Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State and this Bill to Seanad Éireann.

The Minister of State will be aware that my party has long been a supporter of the establishment of the International Criminal Court and has espoused the need for such a body since the issue was agreed in Rome. The establishment of the International Criminal Court is the most important development in international law since the foundation of the United Nations. For that reason we fully support the Bill before the House this evening. It is a Bill that, after ratification, ensures our domestic law is in compliance with the obligations we undertook when we signed the Rome Statute. The International Criminal Court is an important tribunal that will exist so that we as a collective global people can try individuals responsible for the most serious international crimes — war crimes and crimes against humanity, torture, enforced disappearances and genocide. Through it we can send out a clear message that humanity will not countenance such activities, regardless of who is committing them. When we consider the enormous suffering that has taken place among our continental neighbours, through two world wars and the recent and ever-present conflicts in places such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Serbia and Chechnya, we clearly see the depth of unnecessary suffering and loss of life that has been imposed on our European brothers and sisters.

Such conflicts are compounded by the actions of a few tyrants at whatever level they operate, when they rape, ethnically cleanse, murder, kidnap and torture. That is just in Europe. When one looks at the wider world, there is a frightening array of zones wherein war crimes are the norm and genocide is occurring as we speak. Those regions include Rwanda, Darfur, East Timor, Tibet, Palestine, Congo and others too numerous to mention. These are the reasons we need a forum such as the International Criminal Court.

The court has been in gestation for almost a century. After the First World War, the Treaty of Versailles provided for the establishment of an international tribunal to try the German emperor. Kaiser Wilhelm never stood trial, but efforts after the Second World War were more successful when temporary tribunals were set up in Nuremburg and Tokyo to try the major war criminals. In addition, the Nuremburg charter specified areas that are still considered to be key crimes under international law — crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. In many ways these initiatives were the forerunners of the International Criminal Court. In particular, they forever shattered the notion that state sovereignty could be used as a defence for acts that were considered outrages on the consciences of mankind.

Thereafter, crimes of genocide and the Geneva Conventions were introduced. The General Assembly of the United Nations asked the International Law Commission to examine the possibility of an international criminal court. As an example of how slowly such matters move, that happened over 50 years ago. The Cold War ensured there was no possibility of getting agreement among nations. Nothing much happened after that until the 1980s. A small country proposed that efforts to establish an international criminal court should be resumed. When people argue that a small country such as Ireland has no role on the international stage, I point to the example set by Trinidad and Tobago in the 1980s, a little country of which most people here have probably never heard until this year's World Cup. It got discussions going again.

In the meantime, there have been temporary tribunals dealing with the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The establishment of those temporary tribunals gave a further impetus to the need for an international criminal court. Given revelations in recent times around the world, one sees even more justification for such a court. In Iraq, a good deal of attention is currently focusing on the recent incidents in Abu Ghraib, but let us not forget that over the previous 20 years a dreadful regime of torture was in place under Saddam Hussein and his lackeys. This did not just occur in Abu Ghraib, but throughout Iraq.

In recent times we had killing fields in Cambodia, Rwanda and even now the way in which the Palestinians are being treated in the Middle East is contrary to international law. That brings me on to the question of the effectiveness of this court. Ireland is, and should be, an enthusiastic supporter of the International Criminal Court. To some degree it is relevant that the entire global village accepts its jurisdiction. It is probably significant that over 100 countries have ratified the treaty at this stage. It is timely to recall those countries which voted against the Rome statute. Seven countries voted against the statute in July 1988, one of which was the United States, a point to which I will return. China, which is not exactly a bastion of freedom and human rights, also refused to ratify, as did Iraq.

Israel voted against the statute for its own reasons, which one can see when one examines the state terrorism in which it is indulging at the expense of the Palestinian people. Libya, under the leadership of Mr. Gadaffi, is not a prime example of democracy and human rights, although it is fair to say that Mr. Gadaffi seems to have had some change of heart in recent times, which is to be encouraged. The other two countries which voted against it at the time were Qatar and Yemen.

The countries that do not want international inspection of their actions do not support the proceedings of the International Criminal Court. The United States, prime among such countries, signed the Rome Statute in the final days of President Clinton's time in office, but it has not yet ratified it. The authorities in that country feel that the US Senate would not ratify it. I have never been considered anti-American, but I question the approach of the American authorities in this respect. Every possible pressure should be brought to bear on the US, as the only global superpower, to encourage it to support the International Criminal Court.

The Americans stated that they are not against the idea of international accountability for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, but that they do not agree with the form of the International Criminal Court. That is probably an easy way out for them. The US is happy for other nations to be bound by the court but it does not want to be bound by the court itself, which is an indefensible position. As a friend of the US, Ireland should continue to impose constructively any pressure it can, bilaterally and through international institutions, to encourage the US to support the court. The support of the US is vital if we want the court to be widely accepted in the short term. I do not doubt that it will be successful in the long term and that in years to come it will suit the US to support the efforts of the court. We have a duty to continue to press the issue with the US authorities.

One should not forget that the court's operations are under way. It is investigating a case in northern Uganda and it has received a second referral from the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is important not only that the court should be fully established, but that it should be fully accepted and recognised as a body that can bring good to the world. The tribunals at Nuremburg and Tokyo were established by the victors at the time. They were established post facto after Nazism and fascism had been defeated. The advantage of the International Criminal Court is that it is in place now. Those who are tempted to indulge in horrific practices are aware of its existence. They know they may be answerable to the body. It is not a question of getting the international community to support the establishment of such a body subsequently.

The International Criminal Court, which we have supported from the beginning, has started its work. I have a mild criticism in that it is a little late in the day to put in place measures that should have been put in place some years ago. I accept that there was a need for a referendum, which took place a few years ago to the best of my recollection. I also accept that the Bill, which is quite complex, contains a series of sections aimed at ensuring that our domestic law complies fully with our international obligations. I wish the Bill had been in place when we were ratifying the relevant treaty, which would have been the correct procedure. It is good that the Bill is now before the House and that we are in a position to support it, thereby ensuring we will comply fully with the court in every respect, including in our domestic law.

I ask the Minister of State to consider certain aspects of the Bill. Amnesty International produced a comprehensive document on the Bill, including many comments and recommendations. I hope he will assure me in his closing speech that the issues raised by Amnesty International have been taken fully into account. I do not intend to discuss the document in detail because the Minister of State will have read it just as I have. Amnesty International has raised issues such as increasing to 18 the age at which children may be conscripted or enlisted into armed forces. The existing articles provide that it is a war crime to conscript or enlist children under the age of 15 into armed forces or groups, or to use children under that age to participate actively in hostilities. It is not a theoretical problem because young children are unfortunately being drawn into conflicts in many parts of the world. They are generally not involved in the regular armed forces of a country, but many children are actively participating in hostilities with irregular groups, militias and terrorist groups. There is a strong case for raising the age of prohibition from 15, which was set to comply with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I support an approach which would seek a higher standard of protection for children. As 18 years is the age of maturity, there is no case for conscription under that age, nor is there a case for drafting children under the age of 18 into militias and groups.

An issue which one might not speak about with complete certainty is the voluntary enlisting of children under that age into the regular forces of a country. This might not be as clear cut when talking about apprentices into a regular army or something similar. The case made by Amnesty International on that issue is a good one. It also deals with the issue of other crimes under international law that are not contained in its own statute. I would be in agreement with the thinking on that issue.

The establishment of the International Criminal Court is the most important progress in international law in many years but I hope that, once it is fully supported by the entire international community, the ambit of the court will be extended. I can envisage the International Criminal Court having jurisdiction at some stage in regard to drug trafficking and issues of that kind, which are of major importance today. I realise that may be well into the future but it is possibly a development that will take place once the court is operational and fully supported by all members of the international community.

Fine Gael is fully supportive of the International Criminal Court. We want Ireland to comply not only with its obligations, but to take the lead and give an example in ensuring the International Criminal Court becomes a permanent successful part of the international architecture. We do not want it to be merely a symbol but a working body that will help to bring to justice those who are guilty of these outrageous crimes. If the court succeeds in the short term, we will all be pleased and we can then hope to extend its ambit and jurisdiction to ensure it will have an even greater role in international affairs in future years.