December 1st 2001

  Buy Issue 2622

Articles from this issue:

Cover Story: Afghanistan: After the fall of the Taliban - the tasks ahead

Editorial: Policies for John Howard’s agenda

Canberra Observed: Election outcome - reality and dreamland

Irian Jaya: Was Jakarta involved in West Papuan leader’s murder?

Queensland: Boswell beats Hanson, but what now?

Interview: Will Bailey answers development bank critics

LAW: International Criminal Court leads to legal uncertainty

Straws in the Wind

MEDIA: ABC electioneering

Letter: A bad mix

Letter: New patrol boats

Letter: Queue jumping

Interview with Bjorn Lomborg: Science versus name-calling

ECONOMY: The trade news from Doha

WA family debate hots up

DRUGS: Community drug prevention

Books: 'Meaninglessness: The Solutions of Nietzsche, Freud and Rorty', by Michael Casey

Books promotion page

International Criminal Court leads to legal uncertainty

by Richard Egan

News Weekly, December 1, 2001

In late August, Federal Attorney-General Daryl Williams gave the Joint Treaties Committee exposure drafts of two bills designed to implement the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Australian domestic law.

The Treaties Committee, which has been inquiring into whether it is in Australia’s national interest to ratify the ICC Statute since October last year, circulated the exposure drafts and indicated that it expected its inquiry to continue after the Federal election.

The exposure drafts confirm the position taken by critics of ratification: that this will lead to a loss of Australian sovereignty and to uncertainty in law.

The first bill, the International Criminal Court Bill 2001, is designed to ensure Australia’s absolute compliance with all requests of the ICC. The bill binds the Crown, both Federally and at State level, and makes it compulsory for the Attorney-General, magistrates and law enforcement officers to comply with requests from the ICC for the arrest and surrender of persons.

The bill specifies that surrender of persons to the ICC are not to be subject to the usual legal protections applying to requests for extradition to other nations.

It states very limited and specific exceptions to the obligation to surrender. It makes it clear that the ICC makes the final determination as to whether a charge is admissible before that court.

Furthermore, it explicitly makes unlawful any attempt by the Attorney-General to refuse compliance with an ICC request on the ground that a person has already been found innocent on the same charge by an Australian court.

It could not be clearer that, far from being given genuine "complementarity" with the Australian judicial system, the ICC is treated as a superior court which can issue binding directives to the Attorney-General of this once sovereign nation.

The second bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to import into Australian domestic law all the offences contained in the ICC Statute.

Among these, as many critics have noted, are two offences so vaguely defined that they could give rise to quite frivolous charges.

The first of these is "genocide by causing serious mental harm". An attempt to have Minister for the Environment Robert Hill charged with genocide - for failing to seek World Heritage listing for Lake Eyre, thereby allegedly inflicting serious mental harm on the local Aboriginal people - was dismissed by the Federal Court of Australia, on the grounds that the offence of genocide was not known in Australian law.

Yet if this bill is passed, then such a charge could well be taken seriously by the courts.

The second vague offence is that of persecution by severely depriving, contrary to international law, one or more persons of fundamental rights where the persons so deprived are targeted on grounds that are universally recognised as impermissible under international law.

This offence, to be included in the Federal Criminal Code, creates an open-ended means of importing developments in international law into Australian criminal law without any parliamentary debate.

It will be a significant test of the third Howard Government to see whether the internationalist bureaucrats in Foreign Affairs dictate government policy on this question, or whether the Prime Minister will listen to the adverse criticism of ratification likely to be made by the majority on the Treaties Committee.

  • Richard Egan

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am