The International Criminal Court, proudly brought to you by the United Nations.

What crimes will the Court try?

The Court has a mandate to try individuals rather than States and to hold them accountable for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community - genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and, eventually, the crime of aggression. A common misperception is that the Court will be able to try those accused of having committed such crimes in the past, but this is not the case. The Court will have jurisdiction only over crimes committed after 1 July 2002, when the Statute entered into force. Genocideis defined as a list of prohibited acts, such as killing or causing serious harm, committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. As set out in the Statute, crimes against humanity include crimes such as the extermination of civilians, enslavement, torture, rape, forced pregnancy, persecution on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious or gender grounds, and enforced disappearances - but only when they are part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population. The "widespread or systematic" qualification for crimes against humanity is very important, as it provides a higher threshold, requiring a particular magnitude and/or scope before a crime qualifies for the Court's jurisdiction. This differentiates random acts of violence - such as rape, murder, or even torture - that could be carried out, perhaps even by soldiers in uniform, but which may not actually qualify as crimes against humanity. War crimes include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other serious violations of the laws and customs that can be applied in international armed conflict, and in armed conflict "not of an international character", as listed in the Statute, when they are committed as part of a plan or policy or on a large scale.

What about aggression? Isn't it in the Statute?

Aggression has been included as a crime within the Court's jurisdiction. But first, the States Parties must adopt an agreement setting out two things: a definition of aggression, which has so far proven difficult, and the conditions under which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction. Several proposals have been considered. Some countries feel that, in line with the UN Charter and the mandate it gives to the Security Council, only the Council has the authority to find that an act of aggression has occurred. If this is agreed, then such a finding by the Council would be required before the Court itself could take any action. Other countries feel that such authority should not be limited to the Security Council. There are proposals under consideration that would give that role to the General Assembly or to the International Court of Justice, if an accusation of aggression were made and the Security Council did not act within a certain time. In September 2002, the Assembly of States Parties to the Court established a special working group, open to all States, to elaborate proposals for a provision on aggression.

What about terrorism and drug trafficking?

In Rome, there was significant interest in including terrorism in the Court's mandate, but it was decided not to do so. Today, in addition to various treaties prohibiting many specific acts of terrorism, and in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, the Member States of the UN have undertaken the drafting of a comprehensive convention against terrorism. At a future review conference, if the States Parties so decide, the crime of terrorism could be added to the Court's jurisdiction.

It was the interest of a Member State (Trinidad and Tobago) in establishing an international court to prosecute crimes of drug trafficking that revitalized the process culminating in the establishment of the International Criminal Court. During the negotiations in Rome, delegations realized that, because of the magnitude of the problem of drug trafficking, to include it in the Court's mandate, with the investigations that would be required, would very likely result in the Court's limited resources quickly being overwhelmed. But drug trafficking could also be added in a future review conference.

---
what's that about? comprehensive convention? future review conference?