HC Deb 11 July 1962 vol 662 cc1345-6
41. Mr. A. Henderson

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will instruct his representative at the United Nations to propose that the recent General Assembly resolution on the constitutional problem in Southern Rhodesia be referred to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on its legality.

Mr. Godber

No, Sir. As at present advised, I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served in asking the General Assembly or the Security Council to seek an advisory opinion or that there is any prospect that either body would request an opinion if asked to do so.

Mr. Henderson

How do the Government justify their claim that this resolution of the General Assembly is ultra vireson the ground that it is within the provisions of Article 2 (7), narnely, the domestic jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Government, when at the same time they state that they have no power to interfere with the constitutional development of Southern Rhodesia?

Mr. Godber

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that we have always taken this position in regard to Southern Rhodesia, a position that any intervention would in fact be ultra vireson the ground that Southern Rhodesia is not a State represented at the United Nations, and that such representations as take place in regard to it take place through the United Kingdom Government. We have taken the view that any intervention in regard to Southern Rhodesia is ultra vires.This position was made quite clear by our representative, Sir Patrick Dean, and I stand on that position.

Mr. Healey

Does it not appear hypo, critical and slightly contradictory for the Government to maintain when they are asked to improve the nature of the Southern Rhodesian constitution that for all intents and purposes this territory is self-governing and then to deny the same fact when the question is raised in the United Nations, and will not the Government when they refuse to have the United Nations discuss this matter take some initiative to change the constitution in Southern Rhodesia so as to give the Africans fairer representation?

Mr. Godber

I have nothing to add with regard to the constitution of Southern Rhodesia. The position which I have made clear is that we accept responsibility for representations in relation to Southern Rhodesia at the United Nations. We represent their position there and it is on that basis that we rest ourselves on Article 2 (7) of the Charter.

Mr. P. Williams

Will my hon. Friend recognise that a large body of opinion regards the influence of the United Nations in this as being thoroughly mischievous, and will he acknowledge the fact that there has been greater stability and sense of purpose in British affairs in Africa in the last few months?

Mr. Godber

I would deplore the fact that this resolution has been tabled and passed. Our position has been made clear, that we do not accept this resolution and we believe that Britain has every right to be proud of her record in this territory.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker

Are the Government not saying about Southern Rhodesia what they said about Cyprus, and which they had to abandon? if we deny that the resolution of the Assembly is legal, ought we not to go to the International Court to test that view?

Mr. Godber

The provision for going to the International Court for an advisory opinion is only open to an organ of the United Nations itself. We are not in a position to take a case to the International Court. If the General Assembly or the Security Council are willing that that should be done, it would be a different matter.

Mr. Noel-Baker

Will the hon. Gentleman ask them?

Mr. Godber

I indicated in my first reply that there seems to be no hope that either body will consider it.

Mr. Noel-Baker

Is that a reason for not asking them?