Abstract
In 1998, the complexity of the International Criminal Court discourse grew exponentially. Prior to that time, relatively few diplomats, NGO activists, and legal scholars were engaged in the ongoing debates about whether or not to establish an ICC and how to go about doing so. One crucial consequence of the approach of the Rome conference scheduled for June 1998 was that many more people began to discuss and take positions on the ICC issue. For the first time, the developments in the ICC negotiations began to be covered regularly by major newspapers. Consequently, it became much more difficult for any single participant in the ICC discourse to remain fully aware of the positions being taken by all of the other interlocutors in the ICC debate. Also, the supporters of the ICC project quickly realized that delicate compromises worked out in the early stages of the negotiations could become vulnerable to collapse as more individuals, generally with less expertise in the field of international criminal law, began to examine the issues at stake in the proposed ICC statute.
An International Criminal Court is hereby established. It shall be a permanent institution and shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern …
—Article 1, The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted July 17, 1998
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Rik Panganiban, “Like-Minded A to Z,” CICC Monitor—The Rome Treaty Conference, 15, Rome, July 3, 1998, p. 1. The list included the following states; Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brunei, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malawi, Malta, Namibia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, South Korea, Romania, Samoa, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, the United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Zambia.
ABA Task Force on an ICC and New York State Bar Association, “Joint Report with Recommendations to the House of Delegates: Establishment of an International Criminal Court,” International Lawyer 27 (Spring 1993): 257.
Working Group on Improving the Effectiveness of the United Nations, “Report on Improving the Effectiveness of the United Nations in Advancing the Rule of Law in the World,” International Lawyer 29 (Summer 1995): 300–1.
Comments of Marc Perrin de Brichambaut, Director of Legal Affairs, French Foreign Ministry, cited in Alison Dickens, “A Conference of Difficulty, France Says,” Terraviva Inter-Press Service, Rome, July 3, 1998.
Copyright information
© 2008 Michael J. Struett
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Struett, M.J. (2008). Building the Rome Statute: 1998. In: The Politics of Constructing the International Criminal Court. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230612419_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230612419_6
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-37227-0
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-61241-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)