Special Committee on Non-use of Force.

The Special Committee on Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Principle of Non-Use of Force in International Relations concluded its seventh by adopting a report to the General Assembly in which it "generally recognized the desirability of further consideration of the question before it". The session was held in New York from 21 February to 16 March.

In addition, the Committee earlier adopted the report of its Working Group, which summarized a discussion on the principle of the non-use of force contained in an informal paper presented by the Chairman of the Special Committee's 1982 session, Nabil El-Araby (Egypt). According to that paper, States would settle disputes in conformity with the Charter and pledge themselves to carry out the decisions of the Security Council.

During its seesion, the 35-member Committee, as mandated by Assembly resolution 38/133 of 19 December 1983, continued its work with the goal of drafting a world treaty on the non-use of force in international relations as well as the peaceful settlement of disputes or such other recommendations as the Committee deemed appropriate.

Also by that resolution, the Assembly asked the Committee to "continue at its forthcoming session the elaboration of the formulas of the working paper containing the main elements of the principle of non-use of force in international relations, taking duly into account the proposals submitted to it and the efforts undertaken at its session in 1983".

At the session the Committee had before it various proposals submitted at previous sessions, including a draft treaty submitted in 1978 by the Soviet Union, by which States would pledge not to use force or the threat of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations; a working paper submitted at the 1979 session of the Committee by five Western States--Belgium, France, Italy, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom--by which States would reaffirm the principle of settling disputes by peaceful means and reaffirm their right to self-defence; and a revised working paper submitted at the 1981 session of the Committee by 10 non-aligned countries--Benin, Cyprus, Egypt, India, Iraq, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Senegal and Uganda--which would define force not only in terms of military force but also in terms of economic coercion, use of prpaganda, terrorism, mercenaries and covert attempts to destabilize Governments. The Committee also had before it the comments and suggestions of Governments. The Working Group's discussions of Mr. El Araby's informal paper centred on "headings", amendments to those headings and proposed new headings. The headings in the paper which were approved at the session were as follows: manifestations, scope and dimensions of the threat or use of force; general prohibition of the threat or use of force; consequences of the threat or use of force; legitimate use of force; peaceful settlement of disputes; role of the United Nations; and disarmament and confidence-building measures.

Proposed new headings adopted included: relationships between violations of human rights and the threat or use of force; prevention of the threat or use of force; the general obligation of States to settle their disputes by peaceful means, and respect for and fulfilment in good faith of international obligtions.

Three Main Approaches: The general exchange of views reflected the continuation of three main approaches to the mandate and work of the Committee.

Socialist countries expressed their support for the initiative of the Soviet Union to conclude, at the earliest possible date, a world treaty on the non-use of force in international relations. It was emphasized that the extremely complex and grave international situation called for the adoption of such a treaty as one of the most urgent and effective measures aimed at preservation of world peace and strengthening of international security.

The necessity of concluding a world treaty was particularly underscored by those representatives in view of the potential danger of a nuclear conflict. Within the framework of a world treaty, which was designed to prevent the use of military force in any sphere, in any form and by any State, the problem of prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons could also be decisively solved. An important step, it was added, towards the conclusion of a world treaty would be a commitment not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. Such a step, as was pointed out by several representatives, had already been taken by the USSR.

It was stated that a world treaty would enchance the effectiveness of the United Nations in promoting the peaceful settlement of disputes and conflict situations and would by no means "weaken" or "undermine" the Charter. On the contrary, its authority would even be strengthened.

Proponents of the second main approach (mainly Western countries) rejected the notion that the solution to the problem of the use of force could lie in the conclusion of a new treaty reiterating its prohibition; on the contrary, they asserted, another treaty would in fact be counter-productive.

It was suggested that a review of the instances of the use of force since 1945 should be undertaken in order to establish the nature of the problem before considering such a dubious solution as another treaty. Failure to settle disputes by peaceful means before they exploded into violence, lack of faith in the collective security system, violations of human rights and expansionism were in fact the primary causes of the problem, not some legal lacunae that could be cured by a treaty.

It was observed that the principle of non-use of force was already embodied in the Charter, which was a genuinely universal treaty and that repeating the relevant provisions of the Charter would add nothing to the existing law but would cast doubts on the continuing validity of the original formulation of the principle and jeopardize the authority of the Charter as a whole. If, on the other hand, the treaty were to deviate from the Charter, it would indirectly and illegally amend the Charter.

The third group of delegations was not in favour of the holding of a general exchange of views. That exchange having nevertheless taken place, four of those delegations took the floor.

According to some of them, the principle of the non-use of force was a peremptory norm of international law. However, it was being repeatedly violated in all parts of the world and the United Nations had not been able to prevent such violations.

There was a need for an instrument dealing with the principle of the non-use of force which would further elaborate it and contribute towards an atmosphere of mutual trust between States. Some delegation favoured the idea of the conclusion of the world treaty on the non-use of force. Others, without necessarily ruling out the idea of a world treaty, felt that the task of the Committee was to agree first on formulas to be contained in a future instrument on the matter, leaving for a latter stage the determination of its form.

More important than the verbal reaffirmation of the principle of non-use of force was the action to be taken to ensure its effective implementation. In that connection, it was pointed out that the respect for the sovereignty of States and the inviolability of the State territory demanded the non-recognition ab initio of all consequences, including territorial acquisitions, derived from the use or threat of force.

In a concluding statement, Committee Chairman Ryszard Krystosik (Poland) said each delegation should ask itself whether it had been sufficiently flexible in the search for solutions.