Dáil debates
Tuesday, 9 May 2006
International Criminal Court Bill 2003: Report Stage.
6:00 pm
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
I move amendmentNo. 10:
In page 11, lines 35 and 36, to delete "except subparagraph (b)(xx)" and substitute the following:
"including subparagraph (b)(xx) and this covers any such weapons, projectiles and materials or methods of warfare that are the subject of prohibition in a treaty ratified by the State".
This is the amendment to which I referred earlier. Again it is a recommendation by Amnesty International. Given the Minister's response to my previous amendment I can predict his response. The Bill excludes the Rome Statute crime of employing weapons, projectiles, material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury and which are inherently indiscriminate because the detail has yet to be annexed to the Rome Statute. My approach to this is to include the crime and follows a similar lead given by the Brazilian authorities. This crime would include the use of white phosphorous by the United States as an incendiary weapon knowingly against civilians in Fallujah last year. Initially the US said it was used to light the night sky but the horrific injuries to civilians proved beyond doubt that it was an indiscriminate weapon and it should come under the terms of this Bill. Even if it did we would not be able to hold the US to account for this because it opposes the International Criminal Court and has done its best to ensure it does not move beyond its current impotence. In its submission Amnesty International asks that instead of excluding the crime at this stage, which may demand further amendment to the Bill, Ireland adopt the approach taken by Brazil in its draft legislation and provide that this war crime covers any such weapons, projectiles, material or methods of war that are subject to a prohibition in a treaty ratified by Ireland.
These weapons are subject to other legislative provisions ratified by Ireland and they should be clearly stated in this instance.
Other weapons employed in modern warfare should be subject to the legislation. In this regard, I do not refer solely to white phosphorus. Uranium-tipped shells comprise a similar weapon. They might discriminate when first employed but are indiscriminate in their effects thereafter and in the injuries they inflict on civilians, who are not the initial target. There was no reason for the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah other than to cause havoc and injury to civilians.
I hope the Minister will take on board my amendment.
No comments