Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-16-Speech-4-178"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-12-16"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:International criminal court2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991216.8.4-178"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-12-16-Speech-4-1792
lpv:speaker	lp:Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez2
lpv:spokenAs	member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Development and Cooperation (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Partido Socialista Obrero Español (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-08--2002-01-14)3 substitute; AGRI (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (1999-09-14--2001-02-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and acts of aggression involving actions against third countries are the four types of crime which could be tried in the international criminal court. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 for the protection of victims of armed conflicts already oblige States to pursue and try the perpetrators of such crimes. The plan for an international criminal court is another step forward in the creation of an international humanitarian legal system. I am reminded here that the preparation period for the statute of the international criminal court was long and tense. I had the honour of participating in that process on behalf of the world parliamentary community in my capacity as the then President of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I can therefore bear witness to the fact that, in that very complicated negotiation, many concessions had to be made in order to draw up a text which, although falling short of our initial aspirations, achieved the necessary consensus and was finally able to come into play as an acceptably effective instrument. It would be irresponsible today not to publicly recognise our disappointment at the fact that, a year and a half later, only 91 States have signed it and just five or six have ratified it when – as Mrs Schörling has said – 60 ratifications are necessary for the court to come into effect. Therefore, by means of the resolution we are about to approve, the European Parliament is coherently maintaining the support which it always expressed for this initiative. However, to sum up, what we are going to do here in these final debates of the year and the century is to publicly and formally recognise that this issue is still outstanding, and that we also have the commitment to persevere with our efforts to fulfil the objective which we set on approving the court’s statute, also urging the Council and the Commission to act to this end. In all these actions, we Socialists are guided by the awareness that, in a world which is being globalised, it is essential that the Rule of Law is globalised as well and this is what we should work towards."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph