Why did UK lose its UN court seat?

Image copyright AFP/Getty
Image caption EL Security Council members cast their own vote during a meeting on the political election of five members of the Global Court of Justice.

The Worldwide Court of Justice is the primary legal body of the United Nations. It really is based in The Hague and its work is to settle disputes between declares.

Lots of the work is highly technical and not precisely the stuff of the front pages. Plus let’s be honest, many people would probably not have identified that one of the 15 judges got always been British ever since the courtroom was set up after the Second Planet War.

However the loss of a British presence about that supreme judicial bench features huge significance – not just towards the court but to the UK’s browsing the world.

This is the way it happened. Five of the fifteen judges are elected every 3 years to ensure continuity. Britain’s judge, Friend Christopher Greenwood, was hoping to earn re-election for a second nine 12 months term. He is a highly distinguished attorney and former professor in global law at the LSE.

More from James:

But there was a hitch. Instead unexpectedly, Lebanon’s former ambassador towards the UN put his hat within the ring. So instead of there becoming five candidates for five areas, now there were six.

And the former ambassador, getting spent many years at the UN, acquired enough friends to win the particular election. He won one of the slot machine games reserved for candidates from Asian countries. This meant the Indian applicant – Dalveer Bhandari – needed to try his luck for a slot machine normally reserved for Europeans and this case that meant difficult the UK.

Within recent days, the four various other candidates were elected. But whilst Sir Christopher won the assistance of the UN Security Council, the particular Indian judge was backed with the UN General Assembly. A successful applicant needs a majority of support in both systems. And after repeated votes, there was deadlock.

UNITED KINGDOM has had ICJ judge since 1946

The Indian govt was working hard, twisting arms, lobbying furiously, pulling in favours. The Indian native newspapers were full of accusations the British were using “dirty tricks” to try to win. Some commentators in comparison Britain’s behaviour to its previous commander in chief of Uk India, Robert Clive. Few anti-colonialist tropes were left unused.

In contrast, British ministers produced some telephone calls. The British do consider invoking a little known supply in the UN Charter which allows to have an arbitration process known as a “joint conference” to try to resolve such an impasse.

Image copyright Reuters
Image caption Matthew Rycroft, the UK’s ambassador to the UN, said he has been “pleased” that a “close friend such as India” had won.

But in the end, the united kingdom chose not to use this process, fearing either it would not get enough assistance in the UN Security Council, or even that the competition would become as well bitter and potentially disrupt the particular UK’s economic relations with Indian.

Either way, this means that from early next year, whenever Sir Christopher stands down, the united kingdom will not have a judge on the ICJ for the first time since 1946.

On one level, this demonstrates a shift in the balance associated with power at the UN away from the safety Council. Many members on the Common Assembly resent the way the Security Authorities has so much power, particularly the 5 permanent members.

The particular so-called Group of 77 – which usually represents a coalition of mainly developing nations – has long been pressing for greater influence. The triumph of India over the UK is going to be seen as a huge success for the G77 in pushing back against the conventional northern powers on the security authorities.

Diplomatic set back?

Foreign Workplace sources pointed out that the UK’s ousting from the ICJ is not without preceding. They pointed to France faltering to get its candidate onto the particular International Law Commission last year plus Russia’s exit from the Human Legal rights Commission.

However it is also true to say that this signifies a defeat for the UK by itself. This is a failure of UK diplomacy. Downing Street refused to confirm that will Theresa May herself got involved with lobbying for this job – these people merely said representations have been produced at the highest levels of government. Yet Boris Johnson and his Foreign Workplace ministers were certainly involved. And they also failed. They failed to win sufficient support in the General Assembly.

Matthew Rycroft, the particular UK’s highly rated ambassador to the EL, said the UK had folded since it did not want to take up more of the UN’s valuable time, and he said he had been “pleased” that a “close friend such as India” had won. Perhaps a lot more frankly, he admitted that the UNITED KINGDOM was “naturally disappointed”.

However hard the government attempts, this defeat at the UN is going to be seen as a significant diplomatic set back, emblematic of Britain’s reduced status in the world stage. Britain tried to earn an election – but the neighborhood of nations backed the other side, no more fearing any retribution from the conventional powers, no longer listening to what The uk had to say.

Some will blame this upon Brexit. That might be a little simplistic. Couple of countries are as obsessed with Brexit as the UK. It is simply not in front of their minds. But what is apparent is that many countries at the EL were willing to defy Britain which would have been less likely a few years back.

The government loves to talk of what it calls “global Britain”, a vision of a buccaneering UNITED KINGDOM, independent of the EU, promoting its passions and values and trade all over the world. The problem is that many believe that vision have not yet been backed up with any kind of policy substance.

Rather, rightly or wrongly, many nations see the UK turning in on alone to sort out the complexity of Brexit. They see it as a retreat from your international stage – whatever the Brexiteers argue to the contrary – that countries are filling the vacuum cleaner accordingly.

All of us saw a sign of this earlier within the year in June, when the EL general assembly voted against The uk to refer a dispute between UK and Mauritius over several islands in the Indian Ocean, towards the International Court of Justice.

In another age group, Britain would perhaps have known as in favours, flexed its P5 muscles, and taken the combat to India. But instead it withdrew, at best to take a short term strike probably to avoid a long term economic reduction. At worst it simply threw in the towel because it had no alternative and thus, for the first time in 71 years, the united kingdom will no longer be represented in the tour’s highest court.