Proposition 50K0492

Projet de loi portant assentiment au Statut de Rome de la Cour pénale internationale, fait à Rome le 17 juillet 1998.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Feb. 3, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

international agreement criminal law

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

April 27, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, this is a ⁇ important convention because it represents an important step towards the establishment of an international legal community. Where in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, with falls and rises, we have tried to make the rule of law of our national states, we are now trying to build an international legal community. All I want to emphasize here is that with the support of the majority parties, I have submitted a resolution that will be considered later for subsequent discussion in the Committee on Foreign Relations. It includes a call to the Belgian Government to make efforts to amend the Convention. We believe that the Convention is somewhat narrow and that a number of cross-border crimes are best also subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. These include crimes that often occur in the sphere of white board crime: active and passive corruption of foreign officials, international hostage-taking, international seizure of aircraft and ships, serious environmental crimes with cross-border effects, illegal production and trade in weapons, international drug trade, international trade in securities with knowledge, international money laundering, cross-border fraud and human and child trafficking. I hope that this resolution will be adopted and that the Belgian government will eventually work together with colleagues from the European Union to adapt the treaty.

The emergence of international justice is one of the great advances of the twentieth century. Fifty years after the Second World War and the Nuremberg trial, ten years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, four years after the Rwandan genocide, three years after the Dayton Accords, the States have decided that sovereignty should not and can no longer be a paravent allowing the most atrocious crimes to be committed impunely. Leaders and murderers must be held accountable for their actions before the international community. This is, without a doubt, one of the dividends of peace, the end of the Cold War. Through this advance towards international justice, the International Criminal Court crowns a decade of international cooperation and progress that has dealt with poverty in Copenhagen, the population in Cairo, women in Beijing, the environment in Rio. The international community has evolved into a community of law and has decided to give itself the means to defend its core values. The International Criminal Court takes an important step towards mutualization or a certain communitarianization of justice by entrusting an independent instance with the care to ensure the observance of the law, in what it has most important: the defence of the values of humanity. The prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity has become possible. This court also tries to address legal inequality between individuals. Those who had the chance to live in a rule of law were protected and could assert their rights before the justice of their country, while those who lived under undemocratic regimes or in war suffered violations of their fundamental rights without access to national justice or international justice. Their rights were doubly violated. It should be noted that crimes against humanity are, in most cases, the product of a state decision. Therefore, the prosecution of the culprits was difficult, especially since even if the criminals no longer retained the rennes of power, national reconciliation efforts prevailed over the necessity of justice. General Pinochet has taken advantage of this fact for years. The crimes he committed during his dictatorship, from 1973 to 1990, have never been tried in Chile. He passed an amnesty law and was elected a lifetime senator to better guarantee his immunity. Thanks to the joint efforts of a Spanish judge, national states including Belgium and public opinion, it is now admitted that national courts can prosecute major criminals who are not nationals for crimes committed on the territory of another country. It is remarkable to see that it is not the positive right that has evolved, but rather a political will to fight against impunity that was born. Paradoxically, the end of the twentieth century is marked by the surge of national courts that work international justice. Belgium has recently adopted a law allowing it to prosecute crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide, regardless of the nationality of the perpetrators or the place where the crimes were committed. However, it is the development of international criminal justice that has caused the biggest disruptions. International courts were considered to be the best guarantees against a partial and partial approach to justice, thus replacing national courts. The idea of judging the most serious violations of international law is not new. The Treaty of Versailles in 1918 already provided for the judgment of Emperor Guillaume. The Nuremberg and Tokyo courts allowed the judgments of World War II criminals, but it was a victorious justice. It is true that the Allies did not respond to the bombing of civilians in Dresden and other crimes. The International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 provided for the removal of perpetrators before an international court to be established. International justice has then made an exceptional leap in defining precisely war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity. On the one hand, a major advance was the fact that leaders