Mr Chairman, Ladies and gentlemen,
 

One hundred and thirty-six States have come together here to give practical expression to a hope that has resurfaced more or less worldwide in recent years: that of creating an effective instrument for combating the immunity of large-scale criminals.

In France 75 years ago, when many of the atrocities that were to mar the 20th century had yet to be committed, Henri Donnedieu de Vabres, an eminent legal expert and future judge at the Nuremberg Tribunal, proposed the creation of an International Criminal Court designed to combat the impunity of very large-scale criminals. Many others thought along similar lines. The Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, in the particular climate of the immediate post-war years, put some flesh on the bones of this idea. It cropped up again in the 1948 Genocide Convention but went no further at that time. All of us here know how the stalemate of the Cold War halted all progress for almost forty-five years. But all of us are also aware how, from the ending of the stand-off in the early Nineties, this pressing need began to be felt again in the world’s conscience. Two ad hoc tribunals were then created, one in 1993 for Yugoslavia, the other in 1994 for Rwanda.

The delegations gathered in Rome today for almost five weeks have met with the firm intention of bringing the process to completion, culminating in the creation of a Court that is effective and hence universal, that is designed to last and that meets the requirements of justice.

The highly constructive atmosphere which, despite differing points of view, has prevailed from the opening of the Conference, thanks in particular to the Italian chairmanship and Chairman Kirsch, and the interest in this project shown in all the regions of the world, allow us to hold out high hopes.

I should like at this point to pay tribute to the hard work and perseverance of Mr. Adrian Bos at the head of the Preparatory Committee. Likewise, I salute the personal commitment of Mr. Perez de Cuellar and his successor, Mr. Kofi Annan.

My country has framed a number of proposals for these negotiations. France considers that no substantive issue should be passed over if we really want this new jurisdiction to assert itself, curb impunity, deter new atrocities and withstand the test of time. We want to succeed. The French Prime Minister said so very clearly at Geneva. You know how committed he is. The forthcoming ratification of Additional Protocol No. 1 to the Geneva Conventions is proof of that.

It is in this constructive spirit that I should like to set out France’s positions and objectives with regard to this Conference, as defined by the President of the Republic and the Government.

 1/ - First, my country believes that if the effectiveness and legitimacy of the new Court is to be beyond dispute, its jurisdiction should - initially at least - concentrate on and be limited to exceptional crimes which, by their scale or the concept behind them, outrage the very conscience of humankind: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, very grave breaches of international humanitarian law. I am aware that certain Heads of State from Latin America have recently suggested that its jurisdiction should be extended to the major drugs traffickers who threaten the future of their societies, and these are unquestionably serious crimes. But my country believes that it would be better to consider such an extension, or other extensions, at a review conference in five or six years time, once the Court is up and running.

 2/ - My country supports the idea that complementarity should be at the heart of the Court’s statute. We would be taking the wrong road if, as a result of the creation of the Court, States and national courts were to relinquish their primary responsibility for prosecuting the most heinous crimes. The Court should have to intervene - on its own initiative or on request - only in the event of a deliberate or involuntary failure on the part of national authorities, when States are no longer able to try those responsible, or when they seek to protect them, especially by using delaying tactics. It will be for the new Court to judge these things.

 3/ - The statute should set out procedures in detail and define the Court’s relations with States, the rights of suspects and the accused, and the rights of victims. France has urged that innovative solutions should be found, so that the new Court draws inspiration from both the Roman-Germanic and common law traditions. Thus, our country’s suggestion for the creation of a body of judges who, from the preliminary phase, will take part in preparatory inquiries alongside the Prosecutor has now been accepted.

My country has also urged close cooperation with NGOs to ensure that the statute contains precise provisions concerning victim access at all stages of proceedings, their protection against reprisals - in the light of the failings apparent in the workings of the courts of first instance - and their right to reparation.

If the statute contains a clear statement of how the court will operate, we feel that a larger number of States will be able to accept an ambitious remit with regard to the initiation of proceedings. Thus, France supports the idea of a joint decision of the Prosecutor and the Preliminary Chamber to initiate proceedings.

 4/ - The atmosphere in which negotiations on these matters have been conducted must lead us to find solutions to the problems that remain.

If we are here at all, it is because we are determined to advance the ideal of universal justice. Our task is to find the best ways of achieving that goal.

 5/ - The court will have substantive competence and will exercise its competence with regard to party States. If its action is to be genuinely effective, the State on whose territory the crimes are committed and the State of nationality of their authors must be party to the statute.

 6/ -. France believes that the Court’s jurisdiction should be automatic, as of ratification and entry into effect, for genocide and crimes against humanity. They are by definition crimes committed on a massive and systematic scale. Most of the time they represent per se a threat to peace and international security.

 7/ - The real issue is therefore that of war crimes. They may be regarded as different by nature inasmuch as war crimes, defined in the Hague Convention of 1907 (the law of war) and the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols (law in wartime), may be isolated acts. Some States are entirely opposed to the idea that the definition of war crimes may apply to internal conflicts. But accepting this restriction would be a retrograde step. Here in Rome we must find a workable solution to this problem.

 8/.-. I come now to an extremely important issue: the link between the action of the Security Council, more vital than ever in maintaining peace in an unstable world, and the role of the Court. A good reciprocal relationship is essential to the success of this new institution.

On this point, Singapore has suggested that when a matter already before the Council is referred to the Court, the Council should be able to ask the Court explicitly not to initiate proceedings. None of us wants to see the Court turned into a political forum, asked to investigate complaints without foundation whose sole purpose is to challenge the decisions of the Security Council or the foreign policy of one of the all too few countries willing to assume the risk of peacekeeping operations.

The independence and authority of the Court would not survive. Several other countries share this concern, especially among those without which there would be no peacekeeping.

I would remind you that the permanent members of the Security Council were behind the creation of the two ad hoc tribunals which have revived the concept of international justice, and ensured that they were set up effectively. While strictly respecting the Court’s independence as a judicial body, of course, if its action is not integrated into that of the existing system of international institutions, which needs to be strengthened not weakened, the Court will lose in both authority and credibility.

Thanks to the mobilisation of non-governmental organisations and civil society as a whole, powerful support for the plan to create the Court has emerged in many countries. We must ensure that this surge of enthusiasm is given a lasting form.

In Rome, France will adopt a constructive and pragmatic attitude to the points of view expressed by delegations that subscribe to our common goal, to ensure that the Court is as universal as possible. We will give priority to an approach based on the idea of an international “system”, a number of elements combined to form a whole, meaning that they are capable of fruitful dialogue with each other. But France could not be favourable to a superposition of elements that are likely to contradict each other and hence to complicate or hamper a better organisation and a better regulation of the world as a whole. My thoughts turn in particular to the relationship between national courts and the Court, between the action of the Security Council and that of the Court.

We are guided in Rome by our determination to ensure that this aspiration to true justice and the refusal of impunity is given practical, effective and lasting expression. In order to achieve this goal, we will have to come up with original solutions and find creative compromises.