Subject: US Senator Christopher DODD held the following speech on January 28, 1993, to introduce the "joint Date: Thu, 9 Dec 93 16:57:6 GMT
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: The Transnational Radical Party List
resolution calling for the United States to support efforts of the United
Nations to conclude an international agreement to establish an
international criminal court". Even though this speech was delivered nearly
a year ago, we believe it is noteworthy when it stresses the supremacy of
international law and the paramount role of a permanent tribunal.
"Mr DODD. Mr. President, it is often said that the of all the weapons we
have in the fight against international crime, none is more effective than
the rule of law. Today, I am introducing legislation that honors and
fortifies that age-old principle. This resolution calls on the United
States support efforts at the United Nations to promote the establishment
of an international criminal court.
Mr. President, on January 13, 1942, at the height of World War II, leaders
from nine Allied nations met at St. James Palace in London. On that day, 51
years ago this month, they made a vow to the world: that the Nazis would
one day stand trial for their unspeakable crimes. At the Nuremberg trials,
as history has recorded, that solemn promise was faithfully kept.
[...]
The Nuremberg trials taught the world a remarkable lesson, a lesson in the
sanctity of law and the enduring power of ideals. It was that brazen spirit
of mutual cooperation that led the formation of the United Nations, devoted
above all to the international rule of law.
But those who followed the events at Nuremberg knew that the moment was
fleeting. They knew that without a vigilant commitment to the prosecution
of international crimes, Nuremberg and all of its lessons would be quickly
forgotten. And to this end they dared to dream of a global system of
justice - the creation of a permanent international criminal court.
Today, the need for such a court is readily apparent. International
criminals are making their mark across the globe, whether it be ethnic
cleansing in Bosnia, drug trafficking in Colombia, or terrorism in the
Middle East. And yet, almost 50 years after Nuremberg, the world still has
no mechanism, no systemic approach, to deal with these crimes.
In this uncertain and rapidly changing world, it is said that we seek to
build a ne world order. We are casting out the assumptions of the cold war
establishment and laying the foundations for a bold new era. And to guide
us in this task we look to one set of principles: the sanctity of justice
and the international rule of law.
There can be no doubt that an international criminal court would help to
uphold these lofty ideals. But is also most certainly true that without the
leadership of the United States, such a court will never come to pass. The
purpose I am introducing today is to call on the United States to provide
that leadership at this critical moment in history.
Since the dawn of civilization, man has acknowledged the existence of
international obligations. As early as the fourth century B.C., the Chinese
writer Sun Tzu wrote a treatise on the laws of war. The earlier Egyptians
entered into agreements that regulated warfare and the manner in which it
would be initiated. The ancient Greeks and Romans had rules that governed
tha care of the wounded and the treatment of prisoners, even in that early
time.
In the modern era, the basis for international law could be found in
multilateral treaties. For example, the slave trade was outlawed by the
Brussels Convention in 1890. Drug trafficking was addressed by the
International Opium Convention in 1912. War crimens were defined by the
Geneva Convetions in 1949. And the practice of ethnic cleansing was banned
by Gebocide Convention in 1948.
In all, hundreds of multilateral treaties and conventions have shaped the
rules of the international community. One scholar, Cherif Bassiouni of the
DePaul University College of Law, has compiled 22 distinct categories of
international crimes - covering everything from "war crimes" to "thetaking
of hostages" to "crimes against environment".
Throughout history, man has also attempted to hold others accountable when
the rules of international law have been brocken. Unfortunately, it has
proven easier to define the crime than to punish the criminal.
[...] In the aftermath of World War I, the victorious allies sought to try
kaiser Wilhalm II for crimes against the peace. But the kaiser fled to the
Netherlands, and the Allies soon lost interest in the case.
In 1920, the Allies signed the treaty with Turkey calli8ng for the trial of
those responsible for the Armenian massacre. But the treaty was never
ratified.
