Rules-based International Order

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lady Northover for securing this excellent debate, and for her comprehensive and sensitive tour d’horizon in her opening speech.

Only rarely in British politics do we consider international concerns in broad terms—largely, I suspect, because our media are overwhelmingly reactive and concerned with domestic issues. In July’s election, for example, international issues, with the possible exception of Gaza, hardly featured. In particular—and sadly—climate change, the number one issue for millions of young people, was largely ignored.

Turning to some of the threats we face, discussed by many noble Lords, Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, preceded by the annexation of Crimea, violated an independent nation’s sovereignty and territory. Yet many seem to believe that the West should somehow pressure Ukraine into a peace, however unjust. But that is not for us; it is for Ukraine to decide on any peace agreement and its terms. Furthermore, if Putin is rewarded with success for Russia’s invasion, the threat to peace will be increased and the Baltic states in particular will face existential threats, beset by nervous uncertainty that Article 5 of the NATO treaty will prove effective.

The uncertain US approach to NATO is a serious threat. Financially, Trump clearly has a point. We have relied for years on America to fund the bulk of our defence, but, if Europeans are to bear the primary costs of our defence, 2.5% of GDP simply will not cut it. A detailed paper by Intereconomics in November floated far higher figures, possibly 5% or more in the face of Russian expansionist militarism, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, pointed out. The shock of such an increase to the European economies and our spending priorities would be savage.

On the Middle East, despite the strength of feeling on both sides, there is in the mainstream a unity of view. We uniformly condemn Hamas’s barbaric attack on Israel on 7 October 2023—the murder, the rape and the kidnap of innocent hostages—and we have also been shocked by the unrestrained conduct of the war in Gaza since then, with massive civilian casualties, untold destruction and the unacceptable failure to ensure the flow of humanitarian aid and the availability of healthcare.

We have now to hope that the fragile ceasefire holds and that the second phase succeeds, but that is far from assured. The region and the world will then have to navigate the massive costs of reconstruction in Gaza and the political difficulties of reaching agreement on a two-state solution that both secures Palestinian agreement and guarantees Israel’s security. That will be difficult.

Turning to trade, Trump’s proposed widespread tariffs threaten the entire structure of world trade, and geography means that protectionism is a far more attractive concept for America than it is for us.

Then there is the ever-present threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan and other threats from China, and the American response.

I turn to climate change, a matter close to me this week as my daughter has had to return from the wildfires in Los Angeles to work from home in the UK. She is lucky: her flat is just outside the evacuation area. But, while it is standing, it is without any power and her office is closed. Nevertheless, we now have to accept that “Drill, baby, drill” will dominate Trump’s energy policy, and that the US is almost bound to leave the Paris Agreement once again, undermining, for the next four years at least, much of our already stuttering progress on climate change.

What I have said so far has been marked by a profound sense of pessimism. This flows from the widespread flouting of international law and the rules-based order, which depends on rules, conventions and treaties between nations, as emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and my noble friends Lady Northover and Lord Thomas.

My pessimism is tempered only by the belief that we now have a Government with a serious commitment to our treaty obligations—as has the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad. Many of us were profoundly shocked by the casual approach of the last Administration to international law. The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill introduced in 2022—ultimately, thankfully, withdrawn—was plainly a wilful breach of the recently agreed UK-EU withdrawal agreement. With the Safety of Rwanda Act, the British Government, in a Kafkaesque approach to legislation, forced through a Bill that inexcusably deemed what was plainly untrue to be unchallengeable truth.

The Illegal Migration Act clearly flouted the Refugee Convention of 1951. The failure to comply with our legal commitment to 0.7% overseas aid needs urgent reversal. The support of many Conservatives for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the ECHR, which I should say is a major triumph of a previous Labour Administration, did little to improve this country’s reputation for a commitment to the rules-based world order and did much to undermine it.

So I ask the Minister once again to reaffirm this Government’s commitment never again to legislate to legalise a breach of the UK’s treaty obligations, and to underline our national commitment to upholding, while we can, the rules-based world order.

