Clause 1 - The ICC and the ICC Statute
International Criminal Court Bill [Lords]
11:00 am
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate, Conservative)
The amendments are extremely important and relate to the substance of our discussion, not only in terms of the application of the key articles of the Rome statute to the British population, but to the relationship between the Executive and Parliament. I hope that Government Members who are not part of the Executive will try to pay attention to my arguments, which deal with that relationship.
I am intrigued by the exception that was made for the crime of aggression in the definition of ICC crime. If we are content to allow ourselves to be subject to the provisions of the Rome statute, I do not understand why we would make an exception in the Bill for the crime of aggression. The explanatory notes purport to give an explanation.
My initial thought in tabling amendment No. 36 was to test the internationalist views and temper of the Government by removing the exception
``other than the crime of aggression''
to make the United Kingdom subject to the rulings of the ICC on aggression, as it is on war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The Government's explanation for the exception in clause 1 is that
``Agreement has yet to be reached''
—on the crime of aggression—
``and would in any case require an amendment of the ICC Statute. The earliest such an amendment could be adopted is seven years after the entry into force of the Statute (see Articles 121 and 123). Any amendment to the crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC, if accepted by the UK, would need to be given effect by amendment to this legislation.''
If amendments Nos. 36 and 37 are taken together, they would put in the Bill the Government's reservations about the case of aggression in exactly the same terms as any change to the key articles of the statute, which are 5, 6, 7 and 8. My amendments mirror the reservations—or, in effect, the protection—in the position that the United Kingdom as a state party negotiated in article 121 of the treaty. Article 121.5, states:
``Any amendment to articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of this Statute shall enter into force for those States Parties which have accepted the amendment one year after the deposit of their instruments of ratification or acceptance. In respect of a State Party which has not accepted the amendment, the Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction regarding a crime covered by the amendment when committed by that State Party's nationals or on its territory.''
That purports to give the protection to the United Kingdom that the Government desire if an amendment were negotiated.
The key element is that we do not have control over which amendments can be negotiated, because they do not have to be negotiated by unanimity. The assembly of states parties will decide whether a proposal that it receives for an amendment to the key sections of the statute should be discussed by a majority, and the adoption of such an amendment will require a two thirds majority of the states parties. The treaty goes on to state:
``Except as provided in paragraph 5, an amendment shall enter into force for all States Parties one year after instruments of ratification or acceptance have been deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations by seven-eighths of them.''
That takes us to why the United Kingdom needs protection. It appears to be protected under the statute, but that makes reference only to the Government, not to Parliament. Parliament should be given the same protection in the clause that the Government have seen fit to give in the case of aggression. The meaning of ``aggression'' will have to be negotiated because it was not decided in time to be included in the Rome statute. Reaching international agreement on that is an immensely difficult task, but Parliament should have the same protection in negotiating the statute as the Executive have given themselves in article 121.5.
That is important because the Government will find themselves under many pressures when negotiating amendments. They will not want to be seen to be outwith the general mood in the international community. That is why we are facing having the statute negotiated the way that it is. It can properly be argued that the Government are excessively sensitive to public opinion not only in the United Kingdom but in the global village, and that is why we are the only permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations likely to ratify the treaty without a reservation. The French will enter a reservation but of the three largest members of the Security Council, China has not even signed the statute and the United States has made it clear that it will not ratify it; I do not know the attitude of the Russians, and I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that. The United Kingdom, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has an exposed position.