World Legal Forum
Ladies and gentlemen,
For the past few weeks a documentary series has been airing on Dutch television called In Europe, on the history of the 20th century of this continent. The images in the first episodes clearly show what, one hundred years ago – at the time of the Second Hague Peace Conference – were considered legitimate means to settle conflicts: weapons, military violence, war. It was a time when international relations were determined by the survival of the strongest – every man for himself.
One hundred years ago, in an attempt to put a stop to this, the First and Second Hague Peace Conferences looked for better forms of international dispute settlement. Neither of these conferences was intended to put an end to existing conflicts, as had been the case in earlier attempts. Their aim was to prevent war and to limit its horrific consequences. They laid a firm foundation for the peaceful settlement of disputes and for the development of humanitarian martial law – still pillars of international law as we know it today.
Today I would primarily like to look at the first topic: peaceful settlement of disputes. The First Peace Conference led to the founding, in 1902, of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which has had its seat in this beautiful building since 1913. In the course of the years, the PCA has not only contributed to the development of international law, but it has also peacefully settled a large number of international disputes. Right now it is more active than ever and is seeking – in my opinion rightly so – to expand and diversify its activities for example to include international environmental disputes.
In this context it is important to point out that the PCA was with us before the founding, in 1922, of the Permanent Court of International Justice, the predecessor of the International Court of Justice, which came into being in 1946. So before we had international administration of justice, there was international arbitration, and the PCA is not even the first example of that. The fact that alternative dispute settlement was accorded a place at an international level also appears from the Charter of the United Nations: in Article 33 it names – in addition to judicial settlement – many other forms of dispute settlement to resolve conflicts.
The number of such alternatives is growing, and many of the activities in this field take place in The Hague. Since the founding of the PCA, this city has been home to many other international legal organisations – so many in fact that The Haguetoday may rightly call itself the ‘legal capital of the world’. In addition to the International Court of Justice, which I already mentioned, they include the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslaviaand the International Criminal Court. Soon to be added to this list is the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons should also be noted: through its agency, large numbers of chemical weapons have been destroyed, and production facilities closed or adapted to use for peaceful purposes.
A weighing of interests
The work of these institutions is of is vital importance to international peace and security: this is acknowledged by one and all. Today I would like to pay special attention to a different manner of conflict resolution: one that involves looking less strongly to the legal aspects while focusing our primary attention on the underlying interests, needs and wishes of parties to a dispute.
Violations of international law have consequences on several fronts. They affect bilateral relations, they affect peaceful international relations. But they also affect – and this has been the focal subject of the past two decades – the fundamental interests of human beings, of nations. This involves material interests, such as scarce resources or an attractive investment climate, but also immaterial interests, such as a good reputation, an identity, a respected position within international relations, recognition of suffering caused in the past, a need for autonomy, and so on. Adequate attention to these types of interests often makes it easier for participants to settle their differences and to make sound agreements for the future. But if these psychological and relational interests are ignored or prejudiced, it merely serves to increase and to reinforce their material demands.
Informal networks
So in respect of dispute settlement, I am in favour of more open – impartial – investigation of such underlying interests. If states feel that they are being listened to, they will be sooner inclined to join and take part in international bodies. One indication of this is the growing number of informal international networks of countries that order and regulate their own mutual relations in a certain field. Anne-Marie Slaughter, who points this out in her book New World Order, foresees a great future for these networks. She raises the question of whether theinternational community ought to affiliate itself as much as possible with such informal developments, or whether it should concentrate on achieving coherence of rules, something which proves to be very difficult in practice. Whatever the answer may be, the success of these networks is unmistakable: witness the example of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which recently received the Nobel Peace Prize “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change". The Panel serves as a neutral knowledge centre for climate change; by serving as a platform for the exchange of knowledge and best practices, it contributes to the development of broadly supported procedural standards. Here, impartial authority and trust form the basis for working effectively.
To prevent misunderstandings, I do not think that informal contacts and activities ought to be accorded a place in international dispute settlement at the expense of our ultimum remedium, our formal and influential judicial authorities. On the contrary: in my view, more good will come if these mechanisms are allowed to operate in a complementary manner as much as possible. I feel there is much to be gained by optimising collaboration between the law and the interests involved. The administration of justice can very well find a basis in codes of conduct or agreements made by intergovernmental panels. The administration of justice can help national states by taking binding decisions in an area of a dispute that continues to divide them. An international judge can act as a supervisor, a big stick, or a “direction indicator” – a party that puts forward objective standards for intergovernmental negotiations. Once again, this approach combines an orientation to statute law and to interests, and thus offers added value.
Ladies and gentlemen, international dispute settlement – whether it derives from legal considerations or is based on the interests of both sides – cannot take place without uniform rules. They can only come into being if the national states are willing to qualify their sovereignty to some degree – that is, to accept a higher judicial authority. For many states, this is no easy task. But it is not impossible. The proof can be seen in the European Union: 27 countries, 27 sovereign states, that accept an authority with supranational judicial competence. I feel that their experience can help other states to gain insight into the qualities of this model that can serve as an example on a global scale. The EU shows that sovereignty and international rule of law not only are compatible, but can reinforce one another. This also applies to international dispute settlement. Ultimately, a reliable system of international dispute settlement is primarily built on local foundations. Good dispute settlement within the national legal order is a prerequisite for its equivalent in an international context. The responsibility for this lies with the national states, at a national level. We see this same premise in the initiative of the High Level UN Commission which promotes legal empowerment as a means of achieving economic and human development.
Knowledge and expertise: developments
Ladies and gentlemen, what I am trying to sketch today is a variety of international developments that offer opportunities but that also raise questions. There are still many interesting questions to be asked in the fields of policy and law. For instance, innovative concepts are needed to keep our complex international relations on the right track. After all, solution-oriented negotiation requires different qualities and instruments than more traditional standpoint-oriented negotiation.
The Haguecan be of help in this search for ways to strengthen the international legal order and to settle disputes. Some of the knowledge needed for this is already available, some must be built up through research. This city already hosts a number of institutions, such as the Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law, with an extensive international research programme. Moreover, the presence of many international legal institutions is fundamental to further expanding this key role and to making possible such interaction. It means that The Haguecan answer the need for examples, for practical knowledge, programmes or protocols for self-regulation, advice on mediation and insight into new forms of dispute settlement, and so on. Andindependent quality assurance systems are needed in the field of dispute settlement and mediation. The international market for mediation recently chose The Hagueas its place of establishment. This is in line with theambition of this city to aid and support national states as well as other institutions or parties in gathering knowledge in this field.
I have tried to make it clear that a wide range of interventions and activities is available to strengthen the international legal order – in the broad sense as I have outlined. The Kingdom of the Netherlandsis constitutionally committed to promoting the international legal order and strenghtening the international rule of law. The Hagueis therefore more than simply a site for international courts and institutions. This city faces the challenge of bringing together authority, law and interests.
To our mind, The Hague is no longer simply the Legal Capital of the World, but a metropolis of peace and the rule of law. A global centre where the Power of Law not only meets the Law of Power, but where the Power of Law also meets the Power of Interests. The government of the Kingdom of the Netherlandsis proud to welcome you here in The Hague.