Examination of Witnesses (Questions 297
- 299)
TUESDAY 8 FEBRUARY 2000
MR MARK
LITTMAN, QC, PROFESSOR
CHRISTOPHER GREENWOOD,
QC AND PROFESSOR
VAUGHAN LOWE
Chairman
297. May I welcome our three witnesses to our
proceedings this morning, Professor Christopher Greenwood, Professor
Vaughan Lowe and Mr Mark Littman. Professor Brownlie, who has
submitted a very weighty memorandum to the Committee, sends his
apologies. He is actually currently in a case in Nigeria which
I guess is part of the fate of international lawyers. Gentlemen,
we read your most helpful memoranda with great interest. I was
rather weighed down with the legal submissions. I hope this will
not turn wholly into a seminar on the principles of international
law in respect of humanitarian intervention. Having read through
these several memoranda, I suppose the cynic might say that in
such an unformed area one chooses one's lawyer. Having read them,
I came to the memoranda in a state of confusion and left in a
higher state of confusion. Can I begin, in terms of the application
of the principles of international law, with you, Mr Littman?
You effectively are submitting this: that there is no principle
of international law that there can be intervention without the
authority of the United Nations Security Council.
(Mr Littman) Forceful intervention.
298. You are aware of course of the decision
of the United Nations Security Council in February 1999 in the
case of UNPREDEP?
(Mr Littman) I cannot say I am.
299. Essentially, this was a decision relating
to the renewal of the mandate of the United Nations force in Macedonia.
That renewal, which most international observers thought was relevant
to peace keeping in the area, was vetoed by the People's Republic
of China, not on any basis of principle but rather that the government
of Macedonia had just recognised Taiwan as opposed to the People's
Republic of China. That is for extraneous and for what some would
consider capricious reasons. Does not that tell us something about
the problems of ensuring United Nations Security Council endorsement
of any action?
(Mr Littman) What is required, in my view, is not
a Security Council endorsement or approval or disapproval. What
is relevant is whether the Security Council, before force is used,
has given authority for the force to be used. That is, in my view,
and I think in the view of Professor Brownlie, the critical question
as to whether the use of force is lawful or not. May I expand
on that for a moment? One of the conditions which is I think suggested
by Professor Vaughan Lowe, if there is such a principle at all,
is that somehow or other Security Council approval should be introduced.
He expresses the opinion that it is sufficient if the Security
Council did what it did in this case, which was to condemn certain
actions which were being taken by the Yugoslav government in Kosovo,
but without authorising the use of force. The difficulty I see
in that is, if you had such a principle and it could validate
the unilateral use of force without the specific approval of the
Security Council, it would be counter productive because what
would happen is that the countries—whether it be China,
Russia or anyone else—who did not approval of the use of
force but seeing that it was becoming a window to the unilateral
use of force without the express authority of the Security Council,
would in fact veto the earlier, peaceful resolution and this would
be against public policy, in my view, because the resolution for
resolving the current difficulty by peaceful means might then
be prevented.
|
