House of Commons
Wednesday 27 October 1999
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
International Criminal Court
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Vaz.]
9.33 am
Ms Oona King (Bethnal Green and Bow): I am immensely honoured to have the opportunity to initiate this debate on the International Criminal Court, which represents nothing less than mankind's efforts to outlaw gross atrocities: crimes against humanity. It also represents 150 years of evolution in international humanitarian law. Above all, it represents the recognition that having laws alone is just not good enough: we must have the means of enforcing those laws.
So far, 89 countries have signed the statute of the International Criminal Court, which was passed on 17 July 1998 in Rome. As soon as 60 of those countries have ratified the treaty, the ICC will be established. It will be the first permanent institution dedicated to the investigation and prosecution of individuals for breaches of international humanitarian law. However, to understand the ICC's significance, we have to understand the context in which it has developed. I should therefore like briefly to mention some of the milestones preceding its establishment.
The first real codification of war crimes was the 1864 Geneva convention on care of the wounded. From about 1900, international humanitarian law evolved more quickly, especially with the 1899 and 1907 Hague conventions on the laws and customs of war on land. The customs of war have changed, and the Select Committee on International Development, of which I am a member, has published several reports on that. It is increasingly civilians who are wounded, and often in internal, not external, acts of aggression.
The horrors of the first world war led to new treaties on wounded soldiers and on the use of gas and bacteriological weapons. The first attempts to establish an International Criminal Court were also made in that period, but they were stillborn. International humanitarian law began to gain ground after the second world war, when there was a groundswell of opinion favouring prosecution of the leaders of the defeated powers. The charter of the international military tribunal of 1945 represents the establishment of the first temporary international criminal court.
The Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals tried three classes of crime: war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity. The genocide convention, in 1948, was
the first of the post-war conventions on international humanitarian law, and defined genocide as an attempt to destroy
The 1949 Geneva conventions on conduct of armed conflict, with additional protocols in 1972, codified war crimes and specified that, for the first time, internal as well as international and external conflicts were covered by law. Crimes against humanity were defined under separate conventions, such as the torture convention of 1984.
All those conventions have universal jurisdiction, which is a central point in the argument that has, finally, ensured establishment of the International Criminal Court. Universal jurisdiction acknowledges the fact that such crimes are so grave that their commission may be tried in any country, regardless of where the perpetrator comes from or where the crimes are committed. As the Pinochet case has shown, not even sovereign immunity overrides the principle of universal jurisdiction. There must be no hiding place, no safe haven, for anyone who has committed crimes against humanity.
I have repeated the words "crimes against humanity" several times already in my speech, and hope that hon. Members will consider what they mean when they are translated into action. I shall detain the House with no more than one brief description.
I shall never forget going to El Salvador in 1986, at the height of its civil war, and hearing of one of the crimes against humanity being perpetrated there, involving pregnant women, rats and metal boxes. A rat was place on a pregnant woman's stomach inside a metal box, which was heated from above. When the heat became so intense that the rat was forced to try to burrow out of the box, it did so through the pregnant woman's stomach.
I have described that crime in a little detail because words can be very dry and may not convey the horror of the crimes that they describe. I am certain that there would be no controversy on either side of the House about the need to ensure that we do not allow people responsible for such crimes to escape.
Despite the large body of existing humanitarian law, the 1990s have seen continued breaches, including ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, genocide in Rwanda and mass murder in East Timor. However, those atrocities have coincided with an unprecedented willingness at international level to bring people to justice and a dawning realisation that it is possible to do so. The first step was the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia in The Hague. Next came the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha. Switzerland, which is often ahead of the game, has tried and convicted a Rwandan citizen for crimes committed in Rwanda during the genocide in 1994.
However, the successful prosecutions are the exceptions that prove the rule, which, thus far, has been that international humanitarian law is not enforced. Thousands of crimes have been committed and many of the criminals are now in third countries, including here in Britain. I know of people thought to be guilty of such
crimes. In my constituency, I have taken an interest in cases involving alleged perpetrators of crimes against humanity in Bangladesh during the war of independence and in Rwanda.
