ADDRESS BY PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC MARTTI AHTISAARI
AT THE OPENING SESSION OF
THE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE, UN AND THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW SYMPOSIUM
IN HELSINKI ON 27.8.1998

It is a great pleasure for me to open this symposium, which has been organised as one of Finland’s contributions to the Decade of International Law declared by the General Assembly in 1989. In this context, it may be fitting to offer some rather personal reflections on the role that law plays in the global governance activities of the UN.

Before I do so, however, let me begin by applauding the successful conclusion in Rome last July of the process of establishing the International Criminal Court. The process was consistently supported by Finland. We have every reason to hope that the Court will become not only an effective instrument for the trial of war criminals, but also a powerful deterrent against committing war crimes.

As many of you may be aware, I was a member of UN staff some years ago. In that capacity I had the good fortune to participate in one of the organisation’s earlier attempts to perform a task that from today’s perspective, and in today’s parlance, belongs in the category of global governance. I mean Namibia’s successful transition to independence in the late 1980s. It is a good illustration of the organisation’s possibilities in the field of global governance. It also demonstrates one of the ways in which international law can assist in this work. It gives me particular pleasure to recall in this context that it was the Finnish delegation at the Security Council that in 1970 made a historic contribution when it proposed that the International Court of Justice be asked for its advisory opinion on the status of the South African presence in what was then called South-West Africa. As you are well aware, the Court ruled not only that South Africa’s presence in Namibia was illegal, but also that all states were under an obligation, established by binding Security Council resolutions, not to recognise nor give legal effect to that presence. In other words, the Court accepted that the UN had a global mandate, a kind of public law function, not only to determine the legality of a particular situation, but also to enforce its decisions through measures that were binding on its members.

The obligation of non-recognition is of course only one of the means available to the United Nations for carrying out its global governance tasks. Since Namibia, it has been used for instance in connection with the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait and the war in former Yugoslavia. Collective non-recognition of a situation or denying that situation’s legal effects is a formidable weapon in the hands of the organisation. Nonetheless, it is less dramatic than economic or military measures under Chapter VII of the Charter. Unlike these latter sanctions, non-recognition does not strike at innocent civilians - while its symbolic significance is hardly any less than that of boycotting trade. In a situation such as Namibia before 1989, non-recognition was a uniquely suitable means of enforcing the organisation’s ideals, its global commitments. But it was no novelty even then. During Rhodesia’s long road to independence as Zimbabwe, the organisation had since 1965 had recourse to collective non-recognition as one part of its policy in the region.

Doubts are often expressed about the effectiveness of economic sanctions; there are not many examples of cases where an economic boycott by the UN has led to the achievement of its political goals. In Iraq, for instance, the organisation seems to have become something of a hostage to its own policy. Clearly, the economic boycott imposed in 1990 - and the effects of which I personally witnessed the following year - has so far failed to achieve its stated objectives. On the other hand, it has inflicted extensive suffering on the most vulnerable sections of the Iraqi population. It could also be debated whether economic measures against Serbia-Montenegro have actually had any effect in tempering the attitudes of the Serbian leadership.

As an instrument of global governance, therefore, collective trade and other economic measures may have only limited usefulness. I am not saying that they should never be resorted to; in some situations there may not be any viable alternative. Perhaps their most apparent benefit is symbolic: they demonstrate the international community’s determination not to allow a situation created by illegality to continue. But they also remove pressure for more forceful measures - namely military action - and in this way may have a role to play in an ongoing conflict.

On the other hand and in the light of my experience in Namibia, the usefulness of negative sanctions is outweighed by the positive role that the United Nations, its agencies and its members can play in the attainment of global governance objectives. The setting up of the UN Council for Namibia was an unprecedented step towards organising the international administration of a territory that found itself under an illegal de facto regime. The few legislative acts that the Council passed may not have had much effect on the ground, but their symbolic significance should not be underestimated. They form a striking example of international governance by the United Nations. It is an example that may prove relevant in the ongoing discussions concerning the problem of so-called failed states or other situations in which the absence of effective and legitimate government causes or threatens to create humanitarian dangers. Together with humanitarian and other assistance programmes, including those carried out by the Secretary-General’s Special Representative, such measures may be altogether more effective than sanctions in attaining the UN’s objectives.

There are of course also other examples of positive interaction between the UN and international law in advancing global governance objectives. One situation that comes to mind was the treatment of the long-standing boundary dispute between Libya and Chad over the so-called Aouzou strip. Here, the two states took their conflict to the International Court of Justice. Demarcation of the boundary defined in the ruling by the court in 1994 was done under the auspices of the Security Council and the Secretary-General. Again, an innovative procedure in which the organisation assumed the role of seeing to the implementation of a legal settlement to a conflict that had military and strategic overtones.

As you know very well, the organisation and international law interact also in fields other than the enforcement of collective security. For example, the work of the United Nations in the codification and progressive development of international law has been impressive. The protracted negotiations that eventually led to the entry into force of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1994 are perhaps a less striking but no less concrete illustration of the organisation’s global governance work. Those negotiations yielded a comprehensive set of rules and principles and led to the establishment of an international administration that together have all the potential for becoming a truly global constitution for the oceans. Less than two months ago we witnessed the successful conclusion of negotiations for the setting up of an International Criminal Court. In due course this body will replace the existing ad hoc war crimes tribunals. A truly remarkable step has been taken to ensure that those individuals - politicians, soldiers, and others - who are responsible for atrocities in connection with international or domestic conflicts will be brought to justice. Moreover, this will be achieved through an international procedure that is free from the charges of retroactivity, selectivity or victors’ justice that have been voiced against earlier attempts at applying international criminal law. Nor should the effect of the new court in underpinning a point of principle be underestimated; its establishment sends a powerful signal that a certain consensus of fundamental values exists in an otherwise fragmented international order.

In this connection I would like to highlight the growing role that protection of human rights has assumed in the activities of the United Nations. In my view, implementation of international human rights standards at both the national and the international level still needs to be enhanced. The United Nations can offer great support in this regard by integrating human rights into all aspects of its work. A wider participation of civil societies in the global governance work of the organisation is likewise called for.

The world is not short of voices decrying the organisation’s loss of a functional purpose and lamenting that it is too bureaucratic, ineffective, elitist or utopian to be taken seriously. Whatever truth there may be in such criticisms, the Secretary-General’s reform proposals constitute a useful step towards dealing with the problems that the UN has been faced with.

Likewise, international law must take account of the changing character of international politics. Both must give a growing voice to people, groups and interests that have so far had too little access to the decision-making structures of public diplomacy. As I have already mentioned, a formidable step forward has been taken during the UN Decade of International Law that ends next year. The arm of the International Criminal Court will reach beyond sovereign boundaries. Human rights issues and environmental problems have become increasingly central in the work of the UN. They are premised upon the idea of a global polity; and of global governance. However great the need to apply the principle of subsidiarity in regard to the UN and the classical international law that accompanies it, there is no substitute for one set of rules that looks upon human communities as a true cosmopolis. This is the stated purpose of the UN and the implied assumption behind any plan for global governance.

I wish the symposium every success.