International Criminal Court

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, we continue to work towards universal and complete ratification of the Rome statute, while understanding that some countries, including allies such as the United States, may be supportive without being signatories to the Rome statute. I can tell my noble friend that since the election of President Trump we have worked closely with the Administration in the United Nations and the ICC in New York and with Nikki Haley, who has been appointed as the US representative to the United Nations, to ensure that United States co-operation with the ICC continues.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, in April last year the House of Commons resolved that ISIS should be referred to the ICC. What action have the Government taken to raise this at the Security Council in order to secure an investigation?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will be aware that a United Nations Security Council resolution on these very matters was vetoed a while ago. We continue to press the issue of bringing ISIL/Daesh to account and also bringing Assad to account. Therefore I am pleased to say that on 21 December last year we co-sponsored a UN General Assembly resolution to establish a new international, impartial, independent mechanism to assist in the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the most serious crimes under international law committed in Syria since March 2011.

Court of Justice of the European Union

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Monday 23rd July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, have rightly recognised that the provenance of these proposals is the backlog of cases before the Court, and the fact that the Court, particularly the General Court, has become snowed under by the increasing workload. As the European Parliament’s rapporteur, Diana Wallis MEP, pointed out in her report on the proposals, for several years the number of new cases in the General Court has seriously outstripped the number of cases resolved.

The backlog is not just substantial; it is getting worse year by year. There are three basic reasons for that. The first is successive enlargement. The second is the increasing volume of litigation as a result of the Lisbon treaty introducing new areas. The third is the very welcome introduction of new procedures for accelerating a procedure in clear cases and for interim measures which, while very welcome, are nevertheless expensive in resources. Against that background, the reforms that we are debating today are welcome—in particular, the decision to appoint a vice-president of the Court of Justice.

Since he came into office in 2003, Professor Vassilios Skouris has been very successful in improving the performance of the Court and in streamlining procedures. However, with the increasing workload of the Court, it is only right that the president should be assisted by a vice-president able to preside in his absence and provide continuity in the Grand Chamber where they will both sit, while freeing up the other presidents of the chambers of five judges not to have to sit in every case.

However, I want to ask the Government the question alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea: why did the Government seek—successfully in the event —to defer the proposed increase from 27 to 39 judges in the General Court? The European Scrutiny Committee, to which reference has been made, had no doubt. It reported as follows:

“We conclude that the great majority of evidence recommends an increase in judges of the General Court as the best and most flexible solution to its current workload problems. This would have cost implications … but they appear to be necessary if the EU is to have a judicial system in which justice is dispensed without unacceptable delay”.

In her report, Diana Wallis weighed up the two possible routes that might offer the structural reforms that the European Court of Justice sought. The first was to establish a series of specialised courts and the second was to increase the number of judges. The European Court of Justice came down firmly for the option of increasing the number of judges. They said that it would be more effective, quicker to implement given the urgency, more flexible, and more likely to lead to consistency in European jurisprudence. I would add that a substantial increase in the number of judges would bring in a wider range of specialisms available to the Court in particular cases. The rapporteur found the evidence presented by the European Court of Justice persuasive.

The Government’s reason for the deferral was to do with funding. One accepts that but one must also bear in mind that the cost of the Court is very small—one-quarter of 1% of the EU’s budget; less than 5% of the European Union’s institutions overall. The estimated cost of each extra judge would be in the region of €1 million, including staff and establishment costs. The central point on funding is that not increasing the number of judges is no real economy. The backlog of cases represents a build-up of future expenditure that will have to be incurred at some stage in the future, as the cases will have to be determined. Meanwhile, we are paying the price of the backlog in delay, inefficiency and frustration for litigants and for business. We are not resourcing the Court to do its work properly, which reduces its reputation at the same time.

Can the Minister indicate how far negotiations have progressed to date? When do the Government expect the friends of the presidency group to produce a result? What delay is inherent in the deferral? What do the Government have in mind for reducing the backlog of cases before the General Court in the mean time?

Lord’s Resistance Army

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this important debate and I associate myself with what he and others said to the effect that Joseph Kony is unspeakably evil. He has been responsible for barbarity and causing human misery on a massive scale.

I would like to say a word or two about the power of the internet. The “Kony 2012” video by Jason Russell has done a great deal that is good. As others have said, it has brought the activities of the LRA and Joseph Kony to the attention of the world. It has had a substantial impact on millions of people, young people in particular, whose awareness of what has happened and interest in international politics has been awakened in a remarkable way. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, that that is all to the good. However, we need to be careful because the video has undoubtedly caused some considerable offence in Africa, particularly in Uganda, because of its implication that Uganda now is associated with the horrors of what went on some years ago. The reality is that there has been great progress. The LRA has not been active in Uganda for some time. Its numbers are reduced and the northern region is now largely peaceful. It is important for peoples and government to develop a culture in relation to the internet that benefits from the increase in awareness that it brings but that is also more critical and less sensitive to internet publications. In that way, the best can be achieved and the worst can be avoided.

I join the noble Lord, Lord Bates, in calling for greater and broader support for the International Criminal Court. It is 10 years since the Rome statute established it. While the ICC has been hugely welcome, it has in many ways been a disappointing decade in terms of solid achievement. The conviction of the warlord Thomas Lubanga for coercion of children as soldiers has been its first success and is to be hugely welcomed, but it has been a long time coming.

In some ways, that has been the result of internal problems at the court and a lack of direction. It is to be hoped that the appointment of a dynamic new chief prosecutor in Fatou Bensouda will make a difference. It is also to be hoped that the ICC will widen the scope of its investigations to look at countries outside Africa, to which its attention has so far been largely directed. But the absence of important states—the United States, China and Russia—as signatories to the Rome statute has been and remains the principal difficulty facing the ICC and imperils its future success.

One reason for that is that if the ICC wishes to prosecute crimes by states not party—let us remember that Uganda and the DRC are both states party—the only route to prosecution is referral by the UN Security Council. With the United States, Russia and China as permanent members of the Security Council, such referrals are difficult to secure because unanimity is difficult to achieve. The normal route has been by the establishment of a commission of inquiry, as in Darfur and Libya, followed by a referral by the Security Council. There is room for diplomatic efforts to work on three fronts: first, to persuade non-signatories to join the Rome statute; secondly, to work within the United Nations to secure referrals from the UN Security Council; and, thirdly, to redouble efforts by the United Kingdom Government and other Governments to support the ICC in its work and to emphasise its importance.

To take two examples that I mentioned when the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, asked a Question of my noble friend last Thursday, it would, for instance, be a major step forward if we could secure referrals in respect of Myanmar and North Korea. Both countries have histories of well documented abuse of human rights by the regime. In Myanmar, where for many years the imprisonment and torture of political opponents of the regime has been routine, there are encouraging signs of progress. But that should not stand in the way of bringing the perpetrators of these terrible crimes to justice. In North Korea, the imprisonment of families of dissenters has led to the children of dissenters being imprisoned for the dissent of their parents.

These misdeeds should not be protected; their perpetrators should be pursued in the same way that Joseph Kony is now rightly being pursued. The role of the ICC is to work towards achieving that. Everything the international community and the United Kingdom Government can do to further that aim must be done.

International Criminal Court: Rome Statute

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. My brief says 120 countries, not 118, but she may be right. She is quite right to say that some key countries are not signatories. She mentioned the United States, China, India and Russia; there are also Pakistan and Turkey and some others, including Syria. Obviously, the more signatories come on board, the more effective the ICC will be in future. Do we make representations? At all times. It is known in ICC circles and international circles that it would be good to get those countries to sign. The noble Baroness asks about the response. I have to say that, so far, in relation to the United States in particular, there is not a very encouraging response. There are real internal difficulties in those other countries and in the United States which prevent them signing at the moment, but we will keep pressing.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

Does my noble friend agree that future successful referrals to the court are imperilled by the absence of the countries that the noble Baroness mentioned and also those that he mentioned? By way of example, what steps have been taken to secure commissions of inquiry into crimes committed in Myanmar and in North Korea, with a view to UN Security Council referrals to the court in respect of crimes against humanity in those two countries?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend has mentioned two more countries that are not signatories: Burma and North Korea. In reality, the only way that the ICC can raise charges, commence prosecutions or anything similar with regard to non-signatories is through a resolution from the UN Security Council. That would have to be the way forward, as it was, for instance, with Libya, Sudan and Darfur. So if the UN Security Council could agree, there could be a reference to the ICC in relation to Burma and North Korea. However, my noble friend knows as well as I do that the UN Security Council has differing opinions within it; and on many issues, including the sort he has raised, there are problems.