New Clause 1 - Jurisdiction of the court
International Criminal Court Bill [Lords]
12:00 pm
Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)
Before lunch, I was drawing to the Committee's attention the differences between the reservations or declarations of different states. The Minister called them interpretative declarations, which various states have entered. I was referring in particular to the distinction between those entered by the Governments of France and New Zealand.
The Governments of those two countries have long-standing differences about nuclear weapons testing in the south Pacific, so it is not surprising that their views on nuclear weapons generally are different. Whether we call it a reservation with a capital R, a reservation in lower case or an interpretative declaration, we are faced with the position that two sovereign countries, both state parties to the statute of Rome—France has ratified and I think that New Zealand has also ratified, although I am not sure—are taking diametrically opposed views on matters including the use of nuclear weapons in the definition of war crimes. It does not much matter whether one of them is right and one is wrong; it will cause huge difficulties for the ICC when it is set up following complete ratification.
I briefly draw attention to one or two other problems of which we should be aware following the publication of those interpretative declarations. France
``considers that the term `armed conflict' in article 8, paragraphs 2(b) and (c), in and of itself and in its context, refers to a situation of a kind which does not include the commission of ordinary crimes, including acts of terrorism, whether collective or isolated.''
That is interesting because France has suffered problems with terrorism, not only from Islamic fundamentalists but from those connected with the Corsican freedom movement. The French Government do not love terrorism any more than do the Government of our country, where we have been the victim of terrorism from Ireland and elsewhere.
The French also say:
``The situation referred to in article 8, paragraph 2(b)(xxiii), of the Statute does not preclude France from directing attacks against objectives considered as military objectives under international humanitarian law.''
Article 8.2 (b)(xxiii) of the Rome statute refers to utilising
``the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations''.
One might be concerned that directing an attack upon a civilian population could amount to a war crime—I use the term loosely—by the terms of the Rome statute, but the French have made it quite clear that they do not accept that that will necessarily be the case in all circumstances.
There were relevant examples in the war against Iraq. As I understand it, Saddam Hussein deliberately placed civilians in buildings of military significance to give some form of spurious protection to those buildings. To say the least, that was bad luck for the civilians who were killed. Against their will, they were placed in a position of vulnerability when the allies legitimately attacked a site of military significance. The French are now making it clear that they will not be frightened by a Saddam Hussein who misuses his population to inhibit a French military objective. That touches on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) last week: he said that the ICC and its requirements might inhibit freedom of military action. Nobody on the Opposition Benches in Committee wants military commanders to feel free to commit war crimes but, on occasion, there will be legitimate military objectives that will be inhibited unless we take the same robust line as the French.