The Lords and the constitution
Sir: I was surprised to read your statement that the Lords were foolish to act as they did 'not because UN resolutions should be binding on a British parliament . . (21 June).
The resolution in question was adopted by the Security Council under Art. 25, whereby all members of the UN agree to carry out the decisions of the Council. To say that such reso- lutions should not be binding strikes at the heart of the UN system. In the words of Dag Hain- marskjold : 'Were the respect for obligations flowing from Art. 25 of the charter to be allowed to diminish, this would spell the end of the possibilities of the Organisation to grow into . . . an increasingly effective instrument, with increasing respect for the recommenda- tions of the General Assembly as well.'
Gordon Evans 7 Gerald Road, London SW1
However 'binding' UN resolutions may be on governments, governments in Britain are still subject to Parliament. What would Mr Evans have said if the House of Commons, and not the House of Lords, had rejected the Govern- ment's sanctions order?—Editor, SPECTATOR.
Previous page
