Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-25-Speech-3-151"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-09-25"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:International Criminal Court2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020925.6.3-151"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-09-25-Speech-3-1522
lpv:speaker	lp:Margrietus van den Berg2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-chair; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Partij van de Arbeid (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Committee on Development and Cooperation (2002-01-22--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AFCO (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America and Mexico (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, the row between Europe and the United States over the International Criminal Court constitutes a threat to the European Member States' common foreign policy. A few weeks ago, things looked set to end in complete disaster when Italy and Great Britain threatened to conclude bilateral agreements with the US, as a result of which certain countries, including the US, or groups of citizens, including American military, would be permanently excluded from prosecution by the International Criminal Court. Signing an agreement of this kind must be viewed as detrimental to the agreement of the International Criminal Court. I am referring in this respect to the sound legal advice gained by the European Commission. Fortunately, the United Kingdom and Italy ultimately did wait for a European consultation, and we in Parliament are now able to give our opinion on this matter in advance. The International Criminal Court's very existence is on the line, as destructive bilateral agreements undermine its raison d'être. However, the question also arises again of whether Europe is able to speak with one voice. Not only as a trading power, but also as a bearer of values and standards in this rough and unsafe world, one that protects human rights and the international rule of law as a whole. A divided Europe, in which some Member States want to take advantage of Article 98 to permanently exclude the US or US citizens from prosecution – so including Al Qaeda terrorists with an American passport – damages our ideal of a Europe that contributes to peace, stability and security worldwide. According to the ICC Treaty, all nations, including the US, can, and must, tackle their own human rights violators themselves for the first nine months. Only when this proves unsuccessful, will the International Criminal Court become involved. It therefore depends on national efforts whether the International Criminal Court should actually intervene. This should be sufficient guarantee for the US too. Europe should therefore remain unyielding and continue to speak with one voice. This is why I would ask Member States to abandon destructive bilateral agreements with the US, and urge the Council to remain united."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph