Mohamed Bedjaoui

SUMMARY: Mohammed Bedjaoui, President of the International Court of Justice of The Hague, supports the competence of the ONU's security council concerning the problem extermination due to hunger in the southern part of the world. Hunger really represents a serious threat to security and peace.

(Radical News n.54 of the 5th of March 1986)

In 1979, the United Nation's main agencies reported the failure of the policies of cooperation for development, and announced that, in the following years, hunger would have exterminated tens of millions of human beings, and stated that nothing would have induced to hope in a radical change of the situation.

An act of the European Parliament of Strasbourg in 1981, and the motions of the Belgian Chamber of Deputies and Senate and of the Parliament of Luxembourg, had invited the governments of the countries of the EEC to urgently submit the problem of hunger throughout the world, considered as a serious threat to peace and international security, to the security Council. It is not very reassuring that the security Council must deal with every little marginal problem, whereas the extermination due to hunger of approximately 50 million human beings each year does not produce the same effect. The provisions of the Treaty of the United Nations, however, at first sight seem such as not to allow the security Council to declare itself incompetent, granting other organizations of the United Nations the faculty to take relevant and immediately mandatory decisions, faculty that they do not have.

The central problem of such a discussion is that of defining the situation that is being considered. According to art. 39 of the Treaty, the security Council "certifies the existence of a threat to peace, of a break in peace or of an act of aggression, and suggests or decides which measures shall be taken according to art. 41 and 42 to maintain or re-establish international security". For the Council of security to intervene it would be necessary that:

1) hunger throughout the world represent a "threat to peace", a "break in peace" or an "act of aggression";

2) the authors of this situation be identified, in order to force them to make it stop, which would involve a very complicated research of the causes of hunger throughout the world.

As we will point out further on, the causes are not so much connected to the policies of this or that state, but depend largely on an international system based on a process of subordinated and dependant exchange. If the hypothesis of identifying the authors (maybe even to avoid laying blame on the States that are supposed to contribute to the cause), then only the first hypothesis dealing with the definition of the situation would remain.

On this point, 4 remarks must be considered:

1) the security Council is the only judge as to the definition it wants to give to a given situation. The Treaty doesn't prevent it from qualifying, if it wishes, hunger throughout the world as a "threat to peace, as a "break in peace" or even as an "act of aggression". If the member States of the EEC still haven't submitted the request to the Council upon request of the European Parliament, it's still possible for any Third World State, be it a a member of the Council for security or not, and particularly, for any State whose population is suffering from hunger, to proceed with this request, and hope that it will qualify this situation as expected.

2) The definition of hunger as a threat to peace has become a reality as compared to other requests. Pope Paul VI stated that "development is the new name for peace".

Moreover, various aspects of the economical dimension given to the problems of peace can be traced in the resolutions of the general assembly of the United Nations. One of these, particularly solemn, is provided by the sixth extraordinary session of this assembly, called for by Algeria. By reading the resolutions 3201 (S-VI) and 3202 (S-VI) adopted at the closing of that session, that the economical problems of the world have assumed so much importance as to become a factor of peace or a risk of war, according to the solution that can be prospected for them. The novelty brought about by the procedure itself of this sixth special session is the fact that international peace and security are not restricted to tensions of a military or political nature, but can be directly and dangerously influenced by situations of an economical nature. There was, in this, a more complete and truthful consideration of the problems relating to the security of the planet, according to their economic dimension. Economical questio

ns have therefore been posed in terms of maintenance of peace, and on the other hand, international security has been posed in economical terms.

On the other hand, it can be read, in the "given..." of the "Universal Declaration for the final elimination of hunger and malnutrition" of the 16th of November, that "...peace involves an economical dimension that can contribute to the elimination of sub-development, providing the final solution to the food problem of all peoples. In order to obtain this, it is necessary to eliminate the threat and the use of force, and to apply the principles of non-interference in the international affairs of other States..."

3) Facing the threat to peace represented by the extermination due to hunger, the States interested in submitting it to the security Council also have the possibility, in the event of a block within this organ, to submit it to the general assembly in the context of the "Dean Acheson resolution".

4) Finally, although the Treaty does not authorize the security Council to take decisions contained in chapter VII of the Treaty itself if not in the event of a threat or an armed action against peace and international security, there is a very interesting precedent that might be mentioned on this subject. The security council, acting in the exercise of what it considers to be its main responsibility, that is the maintenance of international peace and security, after resolution n.2145 (XXI) of the general Assembly had put an end to South Africa's mandate on Namibia, had issued a number of resolutions in order to make the mandatory State retreat from the territory. In particular, with resolution n. 264(1969), the security Council had asked South Africa to immediately cease its administration over Namibia and, after South Africa's refusal to do so, gave an operative deadline that, according to another resolution, resolution n.269 of 1969, was to expire on the 4th of October 1969. The Council then had to adopt

another resolution (276 of 1970) with which it condemned South Africa's refusal, declared the "continued presence of South African authorities in Namibia" illegal, invalidated all administrative provisions issued after the expiry of the mandate, and asked all States, "particularly those with economical or other sort of interests in Namibia to abstain from every relation with the government of South Africa". The security Council has then, with resolution 284 of 1970, asked the international Court of Justice to give it a consultative opinion on the legal consequences, for the States, of the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia in spite of its resolution. The Court has then recalled the fact that art. 24 of the Treaty gives the security Council the "necessary powers" to take similar decisions to that which it had taken for South Africa. The Court has stressed the fact that mentioning "specific powers" granted to the Council by certain chapters of the Treaty "doesn't exclude the existence of general po

wers that are to allow it to carry out the responsibilities given to it by paragraph 1 of art. 24 (main responsibility of the maintenance of peace and of international securities)".

The Court has equally pointed out that the decisions taken by the security Council in the context of art. 24 are to be considered as mandatory, accordingly with art. 25. "Not to acknowledge this would be equivalent to depriving this essential organ of the main functions and faculties that are granted by the Treaty". The Court concludes that "States that are members of the United Nations must ca the illegality and the non-validity of the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia".

On the basis of such a precedent, in theory nothing could prevent the security Council from taking a decision, mandatory for all member States of the United Nations, by means of which to order the enacting of the various suggestions given to these States by the general Assembly, and to devote 0,7% of their gross national product to public help for development. Finally, to some people it may seem that the constant repetition of the positions of the governments concerning the problem of hunger, and the reiteration of the necessity to raise public help at 0,7% of the gross national product of each State, have contributed to the creation of an acknowledged international custom.