18th Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute
Day 3 & 4 (4 & 5 December 2019)
Name of the Event: Informal Consultations on the Omnibus Resolution
Overview by: Signe Wolf Børm, Francisca de Castro, Sindija Beta, Junior Research Associates, and Hester Dek, Intern PILPG-NL
Main highlights:
After States Parties remained to disagree on Brazil’s proposal for equitable geographical representation of the Bureau during the first meeting, during the second meeting Brazil’s proposal for OP102 bis (now paragraph 101) was approved subject to the outcome of the assessment being included in the annual report of the Bureau.
The two meetings saw discussion on the duration of the ASP. Germany’s proposal for OP103 bis (now paragraph 103) regarding the length of the ASP was approved as a separate paragraph from OP103 (now paragraph 102).
Summary of the Informal Consultations:
On 4 and 5 December (days 3 and 4 of the 18th Session of the ASP) States Parties convened to discuss the draft Omnibus Resolution (entitled “Strengthening the International Criminal Court and the Assembly of States Parties”).
On 4 December, two main issues were raised: equitable geographical representation and the duration of the ASP. Brazil raised the issue of equitable geographical representation and was supported by several States Parties, including Slovakia, Argentina, Chile, Dominican Republic, and Mexico. Argentina stated that while the number of States Parties to the Rome Statute has increased over the past years, this has not been translated to the representation in the bureau. Mexico’s representative, in relation to their statement of support, noted that “saying the time is not right is wrong, we have been discussing the matter for 3 years now.” Mexico further noted that while it might not be the main issue of this ASP, it should nevertheless be discussed.
Slovenia and Bulgaria voiced their opposition to the proposal. In doing so, they provided multiple reasons related to the practical effects of the proposal. Bulgaria noted that the current situation is reflecting a good balance, and there are currently more important matters on the agenda.
On the matter of the duration of the ASP, Germany proposed a decrease from two weeks to one week. Its main argument was cost-related. Belgium and Liechtenstein opposed this proposal, believing that it is inappropriate to shorten the sessions, and furthermore noting that the discussion should be paused until the report by the bureau has been released. Australia, Finland, Slovenia, Sweden, Italy, France, Japan indicated their support for Germany’s proposal.
On 5 December, consultations on the omnibus resolution continued with three main points of discussion – the workload of the Bureau, equitable geographical representation of the Bureau as proposed by Brazil, and the length of ASP’s as raised by Germany.
Liechtenstein brought forward the first issue. Liechtenstein worried that “encouraging” the Bureau to engage with States Parties and other relevant actors to support the Court’s efforts with respect to sexual and gender-based crimes would overburden the Bureau. Canada and Finland assured Liechtenstein that the Bureau has approved the paragraph and it will not affect the Burea’s workload extensively. Liechtenstein consequently withdrew its objection.
The second issue concerned Brazil’s proposal for equitable geographical representation in the Bureau. Slovenia proposed that the paragraph does not include the necessity for the Bureau to submit a report to the 19th ASP. Poland and Bulgaria seconded Slovenia’s proposal. Argentina, Uruguay, Peru, Japan, Guatemala, Venezuela, Mexico, and Panama dismissed Slovenia’s objections and wished to include the paragraph as it was proposed by Brazil. After discussions among the States Parties, Slovakia proposed that instead of requesting a separate report on the matter, the Bureau includes this question in their annual report. States Parties accepted Slovakia’s amendment.
The third question regarded the proposal to have a 6 day ASP unless judicial or prosecutorial elections are held during that year. States Parties agreed that the proposal should be included in a separate paragraph and not combined with paragraph 103 (now paragraph 102). The wording of the paragraph was subsequently accepted.
All other paragraphs were approved with little or no discussion. The adopted Omnibus Resolution will be published on the ASP’s website.