16. Mr. PERRIN DE BRICHAMBAUT (France) {. . .}

18. In reply to the Chairman's first question, he said that France believed that the Court should have mandatory jurisdiction for all States parties with regard to genocide, crimes against humanity and aggression. {. . .}

21. On the role of the Security Council, his delegation was in favour of option 1 for article 10 (1) and for 10 (2). The Security Council’s prerogatives under the Charter to determine acts of aggression had to be respected, while at the same time the action of the Court and that of the Security Council had to be consistent in situations where there was a threat to or breach of the peace.

22. Mr. BROWN (Trinidad and Tobago) {. . .}

25. Trinidad and Tobago accepted that the Charter recognized the Security Council’s role in dealing with aggression, but sympathized with the view that there was no need for an exclusive role of the Council. His delegation supported the Council’s right to refer situations to the Court under article 6 (b), but wondered whether the General Assembly should not be granted similar authority as well, since a State party had that right under article 6 (a). {. . .}

32. Mr. OWADA (Japan) {. . .}

36. His delegation was in favour of option 1 for article 10, with regard to both aggression and deferral.

37. Ms. FERNANDEZ de GURMENDI (Argentina) said that her delegation considered that the Court should have automatic jurisdiction over all crimes within its jurisdiction: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression, if the latter was included. {. . .}