100. Each of NATO's sixteen members, as well as the three invitees, must ratify the accession protocols to allow the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland to become Allies. As the Secretary General told us during our visit to NATO Headquarters, it is NATO's strong hope that this will be done in time for the new members to formally accede at the April 1999 Washington Summit meeting on NATO's fiftieth anniversary. To date Denmark, Canada and the Norway have done so.

101. The debate in the United States has been heated, and opinion in Congress has not divided along strictly party lines. A series of hearings conducted by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations has appeared to reinforce the Democrat administration's pro-enlargement stance,[113] and on 3 March the Committee approved, by 16 to 2, and reported to the Senate a resolution of advice and consent to ratification. This resolution, inter alia, states that the three candidate nations "having established democratic government and having demonstrated a willingness to meet all the requirements of membership...are in a position to further the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area". The resolution also states that the US would not support the admission of any new member to NATO unless it could "fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of membership, and its inclusion would serve the overall political and strategic interests of NATO and the United States". The resolution contains no mention of a moratorium on further enlargement, which some commentators had feared; the US Secretary of State claimed that this would be interpreted as "an open door shutting".[114] The resolution demands that the overall percentage share of US contributions to NATO will not increase due to enlargement. The Senate will debate the resolution shortly; and the result of that debate will be regarded as "guid[ing] the formation of US policy relative to NATO for years to come".[115]

102. This report is intended to inform the debate on enlargement in the UK Parliament and public. The Committee was given assurances by the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that both Houses of Parliament would have the opportunity to express views on enlargement, and both Ministers regard this as "an essential part of the ratification process".[116] We welcome the commitment made by the Government for a debate on NATO enlargement before ratification.

103. The role played by the UK Parliament in the ratification of treaties is not constitutionally defined, but derives from custom and convention. Parliament has no formal input into treaty-making, which is the prerogative of the executive acting on behalf of the Crown. It is unclear how the views of Parliament would have been taken into account, should the Minister of State prove wrong in having "no belief that the view of Parliament...will be anything other than that enlargement is consistent with our national ambitions",[117] since the Government could then ignore Parliament's view.

104. An undertaking given by the then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in 1924 led to the eponymous 'Ponsonby Rule' which has "gradually hardened into constitutional practice, observed in principle by all Governments".[118] The rule is described in Erskine May as follows:

When a treaty requires ratification, accession, acceptance or approval, the Government does not usually proceed with this until a period of twenty-one days has elapsed from the date on which the text of such a treaty was laid before Parliament by Her Majesty's command, a practice which allows Parliament the opportunity to consider commitments which the Government is proposing to enter.[119]

Hardly any treaties laid under the 'Ponsonby Rule' are debated on the floor of the House; whether or not a treaty is debated is a matter for the Government and its business managers, although it is conceivable that the Opposition or a backbencher could secure a debate.

105. It has been commented that "the lack of formal parliamentary involvement in treaty-making distinguishes the British Parliament from most other national legislatures".[120] Of the current sixteen NATO member states, only Canada shares with the UK a ratification process which requires no formal involvement from the legislature. In other member countries treaties are ratified by the head of state upon authorisation of the legislature, usually by a simple majority (although in the case of the United States a two-thirds majority in the Senate is required for final approval of the resolution of ratification). Although in most of these countries the legislature is required for the ratification of all international agreements, in Norway, for example, the consent of Parliament is needed only for issues of "special importance". In many member states[121] parliamentary committees make recommendations to the legislature before the consideration of ratification. In the case of Turkey, the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committees both examine the draft ratification law before it is submitted to the Plenary Assembly.[122]

106. We believe that the current situation, in which the level of involvement of the UK Parliament in treaty-making is decided by the Government's business managers, is unclear and inadequate. Many suggestions as to how Parliament's role in relation to the exercise of the Crown Prerogative could be formalised and improved have been made. These include the establishment of a specialist select committee to scrutinise draft treaties, or a review of the 'Ponsonby Rule' so as to make Parliament's role more explicit. It is not our intention to debate them here, but we express the hope that the Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons will turn its attention to the current unsatisfactory arrangements for Parliamentary examination of international treaties and other aspects of the exercise of the royal prerogative in relation to ratification.

114  Senate Set to Agree on NATO, Financial Times, 25.2.98 Back

115  Will the Senate Endorse NATO's Enlargement?, Stephen Camborne, NATO Review Nov-Dec 1997, available on the Internet at www.nato.int/docu.review. The Senate began its debate on enlargement on 17.3.1998 Back

116  QQ 428, 696 Back

117  Q 696 Back

118  Parliament and Treaties, Richard Ware, from Parliament and International Relations, ed. Carstairs and Ware, 1991 Back

119  Erskine May's Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, ed. Limon and McKay, 22nd Ed, 1997 Back

120  Ware, op cit Back

121   Including Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Turkey and the United States  Back

122  NAA Newsletter: NATO Enlargement Watch, December 1997 Back