Support for Govt stand on war court

Sydney
30 June 2002

Pilgrims walk to shrine

Vatican outlaws ‘Little Pebble’ – order to disband

Winter: tough on struggling families

Media helped victims to come forward

Standing ovation at Mass for Archbishop Pell

Will Pope quiz PM on stem-cell issue?

Trivia, Survivor test push appeal towards its target

Support for Govt stand on war court

Songs for all: eternity

Come Back! The Church Loves You

Research backs adult stem cells

Honour for priest, a ‘brilliant academic’

Fr Damien role is ‘uplifting’ – actor

Editorial: Love of a martyr

Letters: Political parties and morals

Conversation: Teaching teachers in a land of optimism - Frances O'Keeffe, teacher

Reflections: ‘Good old days’ are starting now

Support for Govt stand on war court

By Kathleen Carmody

The Australian Catholic Social Justice Council has applauded the Government’s decision to ratify the International Criminal Court, rejecting suggestions from some quarters that such a move would undermine Australia’s sovereignty.

The International Criminal Court would be used to try war criminals and genocide suspects. Previously there has been no standing institution to try war criminals; adhoc tribunals have been set up on a case-by-case basis.

The decision to join comes after three weeks of passionate debate in Government ranks.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and Federal Attorney-General Daryl Williams led the charge of supporters of the court - in which Australia had played a leading role - but some party members, including former Federal minister Bronwyn Bishop and Victorian MP Sophie Panopoulos, had raised fears that the court could pose a threat to Australian defence forces overseas.

The Social Justice Council, however, flatly rejected this argument.

The executive officer, Sandie Cornish, told The Catholic Weekly that by choosing to act with others in the international community, Australia was exercising its sovereignty.

“There’s nothing to be afraid of,” she said.

“We have a competent and impartial legal system and if it functions well we should never have the international criminal court taking any action in Australia.

“(The court) will only come into play if the national justice system is unable to cope, or unwilling to exercise jurisdiction,” she said.

Ms Cornish described the massacre of East Timorese by Indonesians during the referendum for independence in 1999 as evidence of the need for an international criminal court.

Trials being held in Indonesia are showing that justice isn’t being done, she said.

“The result isn’t really satisfactory,” she said.

“People are calling for an independent international tribunal in East Timor - it would be better if we had an permanent tribunal rather than having to set one up each time there was a case like this.”

Australia joins 67 nations - including Britain, France, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada - in ratifying the court.

Bishop Christopher Saunders, deputy chair of the Social Justice Council and Bishop of Broome, described the International Criminal Court as an “important tool for the protection of human rights”. He added: “Too often in our lifetime we have seen the need for an impartial international criminal tribunal to try crimes such as genocide, war crimes and other crimes against humanity.

“Local authorities were not willing or able to do this effectively.

“Some crimes are so serious that they are genuinely the concern of the whole of humanity and require an international response.”