The First Preparatory Committee on the establishment of an International Criminal Court has completed its third and final week of negotiations for the spring session. As the session came to a close the general feeling among NGO organizations was one of cautious optimism. While progress was slower than some had hoped, the governments drafted concrete texts for consideration as alternative texts of the International Law Commission draft statute. Most participants and observers agree that the Preparatory Committee meetings were much more substantive and have involved more governments than during the Ad Hoc Committee meetings. For example, during the Ad Hoc Committee meetings countries such as the UK and China could not even commit their support for the Court in principle. Similar statements made today would causes embarrassment and likely be grounds for ridicule by other countries. Fortunately, the focus of the discussions and drafting has progressed to the modalities of the courts creation. However

, some of the modalities suggested, such as the control of the Security Council over the courts docket, would have the same effect as not accepting the court in principle since the end result would reduce the court to a mere political body. Still, Most NGO members of the NGO Coalition have expressed tentatively their beliefs that enough progress is occurring to be able to press for a decision this fall in the General Assemble on the time and place of the Diplomatic Conference. Adriaan Bos told members of the NGO Coalition that setting a date for a Diplomatic Conference will depend on the achievements of the August session. If the Preparatory Committee generates concrete alternatives to draft ILC statute and presents this to Sixth Committee along with a recommendation to convene a Diplomatic Conference than arrangements may be possible. The major unresolved issues among Governments are the inclusion of treaty crimes within the courts jurisdiction and the role of the Security Council. These are political

questions which should be left for the Diplomatic Conference to be resolved.

The Role of the Chairman

Throughout the last three weeks, the Chairman, Adriaan Bos of the Netherlands directed the focus of the delegates to the Sixth Committee resolution. The Sixth Committee resolution provided, "to discuss further the major substantive and administrative issues arising out of the draft statute and, taking into account the different views expressed during the meetings, to draft texts, with a view to preparing a widely acceptable consolidated text of a convention for an international criminal court as a next step towards consideration by a conference of plenipotentiaries." In this respect, he struck a delicate balance between "discussion and the drafting of text." He achieved this by encouraging delegates to submit concrete texts of their discussion to the bureau. Papers were submitted by the United States, UK, Canada, Japan, Sweden, Austria, Italy, New Zealand, and Slovenia, among others. As far as possible, the Bureau incorporated both written and oral suggestions into composite papers on complementarit

y, the trigger mechanism, definition of core crimes, and cooperation between the court and national jurisdictions. These papers have now become part of the annex of the informal report, which will most likely be become part of the final report of the Preparatory Committee meetings following the August session. One of the noteworthy achievements of the Preparatory Committee is the draft definitions and alternative definitions of the three core crimes: war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

Finally, in preparation of the next Preparatory Committee session the Chairman prepared a list of questions relating the items, to be discussed in August. The questions refer to the procedural questions, the establishment of the ICC, the relationship between the ICC and the UN and finally, organizational questions, primarily; the composition and administration of the court.