Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Rome Conference

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover A Brief History of International Criminal Law and International Criminal Court

  • 1373 Accesses

Abstract

The decision, made at the end of the process by which an ad hoc committee and six preparatory committee meetings had been held, to convene a multilateral conference to discuss the issue of creating an International Criminal Court (ICC) with a permanent seat and inherent power to address the most egregious crimes was surely a huge success. Yet, at the outset of the conference, a number of unresolved issues still caused a great deal of skepticism over the prospect of the court as envisioned by the civil society actors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    M. Cherif Bassiouni, “Negotiating the Treaty of Rome on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court,” Cornell International Law Journal, Vol. 43, Issue 2, 1999, p. 446.

  2. 2.

    Philippe Kirsch and John T. Holmes, “The Rome Conference on an International Criminal Court: The Negotiating Process,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 93, Issue 1, 1999, p. 5. Kirsch and Holmes assert that the number of the brackets were about 1,400.

  3. 3.

    “The Case for an International Criminal Court,” On the Record ICC, Vol. 1, Issue 1, June 15, 1998, available at: http://www.advocacynet.org/news_view/news_59.html.

  4. 4.

    Farhan Haq, “Bracket-busting Time Begins,” Terra Viva, Issue 1, June 15, 1998, p. 1.

  5. 5.

    Ibid.

  6. 6.

    Ibid. However, it should be noted that especially Trinidad-Tobago, which put forward the proposal that triggered the ICC process in 1989, insisted that the final statute contains provisions to make drug trafficking a prosecutable crime before the court. On the first day of the conference, the Attorney-General of Trinidad-Tobago made a speech in which he invited the delegates to “reintroduce drug trafficking into the jurisdiction of the International Court.” See “Forget the Square Brackets, Go Back to Square One, Urges Trinidad and Tobago,” On the Record ICC, Vol. 1, Issue 2, June 16, 1998, available at: http://www.advocacynet.org/news_view/news_75.html.

  7. 7.

    David Davenport, “The New Diplomacy,” Policy Review, Issue 116, 2002–2003, p. 25. Human Rights Watch report reads as follows: “The Diplomatic Conference began on June 15 amid great uncertainty. Given the large number of disputed provisions throughout the “consolidated” draft text, there was widespread concern that the delegates would be unable to finish the work in the five weeks allocated.” Human Rights Watch World Report 1999, Special Issues and Campaigns: International Criminal Court, available at: http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/special/icc.html.

  8. 8.

    Ramesh Jaura, “Legal Experts on ICC Compromise Yes, Clout No,” Terra Viva, Issue 1, June 15, 1998, p. 3.

  9. 9.

    Anioaneta Bezlova, “China Keeps Wary Eye on Interference by Tribunal,” Terra Viva, Issue 2, June 16, 1998, p. 3.

  10. 10.

    Human Rights Watch World Report 1999, Special Issues and Campaigns: International Criminal Court.

  11. 11.

    “The Case for an International Criminal Court.”

  12. 12.

    Ibid.

  13. 13.

    Kirsch and Holmes, “The Rome Conference on an International Criminal Court: The Negotiating Process,” p. 5.

  14. 14.

    “The Case for an International Criminal Court.”

  15. 15.

    Jaura, “Legal Experts on ICC Compromise Yes, Clout No,” p. 3.

  16. 16.

    Kirsch and Holmes, “The Rome Conference on an International Criminal Court: The Negotiating Process,” p. 5.

  17. 17.

    Human Rights Watch World Report 1999, Special Issues and Campaigns: International Criminal Court.

  18. 18.

    Kirsch and Holmes, “The Rome Conference on an International Criminal Court: The Negotiating Process,” p. 5.

  19. 19.

    “The Case for an International Criminal Court.”

  20. 20.

    Kirsch and Holmes, “The Rome Conference on an International Criminal Court: The Negotiating Process,” p. 5.

  21. 21.

    Ibid., p. 5. Pace notes that NGOs and the LM countries, both of which have adopted a list of principles to be followed at the conference, “were prepared to tackle the challenges of Rome together.” William R. Pace, “CICC NGO Papers,” Workshop on International Criminal Accountability, Social Science Research Council, November 6–7, 2003, Washington, DC.

  22. 22.

    Human Rights Watch World Report 1999, Special Issues and Campaigns: International Criminal Court.

  23. 23.

    Nicolaos Strapatsas, “The European Union and Its Contribution to the Development of the International Criminal Court,” Revue de Droit Universite de Sherbrooke, Vol. 33, Issue 2, 2002/2003, p. 406.

  24. 24.

    The editorial of the first issue of Terra Viva, a magazine that was published throughout the conference under the sponsorship of the NGO coalition read as follows: “The issue now at stake in Rome is global governance, and civil society is determined to play its part in creating an International Criminal Court that is not just another ritual but an effective instrument of check and balance.” “Editorial: It’s All about Governance,” Terra Viva, Issue 1, 15 June 1998, p. 2.

  25. 25.

    William Pace, “Awful and Awesome Responsibility Stands In Front of Us. We Cannot Fail,” Statement at the Official Opening Plenary Session, The International Criminal Court Monitor, Special Issue 2, June 16, 1998, p. 1.

