by Kennedy Graham
Dr Ken Graham launching the Bill, July 2009 - image courtesy Scoop
My International Non-Aggression Bill met its Maker last Members’ Day (23 Sept.) in the House. While that was disappointing, it was not all doom and gloom.
First off, the vote was a respectable one – 64 against (National-ACT) 58 for (Greens, Labour, Maori Party).
Secondly, the Bill has generated considerable interest around the world, being distributed to MPs in about 100 countries and being emulated by some colleagues in the Argentine Senate. Consideration is being given to some comparable work in the UK Parliament.
I always knew it would be a big ‘ask’ of this Government to criminalise international aggression (in violation of the UN Charter) in domestic criminal law. And so it proved.
They want the freedom to circumvent any veto in the Security Council, in the name of the ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine.
I have never been in need of advice about ‘Responsibility to Protect’, having addressed this issue as a consultant to Kofi Annan’s UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change back in ‘04. But where I differ from the Government is that we cannot have it both ways.
You cannot insist on the freedom accorded by that doctrine to use force that is not sanctioned by the UN and deny the same freedoms to other major powers (Russia, China). Not, at least, if you apply minimal standards of logic and political integrity. The freedom for the West to intervene in Kosovo, which our Defence Minister unctuously cited would have to be married with the freedom of another major power to intervene militarily on behalf of, say, Palestine against Israel.
So, as long as we insist on, or acquiesce in, retaining the veto, we must accept the consequences. My Bill never sought to change international law on non-aggression – it simply held up the mirror to all countries about transforming our state responsibility for non-aggression under the UN Charter into an individual legal obligation in domestic criminal law. In other words, putting our criminal liability where our mouth is.
As it happens, ‘aggression’ is likely to become an international crime as part of the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction within the next year.
That is, three core crimes are already part of the ICC jurisdiction (genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity). These are already crimes in NZ domestic law. Aggression is likely to be added next year. Then, this Government will be obliged to address the issue of translating it into domestic criminal law.
It is a shame they could not take the step this year, but likely they will be required to do so, next year or shortly thereafter.
Meanwhile, the Government could also have accepted the other part of my Bill – requiring it to obtain a written legal opinion of the Attorney-General affirming the legality of any proposed deployment of our troops overseas – and table it in Parliament for deliberation at least seven days in advance of an executive decision.
Its refusal to do that displays a 19th-century mindset. The message to the public and to Parliament is – don’t worry your pretty little heads on these great issues of state. International law is too arcane for you to understand. It is best left to the high-priesthood – international lawyers closeted in the Foreign and Defence Ministries. We, the Government, assure you that anything New Zealand does is always in accord with international law. Now, no more questions – it is time for bed.
That doesn’t wash in the 21st century. The public, including many international lawyers outside government, know about international law and global security. They can follow matters as closely as diplomats and politicians. And it will no longer be fobbed off on that score.
The public has a right to know the precise legal basis on which our armed forces operate overseas. It is unpatriotic, and self-demeaning, for any NZ Government to talk down to the public on matters of such high importance.
The ‘non-aggression’ issue is not about to go away. I expect to remain active on this for some time to come. And it will be the Government undertaking policy change over the next few years, not the Green Party.
Published in Featured | Justice & Democracy by Kennedy Graham on Tue, September 29th, 2009
Tags: non-aggression, United Nations
More posts by Kennedy Graham | more about Kennedy Graham
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Well done Ken. Please keep us all in the loop about the uptake, even if amended, of your bill around the world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes… we have gone from the “nanny state” to the “ninny state” without a transitional period of good sense.
Thanks for keeping us up-to-date
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I certainly support the idea of tabling a written opinion from the AG in parliament before any action is taken on foreign soil or waters (getting ready should be permitted) but I question the 7 day requirement. Certainly this is desirable, but events may move faster than that so provision should be included for a more rapid response, say if sanctioned by the leader of the Opposition.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kennedy: I am in full support of youy non agression bill it’s ahead of our time (19th century?).
I see it as the means to the end where national governments in this world have absolutely no power to enter into a war, but through the global sovereignty of the UN.
That cannot happen until the UN is given sufficient resources (teeth) to deal with global conflicts.
58 for is not a bad score the first time round, keep plugging not just in NZ but internationally if one country passes it then others may follow suite.
I would be interested to see how Venezuella and those in the Bolivarian accord view this bill as much as how the trolls of ACT and penticostal conspiracy theorist would view it as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Isn’t the UN a retirement home for diplomats, I mean name one thing good that ever came out of the UN.
I await your racist euro-centric world view telling me how the UN has avoided wars since its creation. History of course points to the second half of the 20th century as being just as bloody as the first.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
turnip28: google the phrase “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, for ‘one good thing that ever came out of the UN’…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights starts off well it quickly degenerates into a “progressive” erra document. It is full of privalleges pretending to be rights. You have a right to your property,liberty,life and pursuit of happiness. You have a privallege of free education,healthcare and it is upto the individual member states to decide for themselves if and to what level they will provide those things. When you impose privalleges as rights you are heading down a slippery slope, of course in time (once the progressive erra ends) people will look back on documents such as this and it will be seen for what it is a poor attempt. The US founders declaration of indepence beats it as does the US constitution. Of course they weren’t a bunch of socialists trying to push their agenda.
Of the course the fact that the majority of nations belonging to the UN violate the universal declaration of human rights only highlights how pathetic an organization the UN is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Turnip,
I would suggest/contest that none of those things covered in that document are rights external to the nation state as a right requires force and for none of those things mentioned in the document would UN members be willing to go to war to enforce. Some of those things are rights within the nation state by fact of their enforcement via the coercive authority/force of the state.
All in all, the declaration of human rights, like all such documents produced by that appalling body, is nothing more than wishy-washy ideology with no force behind it and little understanding. Politicians wanting to be seen to be doing something whilst doing nothing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Turnip wrote: “You have a right to your property,liberty,life and pursuit of happiness. You have a privallege of free education,healthcare and it is upto the individual member states to decide for themselves if and to what level they will provide those things.”
There’s a long history of rich people granting poor people some sort of right to subsidised social services in return for poor people granting rich people private property rights. It’s called a ‘social contract’ in political philosophy, and it makes sense because there’s no reason why people who don’t have property should accept the idea of others having a right to their property if they don’t get anything in return.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Turnip28, I would begin by spelling privilege correctly.
You state that the Universal Declaration (UD) is ‘full of privileges pretending to be rights’. A privilege must be granted, a right is an entitlement.
The Universal Declaration (UD) is an expression of the entitlements that each Human Being should have. Although coordinated by the UN, the UD is not ‘imposed’ by the UN on anyone. To pretend that it is, undermines the intent of the UD.
You then state:
‘Of the course the fact that the majority of nations belonging to the UN violate the universal declaration of human rights only highlights how pathetic an organization the UN is’.
This is not a logical argument. Yes, Nations do flagrantly contravene the UD. This does not highlight the behaviour of the UN, pathetic or otherwise, it merely highlights the behaviour of the state in violation.
We should do our best to make sure NZ and other Nations behave in accordance with the UD. We should not shirk from our moral obligations, simply because the UD and the UN ask you to be better than you can be bothered to be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yow, we have a new BP and this one is waaay better than the last!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What ever happened to the old B boys?
I don’t know about the better comment, BP did make debate interesting. This ones arguements are full of almost as many holes as the old ones; almost.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
To those turnips and re-actionary parsnip eaters, it is very easy to be cynical about the United Nations, but I would shudder to think what kind of world this would be without the UN.
I wonder if any of the above bloggers have any better solutions to resolve world conflicts, Because I don’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Many:
.
Some fun.
Some immensely hard.
Some malevolent.
None of which I have the slightest interest in pursuing. I hate diplomacy
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I would be interested to see how Venezuella and those in the Bolivarian accord view this bill as much as how the trolls of ACT and penticostal conspiracy theorist would view it as well.”
troll has come to be used as someone who disagrees with the Green party, here on frogblog.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Article 1.
* All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
are tangata whenua egual to tau iwi?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I read somewhere that states achieve a certain set of conditions where they are inherently non- aggressive, such as when they don’t need to plunder others resources. The example given was Sweden and an analogy would be when people go hiking and one group or person doesn’t bring enough food. One of the reasons countries are poor is because their population growth rate is high. Are the Greens aware of that angle?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Turnip:
http://www.unesco-ci.org/cgi-bin/portals/foss/page.cgi?g=Software%2Findex.html;d=1
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)