MOVES TO FORTIFY REGIME FOR PROTECTION OF UN PERSONNEL SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH CAUTION, LEGAL COMMITTEE TOLD
| Press Release GA/L/3182 |
Fifty-sixth General Assembly
Sixth Committee
5th Meeting (PM)
MOVES TO FORTIFY REGIME FOR PROTECTION OF UN PERSONNEL
SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH CAUTION, LEGAL COMMITTEE TOLD
Complex Issues Said to be Involved; Consideration
By International Law Commission Mentioned as Possible Course
As the Sixth Committee (Legal) this afternoon continued its review of the scope of legal protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associates Personnel, more speakers called for an ad hoc working group to specifically study ways of strengthening the protection of personnel. Others, however, cautioned against hasty decisions.
Angola’s representative said that as a country where humanitarian relief played a great role, it understood the necessity of strengthening the safety and security regime, but all sides must be prudent in order to reach a common position. It was difficult to accept the idea that through United Nations operations, a non-governmental organization could act in a country without the specific acceptance of the Government. He recommended instead the conclusion of an agreement between the host Government and the United Nations to determine the scope of obligations.
The representative of South Africa said the practical implications of having two separate protection regimes for personnel that could not be easily identified as United Nations or associated personnel should be very carefully explored, possibly with the option of referring the matter to the International Law Commission.
If the Convention was not working well in its current form, it seemed unlikely that amendments to expand its scope would serve the desired purpose, especially as none of the countries with conflict zones had ratified the Convention.
The representative of Hungary said his country expected that the perpetrators of yesterday’s attack against the helicopter of the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG),in which nine personnel including a Hungarian were killed, would be brought to justice. The tragic event, which was one of many examples, showed that it was the legal and moral obligation of States to improve the Convention’s existing framework.
Also speaking this afternoon were the representatives of Japan, China, Croatia, Canada, Iraq, Fiji, Brazil, Bangladesh, Sudan and Thailand.
The Committee will meet again tomorrow at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 10 October to continue its discussion of the report of the Secretary-General on the scope of the Convention.
Background
The Sixth Committee (Legal) met this afternoon to continue its debate on the scope of legal protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel. Before the Committee is a report of the Secretary-General on the topic contained in document A/55/637. (For details of the report, see Press Release No. GA/L/3181 of 9 October 2001.)
Statements
HIROYUKI YAMAMOTO (Japan) said his country was gravely concerned about the growing number of attacks and acts of violence against United Nations and associated personnel. All parties to a conflict where a United Nations operation was deployed, including host countries as well as neighbouring States and non-State actors, must take every appropriate step to ensure the safety and security of the personnel involved in accordance with international law. It was regrettable that only 54 States so far had ratified the Convention. Moreover, with the exception of Croatia, none of the States where United Nations peacekeeping forces were deployed had ratified it.
Japan, as the second country to have ratified the Convention, called upon those who had not yet done so to become parties. It was especially important that all members of the Security Council ratify the Convention in order to set an example. So far, though, only nine had done so. It was also crucial that the scope of the Convention be extended to include those who were not yet covered, such as personnel of humanitarian non-governmental organizations. He expressed appreciation for the Secretary-General’s suggestion that a protocol be drafted extending the scope. He also supported the establishment of an ad hoc committee to consider measures to strengthen and enhance the protective regime of the Convention.
SU WEI (China) said the main problem facing the Convention was giving effect to its role for protecting the safety of United Nations and associated personnel. To address the question, priority should be given to the implementation of its provisions, he said. China favoured an in-depth study of recommendations contained in the Secretary-General’s report.
The relevant provisions of the Convention should be incorporated into status-of-forces or status-of-mission agreements concluded between the United Nations and host countries in peacekeeping operations to ensure effective protection of personnel in those operations.
He said China had no objection to the Secretary-General being designated as a certifying authority to prove that a declaration had been made regarding the existence of an exceptional risk. Given the specific nature of the Convention, extending its coverage to non-United Nations personnel engaged in humanitarian operations not mandated by the United Nations might give rise to numerous difficulties. Appropriate procedural measures could resolve the problem.
IRENA CACIC (Croatia) said the adoption of the Convention represented a major step forward in the improvement of legal protection of persons acting under United Nations mandate. It created a specific protection regime that covered a gap between the Geneva Conventions and the standards of treatment based on the Conventions and the privileges and immunities of the United Nations and related instruments. The entry into force of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court would further upgrade the existing protection regime.
To give full effect to the Convention’s protection regime, there was need to dispose of the conditions that prevented its automatic application to all United Nations operations and to humanitarian personnel not presently covered under the Convention. His delegation favoured the establishment of a working group of the Sixth Committee to elaborate a protocol to the Convention. It also favoured the incorporation of the Convention’s key provisions into agreements between the United Nations and host countries.
ANDRAS VAMOS-GOLDMAN (Canada) said the sad truth was that working under a United Nations flag was no longer a guarantee of protection. That humanitarian personnel continued to operate in such insecure environments was a testament to their dedication to affected populations. In many areas where United Nations associated and other humanitarian personnel operate, killings, kidnaps, illegal arrests, detentions, rape and sexual assault, armed robbery, harassment and theft of vehicles and other property were common occurrences and increasing at an alarming rate.
States hosting United Nations and humanitarian personnel bore the primary responsibility for their safety and security, he said. Canada had ratified the Rome Statute and would shortly be introducing legislation to ratify the Convention. There were gaps, however, in the international legal framework of protection, in particular for humanitarian personnel not associated with the United Nations. Also, implementation and enforcement needed to be urgently strengthened.
After citing categories of personnel and situations not covered by the Convention, he said the Secretary-General had proposed two practical measures to strengthen the protection of the Convention: that a declaration of exceptional risk be made where the situation warranted it; and that key provisions of the Convention be incorporated into status-of-forces or status-of-mission agreements. He said Canada supported the immediate implementation of those measures by the Secretary-General, and highlighted the proposal that the Secretary-General be designated as the certifying authority for the purposes of questions arising under the application of the Convention. Consideration should be given to a protocol to extend its legal protection to all United Nations operations.
ABDUL MUNIM AL-KADHE (Iraq) said his country insisted upon protection and security for United Nations personnel, and would support any proposal that would lead to that objective. His delegation believed that the Sixth Committee was the proper forum for action to reinforce the protection of United Nations personnel. Consequently, it did not believe in any need for the establishment of an ad hoc committee to study the question.
International customary law required guarantees of protection for United Nations personnel to ensure the successful completion of their missions and tasks. On the other hand, United Nations personnel had obligations to respect their mandate in every manner. They must refrain from carrying out activities that might imperil their work or responsibility as international civil servants. They must scrupulously obey article 100 of the United Nations Charter. As military forces, they must respect international humanitarian law and principles.
He said the work of non-governmental organizations must have the support and approval of host countries in areas of conflict. Agreements concluded between them and the United Nations were not sufficient to confer any legitimacy to their work without the approval of the host country.
AMRAIYA NAIDU (Fiji) said that his country had lost nearly 40 of its nationals in United Nations operations. Since the Convention had come into force, the intensity of assaults and resulting deaths had heightened. It was clear from the Secretary-General’s earlier reports that the current security management was now highly unsuitable, as it had been designed to meet the operational requirements of the United Nations system 20 years ago. The weakness of the Convention was most visible with respect to the safety and security of humanitarian non-governmental organizations and locally recruited personnel. Those categories had become easy targets for brutal and fatal attacks as a direct result of the nature of their work and most definitely because of the lack of protection coverage under the Convention and in the security management system.
While he appreciated that not all recommendations of the Secretary-General would be agreeable to all Member States, he said he was of the firm view that, despite differences, delegates needed to begin a dialogue soon to give clarity to and improve understanding of the issues the Secretariat had opened up for consideration. As a first step, he supported the establishment of an ad hoc committee.
MARCEL FORTUNA BIATO (Brazil) said a growing number of casualties had prompted the United Nations to adopt the 1994 Convention, to which Brazil had become a party. The primary goal of the Convention was to deter attacks by ensuring that such acts did not go unpunished. While the Convention had recently come into force and the number of ratifying countries had increased steadily, the number of victims had continued to rise at an alarming rate. There was clearly a need to bolster the security of personnel and enhance the effectiveness of the Convention.
He said Brazil strongly supported the Secretary-General’s recommendation to build on the review of the security management system developed by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Office of the United Nations Security Coordinator. The report recommended that future status-of-forces and status-of-mission agreements include specific and practical measures to enhance personnel security, based on key provisions of the Convention.
Such measures would go a long way toward overcoming the limitations and inadequacies identified in the existing regime. It was only appropriate to draw attention as well to the plight of other groups of persons who found themselves in the crossfire of conflicts. Humanitarian workers and locally recruited personnel had, in fact, become the major casualties in the ongoing violence. Brazil joined other delegations in endorsing the proposal that these matters be taken up by the Sixth Committee in an ad hoc working group.
JOAQUIM MANGUEIRA (Angola) said the Secretary-General’s report was a good basis for discussions, but he had concern about some of the proposals. Angola condemned the violence and attacks against individuals participating in missions in the field, including those on recruited Angolans. His Government had made all efforts to protect all personnel, and had signed special protocols with the United Nations. As to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the locally recruited personnel, he said the Government by law was obligated to protect and guarantee the safety of everyone but not by promoting differentiation among the population.
An NGO representative working in Angola had to register with the Ministry of Justice and had to fulfil certain conditions required by law. It was difficult to accept the idea that through United Nations operations, an NGO could act in a country without the specific acceptance of the Government. It was more advisable to conclude an agreement between the Government and the United Nations, where both sides could determine the scope of obligations and counterparts involved.
Angola had other concerns as well. It was difficult in wartime to determine responsibility; as a country where humanitarian relief played a great role and where many foreign NGO and United Nations organizations, as well as locally recruited personnel, were present, Angola understood the necessity of strengthening the safety and security regime. But all sides must be prudent in order to reach a common position. He considered it too early to conclude a protocol, and said there should first be more reflection on the issue.
ZSOLT HETESY (Hungary) said a helicopter patrolling the Kodori Valley in Abkhazia, Georgia, was shot down yesterday by unknown perpetrators, killing nine members of the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG), including a Hungarian national, Colonel Laszlo Torok. The outrageous crime served as an infamous example of the problems stemming from the inadequacies of the protection regime of the 1994 United Nations Convention.
He said UNOMIG had, over the years, been one of the problematic peacekeeping operations. Its personnel had been attacked, bombed, harassed, kidnapped and held hostage. The total number of fatalities it had suffered represented nearly 10 per cent of the force, he said, adding that “it was a terrible price to pay”.
He said Hungary was an active troop-contributing country and a party to the 1994 Convention. It expected that the perpetrators of yesterday’s attack would be brought to justice. It was its understanding, however, that the Convention was not legally binding on parties to a conflict. That was because of the Convention’s shortcomings, listed in the Secretary-General’s report. It was an untenable situation, the representative of Hungary asserted. He said yesterday’s tragic event, which was one of many examples, showed that it was the legal and moral obligation of States to improve the Convention’s existing framework. They owed it as a duty to their nationals who had perished while on duty and to those being sent to maintain peace and security in the far corners of the world.
Hungary supported the establishment of a working group to study the subject in an effective manner. As an immediate action, it also supported the inclusion of some provisions of the Convention into the status-of-forces and status-of-mission agreements.
MOSUD MANNAN (Bangladesh) deplored the continuing attacks on United Nations and associated personnel in peacekeeping operations, and drew attention to the vulnerability of locally recruited personnel. He said Bangladesh had ratified the Convention, and strongly believed that the case of local people engaged in United Nations-sponsored activities without proper safety coverage under the Convention should be immediately dealt with.
He supported the Secretary-General’s proposal for the adoption of a protocol to the Convention to extend its scope. It also favoured the establishment of an ad hoc committee to study the Secretary-General’s report.
SIDDIG ABDALLA (Sudan) said he welcomed the report of the Secretary-General and endorsed his views because it was essential to guarantee the protection of United Nations personnel. Sudan had signed a unique agreement with the United Nations, titled Operation Lifeline. It had taken a further step forward by concluding an unprecedented agreement in terms of protecting humanitarian personnel. Sudan had signed an agreement in Rome in 1998 with the rebels in the south of the country to ensure the safety of humanitarian workers.
States and governments by their nature were responsible for respecting laws that guaranteed protection. Non-State actors were also obligated but had shown the greatest scorn for those laws. He recalled crimes in southern Sudan that had resulted in the deaths of four Red Cross workers.
The majority of States preferred not to accede to the Convention, thus showing their apprehension of its contents. There was a need for greater debate on the subject. He cautioned against any hasty decisions by the Committee to create an ad hoc working group, saying it was possible to explore other options first.
ALBERT HOFFMANN (South Africa) said the Convention, notwithstanding its shortcomings, constituted an important contribution to the rules of international law on legal protection of personnel participating in humanitarian operations. As a country increasingly deploying personnel on peacekeeping and related missions it was in South Africa’s interest to promote the principles and effective implementation of the Convention.
He called for exploration of the proposal to empower the Secretary-General to issue a declaration on a protection mechanism in the form of an amendment to the Convention, rather than a new protocol. Moreover, the suggestion to extend the scope of the Convention to humanitarian personnel must be carefully considered, he added. It did raise some complex legal issues, particularly regarding the relationship between the protocol and international humanitarian law. It would also be a very complex task to incorporate the expanded scope of the Convention into domestic legislation unless that was very clearly defined.
He said the practical implications of having two separate protection regimes for personnel that could not be easily identified as United Nations or associated personnel should be very carefully explored, possibly with the option of referring the matter to the International Law Commission.
The option to have a protocol to address shortcomings in the implementation of the existing Convention should also be very seriously considered, he said. If the Convention was not working well in its current form, it seemed unlikely that amendments to expand its scope would serve the desired purpose, especially as none of the countries with conflict zones had ratified the Convention. It was also possible that non-United Nations humanitarian programmes had made a conscious decision to remain outside the United Nations umbrella to preserve their neutrality in a conflict zone.
KRIANGSAH KIHICHAISAREE (Thailand) said his country was involved in peacekeeping operations and therefore had a strong interest in the protection of United Nations personnel. The report of the Secretary-General was comprehensive and raised key aspects of problems that needed to be studied closely. He noted the suggestion of including key provisions of the Convention into status-of-forces and status-of-mission agreements. On the question of whether a situation was deemed exceptionally risky, he observed that at present it required a declaration from the General Assembly or the Security Council. It was now suggested that the Secretary-General recommend to the Assembly or the Council that a declaration of exceptional risk be made when the situation warranted it. The recommendation to designate the Secretary-General as the certifying authority for questions about the application of the Convention also had merit.
Although the Convention did not cover humanitarian workers not formally linked to United Nations operations, he added, there were good reasons to include them in its coverage. Consideration should be given to extending the scope of the Convention through a protocol. An ad hoc committee could foster greater consideration of the recommendations in the Secretary-General’s report.
* *** *