Clause 1 - The ICC and the ICC Statute
International Criminal Court Bill [Lords]
2:30 pm
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate, Conservative)
That remark should be reported to the hon. Gentleman's party leadership.
I would like to discuss the detail of the amendments, having focused on the wider reasons for them. I shall try to anticipate the arguments of the Solicitor-General, who I understand is replying to the debate, as to why the amendments are not relevant. I suspect that he will draw my attention to clause 50 and schedule 8, but I have examined those parts of the Bill, and I do not understand how they can be consistent with the phrase ``other than . . . aggression'' in clause 1. Amendment No. 36 is intended to remove that phrase, and amendment No. 37 seeks to insert a reference to articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the ICC statute. If the hon. and learned Gentleman intends to rely on clause 50 and schedule 8, I can tell him that those provisions would cover acts of aggression as well. If they are reliable, it should not be necessary to include the phrase
``other than the crime of aggression''
in clause 1.
However, if the hon. and learned Gentleman is not certain whether one can rely on schedule 8, perhaps he is seeking to ensure that removal of the acts of aggression exception would require a change in the law by this House. The ``crime of aggression'' exception in clause 1 is not a reliable way of ensuring that. It would be much better for Parliament if amendments Nos. 36 and 37 were accepted and the position was absolutely clear. That would cover the entire position, so we would not have to rely on the language of clause 50 and schedule 8, which is at best slightly equivocal, particularly in terms of the future determination of the provisions by United Kingdom courts.
Clause 50 gives interpretative rather than prescriptive powers to the courts. For example, clause 50(2) states:
``In interpreting and applying the provisions of those articles the court shall take into account . . . any relevant Elements of Crimes adopted in accordance with article 9''.
Clause 50(5) states:
``Account may also be taken of other relevant international jurisprudence''
Perhaps a United Kingdom court would consider a change accepted by the Government under clause 50 and schedule 8 to be binding on the United Kingdom regardless of what had actually happened in Parliament.
To make my position explicit, I am asking the Government to accept amendments Nos. 36 and 37. They make it clear beyond peradventure that any changes have to be not only negotiated by the Government but approved by Parliament. I understand that the Bill is intended to ensure that that is the case, and I want the position to be clear, which is the reason for the amendment.