Mr President:

The famous playwright Shakespeare once wrote:

'There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune..;
And we must take the current when it serves
Or lose our ventures.'

We are today moving on such a tide. We are on the brink of achieving a goal which we have sought for many years; a permanent international judicial body with the jurisdiction to try those accused of the most serious and heinous crimes of international concern. A momentum has built up and we must take advantage of that. We must not squander the opportunity that we have at this Conference.

That the world needs a permanent international criminal court is sadly not in doubt. Human beings are capable of the most terrible crimes. Events which occurred during various recent conflicts have demonstrated that. We have seen that in many cases individual criminal actions are not adequately dealt with by national jurisdictions. This is not a tolerable situation. The perpetrators of crimes of this nature must be brought to justice. The creation of a permanent international, criminal court would ensure that those who escape justice before national courts, would be tried for their crimes.

The future Court could however achieve more; not only would it serve as an instrument of justice to be used against the perpetrators of crimes, it could also play a significant role in the deterrence of such conduct in the future. During the past 50 years there have been large advances in international law on the protection of individual human rights. However, there has been quite limited progress on a corresponding recognition of individual duties and responsibilities. The establishment of a permanent international criminal court would go a long way towards redressing this imbalance. The Court would serve to highlight that human beings do have fundamental duties and responsibilities towards other human beings. They cannot commit atrocities such as genocide or mass rapes on other fellow human beings and walk away without fear of punishment. If individuals transgress those basic duties and responsibilities that they owe to others then they must be held accountable. The existence of the Court would demonstrate that the world community will not tolerate the commission of heinous crimes against human beings.To make it clear that individuals will be held accountable for their actions can, in my view, only strengthen respect for the rights and freedoms of others.

I also believe that the establishment of the Court would represent a significant achievement in global efforts to deal with crimes of the nature envisaged. It would be a unified response from the international community to those crimes. It would provide, for the first time, a permanent international mechanism to ensure that those crimes will not go unpunished.

For all the reasons I have mentioned we need this Court. While the negotiations ahead may prove difficult at times and the task of shaping a court out of the world's differing legal systems may be fraught with technical problems, it is my firm belief that with sufficient political will shown by the states gathered here today, we can overcome all such difficulties and problems.

Above all, in the course of our negotiations, we must not lose sight of what we are trying to achieve by setting up this Court. The future Court must be an effective, impartial instrument of justice. It must be equipped to deal with the type of crimes that we have unfortunately witnessed during this century.

Thus, to realise our goal at this Conference, we must be careful to ensure that the Court will have the ability to perform the role envisaged for it. Mr Tony Lloyd, Minister of State at the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, delivered a statement on behalf of the European Union. In that statement he outlined key principles to which the EU member states are committed. Ireland of course fully endorses that statement.

Ireland has consistently supported the establishment of a permanent International Criminal Court. We want a Court that is truly independent and effective. We believe that there a number of issues which are of particular significance in the context of our overall goal.

We believe that the Court should have the jurisdiction to prosecute those accused of the crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. With regard to war crimes, tragic events in the recent past have demonstrated all too clearly the need for an international judicial organ to deal with war crimes committed during conflicts fought within states, as well as during conflict between states. It would be a major gap if the Court could not try those accused of war crimes committed in the type of conflicts which ravaged the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. We also believe that the Court must have the power to deal with crimes against humanity whether or not these have been committed in times of conflict. Again history has shown that these terrible crimes can just as easily occur during peace as they can during conflict.

• Ireland would also support the Court having jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. Our combined efforts should be used to reach agreement on a definition of aggression and to strike the appropriate balance between the role of the UN Security Council and the future role of the Court in this regard.

• It follows that in becoming a party to the future Statute, states parties should accept the jurisdiction of the Court over the core crimes that 1 have mentioned. Given the serious nature of those crimes, Ireland would find it difficult to accept some sort of opt-in/opt-out approach in relation to these crimes or a regime whereby there are overly onerous requirements of state consent before the Court can exercise its jurisdiction.

• The jurisdiction of the future Court is not intended to supplant that of domestic courts.This would neither be practical or efficient. The Court's jurisdiction should be complementary to that of domestic courts. That said, the Court must be able to act when national courts are unwilling or genuinely unable to prosecute.

• Ireland views the mechanism by which the Court's jurisdiction will be triggered as fundamental to its success. We share the view that states parties to the future Statute and the UN Security Council should be able to refer matters to the Court. The ability of the Security Council to refer situations to the Court will remove the need in the future for individual ad hoc tribunals to address particular situations. Ireland also believes that the Court's Prosecutor should have the power to initiate investigations and prosecutions on the basis of information from sources other than states or the Security Council. This power would strengthen the Court's ability to act.

• The Court, as a judicial body, should of course be impartial and independent from political pressures. Thus a careful balance must be found between its role and that of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security. Neither must interfere unduly with the other.

• As the Court will not have the justice administration of a state, it will be very reliant on the assistance of states. Thus the provisions in the future Statute on state cooperation and judicial assistance are very important. The Court should have the powers to obtain the assistance it needs in order to be effective.

• The Court should have fair procedures of the highest standards, which respect the rights of the accused and which provide adequate protection to victims and witnesses giving evidence. Thus let me emphasize again that there can be no provision for the death penalty in the Statute of the Court.

I wish also to pay tribute to the work done by the NGO community throughout the process to date and which 1 have no doubt will continue until the objective of a permanent international criminal court has been achieved. The contribution made by various NG0s has been invaluable. Let me also offer my deepest gratitude to the Italian Government for its generosity in hosting this Conference. Rome is synonymous with many important, historic and ground-breaking international agreements., Thus it is a most suitable venue for the work of this Conference. In conclusion, let me simply say that we have witnessed too often situations where national criminal law systems have failed to punish the perpetrators of some of the worst crimes known to humankind and have felt ourselves powerless to address this: we now have this historic opportunity to do something and we must not be found wanting in the face of the challenge that this opportunity presents. Let us take the current tide and reap the benefit of our ventures.

Thank You