Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and also this legislation. The establishment of an independent International Criminal Court at the Hague is to be welcomed. The fact that it is being inaugurated with 18 sitting judges, including an Irish judge, is very much a step in the right direction.

In 1948, the United Nations was mindful of the war crimes committed in the Second World War, particularly following the Nuremburg and Tokyo trials. It is welcome that an independent body will now pursue such cases because the argument that the victors adjudicated, so to speak, in trial over the vanquished was a faulty principle which was subsequently open to propaganda. It is important, therefore, that this body is independent, acts independently and that these new crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are recognised.

It is regrettable that it took 50 years until the statute was adopted in July 1998 in Rome because in the interim many such crimes were committed across the globe. We are mindful of many of them, one of the most notable of which was in Uganda where Idi Amin, the dictator, participated in substantial and brutal genocide and lived out his life in freedom, despite the fact that he was exiled. That sends the wrong message.

Tribunals have been set up to deal with the atrocities that took place in the Balkans, which were much more recent, but very few of the people involved in those atrocities have been brought to justice. Nearer to home, we all remember Bloody Sunday and the various bombing atrocities that took place on that day. Those atrocities, including the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, would have been worthy of investigation by such an international criminal court to bring the perpetrators of those crimes to justice.

During war, occupying powers in particular operate with certain impunity where they have gained the upper hand and there must be some way of arresting the worst excesses that occur in such situations. The adage that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is true. Therefore, I hope that this mechanism will act as a deterrent to people who may be inclined in that direction and that subsequent to a conflict, such individuals can be held accountable in an international court of law, brought to justice and penalised for such atrocities. The establishment of a permanent court with jurisdiction is welcome in that regard.

It is good that Ireland has played its part and was one of the first 89 countries to sign up to this initiative. It is highly appropriate that Ireland would have been in the vanguard because our population suffered during the early part of the last century at the hands of British occupying forces, more particularly the Blacks and Tans who committed many atrocities. It is regrettable that Britain is still in denial about that, given the criticism that was recently levelled from many in the establishment at Ken Loach on the showing of his award winning film, "The Wind that Shakes the Barley". The release of that film was an opportunity for them to address and put to bed that issue. Obviously with the passing of time nobody will suggest that issue will ever be examined by a criminal court, but it would welcome if such atrocities were recognised and an apology given. The ideal opportunity for doing that was the release of that film.

While the number of countries which have signed up to this initiative has increased to approximately 100, I agree with Senator Cummins that it is regrettable that while the US and Israel in particular have signed up to it, they have not subscribed to the jurisdiction of the court. Given some of the excesses that have occurred in Iraq and the great suffering of the Palestinian people over many decades, it is important that the rule of law would be seen to operate on an even-handed basis across the world.

As Senator Cummins said, we are a country which has very close ties with the United States over many centuries and in our fight for freedom it was supportive. Given that the United States is now the only superpower in the world, there is probably an additional obligation on it to be seen to operate within the Geneva Convention and the codes of normality that would apply to civilisation in a war situation. An opportunity has been missed in this regard. The fact that we enjoy freedom in Europe today is in no small measure due to the part played by the US in two world wars. I had strong reservations about the US intervention in Iraq but I did not have the same reservations about its intervention in Afghanistan. The latter threat was a major one that needed to be tackled. It would be a major step in the right direction if America fully subscribed to the objectives and the jurisdiction of this court. In that regard, perhaps it is a welcome indication that the UN Security Council recently referred the case of Darfur in Sudan to that court to be investigated, in regard to which the US abstained, which means it recognised the role and part that can be played by the court.

As the Minister of State said, we had a constitutional amendment which enables us to pass this legislation without fear of it conflicting with our Constitution. He outlined the various provisions of the Bill such as the arrest, surrender of individuals, the freezing of assets and forfeiture of moneys or assets to the International Criminal Court. I also note that within the Bill there is the question of removing any diplomatic impunity people might have. That is necessary because we cannot have a situation where people who commit such war crimes could subsequently claim some sort of diplomatic immunity.

We need to be reminded that the International Criminal Court is not a substitute for national law but it encourages the authorities within their own jurisdictions to address and prosecute these crimes when they are committed there. However, where the political situation has broken down or where states are unwilling or unable to do so, then the court comes into play.

The provision to create a permanent, independent prosecutor who can investigate and prosecute greatly strengthens the operation of the court system and the existence of a pre-trial chamber ensures that the system will be implemented to the best international legal standards. The court will therefore command the respect and support of people around the world, which is essential.

The provision that emphasises guaranteeing the interests of the victims of such crimes is a welcome innovation. Like other Senators, I have often said that our legislation should lay greater emphasis on the plight of victims, making them more central to the operation of our criminal justice system. We should consider including that principle in some of our domestic legislation. We have debated this before and it has not been accepted but many of us feel it should be, and many victims of crime feel they are left to one side or abandoned.

The introduction of this legislation sends a message to perpetrators of international crime that Ireland will not be found wanting in ensuring that such people are brought to justice for atrocities they commit, wherever they are. I am glad we are playing our part within the court and will continue to ensure that its operations are effective in bringing such criminals to justice. I hope that by imposing the severe penalties available to it, the court will deter armed forces around the world from rape, murder and genocide. That is in the interests of all humanity and the proper regulation of world affairs.