Media Advisory

UN to Establish International Criminal Court

(May 1998) Government leaders will meet in Rome next month to establish the world's first permanent international criminal court. The historic meeting, from 15 June to 17 July, follows 50 years of alternate hope and despair to create a court to prosecute war criminals and perpetrators of genocide.

"In the prospect of an international criminal court lies the promise of universal justice", says United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan. "That is the simple and soaring hope of this vision." In the absence of such a court, Governments have created temporary mechanisms since the Second World War to prosecute crimes against humanity, such as the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes tribunals and, more recently, the two United Nations ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

During the Rome meeting, delegates are expected to finalize and adopt a draft statute --hammered out over the past two years -- which, when ratified, will officially establish the Court. The treaty is expected to be opened for signature the last day of the meeting. The number of signatures required for ratification will be determined at the meeting.

"From now on, all potential warlords must know that, depending on how a conflict develops, there might be established an international tribunal before which those will be brought who violate the laws of war and humanitarian law . . ." warns Hans Corell, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and Legal Counsel.

Prior to the conference, on Sunday, 14 June, in the afternoon, Mr. Corell, Representative of the Secretary-General to the Conference, will hold a press briefing for all journalists attending the Rome conference in order to discuss the key issues. The press conference will take place in the Iran Room at the conference site, on the FAO premises in Rome.

The Rome conference will allow delegations to consider several major unresolved issues, such as:

Crimes under the Court's Jurisdiction
It is generally agreed that the Court should have jurisdiction over only the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. There is disagreement on including the crime of aggression, since this question is linked to the role of the Security Council in relation to the Court. Other crimes under consideration include attacks against United Nations and associated personnel, acts of international terrorism and illicit drug trafficking.

Trigger mechanisms
There are three possible ways that cases could be referred to the Court. A State party could lodge a complaint with the Court's Prosecutor and request him/her to investigate the situation. The Security Council could refer a "matter" or "situation" -- not a specific case -- to the Court, and the Court could then investigate and possibly prosecute crimes arising from that "situation". A third possible trigger mechanism would allow the Prosecutor personally to bring a matter before the Court.

Acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court
Discussions are still under way as to whether a State that becomes Party to the statute accepts the jurisdiction of the Court. Some delegations think that States should be allowed to ratify the treaty establishing the Court and retain the right to choose the crimes for which it would accept the Court's jurisdiction. This is referred to as "opting in". States could also "opt out" of accepting jurisdiction for specific crimes. Additionally, States could choose to opt in for a specific amount of time, or, having once opted in, could choose to opt out at a later time. It is also possible that jurisdiction over the "core crimes" (genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity) would be "inherent", meaning that States' acceptance of jurisdiction may not be required.

The role of the Security Council
Some delegations believe that the Court should not deal with a situation being considered by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which deals with action to maintain or restore peace. Others are of the view that the Court should be able to consider any situation to which it has been referred. However, should the Security Council feel that consideration of a situation would interfere with its primary role of maintaining international peace and security, how and whether it could prevent the Court from acting is being debated.

Complementarity
It is generally agreed that the International Criminal Court would not supersede national courts but rather play a complementary role. It is felt that an international criminal court is needed when national institutions are unable to act, as in situations where such institutions have collapsed due to internal conflict; or in situations where they are unwilling to act, as when a State may be unwilling to try its own nationals or when its officials may be implicated in the alleged crime.

Financing of the Court
The meeting will consider several proposals on how the Court should be financed. Some delegations believe it should be funded out of the regular budget of the United Nations -- a decision which would be subject to General Assembly approval. Other delegations would like the Court to be funded by contributions from Governments that have signed the treaty, and by voluntary contributions from other Governments, international organizations, individuals, corporations and others. Still others favour a combination of these two proposals.

Prepared by the United Nations Department of Public Information
May 1998