1. UN Doc. A/CONF.183.9. The certified true copy of that 'authentic' text was circulated by the Secretary-General in note C.N.560.1998.TREATIES-2 (Depositary Notification), 15 October 1998. However, that text contains many inaccuracies and discrepancies between one or other of the language versions. At the first session of the Preparatory Commission (PrepCom) the Under-Secretary-General, Legal Counsel (Corell) announced that a correction process had been commenced with circular note C.N.502.1998.TREATIES-3 (Depositary Notification), 25 September 1998, that further errors had come to light, and that an official version of the Statute, including the corrections, would be issued during the July session of PrepCom. Press Release L/2912, 26 February 1999, p. 5. A second set of corrections was circulated in C.N.357.1999. TREATIES-14 (Depositary Notification), 18 May 1999. On 17 August 1999, after the end of the second session of the PrepCom, the Secretariat issued new texts incorporating the corrections noted in the two depositary notices, under symbol PCNICC/1999/INF/3. That is for the information of the PrepCom, and it has been taken into account in this article. In C.N.537.1999. TREATIES-16 (Depositary Notification), 1 July 1999, the Secretary-General issued some further proposed corrections to the English, French, Russian and Spanish authentic texts. It is not clear on what basis the Secretariat was acting in this matter, or how and when a fully correct authentic text in all six languages will be available. By virtue of Art. 79 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 (1155 UNTS 331), the correction of agreed errors in the authentic text of a treaty is a matter for the signatory states and the contracting states, together with the depositary. For the view of the United States on this aspect, see the Note of 5 November 1998 from the Permanent Mission of the United States to the Secretary-General, reproduced in 93 AJIL 484 (1999). There is no provision regarding the correction of errors that are not agreed, but principle would suggest that all the states that participated in the adoption of the text ought to be involved. Vienna Convention, Art. 9. The position of states that have ratified the Statute on the basis of the original authentic text is not clear. The Note of 15 October states that certified true copies are established specifically for the purpose of enabling the Governments concerned to complete the internal procedures of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. There is no known instance of the correction of an entire convention in all six authentic texts. For the correction of the entire Chinese text of the Genocide Convention, cf., GA Res. 691
2. (VII), 21 November 1952. And see my Developments in the Law of Treaties 1945-1986 at p. 436 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1989). In addition, virtually none of the documentation of the Rome Conference and the Report of the Committee of the Whole on which the final decisions were made, is available, not even on the website that the UN has created for the International Criminal Court. This seriously hampers all attempts to understand the Rome Statute. On the PrepCom, see text to n. 15 infra. For an account by participants of the Rome Conference, see R.S. Lee, ed., The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute-Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague, Kluwer Law International 1999). Lee was the Executive Secretary of the Rome Conference.
3. Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić (Jurisdiction), Case No. IT-94-I-AR72, Decision of 2 October 1995; ICTY Judicial Reports, 1994–1995 (I) 343, 365 (paras. 10–11); 105 ILR at 457.
4. See n. 3 supra.
5. Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict advisory opinion, ICJ Rep. (1996)(I) pp. 66 at 75 (para. 19).