Under universal jurisdiction, third countries, including Britain, should be trying such cases, but that is not happening. There has been only one trial under the War Crimes Act 1991, which refers specifically to crimes committed during the second world war. That has been the only trial in this country for grave breaches of international humanitarian law, although there is little doubt that such criminals have been, and continue to be, in this country.
That failure on our part is reflected throughout the world, but it does not square with an ethical foreign policy. However, under the current Government, Britain has been one of the most proactive states in trying to establish the International Criminal Court. Respect and praise are due for that.
The need for an International Criminal Court remains, because we have to bridge the gap between what a state promises that it will do and what it practises. The law exists, but it is not used. We can see that with the genocide convention, which took almost 50 years to the day to have its first success.
Under the principle of complementarity, which is central to the ICC, the primary responsibility for prosecution of breaches of international humanitarian law remains with the state parties. I must underline that, because some commentators and critics of the concept of an International Criminal Court have said that they worry that it might erode sovereignty. One of the most important points is that the ICC will be able to take on a case only if a state has been unable or unwilling to take it on itself and is already in breach of laws that it has signed up to. The ICC will not be rifling through the files of the Ministry of Defence or demanding the indictment of Cabinet Ministers and senior officers. It is not an international FBI.
By the same token, the ICC will not, unfortunately, be able to catch, try and convict every war criminal, torturer or genocidaire in the world--not even a significant minority of them. Let us be realistic about that. However, it will be able to oversee the development of international humanitarian law, try cases that come its way and add another hurdle in the path of criminals who have all too often felt that they can act with impunity despite--and sometimes because of--the magnitude of their crimes.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East):
Before the hon. Lady leaves this part of her excellent speech, will she agree to add a further item to the list of benefits of an International Criminal Court? Any such trials that have taken place, from Nuremberg onwards, have shown beyond peradventure that the war crimes were carried out, so that subsequent revisionists cannot get away with claiming that the acts never happened.
Ms King:
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which has not been lost on the House, where we recently remembered holocaust day. One reason why we have got to this stage is the Nuremberg trials. I entirely agree with him.
Because we have not yet ratified the ICC treaty, we might be letting slip some of the good progress that we have made. Let us not forget that the United Kingdom was at the forefront of negotiations in Rome and UK negotiators were instrumental in ensuring--this is an important point--that mass rape and other forced sexual crimes were included in the statute's definitions of crimes against humanity. The British Government are also credited with helping to secure compromises on some of the more esoteric but no less important matters of jurisdiction or definition. UK negotiators remain active in the preparatory committees now considering the rules of evidence for the court and the definition of the crime of aggression.
The Government have made several statements to the effect that we intend and hope to be among the first 60 states to sign. Four have already done so, including Italy, and many of our European partners are expected to do so soon. I hope that we shall not miss a chance to show our European partner France that we shall be quicker than them in upholding international law. If we fail to be among the first 60, we will lose influence over the critical early functioning of the administration of the court, including its financial administration. It would also be a poor indication of the seriousness with which we take our obligations under the international humanitarian law conventions that we have already signed.
The international community requires moral leadership on the issue, and I expect our Labour Government to show it. I shall be bitterly disappointed if we do not. I do not expect to be disappointed, because I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister--I take this opportunity to congratulate him on his elevation--and other Foreign Office Ministers take their obligations seriously. I understand that it is impossible to say exactly when a Bill will reach the House, particularly when it includes such major legal issues. However, I should like two reassurances from my hon. Friend.
First, I hope that the Government will not seek either of the opt-outs available under the statute. Article 124 says that a state can opt out of jurisdiction for seven years and article 98 leaves the door open for bilateral agreements allowing individuals to evade extradition. I would welcome reassurance about those opt-outs.
Secondly, I would welcome an indication of the date by which the Government intend to publish draft legislation and of the manner in which they intend to consult on the issue. If the Government could speed up the process, other countries might be prompted to ratify quickly and hence remove boltholes for today's and tomorrow's criminals.
"in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such".
The genocide convention also gave a name to what Churchill described, in this Chamber, as a "crime with no name".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |