2. Mr. ABDELKADER MAHMUD (Iraq) {. . .} On aggression, he confirmed his support for the option contained in document A/CONF.183/C.1/L.37. If that option did not find general acceptance, the crime should not be included. {. . .}

3. Mr. BOUGUETAIA (Algeria) said that aggression had been defined by the General Assembly as a crime against international peace and should therefore be within the purview of the Court. {. . .}

7. Mr. HAFNER (Austria) said that he was in favour of including aggression, provided that it was possible to agree on a definition. {. . .}

9. Mr. PEREZ OTERMIN (Uruguay) said that if the Court was to judge the most serious crimes affecting the international community as a whole, it was relevant to include genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Aggression must also be included. On the other hand, it was difficult to accept the intervention of a political organ such as the Security Council in defining the existence or non-existence of a crime.

{. . .}

15. Ms. LEHTO (Finland) said that she endorsed the statement made by the representative of Austria on behalf of the European Union. It would be quite appropriate and timely for the Court to have jurisdiction over aggression, the definition of which contained in option 1 under the relevant heading of the discussion paper was acceptable. {. . .}

18. Mr. CASTELLAR DUARTE (Nicaragua) {. . .} Aggression should be included, subject to achieving a consensus on its definition. However, the role of the Security Council should be as limited as possible and should not undermine the independence of the Court. {. . .}