The Sources of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/69/PV.73

Sending a strong message to end impunity and to renew efforts to promote and protect human rights, especially for vulnerable groups, the General Assembly adopted 61 resolutions and seven decisions recommended by its Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) while deferring action on one draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar pending the issuance of budget implications.

(...)

Recorded votes were requested on a number of drafts, reflecting varying views on a range of topics, including albinism, the right to development and the use of mercenaries. Among those texts tabled for a vote was a landmark resolution on the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. By that text, adopted by a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 20 against, with 53 abstentions, the Assembly, for the first time, decided to submit the Special Rapporteur’s report on that country to the Security Council. Also by the text, the Assembly encouraged the Council to take appropriate action to ensure accountability, including through consideration of referral of the situation in that country to the International Criminal Court and consideration of the scope for effective targeted sanctions against those who appeared to be most responsible for acts that the Commission of Inquiry had said could possibly constitute crimes against humanity.

As in previous years, delegates had differing views on such special rapporteur reports and draft resolutions on specific countries. Some speakers said the double standards and selectivity of so-called country-specific reports violated human rights and even threatened the right to self-determination. Some said dialogue was the only way to effectively address human rights concerns.

Explanations of position came from a number of delegations, including those whose countries were the subject of draft resolutions. The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said his delegation had rejected the draft resolution on the human rights situation in his country because, in part, it was politically driven and failed to reflect the reality on the ground. Commenting on the draft text on his country, passed by a vote of 83 in favour to 35 against, with 68 abstentions, Iran’s representative said such reports and draft resolutions were unfairly targeting States.

(...)

Background

The General Assembly met this morning to take action on draft resolutions and decisions contained in reports of its Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural).

(...)

Opening Statement

(...)

Introduction of Reports

ERVIN NINA (Albania), Rapporteur of the Third Committee, introduced its reports as follows:

(...)

He also presented the Committee’s reports on human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms (document A/69/488/Add.2); human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives (document A/69/488.Add.3);

(...)

Action on Draft Resolutions

(...)

The Assembly then turned to the Third Committee’s report Human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives (document A/69/488/Add.3), containing four draft resolutions covering the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Syria, Myanmar and Iran. It deferred consideration of a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar until the issuance of the pertinent Fifth Committee report.

Speaking in explanation of vote before the votes, the representative of the United Arab Emirates stated that his country was one of the co-sponsors of the resolution on human rights in Syria because it was necessary to put an end to the human rights violations, including killings and arbitrary detentions, suffered by “the brotherly people of Syria”.

Also speaking in explanation of position before the votes, the representative of Syria said that his delegation opposed the draft resolution which criticized the human rights situation in his country. Some regimes were feeding the violence in Syria. They were not content with arming terrorist groups; they were establishing military training camps. Saudi Arabia was the main cause of religious hatred in the region. The Qatari regime had also provided millions of dollars to terrorist organizations. The report’s criticism was paradoxical given the violations against women and minorities in those and other States. He urged all countries to reconsider their positions and vote against the text.

Also speaking in explanation of position before the votes, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that his delegation rejected the draft resolution on human rights situation in his country, because it was “the product of a political plot”. The European Union and Japan had drafted the text based on the fabricated report of the Commission of Enquiry, which had never visited the country. They had blocked all possibilities for dialogue and cooperation by forcibly pushing the adoption of the resolution. Their intention was not the promotion of human rights, but sycophancy and subservience to the United States, which had conducted shocking violations as evidenced by the Central Intelligence Agency torture crimes.

The representative of Iran, in explanation of position before the votes, said that the draft resolution on human rights situation in his country was “political, prejudicial and unbalanced.” It ignored the fact that Iranian society was a vibrant and multi-voiced society. It also failed to acknowledge the positive developments in Iran since the beginning of the new Government’s tenure and the constant readiness of the Iranian Government to cooperate with the United Nations human rights mechanisms. Country-specific resolutions, such as the one before the Assembly, were counterproductive because they increased distrust and damaged the Organization’s credibility.

In explanation of position before the votes, the representative of Cuba said that her country had always opposed country-specific resolutions in the Third Committee because they were politically motivated and contributed nothing to the promotion of human rights. The Human Rights Council and the Universal Period Review mechanism were the forums in which the human rights situations of all countries should be considered on an equal footing. The resolution on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had created a dangerous precedent that threatened the right to self-determination of States. By referring the issue to the Security Council and the International Criminal Court, the text promoted the sanctioning of countries.

The representative of Algeria, also speaking in explanation of position before the votes, voiced regret at the continued double standards in the proliferation of country-specific resolutions. Differences on human rights should be resolved through dialogue, not confrontation. The General Assembly should adopt a new approach that promoted technical cooperation, dialogue and transparency. Selective resolutions that targeted specific countries undermined the mandate of the Human Rights Council.

In explanation of position before the votes, the representative of Papua New Guinea said that the international community had agreed on the notion that the Human Rights Council had and should continue to underpin the development of human rights. The Universal Periodic Review process had been an important catalyst in that process around the world. Papua New Guinea had had three special rapporteurs visit the country to report on various human rights issues. While the country had not agreed with every aspect of the reports, it had welcomed the scrutiny. He called on Iran and other countries to allow rapporteurs to visit. In view of that, his delegation would abstain on the resolution related to Iran.

Also speaking in explanation of vote before the votes, the representative of Saudi Arabia said that the delegate of Syria had referred to his country. The General Assembly Chair requested that he wait to exercise his right of reply until the end of the consideration of the draft resolutions.

The Assembly then adopted, by a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 20 against, with 53 abstentions, a draft titled “Situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea”.

Also by a recorded vote of 127 in favour to 13 against, with 48 abstentions, it adopted a text titled “Situation of human rights in the Syrian Arab Republic”.

In another recorded vote — 83 in favour to 35 against, with 68 abstentions — the Assembly adopted a draft titled “Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran”.

In explanation of position after adoption, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea thanked the delegations that had voted against the resolution regarding his country and stated that the United States was viciously attempting to destroy his nation’s ideology and system. In the light of that dangerous campaign undertaken, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would continue to uphold its pride and honour in its socialist system and would do its utmost to defend it.

The representative of El Salvador, also in explanation of position after adoption, said that his delegation had agreed with the text of the draft resolution on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that had been originally presented, with the exception of paragraph 8. For constitutional and legal reasons, he noted that he could not support the language in that paragraph. Given the results of voting on the amendment that would have changed that language, and given that co-sponsoring countries had included elements for more “rapprochement”, he said that his delegation had changed its position and had decided to vote for the resolution. However, he emphasized that his country was not currently a party to the Rome Statute, and therefore, its vote in favour of the resolution should not be considered as in any way a change of position on that.

Costa Rica’s representative, in explanation of position after the action, said that country-specific assessments should be undertaken and that the Human Rights Council was the forum in which those situations should be discussed and examined. Furthermore, the Universal Periodic Review was the appropriate mechanism with which to examine human rights. Cooperation and constructive dialogue and other mechanisms should continue to be part of the way human rights were promoted and protected.

In explanation of position, Sri Lanka’s representative said he had voted against the draft text on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. He urged that Government to take action to address concerns. “Name and shame” resolutions were unproductive, he said, adding that a cooperative approach had been proposed, but had not been supported. The draft text’s reference to encouraging the Security Council’s referral of the issue to the International Criminal Court was “unacceptable”.

Right of Reply

(...)

Action on Draft Resolutions

(...)

[Voting Record/표결 기록]

A/69/PV.73

General Assembly
Sixty-ninth session
73rd plenary meeting

Thursday, 18 December 2014, 10 a.m.

New York

(...)

(c) Human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives

Report of the Third Committee (A/69/488/Add.3)

The Acting President: The Assembly has before it four draft resolutions recommended by the Third Committee in paragraph 36 of its report.
Before proceeding further, I should like to inform members that action on draft resolution III, entitled “Situation of human rights in Myanmar”, is postponed to a later date to allow time for the review of its programme budget implications by the Fifth Committee. The Assembly will take action on draft resolution III as soon as the report of the Fifth Committee on its programme budget implications is available.
I shall now give the floor to representatives who wish to speak in explanation of vote or position on draft resolutions I, II or IV before we take action on the draft resolutions.

(...)

Mr. An Myong Hun (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea): My delegation would like to state its position on draft resolution I, entitled “Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”, as contained in document A/69/488/Add.3, which was submitted by the European Union (EU) and Japan.

My delegation totally rejects this draft resolution because it has nothing to do with the promotion and protection of human rights, but is the product of a political plot and confrontation against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The European Union and Japan drafted the draft resolution on the basis of a fabricated report of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (A/HRC/25/63), whose members have never been in my country. Let me once again make it clear that the report of the Commission of Inquiry is a document born of a political plot and has no basic attributes or credibility to be recognized as a General Assembly document, as it is based on the fabricated testimonies of a handful of defectors who committed crimes and fled their homeland.

We have consistently maintained our position of countering confrontation and giving priority to dialogue and cooperation in the field of human rights, and we have also clarified our willingness to engage in broad-ranging constructive dialogue. However, the European Union and Japan completely blocked all possibilities of cooperation in the field of human rights, including a visit to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by a Special Rapporteur and a human rights dialogue between the EU and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, by forcibly pushing the adoption of the draft resolution, which does not reflect the reality on the ground. Consequently, the European Union and Japan themselves disclosed that their real intention in submitting a draft resolution was not for the genuine promotion and protection of human rights, but purely as an act of subservience and sycophancy in support of the hostile policy of the United States against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to overthrow our political and social system.

If countries sponsoring draft resolution I are really interested in the promotion and protection of human rights, they should address the issue of the grave human rights violations being committed in Western countries, such as the recently revealed Central Intelligence Agency’s crimes of torture committed by the United States in the most brutal and shocking manner. My delegation remains consistent with regard to its principled position of holding a dialogue on cooperation in the field of human rights. However, this delegation will not tolerate any attempt to abuse human rights issues as a tool for overthrowing our social system.

Once again, my delegation emphasizes that we strongly reject all the country-specific draft resolutions — not only draft resolution I against my country, but also draft resolutions on the situation of human right in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Syrian Arab Republic and Myanmar. My delegation firmly believes that all countries will vote against the draft resolution sponsored by the EU and Japan, in line with the principles and universally accepted position to oppose politicization, selectivity and double standards over human rights.

(...)

Mrs. Moreno Guerra (Cuba) (spoke in Spanish): Cuba has traditionally maintained a principled position against country-specific draft resolutions that aim to condemn developing countries based on politically motivated reasons that have nothing to do with defending human rights and that contribute nothing to that cause. These toxic and selective practices of politicization and applying double standards in the consideration of situations of human rights were the reason that led to the discrediting and dissolution of the Human Rights Commission. The establishment of the Human Rights Council and its Universal Periodic Review mechanism offer the possibility to consider situations of human rights issues in all countries on an equal footing, based on genuine and constructive dialogue.

Cuba would like to reiterate that international cooperation based on the principles of objectivity, unconditionality, impartiality and non-selectivity is the only way to effectively promote and protect all human rights. Unfortunately, that is not the goal being pursued today with the draft resolutions against these countries, which are clearly and undoubtedly politically motivated.

With regard to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, a dangerous precedent has been established that violates the rights of sovereignty and self-determination of States in referring the issue to the Security Council and, subsequently, to the International Criminal Court. That has a significant negative impact in that it irresponsibly promotes punishment and sanctions on the basis of allegations that have not been proved on the ground. We reiterate that these actions are contradictory to the atmosphere of cooperation and dialogue that is needed in order to strengthen an international system in which all are respected on an equal footing, independently of their wealth or power.

Cuba has roundly opposed country-specific draft resolutions, both in the Third Committee and in the Human Rights Council. In that spirit, we will continue to vote against draft resolutions on the human rights situations in friendly countries, and to disassociate ourselves from the consensus on draft resolutions that are not normally subject to a vote.

We would like to indicate that opposition to these selective and politicized draft resolutions do not prejudge in any way the resolution of the pending issues mentioned in paragraph 3 of the draft resolution, which require a fair and honourable solution with the agreement of all stakeholders.

Ms. Mansouri (Algeria): My delegation would like to explain its position before the Assembly takes action on the draft resolutions on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (draft resolution I), the Syrian Arab Republic (draft resolution II) and the Islamic Republic of Iran (draft resolution IV), as contained in the report of the Third Committee (A/69/488/Add.3).

My delegation regrets the continued selectivity, double standards, politicization and proliferation of country-specific draft resolutions, as previously highlighted during the ministerial meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement held in Algiers in May. My delegation strongly believes that differences on human rights issues should be resolved through constructive dialogue, and not through confrontational, politically motivated action. Indeed, practice has demonstrated that country-specific draft resolutions have not contributed to the improvement of human rights situations. They only jeopardize trust and provoke confrontation among Member States by ignoring the principle of impartiality, which should govern human rights situations and mechanisms.

The Assembly should adopt a new cooperative approach to the consideration of human rights in those countries that enables the establishment of dialogue and the development of technical cooperation between the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the countries concerned in a transparent, fair and equal manner. Moreover, the Universal Periodic Review mechanism should be considered as the primary tool for considering human rights issues, and such discussions should take place in an atmosphere of constructive dialogue within the Human Rights Council. The continued submission of selective draft resolutions that target specific countries is a violation of the principle of universality and objectivity and undermines the mandate of the Human Rights Council. For those reasons, my delegation will abstain in the voting on all country-specific draft resolutions.

(...)

The Acting President: We will now take decisions on draft resolutions I, II and IV, one by one.

We turn first to draft resolution I, entitled “Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”. A recorded vote has been requested.

A recorded vote was taken.

In favour:

Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Sudan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Vanuatu

Against:

Belarus, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, Gambia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Oman, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Zimbabwe

Abstaining:

Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Cameroon, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Suriname, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Zambia

Draft resolution I was adopted by 116 votes to 20, with 53 abstentions (resolution 69/188).

(...)

The Acting President: I shall now give the floor to delegations that wish to speak in explanation of vote following the voting.

Mr. An Mayong Hun (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea): The delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would like to express its thanks to those delegations that voted against resolution 69/188. My delegation again fully rejects this forcibly adopted resolution against my country. The resolution proves once again that the United States and its followers are ever more viciously resorting to their plot to defame our image and destroy our ideology and system under the pretext of human rights. In the light of the increasingly dangerous human rights campaigns undertaken by hostile forces against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, we will keep in our hearts the pride and honour of the socialist system, which was chosen as being consolidated and developed by our people, and we will work to the utmost to defend it.

Mr. Zamora Rivas (El Salvador) (spoke in Spanish): El Salvador would like to explain its vote on resolution 69/188, entitled “Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”.

El Salvador abstained in the voting at the time the resolution was adopted in the Third Committee. We would like to express our agreement with the text that was originally presented, with the exception of paragraph 8 for constitutional and legal reasons that do not allow our country to support the paragraph’s language. Accordingly, El Salvador supported the proposed amendment contained in document A/C.3/69/L.63, which aimed to delete paragraph 8. The amendment, which was not adopted, sought to substitute for paragraph 8 language calling for rapprochement and dialogue on human rights issues. Given the outcome of the voting on the amendment and on the text as a whole today, which includes the second part of the amendment that was not adopted by the Committee, and given the fact that the sponsor countries decided to include in the text aspects on openness to dialogue, El Salvador decided to change its position and to vote in favour of the resolution, despite the fact that paragraph 8 was retained.

Nevertheless, for the record, El Salvador would like to state that with regard to operative paragraph 8, and despite the fact that it has voted in favour of the resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, El Salvador is currently not a State party to the Rome Statute, and by extension to the International Criminal Court. That is why our vote in favour of this resolution should not be considered as our country’s recognition of the jurisdiction of this international tribunal as stated in paragraph 8.

Ms. Murillo (Costa Rica) (spoke in Spanish): I would like to make a general statement following the adoption of these country-specific resolutions.

Our concern about the human rights situation in the specific countries referred to in the resolutions submitted for consideration in the plenary today led us to vote in favour of all three resolutions. In addition, we maintain our principled position that all country-specific situations should be assessed on their respective merits — including, in this case, steps taken by countries to improve their human rights situations. Nevertheless, my country reiterates that the Human Rights Council has the main mandate on this issue. We should therefore support the Council and give it a prominent role on the issues before us today. The Human Rights Council has the necessary tools at its disposal to consider specific cases that are cause for concern to the international community — situations that, owing to their seriousness, require country-specific attention, such as special procedures. That is why my country believes that addressing country-specific situations should take place in the Human Rights Council. We therefore did not join the resolutions as sponsors in the Third Committee.

We acknowledge that the Universal Periodic Review mechanism provides the appropriate means to consider human rights situations based on transparent, reliable and objective information. Strengthening the mechanism will help to further strengthen the Human Rights Council as the main body of the United Nations for the promotion and protection of human rights throughout the world without any distinction. Nevertheless, that should not distract us from our responsibility to express ourselves about situations that are of critical importance for fundamental rights, wherever they occur in the world, or from considering country-specific situations when necessary.

Costa Rica believes that constructive dialogue and cooperation, including cooperation with special procedures and other human rights mechanisms and open invitations to visit countries, should continue to serve as the path towards effectively promoting and protecting human rights. We call on all States to commit truly to that effort.

Mr. Wickramarachchige (Sri Lanka): Sri Lanka wishes to make the following statement following the voting on resolution 69/188, entitled “Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”.

Sri Lanka voted against this resolution. Our vote does not in any way demonstrate disregard for the promotion or protection of human rights. On the contrary, Sri Lanka remains committed to the advancement of human rights, and concerned about the alleged human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. We urge the Government to take mesures to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. Sri Lanka vehemently condemns all acts of abduction and expresses deep concern about the safety of those victims.

Sri Lanka believes that country-specific resolutions designed to name and shame are not the appropriate means to address or advance human rights. When this resolution was considered in the Third Committee, Sri Lanka voted in favour of the proposal presented by Cuba to replace the current paragraphs 7 and 8 with provisions that would enable the adoption of a cooperative approach. However, the proposal failed to receive the necessary support in the Committee. The current paragraphs 7 and 8 require that the Commission of Inquiry report on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea be submitted to the Security Council. They also encourage the Council to consider referring the situation to the International Criminal Court. That is an unacceptable approach, especially as the country concerned has indicated its willingness to engage, and even to accept the visit of a Special Rapporteur. Sri Lanka categorically rejects that proposition in the resolution, which places the onus on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to address alleged human rights violations.

For those reasons, having abstained in the past, Sri Lanka was compelled to vote against this resolution.

(...)

[Adopted Resolution/채택된 결의안]

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/69/188

United Nations

A/RES/69/188

General Assembly

Distr.: General

21 January 2015

Sixty-ninth session

Agenda item 68 (c)

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 18 December 2014

[on the report of the Third Committee (A/69/488/Add.3)]

69/188. Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming that all States have an obligation to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to fulfil the obligations that they have undertaken under the various international instruments,

Recalling all previous resolutions adopted by the General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including Assembly resolution 68/183 of 18 December 2013 and Council resolution 25/25 of 28 March 2014,[1] and mindful of the need for the international community to strengthen its coordinated efforts aimed at achieving the implementation of those resolutions,

Deeply concerned at the grave human rights situation, the pervasive culture of impunity and the lack of accountability for human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,

Welcoming the report of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,[2] and expressing grave concern at the detailed findings contained therein,

Noting the transmission of the report of the commission of inquiry to the Security Council on 14 April 2014,

Recalling the responsibility of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to protect its population from crimes against humanity,

Taking note of the report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,[3] regretting that he still has not been allowed to visit the country and that he has received no cooperation from the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and taking note also of the comprehensive report of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea submitted in accordance with resolution 68/183,[4]

Mindful that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,[5] the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,⁵ the Convention on the Rights of the Child [6] and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,[7] and recalling the concluding observations of the treaty bodies under the four treaties,

Noting with appreciation the signature of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities[8] and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography[9] by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, encouraging the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to take speedy steps to ratify the Convention and the Optional Protocol, and urging the Government to fully respect the rights of persons with disabilities and children,

Acknowledging the participation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the second universal periodic review process, noting the acceptance by the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea of 113 out of the 268 recommendations contained in the outcome of the review[10] and its stated commitment to implement them and look into the possibility of implementing a further 58 recommendations, and emphasizing the importance of the implementation of the recommendations in order to address the grave human rights violations in the country,

Noting with appreciation the collaboration established between the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the United Nations Children’s Fund and the World Health Organization in order to improve the health situation in the country, and the collaboration established with the United Nations Children’s Fund in order to improve the quality of education for children,

Noting the decision on the resumption, on a modest scale, of the activities of the United Nations Development Programme in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and encouraging the engagement of the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with the international community to ensure that the programmes benefit the persons in need of assistance,

Noting also the cooperation between the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the World Food Programme, the United Nations Children’s Fund and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on food security assessments, underscoring the importance of those assessments in analysing changes in the national, household and individual food security and nutritional situation and thereby in supporting donor confidence in the targeting of aid programmes, noting further the letter of understanding signed by the Government and the World Food Programme and the importance of further improvements in operating conditions, bringing access and monitoring arrangements closer to international standards for all United Nations entities, and noting with appreciation the work of international aid operators,

Noting further the importance of the issue of international abductions and of the immediate return of all abductees, taking note of the outcome of the government-level consultation between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Japan in May 2014, and expecting concrete and positive results from the investigations being conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on all the Japanese nationals, in particular victims of abduction,

Noting the importance of the inter-Korean dialogue, which could contribute to the improvement of the human rights and humanitarian situation in the country,

Welcoming the resumption of the reunions of separated families across the border in February 2014, and, given that this is an urgent humanitarian concern of the entire Korean people, hoping that necessary arrangements for further reunions on a larger scale and a regular basis will be made by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea and members of the Korean diaspora,

1. Condemns the long-standing and ongoing systematic, widespread and gross violations of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including those which the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, established by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 22/13 of 21 March 2013,[11] has said may amount to crimes against humanity, and the continuing impunity for such violations;

2. Expresses its very serious concern at:

(a) The persistence of continuing reports of violations of human rights, including the detailed findings made by the commission of inquiry in its report,² such as:

(i) Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including inhuman conditions of detention; rape; public executions; extrajudicial and arbitrary detention; the absence of due process and the rule of law, including fair trial guarantees and an independent judiciary; extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions; the imposition of the death penalty for political and religious reasons; collective punishments extending up to three generations; and the extensive use of forced labour;

(ii) The existence of an extensive system of political prison camps, where a vast number of persons are deprived of their liberty and subjected to deplorable conditions and where alarming violations of human rights are perpetrated, and in this regard strongly urges the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to immediately end this practice and to release all political prisoners unconditionally and without any delay;

(iii) The forcible transfer of populations and the limitations imposed on every person who wishes to move freely within the country and travel abroad, including the punishment of those who leave or try to leave the country without permission, or their families, as well as punishment of persons who are returned;

(iv) The situation of refugees and asylum seekers expelled or returned to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and sanctions imposed on citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea who have been repatriated from abroad, leading to punishments of internment, torture, other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, sexual violence or the death penalty, and in this regard strongly urges all States to respect the fundamental principle of
non-refoulement, to treat those who seek refuge humanely and to ensure unhindered access to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and his Office, with a view to protecting the human rights of those who seek refuge, and once again urges States parties to comply with their obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees[12] and the 1967 Protocol thereto[13] in relation to refugees from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea who are covered by those instruments;

(v) All-pervasive and severe restrictions on the freedoms of thought, conscience, religion or belief, opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association, the right to privacy and equal access to information, by such means as the persecution, torture and imprisonment of individuals exercising their freedom of opinion and expression, religion or belief, and their families, and the right of everyone to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives, of his or her country;

(vi) Violations of economic, social and cultural rights, which have led to severe hunger, malnutrition, widespread health problems and other hardship for the population in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in particular for women, children, persons with disabilities and the elderly;

(vii) Violations of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of women, in particular the creation of internal conditions that force women to leave the country and make them extremely vulnerable to trafficking in persons for the purpose of prostitution, domestic servitude or forced marriage and the subjection of women to forced abortions, gender-based discrimination, including in the political and social spheres, and other forms of sexual and gender-based violence;

(viii) Violations of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of children, in particular the continued lack of access to basic economic, social and cultural rights for many children, and in this regard notes the particularly vulnerable situation faced by, inter alia, returned or repatriated children, street children, children with disabilities, children whose parents are detained, children living in detention or in institutions and children in conflict with the law;

(ix) Violations of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons with disabilities, especially in the use of collective camps and of coercive measures that target the rights of persons with disabilities to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children;

(x) Violations of workers’ rights, including the right to freedom of association and effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, the right to strike as defined by the obligations of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,⁵ and the prohibition of the economic exploitation of children and of any harmful or hazardous work of children as defined by the obligations of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea under the Convention on the Rights of the Child;⁶

(xi) Discrimination based on the songbun system, which classifies people on the basis of State-assigned social class and birth, and also includes consideration of political opinions and religion;

(b) The continued refusal of the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to recognize the mandate of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or to extend cooperation to the Special Rapporteur;

(c) The continued lack of acknowledgement by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea of the grave human rights situation in the country and its consequential lack of action to implement the recommendations contained in the outcome of its first universal periodic review;[14]

(d) The failure of the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to prosecute those responsible for human rights violations, including violations which the commission of inquiry has said may amount to crimes against humanity;

3. Underscores its very serious concern at the systematic abduction, denial of repatriation and subsequent enforced disappearance of persons, including those from other countries, on a large scale and as a matter of State policy, and in this regard strongly calls upon the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea urgently to resolve these issues of international concern, in a transparent manner, including by ensuring the immediate return of abductees;

4. Expresses its very deep concern at the precarious humanitarian situation in the country, which could rapidly deteriorate owing to limited resilience to natural disasters and to government policies causing limitations in the availability of and access to food, compounded by structural weaknesses in agricultural production resulting in significant shortages of diversified food and the State restrictions on the cultivation of and trade in foodstuffs, as well as the prevalence of chronic malnutrition, particularly among the most vulnerable groups, pregnant women, children, persons with disabilities and the elderly, and urges the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in this regard, to take preventive and remedial action, cooperating where necessary with international donor agencies and in accordance with international standards for monitoring humanitarian assistance;

5. Commends the Special Rapporteur for the activities undertaken so far and for his continued efforts in the conduct of his mandate despite the denial of access;

6. Also commends the work of the commission of inquiry and recognizes the importance of its report, and regrets that the commission received no cooperation from the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including with regard to access to the country;

7. Acknowledges the commission’s finding that the body of testimony gathered and the information received provide reasonable grounds to believe that crimes against humanity have been committed in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, pursuant to policies established at the highest level of the State for decades;

8. Decides to submit the report of the commission of inquiry to the Security Council, and encourages the Council to consider the relevant conclusions and recommendations of the commission and take appropriate action to ensure accountability, including through consideration of referral of the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the International Criminal Court and consideration of the scope for effective targeted sanctions against those who appear to be most responsible for acts that the commission has said may constitute crimes against humanity;

9. Welcomes the steps taken by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights towards establishing a field-based structure in the Republic of Korea to strengthen the monitoring and documentation of the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, to ensure accountability, to provide the Special Rapporteur with increased support, to enhance the engagement and capacity-building of the Governments of all States concerned, civil society and other stakeholders and to maintain the visibility of the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including through sustained communications, advocacy and outreach initiatives;

10. Calls upon Member States to undertake to ensure that the field-based structure of the Office of the High Commissioner can function with independence, that it has sufficient resources and that it is not subjected to any reprisals or threats;

11. Strongly urges the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to respect fully all human rights and fundamental freedoms and, in this regard:

(a) To immediately put an end to the systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights emphasized above, inter alia, by implementing fully the measures set out in the above-mentioned resolutions of the General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council, and the recommendations addressed to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by the Council in the context of the universal periodic review and by the commission of inquiry, the United Nations special procedures and treaty bodies;

(b) To protect its inhabitants, address the issue of impunity and ensure that those responsible for violations of human rights are brought to justice before an independent judiciary;

(c) To tackle the root causes leading to refugee outflows and prosecute those who exploit refugees by human smuggling, trafficking and extortion, while not criminalizing the victims;

(d) To ensure that citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea who are expelled or returned to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are able to return in safety and dignity, are treated humanely and are not subjected to any kind of punishment, and to provide information on their status and treatment;

(e) To extend its full cooperation to the Special Rapporteur, including by granting him full, free and unimpeded access to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and to other United Nations human rights mechanisms so that a full needs assessment of the human rights situation may be made;

(f) To engage in technical cooperation activities in the field of human rights with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and his Office, as pursued by the High Commissioner in recent years, with a view to improving the situation of human rights in the country, and to strive to implement the accepted recommendations stemming from the universal periodic review;

(g) To engage in cooperation with the International Labour Organization;

(h) To continue and reinforce its cooperation with United Nations humanitarian agencies;

(i) To ensure full, safe and unhindered access to humanitarian aid and take measures to allow humanitarian agencies to secure its impartial delivery to all parts of the country on the basis of need in accordance with humanitarian principles, as it pledged to do, and to ensure access to adequate food and implement more effective food security policies, including through sustainable agriculture, sound food production distribution measures and the allocation of more funds to the food sector, and to ensure adequate monitoring of humanitarian assistance;

(j) To further improve cooperation with the United Nations country team and development agencies so that they can directly contribute to improving the living conditions of the civilian population, including accelerating progress towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, in accordance with international monitoring and evaluation procedures;

(k) To consider ratifying and acceding to remaining international human rights treaties, which would enable a dialogue with the human rights treaty bodies;

12. Urges the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to implement the recommendations of the commission of inquiry without delay;

13. Encourages all Member States, the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council, the Office of the High Commissioner, the United Nations Secretariat, civil society organizations, foundations and engaged business enterprises and other stakeholders towards which the commission of inquiry has directed recommendations to implement or take forward those recommendations;

14. Welcomes the recent willingness expressed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to consider human rights dialogues with States and groups of States, technical cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner and a country visit of the Special Rapporteur;

15. Calls upon the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to continue to engage constructively with international interlocutors with a view to promoting concrete improvements in the human rights situation on the ground, including through dialogues, official visits to the country and more people-to-people contact;

16. Decides to continue its examination of the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea at its seventieth session, and to this end requests the Secretary-General to submit a comprehensive report on the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and requests the Special Rapporteur to continue to report his findings and recommendations, as well as to report on the follow-up to the implementation of the recommendations of the commission of inquiry, in line with Human Rights Council resolution 25/25.¹

73rd plenary meeting
18 December 2014

[1] See Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-ninth Session, Supplement No. 53 (A/69/53), chap. II.

[2] A/HRC/25/63.

[3] A/69/548.

[4] A/69/639.

[5] See resolution 2200 A (XXI), annex.

[6] United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, No. 27531.

[7] Ibid., vol. 1249, No. 20378.

[8] Ibid., vol. 2515, No. 44910.

[9] Ibid., vol. 2171, No. 27531.

[10] A/HRC/27/10.

[11] See Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 53 (A/68/53), chap. IV, sect. A.

[12] United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 189, No. 2545.

[13] Ibid., vol. 606, No. 8791.

[14] A/HRC/13/13.

Source:

http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/ga11604.doc.htm

http://www.un.org/en/ga/69/resolutions.shtml

http://www.un.org/en/ga/third/69/reports.shtml

[UN News] UN 총회, DPRK 인권에 관한 UN 보고서 안보리에 회부

카테고리 없음

2014. 12. 18. 00:00

General Assembly decides to refer UN report on human rights in DPR Korea to Security Council

UN 총회, DPRK에서의 인권에 관한 UN 보고서를 안보리에 회부하기로 결정

18 December 2014 – Condemning “ongoing systematic, widespread and gross violations of human rights” in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution today by which it would transmit a UN-backed report probing such violations to the Security Council.

The 400-page report was released in February by the UN Commission of Inquiry on human rights in the DPRK, which was established by the Geneva-based Human Rights Council in March 2013. Documenting in great detail the rights violations committed in the DPRK, the report called for urgent action to address the human rights situation, including referral to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The resolution adopted today by the General Assembly, acting on the recommendations of its Third Committee (the Assembly’s main body dealing with social, humanitarian and cultural issues) commends the work the Special Rapporteur on human rights in the DPRK and the Commission of Inquiry and decides that the commission’s report should be submitted to the Security Council.

The Assembly encouraged Council members to take appropriate action to ensure accountability, including through consideration of referral of the situation to the ICC and of targeted sanctions against those appearing most responsible for crimes against humanity.

The Assembly resolution, adopted by a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 20 against, with 53 abstentions, lists examples of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, describes a system of political prison camps, the forcible transfer of populations and limitations on movement, as well as violations of rights fundamental freedoms of women, children, and persons with disabilities.

The Assembly expressed its concern that the DPRK Government refuses to recognize the Special Rapporteur’s mandate or to cooperate, continuing not to acknowledge the grave human rights situation in the country, and failing to prosecute those responsible for violations, including those that may amount to crimes against humanity.

Strongly urging the Government of the DPRK to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, it urges implementation of the commission’s recommendations without delay. It also welcomes the recent willingness expressed by the Government to consider human rights dialogues, technical cooperation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and a country visit of the Special Rapporteur.

Source: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=49648&Cr=&Cr1=#.VJR6BBeMJs

http://webtv.un.org/meetings-events/general-assembly/main-committees/3rd-committee/watch/third-committee-46th-meeting-–-69th-general-assembly/3897813256001

[UN 총회 제3위원회] DPRK 인권상황 결의안 통과

카테고리 없음

2014. 11. 18. 00:00

UN General Assembly

69th Session

Third Committee

18 November 2014

UN 총회

제69차 회기

제3위원회

2014. 11. 18.

STATUS OF ACTION ON DRAFT PROPOSALS

결의안에 대한 ... 상황

Symbol

문서기호

Agenda Item

의제 안건

Title

제목

Main Sponsor

제안국

Intro

PBIs

Action

A/C.3/69/L.28

68 (c)

Situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

조선민주주의인민공화국에서의 인권상황

Italy (on behalf of the EU) and Japan

이탈리아 (EU를 대표하여) 및 일본

42nd Mtg

06-Nov

(Italy)

제42차 회의

2014. 11. 6.

(이탈리아)

None

없음

A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1

None

없음

Adopted by Vote:

111-19-55

47th Mtg

18-Nov

표결에 의한 가결:

찬성 111표/반대 19표/기권 55표

제47차 회의

2014. 11. 18.

A/C.3/69/L.63

68 (c)

Amendment to A/C.3/69/L.28

A/C.3/69/L.28에 대한 수정안

Cuba

쿠바

None

없음

Rejected by Vote:

40-77-50

46th Mtg

18-Nov

표결에 의한 부결:

찬성 40표/반대 77표/기권 50표

제46차 회의

2014. 11. 18.

General Assembly

69th Session

Third Committee

18 November 2014

UN총회

제69차 회기

제3위원회

2014. 11. 18.

[46th Meeting/제46차 회의]

[47th Meeting/제47차 회의]

http://webtv.un.org/meetings-events/general-assembly/main-committees/3rd-committee/watch/third-committee-47th-meeting-–-69th-general-assembly/3899324250001

[Meetings Coverage and Press Releases/회의취재 및 보도자료]

18 November 2014

GA/SHC/4122

Intensely Debating Targeted Country Reviews, Third Committee Approves Draft Texts on Iran, Syria, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

Sixty-ninth session,

46th & 47th Meetings (AM & PM)

http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/gashc4122.doc.htm

Dialogue, Not Politically Driven Actions, Triggers Human Rights Advancements, Delegates Hear During Day-Long Discussions

Differences on human rights issues should be resolved through constructive dialogue and not confrontational politically motivated actions, the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) heard today as it concluded its discussion on the Human Rights Report and took action on a package of draft resolutions on human rights questions and situations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Syria and Iran.

During a heated debate on a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which was approved by a recorded vote of 111 in favour to 19 against, with 55 abstentions, many delegates voiced strong positions against the text. Of particular concern were operative paragraphs 7 and 8.

By the terms of operative paragraph 7, the General Assembly would acknowledge the commission’s finding that the body of testimony gathered and the information received provide reasonable grounds to believe that crimes against humanity have been committed in the Democratic People’s Republic. The latter operative paragraph would have the Assembly decide to submit the report of the commission of inquiry to the Security Council, and encourages the Council to consider the relevant conclusions and recommendations of the commission and take appropriate action to ensure accountability, including through consideration of referral of the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the International Criminal Court and consideration of the scope for effective targeted sanctions against those who appear to be most responsible for acts that the commission has said may constitute crimes against humanity.

Prior to voting on that draft text, the Committee rejected a draft resolution, by a recorded vote of 40 in favour to 77 against, with 50 abstentions. That draft text, tabled by Cuba, contained a proposal to replace the two abovementioned paragraphs with the a text that would have the Assembly decide to adopt a new cooperative approach to the consideration of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that will enable: the establishment of dialogues by representatives of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with States and groups of States interested in the issue; the development of technical cooperation between the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; and the visit of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the country.

Ensuing discussions saw a range of positions among delegates. Emphasizing that human rights should not be a pretext for political gains as country-specific resolutions undermined state sovereignty, a representative of Venezuela said the focus should be on taking a constructive approach to human rights issues.

Representing a view held by a number of countries and the European Union, Japan’s representative said the Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry had submitted an unprecedented and historic report on the human rights situation in the country, where systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations were being committed.

Rejecting those claims as well as the draft resolution, a delegate of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said the Commission’s report was a compilation of groundless political allegations and had no credibility as an official United Nations document. Ecuador’s representative said country-specific resolutions did not improve human rights situations, calling on all countries to make positive contributions to human rights mechanisms.

Representatives of India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia said that they preferred constructive dialogue that respected the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, which was the reason their delegations had decided to abstain on the vote.

Similar points were raised when the Committee approved a draft text on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, by a vote of 78 in favour to 35 against, with 69 abstentions. Agreeing with the Non-Aligned Movement’s position, a number of speakers said the use of country-specific resolutions violated the principles of non-selectivity and objectivity based on the United Nations Charter. Indeed, China’s representative said country-specific resolutions jeopardized trust and provoked confrontation among Member States. However, Canada’s representative noted that there were extremely troubling developments in the human rights situation of Iran that had justified the draft text.

Iran’s representative said the draft text ignored the readiness of his country to cooperate with the United Nations human rights mechanisms as well as its readiness to report and implement recommendations received through the Council’s universal periodic review. Politically motivated vendettas were counterproductive and pointless, he said.

(...)

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this morning to continue and conclude its general discussion on the report of the Human Rights Council (documents A/69/53 and A/69/53/Add.1). For background, see Press Release GA/SHC/4121.

(...)

Under its agenda item on human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives, the Committee would take action on a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1) and amendments on the aforementioned draft text contained in document A/C.3/69/L.63.

(...)

Statements

(...)

Right of Reply

(...)

Introductions of and Action on Draft Resolutions

(...)

The Committee then turned to its agenda item on the situation of human rights and reports of the special rapporteurs, first taking up draft texts on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

A representative of Cuba, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said that politicization and double standards were evident in the adoption of resolutions against countries that were part of the Movement. The universal periodic review mechanism was the primary tool for considering human rights issues and such discussions should take place in an atmosphere of constructive dialogue. The continued selectivity of some resolutions that targeted specific countries had violated the principles of universality and objectivity. He called for all countries to vote against such politically motivated resolutions.

The Committee then took up a draft text on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (document A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1), introduced by Italy’s representative, on behalf of the European Union and Japan.

Regarding a proposed amendment to “L.28/Rev.1”, contained in document A/C.3/69/L.63, Cuba’s representative said that his country wished to maintain the first part of the proposed amendment. Having said that, he added, Cuba would vote against the resolution. Cuba was not trying to prevent the Council from looking at the report of the Commission of Inquiry. Rather, his delegation wished to take a principled position on the matter. A number of delegates had referred to the trigger mechanism by which the Human Rights Council was becoming a tool for some countries, who were not interested in dialogue, to use to attack other countries. The resolution was being used to establish a pattern that would permanently endanger all developing countries. Cuba called for a greater spirit of cooperation and an opportunity for the country in question to clarify matters. “We are trying to ensure that a precedent is not being set here,” he stressed.

Making a general statement, a representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea reiterated his delegation’s support for the statement delivered by Cuba’s representative. He said that his country had consistently maintained its commitment to promoting and protecting its people’s rights and had fulfilled its obligations by taking sincere measures. Unfortunately, he said, the European Union and Japan had chosen to seek confrontation by enforcing a draft text that had no relevance whatsoever.

Also making a general statement, a representative of China said that his country had maintained that differences on human rights issues should be resolved through constructive dialogue. China was opposed to making human rights a pretext for political gains. The Council was not the right forum for dealing with such issues and China would support the amendment [“L.63”] tabled by Cuba.

Italy’s representative said that the amendment was not agreeable to the co-sponsors and, therefore, his delegation called for a vote on the amendment.

Japan’s representative also called for a vote on the amendment.

A representative of Belarus expressed support for the Non-Aligned Movement and said that her country rejected resolutions that had resulted in interferences in the internal affairs of a country. Country-specific resolutions, such as the one currently before the Committee, undermined sovereignty and, therefore, Belarus would vote in favour of Cuba’s amendment.

A representative of Venezuela said that his delegation supported the proposed amendment. The focus should be on taking a constructive approach to human rights issues. As a result, his country did not support politically motivated draft resolutions.

A representative of the Russian Federation said that the draft resolution was not a balanced document and the amendment proposed by Cuba would give it a more balanced nature. He reiterated his delegation’s opposition of country-specific resolutions. “This method of work is ineffective and is only likely to exacerbate conflict between Member States,” he concluded.

A representative of South Africa expressed support for the Cuban proposal and said the draft resolution was in itself contradictory. Politicization and referring matters to the Security Council were two issues of concern, he stressed, adding that the Security Council did not need to be advised by the General Assembly to discuss any issue related to peace and security.

Italy’s representative, also making a general statement before the vote on “L.63”, said that a lack of accountability at the national level left no option but to carry the issue to the international level. He pointed out that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had shown no willingness to cooperate with the human rights mechanisms.

In a general statement, Japan’s representative stated that there were systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Therefore, his delegation could not agree with the amendment proposed by Cuba, which he said was a huge step backwards.

A representative of Iran said that the draft resolution could create a dangerous precedent. Paragraphs 7 and 8 were against the United Nations Charter and the principle of cooperation. The Security Council was not the place for considering human rights issues, she said. For its part, Iran would vote in favour of the amendment.

The United States representative, speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, said that her delegation was opposed to the proposed amendment, which would strip the resolution of crucial language regarding accountability. The United States had listened to recent overtures for dialogue by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, she said, “but we have heard this before.” The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea must stop committing human rights violations instead of offering words, she stressed, calling on all Member States to vote against the amendment.

A representative of Albania, also speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, said that the amendment would eliminate two important paragraphs based on the fact that the Commission of Inquiry had not made a visit to the country. But as the Commission itself had reported, despite numerous efforts, the Commission had received no response from the country. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was a country with a dark past, he said, and its violations had no parallel in the contemporary world. He invited all countries to vote against the amendment.

A representative of Switzerland, speaking on behalf of Australia, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, said they would vote against the amendment proposed by Cuba and encouraged all Member States to do so.

A representative of Ecuador, also speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, said that the position of Ecuador on the amendment did not prejudice his country’s principled position on human rights. “We reject human rights violations wherever they occur,” he stressed. Nevertheless paragraphs 7 and 8 ran counter to the principle of cooperation in human rights. Therefore, Ecuador would vote in favour of the proposed amendment.

Taking action, the Committee then rejected the draft amendment “L.63” by a recorded vote of 40 in favour to 77 against, with 50 abstentions.

Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, Uruguay‘s representative said that her country had decided to co-sponsor the draft resolution on the human rights situation in Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. While Uruguay supported the work of the Commission of Inquiry, her country understood that the approval of that resolution [“L.28/Rev.1”] would not constitute a precedent in terms of referring issues to the Security Council.

Next the Committee turned to a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (document A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1).

Japan’s representative said the Commission of Inquiry had submitted an unprecedented and historic report on the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The findings were based on public hearings involving more than 80 victims and on 240 confidential interviews with witnesses, he said, which had concluded that systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations were being committed. One of the cases identified was the abduction of persons from foreign countries, he said, urging the secure and immediate return of those abductees and for those responsible for human rights violations to be held to account.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea‘s representative said that his delegation was profoundly grateful to those delegations that had supported the amendment [“L.63”]. Turning to the draft resolution under consideration [L.28/Rev.1”], he rejected it categorically and said that it had no relevance to genuine human rights protection. The report of the Commission of Inquiry was based on fabricated testimonies by a handful of defectors who had fled the country after committing crimes. The report was a compilation of groundless political allegations and had no credibility as an official United Nations document. His country had consistently prioritized dialogue, but the European Union and Japan were provoking confrontation by pushing ahead the draft resolution. People around the world remembered how the United States unleashed a “war against Yugoslavia” in the name of “humanitarian intervention”. The sponsors of the draft should be held responsible for destroying the opportunity for human rights cooperation, he said, calling on all Member States to vote against the draft.

Syria’s representative, speaking before the vote and associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, expressed regret that some States had imposed resolutions for political reasons. Some States had used pressure on others, threatening the foundations of their relations and destroying the common understanding on human rights, he added. He rejected the selective approach taken and efforts made to interfere in the affairs of other States, he said, describing them as actions that were incompatible with the United Nations Charter. Politicized resolutions were creating fewer opportunities to reinforce human rights around the world, he said, noting that the universal periodic review was the only mechanism to analyse human rights. He said his delegation would vote against the resolution.

Also speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, Iran’s representative said that the practice of country-specific resolutions and the exploitation of that mechanism for political ends were violations of the United Nations Charter. Her delegation would vote against all country-specific resolutions.

Also speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, Cuba’s representative said that his delegation had maintained a principled position against country-specific resolutions, especially when they had targeted developing countries. The application of double standards in considering human rights issues was what led to the disintegration of the Human Rights Commission. The Council and the universal periodic review provided a mechanism for genuine dialogue on human rights issues. His delegation would not be complicit in referring that issue to the Security Council and the International Criminal Court.

Also speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, a representative of Belarus said country-specific resolutions were not in line with the United Nations Charter and principles. The sponsors of such resolutions should not impose their own vision of implementing human rights, she added, saying her delegation would vote against the resolution.

Venezuela’s representative said he did not support politically motivated resolutions, as they were violations of the United Nations Charter. The practice of adopting politically motivated resolutions that were country-specific ignored the principle impartiality that should govern human rights mechanisms, he added. The submission of politically motivated resolutions was undermining the mandate of the Human Rights Council, he said, underlining that his delegation would vote against the resolution.

A representative of Ecuador reaffirmed the validity of the universal periodic review as the sole mechanism to analyse human rights situations as it was carried out in an equal and non-political footing. Targeting some States through country-specific resolutions did not improve the human rights situation and did not contribute to dialogue, he added, calling on all countries to make positive contributions to human rights mechanisms. He expressed his solidarity with the victims of human rights abuses and said Ecuador had abstained each year on the vote. However, the current draft resolution was not consistent and his delegation would, therefore, vote against it.

The Committee then approved the draft text by a recorded vote of 111 in favour to 19 against, with 55 abstentions.

Speaking in explanation of position after the vote, a representative of India said that his delegation had abstained from voting on the resolution as a whole. India had voted in favour of the amendment proposed by Cuba. India was also unable to sign the statute of the International Criminal Court because the statute did not allow the Court to be free from political interference. It also gave the Security Council powers that went beyond international laws. In the current resolution, operative paragraphs 7 and 8 were the very reasons that had prevented India from joining the Rome Statute. It was unfortunate that matters relating to human rights had been taken to a vote. The United Nations should be a venue for cooperation on this matter, not confrontation.

Speaking in explanation of position after the vote, a representative of Pakistan said that as a firm believer in the universality of human rights, his country emphasized that efforts to advance the agenda of human rights at the global level should be pursued in a spirit of dialogue and cooperation. Human rights violations were not confined to a single country. Pakistan was opposed to the practice of “naming and shaming” through country-specific resolutions. Referring matters to the International Criminal Court would further complicate the situation. Therefore, Pakistan had abstained from the vote.

Indonesia’s representative, speaking in explanation of position after the vote, said that the resolution could have been adopted without a vote as in the past years. There was a window of opportunity to achieve a consensus, but a lack of willingness from relevant parties had prevented that. His country recognized the importance of the Human Rights Council and of dialogue in addressing human rights issues. Therefore, his delegation had abstained from the vote.

Speaking in explanation of position after the vote, a representative of Myanmar said that his delegation, as a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, was opposed to country-specific resolutions. The universal periodic review process was the most dependable and uncontroversial mechanism for advancing human rights around the world. In line with that principled position, Myanmar had voted against the resolution.

Also speaking in explanation of position after the vote, a representative of Thailand said that her delegation had voted in favour of the draft resolution due to a concern for the worsening human rights situation, as reported by the Special Rapporteur. She welcomed the willingness of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to work with the human rights mechanism and receive the visit of the Special Rapporteur. She raised concerns on access to food, saying humanitarian assistance should be provided to all people without conditions. Despite its vote in favour of the draft text, she reaffirmed her support for genuine dialogue and positive engagement with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

A representative of Zimbabwe, also speaking in explanation of position after the vote, said that she did not agree with country-specific resolutions nor that the Security Council was the appropriate body to discuss human rights issues. She had voted in favour of the amendment of the text as she had rejected the precedent that would have been set by the operational paragraphs under discussion.

Also speaking in explanation of position after the vote, a representative of Malaysia said that he preferred constructive dialogue that respected the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. As the text of the draft resolution called for the Security Council to refer the situation of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the International Criminal Court, Malaysia believed constructive dialogue should take precedence before any punitive measures were sought, which was the reason his delegation had decided to abstain on the vote

Also speaking in explanation of position after the vote, Brazil’s representative said that his delegation had voted in favour of the resolution. The text had recognized that while the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had made progress in a deeper engagement with the United Nations human rights system, there was room for more improvement. While praising the Government’s decision to invite the Special Rapporteur to the country, Brazil was concerned at the conclusions in the report of the Commission of Inquiry and hoped that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would make further progress towards the enjoyment of human rights.

In explanation of position after the vote, a representative of Lao People’s Republic said that his delegation shared the position that country-specific resolutions were not the right method for advancing human rights. The current resolution went against the principles of non-politicization and respect for national sovereignty. The universal periodic review was the best mechanism for reviewing human rights in any country. Therefore, his delegation had voted against the resolution.

Also speaking in explanation of position after the vote, a representative of Viet Nam said that his delegation had voted against the resolution because constructive dialogue and discussion, through the universal periodic review mechanism, was the only and most appropriate way to examine a country’s human rights situation. Viet Nam would continue to condemn all acts of abduction and send sympathies to victims. His delegation called on the parties concerned to find a satisfactory solution through mutual dialogue.

Also speaking in explanation of position after the vote, Singapore’s representative said that her delegation had maintained a principled position against country-specific resolutions. Singapore’s abstention, however, did not mean her country condoned the mistreatment of citizens.

In explanation of position after the vote, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s representative said there was no further need for human rights dialogue with the European Union, as its only political objective was to eliminate the ideal social system of his country. Despite hostile forces, he added, the country would continue to safeguard its social system by all means.

Making a general statement, Norway’s representative said her delegation had supported the resolution due to deep concerns of human rights violations. Welcoming the cooperation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with the Special Rapporteur, she called on the country to follow through on it.

(...)

Voting Results on Display

화면상의 표결 결과

Amendment to A/C.3/69/L.28 (proposed by Cuba)

A/C.3/69/L.28에 대한 수정안 (쿠바의 제안)

Recorded Vote: Recorded vote on A/C.3/69/L.63 as orally revised

A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1

Recorded Vote: Recorded vote on A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1*

[Adopted Resolution/채택된 결의안]

Situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

조선민주주의인민공화국에서의 인권상황

A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1

United Nations

A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1*

General Assembly

Distr.: Limited

14 November 2014

Original: English

Sixty-ninth session

Third Committee

Agenda item 68 (c)

Promotion and protection of human rights: human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives

Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Palau, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and Uruguay and Vanuatu: revised draft resolution

Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

The General Assembly,

Deeply concerned at the grave human rights situation, the pervasive culture of impunity and the lack of accountability for human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,

Welcoming the report of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,[2] and expressing grave concern at the detailed findings contained therein,

Noting the transmission of the report of the commission of inquiry to the Security Council on 14 April 2014,

Recalling the responsibility of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to protect its population from crimes against humanity,

Taking note of the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, regretting that he still has not been allowed to visit the country and that he has received no cooperation from the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and taking note also of the comprehensive report of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea submitted in accordance with resolution 68/183,

Mindful that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,[3] the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,³ the Convention on the Rights of the Child[4] and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,[5] and recalling the concluding observations of the treaty bodies under the four treaties,

Noting with appreciation the signature of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities[6] and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography[7] by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, encouraging the Government to take speedy steps to ratify the Convention and the Optional Protocol, and urging the Government to fully respect the rights of persons with disabilities and children,

Acknowledging the participation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the second universal periodic review process, noting the Government’s acceptance of 113 out of the 268 recommendations contained in the outcome of the review[8] and its stated commitment to implement them and look into the possibility of implementing a further 58 recommendations, and emphasizing the importance of the implementation of the recommendations in order to address the grave human rights violations in the country,

Noting also the cooperation between the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the World Food Programme, the United Nations Children’s Fund and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on food security assessments, underscoring the importance of those assessments in analysing changes in the national, household and individual food security and nutritional situation and thereby in supporting donor confidence in the targeting of aid programmes, noting further the letter of understanding signed by the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the World Food Programme and the importance of further improvements in operating conditions, bringing access and monitoring arrangements closer to international standards for all United Nations entities, and noting with appreciation the work of international aid operators,

Noting the importance of the inter-Korean dialogue, which could contribute to the improvement of the human rights and humanitarian situation in the country,

1. Condemns the long-standing and ongoing systematic, widespread and gross violations of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including those which the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, established by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 22/13 of 21 March 2013,[9] has said may amount to crimes against humanity, and the continuing impunity for such violations;

2. Expresses its very serious concern at:

(a) The persistence of continuing reports of violations of human rights, including the detailed findings made by the commission of inquiry in its report, such as:

(iv) The situation of refugees and asylum seekers expelled or returned to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and sanctions imposed on citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea who have been repatriated from abroad, leading to punishments of internment, torture, other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, sexual violence or the death penalty, and in this regard strongly urges all States to respect the fundamental principle of
non-refoulement, to treat those who seek refuge humanely and to ensure unhindered access to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and his Office, with a view to protecting the human rights of those who seek refuge, and once again urges States parties to comply with their obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees[10] and the 1967 Protocol thereto[11] in relation to refugees from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea who are covered by those instruments;

(x) Violations of workers’ rights, including the right to freedom of association and effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, the right to strike as defined by the obligations of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,³ and the prohibition of the economic exploitation of children and of any harmful or hazardous work of children as defined by the obligations of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea under the Convention on the Rights of the Child;⁴

(xi) Discrimination based on the songbun system, which classifies people on the basis of State-assigned social class and birth, and also includes consideration of political opinions and religion;

(b) The continued refusal of the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to recognize the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or to extend cooperation to the Special Rapporteur;

4. Expresses its very deep concern at the precarious humanitarian situation in the country, which could rapidly deteriorate owing to limited resilience to natural disasters and to government policies causing limitations in the availability of and access to food, compounded by structural weaknesses in agricultural production resulting in significant shortages of diversified food and the State restrictions on the cultivation and trade in foodstuffs, as well as the prevalence of chronic malnutrition, particularly among the most vulnerable groups, pregnant women, children, persons with disabilities and the elderly, and urges the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in this regard, to take preventive and remedial action, cooperating where necessary with international donor agencies and in accordance with international standards for monitoring humanitarian assistance;

5. Commends the Special Rapporteur for the activities undertaken so far and for his continued efforts in the conduct of his mandate despite the denial of access;

10. Calls upon Member States to undertake to ensure that the field-based structure of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights can function with independence, that it has sufficient resources and that it is not subjected to any reprisals or threats;

11. Strongly urges the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to respect fully all human rights and fundamental freedoms and, in this regard:

(b) To protect its inhabitants, address the issue of impunity and ensure that those responsible for violations of human rights are brought to justice before an independent judiciary;

(c) To tackle the root causes leading to refugee outflows and prosecute those who exploit refugees by human smuggling, trafficking and extortion, while not criminalizing the victims;

(g) To engage in cooperation with the International Labour Organization;

(h) To continue and reinforce its cooperation with United Nations humanitarian agencies;

(k) To consider ratifying and acceding to remaining international human rights treaties, which would enable a dialogue with the human rights treaty bodies;

12. Urges the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to implement the recommendations of the commission of inquiry without delay;

13. Encourages all Member States, the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Secretariat, civil society organizations, foundations and engaged business enterprises and other stakeholders towards which the commission of inquiry has directed recommendations to implement or take forward those recommendations;

14. Welcomes the recent willingness expressed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to consider human rights dialogues with States and groups of States, technical cooperation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and a country visit of the Special Rapporteur;

15. Calls upon the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to continue engaging constructively with international interlocutors with a view to promoting concrete improvements in the human rights situation on the ground, including through dialogues, official visits to the country and more people-to-people contact;

* Reissued for technical reasons on 18 November 2014.

[1] See Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-ninth Session, Supplement No. 53 (A/69/53), chap. II, sect. A.

[2] A/HRC/25/63.

[3] See resolution 2200 A (XXI), annex.

[4] United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, No. 27531.

[5] Ibid., vol. 1249, No. 20378.

[6] Ibid., vol. 2515, No. 44910.

[7] Ibid., vol. 2171, No. 27531.

[8] A/HRC/27/10.

[9] See Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 53 (A/68/53), chap. IV, sect. A.

[10] United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 189, No. 2545.

[11] Ibid., vol. 606, No. 8791.

[12] A/HRC/13/13.

Cuba's Amendment to A/C.3/69/L.28

A/C.3/69/L.28에 대한 쿠바의 개정안

A/C.3/69/L.63

United Nations

A/C.3/69/L.63

General Assembly

Distr.: Limited

13 November 2014

Original: English

Sixty-ninth session

Third Committee

Agenda item 68 (c)

Promotion and protection of human rights:

human rights situations and reports of special

rapporteurs and representatives

Cuba: amendment to draft resolution A/C.3/69/L.28

Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

Delete operative paragraphs 7 and 8 and insert a new operative paragraph 7 reading as follows:

Decides to adopt a new cooperative approach to the consideration of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that will enable: (a) the establishment of dialogues by representatives of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with States and groups of States interested in the issue; (b) the development of technical cooperation between the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; and (c) the visit of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the country;

[Third Committee's Report to the Plenary/본회의에 제출하는 제3위원회 보고서]

A/69/488/Add.3

Item 68 (c):
Human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives

United Nations

A/69/488/Add.3

General Assembly

Distr.: General

3 December 2014

Original: English

Sixty-ninth session

Agenda item 68 (c)

* The report of the Committee on this item is being issued in five parts, under the symbol A/69/488 and Add.1-4.

Promotion and protection of human rights: human

rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs

and representatives

Report of the Third Committee*

Rapporteur: Mr. Ervin Nina (Albania)

II. Consideration of proposals

A. Draft resolutions A/C.3/69/L.28 and Rev.1 and amendment thereto contained in document A/C.3/69/L.63

10. At the same meeting, the representative of Italy made a statement and announced that Maldives, the Marshall Islands, New Zealand and Serbia had joined in sponsoring the draft resolution.

Action on the amendment contained in document A/C.3/69/L.63

11. At the 46th meeting, on 18 November, the Chair drew the attention of the Committee to the amendment submitted to draft resolution A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1, as contained in document A/C.3/69/L.63.

12. At the same meeting, the representative of Cuba made a statement and orally revised the amendment (see A/C.3/69/SR.46).

14. The representative of Italy also made a statement, in which he requested a recorded vote on the amendment, as orally revised.

15. At the same meeting, the Committee rejected the amendment contained in document A/C.3/69/L.63, as orally revised, by a recorded vote of 77 to 40, with
50 abstentions. The voting was as follows:

In favour:

Against:

Abstaining:

Action on draft resolution A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1

17. At the 47th meeting, on 18 November, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea made a statement and requested a recorded vote on the draft resolution.

In favour:

Against:

Abstaining:

[1] Subsequently, the delegation of Grenada indicated that it had intended to vote in favour.

(...)

III. Recommendations of the Third Committee

36. The Third Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of the following draft resolutions:

Draft resolution I

Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic

of Korea

(...)

Source:

http://www.un.org/en/ga/third/69/votingsheets.shtml

http://www.un.org/en/ga/third/69/proposalstatus.shtml

저작자표시 비영리

http://webtv.un.org/search/general-assembly-34th-plenary-meeting-69th-session-reports-of-the-icj-icc/3868562661001

[UN 총회] 국제형사재판소 소장 연간보고서 발표

카테고리 없음

2014. 10. 30. 00:00

UN General Assembly

69th Session

Item 73: Report of the International Criminal Court

UN 총회

제69차 회기

안건 73: 국제형사재판소 보고서

34th Plenary Meeting

30 October 2014

제34차 본회의

2014. 10. 30.

[Full Video/전체영상]

[1:31:50 - 2:06:17]

Judge Sang-Hyun SONG, President of the International Criminal Court (ICC): Presentation of the ICC's 10th annual report on its activities in 2013/2014 to the General Assembly

국제형사재판소 소장 송상현 재판관: UN 총회에 국제형사재판소 제10차 연간보고서 발표

[2:06:17 - End]

List of Speakers/발언자 목록:

EUROPEAN UNION
TRINIDAD AND TOBACO
MALAWI
SWEDEN
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
SWITZERLAND
KENYA

[Excerpts/발췌]

http://webtv.un.org/search/judge-sang-hyun-song-icc-general-assembly-34th-plenary-meeting-69th-session/3867697738001

Judge Sang-Hyun SONG, President of the International Criminal Court (ICC): Presentation of the ICC's 10th annual report on its activities in 2013/2014 to the General Assembly

국제형사재판소 소장 송상현 재판관: UN 총회에 국제형사재판소 제10차 연간보고서 발표

35th Plenary Meeting

31 October 2014, morning

제35차 본회의

2014. 10. 31. 오전

http://webtv.un.org/search/general-assembly-35th-plenary-meeting-69th-session-report-of-the-icc/3869185863001

[00:00 - End]

List of Speakers (cont'd)/발언자 목록 (계속):
AUSTRALIA
NEW ZEALAND
LIECHTENSTEIN
CANADA
ROMANIA
SUDAN
PHILLIPINES
GUATEMALA
MEXICO
SLOVENIA
POLAND
JAPAN
HUNGARY
SOUTH AFRICA
ALGERIA
NIGERIA
URUGUAY
CUBA
LIBYA
UNITED STATES
ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
MADAGASCAR
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
COLOMBIA
COSTA RICA

36th Plenary Meeting

31 October 2014, afternoon

제36차 본회의

2014. 10. 31. 오후

http://webtv.un.org/search/general-assembly-36th-plenary-meeting-69th-session-report-of-the-icc-sport-for-development-and-peace/3869301690001

[00:00 - 49:34]

List of Speakers (cont'd)/발언자 목록 (계속):
GEORGIA
SPAIN
ESTONIA
UGANDA
MONTENEGRO

Rights of Reply/반론권:

Syria

Turkey

[Annual Report/연간보고서]

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/69/321

[Statement/연설문]

http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/presidency/UNGA-PS-30-10-2014-Eng.pdf

Judge Sang-Hyun Song
President of the International Criminal Court
Annual Report to the United Nations General Assembly

30 October 2014

Check against delivery

Mr President, Excellencies, Distinguished delegates, Ladies and gentlemen,

Forty-one years ago, this Assembly passed Resolution 30741) which recognized the “special need for international action in order to ensure the prosecution and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity”.

During the past year, the International Criminal Court has been busy engaging in exactly such international action, and I am honoured to present to you today the ICC’s 10th annual report to the United Nations.

We have reached many milestones in the last 12 months.

We now have a first final judgment and sentence, a conviction in the case of Mr Germain Katanga.

The number of investigations has grown from 8 to 9, and there are an unprecedented six cases at the trial stage of proceedings.

The ICC has issued the first final ruling that grants an admissibility challenge by a State, giving way to domestic proceedings.

The Court has launched its first proceedings on allegations of witness interference.

Ukraine became the second non-State party to lodge a declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC.

Another 7 States Parties have ratified the amendments to the Rome Statute on the crime of aggression, and 6 States Parties have ratified the amendments which make the use of certain weapons in non-international conflicts a war crime punishable by the ICC.

Mr. President,

Let me give a brief overview of the situations in which the ICC is involved.

The first phase in any situation before the ICC is a preliminary examination by the Prosecutor, who will assess whether the legal and factual conditions for opening an investigation are met.

This does not mean the matter must go to the ICC.

As you know, the Rome Statute is built on the principle of complementarity. Domestic courts have jurisdictional primacy – the ICC is a court of last resort.

And indeed during the preliminary examination phase, the national authorities retain the primary responsibility to make sure that any credible allegations are addressed in a genuine manner - which would make an ICC investigation unnecessary.

This is an integral part of the Rome Statute system’s impact – encouraging national proceedings as a consequence of the ICC’s involvement.

During the reporting period, the Prosecutor’s office opened preliminary examinations in Central African Republic, Ukraine and Iraq, and closed the one in the Republic of Korea, finding that the requirements for an investigation were not met.

In Afghanistan, the Prosecutor’s office found reasonable basis to believe that crimes against humanity and war crimes have been committed, and she accordingly expanded the examination to include admissibility issues.

Preliminary examinations also continued in Colombia, Guinea, Honduras, Nigeria, and the Gaza Flotilla situation following the referral by the Union of Comoros.

In the situation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, several important developments occurred during the last year.

Mr Germain Katanga was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment after he was found guilty of war crimes and a crime against humanity in connection with the attack on the village of Bogoro in Ituri province which took place on 24 February 2003. The verdict and the sentence became final as both parties withdrew their appeals. Proceedings on reparations for victims have begun.

13 charges of war crimes and 5 charges of crimes against humanity were confirmed against Mr. Bosco Ntaganda. His trial is scheduled to start in June next year.

The Appeals Chamber expects to deliver in the months ahead its judgments on the final appeals in the cases of Mr Lubanga and Mr Ngudjolo.

In the situation in the Central African Republic, final arguments in the trial of Mr Jean Pierre Bemba are expected next month.

However Mr Bemba, together with four other persons, is also a suspect in a separate, related case concerning allegations of false evidence and corruptly influencing witnesses.

These proceedings regarding offences against the administration of justice are unprecedented at the ICC. They demonstrate that the Court takes witness interference very seriously.

In light of the recent tragic events in the Central African Republic, and following a new referral by its Government, the Prosecutor has decided to open new investigations there.

In the situation in Uganda, Joseph Kony and his three co-suspects regrettably remain at large.

In the situation in Darfur, Sudan, Trial Chamber IV issued an arrest warrant for Mr Abdallah Banda in light of information that the Government of Sudan would not cooperate in facilitating the accused’s presence at trial. Further exchanges are

taking place with regard to the accused’s ability and willingness to appear in court. He is charged with alleged crimes in connection with an attack on African Union peacekeeping forces in Haskanita.

The four other suspects in the situation of Darfur still remain at large.

In the situation in Kenya, the trial of Mr Ruto and Mr Sang continues. In the case of Mr Kenyatta, several motions by the parties are pending before the Trial Chamber after the recent status conference. In the case of Mr Walter Barasa, regarding allegations of corruptly influencing a witness, the ICC awaits his surrender to the Court by the Kenyan authorities.

In the situation in Libya, the Appeals Chamber upheld the admissibility decisions of Pre-Trial Chamber I in the two cases before the Court.

In the case of Mr Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, the judges found that Libya had failed to demonstrate that its domestic investigation covered the same case that is before the ICC. Consequently, Libya is under a duty to proceed immediately with the surrender of Mr Gaddafi.

On the other hand, the Appeals Chamber confirmed the Pre-Trial Chamber’s ruling that the ICC’s case against Mr Abdullah Al-Senussi was inadmissible, as it was subject to ongoing domestic proceedings conducted by the competent Libyan authorities, and Libya is genuinely willing and able to carry out such proceedings on the same allegations as those before the ICC.

These decisions are an important addition to the growing jurisprudence which gives concrete shape to the principle of complementarity between the ICC and national jurisdictions.

In the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, Pre-Trial Chamber I confirmed four charges of crimes against humanity against Mr Laurent Gbagbo. The trial date will be set in due course. In the case of Ms Simone Gbagbo, an admissibility challenge filed by the government of Côte d’Ivoire is pending.

Mr Charles Blé Goudé was transferred to the ICC in March this year, following the unsealing of the arrest warrant. A decision on the confirmation of charges is pending.

Finally, in the situation in Mali, the investigation by the Prosecutor’s Office continues with an emphasis on the three northern regions.

Mr President,

This month marks 10 years of the Relationship Agreement between the ICC and the United Nations. I would like to express the ICC’s sincere gratitude to the UN for all the support and cooperation that we have long enjoyed.

We share the same core values. Both organisations are based on the ideals of peace, security and respect for human rights, and the realisation that these goals can only be attained through the rule of law and international cooperation.

Just as peace and justice go hand in hand, so must the UN and the ICC. Our partnership is indispensable for a strong international community and the protection of the interests of humanity as a whole.

As President of the ICC, it has been one of my priorities to nurture this important relationship. I am very proud of the effective cooperation that we enjoy today in a wide range of areas, and we are keen to explore ways to develop it further.

Where the fundamental building blocks of society threaten to break down, we often see the UN and the ICC working side by side, with mutually supportive mandates. We greatly appreciate the assistance we receive from the UN in the field, on a reimbursable basis.

At the level of the broader Rome Statute system, the UN and its specialized agencies make important contributions to strengthening the capacity of national judiciaries – which in turn helps States provide effective cooperation to the ICC.

Mr President,

Winds of renewal are blowing at the ICC.

The permanent premises of the ICC are fast rising in the dunes along the North Sea and the Court looks forward to moving into its new, purpose-built home before the end of 2015.

Next year, the remaining four judges from the very first generation of 2003 will leave the ICC.

I do see it as a great strength of the ICC that we rejuvenate our judicial bench with six new judges every three years. This guarantees a balance of continuity and fresh energy.

Many reforms are now taking place at the ICC.

Drawing lessons from the first wave of pre-trial and trial proceedings, the Judges are streamlining the criminal process through practical innovations.

The Prosecutor has introduced a new strategic plan, adapting her approach to investigations and prosecutions in light of the experiences of the first cases.

The Registrar is overhauling the support structures of the Court so as to serve the judicial proceedings in the most effective and efficient way, and to strengthen the ICC’s presence in the field.

The ICC is an institution in constant movement, and so it must be if we wish to respond effectively to the ever-changing challenges we face.

But we cannot do it alone. Ultimately, the Rome Statute is only as strong as States make it. You hold the key to unlocking the ICC’s full potential. The Court has no enforcement powers of its own.

We have the committed support of 122 States Parties. I would also like to acknowledge the significant contributions that have been made by a number of non-States Parties in extending highly valuable cooperation to the ICC.

As President of the Court I have reached out to many states not yet party to encourage them to join the Rome Statute.

I have spoken with government leaders, parliamentarians, legal professionals as well as civil society. I have drawn their attention to the legal protection and deterrent effect that the Rome Statute provides. I have underlined the principle of non-retroactivity, which means that joining the ICC is an insurance policy for a safer future, not a method for settling old scores.

I have highlighted the numerous checks and balances built into the ICC’s legal framework – and I have stressed how the values of the Rome Statute reflect global solidarity and commitment to peace, security and international law.

I am delighted that over recent years the ICC family has gained many new members, and I hope and believe that this process will continue. It is only by steadily building global support for the Rome Statute system that we will achieve its ultimate aim of universality, with the corollary of no hiding place for the perpetrators of international crimes.

In this context it is of great concern to me that requests for arrest and surrender issued by the ICC remain outstanding for 13 persons, some of them since 2005.

Nine years at large is an affront to justice, to victims, and to the global community which wants to see those suspected of the most atrocious crimes face the charges against them.

But the suspects should not think that they have evaded justice. We have seen fugitives from international courts arrested after much longer periods of time.

None of this is meant to undermine the presumption of innocence. It remains a cornerstone of the ICC’s proceedings at all times, together with legality and due process. But the only way for suspects to make the charges go away is to confront them at the ICC, in scrupulously fair proceedings before a court of law.

Just as the ICC respects the rights of the suspects and accused, we also strive to provide justice to victims.

Parallel to the judicial proceedings at the Court, the Trust Fund for Victims provides a very concrete response to the urgent needs of numerous victims of crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC. The Trust Fund’s programmes of physical and psychological assistance, as well as material support, are implemented by locally based partners and currently support over 110,000 victims, their families and communities in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The empowerment of women and girls is a fundamental requirement of any justice, reconciliation and peace-building process. Over 5,000 Trust Fund beneficiaries are survivors of sexual and gender-based violence.

The following is a testimony of Salima, a victim of sexual violence in South Kivu, DRC, and a beneficiary of a Trust Fund supported project.

“We had no experience in business. Little by little I learned through training to conduct my small business. Now, I have two plots of land, and I have a husband! My husband had his own children and I came with mine, and all have been educated. On one of my plots, I built a house for my children. I do my small trade and I’m contributing to the development of my community.”

The Trust Fund depends upon donations, which may also be needed to fund reparations when a convicted person is indigent. Once again I thank those States that have generously supported the ICC’s Trust Fund for Victims with voluntary contributions, and I call upon others to consider doing so, for the benefit of the victims.

Mr President, Excellencies, Distinguished delegates, Ladies and gentlemen,

This is the last speech I will give before this Assembly on behalf of the International Criminal Court. My mandate as Judge and President will come to an end next March.

It has been a tremendous honour to serve the ICC in its historic, formative phase.

When the first 18 judges of the ICC gathered at the interim premises of the ICC in The Hague eleven years ago, we were not certain about the future of the Court.

Would we be able to turn the ICC from a court on paper into an active judicial institution? Would States embrace the Court’s mandate in practice? Would the ICC be able to make a difference, have an impact?

My firm belief is that the answer to all these questions is a resounding “Yes”.

What used to be an idea is now a reality.

We now have a permanent international body that can hear allegations of large-scale international crimes, and investigate and prosecute such acts when justice cannot be achieved in national courts.

The ICC has launched investigations in response to four referrals by States, two referrals by the Security Council, and a declaration accepting jurisdiction by one non-State party at the time.

Our cases involve hundreds of thousands of victims.

The ICC’s growing jurisprudence of international criminal law builds on the historic achievements of the ad hoc tribunals and mixed courts established or supported by the United Nations. We have broken new ground on issues such as the use of child soldiers and gender-based violence.

The ICC is responding to humanity’s call for justice, helping to change the world for the better.

Instead of being a rare exception, accountability for international crimes has become something that communities, victims and societies around the world expect and demand, in keeping with that resolve which this Assembly expressed four decades ago in its Resolution 3074.

The perpetrators of mass killings, deportation, attacks on civilians and rape as a weapon of war can no longer count on impunity.

Today, the prospect of international prosecution helps deter the deadliest and most atrocious acts imaginable.

But we are still far from ending impunity. Billions of people fall outside the protective cover of the Rome Statute, and atrocities are rampant in some parts of our shared planet.

It is my dream to see the entire world united in a strong system of international criminal justice that will, above all, help us prevent the worst crimes from happening altogether.

Without the rule of law, there cannot be justice, there cannot be sustainable peace, and there cannot be universal respect for human rights.

I appeal to the 31 signatory States as well as other non-States parties to the Rome Statute to seriously think about joining the ICC.

Give the gift of hope to the children, men and women of tomorrow.

Thank you.

1) General Assembly resolution 3074 (XXVIII) of 3 December 1973

[Meetings Coverage and Press Releases/회의취재 및 보도자료]

30 October 2014

GA/11576

As General Assembly Takes up International Courts’ Annual Reports, Delegates Commend Contributions to Rule of Law, Debate Challenges Facing Mandates

Sixty-ninth session,

33rd & 34th Meetings (AM & PM)

During a day-long debate in the General Assembly today, delegations took up the reports of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, commending those bodies for their contributions towards making the rule of law paramount in international relations, while considering challenges faced when carrying out their respective mandates.

More than 38 speakers delivered statements on the two Courts, whose work ranged from maritime border disputes to crimes against humanity.

Peter Tomka, President of the International Court of Justice, also referred to as the World Court, told the Assembly that when faced with cases with a high scientific content or where the factual background was a particularly complex one, the Court had made increasing use of the deliberation procedure provided for in article 1 of the resolution concerning the Internal Judicial Practice of the Court. Such deliberations effectively enabled the Court to identify any issue on which it would like further explanation or clarification during the hearings on the substance of the case. The World Court had held such a deliberation of the Whaling in the Antarctic case, as well as in other cases.

Japan’s representative, whose Government had been party to the Whaling case, told the Assembly that although the decision, which stated Japan’s whaling research programme did not fall within the relevant article of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, had been disappointing, his Government was abiding by the Court’s Judgment.

The theme of respectfully accepting the World Court’s judgment as just and fair, no matter the outcome, was also evident in Thailand’s response to a judgment issued on a land dispute with Cambodia centring on a temple. That country’s representative said that during the World Court’s oral proceedings and the reading of the Judgment last year, the Thai public had followed the proceedings through live broadcast from The Hague, with simultaneous interpretation into the Thai language. The role of the World Court as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations had thus become better understood in his country.

The representative of Peru said that the settlement of the maritime border dispute with Chile, which had been handed down this year, had been the quickest in the history of the Court, as both parties pinpointed the geographic coordinates of the maritime border. That work had been done within two months of the ruling. The manner in which the proceedings were conducted should serve as an example for the international community.

The Philippines representative also emphasized that if there was anything that the Charter, together with the Statute, jurisprudence and experience of the World Court had taught Member States, it was that “small nations”, if their cause was just, should have no fear of the “big Powers” because it was through the work of the Court that the rule of law had a chance to prevail, a point echoed by Germany, whose representative noted that the existence of the International Court of Justice and its success was the very antithesis of the idea, “might is right”.

During the debate on the International Criminal Court, its President, Sang‑Hyun Song, said that joining the Criminal Court was an insurance policy for a safer future, not a method for settling old scores. It was only through steadily building global support for the Rome Statute system that universality would be achieved, with no hiding place for the perpetrators of international crimes.

As peace and justice went hand in hand, so must the United Nations and the Criminal Court, he said. The partnership was indispensable for a strong international community and the protection of the interests of humanity as a whole. The Rome Statute was only as strong as States made it. Speaking directly to delegations, he said that they had the key to unlocking the Criminal Court’s full potential.

Kenya’s representative, nonetheless, took issue with the Criminal Court’s interpretation of the Rome Statute, saying that it was counterproductive and antagonistic to the Statue’s ideals. The Criminal Court had been created as an international institution meant to work for all signatory Member States, irrespective of size, wealth or political dispensation. Yet, the Court seemed driven by the parochial issues and political objectives of a small group of Member States.

However, the representative of Trinidad and Tobago, speaking for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), reminded those who had failed to honour their legally binding obligations to execute arrest warrants issued by the Court, and arrest and surrender individuals, that they were contributing to a culture of impunity and undermining the rule of law. No individual or State should fear the Criminal Court as it was a court of last resort.

Prior to consideration of the reports on the International Courts, a moment of silence was observed in memory of President Michael Chilufya Sata of Zambia, who passed away on 28 October of this year. Zambia’s representative said that the late President was a “grassroots politician in the true sense of the word”. His contribution to Zambia’s continued peace and tranquillity was unparalleled.

Delegations also offered remembrances of President Sata, with Malawi’s representative, speaking for the African States, underscoring that, “he devoted his whole life to the people of his country, the African countries and the whole world.” Calling attention to his work for the poor of Zambia, the representative of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), detailed how President Sata had carried out policies for the “have-nots”. “The world has lost a great politician,” he said.

Also paying tribute were representatives of Bolivia (on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China), Estonia (on behalf of the Eastern European States), Grenada (for the Latin American and Caribbean States), Sweden (on behalf of the Western European and other States) and the United States.

Also delivering statements were representatives of Iran (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), South Africa (on behalf of the African Group), Canada, Switzerland, Cuba, Romania, Sudan, Mexico, France, India, Nicaragua, Uganda, Nigeria, Chile, Uruguay, United States, Morocco, Madagascar, Russian Federation, Costa Rica, Algeria, Bolivia, Jamaica, Malaysia, Cambodia, Sweden (on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway) and the Republic of Korea. A representative of the European Union also delivered a statement.

The representative of Sudan spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The General Assembly will meet again at 10 a.m. on Friday, 31 October, to continue its discussion of the annual report of the International Criminal Court.

Background

The General Assembly met today to consider the work of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court over the past year.

Before them were the reports of the International Court of Justice (document A/69/4); the Secretary-General’s report on the International Court of Justice (document A/69/337); a note by the Secretary-General on the International Criminal Court (document A/69/321); and reports by the Secretary-General on the International Criminal Court (documents A/69/324 and A/69/372).

The General Assembly also had before it a draft resolution (document A/69/L.5) entitled “Sport as a means to promote education, health, development and peace”.

International Court of Justice

PETER TOMKA, President of the International Court of Justice, said that during the reporting period, the total number of contentious cases pending before the Court was 13, of which hearings were held in four. Currently deliberating the merits of the case concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), the World Court was in the process of drafting its Judgment, which it planned to deliver ahead of the triennial renewal of its composition in February 2015.

Reporting on the Court’s main decisions during the last year, he said that the first Judgment to be delivered during the period under review was given on 11 November 2013 in the case concerning the Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand). Giving details of the case, he said that in the operative part of its Judgment, the Court found that Cambodia had sovereignty over the whole territory of the promontory of Preah Vihear, as previously defined, and that, in consequence, Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw from that territory its military or police forces, or other guards or keepers stationed there.

On a third Judgment concerning Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), he said that while the scientific research programme “JARPA II” under which Japan was accused by Australia of “continued pursuit of a large-scale program of whaling” could generally be characterized as a “scientific research” programme, the World Court concluded that the special permits granted by Japan for the killing, taking and treating of whales in connection with JARPA II were not “for purposes of scientific research” pursuant to article VIII, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

The World Court had made increasing use of the deliberation procedure provided for in article 1 of the resolution concerning the Internal Judicial Practice of the Court, he said. The deliberation effectively enabled the Court to identify any issue on which it would like further explanation or clarification during the hearings on the substance of the case. It was a procedure which was particularly useful in cases with a high scientific content or where the factual background was a particularly complex one. The World Court had held such a deliberation of the Whaling case, as well as in other cases.

During the reporting period, the World Court had also handed down three Orders, which he briefly presented, before turning to new cases. In one of them, the Marshall Islands had filed nine applications with the Court Registry, in which it accused nine States of failing to perform their obligations with respect to nuclear disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date. The number of new cases submitted brought the total number of cases currently on the World Court’s docket to 14.

He drew the attention to the importance of Member States in the composition of the World Court. They were called upon to choose and elect members of the Court. Thus, the quality of the principal judicial organ of the United Nations was dependent on Member States’ contribution in that respect. The number of States having made a declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the World Court as compulsory under Article 36 had remained at 70 during the period of review. He reiterated his invitation to the attendant diplomats to seek to encourage recourse to the World Court for the settlement of disputes.

Statements

GHOLAMHOSSEIN DEHGHANI (Iran), speaking for the Non-Aligned Movement, commended the International Court of Justice for its role in promoting the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Pointing out that the Security Council had not sought an advisory opinion from that body since 1970, he urged the 15‑nation body to make greater use of the World Court as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, as a source both of advisory opinions and the interpretation of relevant norms of international law, as well as on controversial issues. He further urged that the Council consider having its decisions reviewed by the Court, bearing in mind the need to ensure their adherence to the Charter and international law.

He also invited the General Assembly, other organs of the United Nations and specialized agencies duly authorized, to request advisory opinions of the Court on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities. He then reaffirmed the importance of the World Court’s unanimous opinion on the “Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons” that determined there was an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all aspects under strict and effective international control. In addition, he called upon Israel to respect the Court’s advisory opinion on “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” and on all States to respect the provisions therein.

JEREMIAH NYAMANE KINGSLEY MAMABOLO (South Africa), speaking for the African Group, said the World Court was the preeminent mechanism for the peaceful settlement of disputes at the international level. Its judgments and advisory opinions in accordance with its Statute contributed to the promotion and clarification of international law. He welcomed the confidence that States had shown in the Court’s ability to resolve their disputes, noting that the number of cases currently pending on its docket was a reflection of the esteem with which the States held the World Court. The Court continued to attract a wide range of cases, covering many areas, including cases pertaining to the demarcation of boundaries, such as the case that had been initiated by Peru versus Chile in January 2008.

It also dealt with incidental proceedings which were tending to grow in numbers, including requests for the indication of preliminary and provisional measures, such as that submitted by Timor-Leste in December 2013 in its case versus Australia, he said. In March of this year, the Court’s judgment in the case Australia versus Japan had contributed to the body of law governing the environment, particularly in respect of the Law of the Sea. The importance of advisory opinions on legal questions referred to the World Court could not be overstated in the pursuit of peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the Charter. It was therefore disappointing that during the period under review, no requests for advisory opinions had been made.

GILES NORMAN (Canada) also speaking for Australia and New Zealand, welcomed Member States’ willingness to turn to the World Court for peaceful settlement of their disputes and encouraged those who had not done so to accept its compulsory jurisdiction. That would enable it to fulfil its role more effectively, reducing jurisdictional disputes and allowing it to focus more on the substance of disputes.

He went on to unreservedly endorse the candidature of James Crawford for one of the two judicial vacancies of the Western European and other States Group that would be filled through a vote on 6 November. Urging support for that candidacy, he pointed out that Mr. Crawford had been the recipient of 27 nominations from the national groups of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, an indication of the esteem he held among the international legal fraternity.

VALENTIN ZELLWEGER (Switzerland) said that to encourage more Member States to recognize the World Court’s jurisdiction, his country, along with the Netherlands and the Secretariat, and other countries, had drawn up a practical guide underlining the Court’s benefits. Recently completed, it had been sent to all permanent missions in New York this week. An electronic version would soon be available in English, French and Spanish on the website of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (www.fdfa.ch) and, in 2015, a brochure would be available in other United Nations languages. Member States had three options to recognize the Court’s jurisdiction, fully explained in the brochure. They were: unilaterally accepting its jurisdiction; accepting its jurisdiction by treaty; or referring a dispute to the Court by compromise.

MANUEL DE JESÚS PÍREZ PÉREZ (Cuba), associating his delegation with the Non‑Aligned Movement, underscored his country’s commitment to the peaceful settlement of international disputes. In that regard, he recognized the work of the International Court of Justice for its work on the cases before it and its efforts towards the development of international law. Those cases were testament to the peaceful settlement of disputes. However, he noted with regret that there had been one decision involving a violation of the Charter, emphasizing that Members were required to abide by the Court’s decisions. Thus, there was concern that the effectiveness of the Court’s decisions could be criticized when some countries flouted them. Reform was needed to develop more guarantees for developing countries in enforcing the Court judgements. His Government gave great importance to the Court’s opinions, including its 1996 one on the threat of nuclear weapons in which the Court saw a need to conclude negotiations with strict international monitoring. He called for the necessary budget for the International Court of Justice and for the timely provision of resources.

SIMONA MIRELA MICULESCU (Romania) observed that the World Court’s decisions in the maritime dispute between Chile and Peru had been made after a painstakingly detailed analysis of agreements and other instruments. The current docket bore witness to the increased trust of the States in the Court, and her country had taken steps towards joining the ranks of countries accepting its compulsory jurisdiction. A public debate held in Romania last year on the topic showed support for the initiative among Romanian authorities, international law experts and the public. A draft law on filing a declaration accepting the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction was approved by the Chamber of Deputies in the Romanian Parliament and was now before the Senate for examination.

IDREES MOHAMMED ALI MOHAMMED SAEED (Sudan), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, expressed his Government’s appreciation for the role played by the International Court of Justice. Its role and great number of activities required Member States to provide political support and enough funds so it could perform its duties. The large number of trials or conflicts showed that there was growing confidence in the World Court and in its ability to resolve disputes. He urged the Court to pursue measures that would strengthen its capacity to deal with a higher number of cases, so as to be able to come to a decision quickly. States that had not yet recognized the Court’s jurisdiction should look favourably on that. Noting that the Security Council had not asked any advisory opinions since 1970, the Council should use the Court as a source of opinions regarding the interpretation of international law.

EDUARDO JOSE ATIENZA DE VEGA (Philippines), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, said the World Court, as the United Nations principal judicial organ, resolved disputes which could not otherwise be resolved by or through the Organization’s political organs. Beginning with the Corfu Channel case in 1947 until the adoption in 1982 of the Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes — a span of 35 years — the International Court of Justice had disposed of 49 contentious cases. Since 1982, however, its case load had increased, disposing of over 80 contentious cases in a comparably lesser period of 32 years. In the period under review, it had been seized of seven new contentious cases, bringing its docket to 13 cases. The sovereign parties to those cases came from all over the world, half of them from Latin America. If there was anything that the Charter, together with the Statute, jurisprudence and experience of the World Court taught Member States, it was that “small nations”, if their cause was just, should have no fear of the “big Powers” because it was through the work of the Court that the rule of law had a chance to prevail.

ALBERTO DIENER SALA (Mexico) expressing his deep gratitude for the International Court of Justice, said its intensive work in the last year was testament to its importance. Of the 17 cases heard, eight involved States in Latin America and the Caribbean. One was resolved, and one was withdrawn. That was testament to his region’s commitment to the Court in its settlement of disputes. The World Court served as the primary source for opinions in international law. States repeatedly had resorted to alternatives available under the Statute, and the Court’s determination was critical to prevent new disputes. That was clear, judging by the many cases that had been decided in the Court in the past year. He called on the General Assembly to continue provide the International Court of Justice with the proper resources to continue its work and to fund the celebration of its anniversary.

VIRACHAI PLASAI (Thailand) said this year’s report concerned a case to which Thailand was a party, namely the case, Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, or “Phra Viharn” as it was known in the Thai language. The judgment, which was considered to be based on well-grounded reasoning, had helped clarify several points of law which were useful. The Temple interpretation case remained an important issue in Thailand, and during oral proceedings and the reading of the Judgment last year, the Thai public had followed the World Court’s proceedings through live broadcast from The Hague, with simultaneous interpretation into the Thai language. The role of the World Court as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations had become better understood in his country, and it was his Government’s hope that the Judgment would contribute to good neighbourliness between Thailand and Cambodia.

FRANÇOIS ALABRUNE (France) underscored that all judgments of the Court were binding by the authority. However, compliance and implementation by the States also had to do with the quality of the Court. In the case involving Cambodia and Thailand on the Temple of the Preah Vihear, the Judgement should help in the smoothing over of the dispute over their common boundary. In addition, maritime disputes had taken on growing importance in the Court, such as those between Peru and Chile, and between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, as well as the case recently filed by Somalia against Kenya regarding the Indian Ocean. Diverse subject matters before the Court included four cases on the obligation to negotiate, such as Bolivia and Chile on Pacific Ocean access. The obligation to negotiate was one of the cornerstones of international law. Regarding Article 38, paragraph 5, the procedures were once again being utilized by States, with 12 Orders and three Judgements. The unique remedy to the World Court showed the quality of the underlying foundation of its judgements and the balance of its solutions.

NEERU CHADHA (India) said that the judgements delivered by the International Court of Justice had played an important role in the interpretation and clarification of the rules of international law, as well as in the progressive development and codification of international law. She emphasized that the acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction of the Court was a means to secure and promote peaceful settlement of disputes. Therefore, the filing of cases that sought universal objectives in complete disregard of the premise of Article 36(2) and Article 59 raised very serious issues for States that had accepted its compulsory jurisdiction. Noting that the total number of contentious cases before the World Court stood at 13, she also pointed out that the Court’s second function, of providing advisory opinion on legal questions, further added to its important role in clarifying key international legal issues.

GUSTAVO MEZA-CUADRA (Peru) encouraged those who had not recognized the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to do so and expressed gratitude for the intense work carried out by its Registry. The constant high volume of work at the World Court was a testament to the prestige it enjoyed. The settlement of the maritime border dispute with Chile, which had been handed down this year, had been the quickest in the history of the Court, as both parties pinpointed the geographic coordinates of the maritime border. That work had been done within two months of the ruling. The manner in which the proceedings were conducted should serve as an example for the international community.

MOTOHIDE YOSHIKAWA (Japan) said that international law provided parties concerned with a common language. There were mounting expectations across the globe for international law to serve as a device to disentangle the tensions of heated controversies. Cases referred to the World Court involved a wide variety of subject matters, including territorial and maritime disputes, and violations related to international humanitarian and human rights law, among other issues. The Court had delivered its judgment this year in the case concerning Whaling in the Antarctic. Although the decision that Japan’s whaling research programme did not fall within the relevant article of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling had been disappointing, his Government was abiding by the Court’s Judgment.

Ms. ARGUELLO (Nicaragua), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) said his country was a party in 5 of the 13 cases registered in the General Registry of the International Court of Justice. In all cases, Nicaragua had faithfully fulfilled its obligations, and he expected reciprocity in the fulfilment of the obligation to abide by the Court’s rulings. In recognition of the obligatory jurisdiction of the World Court, he welcomed the joining of States each year, but regretted that the number of those States at 70 was little in comparison to the number of Member States. The celebration of the seventieth anniversary of the World Court scheduled for April 2016 would provide a unique opportunity for more States to make their statements in accordance with the Statute or withdraw their reservations. It was clear that the increasing workload of the Court would imply the necessity to adjust its financial and human resources.

RICHARD NDUHUURA (Uganda), addressing the issues raised in the report regarding “Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda)”, said that his country had a standing negotiating team seized with the matter and was continuing to report to the International Court of Justice on the status of those talks. He also welcomed the improvements which had resulted in the efficient handling of matters before the Court, noting that the delivery of justice needed to be timely, “because justice delayed is justice denied”. As a result of that engagement, his country was living at peace with the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Furthermore, the countries had collaborated on various matters of mutual interest, such as security and trade.

TIWATOPE ADELEYE ELIAS-FATILE (Nigeria), associating himself with the African Group, said that he considered the International Court of Justice the pre‑eminent mechanism for a peaceful settlement of disputes among States. However, it was cause for concern that out of 193 United Nations Member States which were parties to the Statute of the Court, only 70 had made declarations recognizing its jurisdiction as compulsory. Furthermore, the Court’s budget should be commensurate to its needs and obligations, supporting its independence to render vital services to the international community. In that context, he noted with appreciation that most of the Court’s budgetary requests had been accepted by the United Nations, thus enabling it to carry out its mission unhindered.

CLAUDIO TRONCOSO (Chile) reiterated the principle that the Pact of Bogota had been negotiated in the belief that it may not be applied to matters already settled by arrangement between parties or by arbitral award or to those which were governed by agreements or treaties. He recalled the statement by his delegation after the International Court of Justice delivered its Judgement on 27 January of this year regarding the maritime dispute between Peru and Chile. His country abided by the Judgement, highlighting those aspects that would require work by the parties to ensure full enforcement. The two Governments had announced that they would jointly be submitting a map detailing the geographic coordinates of the points on the maritime boundaries to the United Nations. Regulatory changes were also being made to ensure more effective application of the Law of the Sea in accordance with the spirit and meaning of the Court’s Judgement. In regards to a recent request on sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean submitted by Bolivia to the World Court, Chile had raised preliminary objections to the competence of the Court in that case. He asked again that the Court provide Spanish versions of its judgements.

GONZALO KONCKE (Uruguay) said that the report of the World Court highlighted the important work that had been done this year, underscoring that it was the main judicial body of the United Nations system. His country had been among the very first countries to accept the jurisdiction of the Court, as early as 1921 when the Court’s predecessor was created in the framework of the League of Nations. Its work was valuable in avoiding conflicts and wars which had generally been settled by force before it come into existence. He voiced hope that more States would accept the jurisdiction of the World Court to settle their disputes.

CAROL HAMILTON (United States) said she was struck at how active the International Court of Justice had been in the past year. There were 13 cases on the Court’s list covering a wide range of issues. The cases were growing in legal complexity, and she noted the care the Court was taking to fact-finding, which should increase confidence in its workings. She expressed hope that the World Court would continue to receive resources as well as continue its outreach to key sectors of society to help increase the understanding of its work. The recordings covering the Court were available live and on-demand on the United Nations Web TV. That had helped promote an understanding of international law.

OMAR HILALE (Morocco), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, said that States bi- and even trilaterally bringing cases to the International Court of Justice showed that they had trust in it. As for advisory opinions, the Security Council, the General Assembly and other United Nations organs were empowered to request them. Many conflicts had been solved because the parties had suggested sending the disputes to the World Court. The Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda had had a dispute; when told that, if the parties could not agree on a remedy, reparations would be settled by the Court, the parties held negotiations so as to avoid that. The World Court encouraged negotiations and offered parties an opportunity to settle disputes themselves. The World Court also helped strengthen international law and made contributions to the rule of law for the sake of peace, complementing the work of the Security Council.

ZINA ANDRIANARIVELO-RAZAFY (Madagascar), associating with the Africa Group, said the International Criminal Court, as the judicial body of the United Nations, was an integral part of the Organization. Its mandate and its universal nature made it the strategic mechanism to settle disputes peacefully, and its growing volume of cases demonstrated the States’ confidence in its body. Improved access to justice was essential in the links of law and the United Nations system. The Court’s broad jurisdiction extended to all affairs, and it gave Member States an effective instrument to settle their differences. There were 70 Member States, including Madagascar, who recognized its jurisdiction, and he called on those States that had not done so to take steps in that direction. The various initiatives that the Court took during visits of dignitaries, as well as other efforts to educate the world in the area of its workings and international law, were commendable. He voiced support of the Court’s financing for its seventieth anniversary and was pleased at the prospect of celebrating the prestigious institution.

EVGENY T. ZAGAYNOV (Russian Federation) voiced appreciation for the work of the World Court as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. The report showed that States had a high degree of trust in the Court. For years now, the Court had been extremely busy, and its subjects were varied, deciding on all sorts of issues. Its full agenda had not affected the quality of its work. Everything the World Court did was designed to encourage the rule of law. Events to commemorate the seventieth anniversary of the World Court should be high on the agenda for next year, and the General Assembly should carefully respond to the concerns voiced by its President on material support for the Court and its judges.

JUAN CARLOS MENDOZA-GARCÍA (Costa Rica), thanking the World Court’s President for his report, noted that the period covered had been very intense. The peaceful settlement of international disputes was an essential purpose of the United Nations; therefore, the role of the Court was crucial, as was the support of the Member States for it to carry out its tasks. Most of the requests for its budget had been accepted. He encouraged consideration of adding the Spanish language as an official language of the World Court. He also noted that States should abide by the Court’s decisions, complying in full and good faith, and to consolidate the Court’s uncontested role in assuring peace. Though 193 countries were parties to the Court, only 70 had made statements to the Court. Since 1973, Costa Rica had accepted the Court’s jurisdiction. Over the years, the number of States that recognized the Court had not increased. He respectfully invited the Member States that had not done so, to do so.

MOHAMED SALAH EDDINE BELAID (Algeria) remarked that the work of the International Court of Justice had grown significantly through the years and had been entrusted to resolve many contentious cases from all over the world. He reiterated Algeria’s full support for the Court’s key role in ensuring the implementation of the provisions of international law, adjudicating disputes between States and providing advisory opinions. All States, without exception, should abide by their legal obligations and comply with the decisions of the World Court in cases to which they were party. It was also important for the United Nations, particularly the Security Council, to request advisory opinions from the Court. The high moral and legal value of its advisory opinions would promote both the international peace and security and the rule of law.

SACHA SERGIO LLORENTTY SOLÍZ (Bolivia) said that, as a pacifist State, his Government adhered to the World Court’s principles, as the Court was one of best pathways for peaceful settlement of disputes. International law was the basis of the Court, which was why his Government expressed compliance with its decisions. It was equally important to highlight the need for budgetary resources for the World Court to function and for provisions to be made in a timely way. He reaffirmed Bolivia’s peaceful adherence to the Charter’s provisions.

SHEILA SEALY MONTEITH (Jamaica) said that the variety of issues presented before the International Court of Justice had grown in complexity over the years. During this judicial year alone, the World Court had been presented with issues including delimitation and border dispute matters, violations of sovereign rights, and genocide, matters concerning road construction, and seizure and detention of certain documents and data, as well as aerial herbicide spraying. Six out of the 13 cases dealt with in the past year related to territorial disputes within the Caribbean and Latin American region. Commending the World Court for its use of various media in publicizing its work, she added that the decisions and opinions delivered were far-reaching in effect and significantly impacted the daily lives of ordinary men and women.

HUSSEIN HANIFF (Malaysia), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, noted his own country’s recourse to the International Court of Justice to settle disputes with its neighbours. He encouraged the organs of the United Nations to take advantage of the Court’s advisory opinions, as contentious political issues benefitted from an authoritative legal opinion. The Court’s 1996 opinion that the threat or use of nuclear weapons was contrary to the rules of international law was a milestone in international efforts aimed at nuclear disarmament. Since that opinion had been issued, Malaysia had tabled a resolution on its follow-up each year. Marking the tenth anniversary of the Court’s advisory opinion on the “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”, he reaffirmed its conclusion that Israel could not rely on a right of self-defence or on State necessity to preclude the wrongfulness of that construction, which was contrary to international law.

RY TUY (Cambodia) recalled the 2013 World Court Judgement regarding interpretation of the Temple of Preah Vihear case. The Court had declared that Cambodia had sovereignty over the whole territory of the promontory of the Preah Vihear and that Thailand was under obligation to withdraw its military forces. That was an important step forward for his country to find a peaceful resolution to the dispute with Thailand. He reiterated the statement of Cambodia’s Prime Minister then who said that, regardless of the outcome of the International Court of Justice, the two countries would abide by the decision and maintain friendship between them and their people. Both sides had agreed to further discuss within the competent mechanisms, the implementation of the World Court’s Judgement. Furthermore, the two Governments had committed to pay special attention to avoid any act that would affect the movement of people on both sides, commercial exchange, investment, transport and other areas of cooperation.

MARTIN NEY (Germany) said the existence of the International Court of Justice and its success was the very antithesis of the idea, “might is right”. His country had been an ardent supporter of the Court for a long time. The recent international conference of the World Court was an example of its importance, as it brought together its President, two other judges, four previous judges and leading experts. One of the issues discussed concerned consent-limited jurisdiction and its impact on the ability to contribute to a sustainable settlement. In some cases, the Court’s jurisdiction could be derived only from a specific international instrument covering a very specific subject, such as jurisdiction under the Genocide Convention. Hence, other international legal aspects underlying a genocide case would remain a priori outside of the World Court’s jurisdiction, resulting in a somewhat lopsided coverage of the legal ground. The best way to prevent that was to accept the general jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36, paragraph 2. Germany had done so in 2008. An increase in such declarations would further enable the Court to enhance its function in peaceful dispute resolution.

International Criminal Court

SANG-HYUN SONG, President of the International Criminal Court, said that the international community had reached many milestones over the last 12 months. There were six cases at the trial stage of proceedings at the Criminal Court; Ukraine had become the second non-State party to lodge a declaration accepting its jurisdiction; and another seven States parties had ratified the amendments to the Rome Statute on the crime of aggression. In addition, six States parties had ratified the amendments which made the use of chemical weapons in non-international conflicts a war crime punishable by the Criminal Court.

Giving a brief overview of the situations in which the Criminal Court was involved, he noted that it was a court of last resort, and that domestic courts had jurisdictional primacy. He reviewed the status of cases from a number of countries, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic, Uganda, Darfur in Sudan, Kenya, Libya, Côte d’Ivoire, and Mali. On Côte d’Ivoire, the Pre-Trial Chamber I had confirmed four charges against Laurent Gbagbo, and the trial date would be set in due course. In the case of Simone Gbagbo, an admissibility challenge filed by the Government of Côte d’Ivoire was pending.

As peace and justice went hand in hand, so must the United Nations and the Criminal Court, he went on to say. The partnership was indispensable for a strong international community and the protection of the interests of humanity as a whole. It was a great strength of the Criminal Court that its judicial bench was rejuvenated with six new judges every three years, guaranteeing a balance of continuity and fresh energy. The Criminal Court was an institution in constant movement; it had to be if the international community wished to respond effectively to the ever-changing challenges facing it.

The Rome Statute was only as strong as States made it, he stressed. Speaking directly to delegations, he said that they had the key to unlocking the Criminal Court’s full potential. The Criminal Court had no enforcement powers of its own. As President of the Criminal Court, he had reached out to many States not yet party to encourage them to join the Rome Statute, underlining the principle of non-retroactivity.

That meant that joining the Criminal Court was an insurance policy for a safer future, not a method for settling old scores, he said. It was only through steadily building global support for the Rome Statute system that universality would be achieved, with no hiding place for the perpetrators of international crimes. In that context, it was of great concern that requests for arrest and surrender issued by the Criminal Court remained outstanding for 13 persons.

Looking back on the creation of the Criminal Court’s creation, he reminisced that, at the time, he had wondered if the international community would be able to turn the Criminal Court from a court on paper to an active judicial institution, and whether it would be able to have an impact. It was his dream to see the entire world united in a strong system of international criminal justice that would, above all, help the international community prevent the worst crimes from happening altogether.

GILLES MARHIC (European Union) said that with 21 cases in eight situations at different stages of the proceedings, and a further 10 situations under preliminary examinations, the International Criminal Court was facing an increasing workload. Although no new State had ratified the Rome Statue or the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Court during the reporting period, eight States had ratified the amendments on the crime of aggression, and nine States had ratified amendments on certain crimes in non-international armed conflicts. Furthermore, he welcomed that Ukraine, a non-State party, had accepted the jurisdiction of the Court through a declaration in April of this year on alleged crimes committed on its territory from 21 November 2013 to 22 February 2014.

The universality of the Rome Statute was essential for ensuring accountability for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, he said. Since 2003, the European Union had provided more than €30 million to global ratification campaigns undertaken by the civil society and to the Court’s projects. Complementarity was a core principle in the Rome Statue; to make it operational, all States parties must prepare and adopt effective national legislation to implement the Statute in their national systems. Cooperation with the Court and the enforcement of its decisions were equally essential for the Court to carry out its mandate. In that context, he was concerned that arrest warrants issued by the Court remained outstanding.

EDEN CHARLES (Trinidad and Tobago), speaking for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), expressed support for the mandate of the International Criminal Court, noting that his country’s late Prime Minister and President had pioneered work leading to adoption of the Rome Statute establishing the Criminal Court. He called for the Organization to meet the costs associated with referrals by the Security Council, consistent with provisions of the Rome Statute and the Relationship Agreement between the Court and the Organization. He further welcomed the Court’s policy on sexual and gender-based violence, the first such document issued by an international court or tribunal. Pointing out the Criminal Court’s democratic traditions, he urged States parties to vote only for candidates in the upcoming election of judges who met the criteria under article 36 of the Rome Statute and who would enhance the Court’s credibility.

Welcoming the verdict against and subsequent sentencing of Germain Katanga this spring for war crimes and crimes against humanity, he reminded those who failed to honour their legally binding obligations to execute arrest warrants issued by the Court, and arrest and surrender individuals who continued to evade justice, that they were contributing to a culture of impunity and undermining the rule of law. Noting that cooperation with the Criminal Court was needed from all Member States of the United Nations, he underscored that the Court’s jurisdiction was only invoked when States were unable or unwilling to prosecute individuals accused of the most severe crimes. No individual or State should fear the Criminal Court as it was a court of last resort. He also called on all States parties to the Rome Statute to ratify the Kampala amendments.

ANDERS RÖNQUIST (Sweden), speaking also for Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway, said that the Court had become the most important international actor in efforts to fight impunity and in the development of international criminal law. As victims were a key issue, particularly those subjected to sexual and gender‑based crimes, he encouraged States and other actors to contribute to the International Criminal Court Trust Fund for Victims, as the Nordic countries continued to do, in order to provide those persons access to their right to reparation. As the Criminal Court was complementary to national criminal jurisdictions, “ideally, it should have no cases”, he said. However, many States lacked the resources to conduct such criminal proceedings on such complex and large scale crimes. Thus, it was important to build capacity in States parties.

He emphasized the importance of the upcoming judicial elections and of the need to increase resources for the increased workload of the Court. The high number of outstanding arrest warrants was of concern and there needed to be better cooperation with the Court, including the Prosecutor’s Office. He also called for States to fully comply with Security Council resolution 1593(2005) concerning the situation in Darfur and the Government of Sudan and other parties to cooperate with the Court and the Prosecutor. Enhanced support was needed from the Security Council in cases of non-cooperation with the Criminal Court as well as better follow-up on the cases it referred. It was a matter of priority for all States parties and non-States parties to ratify and observe the Court’s Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities. Welcoming the Court’s intention to increase its presence in the field, he said it required sufficient resources for effective outreach.

HAHN CHOONGHEE (Republic of Korea) reiterated his highest appreciation for the long service of International Criminal Court Judge Sang-Hyun Song who would be retiring next year, who had served in the Court as a judge since 2003 and as President since 2009. He also expressed his condolences for the recent passing of Judge Hans-Peter Kaul of Germany. The Court had demonstrated notable achievements in eight situations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic, Kenya, Cote d’Ivoire, Sudan, Libya and Mali. He welcomed progress in the case of Laurent Gbagbo and noted that the caseload of the Chambers and the Office of the Prosecutor had increased significantly. The Criminal Court had completed its first final judgement and sentence in the conviction of Germain Katanga, sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment. The Appeals Chamber had also been performing its essential function of judicial supervision. However, much needed to be done, and he urged the Criminal Court and the United Nations to strengthen their relationship further.

Mr. ELIAS-FATILE (Nigeria) welcomed the International Criminal Court’s fight against impunity and its trailblazing contributions in developing international law. The objective of the Court was based on the idea that everyone should be held accountable for their actions. He commended Uhuru Kenyatta, President of Kenya, who appeared at The Hague this October as a private citizen. However, he was concerned that, despite having failed to establish a case against President Kenyatta, the Court had not dismissed the case against him. He called on the Court to show more respect for African leaders and to engage with the African Union and African States on a mutual and respectful basis. Thirty-four of the 122 States Parties to the Rome Statute were African States and should not be alienated. His country was faithfully committed to the ideals of the Criminal Court.

MACHARIA KAMAU (Kenya) said it was “truly depressing to imagine” that the International Criminal Court would stand before Member States and say, in its tenth and most recent report, that it had finalized just one judgement and rendered representation for only 8,040 victims in the past decade. Something radical had to be urgently done if the Criminal Court was to survive long-term as a viable and credible international institution. He also said he was deeply concerned by the current interpretation and implementation of the Rome Statute, which could be the Court’s undoing and was counterproductive and antagonistic to the Statue’s ideals. One of the Court’s first actions was to “unshackle itself from a pernicious group of countries” that had hijacked its operational mandate and created a distorted institution that sought to represent the moral, ethical and, most disturbingly, political values of “this group of countries”, he said. The Criminal Court was created as an international institution meant to work for all signatory Member States, irrespective of size, wealth or political dispensation. Yet the Court seemed more interested in quasi-judicial theatre that was not pursuing justice or the fight against impunity. It seemed to be driven by the parochial issues and political objectives of a small group of Member States.

Right of Reply

In exercise of the right of reply, a representative of Sudan responded the statement made by Sweden, also speaking for Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway, which asked that the Government of Sudan cooperate with the International Criminal Court. He underscored that those countries had imposed themselves as speakers on behalf of the Criminal Court, thinking they would implement criminal justice. They should focus on their own internal issues and not on what had to do with Africa. Silence was predominant by those countries, because they violated international justice and they were above international law. Sudan was not a party to the Rome Statue and not concerned with the judgements of the Criminal Court. The practice of the Court had nothing to do with justice. Rather, it had become a tool of international conflict. The representation of the Court in the Security Council reflected double standards. The resolution by the Security Council referred a country to Court was the same resolution that exempted other citizens from reaching the Criminal Court. The International Criminal Court was not international; it only targeted the leaders and countries of Africa. That was Africa’s experience with the Court until now. Systems to combat impunity were already established in domestic systems and that principle was implemented without double standard.

[Meetings Coverage and Press Releases/회의취재 및 보도자료]

31 October 2014

GA/11577

International Criminal Court Receives Mixed Performance Review, as General Assembly Concludes Discussion of Body’s Annual Report

Sixty-ninth session,

35th & 36th Meetings (AM & PM)

http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/ga11576.doc.htm

Resolution on Sport for Peace, Development Unanimously Adopted

As the General Assembly concluded its debate today on the reports of the International Criminal Court, delegates alternatively praised its effectiveness in prosecuting crimes against humanity and criticized what they viewed as its partiality.

More than 30 speakers voiced statements on the Court, whose main purpose was to bring justice against those who committed crimes of atrocity on an international level.

Many speakers upheld the idea that the Court was essential for the enforcement of worldwide peace and justice, and commended its recent record of arrests, criminal cases and preliminary investigations. The Court had been tangibly helping to advance international justice, attested the representative of Cyprus. Australia’s representative, stressing that in the last 12 years atrocities had been committed in many locations on an alarming scale, said the Court deserved the “unfailing support of every Member,” especially when States were unable or unwilling to take action. Montenegro’s representative said the increase in cases of genocide and armed conflicts meant greater attention was needed to improve international mechanisms to fight impunity.

But several members took the opposite view, especially some representing African States, who said the Court was partial to interfering with the crimes committed on their continent. Sudan’s representative said the Court had become a tool in international conflicts and political action by focusing on Africa and targeting its leaders, while ignoring atrocities in other regions, an idea echoed by Syria’s representative, who said some countries had prevented the adoption of a Security Council resolution to hold Israel responsible for crimes against humanity. Senegal’s representative said the Council must act responsibly and in a non-politicized way to avoid being suspected of selectivity and double standards.

A common refrain among the speakers was the balance needed between the jurisdiction of the body and the prosecution of serious crimes in national courts. Colombia’s representative called the principle of complementarity the “backbone of criminal justice,” while Georgia’s representative said “positive complementarity” would conserve the Court’s financial resources and reduce the need for additional budget allocations. While reaffirming the importance of the universality of the Court, Costa Rica’s speaker said it was a court of last resort, and was not created to replace national tribunals.

Of deep concern among some delegates was the fact that, although a number of arrest warrants had been issued by the Court, 13 were outstanding, a result of a lack of cooperation among some Member States to apprehend individuals, undermining the Court’s ability to deliver justice, they said. Others expressed worries that many States had not yet ratified the Rome Statute. Mexico’s representative noted that the period covered by the Court’s report - July 2013 to June 2014 - was the first in which no State had become a party to the Statute.

Looking forward to the election of a new Court president, Brazil’s representative welcomed the decision of the Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties to the Court to endorse Senegal’s Minister of Justice, Sidiki Kaba, for the position.

Speakers also called for strengthening the working relationship between the Court and the United Nations, particularly the Council. In view of the Court’s increasing workload under tighter budgetary restrictions, several delegates said that body would need financial help and reforms in order to manage its caseload. New Zealand’s representative welcomed recent efforts to analyse and improve existing procedures and approaches, including by both the Court’s Registrar and Prosecutor.

Also today the Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution, introduced by Tunisia’s representative, on sport as a means to promote education, health, development and peace.

Also delivering statements were representatives of Hungary, Romania, the Philippines, Guatemala, Slovenia, Poland, Japan, Liechtenstein, South Africa, Algeria, Switzerland, Uruguay, Cuba, Libya, United States, Argentina, Russian Federation, Spain, Estonia, Uganda, Turkey and Armenia.

The General Assembly will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Monday, 3 November to consider the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Background

The General Assembly met today to conclude its debate on the work of the International Criminal Court over the past year. (For background, see Press Release GA/11576 of 30 October.) It also considered the draft resolution on Sport as a means to promote education, health, development and peace (document A/69/L.5).

By the terms of the draft, the Assembly would invite Member States and organizations of the United Nations system, the media, civil society, academia and the private sector to collaborate with the United Nations Office on Sport for Development and Peace to promote greater awareness and action to foster peace and achieve the Millennium Development Goals through sports-based initiatives and the sport for development and peace agenda. Further, it would encourage Member States to adopt best practices and means to promote the practice of sport, designate a focal point on the matter within their respective Governments, contribute to the Trust Fund for Sport for Development and Peace, and form partnerships with the United Nations Office dedicated to those aims.

The Assembly also would urge Member States that had not yet done so to consider acceding to and implementing the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocols, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the International Convention against Doping in Sport. It would welcome the ongoing efforts of the Sport for Development and Peace International Workshop, including its substantive work related to people with disabilities, children and youth development.

International Criminal Court

KATRINA COOPER (Australia) said that, from her vantage point on the Security Council, crimes under the Rome Statute were being committed in many locations on an alarming scale. Those crimes, described in the Statute preamble as “unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity,” had galvanized Australia to do what it could to prevent them. The Court deserved the unfailing support of every Member, because, when States were unable or unwilling to take action, the Court had a vital role to play. Its ambitious mandate that year included the Katanga Judgement, which sentenced Germain Katanga to 12 years’ imprisonment. In its expanded work, the Court had opened a second investigation in the Central African Republic, and the Court Prosecutor had launched a preliminary investigation into alleged crimes committed in Ukraine. She expected that States would fulfil their obligations to cooperate with the Court, by either being a party to the Statute or adhering to Council resolutions. She called on all States to support the Court in its efforts.

PENELOPE RIDINGS (New Zealand) said that 2015 would see the swearing in of six new Court judges. She trusted that they would draw upon their experience to enrich the Court’s jurisprudence and build upon the work of their predecessors. In view of the increasing workload of all organs of the Court, she welcomed recent efforts to analyse and improve existing procedures and approaches, including by both the Registrar and the Prosecutor. Concerning the relationship between the Court and the Council, she welcomed dialogue on when and under what circumstances the Council should refer a situation to the Court. Importantly, when a situation was referred, the Council should do so with a clear commitment to follow up and ensure the Court received the cooperation it needed to discharge its statutory mandate.

ZSOLT HETESY (Hungary) noted the crucial link between peace and security on one hand and criminal accountability on the other. The most important objective of the Rome Statute was to make countries resilient against crimes of atrocity. He commended the latest reforms in the Court, and noted that the efforts to strengthen the Office of the Prosecutor were successful. But the Rome Statute was also about the joint will of States Parties to make sure through national action that crimes of atrocity did not happen, and, if they did, perpetrators would be prosecuted at the national level. The International Criminal Court should be the Court of last resort. Further cooperation among States, regional organizations and civil society was also important. The Court was not immune from political disagreements, but States Parties had the responsibility to sort out differences and to find solutions that reinforced the Court’s authority. He welcomed the consensus of the African States to present Sidiki Kaba of Senegal as the next President of the Assembly of States Parties. Hungary had also decided to nominate Peter Kovacs for the election of Judges to the Court, for the period 2015-2024.

SIMONA MIRELA MICULESCU (Romania) said the report showed the increasing workload of the Court, with 21 cases in eight situations at different stages of proceeding. The path to the universality of the Rome Statute continued to be a lengthy and difficult one, and she encouraged all States to become parties to it. The fundamental challenge before the Court was the need to ensure full and prompt cooperation with it, and to react to instances of States’ failure to cooperate. Non-cooperation in the execution of arrest warrants was a violation and undermined the Court’s capacity to deliver justice. The adoption of adequate national legislation remained critical in helping the Court fulfil its mandate. States had the responsibility to investigate, prosecute and bring to justice perpetrators of serious crimes. She asked Member States to look for ways to establish a mechanism to address issues arising from referrals to the Court by the Council, and to address other follow-up measures with the Court.

IDREES MOHAMMED ALI MOHAMMED SAEED (Sudan) said that attempts to politicize international justice were incompatible with the international community’s efforts to achieve justice and uphold the principles of the Charter. While the report of the Court was deliberated, great concern was caused by some States Parties’ attempts to make the United Nations General Assembly a General Assembly for the State Parties of the Rome Statute. His delegation has always reiterated its refusal of that direction, and expressed it every year during the presentation of that report. His Government would always call for restricting relations between the Court and the United Nations.

The Court had become a tool in international conflicts and political action by focusing on Africa and targeting its leaders, he said. That made African public opinion describe the body as a court under the control of developed nations to target developing nations. Why was the Court ignoring atrocities in some areas? Wasn’t an international court concerned with impunity in every place? His Government had posed those questions and never received convincing answers. The Court had one jurisdiction, which was targeting Africans and African nations and nothing else. Relations between the Court and the Council showed how the Council was politicized. It was the same organ that referred some to the Court and exempted others. It was a relationship that stood witness to the lack of objectivity in the relationship and in the practice of the mandate. As Sudan was not a party to the Rome Statute, it had no obligations to the Court.

EDUARDO JOSÉ DE VEGA (The Philippines) said that international relations should be based on rules rather than power. In 2009, the Philippine Congress had enacted the Philippine Act on Crimes against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes against Humanity, paving the way for ratification of the Rome Statute. Consistent with the principle of complementarity, the Philippines strove to ensure that its criminal justice system was transparent, fair, effective and relatively speedy, allowing for the prosecution of crimes contemplated by the Rome Statute. At the global level, the Philippines continued to work constructively with all States Parties to protect human rights and build domestic capacity. It was also important for the international community to ensure that the rule of law and human rights were strongly reflected in the post-2015 development agenda.

FERNANDO CARRERA CASTRO (Guatemala) reaffirmed his unwavering support for the Court. As there continued to be a number of myths and misunderstandings about the Court, the Assembly’s debate was an opportunity to create a better understanding of the Court’s mandate. The Court depended on support from international organizations, such as the United Nations. He noted, with concern, that some States Parties were not honouring their obligations to apprehend individuals for whom arrest warrants had been issued. Members must not allow those arrest warrants to go unserved. He appealed for unconditional respect for the Court and its warrants. It was also important for States to renew their financial commitment to the Court, he said, calling attention to the cost of the Council’s referrals to the Court that were borne by States. The Council should not take a stance on the financing of the referrals. Doing so would encroach upon the competence of the Assembly, which was responsible for decisions on financing. The time had come to resolve the matter. He would be putting forth a resolution to resolve it. He urged Members to continue to support the Rome Statute and put to rest the erroneous assumption that the Court was a court for only one region.

MAX ALBERTO DIENER SALA (Mexico) regretted that the period covered by the report was the first in which no State had become a party to the Rome Statute. Although there were already 122 States Parties to the instrument, Members must not lose sight of the objective of universal ratification. The ad hoc acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction by the Court of Ukraine, a State that was not party to the Statute, and the second referral of the Central African Republic to the Court last June, were evidence of the increasing trust both State Parties and non-Parties placed in the Court. But Members needed to join efforts to overcome the challenges that the Court continued to face. Warrants of arrest for 12 persons were still pending execution, evidence of lack of cooperation of certain States. He emphasized that the Council could effectively follow up on those referrals, including through the creation of a mechanism. Due to the increase in cases under consideration, he underlined the need for referrals by the Council to be financed through funds provided by the Assembly, as set forth in article 115 of the Statute.

BORUT MAHNIČ (Slovenia) said the annual report confirmed that the Court had developed into a strong institution. As the report stressed, the Rome Statute had never been intended to replace national courts. Improving domestic capacity and inter-State cooperation was, therefore, of paramount importance. The Court’s mandate was extremely challenging and the complexities of its work required close and effective cooperation from States, and international and regional actors. Slovenia fully supported the ongoing discussions aimed at strengthening cooperation between the United Nations and the Court. He called upon all States that were not members of the Court to join it, which would contribute to greater coordination between the two institutions.

JANUSZ STAŃCZYK (Poland) said that, by allowing individuals to escape liability, State Parties were flouting the very laws put in place to ensure the Court’s effectiveness. Arrest warrants must be honoured in order to deter future genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. When the Council decided to refer a situation to the Court, it must also enforce cooperation on the part of the States concerned — should they fail to fulfil the Court’s mandate. Turning to the crisis situations taking place around the world, including in Syria and Ukraine, he said the pursuit of international justice and the protection of human rights were synonymous with Poland’s belief that only through global cooperation could the world put an end to impunity.

KAITARO NONOMURA (Japan) noted that the Court had played a remarkable role in ending impunity for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. But the Court alone could not achieve its aims. Cooperation between the Court and the United Nations was crucial. Therefore, it was appropriate for the Council to find out what measures should be taken to follow up on cases through dialogue with interested countries. He commended the work of the Trust Fund for Victims in serving victims of grave crimes. As a leading supporter of the Court in the Asia-Pacific region, Japan renewed its commitment to continue to encourage friends in that region who had not yet become a party to the Rome Statute. He expressed Japan’s willingness to help them develop their legal systems and human resources.

CHRISTIAN WENAWESER (Liechtenstein) said that an aspect of the Rome Statute, designed to allow the Council to use the Court as a tool for bringing justice beyond the family of States Parties, did not work as well as some would have liked. His Government had, with 73 other States, co-sponsored a draft Council resolution that would have referred the situation in Syria to the Court. But the double veto cast by the Russian Federation and China had ensured that impunity continued to be the order of the day in Syria. The ability of the Court to provide justice for victims of the most serious crimes under international law was limited by the political will of the Council to see justice served.

On another topic on the Criminal Court’s agenda, he said that Sudan’s “wholesale lack of cooperation” with the Court was a blot on the effectiveness of the Council. Full cooperation with the Court was not optional, nor was it merely commendable; it was mandatory. In conclusion, he turned to the Kampala Amendments on the Crime of Aggression, which would make the most serious forms of the illegal use of force by one State against another a punishable offence before the Court. There was confidence that the 30 necessary ratifications would be reached well in time to allow for their activation in 2017, the earliest moment to do so.

THEMBILE ELPHUS JOYINI (South Africa) said that an important tool in the fight against impunity remained efforts to build national capacity to investigate and prosecute serious crimes of concern to the international community. Therefore, complementarity was at the heart of the Statute. South Africa and Denmark had tried their best to mainstream complementarity-related activities while they served as co-focal points on the issue. The Statute and the Court did not operate in a vacuum. They constituted an important element in a new system of international law. In 1946, the Nuremburg Tribunal recognized that only through fighting impunity could the provisions of international law be enforced and peace attained. The relationship between peace and justice was therefore ubiquitous in the development of modern international law, and was evident to the drafters of the Statute. Peace and security on one hand, and justice and the fight against impunity on the other, must go hand in hand.

MOHAMED SALAH EDDINE BELAID (Algeria) reiterated his country’s unflinching commitment to promote human rights and democracy, uphold the rule of law and good governance and to fight impunity and grant access to justice. While there was a need for the international community to ensure prosecution of individuals suspected of having committed serious crimes, it was sovereign States that had the primary role in pursuing that objective. The primacy of national jurisdiction had not been unduly applied for some cases that had been referred to the Court by the Council or the Office of the Prosecutor. He was not astonished to see many Member States questioning the impartiality of the Court, and the criteria that had been used in Court referrals. He recalled the politicization and misuse of indictments by the Court in targeting African States and African leaders. As noted by African Heads of State, unacceptable situations in other parts of the world had been ignored. Algeria and the whole African continent were deeply disappointed about the negative response to the legally sound proposal of the African Union to defer the proceedings initiated against two African presidents and deputy presidents in accordance with article 16 of the Rome Statute, which concerned the deferral of cases.

VALENTIN ZELLWEGER (Switzerland) said the Court was increasingly perceived as a key actor in preventing and dealing with the most serious crimes. However, such crimes were often committed outside its territorial jurisdiction, and the Court’s inability to act was a stark reminder of the need to promote the universality of its Statute. Concerning the relationship between the Court and the Council, his delegation would continue to work towards a more consistent follow-up to Council action related to the Court by promoting the creation of a subsidiary body, solid reactions in case of non-cooperation and the mainstreaming of justice considerations in relevant mandates of the Council. The effectiveness of the Court continued to be a concern. To improve it, the Court should adopt effective practices, States Parties should have a more strategic oversight of the Court to limit the administrative burden, and civil society should support the Court through training and seminars.

ÁLVARO CERIANI (Uruguay) said that his country, after ratifying the Rome Statute, was the first in Latin America to implement it in law. His was also the first Latin American country to have deposited its instrument of ratification to the Kampala Amendments, and encouraged all others to do likewise, so the amendments could enter into force as soon as possible. It was understood that it would be advisable for the Permanent Members of the Council to consider abstaining from using the veto in cases of genocide or crimes against humanity. There had to be further cooperation between the Council and the Court.

MANUEL DE JESUS PIREZ PEREZ (Cuba) expressed his Government’s commitment to combat impunity for international crimes. Based on article 16 of the Rome Statute and the broad powers granted to the Council, the Court was not necessarily an independent institution. Referrals to the Court confirmed the negative trends that other countries had mentioned. International law was constantly violated, and Cuba reiterated the need to establish a truly independent, international criminal tribunal. The Court continued to remain subjected to the anti-democratic decisions of the Council that violated international law, and continued to grant total impunity to those who truly had committed international crimes. The Court could not be unaware of international treaties, and must respect the right of a State to consent to be bound by a treaty. Cuba reiterated its serious concerns with the Court’s decision to carry out proceedings against States that were not parties to the Statute. Cuba had been the victim of many forms of aggression for 50 years, yet the definition of the crime of aggression at Kampala had failed to take that into consideration. The Court must report on its activities to the Assembly, and although Cuba was not a party to the Court, it was prepared to continue to participate actively in the negotiation process with that institution.

IBRAHIM O. A. DABBASHI (Libya) said the Council had referred crimes in Libya to the Court, and that, despite the fact that Libya was not a State Party to the Rome Statute, his Government would like to achieve complementarity between Libya and the Court. He gave details of cases in which the Court and the Libyan judicial authorities had cooperated, and expressed hope that the Court would soon recognize Libyan jurisdiction in trying Saif al-Gadhafi, as it had done regarding the trial of Al-Senussi. Despite Libya’s support for the Court, he further expressed hope that it would be very careful considering cases of high-ranking officials. To achieve justice, it was not enough to just apply the law. The special political situation of a country, and the reaction to the court verdict should be considered — especially if it would provoke the national feelings of the people. His Government hoped for further cooperation by Member States to help legal authorities prosecute crimes committed in Libya and hand them to judicial authorities, and to trace the funds of persons whose money had been frozen by Council resolutions.

CAROL HAMILTON (United States) said that strengthening the accountability for those responsible for atrocities must remain a priority. Ending impunity and the promotion of justice were stabilizing forces of international affairs. She supported the approach of positive complementarity. It was important to perform local work to enforce accountability, and prosecute those responsible for crimes on a national level. At the same time, more work had to be done to strengthen accountability mechanisms at the international level. Although the United States was not party to the Rome Statute, she recognized that the Court could play a role in a multinational situation. The United States collaborated with the Court to advance mutual goals on a case-by-case basis and consistent with United States laws. The United States had supported the opening of a new investigation into activities in the Central African Republic, and it had offered rewards for the arrest of those who had evaded capture — among them Sylvestre Muducumura and Joseph Kony. The United States and other Council members had recently voted to refer the situation in Syria to the Office of the Prosecutor, and, although it had been blocked, her Government remained committed to referring it. The international community had made progress, but much work still remained. Success relied on the ability of Member States to work together.

FERNANDA MILLICAY (Argentina) noted that the Statute had 122 States Parties, with 21 having ratified the Kampala amendments, including one on the crime of aggression. While a few delegations firmly opposed including a substantial reference to the crime of aggression in the relevant Assembly resolution, Argentina would continue to work towards reaching 30 ratifications before 2017, in order to activate the jurisdiction of the Court, as agreed in Kampala. On the question of referrals to the Court by the Council, she said that the Court had jurisdiction over nationals of both Parties and non-Parties in those cases. No pronouncement of the Council had the power to amend the Statute with the aim of granting immunity to nationals of non-Parties. Argentina and many other Member States had objected to the practice of referral costs being defrayed exclusively by States Parties, as the Statute stipulated that such financial responsibility rested with the United Nations. It was not acceptable that the Assembly be put in a position of not being able to make a decision on that issue.

MIGUEL CAMILO RUIZ (Colombia) said that Colombia had a historic commitment to the Court. Colombia was the first country in the Latin American and Caribbean region to ratify the Agreement on the privileges and immunities of the Court. Colombia would join the Assembly of States Parties of the Court that coming December, and saw it as a wonderful opportunity to continue its support of the Court. The Rome Statute was a valuable tool for the international community to tackle serious situations, and he invited States to become parties to the Statute and to ratify it. He supported the initiatives to unite efforts between the Court and the United Nations, and to find ways to achieve their objectives together. The principle of complementarity was the backbone of criminal justice. Within the framework of strengthening national capacities to investigate crimes, Colombia had codified that principle in its conduct, and had taken the necessary actions for prosecutions. He urged Members to work towards a concept of justice, and to recognize the causes and problems of criminal acts, because pursuing justice would always have to be in the context of peace.

IBRAHIMA SORY SYLLA (Senegal) said that the interaction between the Court, the Assembly and the Council could contribute towards maintaining international peace and security. His Government supported the establishment of a formal framework between the Council and the Office of the Prosecutor — an interaction which could focus on specifics or on thematic issues. His Government also supported annually inviting the Court’s President and Prosecutor to report to the Council. As a guarantor of international peace and security, the Council had to act responsibly, without politicization, when it considered situations related to mass crimes, to avoid being suspected of selectivity and double standards. That created tensions which might impede the Court’s efficiency. He invited all stakeholders to take the opportunity of the gathering of the Assembly of States Parties to elect Sidiki Kaba, Minister of Justice of Senegal, as its next head.

EVGENY T. ZAGAYNOV (Russian Federation) said his Government was keen on continuing its cooperation with the Court. The Court’s ability to discharge its functions was one of the decisive factors that States took into account. He called on the Court to address those concerns that had arisen among African countries, and to find mutually acceptable solutions. On a number of matters the Court was forced to work on conflict situations. But various measures were necessary to bring about peace. The activities of the Court must incorporate general efforts for crisis settlement. The Court must investigate all crimes.

GUILHERME DE AGUIAR PATRIOTA (Brazil) said two thirds of Member States had ratified the Rome Statute, yet still it was not universal. Considering that October marked the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the Relationship Agreement between the United Nations and the Court, he recalled Brazil’s concern about issues of structural nature. Cooperation between the Court and the United Nations should go beyond rhetoric, and find its concrete implementation in the funding of Council referral’s to the Court. Further, he welcomed the decision of the Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties to endorse the consensual African candidature for the presidency. Coming from the region with the largest number of States Parties to the Rome Statute, the Minister of Justice of Senegal, Sidiki Kaba, would lead efforts towards the increasing challenges faced.

JUAN CARLOS MENDOZA-GARCÍA (Costa Rica) reiterated his absolute support for the Court. History had demonstrated there was no lasting peace without justice. The world needed to be certain that there was no State where there was room for impunity. He was disappointed that during the reporting period, no more new States had become parties to the Court. Reaffirming the importance of the universality of the Court, he said it was a court of last resort, and was not created to replace national tribunals. States Parties must comply with its Statute. It was serious when non-compliance led to the rejection of arrest warrants, of which there were 13 pending, some from 2005. Some States had argued that there was politicization in the Court, but that did not hold up to argument because the Court operated on the principles of due process. Because of tight budgets, the Court’s work could be threatened. Its tasks had increased and its budget had been reduced. Cooperation between the Court and the United Nations had led to positive development and achievements, but he reiterated the need for the financing of referrals to the Court by the United Nations. He would not support any amendment that would impede the Court from prosecuting crimes of impunity.

KAHA IMNADZE (Georgia) said the Court should be built on justice. It was one of the principle organs tasked with helping States ensure that durable peace was built on justice. The Court was misperceived sometimes, when it chose to prosecute some crimes on its own and left appeals to prosecute others unanswered. The Court’s work should be effectuated by helping national capacities handle situations that could otherwise fall within the Court’s jurisdiction. He called on all parties that had not done so to become parties to the Rome Statute. He invited his colleagues to direct their efforts towards promoting positive complementarity, which would conserve the Court’s financial resources and reduce the need for additional allocations from national budgets. As a consequence of a foreign military occupation, Georgia was under preliminary investigation by the Court. His Government remained fully committed to cooperating with the Court, and addressing the occupation. The Court did need some rejuvenation to respond to the challenges of today and tomorrow, and, in that spirit, he had nominated Judge Mindia Ugrekhelidze of Georgia to fill a judicial vacancy on the Court.

JOSÉ MARTÍN Y PÉREZ DE NANCLARES (Spain) said that Spain had ratified the Kampala Amendments earlier in 2014. It was essential for the United Nations and regional organizations to assist States in strengthening their national capacities to achieve goals at the domestic level. Cooperation between the Court and Latin American countries had increased, and those efforts must be maintained in the future. His Government promoted the universality and integrity of the Rome Statute in its bilateral relations, in line with the common position of the European Union. During Spain’s upcoming two-year term as a non-permanent member of the Council, the work of the Court would be supported, as the country had always done, in a responsible way and with great commitment.

MARGUS KOLGA (Estonia) said it was time for a new phase in the relationship between the Assembly and the Court, one in which cooperation and assistance were not provided solely on a reimbursable basis. Estonia encouraged all United Nations actors to systematize their cooperation with the Office of Legal Affairs. The relationship between the Court and the Council also should be strengthened. Estonia encouraged the Council to mandate peacekeeping missions to arrest fugitives wanted by the Court. It called on all Member States to help end impunity by working together to execute pending arrest warrants. The Court was never intended to, and could never, replace national courts. Estonia welcomed the Organization’s efforts to strengthen countries’ domestic capacity to address Rome Statute crimes. It had allocated development cooperation resources to help strengthen national judicial capacity and urged other Member States to do the same. Estonia was committed to the Court and pledged to defend its independent mandate and the election of the most qualified judges.

KINTU NYAGO (Uganda) said his country domesticated the Statute and established, in the nation’s High Court, a division seized with cases of war crimes, which would otherwise be handled by the International Criminal Court. The division was currently on the case involving Thomas Kwoyelo, a Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) commander accused of crimes under the Statute. Uganda was the first country to make a State referral to the Court, leading to the indictment of Joseph Kony and others. Unfortunately, those individuals were still at large and continued to cause untold suffering wherever they operated. The Uganda People’s Defense Forces (UPDF) was pursuing them in the Central African Republic under the auspices of the African Union-Regional Task Force. But the operation proved costly to troop-contributing countries and needed more support. Rejecting a view that his Government was soft on UPDF members alleged to have committed crimes in the course of pursing the LRA, he said that allegations were routinely investigated and any errant individuals were put to public trials.

MILORAD ŠĆEPANOVIĆ (Montenegro), aligned with the statement delivered by the European Union delegation, and said the international community should not leave any room for political calculations when considering the Rome Statute’s ratification. That would seriously harm people and their fundamental human rights. The increase in cases of genocide and conflicts meant greater attention had to be paid to improving international mechanisms to fight impunity. While strengthening the Court’s role as the most important mechanism, it was necessary to deliver preventative tools, such as the Responsibility to Protect concept and the Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide. Montenegro reaffirmed its commitment to the Statute’s principles, the Court’s work and efforts aimed at universal jurisdiction of the Court. It strongly supported the rule of law at the international level and its implementation through mechanisms established by the United Nations. Yet without a strong rule of law at the national level, efforts to strengthen its use internationally would be restricted significantly. Montenegro continued to reform its own criminal code, for example, by incorporating the main international crimes prescribed in articles 6, 7, and 8 of the Statute into its domestic criminal code.

VASILIKI KRASA (Cyprus) expressed pride that her country currently served as a co-focal point within the Assembly of States Parties for promoting the action plan for the universality and full implementation of the Rome Statute. The further strengthening of the relationship between the Court and the United Nations was supported, and her delegation highlighted the importance of efforts by the United Nations in strengthening the capacity of its membership to address Rome Statute crimes. For the last 12 years, the Court had been tangibly contributing to the advancement of international justice.

Right of Reply

The representative of Syria, in exercise of the right of reply, emphasized that the major responsibility for the administration of justice lay with the concerned countries themselves. The Court complemented national court systems. It did not replace them and it could not be resorted to except under certain conditions, which did not exist in the case of Syria. The Syrian people were the only ones capable of choosing the justice system for trying their own people; no party or State had the right to speak on behalf of the Syrian people. Justice must be comprehensive and not politicized or subjected to double standards. The noble concept of justice should not be used and abused according to the whims of influential parties and their allies.

A permanent Council member was talking about so-called impartiality. Partiality did exist today and had been used to adopt a very arbitrary policy, in which countries turned a blind eye to crimes and atrocities committed in other countries — such as the crimes committed by the Israeli occupation over many decades. Some countries had ignored the fact that the leaders of the Israeli forces had been given immunity, and those countries had prevented the adoption of a resolution against Israel to hold it responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against Arabs under occupation. He said he had not forgotten the painful events that occurred in Rwanda and when the former Force Commander of the peacekeeping operation in that country said that some Heads of States had committed war crimes. The people of his region would not forget the atrocities committed against Iraq, he said. The photos of Abu Ghraib of the acts of beheading, terrorism and rape would be available forever. Behind Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s caliphate there were Governments that “cloned” Mr. al-Baghdadi every day. To the countries that allegedly cared for Syria and the Syrian people, he said the only way to help Syria was through very clear efforts to counter terrorism, and support a peaceful resolution of the conflict and the efforts toward that end of the Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria.

The representative of Turkey said that baseless accusations would be addressed in due course.

(...)

Source:

http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/ga11577.doc.htm

저작자표시 비영리

http://webtv.un.org/meetings-events/general-assembly/general-debate/watch/republic-of-korea-general-debate-69th-session/3804541826001

[UN 총회] 일반토의: 대한민국 대통령 기조연설

카테고리 없음

2014. 9. 24. 00:00

UN General Assembly

69th Session

General Debate

Republic of Korea: Her Excellency PARK Geun-hye, President of the Republic of Korea

24 September 2014

UN 총회

제69차 회기

일반토의

대한민국: 박근혜 대한민국 대통령

2014. 9. 24.

[Original (Floor): Korean/원음: 한국어]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FGpvujyqPA

[English Interpretation/영어 통역]

http://webtv.un.org/meetings-events/general-assembly/general-debate/watch/republic-of-korea-general-debate-69th-session/3803523708001

[Audio: Engish Translation/음성: 영어 통역]

http://downloads.unmultimedia.org/wss/ga69/en/69_KR_en.mp3

[연설문]

기조연설문

쿠테사 총회의장님, 반기문 사무총장님,

그리고 각국 대표 여러분,

쿠테사 외교장관의 제69차 유엔총회 의장직 취임을 축하드리며,

이번 총회에서 의미있는 성과를 거두기를 기대합니다.

아울러 세계 도처에서 발생하는 수많은 현안을 해결하기 위해

진력하고 계시는 유엔과 반기문 사무총장께 감사드립니다.

내년이면 유엔 창설 70주년을 맞게 됩니다.

저는 오늘날 우리가 처한 상황을 보면서

70년 전 유엔 창설자들이 품은 원대한 꿈과 이상을

다시 한 번 생각하게 됩니다.

유엔 창설 당시 유엔헌장 맨 첫머리에 써진

“우리, 인류(We the Peoples)”라는 표현에서 보듯이,

그들은 사람이 중심이 되는 새로운 세계를 만들고자 했습니다.

그리고 냉전과 탈냉전 시기를 거치는 동안

유엔은 수많은 도전을 극복하며 국제평화와 개발, 인권증진이라는

핵심 목표를 실현하기 위해 노력해 왔습니다.

그러나 이러한 유엔의 노력에도 불구하고

오늘날 세계 도처에서는 크고 작은 분쟁과 갈등이 계속되고 있습니다.

시리아, 리비아, 남수단 등에서 내전이 계속되면서

부녀자와 어린이들을 포함해 수많은 무고한 인명이 희생되고 있습니다.

이라크와 그 주변지역에서는 외국인 테러리스트들이 준동하면서

중동지역은 물론 국제평화에 새로운 위협이 되고 있습니다.

가자 지역과 우크라이나의 불안정한 휴전 체제는

보다 근본적이고 영속적인 해결을 요구하고 있습니다.

또한, 최근 아프리카에서 창궐하고 있는 에볼라 바이러스와

빈곤, 자연재해 등의 다중적 위기(multiple crises)들은

인류의 삶이 도처에서 위협받는 현실을 보여주고 있습니다.

이처럼 인류의 평화와 발전을 해치는 도전에 맞서기 위해서는

유엔 창설의 기본정신인 ‘인간우선’과 ‘국제협력’의 정신으로

돌아가야 합니다.

유엔을 중심으로 보다 신속하고 효율적인 대응 체제를 갖춰서

평화와 정의, 인류의 공동발전을 바라는

국제사회의 열망에 부응해 나가야 할 것입니다.

대표단 여러분,

대한민국은 1948년 유엔의 축복 속에 출범했고,

1950년 발발한 한국전쟁에서도

유엔의 도움으로 자유민주주의를 지킬 수 있었습니다.

그렇게 유엔의 지원으로 존립을 이어갔던 나라가

이제 선진화된 시장경제와 민주주의를 동시에 달성한

국가가 되었습니다.

그 과정에서 유엔이 추구하는 가치인 평화와 발전, 그리고 인권은

바로 대한민국의 비전이 되었습니다.

대한민국은 지난 역사를 통해

세계 도처에서 발생하고 있는 내전과 침략, 빈곤, 인도적 재앙들이

얼마나 고통스러운 것인지 잘 알고 있습니다.

이것이 오늘날 대한민국이 유엔의 3대 이사회 이사국으로서

국제평화와 인권증진, 지속가능개발의 임무를

적극적으로 수행하고 있는 이유이기도 합니다.

오늘 날 중동과 유라시아 그리고 동북아에서 전개되고 있는 상황은

유엔의 창설자들이 구상했던 평화롭고 정의로운 세계의 꿈과는

거리가 멉니다.

현재의 불안정과 혼란 상황을 극복하는 첫 걸음은

주권과 영토보존의 존중, 유엔 헌장에 위반하는 무력행사와 위협의 자제, 인권과 인도적 가치에 대한 존중이라는

국제사회의 기본 질서와 규범을 지키는 데서 시작되어야 합니다.

국제평화와 안전을 근본적으로 위협하는 핵무기 등

대량살상무기(WMD)의 개발과 확산을 방지하여야 합니다.

이러한 차원에서 유엔과 화학무기금지기구(OPCW)의 공동노력으로

시리아의 화학무기가 폐기되고,

이란 핵문제 해결에 진전이 있는 것을 환영합니다.

마찬가지로 저는 한반도와 동북아 평화에 가장 큰 위협인

북한 핵문제가 시급히 해결되어야 한다는 점을 강조하고자 합니다.

북한은 21세기 들어 핵실험을 감행한 유일한 국가입니다.

북한의 핵 프로그램은 국제평화에 심각한 위협일 뿐만 아니라,

핵비확산 체제의 근간인 NPT 체제를 전면 부정하는 것입니다.

북한은 핵을 포기하는 결단을 내려야 합니다.

스스로 핵을 포기하고 개혁과 개방을 선택한 여러 나라들처럼

경제발전과 주민의 삶을 개선하는 변화의 길로 나와야 합니다.

그럴 경우 우리는 국제사회와 함께

북한의 경제발전을 적극적으로 지원할 것입니다.

한반도 내의 엄중한 도전과 함께

현재 동북아시아도 어려운 전환기적 과정을 거치고 있습니다.

역사와 영토, 해양안보를 둘러싸고 역내 긴장이 고조되고 있지만,

다른 지역과 달리 동북아에는 다자협의를 통해

이런 문제를 풀어갈 장치가 존재하지 않습니다.

이런 문제의식 하에, 저는 역내 국가간 신뢰와 협력의 질서를

구축하기 위해 ‘동북아평화협력구상’을 추진하고 있습니다.

기후변화 대응과 재난구호, 원자력안전 등 초국가범죄 대처와 같은

실용적인 분야에서부터 역내 국가들이 협력의 습관을 축적해 나간다면

유럽에서와 같이 다자간 협력 프로세스로

강화되어 갈 수 있을 것이라 생각합니다.

이런 맥락에서 역내 국가간 공동 관심사인 원자력안전 문제를

논의하기 위해 “동북아 원자력안전 협의체” 구성도 제안하였습니다.

또한, 동북아를 넘어 유라시아로 교통망, 에너지망을 연계하여

경제적 상호의존을 통해 정치․안보적 신뢰를 구축하는 노력도

병행하고 있습니다.

대표단 여러분,

올해는 20세기 후반 국제사회 최대의 인도적 참사로 불리는

르완다 대학살이 발생한 지 20주년이 되는 해입니다.

1990년대 국제사회는 舊유고와 르완다에서의 대학살을 겪으면서

“결코 다시는(Never Again)”을 외쳤지만,

오늘날 시리아와 이라크에서 새로운 형태의 인도적 참사를

목격하고 있습니다.

대한민국은 이러한 인도적 참사 예방을 위한

유엔의 노력에 적극 동참하고 있습니다.

특히 반기문 사무총장이 주도하고 있는 ‘Rights up Front 이니셔티브’, ‘Open Gate Policy`와 같은 유엔 인권보호 정책을 적극 지지합니다.

이 순간에도 남수단과 레바논 등에서 활동 중인

대한민국 유엔 평화유지군은

평화구축과 재건, 민간인 보호와 인권 보장을 위해 노력하고 있습니다.

또한, 대한민국은 분쟁지역에서 고난을 겪고 있는 여성과 아동들의

인도주의적 피해를 방지하는 데도 큰 관심을 기울이고 있습니다.

이런 취지에서 작년 2월 안보리 의장국으로서

‘분쟁하 민간인 보호에 대한 고위급 공개토의’를 개최하여

국제사회의 관심을 환기시켰고,

‘분쟁하 성폭력 방지 이니셔티브(PSVI)’의 대표국가(Champion)로도

참여하고 있습니다.

전시 여성에 대한 성폭력은,

어느 시대, 어떤 지역을 막론하고,

분명히 인권과 인도주의에 반하는 행위입니다.

또한, 오늘날 국제사회가 큰 관심과 우려를 갖고 있는

인권문제 중의 하나가 북한 인권입니다.

지난 3월 유엔 인권이사회는

북한인권조사위원회(COI) 보고서상의 권고사항을 채택했습니다.

북한과 국제사회는 COI 권고사항 이행을 위해

필요한 조치를 취해야 할 것입니다.

이와 관련, 조만간 유엔이 한국에 설치할 북한 인권사무소가

이러한 노력을 지원할 수 있을 것으로 기대합니다.

또한, 국제사회는 탈북민의 인권문제에도 관심을 기울여야 합니다.

탈북민들이 자유의사에 따라 목적지를 선택할 수 있도록

유엔 해당기구와 관련 국가들이 필요한 지원을 제공해야 합니다.

대표단 여러분,

절대빈곤과 기후변화 등 오늘날 인류가 직면한 과제들은

그 복잡성과 상호의존성을 감안할 때,

국제사회의 공동대응을 통해서만 해결될 수 있을 것입니다.

절대빈곤 타파와 사회경제적 기회 증대를 목표로 출범한

유엔새천년개발목표(MDGs)는

목표 연도인 내년 말까지 500일도 남지 않았습니다.

우리나라는 우리의 독특한 역사적 경험을 활용하여

2015년 이후 개발목표 설정 과정에서

선진국과 개도국 간 교량 역할을 해나가고자 합니다.

이런 맥락에서 지난 4월 멕시코에서 열린

「부산 글로벌 파트너십 장관급회의」에서는

부산 글로벌파트너십을 국제개발 협력체제로 발전시키기로 했습니다.

우리나라는 대외원조의 질적인 발전을 도모해 나갈 것입니다.

과거 근면, 자조, 협동의 정신으로 우리의 농촌 빈곤퇴치에 기여한

‘새마을운동 모델’이 지구촌에 확산되도록

경험을 공유하는 노력도 지속할 것입니다.

또한, 경제발전 과정에서 교육에 크게 힘입은 우리나라는

반기문 사무총장의 ‘글로벌 교육우선구상(GEFI)’을 적극 지지하면서

이 구상의 지원국(Champion)으로 활동하고 있습니다.

우리나라는 2015년 이후(Post-2015)개발목표의 핵심과제인 교육분야에서

우리의 경험을 공유하고 유엔의 구상을 실질적으로 지원할 것입니다.

이를 위해 2015년 5월에 세계교육포럼(WEF)을 주최하여,

향후 15년간 새로운 교육목표에 합의할 수 있도록 노력할 것입니다.

기후변화 문제는 전쟁과 평화의 문제 못지않게

인간의 삶을 위협하는 최대의 도전으로 부상하였습니다.

어제 기후정상회의에서 각국 정상들은

2020년 이후(Post-2020) 新기후체제에 대한 합의도출을 위해

공동의 의지를 모았습니다.

앞으로 2015년 파리 기후변화총회까지는

반드시 新기후체제에 대한 합의를 도출해야만 합니다.

우리는 녹색기후기금(GCF)과 글로벌녹색성장기구(GGGI) 유치국으로서

개도국의 기후변화 대응역량 강화를 위한

국제사회의 노력에 기여하고자 합니다.

무엇보다 녹색기후기금의 조속한 정착과

글로벌녹색성장기구의 개도국 지원확대에 협력할 예정입니다.

또한, 한국은 기후변화 대응을 부담이 아닌 새로운 기회로 인식하고,

기술혁신을 통해 새로운 가치와 시장, 일자리를 창출하고자

에너지 신산업을 육성하고 있습니다.

이러한 노력의 과실을 개도국들과 함께 나눌 것입니다.

의장님, 그리고 대표단 여러분,

69년전 한민족은 광복을 맞이하였지만 남북한으로 갈라져

하나의 주권국가로 유엔의 회원국이 될 수 없었습니다.

1991년 남한과 북한이 유엔에 동시 가입하였습니다.

하지만 같은 언어, 문화 그리고 역사를 공유하고 있는 남과 북이

유엔에서 2개의 자리를 차지하고 있는 것은 분명 비정상적인 일입니다.

올해는 베를린 장벽이 무너진 지 25년이 되는 해입니다.

하지만 아직도 한반도는 분단의 장벽에 가로 막혀 있습니다.

수많은 이산가족들이 사랑하는 가족을 만나지 못한 채,

그리움과 고통의 시간을 보내고 있습니다.

세계에서 유일하게 남아있는 이런 분단의 장벽을 무너뜨리는데

세계가 함께 나서 주시기 바랍니다.

저는 얼마 전 북한에게

남북한 사이에 환경과 민생, 그리고 문화의 통로(Corridor)를

만들자고 제안하였습니다.

남북한 주민들이 하나의 생태계 속에서 자연과 어우러지고,

헤어진 가족들이 서로 만나며 고통을 덜어가고,

문화를 함께 공유할 때,

분단의 아픔을 치유하고 함께 발전할 수 있는

생활공동체를 형성할 수 있다고 믿기 때문입니다.

지금 한반도는 폭 4km, 길이 250km의 DMZ에 의해 단절되어 있습니다.

전쟁의 재발을 막기 위해 군사분계선을 따라 만들어진 DMZ는

지난 60여년간 사람의 왕래도 막았습니다.

하지만 그 사이 자연은 이곳에 생태계의 보고를 만들어 주었습니다.

DMZ의 생태계는 남과 북이 하나이고,

남과 북이 협력해야 한다는 것을 웅변적으로 보여주고 있습니다.

저는 단절의 상징인 DMZ에 ‘세계생태평화공원’을 건설하여

남북으로 갈라져 있는 한반도의 자연과 사람을

하나로 연결하는 출발점으로 삼고자 합니다.

DMZ의 작은 공간부터 철조망을 걷어 내고,

남북한 주민들이 자연과 어우러져 소통할 수 있다면,

DMZ 세계생태평화공원은 생명과 평화의 통로로

자리매김할 수 있을 것입니다.

이 과정에 유엔이 앞장서 주길 부탁드립니다.

유엔 주도 하에 남북한, 미국, 중국 등 전쟁 당사자들이 참여하여

국제적인 규범과 가치를 존중하며 공원을 만든다면,

그것은 한반도 긴장완화와 평화통일의 시금석이 될 것입니다.

통일된 한반도는 핵무기 없는 세계의 출발점이자,

인권문제에 대한 근본적인 해결책이며,

안정 속에 협력하는 동북아를 구현하는 시발점이 될 것입니다.

독일통일이 유럽통합을 이루어 새로운 유럽의 주춧돌이 되었다면,

통일된 한반도는 새로운 동북아를 만들어 가는 초석이 될 것입니다.

한반도의 평화통일은

그 자체로 유엔의 설립목표와 가치를 구현하는데

기여할 것이라고 저는 확신합니다.

쿠테사 총회의장님, 반기문 사무총장님,

그리고 각국 대표 여러분,

유엔의 창설자들은 전란의 와중에서도 미래를 내다보며

전후의 평화로운 세계를 구상했습니다.

대한민국은 한반도의 지속가능한 평화와 통일,

그리고 동북아의 평화와 발전을 넘어

지구촌 행복시대를 구현하는 것을 외교 비전으로 삼고 있습니다.

유엔이 인류 공동의 가치를 공고히 지켜나가고,

글로벌 거버넌스의 중심 기구로 자리매김해 나가는 숭고한 여정에

대한민국은 응분의 역할을 다해나갈 것입니다.

감사합니다.

[Statement/연설문]

(비공식) 영문 번역본

Full Text/전문: http://www.un.org/en/ga/69/meetings/gadebate/pdf/KR_en.pdf

Check against Delivery

Keynote Address

by H.E. PARK Geun-hye

President of the Republic of Korea

at the 69th Session of

the General Assembly of the United Nations

September 24, 2014, New York

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General, Fellow Delegates,

Let me start by congratulating you, Mr. Kutesa, on your election as President of the 69th Session of the UN General Assembly. I am confident that this session will make meaningful progress under your able leadership.

I would also like to express my appreciation to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for his tireless efforts to tackle the numerous challenges breaking out across the globe.

(United Nations and Global Governance)

Next year marks the 70th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations.

I am prompted by the state of our world today, to reflect once again upon the noble dreams and ideals that inspired the founders of the United Nations seventy years ago.

The founders aspired to build a new world that places people at the center, as the opening words of the UN Charter, `We the Peoples,` remind us.

Throughout the ensuing decades of the Cold War and post-Cold War era, the UN has been tackling countless crises, striving as it did so, to fulfill its purpose of maintaining international peace, promoting development, and upholding human rights.

Yet, our world continues to be beset with widespread disputes and conflicts—both large and small—despite the efforts of the UN.

Civil conflicts raging on in Syria, Libya and South Sudan are leading to the deaths of untold numbers of innocent women and children.

In Iraq and surrounding areas, the activities of foreign terrorist fighters are posing new threats to peace internationally, not to mention in the Middle East.

The fragile ceasefire in Gaza and Ukraine call for a more fundamental and lasting solution.

The recent Ebola outbreak in Africa, widespread poverty and natural disasters, together underscore how humanity is under threat from multiple challenges.

The need to push back against these harmful challenges to peace and development beckons us to return to the UN`s founding spirit of putting people first and promoting cooperation among the family of nations.

And to meet the aspirations of the international community for justice and common prosperity, the UN needs to continue playing a central role for arranging more rapid and efficient responses.

(Three key objectives of the UN)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Republic of Korea was founded in 1948 with the blessing of the UN.

It was able to safeguard freedom and democracy during the Korean War that broke out two years later, again with the help of the UN.

Once a country that barely managed to survive with the UN`s assistance, the Republic of Korea is today a nation that has achieved both an advanced market economy and democracy.

And in the course of that journey, the Republic of Korea came to espouse the values upheld by the UN—peace, development and human rights—as its own vision.

Given its history, the Republic of Korea is no stranger to the agonies of civil war, aggression, poverty and humanitarian disasters that are unfolding around the world.

This is why Korea is actively working to serve international peace, promote human rights and sustainable development, as a member of the three major councils of the UN—the Security Council, Human Rights Council, and Economic and Social Council.

(International Peace)

Developments unfolding in the Middle East, Eurasia, and Northeast Asia are a far cry from the peaceful and just world that was envisioned by the UN`s founders.

Overcoming the instability and chaos we see today must start with our adherence to the fundamental order and norms of the international community. That is, respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, refraining from the threat or use of force in violation of the UN Charter, and respect for human rights and humanitarian values.

We need to prevent the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction like nuclear weapons, which pose a fundamental threat to international peace and security.

In this regard, we welcome the elimination of Syria`s chemical weapons through the joint efforts of the UN and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), as well as the progress being made in addressing the Iranian nuclear issue.

By the same token, I would underline the urgency of resolving the North Korean nuclear issue, which presents the single-greatest threat to peace on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia.

The DPRK is the only country to have conducted a nuclear test in the 21st century.

Its nuclear program is not only a serious threat to international peace, but alsoamounts to a total rejection of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the backbone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime.

The DPRK must make the decision to give up its nuclear weapons.

The DPRK should follow in the footsteps of other countries that have abandoned their nuclear weapons in favor of reform and opening, and choose a different path that supports its economic development and improves the lives of its people.

Should it choose to do so, the Republic of Korea, together with the international community, will provide our strong support for developing the DPRK economy.

In addition to this serious challenge on the Korean Peninsula, Northeast Asia is undergoing a difficult transition.

There are growing tensions in the region surrounding issues of history, territory and maritime security. Yet, unlike other regions, Northeast Asia lacks a mechanism for dealing with these problems through multilateral consultations.

It is against this backdrop that I am seeking to advance a Northeast Peace and Cooperation Initiative that is aimed at building an order of trust and cooperation in the region.

In my view, building up habits of cooperation in practical areas, such as climate action, disaster relief, nuclear safety, and tackling transnational crime, can materialize into a multilateral process of cooperation along the lines of what we see in Europe.

In this context, I have also proposed creating a Northeast Asia nuclear safety consultative body to discuss nuclear safety issues—a topic of shared interest for the countries in the region.

At the same time, we are reaching beyond Northeast Asia and seeking to build transportation and energy networks across an economically inter-dependent Eurasia, which would help strengthen political and security trust across the continent.

(Human Rights)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This year marks 20 years since the Rwanda genocide—the world`s greatest humanitarian tragedy of the late 20th century.

The international community had pledged `never again` in the aftermath of the genocides in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s. Yet, we are witnessing today a different type of humanitarian disaster unfolding in Syria and Iraq.

The Republic of Korea is actively participating in the efforts of the UN to prevent such humanitarian tragedies.

The Republic of Korea strongly supports UN policies to protect human rights, such as, in particular, the Rights up Front initiative and Open Gate Policy that the Secretary-General is leading.

Even as we speak, Korean troops are taking part in UN peacekeeping missions in South Sudan and Lebanon, helping with peace-building, reconstruction, and the protection of civilians and human rights.

The Republic of Korea also attaches great importance to preventing the humanitarian suffering of women and children, in particular, who are most vulnerable in conflict situations.

In this context, during its presidency of the UN Security Council in February 2013, Korea chaired an open session on civilian protection in conflict situations and helped raise global awareness. Korea is also participating in the Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative (PSVI) as a champion state. Sexual violence against women during armed conflicts is a clear violation of human rights and humanitarian norms, regardless of how far back or where it occurred.

The human rights situation in the DPRK is also the subject of profound interest and concern for the international community.

Last March, the UN Human Rights Council adopted the recommendations in the report of the Commission of Inquiry (COl) on human rights in the DPRK. The DPRK and the international community should take the necessary measures to implement these recommendations.

In this regard, the UN office that will soon be set up in the Republic of Korea to investigate human rights abuses in the DPRK is expected to reinforce such efforts.

The international community should also pay greater attention to the human rights situation of North Korean defectors. Relevant UN agencies and countries should provide the necessary support so that defectors can freely choose their resettlement destinations.

(Development, Education, and Environment)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The challenges facing humanity today, such as absolute poverty and climate change, can only be addressed through concerted international response, given their complexity and intertwined character.

Less than 500 days remain until the target date of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which was launched with the goal of eradicating absolute poverty and increasing social and economic opportunities.

The Republic of Korea is ready to play a bridging role between developed and developing countries as the post-2015 development goals are being set, by harnessing our unique historical experience.

In this regard, the decision was made to develop the Busan Global Partnership into an international development cooperative mechanism at the Ministerial Meeting that was held last April in Mexico.

The Republic of Korea will seek to enhance the quality of its overseas assistance. We will continue to share our development experience, by globally promoting the Saemaul movement model, which conduced to eradicating rural poverty in Korea through the spirit of diligence, self-reliance and cooperation.

Having seen the power of education in propelling its own development, the Republic of Korea strongly supports—as a Champion—the Secretary-General`s Global Education First Initiative (GEFI).

Korea will share its lessons-learned and provide substantive support to the UN`s initiatives on education, which is one of the main themes of the post-2015 development goals.

To this end, Korea will host the World Education Forum (WEF) in 2015 and make efforts to reach an agreement on the new education objectives for the next fifteen years.

Climate change is no less an existential threat to humanity than the question ofwar and peace.

At yesterday`s Climate Summit, leaders rallied their collective resolve to reach a consensus on the post-2020 new climate regime.

Going forward, an agreement must be reached on a new climate regime by the2015 Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in Paris.

As the host country of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and the Green GrowthGlobal Institute (GGGI), Korea is committed to supporting international efforts to strengthen developing countries` mitigation and adaptation capacities.

Above all, we will continue to work for the full and early operationalization of the GCF and for the expansion of GGGI`s assistance to developing countries.

Korea views the climate challenge, not as a burden, but an opportunity to unleash new value, markets and jobs through technology innovation. We arenurturing new energy industries.

And we hope to share the fruits of our efforts with other developing countries.

(Inter-Korean Relations and Reunification)

Mr. President,

Fellow delegates,

The Korean people gained independence 69 years ago, but the subsequent division of the Korean Peninsula precluded its membership in the UN as a single sovereign state.

The two Koreas were separately admitted as member states to the UN in 1991. Having two separate seats despite a single language, culture and history isclearly not normal.

This year marks the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. But theKorean Peninsula remains stifled by a wall of division.

Countless separated families have been spending decades in agony, longing tosee their loved ones.

I call on the international community to stand with us in tearing down the world`s last remaining wall of division.

Not long ago, I proposed to the DPRK that we build corridors that can connectour environment, our livelihoods, and our culture.

In my view, a genuine community that can heal the wounds of division and move the both sides forward together, will only come about when people from the South and the North are able to live in natural harmony within a single ecosystem, when separated families are able to come together and ease their agony, and when culture is shared.

Today, the Korean Peninsula is divided by a 4km wide and 250km longdemilitarized zone (DMZ). This DMZ, built around the military demarcation line to prevent renewed conflict, in reality ended up preventing the back-and-forth of people for some sixty years.

But from the stretches of the DMZ would emerge, in those decades, a treasure trove of nature`s wildlife.

The DMZ`s eco-system is a testament to the fact that the South and North are part of a single whole, one which both sides should work together to restore. And so I hope to build inside the very symbol of our division a World Eco-Peace Park that would start reconnecting the Peninsula`s divided nature and divided people.

If we sweep away barbed-wire fences from small tracts inside the DMZ and thereby allow people from both sides to live in natural harmony, the World Eco-Peace Park will emerge as a corridor of life and peace.

I call on the UN to spearhead these efforts. Building a park that embodies respect for international norms and values, and doing so under UN auspices with all the parties to the war on board—the two Koreas, the US and China—would serve the cause of easing tensions and peaceful reunification of the two Koreas.

A unified Korea will be the starting point for a world without nuclear weapons, offer a fundamental solution to the North Korean human rights issue, and help unlock a stable and cooperative Northeast Asia.

Just as the unification of Germany laid the grounds for a new Europe by integrating Europe, a unified Korea will set in motion a new Northeast Asia.

I am confident that a peacefully reunified Korean Peninsula will contribute to realizing the founding purposes and values espoused by the UN.

(Conclusion)

Mr. President,

Mr. Secretary-General,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The founders of the UN were not deterred by the heat of war from looking to the future and planning for a peaceful post-war world.

The Republic of Korea is committed to a vision of diplomacy that seeks lasting peace and unification in the Peninsula, peace and development in Northeast Asia, and contributes to building a happier world.

The Republic of Korea will do its part in the noble journey to ensure that the UN continues to safeguard our common values and cements its place at the center of global governance.

Thank you.

[Statement/연설문]

Summary/요약

PARK GEUN-HYE, President of the Republic of Korea, highlighted the need to return to the United Nations its founding spirit of putting people first and promoting cooperation among nations. The United Nations should play a central role in arranging more rapid and efficient responses. In her call for prevention of the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, she underlined the urgency of resolving the North Korean nuclear issue, which she called the “single-greatest threat to peace on the Korean peninsula and in North-East Asia”.

About the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, she said that that country and the international community should take the necessary measures to implement the recommendations adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council last March. To reinforce those efforts, the United Nations office would soon be set up in the Republic of Korea to investigate human rights abuses in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

As the post-2015 development goals were being set, the Republic of Korea, she went on, was ready to play a bridging role between developed and developing countries. In particular, she expressed her support for the United Nations education initiatives, including the Secretary-General’s Global Education First Initiative (GEFI). She also promised that, as the host of the 2015 World Education Forum, her country would make efforts to reach an agreement on the new education objectives for the next 15 years.

She said climate challenge was not a burden, but an opportunity to unleash new value, markets and jobs through technology innovations. As the host country of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and the Green Growth Global Institute (GGGI), the Republic of Korea supported international efforts to strengthen developing countries’ mitigation and adaptation capacities.

With regard to the division of the Korean peninsula, she urged the international community to stand with them in tearing down what she called “the world’s last remaining wall of division”. A unified Korea would be the starting point for a world without nuclear weapons; it would offer a fundamental solution to the North Korean human rights issue and help unblock a stable and cooperative North-East Asia.

[청와대 - 뉴스]

대통령, 유엔총회 기조연설

박근혜 대통령은 취임 후 처음으로 글로벌 거버넌스 체제의 핵심인 유엔총회에 참석, 24일 오전 유엔총회장에서 기조연설을 했습니다.

※ 제69차 유엔총회 개요(총회의장 : Kutesa 우간다 외교장관)

- 총회주제 : 변화를 가져오는 2015년 이후 개발목표 설정과 이행(Delivering on and Implementing a Transformative Post-2015 Development Agenda)

- 기조연설 기간 : 2014.9.24(수) ~10.1(수)

- 기조연설자 : 국가원수·정부수반급 141명 포함, 193개 회원국 대표

박 대통령은 중동·아프리카 등에서의 분쟁 지속, 이라크 내 외국인 테러리스트 문제 등 새로운 위협 부상, 우크라이나 사태, 에볼라 바이러스 창궐 등 동시다발적인 도전에 효과적으로 대응하기 위해서는 유엔이 창설 당시의 「인간 우선」과 「국제협력」의 초심으로 돌아가 중심적 역할을 수행하는 것이 필요하다고 강조했습니다.

박 대통령은 1948년 정부출범, 한국전쟁 및 이후 경제개발 과정에서의 우리나라와 유엔 간 긴밀한 관계를 회고하면서, 한때 동아시아의 최빈국이 이제는 선진화된 시장경제와 민주화를 동시에 달성한 국가이자, 유엔의 3대 이사회*의 이사국으로서 국제평화, 인권증진 및 지속가능개발의 유엔 3대 임무를 적극적으로 수행하고 있다고 소개하였습니다.

* 유엔 3대 이사회 : 안전보장이사회, 인권이사회, 경제사회이사회

[국제평화 분야 관련]

△북한 핵 문제의 해결 필요성을 강조하고, 북한의 핵 포기 및 경제 발전을 위한 전략적 선택을 촉구했습니다. △동북아의 역사, 영토 및 해양안보 관련 갈등을 해결하고 역내 국가 간 신뢰와 협력의 질서를 구축하기 위한 동북아평화협력 구상 및 동북아 원자력안전협의체 추진과 △유라시아 차원의 협력 추진을 설명했습니다.

[인권 분야 관련]

△르완다 대학살 20주년을 맞아 유엔의 인권 강화 정책에 대한 적극적인 지지 표명했습니다. △전시 여성에 대한 성폭력은 어느 시대, 어떤 지역을 막론하고 인권과 인도주의에 반하는 행위임을 강조하고 북한인권 문제 관련, △북한과 국제사회가 북한 인권조사위원회(COI)의 권고사항 이행을 위해 필요한 조치를 취할 것을 촉구했습니다. △탈북민의 인권보호 및 자유의사에 따라 목적지를 선택할 수 있도록 유엔과 관련국가들의 협조를 요청했습니다.

[개발·교육·환경 분야 관련]

△2015년 이후 개발목표 및 2020년 신기후체제 수립 과정에서의 우리나라의 교량역할 수행의지를 천명하고 △새마을운동 모델의 지구촌 확산을 위한 우리경험을 공유했습니다. △글로벌 교육우선구상(Global Education First Initiative) 적극 지원 및 우리의 2015년 세계교육포럼(WEF) 주최를 소개했습니다. △신기후체제에 대한 합의 도출 필요성을 강조하고, 녹색기후기금(GCF) 및 글로벌녹색성장기구(GGGI) 유치국으로서 개도국의 기후변화 대응역량 강화방안에 대한 국제사회의 노력에 기여 의지 등을 강조했습니다.

박 대통령은 분단 70주년을 앞두고 있는 우리나라의 평화통일 정책을 상세히 설명하면서, 한반도 통일은 유엔의 설립목표와 숭고한 가치에도 기여한다는 비전을 제시했습니다.

통일된 한반도는 △핵무기 없는 세계의 출발점이자, △인권문제에 대한 근본적인 해결책으로, △안정되고 협력적인 새로운 동북아를 구현하는 시발점이 될 것이라는 점을 강조했습니다.

지난 8.15 경축사에서 남북한간 환경과 민생, 그리고 문화의 통로를 만들자고 하였던 제안과 관련, DMZ에 ‘세계생태평화공원’을 건설하여 남북으로 갈라져 있는 한반도의 자연과 사람을 하나로 연결하는 출발점을 삼고자함을 천명하고, 유엔 등 국제사회의 기여를 요청했습니다.

박 대통령은 금번 유엔총회 기조연설을 통해 주요 국제문제에 대한 우리의 기여 의지를 표명했으며, 나아가 한반도 통일과 동북아 평화협력을 이루어 내기 위한 우리정부의 노력을 전 세계에 설명함으로써 국제사회의 이해와 공감대를 확산하는데 크게 기여했습니다.

Source:

http://www.un.org/en/ga/69/meetings/gadebate/24sep/republicofkorea.shtml

http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/ga11564.doc.htm

http://www1.president.go.kr/news/newsList.php?srh%5Bview_mode%5D=detail&srh%5Bseq%5D=7459

http://www1.president.go.kr/news/newsList.php?srh%5Bview_mode%5D=detail&srh%5Bseq%5D=7456

http://english1.president.go.kr/activity/briefing.php?srh%5Bboard_no%5D=21&srh%5Bpage%5D=9&srh%5Bview_mode%5D=detail&srh%5Bseq%5D=7480&srh%5Bdetail_no%5D=216#sthash.2NFgEjha.dpuf

저작자표시 비영리

이슬람권, UN에서 12년 간 종교비방을 금지시키려는 운동 그만두다

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/03/24/islamic-bloc-drops-12-year-u-n-drive-to-ban-defamation-of-religion

2011. 3. 24. 00:00

Islamic bloc drops 12-year U.N. drive to ban defamation of religion

이슬람권, UN에서 12년 간 종교비방을 금지시키려는 운동 그만두다

By Robert Evans

March 24, 2011

Tags:

(U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addresses the high level segment of the 16th session of the Human Rights Council at the United Nations European headquarters in Geneva, February 28, 2011. REUTERS/Valentin Flauraud)

(U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addresses the Human Rights Council in Geneva and urges it "to move beyond a decade-long debate over whether insults to religion should be banned or criminalised," February 28, 2011/Valentin Flauraud)

Islamic countries set aside their 12-year campaign to have religions protected from “defamation”, allowing the U.N. Human Rights Council in Genea to approve a plan to promote religious tolerance on Thursday. Western countries and their Latin American allies, strong opponents of the defamation concept, joined Muslim and African states in backing without vote the new approach that switches focus from protecting beliefs to protecting believers.

Since 1998, the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) had won majority approval in the council and at the United Nations General Assembly for a series of resolutions on “combating defamation of religion”. Critics said the concept ran against international law and free speech, and left the way open for tough “blasphemy” laws like those in Pakistan which have been invoked this year by the killers of two moderate politicians in Pakistan. They argued that it also allowed states where one religion predominates to keep religious minorities under tight control or even leave them open to forced conversion or oppression.

(Funeral of Pakistan's Minister for Minorities Shahbaz Bhatti in Islamabad March 4, 2011. Pakistani Taliban assassinated Bhatti, a Catholic, for urging the repeal of the blasphemy law/Faisal Mahmood)

But Pakistan, which speaks for the OIC in the rights council, had argued that such protection against defamation was essential to defend Islam, and other religions, against criticism that caused offence to ordinary believers. Islamic countries pointed to the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed in Denmark in 2005, which sparked anti-Western violence in the Middle East and Asia, as examples of defamatory treatment of their faith that they wanted stopped. However, support for the fiercely-contested resolutions — which the OIC had been seeking to have transformed into official U.N. human rights standards — has declined in recent years.

The new three-page resolution, which emerged after discussions between U.S. and Pakistani diplomats in recent weeks, recognises that there is “intolerance, discrimination and violence” aimed at believers in all regions of the world. Omitting any reference to “defamation”, it condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that amounts to incitement to hostility or violence against believers and calls on governments to act to prevent it.

The U.S.-based Human Rights First campaign group said the new resolution was “a huge achievement because…it focuses on the protection of individuals rather than religions” and put the divisive debates on defamation behind. However, diplomats from Islamic countries have warned the council that they could return to campaigning for an international law against religious defamation if Western countries are not seen as acting to protect believers.

(Supporters of the Sunni Tehreek religious party hold placards in support for Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri, the gunmen detained for the killing of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, in Hyderabad January 9, 2011. Qadri, said he was angered by outspoken Punjab governor Taseer's opposition to Pakistan's controversial blasphemy law. Taseer, a liberal politician close to President Asif Ali Zardari, had championed the cause of a Christian woman sentenced to death under the blasphemy laws which critics say are used to target religious minorities, often to settle personal scores. REUTERS/Akram Shahid)

(Pakistani Islamists march in support of Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri, the gunmen detained for the killing of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, assassinated because he advocated repeal of Pakistan's blasphemy law, in Hyderabad January 9, 2011/Akram Shahid)

Source:

'UN 인권이사회 | Human Rights Council (HRC)' 카테고리의 다른 글

미국 국제종교자유위원회, "종교비방" 개념에서 탈피한 인권이사회 결의안 환영 \| USCIRF welcomes move away from "defamation of religions" concept (0)	2011.03.24

미국 국제종교자유위원회, "종교비방" 개념에서 탈피한 인권이사회 결의안 환영 | USCIRF welcomes move away from "defamation of religions" concept

2011. 3. 24. 00:00

미국 국제종교자유위원회, "종교비방" 개념에서 탈피한 인권이사회 결의안 환영

USCIRF Welcomes Move Away from "Defamation of Religions" Concept

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 24, 2011

WASHINGTON, DC -The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) welcomed the UN Human Rights Council"s significant step away from the pernicious "defamation of religions” concept. Today, the Council adopted a resolution on religious intolerance that does not include this dangerous concept. The defamation concept undermines individual rights to freedom of religion and expression; exacerbates religious intolerance, discrimination, and violence; and provides international support for domestic blasphemy laws that often have led to gross human rights abuses. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has promoted this flawed concept at the United Nations for more than a decade.

"USCIRF and others, including the State Department, members of Congress, and NGOs, have worked hard against the defamation of religions concept for years. USCIRF specifically applauds Secretary Clinton and her team for today's result. We also thank Representatives Eliot Engel (D-NY), Christopher Smith (R-NJ), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), and Frank Wolf (R-VA), for their leadership roles on this issue,” said Leonard Leo, USCIRF chair. "Thanks to these efforts, and those of previous administrations and Congresses, more countries each year voted against the defamation of religions concept because they understood that blasphemy laws increase intolerance and violence. Tragically, it took the assassinations of two prominent Pakistani officials who opposed that country's draconian blasphemy laws-Federal Minister of Minorities Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti and Punjab governor Salman Taseer-to convince the OIC that the annual defamation of religions resolutions embolden extremists rather than bolster religious harmony.”

The efforts over the past several years by USCIRF, the State Department, Congress, and a broad coalition of NGOs helped bring about a steady loss of support both in Geneva and New York for the defamation resolutions. Since 2008, the resolutions have been supported by only a plurality of member states. In 2010, at both the UN Human Rights Council and General Assembly, defamation of religions resolutions garnered the least support and most opposition the issue had ever received, coming within, respectively, four and 13 votes of defeat.

In place of the divisive "combating defamation of religions” resolution, today the UN Human Rights Council adopted a consensus resolution on "combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief.” The resolution properly focuses on protecting individuals from discrimination or violence, instead of protecting religions from criticism. The resolution protects the adherents of all religions or beliefs, instead of focusing on one religion. Unlike the defamation of religions resolution, the new consensus resolution does not call for legal restrictions on peaceful expression, but rather, for positive measures, such as education and awareness-building, to address intolerance, discrimination, and violence based on religion or belief.

"USCIRF is gratified that this new resolution recognizes that religious intolerance is best fought through efforts to encourage respect for every individual's human rights, not through national or international anti-blasphemy laws,” said Mr. Leo. "What is needed now is for countries, such as Pakistan, that have blasphemy laws to eliminate them.”

USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government commission. USCIRF Commissioners are appointed by the President and the leadership of both political parties in the Senate and the House of Representatives. USCIRF's principal responsibilities are to review the facts and circumstances of violations of religious freedom internationally and to make policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State and Congress.

http://www.un.org/webcast/2007.html

'UN 인권이사회 | Human Rights Council (HRC)' 카테고리의 다른 글

이슬람권, UN에서 12년 간 종교비방을 금지시키려는 운동 그만두다 (0)	2011.03.24

UN 사무국 | UN Secretariat

반기문 신임 UN 사무총장의 후세인 이라크 전직 대통령 사형집행에 관한 발언/입장

UN 사무국 | UN Secretariat

2007. 1. 2. 00:00

UN Secretary-General BAN Ki-moon's comments/position on the execution of the death penalty against the former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein

반기문 신임 UN 사무총장의 사담 후세인 이라크 전직 대통령 사형집행에 관한 발언/입장

Media Stakeout

2 January 2007

반기문 UN 사무총장 기자회견

2007. 1. 2.

02 January 07

Media Stakeout: Informal comments to the Media by the Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, on the situation in Sudan and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and other matters.
[Webcast: Archived Video - 12 minutes ]

[5:33 - 6:39]

[Meetings Coverage and Press Releases/회의취재 및 보도자료]

Off-the-Cuff

Secretary-General's encounter with the UN press corps

New York, 2 January 2007

반기문 UN 사무총장의 UN 기자단과의 기자회견

New York

2007. 1. 2.

(...)

Q: Should Saddam Hussein have been executed, Mr. Secretary-General?

SG: Saddam Hussein was responsible for committing heinous crimes and unspeakable atrocities against the Iraqi people. We should never forget the victims of his crimes. The issue of capital punishment is for each and every Member State to decide. As a Secretary-General, at the same time, while I am firmly against impunity, I also hope that the members of the international community should pay due regard to all aspects of international humanitarian laws. During my entire tenure, I will try my best to help Member States, the international community, to strengthen the rule of law.

(...)

[UN News]

Ban Ki-moon takes over as UN Secretary-General, calls for common action to face crises

UN 사무총장직을 이어받은 반기문, 위기에 맞서기 위하여 공동행동 촉구

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

2 January 2007 – Passing an honour guard and welcomed with applause from staff, former Republic of Korea Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon took over formally as United Nations Secretary-General today with a call for collective action to address a host of international crises from Sudan’s Darfur conflict to the nuclear programmes of Iran and North Korea.

Mr. Ban, who succeeded Kofi Annan to become the eighth UN Secretary-General as the New Year came in on 1 January, smiled broadly as he entered the towering landmark building housing UN Headquarters on New York’s East River, where he paid tribute at the memorial for UN personnel who have fallen in the line of duty.

“I am very much overwhelmed by all this warm welcome,” he told a crowd of reporters. “Your presence this morning is a vivid proof that the United Nations is much alive in the front line addressing all the challenges and issues and trying to give hope to all the people around the world,” he said.

“I start my day as Secretary-General of the United Nations with much expectations and hope and promise and I need your strong support. I start my duty at a daunting time in international affairs starting from Darfur to Middle East, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, many other crises that trouble our world,” he added, stressing that these issues need to be addressed collectively.

Answering questions, Mr. Ban said he would immediately turn his attention to the issue of Darfur more than three years of fighting between Sudanese Government forces, allied militias and rebel groups seeking greater autonomy have left more than 200,000 people dead and driven more than 2.5 million from their homes.

Asked about North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme, he said that in his former position he had been deeply involved personally and as Secretary-General he will first try to facilitate the smooth progress of the six-party talks between the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States seeking a solution.

Asked about the hanging of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Mr. Ban said the issue of the death penalty was a question for each country to decide.

“Saddam Hussein was responsible for committing heinous crimes and unspeakable atrocities against the Iraqi people,” he noted. “We should never forget the victims of his crimes. The issue of capital punishment is for each and every Member State to decide.

“As a Secretary-General, at the same time, while I am firmly against impunity, I also hope that the members of the international community should pay due regard to all aspects of international humanitarian laws. During my entire tenure, I will try my best to help Member States, the international community, to strengthen the rule of law.”

Daily Noon Press Briefing

2 January 2007

대변인 일일 정오 브리핑

2007. 1. 2.

02 January 07

Daily Noon Press Briefing: By the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General.
[Webcast: Archived Video - 30 minutes ]

[2:32 - 3:25]
[7:27 - 10:32]
[15:45 - 16:46]

[24:22 - 24:59]

[26:51 - 27:48]

2 January 2007

DAILY PRESS BRIEFING BY THE OFFICE OF THE SPOKESPERSON FOR THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

2007. 1. 2.

UN 사무총장 대변인실 일일 브리핑

Noon Briefings

(...)

Turning now to Iraq, the Secretary-General was asked about the death sentence imposed over the weekend against Saddam Hussein and he said that we should never forget the victims of Saddam Hussein’s crimes. The Secretary-General said that it is up to each Member State to decide on the issue of capital punishment, but he added that all States should pay due respect to international humanitarian law.

The Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Iraq, Ashraf Qazi, issued a statement over the weekend on the imposition of the death sentence against Saddam Hussein, saying that the United Nations stands firmly against impunity, and understands the desire for justice felt by many Iraqis. However, Qazi added, the United Nations remains opposed to capital punishment, even in the case of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

(...)

Question: Congratulations. I was just hoping you could square the statement by Mr. Qazi that the United Nations remains opposed to capital punishment. The Secretary-General did not sound like he was fundamentally opposed to capital punishment, that it was up to Member States to decide, and also -- if you could point to –- within international humanitarian law, whether there are specific prohibitions, conditions on the death penalty that he may have been sort of tacitly referring to in his statement.

Spokesperson: Yes, I think that what he was tacitly referring to is that there have been several statements made about the fact that the UN and its Human Rights Council do not recognize the death penalty. And what he said today is a nuance on the situation, stating that we should think first about the victims and the need for justice -– and he did mention that it is up to each country to decide, and he talked about respect for humanitarian law.

Question: Is he opposed to the death penalty?

Spokesperson: He just wanted to leave it open to Member States.

Question: But does this actually reflect a change in the UN policy on the death penalty, because before, every time the death penalty was mentioned, UN officials were opposed to it. Mr. Ban was questioned twice on this and specifically did not say that. So does this reflect a change in the UN policy?

Spokesperson: No, it does not. The UN policy still remains that the Organization is not for capital punishment. However, the way the law is applied in different countries, he left it open to those different countries.

Question: While commenting on Saddam Hussein and capital punishment, the Secretary-General made no reference to the trial that took place, because UN experts, including the former Secretary-General, had said that the trial was not credible. So where does Mr. Ban Ki-moon stand on that trial?

Spokesperson: On the trial, he has not commented on it yet, but if you want to have his comments on the trial, I will request some comments.

Question: And to follow up on that. Also, Iraq is occupied and there is a fight against that occupation, and there are rules and laws governing what kinds of trials get held about the people who get captured by the occupiers. And so I would appreciate a response, because it was not just some country that imposed a death penalty, but it was an occupied country.

Spokesperson: You want his take on the trial itself… Yes.

Question: Many people are feeling that it is a war crime to have done this execution.

Spokesperson: I will definitely get back to you on this.

(...)

Question: (...) And also, can we go back to the death penalty? I am a bit confused. If the Secretary-General thinks that the position of the UN remains unchanged on this, why did he not restate that the UN is opposed to the death penalty, just like Mr. Qazi did?

Spokesperson: Oh, I think essentially, because his national position is that there are some countries that do recognize the death penalty, and, from what I gather, he would like to leave it open to the different countries.

Question: What do you mean by national position? You started to refer to his national position?

Spokesperson: No, it’s the fact that the death penalty is authorized.

(...)

Question: On the question of the death penalty -- how does that statement that Mr. Ban wants to leave it open to those countries that recognize the death penalty to do that -– how is that consistent with the UN’s opposition to capital punishment?

Spokesperson: Well, as I said, he stated both today and the general position of the UN stands.

Question: But why did Mr. Ban want to make an exception for those countries that do recognize the death penalty if the position of the Organization is to be opposed to it?

Spokesperson: If you need more clarifications on his part, I will ask him to provide them.

(...)

Question: On the first day, isn’t he sending a mixed message on the Iraq death penalty situation? You have a Special Representative saying “we oppose it, it’s a violation” –- all of that –- and then the Secretary-General comes in and says: “Well, it’s up to every country”. On his first day in office, you have this man [talkover] Does the UN want to get more involved in Iraq or does it not want to?

Spokesperson: I don’t think this was the issue. The issue was the actual execution, and he stressed, when he started the statement –- let me stress that -– he said first we have to think of the victims, which means that the need for justice was stressed from the start of his statement.

(...)

[OHCHR - Press Release]

HIGH COMMISSIONER RENEWS CALL FOR RESTRAINT IN IRAQ

3 January 2007

UN 인권최고대표, 이라크에 자제할 것 재차 촉구

2007. 1. 3.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, today renewed her call for restraint by the Government of Iraq in the execution of sentences of death imposed by the Iraqi High Tribunal. On 28 December 2006, alongside the confirmation of the death sentence of Saddam Hussein, the death sentences of two other co-defendants, Awad Hamad Al-Bandar and Barzan Ibrahim Al-Hassan, were also upheld on appeal. “International law, as it currently stands, only allows the imposition of the death penalty as an exceptional measure within rigorous legal constraints. The concerns that I expressed just days ago with respect to the fairness and impartiality of Saddam Hussein’s trial apply also to these two defendants”, the High Commissioner said. “I have therefore today directly appealed to the President of the Republic of Iraq to refrain from carrying out these sentences.”The High Commissioner also noted that under Iraq’s international obligations, it is bound to afford Awad Hamad Al-Bandar and Barzan Ibrahim Al-Hassan the opportunity to seek commutation or pardon of the sentence.

[UN News]

UN human rights chief calls on Iraq not to hang co-defendants of Saddam

UN 인권수장, 이라크에 후세인의 공동피고인들 사형집행하지 말 것 촉구

Louise Arbour

3 January 2007 – The top United Nations human rights official appealed directly to Iraqi President Jalal Talabani today not to execute two high-ranking colleagues of former president Saddam Hussein, who was hanged on Saturday.

“International law, as it currently stands, only allows the imposition of the death penalty as an exceptional measure within rigorous legal constraints,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said referring to the scheduled hanging of two of Mr. Hussein’s co-defendants, Awad Hamad Al-Bandar and Barzan Ibrahim Al-Hassan.

“The concerns that I expressed just days ago with respect to the fairness and impartiality of Saddam Hussein’s trial apply also to these two defendants, she added in a statement. “I have therefore today directly appealed to the President of the Republic of Iraq to refrain from carrying out these sentences.”

Noting that the death sentences on the two were upheld together with that on Mr. Hussein, Ms. Arbour said that under Iraq’s international obligations, the country is bound to afford the two the opportunity to seek commutation or pardon of the sentences.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon fully endorsed Ms. Arbour’s call for restraint, his spokesperson Michele Montas told the daily news briefing in New York.

“The Secretary-General is of course aware of the ongoing debate concerning a total ban of the death penalty,” she said.

“Until the matter is resolved, he respects the right of Member States to have their own positions on it. However, the Secretary-General strongly believes in the wisdom of Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states ‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person,’” she added.

On the eve of Mr. Hussein’s execution Ms. Arbour likewise appealed to Iraq to avoid precipitously in light of concerns over the fairness of his trial.

“The appeal judgment is a lengthy and complex decision that requires careful study,” she said in a statement on Friday. “There were a number of concerns as to the fairness of the original trial, and there needs to be assurance that these issues have been comprehensively addressed. I call therefore on the Iraqi authorities not to act precipitately in seeking to execute the sentence in these cases.”

She noted that international law proscribes the imposition of the death sentence after an unfair trial. “All sections of Iraqi society, as well as the wider international community, have an interest in ensuring that a death sentence provided for in Iraqi law is only imposed following a trial and appeal process that is, and is legitimately seen as, fair, credible and impartial. That is especially so in a case as exceptional as this one,” she added.

She pointed out that under international treaties that Iraq has signed, Mr. Hussein had the right to appeal to the appropriate authorities for consideration of commutation or pardon.

Daily Noon Press Briefing

3 January 2007

대변인 일일 정오 브리핑

2007. 1. 3.

03 January 07

Daily Noon Press Briefing: By the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General.
[Webcast: Archived Video - 35 minutes ]

[1:38 - 3:30]

[7:50 - 9:20]
[10:30 - 11:23]
[15:25 - 17:58]
[18:18 - 18:52]
[23:21 - 24:09]
[24:54 - 27:20]
[28:18 - 28:53]
[35:05 - 33:51]

3 January 2007

DAILY PRESS BRIEFING BY THE OFFICE OF THE SPOKESPERSON FOR THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

2007. 1. 3.

UN 사무총장 대변인실 일일 브리핑

Noon Briefings

(...)

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights -– this is now about Iraq -- Louise Arbour, today renewed her call for restraint by the Government of Iraq in the execution of death sentences that have been imposed by the Iraqi High Tribunal. Last week, the death sentences of two of Saddam Hussein’s co-defendants, Awad Hamad Al-Bandar and Barzan Ibrahim Al-Hassan, were upheld on appeal.

Arbour underlined that international law, as it currently stands, only allows the imposition of the death penalty as an exceptional measure within rigorous legal constraints. Given that her concerns about the fairness and impartiality of Saddam Hussein’s trial apply also to the other two defendants, the High Commissioner today directly appealed to the Iraqi President to refrain from carrying out these sentences.

We have her full statement upstairs.

I was asked several questions yesterday, questions about the Secretary-General’s view on capital punishment, and I have since spoken with him this morning about that topic, and I have a few things to add.

The Secretary-General is, of course, aware of the ongoing debate in the General Assembly concerning a total ban of the death penalty. Until the matter is resolved, he respects the right of Member States to have their own positions on it.

However, the Secretary-General strongly believes in the wisdom of article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

In that context, he fully endorses the call made today by Louise Arbour for restraint by the Government of Iraq in the execution of the death sentences imposed by the Iraqi High Tribunal.

(...)

Question: As far as the execution -- the question of execution -- the Secretary-General just issued a statement. Does that mean that the Secretary-General has in fact corrected his position by supporting what is mentioned in the Geneva Convention? And does he still stick by the fact that it is up to the Member States to decide who to hang, who not to hang?

Spokesperson: I think yesterday he was acknowledging the fact that, as you know, there is no consensus at the United Nations over the issue of the death penalty. There was a debate at the General Assembly a few years ago and it ended up with the majority of Member States opting for –- refusing to condemn the death penalty.

He recognizes the fact that we are trying to work towards the abolition of that practice. However, he acknowledges also the fact that Member States have their positions on the issue.

Question: Yes, Michele. Just two things, one briefly a follow-up on that, Louise Arbour’s statement, questions of fairness of the process. It sounded like the Secretary-General yesterday was, to a certain degree, defending the process and saying that Iraq was dealing –- the Iraqis were dealing with their past. Is he essentially –- is it his position that this process by which Saddam Hussein has been tried and executed is not there?

(...)

And you had another question before…

Correspondent: Does the Secretary-General, it’s his view, are you saying, that he does not view the process that led to the trial and execution of Saddam Hussein, that it was essentially questions about its fairness?

Spokesperson: Well, we discussed this with him. He was talking simply about the executions. He was not talking about whether the trial was fair or not. I think in this specific case, he already supported this morning the statement made by Louise Arbour. And as you know, Louise Arbour also mentioned the fact that there are practices in the international courts condemning executions. But she also acknowledges that there are differences within Member States about this situation.

(...)

Question: This afternoon, human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch have criticized the Secretary-General’s statement on the execution of Saddam Hussein. Does he have any response to those statements?

Spokesperson: Well, I already gave his statement on the issue.

Question: But what are his views on the trial of Saddam Hussein?

Spokesperson: He has not expressed his view on the trials. He has supported today the call that Ms. Arbour sent to the Iraqi Government and that he was very strongly behind Ms. Arbour on this. His opinion is that we should press for the abolition of capital punishment, but it should be a slow process, as you know.

Question: But what are his views? Ms. Arbour has given her views, but what are his views?

Spokesperson: On the actual trial?

Question: On the actual trial and execution.

Spokesperson: He said what he thought in terms of the executions. In terms of the trial, he has not expressed his views on it yet.

Question: Just to follow up on that. The Secretary-General was speaking yesterday at a time many world countries were issuing statements condemning even the process that Saddam went through. So did it come across his mind that when he made his statements he undermines his position as an objective Secretary-General for this Organization? And considering the statement that came from Iraq, from Mr. Ashraf Qazi who probably what we stated more, you know, what we know about the UN position.

Spokesperson: Well, I think he…

Question: When you spoke to him this morning what did he tell you? Isn’t he worried now that people think he’s not really an objective Secretary-General, he’s more [inaudible]?

Spokesperson: I think his statement here was clear. I think it should be taken –- yesterday there was -- the complete statement does talk about, you know, the usual practice in humanitarian law and it does mention the larger picture. I don’t think it’s fair to say that he’s changing his views or anything of that sort. I think he’s clarified. You had asked me to ask him to clarify his views and I think he did.

Question: So what does he think of the Saddam, like versus this -– the Vatican issued a statement about last minute procedures. What does he think?

Spokesperson: [Inaudible] specifics in terms of the trial itself and what led to the execution, the times preceding the immediate execution.

(...)

Question: I have a question; it’s obviously a period of transition here at the UN. I’m just curious about the future of Louise Arbour and her job. Where do things stand with the new Secretary-General?

Spokesperson: Well, we don’t know yet. As I said yesterday and I will say it again today, there is going to be a review process –- all senior managers in their different positions -– and you should know more about this in a few weeks.

[The Spokesperson’s Office later clarified that Ms. Arbour’s current tenure is a four-year tenure, which was approved by the General Assembly and which ends in July 2008.]

Question: How confident is he of Louise Arbour’s performance?

Spokesperson: You heard him support Louise Arbour’s position today.

(...)

Question: What was his view on the, how his death penalty quote…

Spokesperson: …was received? That’s why he wanted this morning to make, you know, to stress the fact that he supports definitely what we have in the Covenant of Human Rights, and he supports what has been the, let’s say, the tradition in the human rights bodies of the United Nations and the international courts.

Question: …he made a mistake?

Spokesperson: No, he didn’t say he made a mistake. He said that, you know, he is a representative of 192 countries and there are 192 countries who disagree on the death penalty. That was all, I think. I think it was maybe, might have been blown a little bit out of the proportion he meant.

(...)

Question: Michele, you just sort of referred in passing to the fact that Ban Ki-moon supports the abolition of the death penalty, which sounds like an extremely strong position. Did he say that this morning to you? I mean, where does that come, where did he express support for the abolition of the death penalty?

Spokesperson: Well, I think he did express it in his comments this morning when he spoke to me, and his comments when he mentioned the fact that Ms. Arbour spoke about those two executions to be taking place shortly. I think he did, to me, it was important to him to stress that he was going along with what humanitarian law says. And, he was going along with what have been traditional UN practices pushing towards the abolition…

Question: So, he made it clear that he believes that we should, the UN should move towards the abolition of capital punishment?

Spokesperson: Yes.

Question: [talkover]

Spokesperson: Well, we have the Covenant on Human Rights…

Question: Well, the Covenant on Human Rights actually says, actually states where the death penalty is legal, it should happen only in the worst cases and he cited specifically that this, that Saddam’s were the most heinous crimes, so that sounds like, to me, like one of the worst cases, so I don’t understand. Where… [talkover]…

Spokesperson: You mentioned yourself that there are cases where…

Question: It seems to me that according to that Covenant it allows executions only in the worst cases, but it allows executions [talkover]…

Spokesperson: You have also the individual laws of countries. Let’s face it -- we have 192 Member States in this Organization.

Question: Excuse me ma’am, Ms. Arbour issued that [inaudible] statement before Saddam’s execution, and I am sure Mr. Secretary-General had enough time to do his research before taking his position. Why didn’t he call for similar restraint yesterday, instead of openly supporting the execution of Saddam?

Spokesperson: You know, Ms. Arbour is the High Commissioner for Human Rights. It is her job.

Question: You are the UN position. This is not something new…

Spokesperson: But he acknowledged simply that there were Member States who had different practices and different laws.

(...)

Question: What is his position –- I understand he supports the abolition of the death penalty -- but what is his position on a moratorium of the death penalty? Does he think that it is feasible that the General Assembly, for instance, passes a resolution on a moratorium?

Spokesperson: Well, this is a prerogative of the General Assembly. Once the General Assembly sets such a decision, takes such a decision, I think the Secretary-General will certainly carry it forward and push it forward.

(...)

Question: One last question in addition to that. Just back to the death penalty: is it correct that the United Nations defers to national law on internal matters, especially when there is no global treaty or convention? I mean, is it not up to individual States to set their own laws?

Spokesperson: Yes, it is the case, and this is what was referred to yesterday by the Secretary-General.

Question: It sounds that perhaps Mr. Ban is stepping away from that?

Spokesperson: I don’t think he’s stepping away from that. I think it is a common position here.

(...)

[The New York Times]

January 3, 2007

New U.N. Chief Invites Controversy by Declining to Oppose Hussein Execution

2007. 1. 3.

신임 UN 수장, 사담 후세인 사형집행에 반대 안해 논란

By JULIA PRESTON

UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 2 — On his first day of work as secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, the mild-spoken South Korean diplomat who had suggested he would bring new caution to the post, invited controversy by declining to criticize the death penalty applied to Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Ban commented on the execution of Mr. Hussein just after entering United Nations headquarters on Tuesday morning to start his job.

“Saddam Hussein was responsible for committing heinous crimes and unspeakable atrocities against the Iraqi people,” Mr. Ban said in response to questions from a crush of reporters outside the Security Council’s chambers. “We should never forget the victims of his crimes, “ he said.

“The issue of capital punishment is for each and every member state to decide,” he added.

“While I am firmly against impunity, I also hope the members of the international community should pay due regard to all aspects of international humanitarian laws.”

Mr. Ban’s remarks appeared to contradict bedrock United Nations policy opposing the death penalty on human rights grounds.

He seemed to have tripped in his effort to tread lightly on the political views of the many United Nations members.

The remarks also seemed to show that Mr. Ban, who was South Korea’s foreign minister when he was chosen in October as secretary general, had not completed the transition from representing his country to leading the United Nations.

Michèle Montas, Mr. Ban’s spokeswoman, said the death penalty was legal in South Korea.

On Dec. 30, hours after Mr. Hussein was hanged, the United Nations special representative for Iraq, Ashraf Qazi, said in Baghdad that although the United Nations “understands the desire for justice felt by many Iraqis,” it could not support the execution.

“Based on the principle of respect for the right to life,” Mr. Qazi said, “the United Nations remains opposed to capital punishment, even in the case of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.”

Ms. Montas, whose first day on the job also was Tuesday, said Mr. Ban had not intended to change United Nations policy, but had added his own “nuance.” Mr. Hussein was hanged in a hasty execution at dawn on Dec. 30, in a chamber where many Iraqis had been killed under his brutal rule.

In public comments before his first meeting with United Nations staff, Mr. Ban said, “We have to show the international community that we are ready and eager to change.” He said the organization had faced “harsh and sometimes unfair criticism,” and acknowledged that “staff morale has plummeted.” But he said United Nations workers must be ready to “multitask” and to move frequently from armchair jobs at headquarters in New York into the field.

“My watchword will be meritocracy,” he said, in words that should be well received by the Bush administration, which backed Mr. Ban to succeed Kofi Annan, who served two five-year terms, in part because of Mr. Ban’s pledges to streamline the United Nations bureaucracy.

In veiled words, Mr. Ban seemed to hint that he would not overreach his power, but that he expected cooperation from the United States. Speaking of the many crises facing the organization, he said, “Not a single person, including the secretary general of the United Nations; not a single country, however strong, powerful, resourceful, maybe, can address this.”

Source:

http://www.un.org/sg/offthecuff/index.asp?nid=964

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=21137

http://www.un.org/press/en/2007/db070102.doc.htm

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=2937

http://www.un.org/press/en/2007/db070103.doc.htm

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=21147

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/03/world/middleeast/03nations.html