Fifty-seventh General Assembly

Sixth Committee

11^th Meeting (AM)

CONSEQUENCES OF SANCTIONS DISCUSSED AS LEGAL COMMITTEE

TAKES UP REPORT ON STRENGTHENING UNITED NATIONS ROLE

Other Aspects of Charter Review Body also Addressed; Three

Organizations Recommended for Observer Status with General Assembly

Observer status with the General Assembly for three organizations was recommended by the Assembly’s Sixth Committee (Legal) this morning, as the Committee began considering the report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization.

Acting without a vote, the Sixth Committee approved draft resolutions by which the Inter-Parliamentary Union, Partners in Population and Development and the Asian Development Bank were recommended for observer status in the Assembly’s sessions and work.  (Consideration of a fourth draft resolution recommending observer status with the Assembly for the International Centre for Migration Policy Development was postponed.)

Speaking in support of the drafts were the representatives of Thailand, Belarus, Bangladesh and Pakistan.  The United States representative spoke on a point of order, indicating that his delegation needed more time to consider the fourth draft.

Markiyan Kulyk (Ukraine), Chairman of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization, introduced the report on the Committee’s 2002 session, held in April.  He noted that a draft resolution on the prevention and peaceful settlement of disputes had been completed and was included in the report.  That work had been based on a proposal by Sierra Leone and the United Kingdom.

In the debate, views on various aspects of sanctions were expressed.  Delegates discussed the adverse effects of sanctions on third States; assistance to those States under Article 50 of the Charter; and the use of “targeted” or “smart” sanctions intended to mitigate the negative effects of sanctions.  In addition, the Committee heard views on strengthening the Organization’s role; improving the working methods of the Special Committee; and the future of the Trusteeship Council.

Japan’s representative said adoption of the resolution on the peaceful settlement of disputes at the April meeting of the Charter Committee had been a significant achievement.  The discussion of other items, however,  had been desultory at best, largely because of the lack of preparation on the part of States.  He recommended the holding of informal consultations before the Charter Committee met.

Also speaking in the debate this morning were the representatives of Belarus, Denmark (on behalf of the European Union), China, Cuba, Algeria, Turkey, Malaysia, Costa Rica (on behalf of the Rio Group), Guatemala, Iran, Uganda, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Tunisia, Libya, Venezuela and Swaziland.

The Sixth Committee is to meet again at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 10 October, to continue its consideration of the report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization.

Background

The Sixth Committee (Legal) met this morning to take up the report on the 2002 session of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization (document A/57/33).  The session took place at Headquarters from 18 to 28 March.

The report includes the Special Committee’s recommendations to the General Assembly on implementation of United Nations Charter provisions on assistance to third countries affected by sanctions, strengthening the Organization’s role in maintaining international peace and security, and prevention and settlement of disputes between States.  (For further details, see Press Release GA/L/3210 of

3 October.)

Also before the Committee is the Secretary-General’s report on the publication of the Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs and the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council (document A/57/370).

The Committee also has before it draft resolutions concerning the granting of observer status in the General Assembly to three organizations -- Partners in Population and Development (document A/C.6/57/L.2), the Inter-Parliamentary Union (document A/C.6/57/L.5) and the Asian Development Bank (document A/C.6/57/L.6).

Action on Drafts

The Committee took up the resolution on granting observer status for Partners in Population and Development in the General Assembly (document A/C.6/57/L.2).  It had been introduced by Bangladesh.  The Chairman said Egypt and Thailand had become additional co-sponsors.  The draft was approved without a vote.

Also approved without a vote was the draft on granting observer status for the Inter-Parliamentary Union in the General Assembly (document A/C.6/57/L.5).  Hungary had introduced the draft.  It was announced that Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bolivia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Monaco, Nepal, Niger, Portugal, Sudan, Thailand, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom and Viet Nam had become additional co-sponsors. 

Finally, the Committee approved without a vote the text on granting observer status for the Asian Development Bank in the General Assembly (document A/C.6/57/L.6).  It had been introduced by China.  The Chairman announced that Pakistan had become a co-sponsor.

Statements on Special Committee Report

MARKIYAN KULYK (Ukraine), Chairman of the 2002 session of the Special Committee on the Charter, introducing its report, said it completed work on a proposal by Sierra Leone and the United Kingdom concerning the prevention and peaceful settlement of disputes.  A draft resolution on the subject had been included in the report for action by the General Assembly.

The Special Committee concluded the second reading of a revised working paper of the Russian Federation entitled “Basic conditions and standard criteria for the introduction of sanctions and other coercive measures and their implementation” in conjunction with an addendum.  It also considered a revised working paper by Japan on improvements to the Special Committee’s working methods.

Priority was given to the question of the implementation of the Charter provisions related to assistance to third States affected by the applications of sanctions, as requested by the General Assembly.  Recommendations were made following the deliberations, including consideration of the question at the current session of the General Assembly, he said.  The Special Committee also held general discussions on other topics on its agenda, including proposals on the future of the Trusteeship Council and identification of new topics.

ANDREI POPKOV (Belarus) drew attention to the importance of the sanctions question, and noted the progress made in the Special Committee’s discussion of the subject at its session.  He said the Special Committee was the appropriate forum to examine the issue despite the fact that other bodies also considered it, particularly the Security Council.  It was also important that the General Assembly also dealt with the question of sanctions in view of its role under the Charter.  Belarus supported further consideration of the question of assistance to third States affected by the application of sanctions as provided for in

Article 50 of the Charter.

He said Belarus and the Russian Federation would present proposals at the next session of the Special Committee in 2003 which would reflect new approaches to the use of force, particularly, in the cases of terrorism.

Belarus supported the proposal of Sierra Leone and the United Kingdom concerning dispute prevention and settlement on which a draft resolution was to be presented to the General Assembly.  It also welcomed the proposal by Japan on improvements in the Special Committee’s work programme.

MARTIN KOFOD (Denmark), speaking for the European Union and associated countries, said the Union was of the opinion that strong and efficient sanctions regimes were an indispensable tool in efforts to maintain international peace and security.  Unintended negative effects on innocent civilians and third States could be alleviated.  The objective was to maximize the impact of sanctions on decision-makers while minimizing the negative effects on civilians and third States.  Recommendations on the matter should be taken from the Interlaken, Bonn-Berlin and Stockholm processes.

Closely related to the issue of sanctions themselves was the question of basic conditions and standard criteria for introducing and implementing sanctions and other coercive measures.  He said the paper submitted by Russia was a useful basis for discussion.  The European Union, however, held the position that the Charter Committee should avoid becoming overly involved in matters better handled in other forums.

Finally, he said, the Charter Committee's working methods remained a priority.  The Union had made suggestions for streamlining the Committee's working methods and strengthening its efficiency.  A prioritized, more focused and more results-oriented agenda should be introduced.  A cut-off mechanism should be applied to matters the Committee could not move forward.  Japan had presented valuable papers on those matters.  However, the recommendations in the papers had been watered down considerably.  It was time for the Committee to reform its own work methods.

YIN WEN JUAN (China) welcomed the proposal to create a special fund and a permanent consultative mechanism on the question of assistance to third States adversely affected by sanctions.  Efforts should be made to mitigate the losses suffered by those States, he said.  The decision to apply sanctions should be made with caution and must conform with a previously established strict criteria.  China believed the Russian proposal on such criteria was constructive and merited further consideration.

China saw no need or urgency to abolish the Trusteeship Council or change its status.  He said the Special Committee could play the role expected of it as long as all parties demonstrated political will; China did not favour suggestions to weaken or abolish it.  The Special Committee should, in principle, have the right to consider any item concerning the strengthening of the role of the United Nations, irrespective of whether the topic was being considered in other bodies.  Methods to improve its work and efficiency should be explored in a spirit of pragmatism and consensus.

SORAYA ELENA ALVAREZ NUNEZ (Cuba) said progress on the question of sanctions was slow because of lack of interest on the part of some delegations.  Some measures proposed for revitalizing the Assembly and strengthening the Organization overall should be considered for improving the Special Committee’s working methods.  For example, the debate on discontinuing publication of the Repertoire should take place in the Committee.  Further, the deliberative bodies of the United Nations should be strengthened in the overall context of reform of the Organization.  The Millennium Declaration had reasserted the General Assembly’s role as the principal deliberative body.  The Special Committee could make a contribution to strengthening the Organization overall.

She said Member States should continue considering intergovernmental matters in the context of the Charter.  Procedural as well as substantive aspects of the issue of third States affected by sanctions, should be considered.  Russia’s proposals regarding the fundamental principles to be considered in applying sanctions were fundamental to the Committee’s work.  At present, the imposing of sanctions was an additional power given to the Security Council in the same way as the power of veto.  The Assembly should participate in making decisions on any questions related to the application of sanctions against States.

The Special Committee could make a substantial contribution to strengthening the Organization’s work.

ALI HAFRAD (Algeria) said sanctions were applied with the aim of changing the behavior of States.  Last-resort sanctions should be imposed only when all other methods had been exhausted, and once the Security Council had determined that a threat to international security existed.  The humanitarian impact must be considered.  Russia’s paper on conditions and criteria of applying sanctions should receive support.  The idea was not to punish populations and make them suffer.  The effect on civilians of third parties must be considered.  The Council should help third States.  Collective responsibility should apply.  A deliberate body should be established to consider the impact of sanctions.

He said Cuba’s paper on strengthening the Organization should also be given attention.  The working paper on the use of armed force without the Council’s approval was pertinent and timely.  A consultative opinion on the matter should be requested from the International Court of Justice.  The question was of fundamental concern at present.

The Security Council, he said, should hold the cornerstone position on questions of unilateral military actions.  There had been many of them lately.  Further, the role of the Trusteeship Council should be considered in context of the overall reform of the Organization.

TEOMAN UYKUR (Turkey) said his country followed with close interest the question of assistance to third States adversely affected by sanction, since Turkey was one of them.  It expected deliberations on the subject to be concluded without further delay, and that a functional mechanism would be established.  The main findings of the ad hoc expert group on the question provided a solid basis for attaining concrete results.

He urged an in-depth discussion of the group’s report, and adoption of the necessary steps to alleviate the burden of third States affected by the application of sanctions.  He also called on the Secretary-General to submit his report on the expert group’s findings as requested by the relevant General Assembly resolutions without delay.  He also underlined the responsibility of the Security Council to act without delay in response to applications of States under article 50 of the Charter, regarding assistance to those third States.

He said he welcomed the proposal of Sierra Leone and the United Kingdom on dispute-prevention and settlement.  As a general approach, the consent of the parties to a certain dispute should be required for referring their disagreement to the dispute settlement board.

On the Special Committee’s working methods, he said the Committee could be utilized more efficiently than it had been in the past.  The duration of its sessions should be compatible with the importance of the work before it.  The Special Committee was an invaluable forum for tackling issues of common concern to all. 

CHEAH SAM KIP (Malaysia) said he supported the view of the Special Committee that the Assembly continue consideration of the results of the expert ad hoc group meeting.  The slow progress on the issue was disconcerting, in view of the need to facilitate reduction of the hardship caused by sanctions to both the civilian population of a target State and to third States.  Sanctions were an extreme measure.  They should be imposed only as a last resort.  The Security Council was responsible for alleviating the damages suffered by affected third States.  In the case of smart or targeted sanctions, there was merit in Libya's proposal for the United Nations to assume responsibility for minimizing financial or economic burdens, over and above those resulting from direct applications of sanctions.

He said the Russian proposal on the criteria for introducing sanctions was welcome, raising important questions about their adverse impact.  Russia's paper on the fundamentals of a legal basis for United Nations peacekeeping missions was also welcome.  Proposals would be welcome on how coordination and cooperation could be strengthened between the Special Committee on a legal framework for peacekeeping missions and the Special Committee on Peacekeeping.  In line with the recommendation by Belarus and Russia, an advisory opinion should be requested from the International Court of Justice on legal consequences of States resorting to the use of force without prior authorization of the Security Council.

He called for the adoption during the present session of a draft resolution on the prevention and peaceful settlement of disputes.  Work on revitalizing the General Assembly should continue.

BRUNO STAGNO (Costa Rica), speaking on behalf of the Rio Group of Central and South American countries, said the Special Committee had particular responsibility to consider the question of adverse effects of sanctions on third States, including the findings of the ad hoc expert group established in 1998.  Members of the group urged the Secretary-General to publish his views on their findings and recommendations, as requested some time ago.  They hoped the Security Council would act on the recommendations of its working group that was studying the question.

He said the Rio Group reiterated the importance of continuing the Special Committee’s mandate given by the General Assembly, and urged the Secretary-General to speed up publication of reports on the subject.  They hoped in future sessions of the Special Committee there would be greater cooperation in achieving a focus in its work.

ROBERTO LAVALLE-VALDES (Guatemala) associated his delegation with the statement of the representative of Costa Rica on behalf of the Rio Group.  He expressed regret at the delay in action to assist third States adversely affected by the application of sanctions, noting that there had been several reports on the subject since the question was first discussed in the Special Committee in 1995.  The ad hoc expert group established to consider the methodology of assisting those States had met in June 1998.  The Economic and Social Council had studied the question, as had a working group of the Security Council.  Special emphasis had to be laid on finding a solution to the problem, as many States had been disappointed by the delay.

He congratulated Sierra Leone and the United Kingdom for their text on dispute prevention and settlement that was achieved by consensus.  The draft resolution on their proposal should take account of the discussions on armed conflict in the General Assembly on the agenda item on the report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization.

He said it was important that work continue on the Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs and the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council.

MOHAMMAD HASSAN FADAIFARD (Iran) said the Special Committee had been striving to find a new role for itself in the era of United Nations reform.  The question of assistance to third States affected by sanctions had been on the agenda for more than a decade.  The Security Council’s conduct of a comprehensive review of sanctions was appreciated; it was one of the most complex issues before the Organization.  The Council’s work, however, should not prevent the Assembly from playing its due role in standard setting, either in the area of international relations or on sanctions.

Now that the Secretary-General’s report on the ad hoc expert group’s work had been issued, he said, it was time for the Special Committee to start serious negotiations on assistance to third States affected by sanctions.  The recommendations could be used to establish guidelines to be applied in dealing with implementing Charter provisions relating to the imposition of sanctions.  Russia’s proposals on the basic conditions and criteria for imposing and implementing sanctions should be considered. 

In the area of peaceful settlement of disputes between States, he continued, the Charter Committee had endeavoured to ensure respect for that universally recognized principle of international law.  The draft resolution before the Committee clarified the many ways and means available to peacefully settle disputes.  The principle of free choice of means must apply.  It entitled parties to a dispute to agree on appropriate peaceful means of settling it.

ROSSETTE NYIRINKINDI KATUNGYE (Uganda) said key issues before the Committee.were the revitalization of the General Assembly; improving the working methods between the roles of the Assembly and Security Council; minimizing the negative effects of sanctions on vulnerable groups in targeted States; minimizing the unintended negative impact of sanctions on the economies of third States; and the mechanisms for early warning of threats to international peace and security.

Sanctions were indeed an instrument for maintaining international peace and security, she said, but they should be imposed as a last resort.  Sanctions regimes should be reviewed and adjusted to take into account the circumstances, including to mitigate or curb the creation of extreme poverty.  Practical relief measures to offset adverse effects of sanctions would be welcome.  A Fund should be created to guarantee automatic and easy access for third States affected by sanctions. 

Peacekeeping issues should be considered by the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations.  A dispute prevention and settlement service should be established with an early warning mechanism for disputes and situations likely to threaten world peace and security.

MUN JONG CHOL (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said there was need to define the criteria for the application of sanctions.  It should not be in pursuit of a unilateral purpose and in the interest of individual countries.  All Member States should respect and implement United Nations Charter provisions and reject any individual acts, so as to strengthen the leading role of the United Nations and the equality of States.  He said the Special Committee should not confine its discussions to United Nations-imposed sanctions, but should have an in-depth discussion of all forms of coercive measures, including unilaterally imposed sanctions.

He said a situation persisted on the Korean peninsula in which the name and flag of the United Nations were abused regardless of its intent.  The so-called “United Nations Force” in the southern part of Korea had no legal basis for its existence, in view of the Security Council resolution and its relations with the United Nations.  He said the force did not serve the ideal of the United Nations, and existed only in the interest of a power over which the United Nations had no political, military and financial authority.  He said his delegation expected that appropriate measures would be taken to urgently address the abnormal situation in which the name of the Organization and its flag had been abused for over 50 years.  This would accord with the trend of the new century towards genuine peace and stability.

SOUMAIA ZORAI (Tunisia) stressed the importance of the question of assistance to third States adversely affected by the application of sanctions, and regretted that no action had been taken on the subject although it had been on the Organization’s agenda for 10 years.  She said careful study should be made of the impact of sanctions on the targeted State as well as third countries.  A permanent mechanism should be established for consultations with the third States.  She also stressed the importance of the application of the provisions of Article 50 of the Charter which called for assistance for those States.  She advocated a trust fund for that purpose.

On the strengthening of the role of the Organization in the maintenance of international peace and security, she said documents submitted by the Russian Federation, Libya and Cuba were good basis for further discussions.

She regretted the delay in bringing up to date the publication of the Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs and the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council.

AHMED ELMESSALLATI (Libya) said sanctions were to be used only as a last resort.  They should not be used for political purposes.  Russia’s working paper on standards for applying sanctions was appreciated.  Also, in the Security Council, the privileged status of the veto should be either eliminated or broadened to include all members.  The working document by Cuba on strengthening the Organization and increasing its efficiency was noteworthy.

He called for a study of the ways to reinforce and strengthen the role of the General Assembly in international peace and security, and to define cooperation between the Assembly and the Council.  The negative effects of the use of the veto should also be studied.  Council membership should be broadened.  A clear and precise definition of “threat to international peace and security” should be articulated.  The right to participate in the Council’s work, without the right to vote, should be given consideration.

He said Japan’s views on improving the working methods of the Special Committee should be heeded.  Strengthening the Committee did not come down to weakening its mandate or taking away items on its agenda.  It simply meant an increase in the Committee’s ability to work more quickly and efficiently.

SHUICHI AKAMATSU (Japan) spoke of the resolution on the peaceful settlement of disputes, saying the steadfast leadership of Sierra Leone and the United Kingdom had enabled adoption of the draft by consensus after years of fruitless discussion.  The resolution reminded States to declare their recognition of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.  Sixty-one States had so far accepted the jurisdiction. Japan had declared its acceptance in 1958.  More States should do so in response to the resolution.

He said adoption of the resolution at the April meeting of the Charter Committee had been a significant achievement, but the discussion of other items had been desultory at best, largely because of the lack of preparation on the part of States.  It would be useful to hold informal consultations before the Charter Committee met.

He said the Security Council’s efforts to alleviate the effects of sanctions on third States by means of “smart sanctions” was appreciated.  At the same time, the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, and the Committee for Programme and Coordination should continue to play their roles in that area.  The purpose of the Charter Committee, he said, was to strengthen the role of the United Nations.  Strengthening the Committee itself would assist that purpose.  The support received from delegations for Japan’s working paper on the matter was appreciated.

ANGELA CAVALIERE DE NAVA (Venezuela) said one of the most valid contributions the Committee could make to the Organization would be in the area of its work on sanctions.  Sanctions were a priority for the Organization.  A review of the entire sanctions procedure should be conducted.  A special representative should be appointed to study the situation of third States affected by their application.  Working groups should be established to study how the harmful effects of sanctions could be mitigated.  A culture for the peaceful settlement of disputes should be cultivated.

CLIFFORD SIBUSISO MAMBA (Swaziland) commended the work of the Committee on the Charter.  He said his country had been committed to the United Nations since independence.  It was more important than ever for international security to be made more secure.  The Libyan proposal for reform of the Security Council and for improving the working method between the Assembly and the Council should be considered in its revised form.  The working paper on the peaceful resolution of disputes was also useful.

He said sanctions should be considered in light of the ever-increasing interdependence of the world.  The frequent application of sanctions by the Security Council had made it necessary to consider ways of mitigating their effects.  His country had felt the effect of sanctions when they had been applied to a neighbouring country.  The Secretary-General’s efforts to study the ways of addressing the problem were appreciated.  Also appreciated was the work of the expert ad hoc committee on the matter.  Publication of the “Repertory” and “Repertoire” should not be discontinued; rather, a permanent post within the Secretariat should be established for the purpose of continuing its publication.

* *** *