SECURITY COUNCIL REJECTS DRAFT PROPOSING EXTENSION OF UNITED NATIONS MISSION IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Security Council

4563^rd Meeting* (PM)

SECURITY COUNCIL REJECTS DRAFT PROPOSING EXTENSION OF UNITED NATIONS MISSION

IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Opposing Text, United States Stresses Immunity for Troop Contingents

From States Not Party to Rome Statute of International Criminal Court

Following a veto by the United States this afternoon, the Security Council rejected a resolution extending the mandate of the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH), including the International Police Task Force (IPTF), until 31 December 2002.

Also by the three-part text, defeated by a vote of 13 in favour, 1 against (United States) and 1 abstention (Bulgaria), the Council would have authorized Member States, acting through or in cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), to continue the multinational stabilization force (SFOR) for a further 12 months under unified command and control in accordance with resolution 1088 (1996).

In a vote last week, the Council unanimously adopted a technical resolution, 1418 (2002), by which it extended UNMIBH's mandate for 10 days until midnight today.  By that action, it also authorized the continuation of SFOR until today. (See also Press Releases SC/7430 of 21 June and SC/7427 of 19 June).

By other terms of today's text, the Council would have authorized Member States to take all necessary measures, at the request of SFOR, either in its defence or to assist it in carrying out its mission, and recognized the right of the force to take all necessary measures to defend itself from attack or threat of attack.

It would further have authorized the Member States acting under paragraph

10 of the text, in accordance with Annex 1-A of the Dayton Peace Agreements, to take all necessary measures to ensure compliance with the rules and procedures established by the Commander of SFOR, governing command and control of airspace over Bosnia and Herzegovina with respect to all civilian and military air traffic.

Requesting the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina to cooperate with the Commander of SFOR to ensure the effective management of the country's airports, the Council would have demanded that the parties respect the security and freedom of movement of SFOR and other international personnel.

___________ 

*     The 4562^nd meeting was closed.

The resolution would have reiterated that the primary responsibility for the further successful implementation of the Peace Agreement lay with the authorities

in Bosnia and Herzegovina themselves, and that the continued willingness of the international community and major donors to assume the political, military and economic burden of implementation and reconstruction efforts would be determined by the compliance and active participation by those authorities.

Addressing the Council before the vote, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said UNMIBH's mandate had come to an abrupt end for reasons that were unrelated to the vitally important work it was performing to implement the Dayton Peace Agreement.  Unless an agreement could be reached on an orderly wind-down of the Mission, the police in Bosnia and Herzegovina would be left unmonitored, unguided and unassisted, and the long-planned handover to the European Union Police Mission, scheduled for the year’s end, would be severely compromised.

He noted that the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina were beginning to reap the fruits of the international community’s assistance.  The premature termination of UNMIBH’s mandate would be perceived throughout the Balkans as a diminishing of the international community’s commitment to stability in the region.  United Nations peacekeeping was an indispensable tool for the international community’s promotion of global peace and stability, he emphasized.

Appealing to Council members to intensify the recent high-level negotiations held in capitals, he called for a solution that was acceptable to all concerned and that respected the principles of the United Nations Charter as well as treaty obligations of Member States.  The world could not afford a situation in which the Council was deeply divided on such an important issue, which might have implications for all United Nations peace operations, he warned.

The representative of the United States, speaking in explanation of position before the vote, said his delegation would vote against the resolution with great reluctance, and that the decision was not directed at the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  By vetoing the resolution in the face of its commitment to peace and stability in that country, the United States was indicating the seriousness of its concerns about risks to its peacekeepers.

He said his country, having accepted the risks of exposing its personnel to dangerous and difficult situations in the service of promoting peace and stability, would not ask them to accept the additional risk of politicized prosecutions before the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction over its people the Government of the United States did not accept.  Given that its global responsibilities made it a special target, the United States could not have its decisions second-guessed by a Court whose jurisdiction it did not recognize, he added.

With the Court coming into effect [tomorrow], he said, two hard facts must be taken into account:  the United States wanted to participate in peacekeeping, but as a major guarantor of peace and security around the globe and a founding member of the United Nations, it did not and would not accept the jurisdiction of the ICC over the peacekeepers that the country contributed to United Nations-

(page 1b follows)

established and authorized operations.  The Council’s failure to act to preserve an appropriate legal status for the United States and other non-ICC party peacekeepers could only end in damage to international peacekeeping generally, he emphasized.

Bulgaria's representative, speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, said he had abstained not because his country did not support the principles of the Mission, but to draw attention to the serious lack of unity in the Council.  He expressed trust that the absence of the United Nations from Bosnia and Herzegovina would be temporary and that the Council's unity would be restored very soon.

Bosnia and Herzegovina was a new fragile State in South-Eastern Europe, which had experienced very difficult times and did not deserve the present situation, he stressed.  Bulgaria had frequently expressed its appreciation for UNMIBH as a stabilizing factor for the country and the entire region.  As a State party to the Rome Statute, meanwhile, Bulgaria strongly supported the ICC Treaty and would do its utmost to strengthen the Court so that it could work for justice against war criminals.

Also speaking this afternoon were the representatives of France, United Kingdom, Colombia, China, Norway, Russian Federation and Ireland.

The meeting began at 5 p.m. and adjourned at 5:45 p.m.

Background

As the Security Council met this afternoon to consider the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, it had before it a draft resolution by which it would have extended the mandate of the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH) until 31 December 2002 and authorized the continuation of the multinational stabilization force (SFOR).  That text (document S/2002/712) was sponsored by Bulgaria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Russian Federation and the United Kingdom.

By the text of today's draft, the Council, acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, would have authorized the Member States acting through or in cooperation with the organization referred to in Annex 1-A [the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO] of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (the Peace Agreement, document S/1995/999, Annex) to continue for a further planned period of 12 months SFOR as established in accordance with its resolution 1088 (1996) under unified command and control.

The Council would also have authorized the Member States mentioned above to take all necessary measures to effect the implementation of and ensure compliance with Annex 1-A of the Peace Agreement, and stressed that the parties would continue to be held equally responsible for compliance with that Annex and would be equally subject to such enforcement action by SFOR as might be necessary to ensure implementation of that Annex and the protection of SFOR.

Further, the resolution would have authorized Member States to take all necessary measures, at the request of SFOR, either in its defence or to assist it in carrying out its mission, and recognized the right of the force to take all necessary measures to defend itself from attack or threat of attack.

It would further have authorized the Member States acting under paragraph 10 of the text, in accordance with Annex 1-A of the Peace Agreement, to take all necessary measures to ensure compliance with the rules and procedures established by the Commander of SFOR, governing command and control of airspace over Bosnia and Herzegovina with respect to all civilian and military air traffic.

Requesting the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina to cooperate with the Commander of SFOR to ensure the effective management of country's airports, the Council would have demanded that the parties respect the security and freedom of movement of SFOR and other international personnel.

By Part III of the resolution, the Council would have extended the mandate of UNMIBH, including the IPTF, until 31 December 2002.

Explanation of Vote

JOHN NEGROPONTE (United States), speaking in explanation of position before the vote, stressed his country’s commitment to peace and stability in the Balkans, saying the United States had always been clear and consistent about its concerns on the International Criminal Court (ICC), particularly the need to ensure the country’s national jurisdiction over its personnel and officials involved in United Nations peacekeeping and coalition-of-the-willing operations.

Those concerns had been previously explained when the Council dealt with the United Nations Mission of Support in East Timor (UNMISET) in May, he recalled.  The United States had voted in favour of the East Timor resolution with the expectation that the Council would address its concerns before the Court came into effect on 1 July.  Only three United States soldiers were participating in the East Timor peacekeeping mission, and they would be withdrawn in the absence of a solution to the ICC issue.  It was with great regret that the United States had found itself, on the eve of that date and despite its best efforts, without a solution.

He said that his country, having accepted the risks of exposing its personnel to dangerous and difficult situations in the service of promoting peace and stability, would not ask them to accept the additional risk of politicized prosecutions before a Court whose jurisdiction over its people the Government of the United States did not accept.  While some contended that those concerns were unwarranted, the United States, with global responsibilities that made it a special target, could not have its decisions second-guessed by a Court whose jurisdiction it did not recognize.

With the Court coming into effect, he said, the problem must be resolved in a practical way that took account of two hard facts:  the United States wanted to participate in peacekeeping, but as a major guarantor of peace and security around the globe and a founding member of the United Nations, it did not and would not accept the jurisdiction of the ICC over the peacekeepers the country contributed to operations established and authorized by the United Nations.

The Council’s failure to act to preserve an appropriate legal status for the United States and other non-ICC party peacekeepers could only end in damage to international peacekeeping generally, he emphasized.  The United States had offered a practical solution to the problem that would preserve everyone’s interests, protect international peacekeeping and strengthen the Council’s hand to maintain international peace and security.  Furthermore, the United States believed that such a solution should apply only to States not party to the ICC.

There was no inherent reason why States that had signed or even ratified the Rome Treaty could not also support the United States-proposed solution, he reiterated.  The proposal called for the establishment of immunity for United Nations peacekeeping.  It built on immunities that were already recognized in the United Nations system and reflected in status-of-forces and status-of-mission agreements. 

He pointed out that the Rome Treaty itself recognized the concept of immunity.  If the Council decided that its ability to maintain international peace and security would be enhanced by providing immunity to United Nations peacekeeping, it might provide such immunity.  The framers of the ICC Treaty surely could not limit the Council’s authority in that regard.  The consequence of providing United Nations peacekeepers with such immunity would be the creation of a legal obligation to observe that immunity.

Pursuant to Article 98 of the Rome Treaty, the compliance of ICC parties with such obligations was entirely consistent with the Treaty, he said.  It was perplexing that others who were parties to the ICC could use the Treaty to exempt their forces for an extended period from the purview of the Court for war crimes, and then suggest that the attempt by the United States to use other provisions of the Treaty similarly to protect its forces either violated their Treaty obligations or did unacceptable damage to the Treaty’s spirit.

While the United States would vote against the resolution with great reluctance, that decision was not directed at the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, he said.  The United States would stand by them and by its commitment to peace and stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  The fact that the United States was vetoing the resolution in the face of that commitment, however, was an indication of just how serious its concerns remained about the risks to its peacekeepers.

Action

The Council then voted on the draft resolution, with 13 members voting in favour, one against (United States) and one abstention (Bulgaria).  Security Council President MIKHAIL WEHBE (Syrian Arab Republic) told members that the draft had been rejected because of the negative vote of a Permanent Council member.

Statement by the Secretary-General

United Nations Secretary-General KOFI ANNAN said that today, the mandate of the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH) had come to an abrupt end, for reasons unrelated to the vitally important work it was performing to implement the Dayton Peace Agreement.  The United Nations Mission had made a universally recognized contribution to the re-establishment of the rule of law and political stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but the State was still fragile. Unless an agreement could be reached on an orderly wind-down of the mission, the police in Bosnia and Herzegovina would be left unmonitored, unguided and unassisted.  The long-planned handover to the European Union Police Mission, scheduled to take place at year’s end, would be severely compromised.

He said the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina were beginning to reap the fruits of the international community’s assistance.  It would be most unfortunate if the premature termination of UNMIBH’s mandate were to set back the process.  It would be perceived throughout the Balkans as a diminishing of the international community’s commitment to stability in the region.  He remained convinced that United Nations peacekeeping was an indispensable tool for the international community’s promotion of global peace and stability.

He appealed to the Council members to intensify the high-level negotiations held in capitals over the past weeks, so as to find a solution acceptable to all concerned that respected the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and treaty obligations of Member States.  The world could not afford a situation in which the Council was deeply divided on such an important issue, which might have implications for all United Nations peace operations, he said.

Explanation of Vote after the Vote

STEFAN TAFROV (Bulgaria) endorsed every word of the Secretary-General’s statement.  He said the Secretary-General was right to focus on Bosnia and Herzegovina.  It was a new State, fragile, in South Eastern Europe, which had experienced very difficult times and did not deserve today’s outcome.  Bulgaria had frequently expressed its appreciation for UNMIBH as a factor in stabilizing the country and the entire region.

As a State party to the Rome Statute, his country strongly supported the Treaty and would do its utmost to strengthen the Court so that it could combat the most serious crimes and work for justice against war criminals.  He had abstained from the vote, not because his country did not support the principles of the Mission, but to draw attention to the lack of unity in the Council, which constituted a grave situation.  He trusted that the absence of the United Nations from Bosnia and Herzegovina would be temporary, and appealed to all Council members to compromise.  He hoped that the unity of the Council would be restored very soon.

JEAN-DAVID LEVITTE (France) expressed deep regret that despite all the efforts made, no solution reconciling the various interests involved had been reached.  The veto was a threat to the existence of UNMIBH, especially since the Council and the Secretary-General had taken note of the Mission’s impressive achievements in establishing law and order and combating organized crime and terrorism.

He said that in any event, the Mission was about to end in a few months, to be replaced by an international police force headed by the European Union.  The veto decision was hard to understand because UNMIBH had been working for a number of years with the full support of the United States.  At no point had UNMIBH peacekeepers been called before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.  The Tribunal had never given the United States any problems whatsoever.

Calling on the United States to respect the position of those countries that had accepted the Rome Treaty or intended to, he said the European Union had ratified the Statute and had made efforts to promote its universality.  Many States, including France, had made constitutional amendments to take account of the Treaty's provisions.  He said the simplest thing for the United States would have been to withdraw its 46 police personnel and extract them from ICC jurisdiction in the unlikely event that those unarmed police were accused of war crimes.  The protection of those police officers and other United States citizens was no reason to kill off UNMIBH.

He said there were two other possible legal solutions.  The first would enable the United States and other non-parties to the ICC to make bilateral agreements with the host country, whereby the consent of the non-party States would be required to transfer jurisdiction of their nationals to the Court.  Second, Article 16 of the Statute could allow the Council, on a case-by-case basis, to ask the Court to defer the transfer of jurisdiction for a year pending investigations by countries not party to the ICC Treaty.

JEREMY GREENSTOCK (United Kingdom) said that while his delegation understood the concerns of the United States regarding the ICC, the United Kingdom felt the end of UNMIBH had come about for reasons that were unrelated to the issue of peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  Under the complementarity principle, the ICC would only take over the prosecution of peacekeeping personnel in cases where their countries were unwilling or unable to prosecute.

He stressed that peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina were doing an important job and must be allowed to complete their role.  The reasons for the United States veto did not appear very clear, especially since the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia continued to have jurisdiction in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

ALFONSO VALDIVIESO (Colombia) said the Rome Statute imposed obligations on signatories -- of which his country was one -- the first of which was to act in a way compatible with the provisions of the ICC.  A second question was the position of the United States.  He believed that progress had been made in consultations and that further progress could be made towards unanimity.  The principle of complementarity, which pervaded the entire Statute, provided broad guarantees to non-signatory countries.

He said the Council must take into account the implications of the decision for peacekeeping forces.  Those forces were the most effective for maintaining peace and security.  He supported the Secretary-General’s appeal to continue efforts to reach a common position.  Those efforts were the more necessary in a world threatened by international terrorism.

ZHANG YISHAN (China) regretted that the draft resolution had not been adopted as he was in favour of extending UNMIBH’s mandate.  He appreciated the contribution of UNMIBH to stability and peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and had voted in favour of the draft resolution.  He understood the concerns of the United States delegation on the ICC, which had been addressed during Council consultations.  The parties, however, had failed to reach an agreement.  He hoped that the parties would continue consultations to ensure that the issue would not stand in the way of the peacekeeping operations of the United Nations in Bosnia and Herzegovina and other regions, and not put in jeopardy the efforts made.

OLE PETER KOLBY (Norway) said that in the building of a new international world order, there could be no doubt about the importance of the key United States role in post-conflict peace-building.  Nevertheless, the Council must redouble its efforts in finding a solution to the UNMIBH question.

He said his country continued to be a staunch supporter of the ICC and was convinced that the Rome Statute contained sufficient safeguards against unwarranted prosecutions.  The Court gave total priority to national courts.

SERGEY LAVROV (Russian Federation) said his delegation had voted in favour of the resolution guided by his country's continuing support for the Dayton Peace Agreements.  The Russian Federation regretted the veto, which had been made for reasons that were not directly related to the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but rather to problems of the relationship between the United States and ICC.

He said the Council understood those problems and had made efforts to find a solution that met the concerns of the United States on the one hand, while remaining within the norms of current international law on the other hand.  The Council must continue its efforts to find a consensus solution soon, he emphasized.

RICHARD RYAN (Ireland) supported the extension of UNMIBH and authorization of the Stabilization Force and had voted in favour of the draft resolution.  He understood the concerns of the United States relating to its personnel serving in United Nations missions, but could not share its decisions.  He would work with others in a pragmatic way to address those concerns and regretted that that had not been possible today.  Ireland was a signatory to the ICC and was bound by it. It had amended its Constitution to ratify the Statute.

He said the implications of the vote were extremely serious for the United Nations, for the Council, for United Nations peacekeeping and for the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  He welcomed United States reiteration today of its commitment to peacekeeping in the Balkans and elsewhere.  He urged members of the Council to move forward urgently and as best it could, and supported the statement by the Secretary-General in that regard.

Resolution

The full text of the draft resolution reads as follows:

The Security Council,

“Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions concerning the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, including resolutions 1031 (1995) of 15 December 1995, 1035 (1995) of 21 December 1995, 1088 (1996) of 12 December 1996, 1144 (1997) of 19 December 1997, 1168 (1998) of 21 May 1998, 1174 (1998) of 15 June 1998, 1184 (1998) of 16 July 1998, 1247 (1999) of 18 June 1999, 1305 (2000) of 21 June 2000, 1357 (2001) of 21 June 2001, and 1396 (2002) of 5 March 2002,

“Reaffirming its commitment to the political settlement of the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, preserving the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States there within their internationally recognized borders,

“Welcoming the arrival in Bosnia and Herzegovina on 27 May 2002 of the new High Representative, looking forward to working closely with him, and emphasizing its full support for the High Representative’s continued role,

“Underlining its commitment to support the implementation of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Annexes thereto (collectively the Peace Agreement, S/1995/999, annex), as well as the relevant decisions of the Peace Implementation Council (PIC),

“Emphasizing its appreciation to the High Representative, the Commander and personnel of the multinational stabilization force (SFOR), the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and the personnel of the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH), including the Commissioner and personnel of the International Police Task Force (IPTF), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and the personnel of other international organizations and agencies in Bosnia and Herzegovina for their contributions to the implementation of the Peace Agreement,

“Welcoming the decision by the Council of Europe inviting Bosnia and Herzegovina to become a member and expressing its understanding that Bosnia and Herzegovina will commit itself to make progress towards fully meeting the standards of a modern democracy as a multi-ethnic, multicultural and united society,

“Welcoming recent progress in effecting the decision of the Constitutional Court and calling upon all to support swift implementation of constitutional amendments in both entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is critical to the establishment of stable democratic and multi-ethnic political and administrative institutions necessary for the implementation of the Peace Agreement,

“Welcoming the positive steps of the Governments of the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia towards fulfilling their continuing obligations as signatories of the Peace Agreement, strengthening their bilateral relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina and their increasing cooperation with all relevant international organizations in implementing the Peace Agreement,

“Emphasizing that a comprehensive and coordinated return of refugees and displaced persons throughout the region continues to be crucial to lasting peace,

“Recalling the declarations of the Ministerial meetings of the Peace Implementation Conference,

“Noting the reports of the High Representative, including his latest report of 13 May 2002 (S/2002/547),

“Having considered the report of the Secretary-General of 5 June 2002 (S/2002/618) and welcoming the UNMIBH Mandate Implementation Plan,

“Determining that the situation in the region continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security,

“Determined to promote the peaceful resolution of the conflicts in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

“Recalling the relevant principles contained in the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel adopted on 9 December 1994 and the statement of its President of 10 February 2000 (S/PRST/2000/4),

“Welcoming and encouraging efforts by the United Nations to sensitize peacekeeping personnel in the prevention and control of HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases in all its peacekeeping operations,

“Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

“I

“1.   Reaffirms once again its support for the Peace Agreement, as well as for the Dayton Agreement on implementing the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 10 November 1995 (S/1995/1021, annex), calls upon the parties to comply strictly with their obligations under those Agreements, and expresses its intention to keep the implementation of the Peace Agreement, and the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, under review;

“2.   Reiterates that the primary responsibility for the further successful implementation of the Peace Agreement lies with the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina themselves and that the continued willingness of the international community and major donors to assume the political, military and economic burden of implementation and reconstruction efforts will be determined by the compliance and active participation by all the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina in implementing the Peace Agreement and rebuilding a civil society, in particular in full cooperation with the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, in strengthening joint institutions, which foster the building of a fully functioning self-sustaining state, able to integrate itself into the European structures and in facilitating returns of refugees and displaced persons;

“3.   Reminds the parties once again that, in accordance with the Peace Agreement, they have committed themselves to cooperate fully with all entities involved in the implementation of this peace settlement, as described in the Peace Agreement, or which are otherwise authorized by the Security Council, including the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, as it carries out its responsibilities for dispensing justice impartially, and underlines that full cooperation by States and entities with the International Tribunal includes, inter alia, the surrender for trial of all persons indicted by the Tribunal and provision of information to assist in Tribunal investigations;

“4.   Emphasizes its full support for the continued role of the High Representative in monitoring the implementation of the Peace Agreement and giving guidance to and coordinating the activities of the civilian organizations and agencies involved in assisting the parties to implement the Peace Agreement, and reaffirms that the High Representative is the final authority in theatre regarding the interpretation of Annex 10 on civilian implementation of the Peace Agreement and that in case of dispute he may give his interpretation and make recommendations, and make binding decisions as he judges necessary on issues as elaborated by the Peace Implementation Council in Bonn on 9 and 10 December 1997;

“5.   Expresses its support for the declarations of the Ministerial meetings of the Peace Implementation Conference;

“6.   Recognizes that the parties have authorized the multinational force referred to in paragraph 10 below to take such actions as required, including the use of necessary force, to ensure compliance with Annex 1-A of the Peace Agreement;

“7.   Reaffirms its intention to keep the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina under close review, taking into account the reports submitted pursuant to paragraphs 18 and 25 below, and any recommendations those reports might include, and its readiness to consider the imposition of measures if any party fails significantly to meet its obligations under the Peace Agreement;

“II

“8.   Pays tribute to those Member States which participated in the multinational stabilization force established in accordance with its resolution 1088 (1996), and welcomes their willingness to assist the parties to the Peace Agreement by continuing to deploy a multinational stabilization force;

“9.   Notes the support of the parties to the Peace Agreement for the continuation of the multinational stabilization force, set out in the declaration of the Ministerial meeting of the Peace Implementation Conference in Madrid on 16 December 1998 (S/1999/139, annex);

“10.  Authorizes the Member States acting through or in cooperation with the organization referred to in Annex 1-A of the Peace Agreement to continue for a further planned period of 12 months the multinational stabilization force (SFOR) as established in accordance with its resolution 1088 (1996) under unified command and control in order to fulfil the role specified in Annex 1-A and Annex 2 of the Peace Agreement, and expresses its intention to review the situation with a view to extending this authorization further as necessary in the light of developments in the implementation of the Peace Agreement and the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina;

“11.  Authorizes the Member States acting under paragraph 10 above to take all necessary measures to effect the implementation of and to ensure compliance with Annex 1-A of the Peace Agreement, stresses that the parties shall continue to be held equally responsible for compliance with that Annex and shall be equally subject to such enforcement action by SFOR as may be necessary to ensure implementation of that Annex and the protection of SFOR, and takes note that the parties have consented to SFOR’s taking such measures;

“12.  Authorizes Member States to take all necessary measures, at the request of SFOR, either in defence of SFOR or to assist the force in carrying out its mission, and recognizes the right of the force to take all necessary measures to defend itself from attack or threat of attack;

“13.  Authorizes the Member States acting under paragraph 10 above, in accordance with Annex 1-A of the Peace Agreement, to take all necessary measures to ensure compliance with the rules and procedures established by the Commander of SFOR, governing command and control of airspace over Bosnia and Herzegovina with respect to all civilian and military air traffic;

“14.  Requests the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina to cooperate with the Commander of SFOR to ensure the effective management of the airports of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the light of the responsibilities conferred on SFOR by Annex 1-A of the Peace Agreement with regard to the airspace of Bosnia and Herzegovina;

“15.  Demands that the parties respect the security and freedom of movement of SFOR and other international personnel;

“16.  Invites all States, in particular those in the region, to continue to provide appropriate support and facilities, including transit facilities, for the Member States acting under paragraph 10 above;

“17.  Recalls all the agreements concerning the status of forces as referred to in Appendix B to Annex 1-A of the Peace Agreement, and reminds the parties of their obligation to continue to comply therewith;

“18.  Requests the Member States acting through or in cooperation with the organization referred to in Annex 1-A of the Peace Agreement to continue to report to the Council, through the appropriate channels and at least at monthly intervals;

“Reaffirming the legal basis in the Charter of the United Nations on which the IPTF was given its mandate in resolution 1035 (1995),

“III

“19.  Decides to extend the mandate of UNMIBH, which includes the IPTF, for an additional period terminating on 31 December 2002, and also decides that,

during that period, the IPTF shall continue to be entrusted with the tasks set out in Annex 11 of the Peace Agreement, including the tasks referred to in the Conclusions of the London, Bonn, Luxembourg, Madrid and Brussels Conferences and agreed by the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina;

“20.  Welcomes the decision of the European Union (EU) to send a Police Mission (EUPM) to Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1 January 2003 as well as the close coordination between the European Union, UNMIBH and the High Representative to ensure a seamless transition and the invitation of the EU to non-EU member States to participate in the EUPM;

“21.  Requests the Secretary-General to keep the Council regularly informed and to report in six months on the implementation of the mandate of UNMIBH as a whole;

“22.  Reiterates that the successful implementation of the tasks of the IPTF rests on the quality, experience and professional skills of its personnel, and once again urges Member States, with the support of the Secretary-General, to ensure the provision of such qualified personnel;

“23.  Reaffirms the responsibility of the parties to cooperate fully with, and to instruct their respective responsible officials and authorities to provide their full support to, the IPTF on all relevant matters;

“24.  Reiterates its call upon all concerned to ensure the closest possible coordination between the High Representative, SFOR, UNMIBH and the relevant civilian organizations and agencies so as to ensure the successful implementation of the Peace Agreement and of the priority objectives of the civilian consolidation plan, as well as the security of IPTF personnel;

“25.  Urges Member States, in response to demonstrable progress by the parties in restructuring their law enforcement institutions, to intensify their efforts to provide, on a voluntary-funded basis and in coordination with the IPTF, training, equipment and related assistance for local police forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina;

“26.  Also requests the Secretary-General to continue to submit to the Council reports from the High Representative, in accordance with Annex 10 of the Peace Agreement and the conclusions of the Peace Implementation Conference held in London on 4 and 5 December 1996 (S/1996/1012), and later Peace Implementation Conferences, on the implementation of the Peace Agreement and in particular on compliance by the parties with their commitments under that Agreement;

“27.  Decides to remain seized of the matter.”

* *** *