03 Nov 2023
Mr President,
1 In his speech at the inaugural sitting of the Court on 18 April 1946, the first President of the General Assembly, H.E. Paul-Henri Spaak, said, “I would not venture to assert that the International Court of Justice is the most important organ of the United Nations; but I think I may say that … there is none more important...”
Mr President,
2 Singapore agrees with this particular sentiment. The Court is a cornerstone of our rules-based multilateral order. Judicial settlement is not the only means for the settlement of disputes, but the fact is that the Court represents our collective commitment to an important ideal: An ideal of a world where law and principle, not force and arms, are used to resolve disputes. We live in troubled times, that much is certain but it is precisely now, more than ever, that we need the Court. We must remember that the Court itself was born of war. Its very existence, as was said by Mr Salomon Jean René de Monchy, who was the former Mayor of The Hague, during the Court’s inaugural session in 1946, “[The Court] is an appeal to the conscience of the nations, telling them that force of arms is not the only, nor the best, way of securing what they consider to be their rights”.
3 The question for us is whether we still believe in the ideal that the Court represents. And, if so, are we doing enough to ensure that its work is well-supported? We cannot assume that the Court will always remain the vital and active institution that it is today. Recent history has shown that it is possible for once vibrant institutions to grow moribund or be paralysed by politics overnight. We must avoid this with regard to the Court. It is with this in mind that my delegation would like to offer three reflections on the way forward.
4 First, we must consider the issue of providing adequate resources for the functioning of the Court. The report of the Court records what it describes as an “extremely high level of activity” in the past year. The Court has issued four judgments, 20 orders, held six public hearings, and inscribed seven new cases on its list – five contentious cases and two advisory opinions. And it has done so on a budget that has remained fairly constant at around US$29 million, which represents less than 1% of the regular budget of the UN. Let us compare this to the US$6 billion we spend annually on peacekeeping, and the US$750 million that was spent on special political missions last year. With these figures, it is clear that we are significantly underinvesting in an institution that plays a critical role in ensuring the peaceful settlement of disputes and the rule of law.
5 The scale of this underinvestment in the peaceful settlement of disputes is made starker when we consider the numbers. The Court’s docket is now the fullest it has been in memory with 20 cases on the General List, 17 of which were filed in the past five years. There are now a staggering 85 States – or nearly half of the UN membership – which are involved in pending cases before the Court, whether as parties or intervenors. And it is not just the number of cases involved, but their complexity. Provisional measures are now requested in nearly half of the contentious cases currently on the Court’s docket, each requiring an abridged hearing and expedited treatment. Despite this, the Court has only asked for a very modest increase to its budget this year, mostly for additional resources to support the General Assembly’s request for an advisory opinion on the obligation of States in respect of climate change. This Assembly approved the Court’s budget last year, and my delegation hopes that we can do so again smoothly this year. But looking ahead, there is a clear need to provide the Court with a more substantial increase in resources to reflect the substantial increase in its workload and to place the Court on a more secure financial footing. It is crucial that we provide the Court with the resources it needs to do the vital work that we, the Member States, have tasked, and rely on, it to do. My delegation calls on all Member States to show leadership in this matter. It is critical that each of us individually, and all of us collectively, commit to investing more resources on the peaceful settlement of disputes.
6 The second point I want to make, Mr President, is the issue of access to justice. The report describes recourse to the court as a “cost-effective solution”, which is a typically understated way of putting the matter. My delegation agrees with this assessment and would like to commend the Court for its efficiency, as we note that the average period between the conclusion of oral proceedings and the delivery of a judgment or an advisory opinion by the Court does not exceed six months.
7 In this connection, my delegation is pleased to note that three awards were made from the trust fund for the Judicial Fellowship Programme this year to support the participation of three nationals of developing countries who were nominated by universities located in developing countries. Singapore was pleased to have been part of the group of five States that co-coordinated the General Assembly resolution to establish the trust fund because we believe that access to opportunity is a critical part of access to justice. We have no doubt that the selected Judicial Fellows will benefit immensely from their participation and return home to share their experiences and contribute to the cause of international justice.
8 Finally, I turn to the issue of outreach and communication by the Court. As President of the Court, Judge Donoghue, observed at the 75th Anniversary of the Court, although the Court is known as the “World Court”, it did not originally live up to that name. In 1946, the UN only comprised 51 Member States, and representatives from only 44 States participated in the Committee of Jurists that drafted the Court’s statute. Furthermore, at that time, more than 750 million people lived in colonies or non-self-governing territories and therefore had no role in shaping the statute of the Court. The picture, of course, has since changed. The UN now comprises 193 Member States, each one sovereign and equal. And the States that are parties to the contentious cases pending before the Court comprise four from the Asia-Pacific, five from the Group of Latin-American and Caribbean States, three from the African Group, six from the Eastern European Group, and eight from the Group of Western European and Other States. One can say that the Court now is truly universal, and it is a Court that belongs to all of us because it hears and adjudicates cases from all over the world.
Mr President,
9 More needs to be done in our view to explain the purposes of the Court and its activities to people around the world, especially to young people of the world. The hallowed halls of the Peace Palace seem a world away from where the disputes it adjudicates are playing out, and it bears noting that while its Statute and Rules allow for it, the Court has never sat outside The Hague. This bears reflection. In a similar vein, while my delegation commends the President and Members of the Court, and the Registrar for giving regular presentations on the work of the Court, we note that almost all of these took place at The Hague or in New York. If opportunity avails, we would encourage the Members of the Court and its supporters to consider initiatives, where possible, that would spread awareness of the vital work of the Court to other parts of the world, especially in developing countries. It is important to communicate the values and purposes of the Court to people around the world, especially the youth of the world. We need the next generation to be advocates and champions of the Court and to be advocates of a multilateral rules-based system founded on international law.
Mr Chair,
10 I have spoken at length and quite frankly today because my delegation considers the issues that we have raised to be critical for many of us, especially the small countries for whom international law and the role of the Court is fundamental, if not existential. The UN Charter records our collective determination to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war … and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained.” The peaceful settlement of disputes is a critical part of the multilateral system, and a vital part of discharging this responsibility rests on the Court. It is our duty as members of the General Assembly and the United Nations to support the Court in its work.
11 In closing, I echo the words of former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan who, on the 60th Anniversary of the Court, described it as “a central element of our international society”. I could not agree more and wish the Court, including the Judges that will be elected to the Court next week, every success in the year ahead. I thank you very much for your attention.
. . . . .