permanently, but that there is a stay upon prosecution in order to allow warring parties to move towards a peace process.  Quite frankly the threat to a competent acceptance of a cease fire would lead immediately to prosecution is not something that to bring people to the negotiating table.  So there is I think a realistically and legitimate role for the Security Council there.  Of course, maybe even more importantly, in the history of Rwanda and the history of the Former Yugoslavia as a strong testimony of this, is where there is a need for Security Council under Chapter 7 to refer a non-state party of a country not bound but by the procedures of the international criminal court and to arraign the activities of the nationals of that country before the international criminal court. Not is that not simply something that Britain would apologise to supporting, we are very determined that that is a minimum condition of the international criminal court.  It is necessary that the Security Council has precisely that power.

JOSHUA ROSENBERG, BBC NEWS:  As you say, the United Kingdom does not share the position of other countries in the Security Council like the United States.  You say that you want the Court to be fully effective, some of the NGOs have said that the United States’ position would not make the Court fully effective.  How much pressure is the United Kingdom and indeed the European Union going to put on other countries here, particularly members of the Security Council over the next five weeks in order to get a court which the United Kingdom considers would be fully effective?

MR LLOYD:  Well I think from our point of view our first objective clearly is to work with like-minded nations, nations who have similar views on the individual issues and on the collective process in establishing the court to establish a framework for a court which is both effective and efficient.  The two aren’t quite the same things effective in a judicial sense and efficient in terms of delivery of that process.  There are of course still areas that, as you will know, that have to be taken forward during this process.  I don’t think I would want Britain to be put in the position of being the chief advocate against any other individual nation.  Clearly, what we are building here is a coalition and as, with all these things, we do recognise that there is an awful lot of negotiation, an awful lot of persuasion still needed to make sure that the coalition that finally emerges is one that gives the type of accord that Britain wants.  There is an interesting array of those who think roughly like the United Kingdom does, and there is an interesting array of those who don't and we have to bring those together.

SIR FRANKLIN BERMAN, CHIEF LEGAL ADVISER, FCO: Minister, could I simply add to that, that the previous question referred to a group, a P5 group. Britain is a member of a large number of groups of this conference and particularly still carries the Presidency of the European Union.  I think that our membership of a whole series of groups of different kinds and sizes puts us in a uniquely strong position to influence others, including those whose positions are rather more backward than ours.  In so far as speculating about the position of other delegations is concerned, as in Mr Rosenberg’s question, the conference is just beginning, we don’t know what the position of states is going to be until they announce before the conference what their positions are.  We would hope very much for a gradual move towards the middle.

PHILLIS DENNIS, PACIFIC RADIO:  You have indicated that the goal is to move more forces together into a coalition arrangement.  If those efforts fail, is Britain prepared to be the only one of the permanent members of the Security Council to sign on to an effort to create an international criminal court and what would be your assessment of the potential of such a court if the United States in particular opposed it?

MR LLOYD:  Well, it still is a hypothetical situation as Franklin Berman said, we are at the beginning, not the end of this process, and whilst there is an inevitable tendency to want to disinvent the next five weeks, they are going to be quite important in establishing what does come out of this.  But what I would say to you is this, is of course Britain’s decision to sign up to the final process depends for us clearly on what comes out of this, that must be the case.  But it certainly wouldn’t be the situation that the failure of other permanent members of the Security Council to sign up would prevent us from signing.  That, again, must be the case.  If we get the court that is acceptable, the court that we want, then Britain would sign up to that process.  And indeed, if it is the right court, with enthusiasm.  Now within those terms, we would regret any other country not signing up to a viable and acceptable court and that would apply whether it be the United States or elsewhere.  What I would say is this:  that we very much hope that the United States will come on board, that is the first thing.  The United States itself has a considerable amount to gain.  I must point out that the US as permanent member of the Security Council was active in the decision to refer the situation in both Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia to ad hoc tribunals so it is clear that the US itself in the past has benefited from those situations where the establishment of a court would move the whole world forward.  Within that though, what I would say finally is that if the United States were to come to a conclusion at the end of this that it wasn’t going to sign immediately, that is not an answer for ever and we would always work to try to make sure that our very good friend in these terms, the United States, were persuadable to move its own agenda forward to accept that court.  But we still have five weeks to go, we still have a lot to play for, we want a court that both the United States and the rest of the world will accept as valid and a worthwhile step towards progress.

