ADDRESS BY PRESIDENT MARTTI AHTISAARI OF
FINLAND
TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
IN THE HAGUE ON 20 JANUARY 1999
It gives me great pleasure to have this opportunity to speak
here in the Great Hall of Justice of the Peace Palace, at the
very source of international adjudication.
I also consider myself fortunate to be able to address you at a
time when the international legal order is appreciably
strengthening. The work being done by the International Court of
Justice reflects this development. The Court's docket shows
clearly that states are increasingly willing to submit disputes
for its consideration. The restraints of the Cold War have been
replaced by a more committed attitude towards judicial settlement
of international disputes.
Nevertheless much still remains to be done to improve prospects
of international disputes being settled peaceably. States could -
for instance - make wider use of the Optional Clause in the
Court's Statute. I hope that more states will place their trust
in the Court by unilaterally recognising its jurisdiction as
binding. Finland gave such a declaration many years ago, and
indeed I am proud of our long tradition of supporting the Court
in its important work.
The positive development of international law in recent years -
in the decade dedicated to it, in fact - has been encouraging. On
the downside, however, the Court clearly needs more resources to
enable it to cope with its increased workload. I noted with
interest the Courts response to General Assembly resolution
52/161 of 15 December 1997, in which it was invited to submit
comments on how the increased caseload affects its work. In its
response the Court expresses very valid concerns about the
limited nature of the funds available to enable it to perform its
function as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.
It is only logical that the expansion of the scope of your
activities that has been demanded for so long should now be
matched by adequate funding. After all, the highest judicial
standards must be adhered to in dealing with every single case.
The positive developments that recent times have seen include
better knowledge and recognition of the Court's work and
reasoning, largely thanks to new information technology. For
example, your website gives every Internet user instant access to
details of your work and judgements.
In recent years, various ideas concerning a possible revision of
the scope of the Court's jurisdiction have been put forward. In
fact, it is already broad enough in substance, embracing as it
does any legal disputes of an international character. In terms
of access to the Court, however, there might be room for further
elaboration, but not necessarily requiring formal amendment of
the Statute. By this I mean the procedures relating to requests
for advisory opinions. As is often pointed out, the United
Nations Secretariat, represented by the Secretary-General, is the
only principal organ of the Organisation not authorised to
request an opinion of this kind. A proposal that the
Secretary-General be engaged in the process has to date failed to
gain general support. I believe, however, that it merits serious
consideration, especially with a view to strengthening the
Courts role in promoting international peace and security.
One could also envisage an even wider expansion of the Court's
jurisdiction by extending the right of states to request advisory
opinions directly. Although not binding, also these opinions
would be an authoritative interpretation of international law.
Over the years, there has been much talk of "political"
as opposed to "legal" disputes. Naturally, the Court
has no remit in "political" matters, but in
international relations it is difficult to find examples of
purely "legal" disputes devoid of any political
aspects. Therefore it is your difficult - and important - task to
consider whether a given matter is sufficiently legal in
character to fall within the Courts jurisdiction. This is
solely for you to decide, and it is also a matter that brings
your decisions under the close scrutiny of the parties involved.
Nevertheless, here as on other points, the Court has been able to
act with the independence and integrity for which the United
Nations Charter and its own Statute call. Your decisions, like
those of any court, may draw praise or criticism, but the
conscientiousness and great competence with which you follow your
procedures and reason your decisions have earned you the prestige
and recognition that you now enjoy all over the world.
Another matter of great importance is the role you can play as a
"Constitutional Court" of the United Nations. In your
address to the General Assembly on 27 October 1998, you, Mr.
President, pointed out that the Court has acted "as the
supreme interpreter of the United Nations Charter".
Interpretations of this nature have been provided by the Court on
several occasions and others are now pending.
Issues relating to "judicial review" of the powers of
the principal organs of the United Nations are likewise
particularly challenging. You noted in your statement, Mr.
President, that "in deciding on the law, the Court is and
must remain free of the political influence of the United Nations
as it is bound to remain free of the political influence of any
of its members". I fully concur.
The International Court of Justice is not the only international
tribunal now at work. Quite the contrary: recent years have
witnessed the establishment of several new international courts
of law. Some, like the International Tribunal for the Law of the
Sea, may deal with matters that can also fall within the
jurisdiction of this Court. Others, like the ad hoc tribunals for
former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the newly-created International
Criminal Court, may deal with cases that can not be brought
before this Court.
A concern frequently voiced when peaceable settlement of disputes
is being discussed is that new mechanisms could proliferate
unduly even when the old ones are not being fully used. The
counterargument has tended more to favour a broad selection of
means and methods to encourage as many states as possible to
submit their disputes to third-party adjudication.
In an ideal world, there would probably be no need for courts of
law, or at least for criminal adjudication. Unfortunately,
today's international community is far from being a Utopia of
that kind. The reality is that we need a growing variety of means
- including judicial mechanism - to respond to the challenges
that life throws up. The adoption of the Statute of the
International Criminal Court in Rome last summer gave us one such
instrument. Indeed, it was the most significant milestone in
recent times in our progress towards a regime of law in
international relations.
