Statement by Dr. ZHU WEN-QI

Sixth Committee

.../

Mr. Chairman:

.../..

First, on the relationship between the Draft Code and the proposed International Criminal Court, it has been the consistent view of my delegation that in view of the serious threats to the peace and security of mankind posed by the kind of international offenses to be covered under the Draft Code, and in view of the fundamental purpose for the establishment of an international criminal court, which is to strengthen international cooperation in dealing with such offenses, it is quite necessary to put offense listed in the Draft Code under the subject-matter jurisdiction (ratione materiae) of such an international court. For this purpose, the provisions of the Draft Code must be harmonized with this objective. The commission rightly decided at this year's session that a special mechanism be set up to harmonize the Statute of the International Criminal Court and the provisions of the Draft Code. My delegation appreciates this decision.

It should also be pointed out that in order to make it easier for those countries which will not accept the jurisdiction of the Court to pass the Draft Code applicable to their domestic courts, the Draft Code should be somewhat flexible in its provisions governing its enforcement mechanisms so that it can be applied not only to the domestic courts of a country as a model of universal jurisdiction, but to the proposed international criminal court as well.

The Special Rapporteur has also made concrete proposals on the General rules of the Draft Code on its first reading on the basis of the written opinions of various countries. It is my initial impression that these proposals are to the point and reasonable. For instance, on Article 1 of the General Rules which is about the definition of offense, the Special Rapporteur gave both a description and a listing of offenses. This will make it more acceptable to the various countries than its first reading version. On the question of wheter to combine Article 4 (motives) with Article 14 (defenses and extenuating circumstances), the Special Rapporteur suggested the deletion of Article 4. Since Article 14 already covers Article 4, I feel that this suggestion should be considered. However, given the requirement of accuracy for criminal law and the differences of various countries in the field, some complex legal and technical questions still remain to be studied. Article 3 on the concept of attempt is a case in point. S

ince this concept can not be fully applied to the offenses listed in the Draft Code, further study is needed as to wheter there should be a general rule on the concept of attempt in the general rules or to state explicitly in the sub-rules on specific offenses if this concept is included. There are also differences within the Commission on the appropriateness of the provisions on non bis in idem, which may need to be brought in line with the Statute of the International Criminal Court. It is my hope that at its next year's regular Session, the ILC will study these issues fully so as to further improve the Draft Code.