Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-02-Speech-3-176"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030702.5.3-176"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to concur with the Commissioner, who, a moment ago, said that he totally agreed with the Council's positions. Parliament's full support for both your positions is apparent from the resolution that we have adopted. Contrary to what we thought in the past, economic order and the internal market are not the most important components in the European Union. The crux of the matter – which we discovered very clearly during the enlargement process – is the fact that we are a legal community, one that is committed to the rule of law and to an international legal order. These are the elements that make up the heart of the European Union and determine its character. This is why it goes without saying that the three major institutions within the European Union should stand united behind this same line.
You sometimes hear that recourse to the law is a sign of weakness. Europe is weak in a military sense, and this is why it is said that we pay particular attention to such things as the international legal order. The Americans are strong in military terms, which is why they can manage without this concern for the international legal order and can rely on power politics. This is an extremely cynical view, although there has obviously been cause in the past to think along those lines.
In my opinion, the International Criminal Court's predecessor, the Tribunal for Yugoslavia, was set up at the time because those who then felt responsible, or behaved as if they were responsible, for the war in Yugoslavia and its ending, looked for a way to delay military intervention. This is when we got this Tribunal for Yugoslavia. Fortunately, the International Criminal Court, which is the present institution, has not been a mere palliative for a long time.
The European Union will, of course, need to be convinced in other areas that it does not lack in the ostentatious display of power. After all, the implementation of law always needs to be backed up by power, and this also applies to the Americans. Power is exerted in order to administer law. In fact, we can also refer to the American Constitution in this respect, which considers international legal order, rule of law and democracy to form part of their national interest. This is a very fine definition of national interest.
The present threats to third countries with a view to having these countries sign bilateral inviolability agreements are, of course, a serious matter. The new accession countries are, at the same time, new NATO members; it is to be seen how serious the Americans still take the existence of NATO if military assistance is simply withdrawn. Moreover, the ICC provides only supplementary jurisdiction, whereby it is assumed that the countries that have signed the agreement are themselves constitutional states and most definitely call those to account who have possibly misbehaved in the course of their military duty.
In some Member States, we do indulge from time to time in some antics that stir up distrust on the part of the Americans. This is illustrated by the strange fact that General Franks was denounced by Belgium as a war criminal. If legislation is used in this manner, it is made political, as the minister stated a moment ago, and this leads to distrust of the law. It is, therefore, vitally important, in my view, that the EU Member States should be well aware of how they need to behave in this connection so as not to stir up any distrust among the Americans.
It is, of course, the case – we have to give this to the Americans – that the US runs a greater risk than we do, particularly on account of the large-scale activities in the military sphere. Despite this, I think that, especially given this understanding, a dialogue with the US must be a priority. There may be room for some humour in this. The law about a possible invasion of The Hague, for example, is obviously something that we cannot possibly take seriously."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples