Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-02-Speech-3-175"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030702.5.3-175"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr Moreno Campo, recently appointed Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, said when he was sworn in, ‘An International Criminal Court that is totally independent and impartial brings hope, but at the same time raises reasonable fears and misunderstandings’.
Finally, on behalf of the Union, the Greek Presidency unequivocally stated that there was no question of accepting automatic renewal of this resolution in the years to come, allowing this conduct – because that is what it is – to continue unchallenged.
Finally, I would like to mention the considerable aid provided by the Union since 1995 for the International Criminal Court through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, in the shape of EUR 13 million, which is a significant sum, along with our efforts to raise awareness among parliamentarians, civil servants, civil society, those working in the legal system and even military personnel, for example, in the new independent States. Hand in hand with this goes our work in training defence lawyers in order to make this Court a tangible and immediate reality. Thinking also about what form our support will take in the next few years, we are listening to NGOs and several MEPs who will speak at a seminar organised by the Commission on 14 July to hear various points of view on this issue.
I feel that I have defended and presented a position that is entirely in line with what the Presidency of the Council has just said. No one will be surprised at this. There is no doubt that the International Criminal Court presents a challenge in terms of transatlantic relations. When the eminent team made up of 18 judges and prosecutors begins its work, we are convinced, as Europeans, that the International Criminal Court will prove worthy of our support and confidence. It will also dispel the concerns that remain here and in the minds of our American friends.
This Court brings the hope of a new era for international justice; it provides an effective tool for fighting impunity, and is therefore a deterrent factor – as the President of the Council has just said – to those who are tempted to carry out serious criminal acts that the Court has the authority to try. But it also, if we look at the position of the United States, raises fears and misunderstandings. It is the Americans’ fear of their people being pursued for political reasons which has led them to make efforts all over the world to obtain bilateral immunity agreements for their nationals, and which also led to the renewal of Security Council Resolution 1422.
In order to secure these agreements, the United States have not hesitated to use the threat of refusing to give military help to countries that do not sign them. What does this position mean? As they did not sign up to the Rome Statute, the United States consider themselves free to conclude immunity agreements, particularly in view of the considerable number of American soldiers deployed in the four corners of the globe. Whatever the value of this argument, there is no doubt that the significant contribution from the United States to peacekeeping cannot be ignored. It is also clear that countries that have signed the Rome Statute cannot use some sort of hidden door to escape their obligations to the International Criminal Court.
The guiding principles, adopted by the Union in September 2002, and to which the Presidency of the Council referred, are a little clearer on this point: we do not think that these agreements are necessary, but we accept them as long as they satisfy certain well-defined criteria. The agreements that the United States are trying to make do not match our conditions and are clearly aiming to undermine the Rome Statute insofar as they do not have any clear provisions to prevent impunity and they understand impunity as applying to those other than American nationals in a country for certain military or strictly administrative reasons. So how can we put forward our position?
We did this with the common position on 16 June, which unambiguously indicates that the guiding principles are not just some sort of internal scheming, but must be applied to justify the protection of the integrity of the Rome Statute in our relations with third countries. This position was the result of reasoning and dialogue. My colleagues Mr Patten and Mr Verheugen have joined forces with the Greek Presidency in sending joint letters to the Foreign Ministers of Member States, candidate countries and the Balkan States. They stress the need to take into account the Union’s position.
We have given instructions to our heads of delegation in third countries to stress the importance of this issue. In countries that have already signed an immunity agreement, our heads of delegation have been invited to look more closely at the probability of ratifying those agreements.
These diplomatic efforts are backed up by the considerable support that we have given to the NGOs campaigning for an effective International Criminal Court through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights. Also, very recently, the Thessaloniki European Council confirmed that the Union unreservedly supports the International Criminal Court.
What are the results? Having recalled our principles and the action we are taking, let us have a clear view of this. The results are rather mixed. Even leaving aside the agreement signed hastily by Romania in August 2002, and even though the Member States and candidate countries resisted American pressure in order to come into line with the Union’s position of 16 June, it is clear that the situation in the Balkans remains vague: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and very recently the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia signed such agreements, none of which comply with the conditions defined in the Union’s guiding principles. We have not concealed our disappointment and we have expressed it to those countries. Regarding the renewal of Security Council Resolution 1422, there is no doubt in our minds that the legality of this measure is, at best, questionable.
We allowed an open debate in the Security Council where the concerns as to the legality of this proposition could be expressed. In a remarkable speech, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Kofi Annan, not only raised doubts about whether the Security Council Resolution should be based on Article 16 of the Rome Statute but he also questioned the need for it. In fact United Nations peacekeeping forces remain under the jurisdiction of the State of which they are nationals and they would be immediately repatriated if they had committed a serious crime. As long as their country of origin dealt with the matter correctly, the additional jurisdiction of the Criminal Court would not enter into play."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples