Permanent International Criminal Court established.

On 17 July, the United Nations Diplomatic Conference in Rome decided to establish a permanent International Criminal Court, with power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern. Those crimes are genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, as well as the crime of aggression, once an acceptable definition for the Court's jurisdiction over it is adopted. As it concluded five weeks of deliberations, the Conference adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 abstentions, the Statute for the Court (for details on the draft, see UN Chronicle, No. 2, 1998, pp. 51-52). The non-recorded vote was requested by the United States. In addressing the ceremony, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that it was "indeed a historic moment". Two millenniums ago, one of Rome's most famous sons, Marcus Tullius Cicero, had declared that "in the midst farms, law stands mute", but now there was "real hope that that blear statement will be less true in the future than it has been in the past", he stressed.

While the idea of an International criminal court was, in general, accepted by almost all delegations, debates showed that their positions and approaches differed widely. The non-inclusion of nuclear weapons in the list of serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international conflict was deplored by many. However, the Statute was seen by all as a good instrument for later perfection and, for that reason, national positions had been put aside in the spirit of flexibility and compromise. In the following pages, eminent persons associated with the Court's creation respond to the UN Chronicle's invitation for their perspectives. And here are some of the points made during the debate in Rome:

Afghanistan: If such a Court had existed 20 years ago, Afghanistan would not have been victim of so many aggressions.

Austria (on behalf of the European Union): A considerable number of thorny and extremely sensitive issues had been resolved - issues linked with the exercise of national criminal jurisdiction, with matters of national security and sovereignty.

Bangladesh: Regretted that the Conference had not been able to deal with the issue of weapons of mass destruction.

Benin: Was concerned about the role given to the Security Council under the Statute. Was it fair that it could block investigations of the Court? Nuclear weapons should have been formally banned by their inclusion in war crimes provisions.

Brazil: Was concerned that the Court might not be consistent with its national law which prohibits life imprisonment.

China: Granting the Prosecutor the right to initiate prosecutions placed State sovereignty on the subjective decisions of an individual.

Cuba: Regretted that destructive weapons of mass destruction had not been included in the Statute.

Egypt: Hoped for a definition of aggression that should conform to that of the General Assembly.

Holy See: Human dignity from the unborn to the elderly must never be violated.

India: As a nuclear-weapon State, India had tabled an amendment to list nuclear weapons among those whose use was banned for the Statute's purposes. That had not been accepted. The message sent was the international community had decided that the use of nuclear weapons was not a crime.

Israel: It was not necessary to have inserted into the list of the most heinous and grievous war crimes the action of transferring population into occupied territory.

Mexico: The package submitted contained a clause prohibiting reservations, but accepting reservations did not dilute the content of a treaty.

Pakistan: The principle of complementarity was the basic principle of the Court, which should not supplant but complement national legal systems.

Philippines: For the victims, the Court had provisions for restitution, compensation and rehabilitation.

Russian Federation: With respect to aggression, the Russian Federation's understanding was that the powers of the Security Council on that issue would not be affected.

Sierra Leone: It noted that the Statute preserved jurisdiction over internal armed conflict.

Singapore: Chemical and biological weapons had been inexplicably dropped. The non-inclusion of the death penalty was also a negative aspect.

Sri Lanka: The crime of terrorism was not included in the Statute.

Sudan (on behalf of the Arab Group of States): Aggression was "the mother of all crimes". Nuclear weapons should also have been included; any future list of weapons of mass destruction must include those weapons.

Trinidad and Tobago: It would continue its efforts to have the death penalty included in the Statute, and drug trafficking in the list of crimes under its jurisdiction.

Turkey: It would have been better to have language stating that the future Court would not have anything to do with internal matters of States.

United Kingdom: The Security Council should determine that an aggression had been committed.

United States: The concept of jurisdiction in the Statute and its application over non-States parties was unacceptable, therefore the United States voted against it. The problem was not one of prosecution, but of investigation, and the Court would not be well equipped to do that.

Amnesty International: The ultimate goal of an international community dedicated to ending impunity must be the universal jurisdiction of the Court.

Coalition for Non-Governmental Organizations: Succeeding generations would wonder why it took the international community so long.

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): The exclusion of weapons of mass destruction from the Statute was hard to understand.