Mr. Prime Minister, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I wish to commend the organizers of the Stockholm International Forum 2004 for the choice of the topic “Preventing Genocide”. While the phenomenon of genocide is as old as human history – to use the well-known words of Jean-Paul Sartre – our memories of the most recent genocides are unfortunately still fresh. It would also be false to put the blame on human history or human nature. As recent conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda show, genocide is most often not an expression of spontaneous bloodlust but a result of deliberate policies which use hate propaganda to incite violence and to further one group’s domination over another. Prevention therefore is a challenge and an opportunity which must be seized upon.

While the obligation to prevent is not the main focus of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, it has been expanded in a number of other legal instruments, mainly in the field of human rights. Furthermore, the two concepts that appear in the title of the 1948 Convention, prevention and punishment, are closely related. It is well established in criminal law that a failure to investigate crimes and punish the culprits undermines the whole purpose of the norms concerning prohibited conduct.Widespread culture of impunity creates lawlessness. While there can be no instant prevention, the likelihood of effective prosecution and punishment can deter atrocities.

This is equally true for international and internationally supported criminal tribunals. The possibility of an international indictment may not stop a politician from propagating hate and genocide, but there will be less rewards for such a policy, and more risks involved in it. International indictments and judgments can stigmatize such political leaders and prevent their future political rehabilitation, thus promoting a post-conflict culture of justice. In this context, the significance of the outreach activities of such tribunals must be emphasized. While it is crucial that international criminal proceedings are independent, impartial and objective, they must also be perceived as such, both by the international community at large and by the local population.

The International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda have played an important role in ensuring effective accountability where national judicial systems have failed to do so. In terms of deterrence and prevention, the impact of the newly-established International Criminal Court may well be even more important. The great advantage of the permanent International Criminal Court, compared to its predecessors, is that it is readily available when the need arises. This means, among other things, that building-up of respect for the rule of law must not be left to the post-conflict phase but can be addressed while the conflict is still ongoing.

At the same time, with the extensive complementarity provisions in the Rome Statute, the ICC will be an institution for exceptional cases only. The main responsibility for investigating and prosecuting international crimes will continue to rest with States. The impact of the ICC will therefore have to be measured also by its indirect effect in encouraging States to incorporate and apply the rules of the Statute in their national judicial systems.We could speak of the role of the ICC in mainstreaming accountability for serious crimes. This term also emphasizes the role of the ICC in setting standards for national jurisdictions, including a high level of due process rights for defendants.

The effectiveness of the ICC and of the complementarity regime depend on the extent of the commitment of States to the Statute of the Court and to its implementation. A lot has been accomplished in a remarkably short period of time but work still remains to be done to make the Court universally accepted and supported. Together with her partners in the European Union, Finland is committed to responding to this challenge.Very recently, Finland has supported the Court's Clerkship and Visiting Professionals Program of the ICC. Familiarizing participants from all parts of the world with the work of the Court, this program is expected to increase awareness of the Court and support for it.
We have all reason to believe that the permanent International Criminal Court will be an instrumental part of an emerging culture of accountability. It is therefore very appropriate that the International Criminal Court, by its chief prosecutor,Mr. Luis Moreno Ocampo, is present and will participate in the panel discussion this morning.

In concluding, I would like to underline the relevance of the efforts to strengthen the political commitment of States to the prevention of deadly conflict. I wish every success to the Stockholm International Forum 2004.