Fifty-ninth General Assembly

Plenary                                                    

49^th Meeting (AM)

DELEGATIONS EXPRESS WIDESPREAD SUPPORT FOR UN’S PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL ORGAN,

 

AS GENERAL ASSEMBLY TAKES UP INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE REPORT

Today’s debate demonstrated Member States’ ongoing interest in and support for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the Court’s President, Judge Shi Jiuyong, told the General Assembly this morning.

Since October 2003, Judge Jiuyong said, the ICJ had held five sets of oral hearings related to no less than 12 cases.  It had also rendered a final judgement in three cases and delivered one advisory opinion.  That level was unprecedented in the Court’s history.  As a result, the number of cases on the Court’s docket had been reduced from 25 from one year ago to 20 at the end of July.  As of today, there were now 21 cases on the General List representing a substantial workload.

Nevertheless, the achievements of the Court during the review period reflected its commitment to dealing with cases as promptly and as efficiently as possible, while maintaining the quality of its judgements and respecting the consensual nature of its jurisdiction.

He added that the Court’s budget for the 2004-2005 biennium had been agreed in advance with the Assembly’s urgent request for an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory.  Both the public hearings and the delivery of that opinion had attracted unprecedented world attention.  Meeting the demands of the media and providing adequate security had placed a great burden on the Court’s resources.  He hoped that the allocation of funds would be authorized as soon as possible so that the ICJ had the financial support to perform its role in the year ahead.

There was widespread support by many speakers in this morning’s debate for the work of the Court and numerous calls for enhancing its operations and respecting its jurisdiction and judgements.  Many speakers also backed the proposals contained in the Secretary-General’s report aimed at improving accessibility to the Trust Fund to Assist States in the Settlement of Disputes through the ICJ.

Nigeria’s representative commended the measures to rationalize the Court’s work, adopted in July, particularly its decision to increase the number of cases it could review by shortening the period between the closure of written proceedings and the opening of oral arguments.  Adequate funding of the ICJ would enable it to keep up with advances in information and communication technologies, helping it better carry out its duties.  The ICJ’s pending request to expand its Computerization Division should, therefore, be given favourable consideration, along with the extrabudgetary expenditures that had arisen as a result of security safeguards put in place during the adjudication of the case concerning Israel’s construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory.

Elaborating on the latter point, Malaysia’s representative said that the advisory opinion, which ruled that Israel’s construction of the wall was contrary to international law, was a significant milestone in the long-running effort to bring to an end the sufferings and humanitarian consequences faced by the people in the occupied Palestinian territory, as well as to ensure a just and lasting solution to the question of Palestine.  The Court was the most appropriate avenue for the peaceful and final resolution of disputes when diplomacy had been exhausted.  Respect for the Court’s decisions would enhance its stature and prestige and inculcate a culture of respect for international law.

Supporting that premise, Peru’s representative said that when one considered the Court’s importance in the maintenance of international peace and security, it was vital that its jurisdiction become universally accepted.  He welcomed the amendments to the Trust Fund’s mandate, which would expand the eligibility rules under which States could benefit from financial assistance, as well as the establishment of a mechanism of advancement that would allow more States to turn to the Court for the peaceful resolution of disputes.  The increasing number of cases that had been referred to the Court showed the commitment of States to the peaceful settlement of disputes, as well as the increasing trust that the international community had in its jurisdiction, he added. 

The question of whether or not the Court should remain in the traditional area of international law, applying only established jurisprudence, required further discussion, Japan’s representative said.  But it was a given fact that the international community was developing rapidly and required a system of laws capable of addressing the latest situations confronting the world.

At the outset of today’s meeting, the Assembly observed a minute of silence in tribute to the late President of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahayan, who passed away on 2 November.  Assembly President Jean Ping (Gabon) was among those who paid tribute to the distinguished statesman, who led his country since its formation in 1971. 

The representatives of the Gambia (on behalf of the African States), Indonesia (on behalf of the Asian States), Belarus (on behalf of the Eastern European States), Nicaragua (on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean States), New Zealand (on behalf of the Western European and Other States), United States (on behalf of the host country) and the United Arab Emirates all made statements paying tribute to the late President.

Statements in today’s debate were also made by the representatives of Syria, Mexico, Guatemala, Spain, Russian Federation and Uganda.

The Assembly will meet again at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, 8 November, to elect seven members of the Committee for Programme and Coordination; appoint members of the Committee on Conferences; appoint members of the Joint Inspection Unit; consider the implementation of United Nations resolutions; and take action on drafts.

Background

The General Assembly met today to consider the Report of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) (document A/59/4), which states that, as of 31 July this year, 191 States were now parties to the Statute of the Court, while 65 of them had deposited with the Secretary-General a declaration of acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction in accordance with its Statute.  Further, some 300 bilateral or multilateral treaties provide for the Court to have jurisdiction in the resolution of disputes arising out of their application or interpretation. 

The report, which covers the period from 1 August 2003 through 31 July 2004, states that the number of cases pending before the ICJ continued to be high and now exceeded 20.  The contentious cases come from all over the world.  Four are between AfricanStates; one between Asian States; 11 between European States; and two between Latin American States.  Two others are of an intercontinental character.  The Court’s docket frequently contains cases concerning territorial disputes between neighbouring States.  This is the position for four such cases involving Nicaragua and Honduras, Nicaragua and Colombia, Benin and Niger, and Malaysia and Singapore.

Another classic type of dispute, according to the report, is where a State complains of treatment suffered by one or more of its officials or nationals in another country.  This was the position in the case between Guinea and the Democratic Republic of the Congo; Liechtenstein and Germany; and the Democratic Republic of the Congo and France.  Other cases relate to events that have come to the attention of the Assembly or the Security Council.  The Court is involved in two cases where Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia have sought the condemnation of Serbia and Montenegro for violation of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 

Meanwhile, Serbia and Montenegro has brought proceedings against eight member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), challenging the legality of their action in Kosovo.  Also, the Democratic Republic of the Congo in two separate cases contends that it has been the victim of armed aggression by Uganda and Rwanda.  The report details the actions taken by the Court vis-à-vis the contentious cases before it during the reporting period.

The Court was also asked by the General Assembly to render an advisory opinion on the question of the legal consequences of the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory.  On 9 July this year, the ICJ rendered its advisory opinion, in which it first addressed the question of its jurisdiction to give the requested opinion and of the judicial propriety of exercising that jurisdiction.  The Court unanimously found that it had jurisdiction to give the said opinion and decided by a vote of 14 to 1 to comply with the request.  Then, before addressing the legal consequences of the construction of the wall, the Court considered the question of the legality of the construction of the wall.  It found by a vote of 14 to 1 that “The Construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the occupied Palestinian territory including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law.”

Regarding the legal consequences of the violations found, the Court distinguished between the consequences for Israel, those for other States, and, where appropriate, for the United Nations.  On the consequences for Israel, the ICJ, by 14 votes to 1, found that “Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built on the occupied Palestinian territory including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto …”.  The Court also said that Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall.

The Court found by 14 votes to 1 that the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and its associated régime, taking due account of the present advisory opinion.

Also before the Assembly is the Report on the Secretary-General’s Trust Fund to Assist States in the Settlement of Disputes through the International Court of Justice (document A/59/372).  The Trust Fund was established in 1989 under the Financial Regulations and Rules of the United Nations.  It provides financial assistance to States for expenses incurred in connection with a dispute submitted to the Court by way of a special agreement or the execution of a judgement of the ICJ resulting from such a special agreement.  The Fund is open to all States parties to the Statute of the Court, as well as non-memberStates that have complied with the conditions stipulated in Security Council Resolution 9 (1946).

During the review period (1 July 2003 – 30 June 2004), the Fund received one joint application from Benin and Niger to defray the expenses incurred in connection with the submission of their boundary dispute to the Court.  Subsequently, on 24 May this year, $300,000 were awarded to each applicant to defray the staffing, production and legal expenses incurred in the demarcation of the border of the two countries.  Also during the review period, Finland, Norway and Mexico contributed $34,665 to the Fund and as of 30 June the total balance of that mechanism stood at $1,936,583 excluding awards already paid out.  The report also outlines the revisions to the terms of reference of the Fund made during the review period which expand the eligibility rules on the Court’s Terms of Reference, whose revised version is annexed to the report.

Tribute to Late UAE President

JEAN PING (Gabon), President of the General Assembly, said that it was his sad duty to pay tribute to the memory of the late President of the United Arab Emirates, His Highness Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, who passed away on 2 November.  He requested the representative of the United Arab Emirates to convey condolences to the Government and people of that country, and to the bereaved family of His Highness. 

The Assembly then stood and observed a minute of silence in tribute to the memory of the late President.

CRISPIN GREY-JOHNSON (Gambia), speaking on behalf of the Group of African States, said it was with a deep sense of sorrow that the international community had learned of the passing of the President.  Sheikh Zayed went down in history as a man who, in the short period of less than 40 years, transformed an underdeveloped group of small islands in the Persian Gulf into a highly developed, modern nation.  He used his nation’s oil wealth to enrich his people, to educate and enlighten the populace, and transformed the Emirates into a leading international financial and trade centre.  He was known for his humility and simplicity, and the ease with which he mixed freely with his subjects.  The international system could learn much from that great leader’s life of service when it considered issues of governance, cooperation, development and empowerment.

REZLAN ISHAR JENIE (Indonesia), speaking on behalf of the Asian States, said that Sheikh Zayed had tirelessly pursued the causes of Arab unity, tolerance and reconciliation.  Recalling that the leader had resoundingly eschewed tyranny, believing instead that “sometimes we put all our opinions together, and then we extract from them a single point of view”, he also praised the wise and judicious leadership that had enhanced the welfare of the people of the United Arab Emirates and created a flourishing desert country.  He expressed deep condolences on behalf of his delegation.

ANDREI DAPKIUNAS (Belarus), speaking on behalf of the Eastern European Group, paid tribute to the late President’s tireless leadership, energy and wisdom, which had led the people of the United Arab Emirates to prosperity.  Having dedicated his life to the strengthening of his country, Sheikh Zayed had turned it into a regional leader and it was now a top member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).  Conveying deep condolences on behalf of the Group, he described the last President as a distinguished statesman and talented politician who “deserved the respect and honour of the people of his country and the world”.

EDUARDO SEVILLA SOMOZA (Nicaragua), speaking on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean States, said the late President had transformed his nation, guided by his faith and a philosophy that stated that the greatest duty of all was to improve the lives of his people.  His life’s work was a tribute to his conviction.  The United Arab Emirates had lost a great man of vision and impact.  His impact affected that nation’s basic infrastructure and great projects in the areas of environment and education, and in the development of the nation’s oil industry.  Over time, the President had won the recognition of his region as a statesman, and his international experience strengthened his administration.  He would be missed and would be remembered as a man who was able to make his dreams a reality.

TIM MCIVOR (New Zealand), speaking on behalf of the Western European and other States, said His Highness was a strong and visionary leader of his people and a unifying force in the region.  He played a central role in the formation of the United Arab Emirates in 1971, and was elected President of the new federation.  During his presidency, Sheikh Zayed played a major role in the formation of the Gulf Cooperation Council in 1981, which was one of his most lasting and admired achievements.  He conveyed the most sincere condolences of his group to the Government and people of the United Arab Emirates, and to the family, friends and colleagues of Sheikh Zayed. 

SICHAN SIV (United States), speaking on behalf of the host country, extended his deepest condolences to the late President’s family and the people of the United Arab Emirates.  Sheikh Zayed’s leadership and vision had united seven independent emirates into one nation.  His friendship with the United States would not be forgotten and his diplomatic contributions to the world would surely be missed.

ABDULAZIZ NASSER AL-SHAMSI (United Arab Emirates) said the hearts of the Emirates were full today, and respectful nevertheless of the will of God.  He thanked the General Assembly, the Secretary-General, MemberStates and world leaders for their expressions of sympathy.  He said the late President remained a symbol for the people of the country, the region and beyond.  He had always striven to protect the principles of Islam, which had been based on tolerance.

In addition, Sheikh Zayed had left behind a precious legacy of tolerance and justice.  He had also been a great humanitarian and promoter of scientific and technological advances.  His diplomatic skill transcended the region and touched all corners of the world, particularly towards strengthening the causes of peoples and nations.  He had left behind a son to rule the country -- pursuant to the country’s Constitution -- who would soon take office.  The United Arab Emirates would continue to pursue and implement balanced policies and stand by its obligations under the Charter and in line with international law.  

International Court of Justice

SHI JIUYONG, President of the International Court of Justice, said today’s opportunity demonstrated the Assembly’s ongoing interest in and support for the Court in its role as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.  Since his last address, in October 2003, the ICJ had held five sets of oral hearings related to no less than 12 cases.  In addition, the Court had rendered a final judgement in three cases and delivered one advisory opinion.  That level was unprecedented in the ICJ’s history, and, as a result, the number of cases on the Court’s docket had been reduced from 25 from one year ago to 20 at the end of the review period (1 August 2003 – 31 July 2004).

There were now 21 cases on the Court’s General List, following the institution of proceeding by Romania against Ukraine on 16 September, he said.  The current cases represented a substantial workload.  He then outlined the contentious cases pending before the Court that originated from all over the world, which were detailed in the report.  The achievements of the Court during the review period reflected its commitment to dealing with cases as promptly and as efficiently as possible, while maintaining the quality of its judgements and respecting the consensual nature of its jurisdiction.

It was gratifying to note the increased use of the Court over recent years, he continued.  In order to meet that growing demand and fulfil its judicial responsibilities, the Court had taken further steps during the review period to improve its judicial efficiency.  Since his last report, the ICJ had undertaken a thorough review of its work methods, and had introduced measures to enhance its internal functioning and encourage greater compliance by parties with previous decisions, aimed at accelerating the procedures in contentious hearings.

He said the Court’s budget for the 2004-2005 biennium had been agreed in advance with the Assembly’s urgent request for an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory.  Both the public hearings and the delivery of that opinion attracted unprecedented world attention.  Meeting the demands of the media and providing adequate security placed a great burden on the Court’s resources.  He sincerely hoped that the allocation of such funds would be authorized as soon as possible so that the ICJ had the financial support to perform its role in the year ahead.

During the review period, the Court had continued to enhance the use of modern technology, building on the achievements outlined in 2003.  But to continue that process and comply with the wishes of the Assembly, it was essential for the Court to have the benefit of a high-level professional officer in the Computerization Division.  Therefore, he repeated the request made last year for the creation of a post to enable the Court to recruit a senior information technology staff member with extensive experience and appropriate qualifications.

MARCO BALAREZO (Peru) called on all States that had not yet done so to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, with no preconditions, and to submit their disputes to that organ and abide by its rulings.  Considering the Court’s importance in the maintenance of international peace and security and its contribution to the fulfilment of the fundamental purposes of the United Nations, through the peaceful settlement of disputes between States, Peru considered it vital that its jurisdiction become universally accepted.  He welcomed the amendments to the mandate of the Secretary-General’s Trust Fund, which would expand the eligibility rules under which States could benefit from financial assistance, as well as the establishment of a mechanism of advancement that would allow more States to turn to the Court for the peaceful resolution of their disagreements. 

He was appreciative of States that had contributed to that Fund and echoed the Secretary-General’s appeal for additional voluntary contributions to it.  He pointed out that the increasing number of cases that had been referred to the Court showed the commitment of States to the peaceful settlement of disputes, as well as the increasing trust that the international community had in its jurisdiction.  He also highlighted the Court’s work in the diffusion of its activities and decisions, noting that the electronic distribution of information, particularly its web site, represented important tools that allowed that body’s valuable activity to be fully known.  He commended the Court for those efforts and encouraged it to continue consideration of options to extend the diffusion of its judicial activities, including their publication in other official languages of the United Nations.

SHINICHI KITAOKA (Japan) said there was a growing awareness among nations that the international community must establish law and order, and that international law should play a larger role in that regard.  International law was a dynamic legal system which had continued to evolve over time.  Interpreting and implementing law required not only a profound knowledge of the law but also wisdom on the part of the international community.  The importance of the ICJ’s role could not be overstated.  Japan appreciated the achievements of the Court in the past year.  Despite a large number of cases, it had managed to deliver judgements and opinions based on in-depth consideration of the relevant legal issues.

This year, he said, there were some notable decisions involving controversial issues in international law.  The question of whether or not the Court should remain in the traditional area of international law, applying only established jurisprudence, required further discussion.  But it was a given fact that the international community was developing rapidly and required a system of laws capable of addressing the latest situations confronting the world.  Regarding the individual issues of international law highlighted by the Court, he believed that nations would eventually come to a common understanding.  He underscored the importance of the ICJ as the keeper of law and wisdom in the world, and said Japan would continue to contribute to its valuable work.

