THE UK is guilty of a “serious foreign policy failure” after failing to secure the re-election of a judge to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), MPs say.
Fifteen elected judges sit on the panel of the institution, which is based at The Hague in the Netherlands and handles disputes between countries. However, the body will sit without a UK judge for the first time in its creation when Christopher Greenwood’s nine-year term comes to an end this month. The change will end more than 70 years of British input.
In a report released today, the cross-party Foreign Affairs Committee says this will damage the UK’s international influence and future foreign policy strategy.
It states: “The committee has heard a number of possible reasons why the UK’s election campaign ended in failure. The most concerning was that it was an indication that the international standing of the UK had diminished, and specifically that there had been a fall in what Lord Hannay, former UK Permanent Representative to the UN, called the ‘trepidation index’—the extent to which other countries worry about trampling on the UK’s toes.”
Turning to Theresa May’s Brexit vision of “Global Britain”, it says this “must emphasise its commitment to the international rule of law, one of the UK’s strengths as a global player,” adding: “This makes the loss of the UK judge particularly damaging, and worrying. It is bad enough that the UK will not have a judge for this term; a longer absence from the ICJ would be seriously damaging to UK interests.
“Ministers must set a clear priority for the UK’s Mission to the UN that it secure the election of a UK candidate to the ICJ at the next opportunity.
“Without the advantage of incumbency, this is likely to require serious and sustained diplomatic effort by the Government as a whole, both in New York and elsewhere.”
The UK withdrew Greenwood – who advised Blair’s administration prior to the 2003 Iraq invasion – as an ICJ candidate moments after the 11th round of voting started at the UN in New York in November. The move ended a run-off with India’s candidate Dalveer Bhandari, who filled the final spot.
Although Greenwood had secured backing from the UN Security Council, his support in the General Assembly waned over a series of votes.
Tom Tugendhat, the Tory chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, called the situation “deeply concerning”.
Referring to Hannay’s “trepidation index” and calling on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to act, he added: “We hope this is not the case and call on the Government to evaluate our standing properly and think about how we must shape our actions to maintain and augment our ability to promote the interests of the British people and our allies.
“The FCO must ensure the UK’s position within the UN is not at risk. Worryingly, it appears this loss came as a surprise to the FCO. Ministers have assured the committee that the department will carry out a ‘comprehensive lessons learned exercise’.
“We urge ministers to share their findings with the committee. With the UK’s international standing at stake, the FCO should be setting out exactly how they will address this setback.”
An FCO spokeswoman said: “As we said at the time, we were disappointed that our candidate was not successful. Sir Chris Greenwood is an outstanding lawyer and academic with a wealth of experience, but it was a highly competitive field with six strong candidates and we congratulate the successful and well-qualified Indian candidate.
“The UK remains a founding member of the UN, a permanent member on the Security Council and the UN’s third-largest donor.
“We will continue to shape and influence the global agenda for a safer and more prosperous world.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel