HL Deb 02 December 1996 vol 576 cc461-3

2.45 p.m.

The Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will support a motion in the United Nations General Assembly welcoming the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice given on 8th July 1996.

Lord Chesham

My Lords, in the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, the UK voted against Resolution L.37 on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. As was made clear in our Explanation of Vote, we believe that the resolution contained highly selective quotations from the opinion and called for an unrealistic schedule for disarmament.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, in the circumstances, is it not the case that the vast majority of countries of the world have voted in favour of the action commended by the Canberra report? Can the noble Lord assure the House that the report, which he will recall was commended to the House by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, on 28th October, is being seriously considered by the nuclear countries?

Lord Chesham

My Lords, the resolution was opposed by 22 states and 29 states abstained. As regards the paragraph calling for immediate nuclear disarmament negotiations, 27 states opposed the resolution and 27 abstained. That demonstrates widespread reservations about the resolution. As regards the Canberra report—like the Australians, I prefer to call it that—there are some ideas with which the United Kingdom strongly agrees. We welcome the recognition that nuclear arms control measures can be negotiated only between the states holding nuclear weapons themselves. However, we disagree that the role of deterrence has disappeared. Disarmament measures cannot be divorced from the broader global security context. Deterrence continues to make a central contribution to European security.

Lord Chalfont

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is the danger in all this that the whole question of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice may be misunderstood? Is it not the fact that, after six months' deliberation and 200 pages of evidence and dissenting opinion, the conclusion of the court was as follows: The court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence in which the very survival of the state would be at risk". As that is the very circumstance in which a nuclear response would be threatened or used, is it not irresponsible and mischievous to suggest that the international court has declared that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is illegal, when it has done no such thing?

Lord Chesham

My Lords, I could not have put it better myself.

Lord Archer of Sandwell

My Lords, however the noble Lord puts it, does he not agree that the court made it clear that the exception related to a very narrow range of situations and that the rest of the judgment was absolutely unambiguous? Although it was only advisory, does the noble Lord agree that an opinion of the International Court of Justice carries some authority? Do Her Majesty's Government have no intention of offering any reaction to the report?

Lord Chesham

My Lords, a large majority of 11 to 3 found that there is in international law no comprehensive and universal prohibition on the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such. The voting was 11 to 3. We continue to believe that the use of nuclear weapons is not prohibited as such under international law and that the legality of any such use would depend on all the circumstances. In fact, we would only ever use our nuclear deterrent in self-defence and in extreme circumstances.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, as the Government apparently support some aspects of the Canberra commission report, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government would support a nuclear weapons convention modelled on the chemical weapons convention of 1993? If they would not support one, can the Minister tell the House why not?

Lord Chesham

My Lords, I do not have details of the chemical weapons convention with me so I would prefer to write to the noble Baroness about that.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, on that last matter, are the Government seriously considering the possibility and do they recognise the strength of the Canberra report following the decision of the International Court of Justice, however one rates that? If the Government are impressed with the Canberra report—as I believe they should be—can the Minister say whether the Government will come back to the House with a considered view about it?

Lord Chesham

Certainly, my Lords. I have just stated that there are parts with which we firmly agree, although we do not agree with other parts.