ADOPTION OF A CONVENTION AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS DEEMED APPROPRIATE AND OF THE FINAL ACT OF THE CONFERENCE (A/CONF.183/8)

8. Mr. SCHEFFER (United States of America) asked for a vote on the adoption of the Statute as a whole, in accordance with rule 36 of the rules of procedure. He was not asking for a recorded vote.

9. The PRESIDENT invited the Conference to vote on the adoption of the Statute for the Court.

10. The Statute was adopted by 120 votes to 7, with 21 abstentions.

21. Mr. EBDALIN (Philippines) said that {…}

23. On the other hand, some provisions detracted from those strengths. Some new definitions of war crimes constituted a retrograde step in the development of international law. The applicability of the aggression provisions had been postponed pending specific definition of the crime, and States parties had the option of reservations on the applicability of war crimes provisions. Finally, the Security Council could seek deferral of prosecution for a one-year period, renewable for an apparently unlimited number of times. {…}

28. Mr. SCHEFFER (United States of America) {…}

30. The Statute envisaged including aggression as a crime, once there was an amendment “defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime”, with the proviso that such amendment should be “consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations”.