by Kennedy Graham
Something useful emerged from Question Time in Parliament yesterday, in response to my question of the Foreign Minister about intervention in Syria.
Knowingly or otherwise, the Government pledged never to use force without an authorising resolution from the UN Security Council.
They will be forever held to account, from now on.
The issue at stake is when a country may legally use its armed forces. For 5,000 years, the answer was – whenever you wish. In the 20th century, that began to change. Since 1945, under the UN Charter, there are only two occasions when armed force is legal – in self-defence against attack; or when the Security Council authorises (under prescribed conditions).
Of course, this has been largely honoured in the breach, and it remains controversial when major powers use force in their ‘vital national interests’ and small countries get sucked in (Australia and New Zealand in Suez ’56 and Vietnam ‘66; Australia in Iraq ’03).
The most recent, and controversial, use of force without UN authorisation is Iraq in 2003, when the UK and Australia followed the US in its ‘coalition of the willing’ to invade Iraq for regime change. They cited the revival of earlier resolutions (dating back to 1991) but very few lawyers accept that, and almost everyone, including the UN Secretary-General, regarded it as illegal.
So, the challenge is to ensure that New Zealand never follows the US, or anyone, into an armed conflict, as part of such a ‘coalition’, that is contrary to the UN Charter – i.e. illegal. Of course, aggression is included as a leadership crime in the ICC’s Rome Statute. It is not yet justiciable but is likely to become so around 2017, following agreement at the ICC’s Review Conference in 2010.
The intriguing NZG policy twist is this. In 2009, less than 30 months ago, during the debate on my member’s bill (International Non-Aggression and the Lawful Use of Force), this Government opposed on the grounds that it wanted the freedom to use force outside of a UN Security Council mandate.
To quote the then Defence Minister, Hon Wayne Mapp, during the 1st reading debate:
“[I]t would effectively hand our foreign policy to the whims of a UN Security Council veto. … Under the proposed legislation, New Zealand and other Western democracies could not have defended the people of Kosovo against genocidal aggression … There would have been no authorisation for their actions by the Security Council because Russia and China vetoed the proposed resolution.”
The Government voted against the Bill on these grounds. Labour supported the Bill, and it was only narrowly defeated by 64 votes to 58.
So, in September 2009 this Government opposed making aggression a leadership crime in domestic law on the grounds that it did not wish New Zealand’s foreign-defence policy to be constrained by a UN Security Council veto that might stop the West intervening with armed force on the basis of the ‘responsibility to protect’ principle.
Given that the UN General Assembly had affirmed, in 2005, that ‘responsibility to protect’ was legal only in the event of an authorising Security Council resolution, this was aberrant to say the least (see my article in NZ International Review, 2009, Vol. 34, No. 6; and 2008, Vol. 33, No. 6); also NZ International Law Review, 2009; 7).
Now, in a (perhaps unwitting) fit of unction, the Government has dropped that opposition, and has said that it will NEVER commit armed forces outside of a Council resolution.
This is how it should be, and is good news. I shall be resubmitting my International Non-Aggression and the Lawful Use of Force bill back into the ballot, so that the Government can support it into law.
Published in Justice & Democracy by Kennedy Graham on Thu, February 16th, 2012
Tags: Iraq, non-aggression, Syria, United Nations Charter
More posts by Kennedy Graham | more about Kennedy Graham
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Yeah, gonna be a bit awkward when Bainimarama starts slaughtering Fijians, and we quite fancy popping over there to help, and we’ve comitted ourselves not to, and the UN go Frank who?
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
So what happens when there is a genocide somewhere, and the security council resolution gets vetoed – as happens over and over.
Israel does anything it wants, and the US will veto any Security Council resolution that is harsher than “tut tut – we would prefer it if you didn’t slaughter so many Palistinians.”
Russia does the same with it’s allies. So does China.
Kennedy – if there was a slaughter happening (i.e. dbuckley’s example of Fiji), and NZ could stop it – would you support standing by letting the slaughter continue simply because there was no security council resolution?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Ladies….
IF there is a genocide somewhere and there is no unanimity at the “United” Nations, then there is. People WILL die… and probably have to, to drive home the point to the obstructing nation.
By adhering to the principle involved, we put real consequences of their failures under their noses.
We also avoid, and it is the more frequent error, getting involved in wars for FALSE cause. I do not see how you can see the possible error on ONE side, and yet miss the likely error on the other.
It is not enough to want the UN to work. It has to be made to work… and there has to be fair and just processe followed… even by the likes of China and the USA.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
“..They will be forever held to account, from now on..”
are you expecting them to be in power for a very long time..?
you aren’t over-egging it a tad…are you..?
phil@whoar.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
An attack on Iran is unlikely to get UNSC authorisation so what can be made of the following?
From this report NZ is already involved.
The Israeli publication Debkafile, reporting (7 feb 2012) on the “Bold Alligator” drill states it to be ” the largest amphibian exercise seen in the West for a decade, staged to simulate a potential Iranian invasion of an allied Persian Gulf country and a marine landing on the Iranian coast.”
Practicing alongside their U.S. counterparts, “French, British, Italian, Dutch, Australian and New Zealand military elements are integrated in the drill.”
“The exercise is scheduled to end on February 14, .. after which the participants are to be shipped out to Persian Gulf positions opposite Iran. ”
http://www.debka.com/article/21716/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I would support the legislation if UN was even remotely democratic body. As stated, intervention could be prevented on the “whims of a UN Security Council veto” even with an otherwise overwhelming majority. This means action, no matter how warranted can never be sanctioned against nations with a Veto right. In most cases this means crimes committed by the major powers or their allies go unpunished while unprotected states committing lesser crimes receive sanctions or military action.
While I am sympathetic to the rationale behind the proposed legislation, without reforms regarding voting structure, the UN is an inappropriate body to be following.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The biggest travesty of justice, put out by the U.N. was the 1961 Single convention on Narcotic Drugs. This led USA to promote ‘WAR ON DRUGS’ which has seen countless millions of otherwise law abiding citizens, brutilised & even slaughtered.. all in the name of this B-S !
Prohibition didn’t work with Alcohol in 1920s USA & it isn’t working with Cannabis etc. BUT the U.N. & most western Govt. promote this WAR as the solution.. “WAKE-UP people” its a WAR against a bunch of plants & the people who oppose this regime.
How many people will die this year, due to this CRUSADE ?
Kia-ora
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
To debate the hypothetical scenario suggested by dbuckley merely perpetuates propaganda.
The New Zealand Government, and the West as whole, has never had problems dealing with dictators & military rulers. What they can’t stomach is someone who won’t toe their line. This, of course, stems from our underlying hubris, and renders any debate concerning intervention in another country questionable.
Why not look at a real situation? How about the time NZ stupidly intervened militarily in a foreign country when demands for democracy turned to riots? I refer to Tonga 2006. The assumptions NZ made when deploying troops to Tonga were as flawed as the assumptions made about Fiji. It is extremely difficult for any outsider to understand the true nature of political, cultural and social forces at work.
The citizens of the country in question should be the ones to decide their futures, not outsiders, with their blinding hubris, ignorance, flawed analysis, hidden agendas, media manipulation, agents provocateurs etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)