>"Question : Jamie, I wonder if you could comment on a speech made by
>Justice Arbour of the International Criminal Tribunal last week, a copy of
>which I left with your very fine secretary so that you would have reference
>to it. Judge Arbour in her speech said that as a result of the NATO
>initiatives being initiated on 24 March the countries of NATO have
>'voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of her court whose
>mandate applies to the theatre of the chosen military operation and whose
>reach is unqualified by nationality and whose investigations are triggered
>at the sole discretion of the prosecutor who has primacy over national
>courts.' Does NATO recognise Judge Arbour's jurisdiction over their
>activities?
>Jamie Shea : First of all, my understanding of the UN resolution that
>established the Court is that it applies to the former Yugoslavia, it is
>for war crimes committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia.
>Secondly, I think we have to distinguish between the theoretical and the
>practical. I believe that when Justice Arbour starts her investigation, she
>will because we will allow her to. It's not Milosevic that has allowed
>Justice Arbour her visa to go to Kosovo to carry out her investigations. If
>her court, as we want, is to be allowed access, it will be because of NATO
>so NATO is the friend of the Tribunal, NATO are the people who have been
>detaining indicted war criminals for the Tribunal in Bosnia. We have done
>it, 14 arrests so far by SFOR, and we will continue to do it. NATO
>countries are those that have provided the finance to set up the Tribunal,
>we are amongst the majority financiers, and of course to build a second
>chamber so that prosecutions can be speeded up so let me assure that we and
>the Tribunal are all one on this, we want to see war criminals brought to
>justice and I am certain that when Justice Arbour goes to Kosovo and looks
>at the facts she will be indicting people of Yugoslav nationality and I
>don't anticipate any others at this stage"
>from Jamie Shea's May 17 briefing
><http://www.nato.int/kosovo/press/p990517b.htm>:
>"Question : In The Hague last week the NATO governments have argued that
>the International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction. I want to
>know if NATO is afraid of being judged by the International Court of
>Justice, and also what will happen if NATO is brought before the
>International Criminal Tribunal, will they also argue that there is no
>jurisdiction? Is NATO not prepared to recognise the authority of the
>International Court of Justice?
>Jamie Shea : As you know, without NATO countries there would be no
>International Court of Justice, nor would there be any International
>Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia because NATO countries are in
>the forefront of those who have established these two tribunals, who fund
>these tribunals and who support on a daily basis their activities. We are
>the upholders, not the violators, of international law.
>Question : Shouldn't you recognise the jurisdiction then?
>Jamie Shea : We obviously recognise the jurisdiction of these tribunals,
>but I can assure you, when these tribunals look at Yugoslavia I think they
>will find themselves fully occupied with the far more obvious breaches of
>international law that have been committed by Belgrade than any
>hypothetical breaches that may have occurred by the NATO countries, and I
>expect that to apply to both. So that is our position on that, we recognise
>international law, in fact we recognise international law so much that when
>we see a massive violation of it, with thousands of people driven from
>their homes, thousands of people killed, thousands of young men unaccounted
>for, others being herded around like cattle within their own country, we
>don't just shout about it, we do something to stop it because we uphold
>international law.
>Question : Well why don't you recognise the jurisdiction of the
>International Court of Justice?
>Jamie Shea : I said we do recognise the jurisdiction.
>Question : No, because you were only arguing that it Š every NATO country
>was arguing that there was no jurisdiction and you did not deal with the
>substantive issue. If you believe that international law is so important,
>why would you not allow the court to judge on these substantive issues.
>Jamie Shea : The charge by Yugoslavia was brought under the genocide
>convention. That does not apply to NATO countries. As to whom it does
>apply, I think we know the answer there."