Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-25-Speech-3-150"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020925.6.3-150"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, the International Criminal Court is a major achievement in the improvement of the international rule of law and of respect for human rights. As such, it is a step removed from the domination of blunt power motives in politics. The European Union is itself an example of a political structure in which the idea of a Community based on the rule of law is paramount. This is why we set great store by the Court's further consolidation, so that it can attract wide public confidence. The attempt to limit the Court's scope on power political grounds is diametrically opposed to the plans we have in mind for the Court.
Needless to say, it was to be expected that some states would object to this Court. We were, however, expecting these objections from, for example, the rogue states. They, indeed, have a great deal to fear from the Court, which is also the intention. The Court will need to have a preventive effect, which is particularly useful for training military personnel and also as a warning for politicians who want to take the wrong turn. The attempts by the US practically to undermine the Court have come as a great surprise to us. Indeed, we could assume that the United States would share fundamental legal concepts with the EU. In fact, I believe that the definition of America's national self-interest mentions the promotion of democracy. This means that the US itself continues to pursue democracy, including the legislation that this entails. We underline all the more now that agreement with the Court of Justice must be part and parcel of the Community acquis. This follows on from the criteria of Copenhagen. This is why we want to take a tough stance with regard to bilateral agreements and applaud the fact that Romania has already backtracked in a sensible manner. We also hope that the Council, and where necessary the Commission, will be broaching this subject in dialogue with countries associated with us, and certainly with all candidate countries. The resolution is sufficiently clear. I should like to flag the need for some self-criticism when the EU dishes out criticism.
The United States takes on the lion's share of all peace missions. It is even the case that the European Union always needs the Americans in order to be able to take action. This means that the Americans also run the greatest risks of making huge blunders. This is less so for Europeans. Europe's criticism would therefore gain more weight if the European Union were to accept a more proportionate share of the operations under the wings of the UN, which still needs to be negotiated, in fact. What should be principal, is that only an unadulterated clarification of the Court's statute can be offered, particularly as an explanation of the fears that are probably unfounded. A so-called agreement with the US will need to remain within the not even so terribly rigid framework of this statute at all times."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples