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

 

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*

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.