Courting trouble

It would be ludicrous for the International Criminal Court to exercise jurisdiction over the crime of "aggression" as long as the United Nations Security Council tolerates such behaviour ("War crimes court needs to start achieving justice", 2 June).

Take US president Barack Obama's recent Nuclear Posture Review, which unashamedly leaves open the option of attacking Iran with nuclear weapons if it persists in enriching uranium. Why should a permanent council member be allowed to pose a threat to international peace and security as well as to global economic activity, given the importance of the Strait of Hormuz?

The nuclear standoff with Iran raises further questions about the UN Security Council. A powerful security council is one thing, but granting it absolute power would be a corrupting step too far. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, Iran has an inalienable right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

The security council's permanent members think otherwise, but the job of the council is to uphold international treaties, not to abrogate them.


Winterborne Houghton, Dorset

Related topics: