1. The CHAIRMAN drew delegations’ attention to a discussion paper (A/CONF.183/C.1/L.53), prepared by the Bureau to facilitate the Committee's consideration of Part 2.

2. He proposed that the debate should be divided into two parts, the first bearing on crimes (article 5), and the second on other jurisdictional issues, admissibility and applicable law. It would be particularly useful if delegations would comment on the following issues: (i) an approach to the crime of aggression that might form the basis of general agreement. {. . .}

4. Mr. van HEBEL (Netherlands), Coordinator, said that the first major issue in connection with article 5 was whether the crime of aggression should be included within the jurisdiction of the Court. If no general agreement could be secured on the definition of that crime, there was an option to exclude it. {. . .}

8. Mr. RWELAMIRA (South Africa), speaking on behalf of the countries of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) on article 5, said that the SADC countries supported {. . .} the inclusion of the crime of aggression, subject to agreement on a definition and a clear spelling out of the Security Council’s role. {. . .}

11. With regard to the crime of aggression, option 1 provided a good starting point for an acceptable definition, but it should also take account of contemporary forms of aggression, particularly the elements set out in General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX). {. . .}