Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Negotiations at the Rome Conference

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

  • 1350 Accesses

Abstract

The discussions at Rome Conference revolved around three major issues and aspects that were relevant to the future court. The first was the issue of trigger mechanism and the court’s jurisdiction, which was closely related to the fairness and effectiveness of the future court in that if the states or the UN Security Council had been given determinative roles in submitting cases before the Court, it would have been an “alibi” court. Most issues that were relevant to the issue of jurisdiction had already been resolved even before the inauguration of the conference.

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.

    Marlies Glasius, The International Criminal Court: A Global Civil Society Achievement (London and New York: Routledge, 2006), p. 61.

  2. 2.

    Ibid., pp. 61–62. Both the NGOs and the states’ delegates were opposed to extending the court’s jurisdiction beyond the most serious crimes to include the proposed crimes. Even the most discontent voice at the conference, the United States, joined the majority camp in that opposition. The United States remained particularly opposed to including terrorism because it did not want to endanger its own policy of having suspected terrorists extradited to US authorities, and this same argument applied to the other proposed crimes. In other words, the United States wanted to remain the sole authority that would address those crimes and did not want ICC involvement. “The US in a Bind over Terrorism,” Terra Viva, Issue 5, June 19, 1998, p. 3.

  3. 3.

    Kirsch and Holmes, “The Rome Conference on an International Criminal Court: The Negotiating Process,” p. 6.

  4. 4.

    Sharon A. Williams, “The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court: From 1947–2000 and Beyond,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Vol. 38, Issue 2, 2000, pp. 312–313.

  5. 5.

    Proposal of Germany, A/AC.249/1998/DP.2, 1998. The proposal further reads: “There is no reason why the ICC—established on the basis of a Treaty concluded by the largest possible number of States—should not be in the very same position to exercise universal jurisdiction for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in the same manner as the contracting Parties themselves…By ratifying the Statute of the ICC, the States Parties accept in an official and formal manner that the ICC can also exercise criminal jurisdiction with regard to these core crimes. This means that, like the Contracting States, the ICC should be competent to prosecute persons which have committed one of these core crimes, regardless of whether the territorial State, the custodial State, or any other State has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court.”

  6. 6.

    Susan Hannah Farbstein, “The Effectiveness of the Exercise of Jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court: The Issue of Complementarity,” European Centre for Minority Issues, Working Paper No. 12, 2001, p. 54.

  7. 7.

    Williams, “The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court: From 1947–2000 and Beyond,” p. 313.

  8. 8.

    Ibid., p. 315.

  9. 9.

    The United Kingdom Proposal, U.N. Doc. A/AC.249/WG.3/DP.1.

  10. 10.

    Williams, “The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court: From 1947–2000 and Beyond,” p. 316.

  11. 11.

    Ibid., p. 317.

  12. 12.

    Farbstein, “The Effectiveness of the Exercise of Jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court: The Issue of Complementarity,” p. 57.

  13. 13.

    The Proposal of the Republic of Korea, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/C.1/L.6, (June 18, 1998).

  14. 14.

    Williams, “The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court: From 1947–2000 and Beyond,” p. 317.

  15. 15.

    Ibid., p. 317.

  16. 16.

    Farbstein, “The Effectiveness of the Exercise of Jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court: The Issue of Complementarity,” p. 56.

  17. 17.

    U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/C.1/L.6.

  18. 18.

    Farbstein, “The Effectiveness of the Exercise of Jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court: The Issue of Complementarity,” p. 57.

  19. 19.

    Williams, “The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court: From 1947–2000 and Beyond,” p. 318.

  20. 20.

    Farbstein, “The Effectiveness of the Exercise of Jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court: The Issue of Complementarity,” p. 57.

  21. 21.

    Williams, “The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court: From 1947–2000 and Beyond,” p. 318.

  22. 22.

    Farbstein, “The Effectiveness of the Exercise of Jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court: The Issue of Complementarity,” p. 58.

  23. 23.

    Williams, “The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court: From 1947–2000 and Beyond,” p. 319.

  24. 24.

    The inclusion of the crime of aggression in the language of the final statute was not a priority even for the CICC because there was “no consensus among NGOs on the matter.” See Alejandro Kirk, “High Noon,” Terra Viva, Issue 23, July 15, 1998, p. 2.

  25. 25.

    “Campaigners Launch a Broadside,” On the Record ICC, Vol. 1, Issue 2.

  26. 26.

    “Aggression Splits the Rome Conference,” On the Record ICC, Vol. 1, Issue 5, available at http://www.advocacynet.org/news_view/news_78.html.

  27. 27.

    International Commission of Jurists, “Definition of Crimes,” ICJ Brief No. l to the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome June15–July 17, 1998, p. 2.

  28. 28.

    For instance, Arab states proposed linking crimes against humanity to international conflicts only. Obviously, this proposal would have weakened the court’s ability to address the commission of atrocities during internal conflicts, rebellions, and other similar incidents. See “Attempt Begins to Water Down Crimes Against Humanity,” On the Record ICC, Vol. 1, Issue 4, available at: http://www.advocacynet.org/news_view/news_77.html.

  29. 29.

    Ibid.

  30. 30.

    “NGO Alliance Backs Widening List of Crimes,” Terra Viva, Issue 17, July 7, 1998, p. 1.

  31. 31.

    International Commission of Jurists, “Definition of Crimes,” ICJ Brief No. l to the Rome Diplomatic Conference, p. 12.

  32. 32.

    Phyllis Hwang, “Defining Crimes against Humanity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,” Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 22, Issue 2, 1998, p. 496. Some even argued that only crimes committed during international wars should be put under the court’s jurisdiction.

  33. 33.

    Ibid., p. 496.

  34. 34.

    Ibid., p. 496.

  35. 35.

    Ibid., p. 497.

  36. 36.

    NGO Coalition for an International Criminal Court (Definitions Team), Informal Report of June 23, 1998 (1998), cited by Hwang, “Defining Crimes against Humanity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,” at p. 497, footnote 237.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., p. 498.

  38. 38.

    Canadian Delegation, Background Paper on Some Jurisprudence on Crimes Against Humanity (July 1, 1998), cited in ibid., at footnote 239.

  39. 39.

    Ibid., p. 498.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., p. 499.

  41. 41.

    Rome Statute, Article 7.

  42. 42.

    Hwang, “Defining Crimes against Humanity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,” p. 502.

  43. 43.

    “Britain Opposes Inclusion of Landmines as War Crime to Defend UK Nuclear Program,” On the Record ICC, Vol. 1, Issue 16, July 9, 1998, available at: http://www.advocacynet.org/news_view/news_88.html.

  44. 44.

    “Non-Aligned Nations Target Nukes,” Terra Viva, Issue 10, June 26, 1998, p. 1.

  45. 45.

    “Definition of Crimes: Nuclear Cloud Over War Crimes Debate,” On the Record ICC, Vol. 1, Issue 12, July 3, 1998, available at: http://www.advocacynet.org/news_view/news_85.html.

  46. 46.

    Audrey I. Benison, “War Crimes: A Human Rights Approach to a Humanitarian Law Problem at the International Criminal Court,” Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 88, Issue 1, 1999, p. 143.

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). Negotiations at 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_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56736-9_9

  • 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