WHILE the International Court of Justice is the United Nations’ major legal body based in The Hague with the mandate to try to resolve disputes between member states, the Nov 21 contest between Sir Christopher Greenwood, a British judge, and his Indian counterpart, Dalveer Bhandari, was played out at the UN headquarters in New York.
Both Britain and India engaged in what Asian and African diplomats privately described as a “fully-fledged diplomatic battle” to get their respective candidate elected.
In the final voting, Bhandari received 183 of 193 votes in the General Assembly and secured all the 15 votes in the Security Council. Bhandari’s victory in the final round was possible after Britain withdrew Greenwood’s candidacy from the contest for the ICJ seat.
In the earlier round of voting in the Security Council, Bhandari did not get the desired majority, but he commanded a comfortable lead at the General Assembly where most of the member states abhor the arrogance of power displayed by the veto-wielding five permanent members, China, France, Russia, UK and US; the Security Council’s five permanent-member composition is seen as antiquated and not in keeping with today’s realities.
While Greenwood, a distinguished lawyer and former professor of international law, received support at the Security Council for a second nine-year term, Bhandari got a good majority at the General Assembly. A successful candidate needs majority support in both bodies; a stalemate was thus inevitable in the Greenwood-Bhandari contest.
Though the ICJ passes judgment on important international issues, not many know that one of its top 15 judges has been British since the court’s creation at the end of World War 2.
After Greenwood’s withdrawal, Bhandari’s victory was complete. The latter will now have another nine-year term at the supreme judicial bench.
Indeed, Britain’s loss is not just of a seat in the court; Britain’s contest against India has turned attention to its membership in the Security Council. It is reminiscent of the closing scene from Jules Verne’s Around the World in 80 Days when Princess Aouda, rescued in India by the legendary traveller Phileas Fogg, arrives at the all-male Reform Club in London after Fogg’s successful completion of his laborious world journey, and one of the snobbish club members, horrified at the sight of a woman in the all-male domain, exclaims: “That’s the end of the empire!”
That imaginary scene played out in Victorian England.
Meanwhile, the sun has long set on the British Empire. But then, you might ask, why is Britain still sitting in that exclusive club called the Security Council? Why are the other equally eligible nations such as India, Germany, Japan and Brazil — the G-4 members — denied admission to the club to reflect the geographical equitable distribution? An aberration? A travesty? Yes, indeed.
Several reasons are being adduced for Britain’s abrupt decision to withdraw Greenwood’s candidacy: perhaps, Britain feared it was gradually losing support in the Security Council or that the contest would become so acrimonious that it could impact bilateral ties with India and possibly also damage Britain’s economic interests in India whose international clout is growing.
The ensuing rancour could have harmed British interests. Thus, Britain decided that it was not worth damaging her long historical links with India which is also expected to play a key role within the Commonwealth as Britain’s own role in that body of ex-colonies diminishes.
Nevertheless, Britain can console itself that India, like much of the Commonwealth, follows the core concept of the British Common Law. Some even celebrated India’s victory as a victory for British values manifested in its legal system. Matthew Rycroft, the astute British ambassador to the UN, won hearts by saying he was pleased that a “close friend like India” had won.
Britain, which had earlier threatened to invoke a hardly used UN mechanism to push back India’s bid and go on a full-scale confrontation, graciously withdrew from the contest. By extending its good wishes to Bhandari and the Indian government, the British government did come out looking good in the end.
With judge Bhandari declared winner, this would mean that effective 2018, when Greenwood vacates his chair, Britain will not have a judge sitting at the ICJ bench for the first time since 1946.
While the P5 members are acutely aware of the growing resentment in the General Assembly against their privileged position in the Security Council, the Group of 77 — a coalition of mostly developing nations — has long pushed for greater influence. India’s victory over Britain is seen as a huge success for the G77 in pushing back against the P5 in the Security Council.
What this episode shows is that the international community is no longer afraid of any retribution from Britain or from any other P5 member. It also shows that there is widespread distrust of the P5 members whose veto is increasingly seen as a tool prolonging the world’s major problems. The veto has been used mainly to assert the narrow self-interests of the individual permanent member rather than as a tool to stop conflict and suffering, and contribute to the betterment of mankind.
The P5 would do well to recognise the signs of the changing times; by clinging to their privileged seats in the Security Council, they can lose goodwill and alienate themselves from the remaining member states. The world clamours for UN reforms; the voice could get shriller in the future.
The writer is a New York-based journalist with extensive writing
experience on foreign affairs,
diplomacy, global economics and
international trade.