Fifty-ninth General Assembly

Sixth Committee

5^th Meeting (PM)

 

STRICT OBSERVANCE OF HUMANITARIAN LAW, MEASURES TO PROTECT

 

DIPLOMATS URGED IN ASSEMBLY’S LEGAL COMMITTEE

As Status of New Protocols to Geneva Convention Is Discussed,

Delegates Stress Key Role of International Committee of Red Cross

(Issued on 14 October 2004.)

Wider adherence and strict observance of international humanitarian law and of instruments covering protection of diplomatic missions and their personnel were urged this afternoon as the Sixth Committee (Legal) considered reports of the Secretary-General dealing with those questions.

Speaking on the Status of the two Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts, the representative of the Netherlands spoke for the European Union to say the implementation of international humanitarian law was of crucial importance in a world torn apart by armed conflicts.  The expertise and tireless work of the International Committee of the Red Cross helped implement them.

The representative of Switzerland, the depositoryState, announced that by today the Geneva Conventions had been ratified by 192 States.  There were 162 States parties to the Additional Protocol I and 157 to Protocol II.  The International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission established under article I of Additional Protocol I had been accepted by 68 States.  Switzerland continued to believe that the Commission had the necessary potential to improve implementation of international humanitarian law.

The observer for the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has been active in seeking to strengthen the existing body of international humanitarian law, said steps to improve respect for international law must be taken in peacetime.  States must adopt all the legislative, administrative and other measures required to give effect to international norms at the national level.

Statements were also made on that topic by the representatives of Japan, United Arab Emirates, Cuba, Thailand, China, Ukraine, Sweden, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Algeria, Russian Federation, Tunisia and Guatemala.

The observer of Palestine also spoke and made a statement later in exercise of the right of reply.

The representatives of Israel and Jordan also exercised that right.

The second debate centred on the Secretary-General’s report on measures to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives, with delegates urging their strict compliance.

The representative of Norway, speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries, said acts of violence against missions and officials of intergovernmental organizations were strongly condemned by the Nordic group.  Such acts were unjustified.  The violations should be reported along the procedures established.  Guidelines governing the protection of diplomatic and consular premises and personnel should be followed.

Also speaking on the subject were the representatives of the Netherlands (for the European Union and its associated States), Cuba, Australia, Burkina Faso, Indonesia and Mali.

The Sixth Committee will meet next at 10 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, 14 October, to consider the work of the new International Criminal Court in the Hague.

Background

The Sixth Committee (Legal) met this afternoon to consider an agenda item on the status of the two Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts.  It was also expected to take up the subject of safeguarding diplomatic facilities and persons.

Protocols I and II, the 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, relate to the protection of victims of international and non-international conflicts respectively.

Currently, there are 162 States parties to Protocol I, and 157 States parties to Protocol II.  Sixty-eight States parties have recognized the competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission provided for in article 90 of Protocol I.

The Geneva Conventions consist of Treaties formulated in Geneva, Switzerland, that set the standards for international humanitarian law.  The First Geneva Convention (1864) covers the treatment of battlefield casualties; the Second (1906) extends the principles from the first convention to apply also to war at sea; the Third (1929) deals with the treatment of prisoners of war; and the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) relates to the protection of civilians during times of war and under any occupation by a foreign power.

In 2002, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to submit a report on the status of the Additional Protocols, as well as measures taken to strengthen the existing body of international humanitarian law.  The Secretary-General’s report (A/59/321) contains a summary of responses from 18 countries and the International Committee of the Red Cross.  The report also contains a list of States parties to the Additional Protocols of 1977 as at 2 June 2004.

The Secretary-General’s report on measures to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives (document A/59/125 and Add.1) summarizes communications from States on conditions affecting their consular facilities.  Reporting were:  Burkina Faso, concerning violations of its official premises and personnel in Côte d’Ivoire; Germany, with regard to its Ambassador’s residence in Harare, Zimbabwe; Kuwait, relative to incidents involving its embassy in the Libyan capital of Tripoli; Mali, on incidents involving the residence of its diplomatic representatives in Abidjan, Côte D’Ivoire, which in turn reported that the incidents were being investigated; and Finland, relative to events at foreign embassies within its territory.

