23 Jun The Security Council Debates the Value of International Law
23.06.06
|
0 Comments
The Security Council held an unusual meeting yesterday morning entitled “Strengthening international law: rule of law and maintenance of international peace and security”. The reason it is unusual, at least to me, is that the discussion was not about any particular issue or problem, but rather a free-wheeling abstract discussion about the importance of international law generally.
I don’t have time to dig through all the statements quite yet, but here are a few choice excerpts that reveal attitudes toward international law in the world community (reported in a UN press release):
PER STIG MØLLER, Foreign Minister of Denmark
[T]he Security Council was essentially a political body with far-reaching powers to maintain or restore international peace and security. Yet, the Council operated within a legal framework set out in the United Nations Charter, and the consequences for international law of the Council’s actions should not be underestimated. That was particularly true when the Council acted in the context of the challenges of a changing world. It was, therefore, most relevant that the Council, from time to time, addressed the issue of international law in a more comprehensive way. That was the purpose of today’s debate.
. . .
International Court of Justice President Roslyn Higgins:
[I]nternational law was what governed relationships between States and between States and international organizations. It was the law of all, in a world often divided by politics. The International Court of Justice represented the world’s common language. To strengthen international law meant widening and deepening the content of that law, and fortifying the mechanisms established to ensure compliance with, or enforcement of, international law. In terms of the first meaning, the reach of international law had expanded to an extraordinary extent. The already known broad outlines of the law of peace, entitlement to territory, jurisdiction and immunities, and State responsibility, for example, had all been shaped by very detailed provisions.
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton:
[H]is country had worked actively to expand dialogue with other countries on international law issues. It was committed to international law, but that did not mean that every treaty would serve to advance United States interests, or that it would agree with every interpretation provided by others. International law, however, provided a useful foundation, and where the United States had agreed to be bound by its mechanisms, it would honour its obligations. (emphasis added) The United States supported the work of the International Court of Justice and it looked forward to working with Judge Higgins and others in the international community to support the Court’s effectiveness. His country also supported the Security Council’s use of international institutions. The Council had addressed criminal justice issues through such mechanisms to help societies torn apart by crime to avoid further conflict. For example, it had created Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda to investigate and prosecute the crimes that had been committed there.
He said the Council had also worked with Sierra Leone to create a Special Court there, and it had assisted the Lebanese Government in investigating the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The United States would continue to make meaningful contributions to the restoration of peace and security in the affected regions, and to deter the efforts of those seeking to threaten that stability. The Council had also established sanctions regimes, which played a critical role in stabilizing societies. There had been a good deal of discussion recently about whether to take steps to implement transparency in the targeting of sanctions. He wished to make those lists of targets as accurate as possible, and as transparent as was practicable. He looked forward to working with other Council members in the context of the “1267” Committee, to consider the proposals on the table and to ensure that sanctions remained a robust tool. His country would continue to recognize international law and to cooperate with others in related matters.
JUAN MANUEL GOMEZ ROBLEDO ( Mexico) said that he was disheartened to note that many felt that in the one place where the rule of law should be held in the highest regard, it was not being used fairly and efficiently. The Council should take the opportunity provided by today’s meeting to consider that matter closely, as it needed to develop its institutional capacity to prevent the outbreak of conflict and to ensure lasting peace. The Council should also actively consider referring disputes between States to the International Court of Justice, particularly since most such disagreements had a legal dimension. If the Council did that, the wider global community would clearly see that its decisions were grounded in international law. While not questioning the discretion of the Council to uphold its duties to ensure international peace and security, or to change the definition of what it considered aggression, the 15-nation body was bound by the purposes and principles of the Charter. It must avoid taking an “empirical attitude” by simply resorting to Chapter VII, lest it have deleterious effects on the responsibilities of States.
To further strengthen its efforts to ensure adherence to a respect for the rule of law, he said the Council could consider adopting measures aimed at a ensuring the more frequent use of mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of disputes that could be provided to parties for consideration. It could also offer parties to a dispute that had been considered or adjudicated by the International Court of Justice the assistance to implement the Court’s decisions. Further, the Council could recommend that the General Assembly authorize the Secretary-General to seek advisory opinions from the Court, with the agreement of the parties to a dispute. If such authority was granted, it would be possible to get the positions of the parties before the Court, without having to present them to political bodies, which, in some cases, might prejudge a decision to any dispute. Finally, he said that the Council, more than any other body, must recognize the limitations on its powers as set out in the Charter.
(hide)
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.