Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Written Evidence


ICJ/ICC/ICTY

Letter to Kit Dawnay, Committee Specialist, from the Parliamentary Relations and Devolution Department, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 11 October 2004

ICJ/ICC/ICTY

  Thank you for your letter of 10 September in which you raised the Foreign Affairs Committee's concerns about the budgetary situations of the International Criminal Court, International Court of Justice and International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's International Organisations Department have prepared the following outline of budgetary structures and potential vulnerabilities of these courts, explaining what we can do to help.

ICC

  The International Criminal Court's budget is made up of assessed contributions from States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The number of States Party currently stands at 97. The scale of contributions is based on the UN system with the percentages recalibrated to take into account the smaller number of contributing states. A further 42 states have signed the Rome Statute and most plan to ratify, thus becoming liable to contribute. The US have of course said they will not ratify.

  There are some concerns at the ICC relating to the timing of contributions. In September 2003, contributions—as a percentage of the total due—stood at 75%. By the end of 2003, they had reached 90%. The National Audit Office of the United Kingdom, who are external auditors to the Court, have advised that a 90% collection rate compares favourably with many international organisations. A similar pattern appears in 2004. As of July 2004, only 20 States Party (including the UK) had paid their contributions in full, 43 had paid nothing at all and the remaining states had made partial contributions. The contributions received represented 70% of the 2004 total due.

  States Party to the Rome Statute who have not paid their contribution to the Court by the end of 2004 risk losing their right to vote in the Assembly and in the Bureau as of 1 January 2005.

  At the Third Assembly of States Parties (ASP) of the International Criminal Court from 6-10 September 2004, the subject of arrears was discussed. The United Kingdom put forward a proposal to create a subsidiary body of the Assembly which could work together with the Court to address the problem of arrears. This proposal was not accepted despite some firm support from a number of States Parties, but we did succeed in ensuring that the proposal would be reconsidered next year.

  The problem of arrears at the ICC does not, at this stage, have significant financial implications but it risks undermining the principle of universality of the Court which is essential to its legitimacy. All States Parties need to pay their contributions on time and in full. We do so and will continue to press other States Parties to do so.

ICJ

  The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is financed from the UN Regular Budget, which is negotiated and agreed by the fifth Committee of the General Assembly. Although a number of countries are in arrears with their payment of assessed contributions to the UN budget as a whole, there are no specific problems affecting the ICJ.

ICTY

  The ICTY, (and ICTR-based in Arusha) is financed from assessed contributions from the full UN membership, but based on the ICTY's own budget separate from the UN Regular Budget and on a slightly different scale from the Regular Budget. Because of this separation of funds the Tribunal is consequently very exposed to late or non-payment of contributions.

  Concerns at the ICTY, though more serious than at the ICC, also relate to the level of payments in cash terms and to arrears.

  By October 2004 only 72 states (including the UK) had paid their contributions in full, 89 had paid nothing at all and the remaining states had made partial contributions. Contributions which, at the end of June 2004, stood at 77% of the total due for this calendar year had reached 97.5% by October. This improvement on the 89.5% payment level that existed when the FAC visited The Hague in September is due to the recent decision by Russia to clear its longstanding ICTY arrears of some US $12.8 million.

  Nevertheless, since only 104 states (again including the UK) had paid their 2003 contributions in full, the outstanding arrears from 2003 and previous years of some US $57 million remain of concern. These arrears would be equivalent to 33% of the 2004 budget, with 88% of them being owed by five states including the US and Japan. The US are late payers rather than non-payers, mainly for reasons relating to their internal financial mechanisms. But for some others non-payment reflects dissatisfaction with the Tribunals' management record. We share this dissatisfaction in many respects and have maintained pressure on the Tribunals to improve efficiency. We believe that considerable progress has been made and that withholding funds is only likely to have a negative effect on efficiency and ability to meet targets of Completion Strategies.

  The UN's financial situation overall is precarious with many member states in arrears. The organisation has tried to keep up the pressure on Member States to pay subscriptions on time, but the only official sanction available is the suspension of voting rights in the General Assembly. In practice the sanction of suspension of voting rights is used sparingly. Under Article 19 of the UN Charter a member's vote is withdrawn where "the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years". The trigger for invocation of Article 19 is the sum of a country's dues to the UN Regular Budget, Peacekeeping Budgets and the Tribunals. For the Tribunals, arrears from a few major contributors further exacerbate the financial problems because they have a disproportionate effect on cashflow.

  The UK has made and will continue to make every effort to maintain pressure on the ICTY (and ICTR) to improve efficiency. We must not allow the continuing impact of the financial problems to be used as a shield to fend off legitimate questions about operational efficiency. In 2003 we were a driving force behind the UN Security Council resolution which split the responsibilities of the Chief Prosecutor—previously a joint position for both ICTY and ICTR. Earlier this year the Security Council, in an effort to contain spiralling costs and improve the chances of meeting the Tribunal's Completion Strategy deadlines (end 2004 for investigations, end 2008 for first instance trials, end 2010 for appeals), called on the Tribunal to ensure that future indictments concentrated on the most senior and most responsible.

  We are lobbying bilaterally the principal debtors. We also expressed our concerns at the recent meeting of the Geneva Group (the largest budgetary contributors to the UN). We will continue to press partners to pay their dues.

Mark Turner

Parliamentary Relations and Devolution Department

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

11 October 2004


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 8 April 2005