HC Deb 04 December 1957 vol 579 cc365-8
15. Mr. MacDermot

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what other countries have made reservations in matters affecting national security in their acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice; and in what terms.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

So far as I am aware, no other countries have made reservations on matters of national security as such. But several have made reservations in terms which are capable of covering national security, either generally or on particular occasions.

However, I would like to remind the House that only a limited number of countries have accepted the Optional Clause jurisdiction, with or without reservations. There is a far larger number of countries, over 50 in fact, which have not accepted it at all and are in consequence not bound to refer any matter to the Court, whether relating to national security or anything else. Such countries are consequently automatically covered as regards national security in respect of any exercise of compulsory jurisdiction by the Court.

Mr. MacDermot

If no other countries have made reservations in matters affecting national security, can the Foreign Secretary explain what he meant when, in connection with this matter, in the debate on the Address he said—explaining the reason for our reservation— I think that in matters of national security we have to reserve our position when other countries do. When every country in the Soviet bloc does so and when our principal allies do so, we also reserve our position."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1957; Vol. 577, c. 474.] Is it not really the position that the sole reason for this reservation was to prevent the legality of our Pacific nuclear tests, involving the freedom of the high seas, being contested in any court of law anywhere?

Mr. Lloyd

With regard to the last part of the supplementary question, that was not the sole reason—[HON. MEMBERS: "The major reason."]—as I said in my speech, when I referred to that matter, but when the hon. Member talks about no other countries having made reservations, I would point out that over 50 countries, including all the members of the Soviet bloc, do not accept this jurisdiction at all. As regards our Allies, in my view the United States reservation and the French reservation amount to reservations upon matters affecting national security.

Mr. MacDermot

On that point are not we completely protected from the countries which make no acceptance of the jurisdiction at all by our reciprocity reservation? The fact is that, of all the other countries which accept the jurisdiction of the International Court, we are the only one which has made this reservation, and thus is not it a fact that the reciprocity rule completely protects us against Iron Curtain countries which have not accepted the compulsory jurisdiction?

Mr. Lloyd

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support of our own reciprocity reservation. That is at least a step forward. In regard to the reservations of the other countries I have referred to and I have had regard to the opinion of the distinguished judge—in my view our principal Allies also have a reservation which in fact means that they are reserving the question of national security.

16. Mr. MacDermot

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has reconsidered the terms of Her Majesty's Government's reservation in their acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in matters affecting national security, in particular in the light of the criticisms by Judge Sir Hersch Lauterpacht in the Norwegian Loans case; and whether he will now withdraw that reservation.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

I have considered this matter, but I am not prepared at the present time to withdraw this reservation.

Mr. MacDermot

The Foreign Secretary has said that he will reconsider this question. Can he state why he wishes to preserve the position in the present form? Is not it a fact that the only judge of the International Court who has expressed any view on the form of this reservation expressed the view that this makes the whole of our acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction invalid, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider that purely legal aspect of the form of the reservation?

Mr. Lloyd

I am certainly prepared to keep under consideration the legal aspect, abut I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about the learned judge's observations, because his criticisms were directed at reservations on matters of domestic jurisdiction. He said that they ousted the jurisdiction of the court altogether. I think that he made only a tentative reference to the United Kingdom reservation on national security. As I read the terms of his opinion, I do not think they imply that he considers this on the same footing as that of a reservation dealing with domestic jurisdiction.

Mt. Younger

Quite apart from the legal objections of the learned judge, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this action on our part was also deplored on political grounds and on the general ground of the prestige of the Court by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in his Report to the Assembly this year, and will he reconsider his decision in the light of that as well?

Mr. Lloyd

I am perfectly willing to reconsider this matter on a basis of reciprocity, but I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish the authority of the International Court to be built up on a basis of reciprocity. I cannot accept the position in which a country can take us to court but we cannot take that country to court on a similar issue.