France's Legal Concerns on ICC Kampala Amendments: A Call for Consensus
France expresses legal objections to the Kampala amendments at the ICC, calling for consensus.
Key Points
- • France raises concerns about Kampala amendments violating UN Charter Article 39.
- • Legal interpretation of the crime of aggression complicates ICC's role.
- • France advocates for compromise and consensus on the issue.
- • Complex criteria for defining aggression pose risks of discretion.
During a recent assembly of the ICC in New York, France articulated its legal objections to the ratification of the Kampala amendments, emphasizing their conflict with the UN Charter. Diego Colas, Director of Legal Affairs at France's Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs, stated that the amendments contradict Article 39, which grants the UN Security Council the authority to determine acts of aggression. This position reflects France's longstanding concerns since its involvement in the discussions dating back to the 2010 Review Conference.
Colas further elaborated that France challenges the adopted definition of the crime of aggression present in the Kampala amendments, suggesting that it strays from the established Nuremberg principles, complicating the legal framework for determining aggression. He warned that the broad criteria for identifying a manifest violation of the Charter could lead to excessive discretion and potential misuse.
With these complexities in mind, Colas urged for a push towards consensus and compromise, advocating for a resolution that transcends divisive debates on the issue. He noted the necessity for legal clarity in international law, especially in matters as contentious as the legality of force and state self-defense. France aims to engage constructively to address these challenges surrounding the amendments while maintaining the integrity of international law.