HL Deb 09 March 1987 vol 485 cc819-20

2.48 p.m.

Lord Kennet

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

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will propose that the United States of America and the Soviet Union submit their differences on the interpretation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty to the International Court of Justice.

Baroness Young

My Lords, no.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, is it not an obvious course to suggest to a friendly power that, when there is a dispute, or when there is likely to be a dispute, about the interpretation of a treaty to which they are a party and to which although we are not a party is yet of the very highest importance and interest to us, they should have recourse to this world institution which has been there for many decades and which exists for the purpose of solving such disputes?

Baroness Young

My Lords, we do not think that it would be appropriate for a third state to intervene in a bilateral dispute between two other states except with the consent of both of them.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, in view of the improved climate of possible arms control, or possible arms control agreement, would the noble Baroness and her right honourable and learned friend consider making representations to the United States Administration with a view to an adherence to the original interpretation of the ABM Treaty and not seek to enlarge the ABM Treaty now, which could lead only to a possible difficult situation and affect the possible success of the negotiations?

Baroness Young

My Lords, I fully appreciate the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, when he asks that particular supplementary question. However, I do not feel that I can add anything further to the answer which I gave to the earlier Question by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn; namely, that we have no locus in interpreting the ABM Treaty.

Lord Gladwyn

My Lords, is not the interpretation of international treaties something which, under its statute, the International Court of Justice is specifically entitled and indeed expected to undertake?

Baroness Young

My Lords, the ICJ is competent to settle disputes about interpretation of treaties but it has jurisdiction only in particular cases if both parties have agreed.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, is the reason that the Government will not make this suggestion because they have a shrewd suspicion that the USSR would accept and the United States would refuse?

Baroness Young

My Lords, in the first place, there has not been any arms control agreement which has ever been submitted to the ICJ, and although the United States has recently withdrawn its acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, it continues to be in favour of resorting to the ICJ by agreement in suitable cases. The Soviet Union has not accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, nor ever submitted a dispute to it voluntarily. There is no reason to believe that it is interested in doing so now on this issue, whatever the attitude of the United States.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, in view of the importance of the interpretation of this treaty to any possible agreement on arms control, will the noble Baroness say where Her Majesty's Government stand? Are they in favour of the broad interpretation, or the original narrow interpretation?

Baroness Young

My Lords, at the risk of boring the House yet further, I can say only that we are not a party to the treaty and our views on it are well known to your Lordships.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that these are very vital matters which affect many millions of people, let alone the two super powers? Would she not agree that if we could get something like this under way, perhaps the role of the British Goverment, as I said before, would be not so much to insist on agreement as to what the treaties say, but to ensure that they are being adhered to? They can only be proven and shown to be real if there is a firm system of verification. This is what the British Government should insist on.

Baroness Young

My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, I do not think I can say anything other than the points that I have already made to your Lordships.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, as a fallback suggestion, would the Government consider pointing out to the United States that the 1969 convention on the interpretation of treaties, which they have not signed but which, nevertheless, codifies existing customary law, says that a treaty means what it says according to the common interpretation of the words in it, and that, if that is a difficulty, it means what the negotiators meant it to mean when they signed it.

Baroness Young

My Lords, that is a very interesting piece of information which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has put to the House. However, it does not detract in any way from the original Answer which I gave to his first supplementary question.