KAMPALA AMENDMENT TO THE ROME STATUTE

Kampala Amendment to the Rome Statute

Kampala Amendment to the Rome Statute

Introduction

Are we at a turning point in the history of international criminal justice? From 30 May until 11 June 2010, delegations from around the world will sit together in Kampala, Uganda, to discuss the future of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The holding of this first Review Conference was decided in 1998 by the signatories to the Rome Statute.1 Review conferences are common tools at negotiation tables, and in this regard, the meeting which will take place in Kampala is nothing but a normal step in the implementation process of the ICC, a treaty-based court. Yet, the Conference promises to be a landmark event. (Paul, 1995, 54)

Kampala Amendment to the Rome Statute

From Rome to Kampala, the number of States Parties to the Rome Statute has risen to 111 and, to date, over 2,500 civil organisations support the work of the ICC. Opponents of the Court have started to review their stance, including the United States, which will take part as an Observer State to the negotiations. (Antonio, 2002, 89) The ad hoc international tribunals are winding down and other institutions are completing their mandates. The ICC will soon stand alone in the field of international criminal justice. What does the international community want the ICC to be? In Kampala, national representatives, supported by civil society, will have to address this question. What will be agreed upon will shape the future of international criminal justice? (Dilip, 1998, 140)

In November 2009, the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute convened in The Hague, to decide on issues to be considered at the first Review Conference. Member States agreed to discuss both the success and impact of the Court to date and amendments to the Rome Statute (namely, (Paul, 1995, 54) the revision of the transitional provision, the inclusion of the crime of aggression, and the use of certain weapons as war crimes in the context of non-international armed conflict). However, general concern was expressed regarding the possibility of broadening the scope for political interference with the judicial activities of the Court. In particular, participants noted the complexity of the relationship between the ICC and UN organs.

The overlapping work of these bodies reached a climax last year, during the hearings of the first case before the ICC (Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga). (Anne, 2005, 26) The Lubanga proceedings were almost stopped because of concerns about their fairness following the Prosecution's non-disclosure of confidential UN documents. This critical episode revealed the difficult nexus between the different functions of the various international bodies, especially when conflicts are still ongoing On the evening of 13 March 2003 the appellants Margaret Jones and Paul Milling smashed into the Royal Air Force groundwork at Fairford in Gloucestershire and initiated impairment to fuel tankers and blasting apparatus trailers. They had conspired simultaneously to manage so.

. The ICC, (Steven, 2009, 448) They contended that the undertaking being conveyed on at Marchwood was not a lawful undertaking ...