could no longer hide behind an immunity usually guaranteed by their state. The movement stopped net, even though work continued within the United Nations to create an international criminal court. This ruling, largely due to the Cold War, has de facto guaranteed impunity for perpetrators of international crimes in South Africa, Cambodia, Tibet and many other countries. The end of the 1990s pulled international justice out of its lethargy. The wars of the former Yugoslavia and the genocide of Rwanda have provoked a surge in the international community, which has decided to react a posteriori, creating the necessary instances to judge war crimes and against humanity. The UN Security Council has entrusted the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the Tribunal for Rwanda with the task of judging the crimes committed in these two tragedies. These are two ad hoc courts created for the circumstances. Their abilities are limited in time and space. Despite some difficulties in functioning, these courts make it possible to make an independent justice. Political considerations have not prevented the independent prosecutor from charging heads of state, such as Mr. Trump. Milosevic, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is true that the International Criminal Court is the fruit of a compromise reached during an international negotiation in Rome. However, it allows to address three major shortcomings compared to previous attempts. 1 of 1. It is a permanent court that does not depend on circumstances and does not result from a single political decision of the United Nations Security Council. 2 of 2. Its scope of action is neither geographically nor in time limited, although there is no retroactive effect. 3 of 3. It is hoped that beyond its criminal role a posteriori, it will play a useful role of prevention and deterrence. As a symbol of international justice, it will be a permanent warning to the grass robbers. As a result of reciprocal concessions, the International Criminal Court is hampered by certain provisions that may diminish its effectiveness with regard to the delimitation of its powers or with regard to the possibility for the Security Council to temporarily suspend certain actions of the International Criminal Court. Unless referred to by the Security Council, the ICC is opposable only to States which have ratified the Treaty establishing this Court. Naturally, states likely to be exposed to prosecution, states that violate basic rules abstained or voted against the statute, following the example of the United States. It will be necessary to wait until 60 countries have ratified the treaty in order for the ICC to be established. Only six countries have ratified the Statute of the Court of Rome. It is important that Belgium ratifies this treaty as soon as possible. However, we feel a discomfort, I said in the committee, as to the scope of Article 31, 1, C. of the present Statute. This provision aims at an exemption from criminal liability. Reputable law professors have expressed concerns about this article, which I wanted to echo by submitting a proposal for a resolution here. The State Council followed their reasoning in its opinion on this status. What exactly is it about? The motive for exemption from criminal liability contained in this article of this Statute has the effect of restoring, with uncommon brutality, the justification of war crimes, as long as it is a matter of defending property essential to its survival or to that of others, or essential to the fulfillment of a military mission. We are entitled to question the significance of a court which would be called at the same time to condemn the perpetrators of war crimes and to acquit them for the benefit of legitimate defence or state of necessity, when it is known that the immense majority of these crimes are committed precisely for military reasons or in order to ensure the survival of the personnel involved. What other instrument would be the most appropriate to irretrievably seize the mechanism of this high jurisdiction! It is also possible to question the compatibility of Article 31(1)(c) with the fundamental principles of criminal law and international humanitarian law. The State Council also notes this in its opinion in the following terms: The statute is in retreat from the norms of the law currently in force. and . It is true that this article binds only the International Criminal Court and not the Belgian national judge. However, it is important – in our opinion – that the government and the legislative chambers specify the exact scope of this article. To this end, it is desirable that Parliament adopts a resolution, simultaneously with the approval of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, in order to support and encourage the Government to file an interpretative statement. This is the objective pursued by the resolution that the majority of the groups of the Committee on Foreign Relations signed. This resolution emphasizes two aspects. On the one hand, it is recalled our concern regarding this article; the House also indicates that the current legal norms remain applicable and will not be diminished by this statute. On the other hand, the Government is asked to make an interpretative statement on this subject. It is important that, in this matter, government and parliament act together, beyond majority-opposition divisions. Despite its shortcomings, this Court constitutes an important advance. It can experience crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, the most serious war crimes, both in the context of an international armed conflict and in the context of a non-international armed conflict. This distinction is important because it is it that allows certain states to shut themselves behind a pastoral conception of sovereignty and the notion of internal affairs. Thanks to such a court, Russia could not claim that Chechnya is an internal affair! The statute of the Court also allows it to continue the recruitment of children under the age of fifteen in all armed conflicts. This Court may be brought either by the Security Council, or by a State party to the Statute, or by the Prosecutor of the Court acting on its own initiative in full independence. The independent actions of the prosecutors of the courts for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia demonstrated that they were not subject to state reason. This is an important guarantee of the functioning of this International Court. In this position of prosecutor should be appointed a prosecutor with a strong personality, capable of carrying out this task. The Court can incriminate all responsible persons - natural persons, heads of state, ministers, parliamentarians. No diplomatic or political immunity is opposable to him. It is regrettable, however, that some states, among the world’s most important, have fled behind reserves – like France, which has claimed a seven-year optic-out for war crimes. Note that reserves can only have a temporary status limited to seven years. This is an important provision with a short transitional period. More serious is the attitude of the United States, which risks to torpedo the credibility of this Court whose statute they have not signed. It is increasingly clear that certain permanent members of the Security Council, far from playing their role of world government in peace and security matters, are becoming a barrier to the development of international law, especially in the field of international justice. The United States has not signed the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines or the Non-Proliferation Treaty, continues to apply the death penalty and refuses to pay its contribution to the UN budget. As regards Belgium, it must be acknowledged that the ratification of this treaty poses a constitutional legal problem. In fact, this treaty contradicts several provisions of the Belgian Constitution. It is regrettable that the revision of the referred constitutional articles was not planned for this legislature in order to bring the Constitution in line with the Statute of the Court. Being aware of this difficulty, we believe that it is, however, preferable for Belgium to ratify this treaty and continue to play a driving role internationally. It is therefore with great enthusiasm that the PSC group will vote in favour of this bill approving the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Personally, I believe that this Court will be a great encouragement for those who, every day, work in the humanitarian field and are confronted with human damage from war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the PRL FDF group is very pleased to have observed the will of the government and the action of our minister on the issue debated today. Thanks to the vote on this bill, which has already been passed to the Senate a few weeks ago, Belgium will be in the top peloton of countries in the world that support the establishment of a permanent international criminal court, which will be able to stabilize and make effective, without having to go through a debate at the United Nations, the ad hoc criminal court which sits in some cases, after approval of the United Nations, as we have seen for several years in various cases, notably that of Bosnia-Herzegovina to The Hague, in the Netherlands. We are ⁇ pleased to see that not only Belgium but many member countries of the Council of Europe are resolutely determined to advance the establishment of this permanent international criminal court. We know that the United States has some reluctance, but we believe that it is precisely the honour of Europe to succeed in persuading this great Western nation to overcome its reluctance to add an additional stone to the building of the defense of human rights in the world. We know that a fairly large number of member countries must have ratified this treaty before it can enter into force, but if all countries of the Council of Europe, following the resolution approved in this sense last year, do as Belgium today, a good forty countries will already have done the gesture of approval of this Rome Statute. Then we can hope that all the member countries of the international francophonie will be added, since, at the meeting in Montreal last July, this assembly of the francophonie also voted the resolution inviting all its member countries to support and quickly set up this international criminal court. Thus, the number of countries required to support and enable the entry into force of the treaty can be reached in very few years. After that, it will remain to fill the gaps that remain. On this point, we fully endorse the reluctance and reservations expressed by Mr. Lefevre and we will support his resolution, which will soon be debated in the Foreign Affairs Committee and then voted in this homicide in some time. Dear colleagues, I wanted to speak to this tribune to mark with a white stone the vote of this document by the House. It is an honor for our country to be among the first in Europe to approve this international treaty.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the interventions that have just taken place allow me to make the economy of mine since also Mr. Speaker. Levi’s as Mr. Clerfayt and Mr. Eyskens perfectly explained the scope of ratification of this treaty. I add that it is of course that I will support the resolutions that will be presented and that I share Mr. President’s concerns. and Lefevre. I would also like to thank Mr. Eyskens, who carried out the work, at the request of the Commission, following his proposal. I will ask the majority to support these resolution proposals that usefully complement and give a broader scope to the subsequent debate.