November 8, 1996

GA Resolution on Next Steps - Plenary

1. From October 31 through November 1, 1996, approximately

128 representatives to the UNUs Sixth Committee (Legal) met

to discuss the report of the Preparatory Committee on the

Establishment of a Permanent International Criminal Court.

The key issue before the GA is the consideration of the

proposal of the PrepCom, namely, that their mandate be

renewed and a date for a treaty conference be set for 1998.

Out of 78 oral interventions, the CICC analysis is that 51

States endorsed the holding of a conference of

plenipotentiaries in 1998 and 4 States, Algeria, China,

Malaysia, and Mexico, opposed holding the conference in 1998.

Other countriesU positions were not readily apparent from

their oral or written statements. The representative to

Italy, who spoke first on the ICC item and who has offered to

host the conference, indicated his delegation's preference

for June 1998.

Informal Consultations - Draft Resolution on Next Steps

2. During the informal meeting held on November 1, 1997, the

Chairman of the Preparatory Committee, Adriaan Bos, Legal

Advisor of the Foreign Ministry of The Netherlands,

distributed and discussed a proposed ICC draft resolution,

which calls for 9 weeks of preparatory meetings in 1997 and

early 1998, and calls for the diplomatic conference to be

held in 1998.

3. Reportedly, two countries, China and Mexico, proposed

amendments to "weaken" the draft resolution by diminishing

the conclusions of the PrepCom report and suggesting that the

date in 1998 would be a "goal" that would have to be reviewed

by next year's Sixth Committee to determine whether or not to

go forward with the treaty conference in 1998 or to delay it

for one or more years. No conclusions were reached and

additional issues will be discussed at a later meeting. CICC

understands that several other countries, including the UK,

France, Cameroon, Algeria, and Japan, are expected to propose

language which could result in reviewing and delaying the

conference or otherwise slowing down the negotiations.

4. Reportedly, the States also considered whether the

PrepCom should meet for six or seven weeks in 1997 and for

two or three weeks in 1998. We understand that no State

requested less than six weeks of Preparatory Committee

(PrepCom) meetings in 1997, some States preferred meeting for

seven weeks in 1997. This is considered a positive

indication of the priority governments are affording the ICC

negotiations.

Substantive Issues Debated

5. Representatives in the Sixth Committee considered draft

provisions on trigger mechanisms for activating the

International Criminal Court's (ICC) prosecutorial role, the

role of the Security Council, complaints by Member States and

the CourtUs inherent jurisdiction over certain crimes.

Although many States agreed that the Security Council should be able to refer a situation to the Court, several States

expressed concern that granting the Security Council power to

invoke action by the ICC could undermine the judicial

independence of this proposed court.

6. The independence of the prosecutor to initiate and

investigate situations ex officio, and whether States need to

give their consent in order to be the subject of an

investigation were also points of concern. Most States agreed

that the Court should have jurisdiction over the core crimes

of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. With

regard to crimes against humanity, some States stated that

the nexus with armed conflict should be dropped. States

varied on whether aggression should be included, largely

because there is no generally accepted definition of

aggression and because the Security Council necessarily would

be more involved in determining such situations.