Department of Public Information

Press Release

PREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT CONTINUES DISCUSSING

CREATION OF COURT BY TREATY

The relationship between the proposed international criminal court and the

United Nations should be governed by an agreement which balanced the

independence of the court with its need for adequate and predictable

financing, representatives said this afternoon as the Preparatory Committee

on the establishment of such a court continued discussing that relationship, as well as the mechanisms for the creation and financing of the court.

Several representatives urged that the court be financed through the regular United Nations budget. Others stated that the court should be underwritten by its States parties, with the United Nations financing those prosecutions referred to the court by the Security Council. Some speakers expressed concern that interested parties -- particularly complainant States - - should not finance prosecutions.

The representative of Venezuela said that an agreement between the United

Nations and the proposed court should provide a clear-cut legal basis for

the court's work. Libya said that the agreement should specifically

stipulate the independence of the court. Malaysia said that the agreement

regulating the relationship with the United Nations should be "confirmed by

acquiescence or lack of objection" by States parties, a proposal which he

said was wholly in accordance with the principle of State sovereignty.

The representative of Egypt said that the court's relationship with the

United Nations should be flexible, emphasizing independence and permanence.

Every government should be made aware of the financial implications of

ratifying the treaty, he said.

Ireland said that the relationship of the court and the United Nations

should be governed by an international agreement between two legal persons.

Such an agreement could only be completed after the entry-into-force of the

court statute. He advocated financing the court through the regular United

Nations budget.

Sweden said that it was only natural that the costs for prosecutions sought

by the Security Council should be borne by the United Nations. He had

questions as to whether interested parties -- particularly complainant

States -- should be called upon to finance court prosecutions.

The representative of New Zealand said that the proposal that the United

Nations finance the prosecution of cases referred by the Security Council

seemed to imply that the Council would be able to "contract" the

international court to execute justice. The proposal that complainant States should finance the court's prosecutions could create a disincentive to bring matters to the court.

Delegations were divided between suggesting that States parties provide the

necessary financing of the proposed court, and proposing that the resources

come from the United Nations regular budget. Singapore said that it was not

yet clear what would be the budgetary burden of the court, nor the ability

of the United Nations system to defray those costs. China said that the

financial responsibility should lie with the States parties, adding that

other, supplementary sources of income should not be ruled out. Slovenia

noted that budgetary considerations did not necessarily infringe on the

court's necessary independence, as demonstrated by various human rights

bodies financed by the United Nations which retained their independence.

Regarding the establishment of the court, representatives were generally

agreed that the court should be created through the entry-into-force of a

binding international treaty. Delegates expressed different views on the

number of ratifications that should be required for the treaty's entry-into-force.

The representative of Singapore said that the treaty would not be an

exercise in simple codification. Since it would be a new legal body, the

number of States parties required for ratification should be substantial,

demonstrating the commitment of the world's major legal systems.

The representative of the Czech Republic said that since the court would

need widespread support, some 55 to 60 signatories would be required. Mexico said that the list of required ratifiers should include the five permanent members of the Security Council. New Zealand said that the problem with establishing the court through a treaty was that such a treaty would likely have only a few signatories at first. Sweden said that the court should ideally be created through amendment of the Charter. But, as a practical matter, it might be established upon the ratification of its founding treaty by 30 to 40 States, he added. The representative of Ukraine favoured the highest number mentioned so far, 90 signatories, as the "maximum" number necessary for the implementation of the treaty.

Chile suggested that the number of ratifications should not be "too high nor too low" -- between 35 to 40 States -- considering that the universality of the court was just as fundamental as its early implementation; alternatively, a method that would take into account representation among regional groups of countries rather than number of individual States could also be considered. The court itself was to be a permanent institution which was also flexible enough to meet when required; certain parts of the court, such as the presidency and the registrar, should be established as soon as possible.

Australia suggested some 30 to 45 ratifying States should be sufficient for

the treaty's entry-into-force, with an additional 180-day period to

encourage other States to join in; past experience had shown that many

States, once past the initial stage, wished to become signatories to such

treaties.

The United Republic of Tanzania said that the first stages of the

establishment of the court should be undertaken by the United Nations so as

to facilitate the procedure; financial responsibility could be later taken

up by States parties.