Avoiding strategic miscalculations

9. Settlement of differences and disputes by peaceful means.

All these principles are contained in a document called "Declaration," which is not a treaty corresponding to the criteria codified in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, but by their very nature they belong to the important body of generally recognised fundamental principles of public international law. A number of them are also present in the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (1976), which is a legally binding international legal instrument.

Daniel Patrick O'Connell (1924-1979) from the University of Adelaide, who was one of my professors in the Graduate Institute of International Studies of Geneva University, used to focus the attention of his students on the idea that positive international law is not pure whim, but an expression of needs and convictions, as it aims at security and stability of the world community of nations.

The primary end of the interpretation process in the case of diplomatic documents must be to give effect to the intentions of parties, not to frustrate them and to really ascertain the logic inherent in the provisions of those documents. According to his approach, every legal principle has a reason grounded in history and is shaped by juridical, political and practical considerations.

He always used to emphasize that international law should respond gradually to changing needs and circumstances of humankind. Full respect for law is the best way to avoid political, diplomatic and military miscalculations. In this regard, fundamental principles are useful threads in the labyrinth of current contradictory situations.

For the topicality and significance of professor O'Connell's visionary conception about the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes - clearly reflected in the EAS Declaration of November 19, 2011 - I will cite one example.

Australia's successful action against France in the International Court of Justice in 1973, over atmospheric nuclear testing in the South Pacific, was based on O'Connell's sound legal advice. He had the merit of identifying a convincing way to base jurisdiction on the insufficiently known provisions of the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of Disputes, concluded at Geneva in 1928, to which both Australia and France were signatories.

In the light of the advanced vision about the law of nations developed by professor O'Connell, it can be asserted that if the universal principles of public international law are strictly observed and given genuine tangibility in the relations between all the participating countries of the EAS, that this would be a valuable contribution to promoting lasting peace at the regional and global levels, during our era of perplexing vulnerabilities.

In addition, at the purely practical level, this approach is consonant with the very commitment of the EAS to promote greater engagement and cooperation in people-to-people connectivity initiatives, including those relating to education and life-long learning, human resource development, innovation and entrepreneurship, cultural exchanges and tourism.

The validity of optimistic expectations about the EAS can be illustrated by the specific assessment regarding this forum, formulated in September this year in the UN General Assembly, in an audience of 193 member states, by Kevin Rudd. In his view, in order to deal adequately with security challenges in Asia, there is a need for stronger regional institutional architecture, as a complement to the UN, to help build the transparency, cooperation and a sense of common security in the region.

The EAS brings together for the first time the right countries with the right mandate to address the full range of political, economic and security challenges facing this region. A stronger EAS can promote the type of rules-based order regionally for which the UN strives globally.

There is no doubt that accomplishing this task is crucial in order to avoid damaging strategic miscalculations in the Asia-Pacific region, which risk having dangerous consequences at the planetary level. A diplomatic compass solidly based on clear strategic vision, is highly needed to guide the EAS participating countries towards an exemplary pattern of multilateral cooperation, in full harmony with universal principles of international law.