The International Criminal Court - like the ad hoc tribunals for
former Yugoslavia and Rwanda - will try individuals, not states.
Nevertheless, behind every act committed by a state there are
human beings, a human mind and hand responsible for the
consequences of that act. This responsibility is invoked - and
will continue to be - before criminal courts and tribunals.
The states involved likewise bear responsibility. Indeed, it is
states that have traditionally borne rights and obligations in
relation to other states. A state is also bound to respect
fundamental principles of human rights and humanitarian law in
relation to its own citizens. In recent years, sadly, we have
increasingly often faced the problem of failed State situations
where a state with all its institutions has imploded or broken
down. Instead of authority and order, chaos, fighting between
political cliques and ethnic groups, even outright war, has
prevailed. People suffer and die. Other states or international
organisations do not always have an adequate basis in
international law for intervention even if the situation amounts
to a humanitarian catastrophe. The Security Council may decide to
take action, but the legal basis of the United Nations Charter
has been subject to disagreement if a given situation does not
fit the traditional category of international disputes.
Primarily due to political reasons - which are not always global
- international law has so far failed to provide adequate means
of solving such situations. On the threshold of a new millennium
we should be as innovative as international lawyers were in this
city a hundred years ago. There is a clear need to consider the
possibility of innovatively elaborating the criteria and rules
governing humanitarian intervention with the aim of preventing or
alleviating profound human suffering wherever it occurs. The international community must never again
stand helpless in the face of humanitarian catastrophes.
The international community is still falling far short of
fully discharging its responsibility to ensure that states settle
their disputes peaceably. For instance, the need for the consent
of the parties involved may in effect allow a state to avoid a
matter coming before this Court . Every member of the
international community should be strongly urged to avail itself
of all of the alternative ways in which it can recognise the
Court's jurisdiction.
The new courts and tribunals should be seen rather as
complementing the old ones than as overlapping them. Their
establishment is clearly an achievement that will prove of great
importance in building up an institutional framework to develop
the administration of international law.
The growing number of international tribunals also has another
major benefit: their establishment effectively brings awareness
and knowledge of international law to the general public. In
their capacity as judges and other officials of the tribunals,
experts on international law have a greater opportunity to make
its principles known to ordinary people.
Since the Second World War, important developments have taken
place also on the regional level. I am referring especially to
the Court of Justice of the European Communities and the European
Court of Human Rights, as both are of particular importance to my
country. They have succeeded in reaching beyond the traditional
boundaries of state sovereignty in the promotion of mutual
community interests. The same has not as yet occurred to a
similar extent in a global context.
However, recent developments in international political relations
have facilitated recognition of the jurisdiction of international
courts. The world has turned from mere coexistence to
cooperation. One of the ways in which this is reflected is a
willingness on the part of states to take their disputes to this
Court. There is a growing consensus that it lies in the interests
of all parties to have their disputes resolved through a binding
third-party settlement. Reluctance on the part of a state to
submit itself to the Court's jurisdiction always causes
disappointment. Thus it gives me great satisfaction to note the
growing number of cases being brought before this Court with the
consent of all parties involved.
It should also be stressed that submitting a dispute to the Court
must not be considered an unfriendly act by the other party. This
has been emphasised time and time again in the international
discourse, although it is not always acknowledged in the face of
a dispute. The United Nations Charter itself makes this point
more than clear in its Article 36, which calls for legal disputes
to be referred to this Court.
I can mention an illustrative example of Finlands
contribution to the work of the International Court of Justice.
At a meeting of the Security Council in 1970, Finland proposed
that the International Court of Justice be asked for an advisory
opinion on the status of the South African presence in what was
then called South-West Africa.
As is well known, the Court ruled in 1971 that South Africa's
presence there was illegal and also that states were under an
obligation not to recognise nor give legal effect to that
presence. This paved the way for the independence of Namibia. As
a member of the UN staff, I had the opportunity to oversee the
countrys transition to independence, and the privilege to
appreciate the Court's contribution to the successful outcome of
the Namibian question.
This Court of Justice has significantly strengthened the rule of
law in international relations and contributed to respect for
law. It is well-recognised that your influence extends also
beyond formal limits thanks to the prestige and authority that
the Court enjoys in the eyes of the world.
The emphases in the Decade of International Law now approaching
its end, have very much related to the role of the judiciary. Not
only has the establishment of international criminal courts and
tribunals marked tremendous progress in the implementation of
law, it is also an encouraging reflection of a global conscience
based on humane values that nations share. In a few months' time,
related issues will also be discussed at the celebrations marking
the centennial of the first International Peace Conference at the
Hague in 1899. The needs of the next millennium will also be a
challenge for practitioners of international law.
Codification and development of international law through
treaties and conventions has traditionally had a central role in
determining the legal framework within which states interact. In
today's complex world, however, it may prove increasingly
difficult to formulate specific international regulations that
exhaustively cover all aspects of transnational activities and
phenomena. This may herald a growing challenge to the
international judiciary in their work of interpreting and
applying an ever-expanding body of law. In that function, the
International Court of Justice will undoubtedly have as central a
role as ever and deserves the full support of all members of the
international community.