Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-28-Speech-4-094"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020228.4.4-094"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
As a party we have said in the National Parliament that we are in favour of a court in principle, but the problems lie in the details. This is essentially the American position as well. Their principal problem (and it affects us as well since we contribute more UN peacemakers than any other country) is that the provisions regarding what is known as "command responsibility" are so loosely drawn that the crimes of individual soldiers or groups of soldiers could result in military and political leaders up the chain being indicted for actions which they did not plan, participate in or even have foreknowledge of. The Americans have constantly referred to the risk of malicious prosecution and we support their concerns. That is one reason why Conservatives voted against it in April of last year, and that remains our position.
It is, therefore, not a question of being 'Little Englanders' but of countries with real international responsibilities being careful of what they sign. Clinton signed at the last moment but made a (public) declaration recommending that his successor should not present the treaty to the Senate for ratification. Bush has said he will not do that and there is virtually zero support for it in the Senate anyway.
There is also the problem of Paragraph a) in the composite resolution which suggests that terrorists who commit war crimes and crimes against humanity can be tried under the Court's provisions. This is vigorously disputed by many legal experts (including the House of Commons Library) and governments, some of whom made sure at Rome that terrorist acts were not specifically included in the Statute. I would refer you to the ratification declaration by the French government which states that "The Government of the French Republic considers that the term '"armed conflict" in Article 8 paragraphs 2 (b) and (c), in and of itself and in its context refers to a situation of a kind which does not include the commission of ordinary crimes, including acts of terrorism, whether collective or isolated."
The British government made a similar declaration in June 1999 hoping that a way could be found to get agreement on the inclusion of terrorist acts in the future.
After September 11, it is obviously more difficult to say that everyone except terrorists should be covered by its provisions.
To say that they can be covered is one way of trying to square the circle, but it is a contested interpretation to say the least.
There is also the problem raised by Tories like Douglas Hurd in the Lords regarding the problems it might pose for the settlement of international disputes, although that concern is mitigated to some extent by the residual power of the UN Security Council to prevent a prosecution in the interests of international peace and security."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs |
substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples