International Law and Security

Anna Hood*

1 Introduction

If anyone were to take a cursory glance at the international law and security issues that arose for New Zealand in 2018, they could be forgiven for conclud- ing that there was nothing particularly controversial that emerged. However, digging behind the headlines and taking a deeper look, it becomes apparent that there were in fact some important issues that arose during the year, which are likely to generate debate for years to come. Significantly, the Prime Minister made comments that were supportive of the illegal use of force by the United States (“US”), United Kingdom (“UK”) and France in Syria and that may well provide ammunition for those wanting to broaden the grounds for the use of force in international law. Further, New Zealand ratified the Treaty on the Pro- hibition of Nuclear Weapons (“tpnw”) without amending its domestic nuclear legislation. This report will consider both of these issues in detail before turn- ing to briefly note a number of other international law and security issues that arose over the course of the year.

2 Did New Zealand Sanction an Illegal Use of Force in Syria and Possibly Endorse a New Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention?

One of the most significant international law and security matters that oc- curred in New Zealand in 2018 was something that received relatively little attention at the time, especially with respect to its international legal ramifications. The matter was Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s response to the airstrikes carried out by the US, UK and France against Syria.1 On 14 April 2018, the US, UK and France launched 103 missiles at Syria in retaliation for the fact that the Assad regime had deployed chemical weapons

* University of Auckland. 1 “PM on Syria Strikes: ‘Time to Return to the Table’”, Radio NZ (Web Page, 14 April 2018) .

International Law and Security 379 a week earlier in Damascus and killed 80 civilians.2 After the airstrikes had taken place, Ardern gave a press conference where she stated that New Zea- land would have preferred it if the military action had been undertaken with the consent of the United Nations (“UN”) Security Council but, given that this route had not been possible (because Russia had threatened to veto any Secu- rity Council resolution authorising the use of force against the Assad regime), the actions of the western states were “understandable” and New Zealand “accept[ed]” why those states had taken the steps they did.3 Ardern’s comments attracted some attention in the New Zealand press.4 Commentators and politicians initially noted that the comments were rather “ambiguous” but tended to show at least some level of support for the airstrikes.5 Discussions then turned to focus on the political ramifications of the comments, with some believing that they were problematic because they showed a lack of independent foreign policy and because military interven- tions are “disastrous”,6 while others asserted that the comments were not strong enough and that the Prime Minister should have backed the airstrikes more fully without mentioning a role for the UN Security Council.7 What was missing from the public commentary was any analysis of the international legal consequences of Ardern’s comments. This was somewhat

2 Graham Russell and Patrick Greenfield, “Strikes on Syria: What We Know So Far”, The Guard- ian (Web Page, 14 April 2018) . 3 “PM on Syria Strikes: ‘Time to Return to the Table’” (n 1). 4 For a general overview of the discussion, see Bryce Edwards, “Political Roundup: NZ’s Fraught Balancing Act on Syria Bombing”, NZ Herald (Web Page, 17 April 2018) . 5 See, eg, Edwards (n 4); Chris Trotter, “Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern Has a Bob Each Way on Bombing Syria”, Stuff (17 April 2018) ; Keith Locke, “Ardern Wrong to “Accept” US-Led Air Strikes on Syria. The Greens Get it Right”, The Daily Blog (16 April 2018) ; Golriz Ghahraman, “Bombing Syria Will Never Bring Peace. NZ Must Stand Up Against Ad Hoc Violence”, The Spinoff (14 April 2018) ; Martyn Bradbury, “Painting Jacinda Out as a War Criminal”, The Daily Blog (17 April 2018) ; Dan Satherley, “NZ Should Support US-Led Strikes on Syria, UN is Useless – Simon Bridges”, Newshub (16 April 2018) . 6 Trotter (n 5); Ghahraman (n 5); Locke (n 5). 7 Bradbury (n 5); Satherley (n 5).