  26. 26.

    “Basic Principles for an Independent Effective and Fair International Criminal Court,” The International Criminal Court Monitor, Special Issue 2, June 16, 1998, pp. 2–3.

  27. 27.

    Pace, “CICC NGO Papers,” Workshop on International Criminal Accountability, Social Science Research Council, November 6–7, 2003, Washington, DC.

  28. 28.

    “Campaigners Launch a Broadside,” On the Record ICC, June 16, 1998, available at: http://www.advocacynet.org/news_view/news_75.html.

  29. 29.

    Bassiouni, “Negotiating the Treaty of Rome on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court,” p. 450.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., p. 451.

  31. 31.

    Ibid., pp. 456–457.

  32. 32.

    Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court, Report of the International Law Commission, U.N. GAOR, 49th Sess., Supp. No. 10, at 43, U.N. Doc. A/49/10 (1994), Article 4(1). (hereinafter the 1994 ILC Draft Statute).

  33. 33.

    However, it should be noted that based on the increase in the court’s workload, the President of the court could request that the states convert the court’s status to full time by a resolution. Bradley E. Berg, “The 1994 I.L.C. Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court: A Principled Appraisal of Jurisdictional Structure,” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Vol. 28, Issue 2, 1996, p. 226. He further noted that the contradiction between the permanent character of the court and the fact that it would proceed only when requested “reflects a compromise between the virtues of permanency and the practical expectation that, at least initially, the Court would not be sufficiently busy to necessitate a full-time structure.”

  34. 34.

    The 1994 ILC Draft Statute, Article 4(1).

  35. 35.

    The 1994 ILC Draft Statute, Article 20(a).

  36. 36.

    The 1994 ILC Draft Statute, Article 20(b).

  37. 37.

    The 1994 ILC Draft Statute, Article 20(c).

  38. 38.

    The 1994 ILC Draft Statute, Article 20(d).

  39. 39.

    The 1994 ILC Draft Statute, Article 20(e).

  40. 40.

    The 1994 ILC Draft Statute, Article 22 (1).

  41. 41.

    The 1994 ILC Draft Statute, Article 22 (2).

  42. 42.

    The 1994 ILC Draft Statute, Article 22 (3).

  43. 43.

    Jelena Pejic, “Creating a Permanent International Criminal Court: The Obstacles to Independence and Effectiveness,” Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 29, Issue 2, 1998, p. 320.

  44. 44.

    Berg, “The 1994 I.L.C. Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court: A Principled Appraisal of Jurisdictional Structure,” p. 230.

  45. 45.

    Ibid., p. 321.

  46. 46.

    The 1994 ILC Draft Statute, Article (23)(1).

  47. 47.

    The 1994 ILC Draft Statute, Article (23)(2).

  48. 48.

    The 1994 ILC Draft Statute, Article (25)(1).

  49. 49.

    Pejic, “Creating a Permanent International Criminal Court: The Obstacles to Independence and Effectiveness,” p. 324.

  50. 50.

    The 1994 ILC Draft Statute, Article (25)(2).

  51. 51.

    The 1994 ILC Draft Statute, Article (26)(1).

  52. 52.

    The 1994 ILC Draft Statute, Article (26)(3).

  53. 53.

    The 1994 ILC Draft Statute, Article (27)(1).

  54. 54.

    The 1994 ILC Draft Statute, Article (27)(2).

  55. 55.

    The 1994 ILC Draft Statute, Article (27)(3).

  56. 56.

    The 1994 ILC Draft Statute, Article (28)(1)(a).

  57. 57.

    The 1994 ILC Draft Statute, Article (28)(1)(b).

  58. 58.

    Berg, “The 1994 I.L.C. Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court: A Principled Appraisal of Jurisdictional Structure,” p. 226.

  59. 59.

    Bryan F. MacPherson, “Building an International Criminal Court for the 21st Century,” Connecticut Journal of International Law, Vol. 13, Issue 1, 1998, pp. 30–31.

  60. 60.

    Berg, “The 1994 I.L.C. Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court: A Principled Appraisal of Jurisdictional Structure,” pp. 226–227. According to Berg, both courts would have to exercise what could be called limited “ceded jurisdiction,” which refers to the dependence on state consent.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., p. 228.

  62. 62.

    Ibid., p. 228.

  63. 63.

    MacPherson, “Building an International Criminal Court for the 21st Century,” p. 29.

  64. 64.

    Berg, “The 1994 I.L.C. Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court: A Principled Appraisal of Jurisdictional Structure,” p. 230.

  65. 65.

    Ibid., p. 231.

Bibliography

  • Berg, Bradley E., “The 1994 I.L.C. Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court: A Principled Appraisal of Jurisdictional Structure,” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Vol. 28, Issue 2, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Watch World Report. Special Issues and Campaigns: International Criminal Court, 1999, available at: http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/special/icc.html.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Relations, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey

    Cenap Çakmak

Authors
  1. Cenap Çakmak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Çakmak, C. (2017). The Rome Conference. In: A Brief History of International Criminal Law and International Criminal Court. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56736-9_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56736-9_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-56735-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-56736-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation