Speech by Minister of Justice Ernst H.M. Hirsch Ballin at the opening of the Conference of the International Law Association, The Hague, 16 August 2010
(Engels uitgesproken)
Ladies and gentlemen,
It is a great honour to welcome you to the 74th conference of the ILA on behalf of the government of the Kingdom of The Netherlands. The range of topics on the programme is impressive, and I would like to compliment all those involved in organising this event.
I am sure that, by the end of the week, the many presentations, discussions and dialogues will have advanced our understanding of how international law can be used as an instrument for peace and justice.
But we would be naïve to be satisfied with that, to think that books, articles and conferences can safeguard the growth and development of international law, as if it were an investment fund that offers a guaranteed return even if share prices fall. There are signs that much more is needed. And that is what I want to talk to you about today.
I am referring in the first place to global developments. Countries like Brazil, Russia, India and China – known as the BRIC countries – are on the rise, at the expense of Europe and North America, and this shifting balance of global economic power is reflected in the political and legal spheres. This means that the systems of global economic and political governance need adjusting. And that we can no longer take it for granted that Western notions on the organisation of society, the rule of law and individual liberty will serve as a model for other parts of the world. It is true that the BRIC countries share many of these notions. Let us not forget that Russia (as organiser of the Hague Peace Conferences in 1899 and 1907) is one of the founding fathers of international law, and India is the world’s largest democracy. But whereas a free economy, the rule of law, democracy and human rights were until recently seen as a standard menu, they now seem to have become dishes at a buffet, where people can pick and choose as they like. And it is by no means certain that the result will be a healthy meal – as conference-goers like yourselves are no doubt well aware.
The links between the rule of law, democracy and human rights, and ways of reconciling the universality of many associated norms and values with the shifting balance of power, are interesting subjects of academic study. But there is a task here for politicians too. They need to enter into dialogue with colleagues in other countries, work with them and help them to promote and realise these universal values in their own social and political arena. During my period as Minister of Justice, I have actively worked towards this goal, through my visits to and contacts with fellow justice ministers and relevant actors in many European and non-European countries. I have been deeply impressed by their commitment and perseverance when working and fighting – often in difficult circumstances – for the victims of human trafficking, against corruption, for due process and against impunity, for example. We must not leave them to fight alone.
Standing up for international law is a moral duty, and for the Dutch government, it is also a constitutional duty, since article 90 of our Constitution requires us to promote the international legal order. And for those who do not find that sufficient justification, I would point out that it is in The Netherlands’ interests to be surrounded by well-functioning democratic states governed by the rule of law in order to fight international crime, prevent uncontrolled migration and ensure that our society is not infected with cynicism , intolerance and mental isolationism.
Ladies and gentlemen, the battle for the rule of law and human rights, for international law and ius humanitatis is not only being fought abroad. One of the frontlines lies right here, in the city that has been given the honourable title of ‘legal capital of the world’.
Even in countries where the rule of law seems to be firmly anchored, and the primacy of international law has been laid down in the constitution, we can see currents in society that question and even oppose the rule of law and its international dimension. Populist and nationalist movements, for example, oppose internationally accepted rules and values such as human rights for everyone without distinction. Paradoxically, they have their roots in democratisation and emancipation, but reveal themselves to be fanatical and intolerant movements that exclude people and undermine the very principles of democracy and justice.
It is up to us – scholars, practitioners and politicians – to monitor these developments, understand them and oppose them. We need to present our message loud and clear, and explain that democracy and justice go hand in hand. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion for everyone belong to the cornerstones of a just and democratic society, including the right to change one’s religion. We need to emphasise that our individual freedom is connected with respect for the freedom of others. And make clear that justice and law ensure that there is room for everyone.
Perhaps we have not always acted judiciously enough in the past. Maybe we sometimes closed the door too readily in debates with opponents, and were too quick to say that their ideas are at odds with international law. International law must not become a dead end in politics. We must not hide behind international agreements to avoid discussions and political choices at national level. And we should not complain that EU law forms an obstacle to national policies, because by doing so we are creating a false division. Human rights, for instance, are key values of our European societies. Anyone who knows the history of right and wrong knows that human rights are the product of lessons from the past for which a heavy price has been paid. They are not an obstacle to achieving political goals; rather, are they precisely the goal to which we have committed ourselves with total conviction.
If we really believe in what we say, if we are convinced of the values we wish to spread, we owe it to ourselves to actively promote developments in international law of the kind we would like to see. After all, international law is not static but dynamic, and we must feed and nurture it.
As scholars, we should be explaining why international law does not allow us to treat other people differently merely because they belong to a certain population group. We need to explain these things even if they seem obvious, and in a way that appeals to the better nature of our fellow citizens.
As politicians, we must make clear that rules of international law – such as human rights – are our own rules, not something imposed on us from outside. We should point out that human rights are enshrined in our national constitutions, in privacy legislation, in the principles of good governance.
I would like to ask you to take this perspective into account in your discussions over the next few days. How can we strengthen public acceptance of and support for international law? How can we prevent a gulf emerging between the academic and political development of international law on the one hand, and the wishes and feelings of our peoples on the other? Clearly, we cannot rely on words alone. We need to demonstrate our commitment to international law in deeds that people can see.
The title of this conference is ‘De iure humanitatis’, which echoes the words of Hugo Grotius: ‘De iure belli ac pacis’. I am convinced that that is where the future of international law lies – in the development of the law of states towards the law of humanity.
International law must ultimately serve human dignity. That is the compass that guides us, the standard we use to measure the progress of international law. That is the guarantee that people are right to put their confidence in international law.
Thank you.