Toward the Rule of Law

"I am convinced, and in this I reflect the steadfast purpose of the President and the wholehearted support of the Secretary of State and the Attorney General," wrote the Vice President of the U.S., "that the time has now come to take the initiative in the direction of establishment of the world rule of law."

Richard Nixon's declaration, penned as he drafted a speech for delivery this week to the American Academy of Political and Social Science, was a momentous one: in its simplest terms it meant that the U.S. was prepared to use the full weight of its prestige toward establishing the rule of law among nations to achieve world peace.

The overriding question facing mid-20th century America, said Nixon, is simply that of "the survival of our civilization." What is the immediate answer to that question? Clearly, the policy that "retreat before aggression can only make war inevitable"--a policy followed both by the Republican Eisenhower Administration and by the Democratic 86th Congress ("I specifically want to pay tribute to members of the Democratic Party in the Congress for putting statesmanship above partisanship").

But even such resolute national unity is "simply an indefinite preservation of the balance of terror. We all recognize that this is not enough ... If this sword of annihilation is ever to be removed from its precarious balance over the head of all mankind, some more positive course of action must somehow be found." To Richard Nixon, more positive action lies in extending the rule of law, under which men maintain peace with justice, to govern the course of international conduct.

Under the Statute. "Is this one of those things that men can think about but cannot get?" Answering his own question, Nixon invoked the words of the late U.S. Senator Robert Taft: "I do not see how we can hope to secure permanent peace in the world except by establishing law between nations and equal justice under law." The process would need no sweeping new charter said Nixon; the International Court of Justice is already established at The Hague and needs only to be used to be effective. "It would be foolish to suppose that litigation before the court is the answer to all the world's problems," but the areas of possible legal settlement of disputes can and should be widened.

One auspicious area for broadening the rule of law: the economic field, where the process of international investment is sadly in need of a code governing relationship between investors and capital-hungry nations. One positive step that the U.S. can take to broaden the authority of the international court: relaxation of the Connally amendment of 1946. which reserves to the U.S. the right to decide whether to permit disputes to go before the international court. The State Department, said Nixon, is now preparing suitable recommendations to Congress.

Beyond the Summit. From Yalta in 1945 to Geneva in 1955. the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. have made over-the-conference-table agreements. A "major missing element in our agreements with the Soviet leaders has been any provision as to how disputes about the meaning of the agreements could be decided." That same problem, said he, presents itself as the free world moves toward the summit on Berlin.

"We should take the initiative in urging that in future agreements, provisions be included to the effect 1) that disputes which may arise as to the interpretation of the agreement should be submitted to the International Court of Justice, and 2) that the nations signing the agreement should be bound by the decision of the court.

"If the Soviets mean this talk of peaceful competition, then they have nothing to fear from the impartial rules, impartially judged, which will make such peaceful competition possible."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.