Amid Charges of Partiality, Bias, Delegates Call for Judicial Independence to Be Upheld Hailing the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court as leading examples of ending impunity, delegates in the General Assembly today examined reports on recent achievements and elaborated on challenges ahead during a day-long debate. More than 45 speakers delivered statements on the two Courts, covering the work of the two bodies on issues ranging from establishing territorial borders to prosecuting the world’s most heinous crimes. During the debate on the International Criminal Court, its President, Sang-Hyun Song introduced three reports on activities during the past year and told delegates that the Court could properly deliver its mandate only if States cooperated in accordance with the obligations they accepted under the Rome Statute. “Ultimately, the ICC’s success in suppressing impunity depends on your support,” he said. “The ICC must remain an independent, judicial institution, relying on States for enforcement and cooperation.” Pointing out that the Statute recognized that grave crimes in the Court’s jurisdiction threatened the peace, security and well-being of the world, he said: “It is not difficult to see why. Mass murder, the use of armed force against civilians, deportation of populations, the use of child soldiers, rape as a weapon of war – these are atrocious acts which inflict irreparable suffering, often across generations.” As part of its mandate, the Court’s Trust Fund had created 28 projects benefiting 110,000 in Uganda and Democratic Republic of the Congo, he said. In the ensuing debate, delegates raised a range of issues, including limited financial resources and the African Union and Kenya’s concerns over the jurisdiction over several cases currently before the Court. Kenya’s representative said, in view of the current superficial and wrong implementation of the Rome Statute, the international criminal justice system was faced with a unique historical conundrum that needed to be approached constructively. Cooperation with the Court needed to be a “two-way” process that required the Court to extend its cooperation to State parties. The Statute’s current interpretation and implementation in relation to his country showed little or no accommodation to the concerns of an active, cooperating State party with a rich history of local jurisprudence. Moreover, the Statute’s application was highly prejudicial to a member State’s interests and that was consistent with a political agenda rather than a quest for fighting impunity or seeking lasting peace or justice, he said, calling upon the organs of the Court to take immediate action to ensure their independence. Some delegates shared his view. “International criminal justice is in a crisis of credibility,” said Rwanda’s representative. “There is a need to review what we have achieved over the last decades and chart a way forward.” The Court should be a court of last resort, she said, pointing out that Kenya was capable of prosecuting all cases related to the 2007 post-election violence. However, the Court’s proponents were ostensibly deaf to the increasingly vocal criticism against its bias towards Africa. “This is not acceptable and Africa will stand up and refuse to be intimidated or bribed into silence and inaction on this matter,” she said. New Zealand’s representative said the Court was now facing the strongest challenge in its 10-year existence, and that the concerns of the African Union and Kenya and their request that the Security Council defer several Kenya cases required careful and serious consideration. Sweden’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Nordic Countries, also acknowledged the scepticism expressed by a number of African Governments about the Court’s situation and indictments. Although the current proceedings before the Court concerned African States, the largest numbers of those situations had been referred by the States themselves, he said. A number of delegations were also concerned about outstanding arrest warrants. The Head of the European Union delegation said a fundamental challenge concerned cooperation with the Court and, in particular, how to react to instances of non-cooperation of States that were in violation of their obligations with regard to the Court. Yet, even in the face of those problems, Namibia’s representative summed up a common view, that despite challenges and concerns, the International Criminal Court’s role in deterring and prosecuting heinous crimes that threatened peace and security could not be overstated. During the debate on the International Court of Justice, its President, Peter Tomka, said that the Court had worked over the last 12 months towards advancing its mandate, including clearing its backlog and issuing two judgments and six orders while operating on less than 1 per cent of the United Nations regular budget. “The Court must do its utmost to serve the noble purposes and goals of the United Nations using limited resources,” he said after introducing two reports on the Court and highlighting the Court’s activities during the one-year reporting period. “I hope that I have shown that the recent contributions of the Court are not to be measured in terms of the financial resources that sustain it, but against the great progress made by it in the advancement of international justice and the peaceful settlement of disputes between States.” States thinking of submitting cases could be confident that the Court would move to the hearings stage without delay, he said. Many praised the Court for its contributions to international law, with some recognizing that resources were needed to operate a court with such a broad jurisdiction. The United States’ representative commended the Court’s continued public outreach to educate key sectors of society, including that the United Nations Web TV now covered proceedings. She hoped that the Court would continue to receive appropriate resources to continue its important mandate. A number of delegates mirrored that view. Costa Rica’s representative said resources were needed, especially given the increased number of cases. In addition, with less than 70 United Nations Member States recognizing the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, he invited all States to do so. Other delegates applauded the Court’s role on the global legal landscape. A representative of the Russian Federation said the Court should be an example for other international courts, including the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Also delivering statements on the International Court of Justice were representatives of Iran (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), New Zealand (speaking also for Canada and Australia), Romania, Peru, Philippines, Mexico, South Africa, Chile, India, Japan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Bolivia. Delivering statements on the International Criminal Court were representatives of Romania, Cuba, Argentina, Liechtenstein, Eritrea, Australia, Mexico, Estonia, United States, Brazil, Uruguay, Republic of Korea, Chile, Switzerland, Netherlands, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Japan, Russian Federation, Costa Rica, Sudan, China, South Africa and Canada. The representatives of Syria and Switzerland spoke in exercise of the right of reply. The General Assembly will meet again at 10 a.m. Tuesday 5 November to consider the Report of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Posted on: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 13:08:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015