HL Deb 11 February 1997 vol 578 cc119-21

2.57 p.m.

Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, having regard to the statement of the International Court of Justice that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to humanitarian law, they will ask the court to define the circumstances in which the threat or use of such weapons would not be contrary to humanitarian law.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)

My Lords, we shall not be asking the UN General Assembly to request the International Court of Justice for such an opinion. As we made clear, we do not believe that hypothetical questions should be put to the court.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, is the Minister aware that, while there is no definition, it is open to any nuclear country to say that its weapons are being used in a virtually non-lethal way and that their plans and threat are not seriously meant? I believe that unless there is some definition any nuclear state can do exactly what it pleases. Is that the aim of the Government? If so, why did they sign the non-proliferation treaty?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I must admit that I find the noble Lord's question a little difficult to follow. However, bearing in mind all that we have discussed on this issue on previous occasions, I believe that the UK, having already made a number of reductions to the nuclear arsenal on a national basis, has shown good faith and it is absolutely right that we should have signed the non-proliferation treaty. Our deterrent is of a minimum consistent with assessment of our security requirements. Any nation which possesses a nuclear deterrent must have a credible deterrent if it is to deter.

I do not believe that the noble Lord yet accepts what your Lordships in general accept; that NATO has a strategy of war prevention. The strategy includes its nuclear element. That is essential to the process of forging the new relationships on international defence agreements.

Lord Chalfont

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help me and the House and set the record straight. Is it not a fact that when the International Court of Justice was asked by the World Health Organisation to give an opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons it declined to do so? Is it not further a fact that the comment about this being against humanitarian law was contained in a statement by one judge who gave a dissenting opinion? Is it not misleading, therefore, to suggest that that is the opinion of the International Court of Justice?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. When the case was referred to it, the court decided that it did not have sufficient elements to enable it to conclude with certainty that the use of nuclear weapons would necessarily be at variance with the principles and rules of international humanitarian law in any circumstances. The legality of any such use would depend on all the circumstances of the case. As I said when answering a previous Question in your Lordships' House, one judge dissented, and it is on his view that a few noble Lords and some others have seized.

Lord Archer of Sandwell

My Lords, but did not the court make it clear that normally the use of nuclear weapons would be in conflict with international humanitarian law and that the exceptions were very rigidly defined? Do the Government take seriously the opinion of the International Court of Justice? Do they propose to initiate any kind of discussions on the implications? Or is the whole matter simply to be left as it is?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, so far as I can see, a large majority in the court found that in international law there is no comprehensive and universal prohibition on the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such. That was perfectly clear. We have made it clear that we would only ever consider the use of nuclear weapons in self-defence and in extreme circumstances. That is absolutely clear. The point is that, taken as a whole, the opinion of the court does not give rise to any new factors affecting the fundamental principles of our nuclear posture. The text of Article VI makes clear that each of the parties to the treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures. I do not think there is the lack of distinction which the noble and learned Lord tries to pose.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, if no new factors arise from the decision of the international court, why do the Government have difficulty in acceding to Protocols 1 and 2 of the Geneva Convention?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, those are under consideration, as the noble Lord knows.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, in these circumstances and if the Minister says that the Government are so reasonable, what is stopping them entering into a convention on the matter? They entered into a convention on nuclear weapons. So why can they not equally enter into a convention to obtain some certainty on this matter which at the moment depends entirely on interpretation? I must inform the Minister that her interpretation and the Government's interpretation are not widely accepted outside the nuclear states.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I do not think that I have anything to add to my previous answers. We know that the recommendation for an end to nuclear testing has been largely met by the conclusion of the CTBT. We also know that all such matters are reviewed when necessary. We have made much progress on disarmament. In fact, we have led much of it by the elimination of our maritime surface tactical nuclear capability and the withdrawal of our nuclear artillery and Lance missiles.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, is not another serious danger the nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union which, according to press reports, are not protected securely by the Russian army? Can anything be done about that situation?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, the noble Lord should not always believe all that he reads in press reports. Nevertheless, I accept that we do not know enough about the safety of nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. It is for that very reason that efforts have been made to get to know more and to help in the safe dismantling of such weapons. We may not be successful in that, but at least the West is trying.