GENERAL ASSEMBLY ASKED TO RESUME WORK ON LEGAL PRINCIPLES RELATING TO NEW INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ORDER

Press Release
GA/L/3166

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ASKED TO RESUME WORK ON LEGAL PRINCIPLES RELATING TO NEW INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ORDER

Legal Committee Seeks 2003 Consideration; Members also Debate Factors to Guide Granting of Assembly Observer Status to Outside Bodies

The Sixth Committee (Legal) this afternoon approved a draft decision by which the General Assembly would resume consideration of the legal aspects of international economic relations at its fifty-eighth session in 2003.

By the terms of the text, approved without a vote, an item entitled, “Progressive development of the principles and norms of international law relating to the new international economic order”, would be included on the provisional agenda of that session.

In another action this afternoon, the Sixth Committee recommended, also without a note, that the General Assembly grant observer status to the Inter- American Development Bank in its sessions and work.

Also this afternoon, a draft resolution on “Consideration of effective measures to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives” -- was introduced in the Committee by the representative of Finland.

The representative of Sweden introduced an agenda item entitled, “Observer Status for the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance in the General Assembly.” There was extensive debate on the criteria for granting such status. Taking part were the representatives of Brazil (on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States), Sweden, China, Cuba, Russian Federation, Iran, Pakistan, Algeria, South Africa, Namibia, Sierra Leone, Egypt, Portugal, Burkina Faso, Belgium, Guatemala, Greece, Denmark, Yemen and Finland. The Committee chairman said he understood consultations were taking place about a draft resolution on the issue.

The Sixth Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. on Monday, 13 November, to begin consideration of its agenda item on “Measures to eliminate international terrorism”.

Sixth Committee - 2 - Press Release GA/L/3166 26th Meeting (PM) 10 November 2000

Committee Work Programme

The Sixth Committee (Legal) met this afternoon to begin consideration of an agenda item relating to “Observer Status for the Inter-American Development Bank in the General Assembly”, followed by a similar item entitled, “Observer Status for the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance in the General Assembly”.

Also this afternoon, the Committee was to take action on a draft decision entitled, “Progressive development of the principles and norms of international law relating to the new international economic order”.

It was to hear the introduction of a draft resolution on “Consideration of effective measures to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives”.

Introduction of drafts

By the text on “Observer status for the Inter-American Development Bank in the General Assembly” (document A/C.6/55/L.13), the General Assembly, wishing to promote cooperation between the United Nations and the Bank, would invite it to participate as an observer in its sessions.

The text, introduced by the representative of Brazil, was co-sponsored by: Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Portugal, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, United States, Uruguay and Venezuela.

MARCEL FORTUNA BIATO (Brazil), speaking for the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States, said the Inter-American Development Bank was the oldest and most important regional bank of its kind. It had mobilized $240 billion to finance public and private sector projects in the social and economic fields. Its annual lending had grown to $9.5 billion in 1999. The loans had been granted for projects in several areas, including poverty eradication. The Bank enjoyed observer status in the United Nations Economic and Social Council and had working arrangements with certain other economic bodies and organizations in the protection of the environment and strengthening of civil society. However, he said, the ad hoc cooperation that now existed with the United Nations should be changed. That was why the co-sponsors believed observer status for the Bank in the General Assembly would be of mutual benefit. He said there was precedent for that, and referred to the African Development Bank.

The Committee approved the draft resolution without a vote.

A draft resolution entitled, “Observer status for the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance in the General Assembly) (document A/C.6/55/L.14), introduced by Sweden, would similarly have the General Assembly decide to invite the Institute to participate in its sessions and work in the capacity of observer.

PER NORSTROM (Sweden), speaking for the members of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, said that, at present, 19 States from different parts of the world were members of that non- governmental organization, which was based on an international agreement between Governments. Only States were parties to that treaty. The work of the Institute was relevant to that of the United Nations. It fulfilled the criteria for observer status determined by decision 49/426 of the General Assembly.

He said the organization he represented promoted and advanced sustainable democracy and improved electoral processes worldwide. In all its activities, the Institute adopted a non-prescriptive approach to the promotion of democracy. It cooperated with the United Nations on several projects, and it was important to consolidate the links between the two bodies. Consequently, member States of Institute had requested that it be granted observer status in the General Assembly.

SU WEI (China) said there should be a limit to the overall number of organizations granted observer status in the General Assembly. Conference facilities and the number of seats in the Assembly were not unlimited. It did not seem possible or practical to extend observer status to each and every applicant. A standing invitation to participate in the sessions and work of the Assembly might be extended to those intergovernmental organizations whose activities were of direct relevance to the Assembly.

He said those organizations whose activities either only had occasional relevance to the items under discussion by the General Assembly, or of relevance only to a particular activity of its subsidiary bodies, might have their interest accommodated in some ways other than a standing invitation. One possibility might involve submission of applications by intergovernmental organizations before the opening of each session. Afterwards, the General Committee would, in the light of the agenda items of that particular session, decide whether to recommend inviting that organization to participate as an observer for that session.

He noted Assembly resolution 49/426, by which “the granting of observer status in the General Assembly should,in the future, be confined to States and to those intergovernmental organizations whose activities cover matters of interest to the Assembly”. He said the criteria referred to in the resolution were determined in rather general terms. As for the term “intergovernmental organization”, he wondered if it should be defined by whether it was established by an agreement among Governments, or on the basis of its membership. Those questions needed to be further addressed by the Committee.

As for the two applications before the Committee, he said, the mixed character of the membership of the International Institute made it hard for his delegation to assume with certainty that it was an “intergovernmental organization”, as referred to in resolution 49/426. That was an important legal issue, which the Committee should further consider, he said.

SORAYA ELENA ALVAREZ NUNEZ (Cuba) said that, by resolution 49/426, the granting of observer status in the Assembly should in future be confined to States and to those intergovernmental organizations whose activities covered matters of interest to the Assembly. Her delegation had carefully studied the statute of the Institute, as well as additional information provided by the sponsor. There were several aspects of the statute which raised doubts about its strictly intergovernmental status. Her delegation wondered what real independence the organization had if it depended on funds from non-governmental sources. The whole issue should further be discussed.

VLADIMIR Y. TARABRIN (Russian Federation) said that his delegation had previously spoken in the General Committee about the need to postpone a decision on observer status for the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. At this session, his delegation did not object to the inclusion of that item in the agenda, on the understanding that the question would be examined in detail in the Sixth Committee.

He said he did not have any complaints about the prestigious organization in question, which was doing useful work. However, it could not be considered a typical organization. It seemed to be an inter-State organization, but it also included non-governmental organizations among its members. The Russian Federation attached the highest priority to maintaining the inter-States nature of the United Nations. No decisions should be taken to detract from that characteristic of the Organization. He was prepared to join a consensus in the Committee, should it be reached on the question of granting an observer status, but he wanted to express his concern.

SAEID MIRZAEE-YENGEJEH (Iran) said the Assembly resolution had laid down the criteria for granting observer status. His delegation had studied the objectives of the organization and had concerns about some provisions. It believed clarifications were required before the application for observer status was granted.

MOIN UL HAQUE (Pakistan) called for further consideration of the request for observer status by the organization.

AHCENE KERMA (Algeria) also expressed misgivings about some provisions of the organization’s statute relating to its membership and private financing. Action on the request of the Institute is to be left to the General Assembly.

ALBERT HOFFMANN (South Africa) said that, based upon the established criteria adopted by the General Assembly for the granting of observer status, it was incumbent on the Sixth Committee to consider new applications and to make recommendations to the plenary of the Assembly. There were two criteria on which the Committee should base its consideration: whether the Institute was an international organization, and whether its activities covered matters of interest to the General Assembly.

His delegation was of the view that the Institute met both of these criteria, he said. It was by the same criteria, he said, that the Assembly had last year granted observer status for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Further, South Africa was of the view that the work of the Institute was relevant and covered matters of interest to the General Assembly.

EGIDIUS HAKWENYE (Namibia) said that the nature of the organization in question and its activities should be considered when making a decision on observer status. It was an intergovernmental organization, but it was hard to determine if it was a purely inter-States institution, for it had non- governmental organizations as its members. The relevant resolution did not provide a strict definition in that respect. He associated himself with what had been stated by the memorandum presented by Sweden.

ALLIEU IBRAHIM KANU (Sierra Leone) noted the preference of several speakers for continued consultations on the organization. He said his delegation knew very little about it. In the past, activities of organizations presented to the Assembly had turned out to be “rather shady”. Additional information was needed to make sure “the Institute was not a front for some nefarious organization”.

MOHAMMED MAHMOUD GOMAA (Egypt) said that last year observer status was granted to an organization whose activities were questionable. The status was granted, but the decision was made to forward all future questions of that nature to the Sixth Committee. The Sixth Committee should look into all the criteria and carefully consider the issue of granting observer status to new organizations.

T. F. OLAVO de PITTA e CUNHA (Portugal) said he wanted to associate himself with the position of South Africa and Namibia. At stake was not the intergovernmental nature of the organization, which was formed by an international treaty, but its partnership with non-governmental organizations. The two criteria provided by resolution 49/426 were fulfilled. The Institute was a prestigious organization doing good work.

ALAIN EDOUARD TRAORE (Burkina Faso) said he was familiar with the Institute because of its work in his country in support of democratization. He was asking the Committee for flexibility. It was not a good idea to narrowly interpret the relevant resolution. He supported granting observer status to the Institute.

EVERT MARECHAL (Belgium) said several speakers had already pointed out that the criteria for granting observer status were contained in General Assembly resolution 49/426. They were very simple: it must be an intergovernmental organization; its activities must be relevant to the United Nations. The Institute met both criteria, and observer status should be granted to it.

ROBERTO LAVALLE-VALDES (Guatemala) said the fact that non-governmental organizations were associated with the Institute did not detract from its intergovernmental character. There was significant cooperation between the Institute and the United Nations Secretariat, which had an elections unit within its Department of Political Affairs. His delegation totally favoured the granting of observer status to the Institute.

L.A. SISSILIANOS (Greece) said many United Nations members had benefited from the work of the Institute in recent years. The Assembly had annually adopted resolutions relating to democracy and elections. The activities of the Institute were of major interest to the work of the Assembly. Delegations should be flexible over the question of criteria for granting observer status.

TYGE LEHMANN (Denmark) said the fact that the Institute had non- governmental organizations as associate members did not detract from its intergovernmental nature. He noted that the Secretary-General had said he would like to see more involvement of civil society in the work of the Organization, and that should be the case.

ALI AHMED AL-DAILMI (Yemen) commended the work of the Institute, and said it should be granted observer status. His country would like to cooperate with it to benefit from its work.

The Chairman of the Committee, MAURI POLITI, (Italy) said he understood that consultations were taking place on a draft resolution.

Introduction of draft decision

By a draft decision on “Progressive development of the principles and norms of international law relating to the new international economic order” (document A/C.6/55/L.10), the General Assembly would decide to resume consideration of the legal aspects of international economic relations at its fifty-eighth session in 2003.

The draft decision was approved without a vote.

At its 30th session, in 1975, the General Assembly took note of a resolution by its Second Committee (Economic and Financial) entitled, “Consolidation and progressive evolution of the norms and principles of international economic development law” and decided to include it on its agenda as a separate item.

The topic was considered at a number of subsequent Assembly sessions. At its 51st session, the General Assembly decided, on the recommendation of the Sixth Committee, to resume consideration of the legal aspects of international economic relations at its fifty-fifth session.

The Committee then received a draft resolution on “Consideration of effective measures to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives” (document A/C.6/55/L.8 and Corr.1). By the text, the General Assembly would strongly condemn acts of violence against those missions and their representatives. The Assembly would also strongly condemn similar acts against international intergovernmental organizations and their officials and would emphasize that such acts could never be justified.

Additionally, the Assembly, alarmed by recent acts of violence against diplomatic and consular representatives, would urge States to take practical measures to prohibit illegal activities that encouraged perpetration of acts against the security and safety of diplomatic missions. States would also be urged to ensure, with United Nations participation where appropriate, that such acts were fully investigated to bring offenders to justice. Furthermore, the Assembly would recommend that States cooperate closely to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives, and to ensure that no diplomatic privileges and immunities were abused.

The draft resolution was sponsored by Argentina, Austria, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lesotho, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

MIKAEL LANGSTROM (Finland), introducing the draft, announced that France, Burkina Faso and Guatemala had become co-sponsors. He said the draft demonstrated the commitment of Member States to the prevention of violations against international law relating to the protection of diplomatic and consular missions and their representatives.

* *** *