CCTS
Review 33

by Michael Hammer¹

Ethical foreign policy – in the sense of a policy which defines the principles and practice of international relations based on the respect for human rights, international obligations, transparency and accountability – encompasses a whole range of areas of activity in which the state is involved internationally. But it is the response to armed conflict which is often the litmus test for the integrity and coherence of a nation’s policy, in particular when it does NOT appear to directly affect the lives and wellbeing of its own population.

Traditionally, the engagement of a country in armed conflict has been considered a matter of foreign policy – foreign as opposed to domestic – and it is often governed by a set of different approaches, and certainly by different bodies and people compared to those involved in the governance of domestic affairs. However, more recently and in the light of significant discrepancies between public opinion and government policy on armed conflict, people in Britain have expressed a particular desire that foreign policy should be informed by ethical principles.²

In 1997 the then new Labour government announced, with a certain fanfare, that its foreign policy would have ‘ethical dimensions’³, rejecting the previous primarily utilitarian approach to it. Indeed, the then Foreign Secretary Robin Cook proceeded to make significant changes, including instituting a review of how far existing policy conformed with Britain’s international obligations. However, the years since Cook left office have seen a complete turnaround in goals and approaches. The current British government’s statements clearly set out the purpose of making the ‘projection of power’ the central plank of its foreign policy⁴. As a result, it is arguably as far away from having a foreign policy with ‘ethical dimensions’ as its predecessors.

The move away from the principles set out in 1997, and the lack of response to the deep unease about current goals and activities in relation to armed conflict, such as in the Middle East, within a large section of the British public, and amongst parliamentarians and neighbours in Europe, demonstrate that a singular focus on goals in foreign policy, which even today often remain cloaked in human rights language, is not enough to ensure the necessary accountability of the policies. Experience in the UK parliamentary system shows⁵ that parliament cannot exercise effective oversight in this critical area as long as foreign policy remains the domain of the executive branch of government, protected under the Royal Prerogative. Strengthening parliamentary oversight including through reform of the Royal Prerogative, however, is primarily a matter of process as a focus on the goals alone will not be sufficient to ensure the accountability of policies eventually put into practice. Such processes need to encompass consultation and decision-making in defining, implementing and evaluating policies.⁶

There have undoubtedly been powerful attempts by some governments over the last six years to roll back rights, accountability, and multilateralism in global governance. However, there are signs that this approach will not last. Key for this more optimistic outlook is that the distinction between what is foreign and what is domestic in politics and policy, is becoming increasingly blurred, in a globalised world characterised by migration, information exchange and diversity of the heritage of citizens in many countries.

This strengthens the argument for promoting processes of political accountability which apply in similar ways to decision making in both fields. Changing the parameters that underlie the decision making process on foreign policy to ones that are in many ways already applied to internal affairs would be one step towards ensuring that the process delivers results that could be considered ethical, not only when matters close to home are being considered and evaluated, but also external affairs.

Key elements to consider would include:

Effective parliamentary oversight of governments regarding the use of force
The political processes used in most states regarding the use of force are focused either on internal affairs, such as policing, or on the protection of national integrity, leaving war, when apparently not directly affecting national territory or population, to executive government. However, this separation of spheres of influence is becoming more tenuous, with the increasing integration of affairs in a globalised world. Today, external policy impacts directly on internal affairs, on the economy, on individuals and on community relations. This makes it necessary for parliaments, in particular, to exercise oversight of the use of force in relation not only to internal affairs and territorial integrity but also to its use abroad. In concrete terms, the debate and formal decision to go to war should be a power of Parliament and not of the executive.

Acceptance of multilateral authority for international responses to armed conflict or widespread and systematic human rights abuse
The principles established under the terms of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, namely recognition of the absolute sovereignty of governments over their own territory and population, and non-interference in a state’s internal affairs, were dominant right through the Cold War. However, today this approach to national sovereignty is being increasingly challenged, on the grounds that governments should be accountable internationally for policies affecting their own citizens, and may be legitimately subjected to international sanctions or intervention where they grossly violate the human rights of their citizens. International human rights standards, humanitarian law and the emerging doctrine of the ‘responsibility to protect’ are clear expressions of this trend. Any sanctions associated with such accountability, however, can only acquire legitimacy if they are not seen as the outcome of the decisions of individual nations or limited coalitions but result from wider multilateral debate and due process in decision-making. This is particularly clear from cases such as Iraq, Darfur, and the 2006 Lebanon cease fire process. Parliaments need to be able to oversee, and if necessary direct, the initiatives of governments to ensure that they work through multilateral authority in responding to armed conflict abroad or widespread and systematic abuses of human rights.

Recourse to international law and judicial process for review of decisions
The principle of access to justice is well established in internal affairs, not only regarding individual cases but also, by means of judicial review, of policy processes, where these are seen to be in violation of established interpretation or obligations to individuals and groups. On external affairs, accountability to international human rights standards and humanitarian law often remains elusive in practice because of the lack of political support from international courts and governments. The clearest case of this is the failure of the USA to ratify the Rome Statutes of the International Criminal Court, arguing that US citizens should be exempt from its jurisdiction. Other instances include the essentially consensus-based operation of tribunals such as the International Court for the Law of the Sea or the International Court of Justice, which require acceptance of its adjudication by all parties to the dispute on a case-by-case basis. If actors at the international level could be effectively held to account in law for their actions, this would provide an additional option for challenging and reviewing the policies of individual nations or other powerful global institutions.

Conclusion

Even a brief review of statements by the leadership of some of the world’s most powerful countries, such as the USA and the UK, about the goals of their foreign policy, shows a continuing drive to erode the achievements of decades of international efforts to establish standards of good practice in international affairs. Ethical principles which, for a short period of time in the 1990s, appeared to have a chance of taking hold have been abandoned. The limitation of these principles to the level of goals left them vulnerable to abuse. Thus, changes in international accountability, in the language of human rights, and in the way sovereignty is interpreted coincided with a shift to a unilateralist approach to the use of force at the international level and a return to a utilitarian approach in foreign policy. In addition to the efforts needed to rebuild trust and strengthen international frameworks to secure the realisation of rights and responsibilities, national parliaments need to develop processes of policy making and oversight to help ensure that external policy is based on ethical principles.

Parliamentarians and others involved in formal control of executive government decision-making, in relation to the global public sphere, need to review their approaches and claim at least the same rights and role in the oversight of external policy that they already exercise with regard to internal affairs, precisely because the distinction between what is foreign and what is domestic does not match the realities of advancing globalisation. The response to armed conflict is a particular test for the application of ethical principles in external affairs. Critical elements which national political processes ought to incorporate regarding external policy-making include parliamentary oversight of the use of force, acceptance of multilateral authority for decisions on international responses to armed conflict or the systematic abuse of human rights and strengthening institutions like the International Criminal Court so that a wider range of policies could be subjected to judicial scrutiny and, where appropriate, condemned as contrary to international law.

Notes

1. Michael Hammer is Executive Director of the One World Trust, London. The article represents the views of the author only. Return to the text
2. ICM Research, commissioned by Democratic Audit, Federal Trust and One World Trust, interviewed a random sample of 1007 adults aged 18+ by telephone between 13 -15 January 2006. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Further information can be found at www.icmresearch.co.uk  Return to the text
3. First introduced into the British debate by the late Robin Cook’s speech on 12 May 1997 which promised to put human rights at the heart of foreign policy, secure the respect of other nations for Britain’s contribution to keeping the peace of the world and promoting democracy around the world. Return to the text
4. Illustrated by Tony Blair’s emphasis given to ‘… a British foreign policy [which] is prepared to project hard as well as soft power …’ in his 12 January 2007 speech on the role of the UK's Armed Forces in the 21st century. Return to the text
5. See Burall, S.; Weir, S; Donnelly, B., eds. (2006): Not in Our Name: Democracy and Foreign Policy in the UK, London, Politicos Return to the text
6. The One World Trust, Democratic Audit and the Federal Trust argue that Parliament should have continuous involvement in the policy process, not just conducting ex post scrutiny but also engaging in larger decisions at an earlier point in the process. Return to the text

<< Previous article

newsletter  |  ccts |  top