Finally, Mr. President, after the horrors of World War II were revealed to
the world, 22 leaders of the Nazi movement were brought to trial in the
town of Nuremberg, Germany. All but three were convicted; 12 were sentenced
to death, and the rest were given lengthy sentences.
But the Nuremberg trials were not just about retribution. They were also
about healing. They helped an entire generation come to terms with an event
that defied our every notion of the limits of humanity.
My experience with the Nuremberg trials is in some respects a personal one.
My father as Executive Trial Counsel for the American prosecution team at
Nuremberg, working alongside Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson.
I grew up in a home where the words Treblinka, Auschwitz, Buchenwald, and
Bormann, and Mengele, and Eichmnann, and Goering, and Goebbels were as
common as any names that I ever heard night after night at the dining room
table. My childhood friends knew nothing of the Holocaust. I knew of it
from as long as I can remember.
The Nuremberg trials were not without their flaws. While the Nazis were the
ones who stood on trial, and rightfully so, the Allies were shielded from
potential war crimes of their own. The bombing of Dresden, the Soviet
massacre in the Katyn forest - all these were undiscussed, and unjudged.
Years later a bitter German population would call it victor's vengeance.
But Nuremberg taught the world an important lesson: that an international
tribunal could, in the end, render justice. In an effort to build on this
remarkable accomplishment, the United Nations set out to create a permanent
international criminal court.
The theory behind the court, as outlined four decades ago, was visionary
and bold. just as the International Court of Justice mediates disputes
between nations, an international criminal court would judge the the
actions of individuals. It would sit at a neutral site with a panel of
judges from around the world, its ultimate foal to dispense equal justice.
This early optimism, unfortunately, was short-lived. The cold war soon
intervened, and by 1954 the work of the United Nations was set aside. For
the next several decades, a dedicated assortment of legal scholars kept the
issue alive. This included groups like the International Laws Association,
the American Bar Association, and a committee of internaional scholars led
by professor Bassiouni.
Finally, in 1989, acting on a request from Trinidad and Tobago, the
General Assembly called on the Un International Law Commission to take up
the matter: once again. By 1991 the Commission had adopted a draft code of
international crimes.
Then, last summer, the Commission made a formal determination: an
international criminal court could indeed be done. It asked permission to
take the next step - to begin work on the statute on the court itself.
Many nations agreed. But the United States, at first, did not. On October
27, State Department Legal Advisory Edwin Williamson appeared at he United
Nations to argue in favor of further delay.
Fortunately, Mr President, thanks to the urging of the European Community
and others, the US position was eventually softened. And on November 25,
with the support of the American delegation, the general Assembly granted
the Commission's request.
In the course of this debate our position became clear. The United States
would half heartedly support the United Nations effort. Leadership would be
left to others.
There are many legitimate concerns about the concern of an international
criminal court. Some observers are troubled by the constitutional
implications of trying a US citizen in an international forum. Others worry
about the autonomy of the court, and the extent to which it would be
shielded from political demands. Still others believe that to recognize the
jurisdiction of such a court would be an unacceptable loss of national
sovereignty.
These matters must be resolved and will be resolved. And we must do it with
due diligence. But we cannot afford to waste valuable time. There is a
sense of urgency today with the events in the former Yugoslavia, with the
events in the Middle East, with the increasing threat of drug traffickers.
There is a sense that there is a need for such a tribunal.
[...]
Mr President, an international criminal court would have three important
advantages.
First, an international criminal court would serve as an appropriate forum
to try those suspected of major war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Already the United States has taken the initial steps to try those
responsible for war crimes in the Balkans. But the lack of an existing
criminal structure has noticeably slowed our efforts.
Second, an international criminal court would provide a uniform mechanism
to try individuals suspected of other international crimes, such as
terrorism, drug trafficking, or money laundering.
For example, many nations are unable to try drug traffickers at home
because of the threat of violence. At the same time, they are unable to
extradite because of domestic political pressures. An international
tribunal would provide a third option.
Finally, an international criminal court would offer legal recourse for any
nation that has adopted its charter. Mr President, this is a critical
point. We cannot push for the establishment of an international tribunal
and pretend at the same time that we are exempt from its reach. Our support
for an international criminal court would help assure the world community
that the law among nations applies equally to all.
[...]
Mr President, there is nothing simple about the idea of an international
criminal court the length of time this proposal has been on the
international agenda should be prouf enough fo that. Indeed, the debate
over this issue is a reflection of the age-old struggle between the rights
of individuals, the sovereignty of nations, and the relentless demands of
the global community.
But as we shape a new agenda for this overchanging world, I believe we must
be guided above all else by the sanctity of law. And if we will not uphold
the rule of law whenever and wherever it is under challenge, then our
committment to justice is hollow indeed.
Mr President, in his closing remarks at the Nuremberg trials, Robert
Jackson recited the long list of crimes the Nazis were accused of, and the
evidence against them. He then pointed out the weighty responsability that
rested on the judges of the tribunal.
Their decision, he said, was not just a judgment on the guilt or innocence
of the men involved. In truth, it was a judgment on the Holocaust itself.
Justice Jackson closed his argument with these words:
"It is afainst this background that these defendants now ask this tribunal
to say that they are not guilty of planning, executing, or conspiring to
commit this long list of crimes and wrongs. They stand before the record of
this trial as blood-stained Gloucester stood by the body of his slain king.
He begged of the widow, as they beg of you: "Say I slew them not". And the
Queen replied: "Then say they were not slain. But dead they are."
If you were to say of these men that they are not guilty, it would it would
be as true to say that there has been no war, there are no slain, there has
been no crime"."
Following the JOINT RESOLUTION
"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
Congress finds that -
1. the freedom and security of the international community rests on the
sanctity of the rule of law;
2. the international community is increasingly threatened by unlawful acts
such as war crimes, genocide, aggression, terrorism, drug trafficking,
money laundering, and other crimes of an international character;
3. the prosecution of individuals suspected of carrying out such acts is
often impeded by political and legal obstacles such as disputes over
extradition, differences in the structure and capabilities of national
courts, and the lack of uniform guidelines under which to try such
individuals;
4. the war crimes trials held in the aftermath of World War II at
Nuremberg, Germany, and Tokyo, Japan, demonstrated that fair and effective
prosecution of war criminals could be carried out in an international
forum;
5. since its inception in 1945 the United Nations has sought to build on
the precedent established at the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials by establishing
a permanent international criminal court with jurisdiction over crimes of
an internazional character;
6. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 44/39, adopted on December 4,
1989, called on the International Law Commission to study the feasibility
of an international criminal court;
7. in the years after passage of that resolution the International Law
Commission has made great strides in establishing a framework for such a
court, including -
a. the adoption of a draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of
Mankind;
b. the creation of a Working Group on an International Criminal
Jurisdiction and the formulation by the Working Group of several concrete
proposals for the establishment and operation of an international criminal
court; and
c. the determination that an international criminal court along the lines
of that suggestes by the Working Group is feasible and that the logical
step would be to proceed with the formal drafting of a statute for such a
court;
8. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 47/33, adopted on November
25, 1992, called on the International Law Commission to begin the process
of drafting a statute for an international criminal court at its next
session; and
9. given the developments of recent years, the time is propitious for the
United States to lend its support to this effort.
SECTION 2. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.
It is the sense of the Congress that -
1. the establishment of an international criminal court with jurisdiction
over crimes of an international character would greatly strenghten the
international rule of law;
2. such a court would thereby serve the interests of the United States and
the world community; and
3. the United States delegation should make every effort to advance this
proposal at the United Nations.
SECTION 3. REQUIRED REPORT.
Not later than October 1, 1993, the President shall submit to Congress a
detailed report on developments relating to, and United States efforts in
support of, the establishment of an international criminal court with
jurisdiction over crimes of an international character."
