Concerning the various debates we hope to get underway on themes ranging from the death penalty, disarmament, the building (destruction) of a United Europe to the writing of a new Statute for a transnational cross-party, we thought it would be useful to start by giving some thought to international law and international institutions. We would like to begin by publishing an interview with Antonio Papisca, Professor of International Law at Padua University. The interview was conducted by Francesco Bei of Radical Radio, at the end of last January.

RADICAL RADIO: What kind of instruments does the international community have at its disposal for intervening in countries, such as China, where human rights are abused?

ANTONIO PAPISCA: First, I would like to clarify something: when the "new world order" was proclaimed, no mention was made of the new international laws, particularly those related to human rights and the rights of peoples. I would also like to say that if we are going to create a new world order it should, above all, be done by transforming the international laws on human rights into new political programmes, new institutions and new procedures.

These laws are expressed mainly in the World Declaration of 1948, in the two great international treaties of 1966, concerning civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights respectively, and lastly, in the international agreement for the rights of minors. These are the foundation stones, and the pilasters, of the new international laws on human rights. These international laws are in direct opposition to the principles of realpolitik.

R.R.: Thanks to the changing international situation, a new law based on the "obligation of interference" principle is beginning to make headway. This law would be able to penetrate the "internal affairs" barrier behind which various governments entrench themselves, while continuing to practise their repressive and oppressive politics. What kind of foundations does this law - which is still only a tentative proposal - have to build on?

A.P.: It must be specified that the new international laws on human rights have not been ratified by the most reactionary of the Arab countries, the US, Israel or China, while they have been accepted by almost 100 other countries. As far as the principle of active interference is concerned, if it is a question of preventing the violation of human rights or creating a situation in which they are once more respected, this is perfectly in keeping with the logic behind the international laws on human rights, and the spirit in which they were made.

The "obligation of interference" principle is the antithesis of the principle of state sovereignty, and also its corollary, the "obligation of non interference". The former principle has already been proposed to important international bodies which are, in fact, extremely influential. I remember a resolution on human rights being adopted by the "Institut de droit international", which is a very important scientific institution, and then later adopted at Santiago de Compostela in 1989. Then, I must mention some very recent documents, like the conclusive document of the C.S.C.E. on human rights, held in Moscow from 10 Sept. - 4 Oct., 1991; this document states clearly that the principle of state sovereignty is overruled where human rights are concerned, and the international community, therefore, has the full legal right to actively interfere in the situation.

The "obligation of interference" principle is very definitely a part of the last P.E. resolution, made in 1991, where it is applied to human rights throughout the world and also within the Community. It is also included in a document created by the Human Rights Committe of the Helsinki Citizens' Assembly, of which I am the co-ordinator.

However, the principle of active interference can also be dangerous. It is perfectly harmless in itself, but specifications have to be made, for example, that the methods of active interference adopted must not include violence or acts of war. The practical realization of the "obligation of interference" principle necessitates a number of commitments on the part of the various countries and international communities that are absolutely essential. I will give you just one example: the democratization of the UN, the most important world institution.

It is essential that the UN is neither dominated by, or subordinate to, a superpower, or an economic and military multinational power bloc, that does not act in the spirit of the UN, or according to its laws.