Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-25-Speech-3-141"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020925.6.3-141"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as may be seen from the agenda, I have been asked to issue a statement today under the heading, ‘The situation concerning the International Criminal Court (ICC) following the informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers (Elsinore, 29 and 30.8.2002)’. I am alert to the fact that the request for this report has to be seen in terms of Parliament’s wish to be kept informed of the EU’s deliberations following the United States’ request for the Member States to enter into bilateral agreements aimed at preventing American citizens from being handed over to the Court. It is quite understandable that Members of the European Parliament should be concerned about this matter, just as they were concerned about the United States’ ASPA legislation (American Service Members’ Protection Act), for it is of crucial importance to us all to insist upon the integrity and effectiveness of the Court.
We find ourselves at the end of the period of reflection. At their meeting in New York, the United States and the EU agreed to look into whether we could arrive at a common position. This also meant that the United States was willing to move for, otherwise, there would have been no basis for further analytical work. Some outlines of a common approach are now beginning to emerge, therefore. In EU circles, there is agreement that any solution must take account of relevant agreements already entered into with the United States and must be based upon, and reflect, three fundamental principles if the integrity of the Rome Statute is to be preserved.
Clearly, the present American proposal is irreconcilable with obligations in relation to the International Criminal Court. On the other hand, it is no solution, either, simply to reject the proposal outright for that reason. On the contrary, we are trying, as I stated, to find a policy that can both sustain respect for the Court and ensure that we can come to an arrangement with the United States too.
These principles underlie the issue of preventing the most serious international crimes from going unpunished, the issue of reciprocity and the issue of the categories of person to whom the arrangements are to apply.
If a solution is to be found to the issue of exemption from punishment, raised by the American proposal, it will have to contain a suitable provision ruling out exemption from punishment for those who have committed crimes covered by the jurisdiction of the Court. That is to say, there must be no exemption from punishment for those who have committed crimes covered by the jurisdiction of the Court.
With regard to the issue of reciprocity, this is not something we want to see. It is unacceptable to arrive at a result that rules out the extradition of citizens of states participating in the ICC.
When it comes to the categories of person to whom the arrangements would be applicable, the United States wants to see a rule that would exclude everyone, and therefore all Americans, from extradition to the ICC. There is agreement in the EU that a solution will only be able to cover specified categories of person from countries not participating in the ICC. The issue of specifying in more detail those to whom the arrangements will apply will continue to be discussed up until 30 September.
I should like to emphasise that our analysis and deliberations have by no means been concluded. Rather, they are continuing. As recently as yesterday, the Presidency’s legal experts held a meeting with American interlocutors in order to exchange views and information. We shall now work hard to achieve a solution that can, if possible, accommodate the United States’ concerns without in any way undermining the Court. Both through bilateral contacts and at a meeting with the United States’ Secretary of State, Colin Powell, we have, as I mentioned, made it very clear how important it is to us that the spirit and letter of the Rome Statute should be respected. I also said this at the meetings I had on 3 July and again last week in New York.
In my introductory speech here today, I emphasised that the time has now come for the International Criminal Court to show that it is in a position to function as an effective and independent court. We must hope that the United States can be prevailed upon to adopt a more positive approach once the International Criminal Court has in practice had the opportunity to show that it operates in accordance with the highest standards of the rule of law and does not allow itself to be exploited for political reasons.
I should like to begin by pointing out that, since the Elsinore meeting, there have been further developments concerning the ICC, and I hope that these will have a more positive and long-term effect on the issues that are at present occupying our friends on the other side of the Atlantic. The first meeting of states participating in the ICC was held in New York from 3 to 10 September.
I am pleased to be able to report that this general meeting went well. It had been well prepared for by the Preparatory Commission (PrepCom) in New York. The present draft documents were finalised thanks to focused and significant contributions from all the delegations in the course of the ten meetings of the Preparatory Commission. We can be pleased that the same productiveness and willingness to compromise were manifested during the ICC’s first general meeting, so that it was possible to adopt the present documents without anyone’s being tempted to re-open the discussion concerning the compromises on which a consensus had previously been reached.
Now, the time has come to focus upon the International Criminal Court’s duties in The Hague. It is now up to diplomats and politicians to give the Court the ability to complete what was begun in Rome and continued in New York. The ICC must establish itself as an effective and independent institution which can accommodate the demands now made by the international community. The Court must exercise its jurisdiction effectively and independently, in the same way that we expect our national legal systems to.
Naturally, the ICC’s ability to function properly will depend upon no serious obstacles being placed in its way. That, of course, leads me on to the problem that I mentioned to begin with and that presumably also occupies Parliament a great deal, namely the issue of the United States’ request for bilateral agreements on non-extradition.
As the Presidency has said on previous occasions, the European Union and the United States share the same basic values. We both profess freedom and democracy, accountability to the courts and the defence of human rights and of the principle of a society governed by the rule of law. We have therefore always thought that the United States should be among the participants in the Rome Statute. The United States could make a particularly positive contribution to the Court and to the way it operates. Since 1998, we have tried to accommodate American concerns in relation to certain provisions of the Statute but, as the summer showed, these efforts have been in vain. MEPs will be familiar with the most recent chapter of the story whereby, in a declaration of 6 May of this year, the United States decided that it did not intend to participate in the Statute that it had in fact signed under the Clinton administration. We believe that the United States’ decision is wrong, and the European Union has publicly deplored the step taken by the Americans.
I shall not bore MEPs, or extend the sitting, by providing too many details, but I think it might be useful if I were to take this opportunity briefly to put into context the discussion we had in Elsinore concerning the bilateral agreements.
The United States’ request for bilateral agreements was first discussed by the Council in the Political and Security Committee (PSC) on 26 July. There was agreement in the PSC on a provisional common response that the Member States could give to the United States in the course of bilateral contacts. The common response essentially consisted of telling the Americans that the EU remains committed to its obligations to support the ICC and the integrity of the Rome Statute; that the American proposal has far-reaching implications necessitating the more detailed analysis in which we also invited the candidate countries to participate; and that we would come back with an answer as soon as the analysis had been completed. The Political and Security Committee (PSC) decided to return to the matter at the beginning of September once the Council’s experts on international law (COJUR) had discussed the matter on 4 September.
In the meantime, it was decided that it would be useful to have a short discussion of the matter at the meeting in Elsinore at the end of August. There, we agreed that the EU should not accept anything that might undermine the International Criminal Court. We also agreed that the EU should not increase the difficulties in relation to the United States. Rather, we should look at possible ways of accommodating the United States. We confirmed that the legal experts should examine the matter with a view to arriving at a common assessment which might lead to agreement as to a common and constructive approach on the part of the EU at the Council meeting on 30 September."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples