Mr.President,

The delegation of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan would like to seize this opportunity, right at the outset, to recall a remark once made by Hannah Moore, that: "Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off the goal." Over the past two years or so, while there has been a general merging of opinion over the scope and nature of the draft statute now before us, options and square brackets still dominate the text. This is because, we believe, many of us have begun to lose sight of the very objective itself, which is straightforward: to create a credible juridical deterrent to those who contemplate genocide, war crimes or other grave breaches of international humanitarian law. And if this deterrence fails, that we can, in bringing a case against those believed to be culpable before the international criminal court, not only establish the truth, but of course afford some measure of justice to the victims.

It is a goal which we, regrettably, in the course of our discussions in the Preparatory Committee, had begun to subordinate to defensive, more political, considerations: impulses which were perhaps only natural then, and perhaps only to be expected, but ones which we must now try to overcome and place in their proper perspective here in Rome.

The centerpiece of our thoughts, at all times, must be the crime itself and its judicial redress: and not so much whether it is the product of an internal conflict or an external one: a grave crime of the sort we are considering is a grave crime, where ever it may occur, and whoever may commit it -- distinctions followed by omission only serve the cause of the perpetrator and not the better interests of the victims, or of humanity as a whole.

Mr. President,

Jordan believes, along with other delegations, as well as inter-governmental humanitarian agencies, that the basic requirement for an effective and independent international criminal court is, inter alia, the ex officio power the prosecutor must enjoy, in initiating investigations. The state consent regime now being considered, would make this third aspect of the trigger mechanism all the more critical, if the court is to be effective. And here my delegation would like very much to support the view that we must not be too cynical in always assuming the worst possible scenario, as regards the competency of the court and its officials. This would only be self-defeating: if the architects of other international institutions in former times were similarly guided by cynical considerations. it is very unlikely that they would ever have come into being. The recommendations presented by Justice Louise Arbour in her statement before the Preparatory Committee on 8 December 1997, as regards the mitigation of an abuse of powers by a Prosecutor, are welcomed by my delegation.

Mr. President,

The delegation of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan would also like to join others in voicing its concern over what failure to create a credible court would mean for us all. While we agree with a number of delegations that the lowest common denominator approach carries with it serious risks, and, itself, could be worse than having no court at all, we also feel that what lies ahead should not be reduced to a zero sum outcome: where either we will give birth to a perfect court, or a weak legal institution. My delegation believes strongly that an agreeable balance is certainly possible whereby a general consensus arrived at here in Rome, in the course of the weeks ahead, could provide for an international criminal court that is respected world-wide.

Mr.President,

With regard to the ongoing controversy over whether or not we allow for an entry of reservations, my delegation is of the opinion that if there is a consensus endorsing the principle of reservations, it should be applied very conservatively. We note that there is now an emerging jurisprudence which enjoins the entry of a reservation on a crucial or essential element of the international treaty in question. Otherwise, if unobserved, we will be taking away with one hand what the other hand has given.

On the equally vexing issue of the application of the death penalty, we note that, whereas international human rights instruments call for the phasing out of capital punishment, and to restrict its implementation to only the most serious crimes, these instruments do not prohibit its application altogether.

The delegation of the Hashemite Kingdom of  Jordan is, furthermore, deeply concerned by specific attempts, on the part of some delegations, to pick and choose from the Geneva Conventions what should and should not be included in the definition of war crimes and this is something that is totally unacceptable. We intend to resist these attempts vigorously.  Finally, Mr. President, we look forward to working with you and your colleagues over the course of the following few weeks, and being seized by a positive spirit, we pray that we will achieve what is sought by all: a credible, independent, and responsible international criminal court.

Thank you.

Mr.President,

The delegation of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan would like to seize this opportunity, right at the outset, to recall a remark once made by Hannah Moore, that: "Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off the goal." Over the past two years or so, while there has been a general merging of opinion over the scope and nature of the draft statute now before us, options and square brackets still dominate the text. This is because, we believe, many of us have begun to lose sight of the very objective itself, which is straightforward: to create a credible juridical deterrent to those who contemplate genocide, war crimes or other grave breaches of international humanitarian law. And if this deterrence fails, that we can, in bringing a case against those believed to be culpable before the international criminal court, not only establish the truth, but of course afford some measure of justice to the victims.

It is a goal which we, regrettably, in the course of our discussions in the Preparatory Committee, had begun to subordinate to defensive, more political, considerations: impulses which were perhaps only natural then, and perhaps only to be expected, but ones which we must now try to overcome and place in their proper perspective here in Rome.

The centerpiece of our thoughts, at all times, must be the crime itself and its judicial redress: and not so much whether it is the product of an internal conflict or an external one: a grave crime of the sort we are considering is a grave crime, where ever it may occur, and whoever may commit it -- distinctions followed by omission only serve the cause of the perpetrator and not the better interests of the victims, or of humanity as a whole.

Mr. President,

Jordan believes, along with other delegations, as well as inter-governmental humanitarian agencies, that the basic requirement for an effective and independent international criminal court is, inter alia, the ex officio power the prosecutor must enjoy, in initiating investigations. The state consent regime now being considered, would make this third aspect of the trigger mechanism all the more critical, if the court is to be effective. And here my delegation would like very much to support the view that we must not be too cynical in always assuming the worst possible scenario, as regards the competency of the court and its officials. This would only be self-defeating: if the architects of other international institutions in former times were similarly guided by cynical considerations. it is very unlikely that they would ever have come into being. The recommendations presented by Justice Louise Arbour in her statement before the Preparatory Committee on 8 December 1997, as regards the mitigation of an abuse of powers by a Prosecutor, are welcomed by my delegation.

Mr. President,

The delegation of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan would also like to join others in voicing its concern over what failure to create a credible court would mean for us all. While we agree with a number of delegations that the lowest common denominator approach carries with it serious risks, and, itself, could be worse than having no court at all, we also feel that what lies ahead should not be reduced to a zero sum outcome: where either we will give birth to a perfect court, or a weak legal institution. My delegation believes strongly that an agreeable balance is certainly possible whereby a general consensus arrived at here in Rome, in the course of the weeks ahead, could provide for an international criminal court that is respected world-wide.

Mr.President,

With regard to the ongoing controversy over whether or not we allow for an entry of reservations, my delegation is of the opinion that if there is a consensus endorsing the principle of reservations, it should be applied very conservatively. We note that there is now an emerging jurisprudence which enjoins the entry of a reservation on a crucial or essential element of the international treaty in question. Otherwise, if unobserved, we will be taking away with one hand what the other hand has given.

On the equally vexing issue of the application of the death penalty, we note that, whereas international human rights instruments call for the phasing out of capital punishment, and to restrict its implementation to only the most serious crimes, these instruments do not prohibit its application altogether.

The delegation of the Hashemite Kingdom of  Jordan is, furthermore, deeply concerned by specific attempts, on the part of some delegations, to pick and choose from the Geneva Conventions what should and should not be included in the definition of war crimes and this is something that is totally unacceptable. We intend to resist these attempts vigorously.  Finally, Mr. President, we look forward to working with you and your colleagues over the course of the following few weeks, and being seized by a positive spirit, we pray that we will achieve what is sought by all: a credible, independent, and responsible international criminal court.