Clause 1 - The ICC and the ICC Statute
International Criminal Court Bill [Lords]
2:45 pm
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham, Conservative)
I have a couple of points to add to those made by my hon. and learned Friend. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) for tabling the amendments, which have provided us with a vehicle for the wider exploration of the parameters of the Bill.
The crime of aggression does not feature in the Rome statute because agreement could not be reached on it at the conference. The conference covered only the three basic categories of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. I hope that the Solicitor-General will outline the fundamental points of difference between the main protagonists. That will be useful in informing the Committee. I understand that the crime of aggression was not adopted because the definition was thought to be too wide. Perhaps the Solicitor-General could confirm that and reveal his thinking.
I believe that it was thought that any troop movement that led to one state feeling intimidated by another could be seen as an act of aggression, with all the difficulties accompanying that definition. The situation currently developing between China and Taiwan is perhaps an example on which the Solicitor-General could draw. In addition to the recent events involving the US plane and the detention of US serving officers in China, other developments have been reported in the press. Not the least of those have been potential arms sales to the island of Taiwan by Washington and the deployment of missiles by China.
I am trying to use a real example to show how one state's action could be deemed a form of aggression. The commander of the US Pacific forces has said that China has about 300 missiles that can strike Taiwan, and appears to be adding 50 more a year. He has commented:
``There will be a point at which that missile build-up will threaten the sufficient defence of Taiwan which it is the policy of the United States to maintain.''
When or how, in the Solicitor-General's view, would that point be reached? That information would help us to understand the problems surrounding the definition of aggression, which must interest hon. Members of all parties. I can see the Solicitor-General nodding. I hope that I did not give too arduous an example; it is the type of example that we need to consider, in the light of previous discussions of the Rome statute.
The Opposition are interested in the future prospects for including the crime of aggression in legislation covering the court. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has already asked for a further explanation of what the Solicitor-General understands aggression to mean. Much long deliberation has taken place on the point and I want to know the Government's stance, and that of other states, on lobbying for the addition of such new crimes.
Back in 1951—before I was born—when the International Law Commission prepared the draft statute, consideration was postponed pending the adoption of a definition of aggression. The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a definition of aggression in resolution 3314(XX) in 1974. However, work on the draft code of offences against the peace and security of mankind, which was undertaken from 1947 to 1953, was suspended again, awaiting the definition of ``aggression'', and resumed from 1983 to 1996, when the draft code was adopted. It has been a long and rocky road.
Given that not all states could agree on the definition of aggression, there must be some unease about the other three seemingly agreed categories of crime. In truth, they are not agreed; otherwise, countries such as the United States and France—which is announcing its intention to move forward very slowly, if at all—would not be closely examining their opt-outs. Difficulties, to which hon. Members have alluded during previous debates on the Bill, surround the contents of the existing statute.