Sixth Committee (Legal) - Press Release 29 November 1994

The Sixth Committee met this morning to take action on draft resolutions on the report of the International Law Commission, and emendaments to one of the draft resolutions which deals with the establishment of an international criminal court. It was also expected to take action on a draft resolution relating to a convention on jurisdictional immunities of States and their property.

By a draft resolution on the establishment of a criminal court (A/cC.6/49/L.24), sponsored by France, the Assembly would decide to establish an ad hoc committee open to all members of the United Nations or its specialized agencies, to review the major substantive and administrative issues arising from the International Law Commission's draft statute for the court, and to consider arrangements for convening an international conference of plenipotentiaries. The Committee would meet from 14 to 25 August 1995 and present its report to the Assembly. The Assembly would study the ad hoc committee's report at its next session and decide on the convening of an international conference of plenipotentiaries to conclude a convention on the establishment of a court.

The Secretary-General would provide the working group with the necessary facilities and present it with a preliminary report of provisional estimates on the staffing, structure and coste of establishing such a court.

By the terms of an amendment to that draft, sponsored by Ghana (A/C.6/49/L.26) operative paragraph 6 would be replaced with one in which the Assembly would decide, on the basis of the ad hoc committee's conclusions, to convene a conference of plenipotentiaries not later than 1997 to elaborate and adopt a statute of an international criminal court.

According to a new operative paragraph 7, it would decide that the Secretary-General would transmit to the conference the following: the draft statute of an international criminal court; commentaries by the International Law Commission; the summary of the Sixth Committee's current debate on the Commission's report; the summary of the ad hoc committee's debate and its report; as well as the comments of States.

Under a new paragraph 8, the Assembly would take up the question at its next session.

George O. Lamptey (Ghana) introduced the proposed amendment to the draft resolution on an international criminal court. He said the amendment was being proposed in an effort to achieve consensus. Debate on the topic in the Assembly had reflected a general wish for certain actions to be taken, and it would be completely unworthy of the Sixth Committee to do otherwise. His proposal called for a decision at this session that a plenipotentiary conference be held in 1997 to elaborate the draft statute for the court. That would allow more time for States that wanted it. The work of the ad hoc committee would impact on the conference. Ghana did not wish to create division. If an international criminal court existed, many current difficulties would be eliminated. Libya would not be suffering today because it refused to send its citizens for trial in a court in whose jurisdiction it lacked confidence.

Lily Zacharin (Malaysia) said fer delegation supported the amendment introcduced by Ghana.

Paul Gulleik Larsen (Norway), speaking on behalf of the five Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), moved that no action be taken on the amendment presented by Ghana. The Nordic countries favoured the establishment of an international criminal court and has supported the convening of a conference at an early date. No action should be taken on the amendment as the best way to gain support for such a court was trough the adoption of a consensus resolution that would provide a firm basis for a diplomatic conference.

Mr. Lamptey (Ghana) said his country did not share the view that consensus was the higher goal. It was opposed to the no-action motion. Consensus on the court should be reached at the conference.

Mr. Legal (France) supported the no-action motion. The text of the draft resolution was not a minority view, but the result of the efforts of all to achieve the goal of the establishment of an international criminal court.

Isaac E. Ayewah (Nigeria) said the Assembly should now give impetus to the effort to establish an international criminal court within an established time-frame. He supported the holding of a conference no later than 1997. Nigeria was opposed to the no-action motion.

Suresh Chaturevedi (India) said the establishment of an International Criminal Court needed careful consideration. This was not the proper time to decide on the timing of a conference. He supported the motion of no action.

The no-action motion was adopted by the Committee by a vote of 57 favour to 29 against, with 36 abstentions.