EXPRESS SERVICE:  Obviously you would like as many nations as possible to sign on, but does Britain currently have any sort of target for the minimum number of nations that would be needed to sign on for the court to be an effective body?

MR LLOYD:  The British Foreign Secretary in fact has said publicly that the kind of figure that we have looked for is somewhere around about 50, but of course there is a process again that will begin to develop during the course of the conference, it will become obvious I think during the negotiating process as to which countries are likely to be the early signers.  I think experience generally with these things, and I say this is second-hand wisdom which I  pass on to you, but nevertheless is that normally during this process, there is a  movement of those who want to make sure that they are taken on board.  So we are going to watch the conference very carefully in terms of those numbers.  But as our starting point, we are looking at somewhere around the 50 mark.

QUESTION: Well coming back to the question of Mr Rosenberg, I understand the conference only starts today, but I’m sure as especially as President country of the EU you have very carefully watched what has happened if at all since April 3.  So a two-part question.  Number one is was there any move in the French position between now and what it was on April 3rd since that time?  And secondly, as far as the +/-100 undecided countries are concerned, how you evaluate the debate behind the scenes that happened set since April 3rd?

MR LLOYD:  I shall be presenting today a joint statement on behalf of the European Union Presidency but of course that joint statement as you know is an agreed position by all the Members of the European Union so the fact that there is an agreed common position I think speaks something for the progress that has been made that we have agreements on basic principles.  Of course, I don’t want to disguise the fact that individual nations within that also have different views on some of the key questions that will arise.  You will understand that much beyond that I can’t really go because I am not here today to speak bilaterally for any other Member of the European Union, neither France nor any country other than Britain and the Presidency.  In terms of the debate amongst the committee, I think I might, if you forgive me, refer this to Sir Franklin Berman who has had detailed knowledge of those behind-the-scenes negotiations.

SIR FRANKLIN BERMAN:  I would simply add as far as the European Union is concerned that we have made a great deal of progress in a solid position and that France is as keen as all other Members of the Union that the Members States of the European Union and the Central and Eastern European states associated with us, act as a real influence, already constructive influence on the working of this conference.  And amongst the other groups, it is extremely difficult to say, there have been a number of regional meetings, there was a sense of discussion at the recent non-aligned meetings, there has been a meeting of the organisation of African unity, there was a meeting in the Caribbean recently.  We are waiting for these groups to present their positions and we are waiting to see whether they do have consolidated positions or whether they too experience as we do within our group, different shades of view which will enable us to build a solid majority for an acceptable solution.  It really is too early to say now.

MR LLOYD:  I think if I could just add one point to that.  Britain published its own position in March and we do know that that of itself, because we are one of the first countries to put through a detailed and consistent set of proposals that had the effect of at least galvanising the thought process of a number of other countries and we know that that was very well received.  And it has been part of the process of moving the debate forward.  I say that not in any sense of great proud in that process except that we did give some real leadership for those who were looking to try to establish what the benchmarks were, so it has had the effect of moving the debate forward a little.

CONSTANZ STELZMUELLER, DIE ZEIT, HAMBURG:  Britain maybe part of the like-minded group but a number of the proposals advanced by the more progressive like-minded states envision a future role of the Security Council or powers of the Security Council that would, if not be encroached upon, at least encumber and as a member of the P5 you can’t have an interest in that.  What are you going to do against it?

MR LLOYD:  Can I say first of all that I think when we reach the stage that the use of an adjective like  progressive isn’t necessarily the most helpful or the one that is going to endear me to this type of question, I suspect.  But Britain is taking a very progressive position on this court.  What I would say to you is that of course there are areas where we all have to go through the negotiating process.  There are differences of opinion that do exist.  But Britain’s basic position of looking for a court that is effective and does bear down on the real injustices that in the past have escaped any judicial process is one of serious intent.  We can make progress.  I don’t think we help that progress by actually setting up arbitrary divisions within the like-minded group or elsewhere.  What we are looking for is to say, as I said earlier on.  I’m not quite sure whether the question was in at that time.  There is a legitimate role for the Security Council.  There is a legitimate role in making sure for example that where a non-state party, a non signature of the ICC nevertheless has been engaged in the most gross violations and specifically under Chapter 7 that the Security Council should have the power to insist that the ICC has a role.  That is a very legitimate role for the Security Council and one that is increasingly accepted by a huge range of nations.

