International Criminal Court

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs written question – answered at on 14 May 2003.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Tony Worthington Mr Tony Worthington Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

(1) if he will make a statement about recent activities of the Government relating to bilateral agreements with the United States concerning the International Criminal Court;

(2) what implications the recent Extradition Treaty signed with the United States has for the treatment of those suspected of committing war crimes who might be tried by the International Criminal Court.

Photo of Bill Rammell Bill Rammell Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Foreign & Commonwealth Office

On 31 March 2003, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, together with the US Attorney General, signed a new bilateral Extradition Treaty between the United Kingdom and the USA. Article 16.2 of the Treaty contains a standard provision precluding the UK from transferring persons extradited from the US elsewhere without US consent, and vice versa. Such a provision features in the existing (1972) UK/US Extradition Treaty.

At US request, the UK has provided a side letter to the new Treaty confirming that the UK understands this provision to preclude the onward surrender to the International Criminal Court (ICC) of a person extradited from the US; and that the UK would contest any request from the ICC for such a surrender, as being incompatible with Article 98.2 of the ICC Statute.

Article 98.2 provides for non-surrender of an individual to the ICC where the requested State has an international obligation that gives the right of consent to the sending State.

There have been no other discussions with the US in respect of agreements relating to Article 98.2 of the ICC Statute since officials met at US request on 17 October 2002. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 26 February 2003, Hansard, column 595W.

Does this answer the above question?

Yes1 person thinks so

No1 person thinks not

Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.

Secretary of State

Secretary of State was originally the title given to the two officials who conducted the Royal Correspondence under Elizabeth I. Now it is the title held by some of the more important Government Ministers, for example the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Attorney General

The Attorney General, assisted by the Solicitor General, is the chief legal adviser to the Government. The Attorney General also has certain public interest functions, for example, in taking action to protect charities.

The Attorney General has overall responsibility for The Treasury Solicitor's Department, superintends the Director of Public Prosecutions as head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland. The Law Officers answer for these Departments in Parliament.

The Attorney General and the Solicitor General also deal with questions of law arising on Government Bills and with issues of legal policy. They are concerned with all major international and domestic litigation involving the Government and questions of European Community and International Law as they may affect Her Majesty's Government.

see also, http://www.lslo.gov.uk/