RASTAM MOHD ISA (Malaysia) said the Court was the most appropriate avenue for the peaceful and final resolution of disputes, when all efforts in diplomacy had been exhausted.  Malaysia had submitted cases to the Court regarding territorial disputes, and fully respected the Court’s decision in such cases, consistent with her abiding adherence to international law.  Respect for the Court’s decisions would contribute to enhancing its stature and prestige and, in turn, to inculcating a culture of respect for the rule of law at the international level.  The significant increase of cases on the Court’s docket as of 31 July augured well for the progressive development of international law and the role of the Court as a dispute settlement mechanism.  In view of the increased workload, there was an urgent need to strengthen its capacity to efficiently dispose of the cases before it, as well as to undertake its additional administrative responsibilities.

He went on to say that the Court’s advisory opinion, which ruled that the construction of the wall by Israel was contrary to international law and that Israel was obligated to terminate its breaches of international law, was a significant milestone in the long-running effort to bring to an end the sufferings and humanitarian consequences faced by the people in the occupied Palestinian territory and to ensure a just and lasting solution to the question of Palestine.  Malaysia was pleased to have participated through both written and oral submissions in the Open Hearing at the Court in February 2004.  The process of seeking and rendering the advisory opinion was a clear manifestation of the healthy relationship between the Assembly and the Court, as envisaged under the Charter.  He also welcomed the Court’s distribution of press releases, background notes and its handbook to keep the public informed of its work.

FAYSSAL MEKDAD (Syria) joined those that had conveyed condolences to the United Arab Emirates on the loss of its distinguished and visionary leader.  He said his country was anxious to see that international law was respected, and that the Court was the appropriate venue for ensuring justice and settling disputes between peoples and nations.  The Middle East region had been particularly affected by disputes and tensions that had turned into open conflicts, he said, highlighting a number of cases that had been decided by the Court, but focusing on the recent advisory opinion condemning Israel’s building of a wall in Gaza and the West Bank.

He was convinced that the international community should work to ensure that the Court’s opinions and decision were respected.  That was crucial in order to ensure the self-determination of the Palestinian people and the establishment of a PalestinianState, particularly since Israel had decided to disregard the ICJ’s advisory opinion.  Finally, he called for proper and steady funding to ensure that the Court could carry out its mandate unimpeded.

JUAN MANUEL GÓMEZ ROBLEDO (Mexico) said the rise in the number of cases before the Court was a sign of the political backing of the international community for its judicial practices and independence.  The Court’s workload today differed from the meagre number of cases submitted to it in the 1970s.  Now it faced the challenge of solving a number of cases through peaceful means.  The Court needed to expedite cases and improve its methods of work, which would be key in responding to the increasing demands.  He appreciated the efforts of the Court and encouraged parties in contentious cases to cooperate fully and follow the guidelines.  In addition, he welcomed measures to enhance productivity, to shorten the period of time between written activities and the opening of oral proceedings, and to reform of the Court’s guidelines.

The case of Avena and other Mexican nationals vs. the United States was the first claim that took place before the Court for his nation, and that had had far-reaching importance, he said.  Mexico had a well founded trust in the Court, and was not disappointed.  The Court was able to induce the parties not to delay the phases of the case, given the importance of the rights at stake.  The Court ordered provisions to safeguard the rights of Mexico, and the United States respected those measures.  The Court did international law a distinguished service by resolving an issue that negotiations had not been able to resolve.  It clarified aspects that the parties wished to see defined, and spelled out issues of restitution.  The Court had laid down principles, which needed to be observed by all States parties to the Vienna Convention.  In short, Mexico was fully satisfied with regard to the Court’s actions.

At the same time, he congratulated Slovakia for having joined the family of States that recognized the jurisdiction of the Court, bringing the total number of States that deposited declarations to 65.  Regarding Romania vs. Ukraine, Mexico would be monitoring developments in that case closely.  The Court would continue play a role in the international judicial scene, which had been strengthened by new institutions.  Mexico would support the Court in the peaceful settlement of issues between States.

ROBERTO LAVALLE-VALDÉS (Guatemala) joined others expressing condolences on the death of the President of the United Arab Emirates.  He then went on to reaffirm the principles and concepts of law, judge and ruling, which had always driven juridical systems and which should continue to be the focus of efforts to resolve disputes between States.  The venerable ICJ and its work, rendered in great detail in the report before the Assembly, was the world body most appropriate for undertaking that task.  On practical matters pertaining to the report, he noted that it would be helpful if future additions contained full annexes of the ICJ’s amended procedures and casework.  Otherwise, the report was well considered and thought out.

AMINU BASHIR WALI (Nigeria) joined others in acknowledging the Court’s universal character as the only avenue for settlement of disputes between States. Nigeria was a State party to the Court and had accepted its compulsory jurisdiction in matters related to Nigeria’s land and maritime boundary dispute with Cameroon, the implementation of which was proceeding under the aegis of the Nigerian-Cameroon Mixed Commission.  He went on to commend the Court for continuously upholding the rule of law within the United Nations system, as well as its positive contribution to international peace and security through its adjudicative duties.

He also commended the measures aimed at rationalizing the Court’s work, adopted this past July, particularly its decision to increase the number of cases it could review by shortening the period between the closure of written proceedings and the opening of oral arguments.  Nigeria believed that adequate funding of the Court would enable the body to keep pace with advances in information and communication technologies (ICT), which could better help it carry out its duties.  To that end, the Court’s pending request to expand its Computerization Division from one to two professional officers should be given favourable consideration, along with the extrabudgetary expenditures that had arisen as a result of security safeguards put in place while it had been adjudicating the case concerning Israel’s construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory.  In addition, Nigeria noted with appreciation the contributions made to the Trust Fund during the past year by Finland, Norway and Mexico.

JUAN ANTONIO YÁÑEZ-BARNUEVO (Spain) said the ICJ had a vital role in the maintenance of international relations in an increasingly complex world.  He noted with satisfaction that a large number of cases were being referred to the Court.  The increasing acceptance by the international community of the Court’s jurisdiction attested to its growing importance.  The Court’s role in the conduct of international relations was evidenced by the number of cases that were being added to its agenda.

He welcomed the fact that the Court had undertaken to review its working methods and accelerate the pace at which it expedited cases before it.  As an impartial body, the Court acted as a guardian of international law.  The Court’s advisory role had proved to be an important aspect of its work for the sake of peace and justice among nations.  Unfortunately, the Court was likely to have a very heavy workload in a few years, a development he urged members not to overlook.  He called on States to take the required action regarding the moderate proposals presented to the Assembly, in order to strengthen an already resource-limited organ.  Supporting those proposals would enable the Court to carry out its judicial functions properly, thereby securing the values of international law.

DMITRY A. LOBACH (Russian Federation) said the Court was a unique body and played a leading role in the peaceful settlement of disputes between States.  The work of the Court had been characterized by the number of issue referred to it by States and the increased areas it covered.  The advisory opinions given by the Court on legal issues were of utmost importance.  At the same time, States must be cautious, in particular when the application of such opinions had to do with a dispute between parties, one of which did not recognize the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory.

He went on to say that his country believed that the advisory opinions must not hinder the search for political settlements, and welcomed efforts of the Court to enhance the effectiveness of its work.  He welcomed recent additional measures to rationalize the functioning of the Court and to increase the number of judgements rendered annually.  Also, he was gratified that issues of financing of the Court, the enlargement of its composition and the importance of technical supplies had been addressed positively.

FRANCIS K. BUTAGIRA (Uganda) joined others expressing condolences to the people of the United Arab Emirates.  He then went on to hail the Court and its fundamental role in the resolution of international disputes between States.  He noted that the number of cases pending before the world court remained high, with more than 20 cases on its docket.  “Justice delayed is justice denied”, he said, urging parties to reduce, to the extent possible and, of course without compromising their cases, the number and volume of written pleadings and the length of oral arguments.

Uganda was nevertheless conscious of the dilemmas the Court faced when it was presented with proceedings which might disrupt the flow of its work, particularly those requiring urgent action or those characterized by complex procedures.  But the Court still must find a way to balance its agenda and duties in order to respond to such challenges.  Here he noted the measures that had been taken to rationalize the body’s work, such as making greater use of information technology, improving its working methods and seeking greater collaboration with parties.  He also praised the obvious benefits of the Court’s web site which was an indispensable tool for the international community to follow the body’s decisions and decision-making processes.

* *** *