Editorial

Security

Politics

World

Letters

Sports

Obituaries

Archives

Keynote address by Judge C. G. Weeramantry at Inter denominational symposium on legal and moral implications of the military intervention in Iraq at the BMICH recently.

I am glad to be able to make this presentation in the context of a multi-religious approach to the problem of the invasion of Iraq.

Peace is a central value highly prized by all the religions and it is therefore most appropriate that the question of the legal and moral implications of the invasion of Iraq should be seen in the context of the teachings of the major religions.

Hinduism linked religion with international law in the most fundamental way when it foreshadowed that the world of the future would be ruled not by Chakravartis or super sovereigns, but by the kingless authority of the law. The goal that Hinduism sets for all regions is that the whole world should be under the rulership not of a physical sovereign but of the authority of the law - and what better description can there be than this of international law.

That is the ultimate goal of all peoples and that is the goal of the UN Charter and the United Nations. We cannot afford to let this be rudely disturbed without indicating that all nations desire to live under the authority of international law and not under the authority of any nation however powerful.

Buddhism with its universal compassion for all beings exudes universal love and universal peace Mettha is universal love, Karuna is a universal compassion, Muditha is happiness of all, Upeksha is equanimity.

Each of these is minutely analysed in Buddhism, and for example, Karuna has been analysed into thirty two aspects. Buddhism also teaches that violence breeds violence, hatred breeds hatred and that victory breeds hatred because the defeated live in pain. In international relations, one of its central teachings is the peaceful resolution of disputes and the Buddha himself peacefully resolved numerous disputes that would otherwise have led to war and suffering.

Indeed, shortly before I left the International Court I was able to arrange for a bronze plaque done by Tissa Ranasinghe, to be presented to the International Court of Justice, which depicts the Buddha settling a dispute and shows the warring chieftains breaking their weapons at his feet. This now hangs prominently outside the deliberation chamber of the Judges of the International Court and is a reminder that one of the principal objectives of international law is the peaceful resolution of disputes.

Christianity, likewise, emphasizes the importance of peace. The message that Christ left to His followers was "My peace, I leave you" and He was known as the Prince of Peace.

Erasmus, the great scholar of the Renaissance period wrote a book called The Complaint of Peace, saying that peace could not find a place in any of the council chambers of the world and emphasising how directly contrary this was to the central teaching of Christ. In fact, he summarised the teachings of Christ in terms that "What did Christ teach but peace."

Islam, likewise elevates the notion of peaceful resolution of disputes. Allah is the source of peace. The Islamic greeting is "Peace be unto you." And even after the fall of Mecca, there was no thought of vengeance in the mind of the Prophet but forgiveness. Judaism, likewise, sees peace as a central value and the teaching that swords should be converted into ploughshares symbolizes its commitment to peace.

All religions teach peace

I stress this at the commencement because more than four billions of the world's population of six billion derive their moral values from the great religions and while all the religions teach peace, the world still seems unable to avoid war.

I shall be talking today of the legal and moral implications of the current hostilities, but whether we are talking in terms of law or morality, we cannot lose sight of the religious matrix in which our fundamental moral attitudes have been set. It is not enough to pay lip service to the religions. It is essential to follow their quintessential teachings and peace lies at the heart of those teachings. It is therefore impossible to address questions of war and peace without due regard to this basic worldwide inheritance of teachings regarding peace.

Dealing now with the legal aspects, I should start by pointing out that the current hostilities run totally counter to the Charter of the United Nations, the basic organization of the United Nations, and at least a dozen basic principles of international law.

War runs counter to the preamble to the UN Charter which speaks of the scourge of war which twice in our generation has afflicted humanity. The UN Charter, therefore, enshrines principles of peaceful resolution of disputes and the outlawing of force, except under the strictest limitations. The general principles of international law which are violated are the following:

Illegality of Iraq war

Regime change is not an objective of international law and stringing a few states together as a coalition of the willing does not give legitimacy to the illegal acts which the "willing" states are prepared to commit.

Another aspect of the illegality of the present war depends upon the interpretation of the UN resolutions which have been invoked as giving legitimacy to the use of force. These are the relevant resolutions are 678, 687 and 1441. 1441 was deliberately framed in vague terms when it used the expression "serious consequences" which Iraq must face if it did not get rid of weapons of mass destruction.

The argument of the attacking powers is that the authority to use force was granted by 678, twelve years ago, that that authority has always continued and that the failure of Iraq to disarm automatically revives 678. This is untenable because:

• 678 gave authority to use force in the context of ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait;
• that objective having been achieved, this authority lapsed;
• there were numerous resolutions in the intervening 12 year period dealing with various nuances of the Iraqi situation, but none of them authorize the use of force;
• 687 was a resolution passed after the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait and warned Iraq that it should rid itself of nuclear weapons, but did not directly refer to the use of force, and merely stated that the Security Council would take such further steps as might be required for implementing that resolution;
• this provision clearly required another resolution as a further step;
• 1441 deliberately used the vague expression "serious consequences" because there was no agreement that force should be used, but that should be left open for later decision;
• several parties to 1441 such as Russia, France and China expressly indicated at the time that another resolution was necessary if force was to be used;
• It was generally agreed that there was no "automaticity" in the use of force under 1441.
• paragraph 12 of 1441 expressly foreshadowed the need to convene immediately on receipt of a report of violation to consider the situation; Consequently the argument that 1441 gave authority to use force is totally insufficient and is not the basis on which nations could go to war.

I may also state that the Attorney General of the UK gave an opinion to the effect that 1441 read with 678 authorised the use of force. For the reasons stated above this opinion is quite untenable.

It is also necessary to deal with the humanitarian aspects of the sort of attack that was planned and has, in fact, taken place. Thousands of air raids upon thickly populated cities necessarily caused multiple civilian deaths which are now numbered in their thousands.

This is a totally foreseeable effect of such bombing and those who undertake it are responsible for it and for the violations of the Geneva Conventions involved therein. There was also the experience of the first Gulf war to show what massive slaughter could result from thousands of air attacks. Nor can we lose sight of the fact that a number of the troops of the attacking power have themselves been subjected to unnecessary and avoidable deaths. This death toll is alone is around 150 with several hundred more being seriously injured. All this is totally unnecessary and avoidable suffering.

All this human suffering could well have been avoided if Article 33 of the UN Charter had been followed and all available means of peaceful settlement were tried out and exhausted. Indeed, even the inquiry process that was already in progress and was yielding results, namely the weapons inspection, was to be permitted to go ahead and to add to it all, up to now no weapons have been found.

Security Council

Even before the Security Council can authorize an attack the burden is on the Security Council to satisfy itself that the basic precautionary measures to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe have been set in place. Interruption of water, electricity and food supplies, coupled with the breakdown of the civilian administration means that health services breakdown, and law and order disintegrate. No power is entitled to inflict this on any other power without planning in advance for it. Nor could even the Security Council have sanctioned such a procedure within the law without first ensuring that relief measures were already in place.

There is a common misconception that if the Security Council authorized the use of force, force can be used by the power so authorized, in such a manner as that power may determine. This is not correct for the responsibility lies on the Security Council to ensure that the basic humanitarian principles underlying the UN Charter are observed. This is a violation of such basic principles.

Lastly, I would like to say that I detect in many quarters a view now that the attack has taken place, and all efforts to prevent the war have failed, it is now futile to spend more effort on this matter. We are faced with a fait accompli which we must all accept. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are in a situation where the basic fundamentals of international law and around a dozen of its bedrock principles have been violated.

That sets the clock back by centuries unless all the world unites to assert the law we will all be the sufferers. There has here been a series of violations which the world community will not accept. If there can be a violation of this sort involving unilateral action and pre-emptive strike by the world's leading super power, every other nation which has a grievance with its neighbour can say it is justified in acting likewise and we would be back to the law of the jungle and the rule of force which it required two world wars to overcome in the form of the UN Charter. Tens of millions of people around the world have demonstrated their disapproval of this.

Those expressions of disapproval must continue for unless principles of law and justice are asserted, they will tend to lapse and lose their force.

All peace loving people of the world should rally to the cause and there should be a continuing groundswell of world opinion asserting in unmistakable terms the determination of the people of the world to assert the rule of international law, however strongly vested interests and military force may seem to be ranged against these principles. If good people stay silent, violations of the law tend to recur. It is all important that public opinion should assert and re-assert itself in this seminal crisis in world history.

www.crescat.com

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager