ABSTRACT
The practical consequence of the impossibility of changing the Statute is that even in technical work we have to be aware and conscious that a number of provisions in the Statute are the result of very, very difficult negotiations and reflect a balance of views. Whether the balance is right or wrong in many cases can be argued, but that argument is to some extent irrelevant now; the balance is in the Statute. Much of the discussion in the last two days has either been an apology for the Statute, a defence of the myths of the Statute or an attack on the negotiating style of some of the participants. The complementarity provisions and the Article 53 provision are two provisions that France supported, that France wanted to insert in the Statute. It would be an exaggeration to say that we were ever planning to make the Court as a new form of political body.
