November 1, 1995

Statement by Jamison S. Borek, Deputy Legal Adviser, United States Department of State

...On the basis of the accomplishments of the Ad Hoc Committee, we support that committee's consensus view that additional work is in order. We support that work, and believe that we should fashion a realistic agenda for intersessional meetings in 1996. That agenda needs to take into account the importance of having experts from capitals present for the many categories of technical discussions that will be needed. For large States such as my own, I realize that this poses fewer difficulties than for some others, and my government will provide the resources for its participation. However, in order to make this a global enterprise, we must have participation from a wider group of States than we have previously seen, and the agenda for intersessional work should take this into account.

In terms of what the agenda of work should contain, we note that the reference to the need for "further discussions and the drafting of texts" in the Ad Hoc Committee's report refers to the fact that while some issues are ripe for drafting, others are not, and will require further discussion. On the latter issues, my delegation understands that drafting will begin only after sufficient discussion and consideration have been given, and the parameters for appropriate solutions, or the issues and alternatives, are relatively focused and clear.

In our prior interventions, we have touched on the many issues that will need to be reviewed. We must ensure that the due process rights of defendants are protected. We must ensure that legitimate efforts of local authorities to investigate and prosecute crimes are not harmed, while at the same time providing the court with sufficient authority so that it can act effectively where it has jurisdiction. There is a long list of items to handle, and I think it is fair to say that we cannot know today how much progress will have been made a year from now. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to set a date for a diplomatic conference now. that does not mean that my delegation assumes that sufficient progress will not be made in a year's time -- quite the contrary. But we must not rush a decision that could, as a result of haste, allow us to wind up with a court that is ineffective and not widely endorsed.

In sum, my delegation is ready to move forward with attempts to establish a permanent international criminal court. We are mindful of the difficulties inherent in establishing a new institution of such complexity, but we stand ready to make a diligent effort, in every hope of a successful conclusion.