Doc. 8160

3 July 1998

Calling for an independent and effective international criminal court

Motion for a resolution

presented by Lord Russell-Johnston and others

This motion has not been discussed in the Assembly and commits only the members who have signed it

      The Assembly,

      Deeply concerned with the lack of comprehensive international legal instruments to adequately prosecute crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide and aggression;

      Convinced that the vicious circle of impunity and continuing criminal violence must be broken;

      Acknowledging the efforts being made by the international ad hoc tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda;

      Recognising that the United Nations have achieved considerable progress in this field in recent years;

      Convinced that there is an urgent need to establish a wholly independent, effective, functional and thus credible permanent body for international criminal jurisdiction;

      Confident that the future international criminal court shall be determined and intransigent in its pursuance of crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes, aggression and law world-wide and deterring further acts of crime,

i.       welcomes the efforts of the international community to establish an international criminal court as a unique opportunity to prosecute and punish severe crimes against humanity and war crimes;

ii.       calls upon the Diplomatic Conference of States in Rome not to content itself with the lowest common denominator but rather to establish a court of justice worthy of its name with adequate competence to effectively combat the most deplorable crimes known to mankind;

iii.       particularly calls upon those states who have already demonstrated their support to convince those states who have shown hesitation;

iv.       calls for the establishment of a permanent international criminal court with sufficient competencies particularly in the following fields :

      a. the court should be adequately empowered so as to be in a position to exercise jurisdiction over the three core crimes – genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity – whenever national courts either do not exist or are not able or willing to prosecute in cases involving these crimes (principle of complementarity). The court should be given sufficient power to determine whether there is an effective national jurisdiction;

      b. in signing the statute, the contracting party should give the court the competence to deal with the core crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The court’s jurisdiction should not be a matter entirely at the disposition of member states. A regime of “opting in" and "opting out” would lead to “jurisdiction à la carte”;

      c. the prosecutor should be given adequate competence and staff to initiate investigations. The decision of bringing cases before the court should not be reduced to a state party or to the Security Council;

      d. as the court will not have its own police or law enforcement powers, the member states should be obliged by statute to co-operate with the court;

      e. with a view to promoting the court’s effectiveness, proposals that appeal to general reservations such as reasons of “national security” or “public policy” should be rejected;

      f. the statute should also provide for punishment of war crimes in internal armed conflicts.

Signed¹:

Russell-Johnston, United Kingdom, LDR

Blaauw, Netherlands, LDR

Bonet Casas, Andorra, LDR

Browne, Ireland, LDR

Haraldsson, Iceland, LDR

Jakic, Slovenia, LDR

Jansson, Finland, LDR

Kiely, Ireland, LDR

Palmitjavila Ribo, Andorra, LDR

Rados, Croatia, LDR

Varela, Spain, LDR

¹        LDR: Liberal, Democratic and Reformers Group