HL Deb 23 July 1962 vol 242 cc865-6

2.45 p.m.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will instruct their Representative at the United Nations to move that the increasingly valuable series of reports drawn up by United Nations experts should be continued by a report on the following question:" In what areas and to what extent is international law already effective?"]

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, the noble Lord no doubt has in mind that the International Law Commission should undertake the task of compiling the report. While I agree that this body has produced a series of highly valuable reports, I do not think the question is one that comes within its terms of reference, which are limited to the study of questions of law, not of fact or judgment. The Commission, moreover, has a very full programme for several years ahead, and we should not wish to recommend that it should undertake any new studies unless they were of unusual urgency.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, would it not be possible to stimulate such a study in another organ of the United Nations, if the International Law Commission is not empowered to undertake it? I have in mind to ask whether the noble Earl shares the opinion that the best way to reach World Government is not by great Constitution-mongering. Utopian blueprints, but, on the contrary, brick by brick, and that already there is a great deal of it in certain provisions.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's suggestion. I do not have in mind at the moment any organisation or organ of the United Nations which would be likely to undertake a rather hypothetical study of this kind, which depends on what people mean by international law and what they regard as its enforcement. But I will certainly consider the alternative suggestion which the noble Lord has put forward.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords would not such an inquiry be an expensive waste of time? Is it not a fact that the reason why international law is not effective is largely the Veto position in the Security Council, particularly on the side of the Soviet Union? And while that is the position, what is the point of talking about effective international law?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I think that is perfectly true. I thought perhaps the Question referred more to legal than to political matters. But, to some degree, the noble Lord's objection would apply to both.