PRIMACY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CRUCIAL FOR PEACE, FREEDOM, SECURITY, SAYS GENERAL ASSEMBLY PRESIDENT IN ICJ CEREMONY AT THE HAGUE
Press Release
GA/9064
PRIMACY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CRUCIAL FOR PEACE, FREEDOM, SECURITY, SAYS GENERAL ASSEMBLY PRESIDENT IN ICJ CEREMONY AT THE HAGUE
19960418 Following is the text of the statement delivered today at The Hague by the President of the General Assembly, Diogo Freitas do Amaral (Portugal), on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the International Court of Justice:I feel deeply privileged and honoured to participate today in the celebrations of the fiftieth anniversary of the International Court of Justice, one of the principal organs of the United Nations.
At the outset, I should like to address the illustrious members of this Court and its President, Mohammed Bedjaoui, to express my admiration and my satisfaction at the great prestige the International Court of Justice deservedly enjoys. I praise you all for your untiring efforts and complete dedication in performing the duties of your lofty posts.
In my capacity as President of the General Assembly of the United Nations, I have repeatedly stressed, since the very first day of my mandate, that the United Nations, more than any other organization, has contributed to establishing -- and has attempted to guarantee in practice -- the primacy of international law. Indeed, it was not without meaning that the founding fathers of our Organization set out in the preamble of the Charter that the peoples of the United Nations resolved to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained. The goal of establishing and maintaining the primacy of international law is crucial. Without the rule of law, humanity cannot achieve the peace, freedom and security which will permit it to continue to develop a civilized society.
When speaking of the contribution of the United Nations to the recognition of the primacy of international law, I cannot but hail the outstanding action and lofty prestige achieved throughout the past 50 years by the International Court of Justice, to which I wish to pay my very sincere tribute. By coming here and joining you in celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the International Court of Justice, I am seeking to give public testimony of the importance attributed to this Court by the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Institutions, like individuals, have a character of their own. In this sense, allow me to say that the merit of this prestigious international institution resides fundamentally in the main features of its character. I refer to: its authority and integrity, namely, in the manner it has been interpreting and executing the principles governing its mission; its impartiality and total independence as guaranteed by the intellectual honesty of its member-judges and other personnel; and its judicial realism as displayed when assisting the parties in achieving a political settlement, a solution often seen as preferable to a judicial decision. Such characteristics or principles of action have shaped the contribution the International Court of Justice has given to the advancement of the rule of law and to the promotion of justice among nations, for which the Court deserves every praise.
It is commonly accepted that the end of the cold war era has brought with it new challenges to the world and, consequently, to the United Nations. But a changing world demands change. A change in international institutions and in the political attitudes of its members. Indeed, reform of the United Nations is now accepted by all as necessary and indispensable. In this context, the General Assembly has established over the last few years five working groups specifically entrusted with the mission of reforming the United Nations system.
Although the process of reform has been focused mainly on sensitive issues, such as the acute financial crisis of the Organization and the enlargement of the Security Council, one has to point out, indeed to underline, that the International Court of Justice, as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, is unequivocally an important, inseparable and indispensable part of the system. Allow me, therefore, to say that, although the International Court of Justice has been, for the past few years, much more active and has seen its jurisdiction expanding both in terms of the number of declarations made and of compromissory clauses included in treaties, I also have no doubts that the adjustment of this prestigious judicial organ to a changing United Nations and a changing world is indispensable and inevitable.
I believe that it is an absolute obligation of any member of an organization to abide faithfully by the rules of law applicable to it. If disagreements arise concerning the application of these rules, the principle of separation of powers requires that those disagreements should be settled impartially by a court of law. The Charter of the United Nations provides for such a judicial body: the International Court of Justice.
As I remarked in my inaugural statement as President of the General Assembly: "it is, therefore, utterly desirable for all countries which are Members of the United Nations to accept within a relatively short time the jurisdiction of the Court at The Hague. That it should still be possible to refuse the Court's jurisdiction strikes me as an anachronism left over from
- 3 - Press Release GA/9064 18 April 1996
the days of unlimited State sovereignty, which is inconsistent with the prevailing principle of the primacy of international law".
Although the breakdown of State sovereignty remains a matter of intense controversy, we have been witnessing a change in the defining parameters of the concept of sovereignty, and it is undeniable, today, that the old doctrine of absolute and exclusive sovereignty no longer stands. I believe that submission to international jurisdiction and international law by all States must be left out of the defining parameters of modern States' sovereignty. When urging the Member States of the United Nations either to accept the Court's binding jurisdiction if they have not done so, or to withdraw or attenuate the crippling reservations accompanying their acceptance, I do not find myself alone. I am merely adding my voice to that of several others, including many Member States, who have, in the past, sought the same goal.
I am also adding my voice to that of the President of the International Court of Justice, your Excellency Mohammed Bedjaoui; to the Secretary-General who, in his An Agenda for Peace, invited all States to accept such jurisdiction without reservations before the end of the United Nations Decade of International Law; and to the voice of former President Mikhail Gorbachev who in 1987 proposed the acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, calling upon the five permanent members of the Security Council to set the example.
Nevertheless, despite all the discussions on the role of the Court held by the General Assembly, the reality is that the International Court of Justice still remains what it was at its inception. Moreover, regretfully, the appeal for compulsory jurisdiction of the Court made by Mr. Gorbachev found no response in as much as of the five permanent members of the Security Council, only the United Kingdom is currently accepting in general terms the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. We, however, will continue to appeal to those who can lead and to the willingness of all that can contribute to achieve a system of more effective enforcement of international law. We will continue to strive for the need of international courts with binding jurisdiction to determine when international laws are violated and to better serve as a forum for the peaceful settlement of conflicts.
Finally, I would like to briefly call attention to some proposals, which have been put forward in several forums, and which seek to reform and further extend the jurisdiction of the Court. If it is not expected, for the time being, that all Member States will be willing or prepared to accept in general terms the jurisdiction of the Court, it would be pragmatic to concentrate our efforts on defining certain categories of cases in which all States might be persuaded to accept the unconditional and compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. Among those categories, one could certainly consider cases involving human rights issues, genocide and diplomatic protection, for example.
- 4 - Press Release GA/9064 18 April 1996
Beyond these possible mandatory categories, article 36.2 of the Statute of the Court could be amended in order to accommodate the possibility of States voluntarily accepting the unconditional jurisdiction of further categories of cases. Such flexibility could also harbour the idea put forward by the Netherlands at the time of the General Assembly resolution 3232 (XXIX) of 5 November 1974 suggesting that parties to a dispute could agree to submit certain legal questions to the Court, the political aspects of which would be settled separately.
It can be noted, in the second place, that the composition of the Court has not changed sufficiently to respond to the evolving world situation, and that, therefore, its membership should be enlarged to better reflect the actual reality of the international community. It has also been frequently pointed out that the State is today no longer the sole actor in international relations. As international organizations have taken over several prerogatives traditionally within the scope of State sovereignty, it would be important to consider extending the jurisdiction of the Court to such organizations. Likewise, within the Court's advisory procedure, serious consideration should be given to extending such a procedure to other organs of the United Nations and entities of the United Nations system not currently envisaged in the Charter.
In my capacity as President of the General Assembly, I cannot fail, here, in this august body, to reveal my intention of proposing that the question of the reform of the International Court of Justice be considered as a main item in the future programme of work of the high-level working group on the strengthening of the United Nations system.
No one seems to question that this century, despite the lethal wars and all the atrocities committed, is a century of progress for international law. Far from the traditional concept of international law as a set of rules of peace and war, the international law, nowadays, is also focused on cooperation, development, and in the protection of individuals. This, however, is not sufficient. It is not sufficient to have fair and progressive rules of international law. Indeed, for the primacy of international law to prevail, it is also necessary, it is indispensable, the existence of international courts seeking the just interpretation and application of those rules. I, for my part, have full confidence that this prestigious Court will continue to strive to discharge its noble mission in the most illustrious manner.
* *** *