Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-23-Speech-3-227"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021023.5.3-227"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"As they deal with the same subject, the following questions will be taken together.
The General Affairs Council of 30 September 2002 decided guidelines on the basis of which Member States can negotiate bilateral agreements with the United States to give American personnel some immunity from the International Criminal Court.
Given the fact that the Council believes that the ICC is a 'valuable instrument of the world community to combat impunity for the most serious international crimes'
How can the Presidency maintain its assertion that bilateral agreements with the US do not undermine the Rome Statute and the integrity of the ICC?
How do the GAC guidelines of 30 September accord with the legal advice given previously by the Commission and Council?
Why did the Council not do more to protect the government of Romania from bilateral pressure when approached by the US to conclude a bilateral agreement prior to the setting out of the EU guidelines and, as a candidate country, was Romania not sufficiently integrated into the EU position on the Court?
Question No 5 by Mihail Papayannakis ():
Following the USA’s refusal on 1 July to ratify the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC), it has signed a bilateral agreement with Romania concerning exemption for Americans from the ICC. Given that Romania is applying for membership of the EU, and in view of the USA’s clear intention to sign bilateral agreements of the same nature with other applicant countries, could the Council say whether it intends, in addition to expressing its displeasure, to take additional measures with regard both to the USA and the various pre-accession countries in order to prevent the institution of the International Criminal Court being undermined from the very outset?
Question No 6 by Carlos Carnero González ():
In its decision of 30 September the General Affairs Council established that Member States might conclude agreements with the United States on the immunity, as regards the International Criminal Court, of its diplomatic and military staff working on Community territory, under certain conditions. The questioner considers that this position undermines the CCI at the very moment when it is coming into being and will encourage third countries to do the same or worse. For this reason he rejects the Council’s attitude.
Does the Council consider that the decision reflects the opinion of the majority of European citizens? Has it taken into account the views of the non-governmental organisations and legal experts who have backed the creation of the CCI from the outset? Does the Council know which Community Member States are to conclude immunity agreements with the United States and with what limits? Does it not consider that this means that the EU is abandoning its original stance and losing credibility in the eyes of the international community?
Question No 7 by Sarah Ludford ():"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Subject: Agreement with the United States on immunity vis-à-vis the International Criminal Court"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples