We then move to agenda item 9 b) entitled ‘Proposals for a provision on the crime of aggression’. In connection with this agenda item you have before you a draft resolution on the crime of aggression contained in document RC/10. This document, as you know, is based on my previous non-paper and has been familiar to you for quite some time. As you also recall, this draft resolution contains two sets of square brackets in its current text, namely [in article 15 bis] in paragraph 3 and [in article 15 ter] also in paragraph 3. The language in brackets says in both places ‘insert provisions on delayed entry into force’. In connection with these two brackets I have circulated in the room a paper that contains my proposal to the Conference for the completion of this text.

I will now briefly introduce this text to you and explain the rationale behind it. I will then suspend the meeting for fifteen minutes as I have been requested to do in order for short consultations on the content of this text. You will recall that this morning I made an informal paper available that I drafted this morning that dealt with the main outstanding issue compared to the previous version of non-paper, that is the issue of the two alternatives contained in that text, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. It also contained two clauses for delayed entry into force, delayed exercise of jurisdiction by the Court in accordance with two provisions contained in that paper, in 15 bis and 15 ter. In that paper I suggested, based on my assessment, based on my analysis of the discussions we’ve had in the past two weeks, a differential treatment for the two provisions, namely to have after a delay of seven years an automatic entry into force of the provision contained in article 15 ter, and in article 15 bis to have a commencement of exercise of jurisdiction that would be subject to an affirmative decision by the States Parties, be it in the format of a Review Conference or of an ASP.