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 The restraints of the Cold War have been replaced by a more committed attitude towards judicial settlement of international disputes.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 Court’s 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 Court’s 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 Court’s 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 Finland’s 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 country’s 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.