U.N. INTERVENTIONS

New Zealand Listener, Volume 36, Issue 916, 1 March 1957, Page 5

U.N. INTERVENTIONS

_ Sir-Now that the "Suez interverihas been well discussed by correspondents, it may be profitable to consider, in a more general sense, some of the questions and principles involved. It seems clear that the U.N. Charter needs revision, The following principles seem axiomatic: (1) An application for intervention by the U.N, should precede unitary action by a member State. (2) The basis of intervention must be abstract justice. It is to be noted that abstract justice requires (a) the outlawry of "aggression" and "aggressor"; (b) the provision of "guarantees"; (c) the immediate ascertainment of facts; (d) sanctions; and power of enforcement; (e) no wrong without remedy; (f) justice must not be influenced by or confused by "interests," national or financial. At present a motion in the Assembly may be very frequently an appeal to "interests""Asian," "Western," "Soviet," "Black," "White," "Moslem," etc., voting in "blocs." aah (3) The right af appeal, instinct in civil law, instinct in justice itself, is not practicable under present international arrangements, which tend to result in "fait accomplis." A "fait accompli" tends to preclude "justice." Our present procedure is, then, neither in principle nor method adequate to the task. 3 What is the alternative? I suggest that only such disputes should be brought before the Assembly as have already been submitted to impartial inquiry. This would entail the establishment of a Standing Judicial Committee of the International Court charged to ‘determine whether the dispute were intra, or ultra vires, to examine the ‘facts, and to make an interim report on its view of the merits. Under such conditions it is thought the Assembly would have the last word, but it would be unlikely to act hastily, under, the stress of strong emotion, and certainly would act with more complete information.

F. A.

DE LA MARE

(Eastbourne).