QUESTION: Could you just clarify that – are you saying that the idea is that the Security Council might bring citizens of countries that are not state party to the ICC in front of the ICC?

MR LLOYD:  Yes, I mean let me say it.  That is absolutely parallel to the situation with Rwanda or the Former Yugoslavia except of course no ICC existed but it would be bizarre quite frankly if the Security Council were to forego the ability to do that.  So that in other words by a Rwanda of the future, simply saying we will not sign up to the ICC, therefore there is an ability to block action by the ICC so we, the United Kingdom, feel very strongly that that vote for the Security Council does not simply, I said before, but I use this term again, not one to apologise about, but actually one to say that it is an absolute necessity, because without that, we wouldn’t see that certain type violations brought before the ICC.

SIR FRANKLIN BERMAN: Could I just correct the question please Minister, there never has been any suggestion that the Security Council should take over the role of prosecutor and refer individual citizens to the court.  The Security Council has been discussed in terms of referring a situation to the court after which the ordinary powers of the court and all the organs of the court would come into play and would carry on in their usual course.

MR LLOYD: Thank you for that.

NETHERLANDS RADIO:  Could you elaborate a little bit on the need for the inclusion of the term ‘aggression’ in the statute and would do you think are the major stumbling blocks?

MR LLOYD:  Well this is a question actually in one moment I will refer to Sir Franklin Berman as the expert on these areas.  But the whole history as I understand it of defining aggression has been beset with difficulties.  We do think that it would be a significant step forward if the crime of aggression were included but we do need an acceptable working definition of what aggression means so that it does cover the circumstances that in a commonsensical way we would want to be there and isn’t simply a catch-all for things that were never intended.  Sir Franklin, did you want to talk a little about the background to this?

SIR FRANKLIN:  I can simply add by way of background that it took the United Nations General Assembly nearly thirty years to agree upon a definition of aggression and then it was contained in a resolution of a political kind designed to be guidance to the Security Council on determining whether a particular case did or did not constitute an act of aggression.  The difficulty of aggression therefore are obvious as is the role which the Security Council has to play.  But we have to deal with a very difficult situation of translating downwards aggression which is the act of a state to what acts on the part of individuals, at what level within the structure of the state military or civilian, could be claimed to fall within a new crime of aggression.  There is a very strong wish at the conference amongst states of all groupings that the crimes have to be specified and defined so that it is as clear in advance that the judges can’t be accused of making up the law after the complaint has been brought and it is that sort of process that we are trying to do.  But the role of the Security Council is as it were inherent in the whole situation of dealing with aggression.

GIOVANNA TEDESCO, RADIO MARIA: In the concept of crimes against humanity, can we also include very grave acts like the exploitation of nuclear experiments and genetic experimentation which is putting thousands of children into the world with aberrant techniques?  Today we have learned of babies with two mothers and one father.

MR LLOYD:  Well I have just sought legal advice on this and the kind of circumstances that the question envisages are in fact crimes not defined during a state of war or a state of conflict and as such would be outside of the remit of the court.  What perhaps I would go on to say is that I think is almost a central purpose of what we are here today though and this moves a little bit beyond the question and forgive me for this, obviously for the next five weeks and I was struck this morning by the fact that we are engaged in a process very necessary of defining in almost bureaucratic terms what we are all engaged in.  In actual fact, the reality of what we are engaged in is far more summed up by the horrors of a meeting I had recently with some of the victims the women of  Sebrenica, who came to see me because they are still having to deal with the atrocities that they suffered as families of the victims that they and their families still continue to live with.  I was in Rwanda recently and there was also the  tribunal in  Arusha. The human reality of what we are about is something that goes way beyond I think the dry words that exists in a conference or even a press conference.  We are talking about the child who is dragged from its bed at night and slaughtered.  We are talking about the woman who is dragged out and gang-raped.  We are talking about the murder of people in the tens and hundreds and thousands as we witnessed in both Yugoslavia and Rwanda.  Actually the reason for all of this comes down to that common humanity and the words that were spoken this morning I think by the President of Italy who said that at the point of atrocity being committed, we allow our fellow humans to be dehumanised in that process.  The establishment of this court, the establishment of justice, the establishment of a process of reconciliation because reconciliation needs justice, those are actually about giving humanity back to the families at least of those who are victims and to the final analysis about the hope that the existence of the court will prevent those horrors taking place in the future.  So what we are about actually, I think, is a fundamental importance – the future of mankind.  Thank you very much for being here this morning.