In the report, the Secretary-General says, Mali noted that receiving States connected with diplomacy-related activities should make security guards available free of charge to missions requesting them.  The United Arab Emirates reported no violations, but stressed the importance of compliance with the principle of reciprocity among States on protection of diplomacy-related premises.  Qatar, Lebanon, Slovenia and Mexico also reported no violations.

Also included in the report is a tabular update on the status of participation in relevant international conventions.  These are:  the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and 1963; the Optional Protocols on Diplomatic Relations concerning Acquisition of Nationality (1961 and 1963) and Compulsory Settlement of disputes (1961 and 1963); and finally, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents (1973).

The addendum contains a later report by Switzerland about incidents to the premises owned by Missions of the Russian Federation, the United States and Syria.  There is also a report by Norway on incidents involving the diplomatic premises of Denmark, India, Iran, Israel, United Kingdom, United States, Sri Lanka and the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

Statements on Geneva Convention Protocols

CETA NOLAND (Netherlands) speaking for the European Union and its associated States, said the implementation of international humanitarian law was of crucial importance in a world torn apart by armed conflicts.  That implementation was greatly facilitated by the expertise and tireless work of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

The European Union expressed its great appreciation and continued support for the perseverance of the ICRC and its efforts to ensure full implementation of international humanitarian law.  The role of the ICRC in advocating the rights of victims was a major contribution in affording victims protection under the law.  The European Union also commended Switzerland on its many efforts to promote international humanitarian law.  Its endeavours to promote the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols far exceeded what could be expected of a depository, she said.

Outlining the various efforts being made at international and national levels to promote international humanitarian law, she stressed the potentially important role that could also be played by the International Fact-Finding Commission under article 90 of the Additional Protocol I.  The Commission, which had never been used so far, could be ideal, she said, to facilitate the restoration of respect for international humanitarian law.  The European Union member States were working towards ratification of the Protocols to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the event of armed conflict.

JURG LAUBER (Switzerland) announced, as the depositoryState, that by today the Geneva Conventions had been ratified by 192 States.  There were 162 States parties to the Additional Protocol I and 157 to Protocol II.  The International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission, established under article I of Additional Protocol I, had been accepted by 68 States.  Switzerland continued to believe that the Commission had the necessary potential for improving implementation of international humanitarian law.

He told the Committee that Switzerland was carrying out the mandate entrusted to it by the Tenth Emergency Special Session concerning respect for the Fourth Geneva Convention in the OccupiedPalestinianTerritory.  It was currently in the process of establishing first contacts with the parties most interested in the matter.

HIROSHI TAJIMA (Japan) said his country had completed the legislative work to implement the two Additional Protocols.  The instruments of accession had been deposited with the Swiss Federal Council depository.  With that, Japan had recognized the competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission.  The significance of international humanitarian law could not be overemphasized.

SALIM IBRAHIM AL-NAQBI (United Arab Emirates) said reports by Fact-Finding Committees showed that international humanitarian agencies had been added to the civilian and national-institution targets of those perpetrating illegal acts with the most modern weapons.  Multilateral mechanisms must be created to implement the four Geneva Conventions and their Protocols.  A transparent and non-discriminatory policy must be developed to identify, pursue and execute the perpetrators of war crimes and other acts of genocide.  His country was not only a ratified State to those instruments but was incorporating the principles into national legislation.

He said commitment to the Conventions and Protocols was admirable but the serious violations of rights by Israel against the Palestinians and in the Syrian Golan were alarming.  The international community must discharge its responsibility and put pressure on Israel to comply with its obligations.

JUANA ELENA RAMOS RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said it was more important than ever to reinforce the need to respect the Geneva Conventions and Protocols, particularly in relation to ensuring the strictest respect for the norms that apply to the protection of civilians in armed conflict.  Applicable articles of humanitarian law must be implemented at the national level.  Her country was a party to the Conventions and Protocols.  National law guaranteed respect for their principles.

MUIN BURHAN SHREIM (Observer for Palestine) recalled that the first Protocol related to international armed conflicts and the second to non-international ones.  He said the two together filled in important gaps in the original instruments.  Wars of national liberation were covered by the first as was the right to self-determination.  The Secretary-General’s report indicated that many more States had become parties to the Protocols since the last report.  That showed growing international support for the instruments, just as the call for respecting them in the OccupiedTerritory was growing louder.  Israeli settlements continued to expand and Israel continued building its wall, despite an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice against it.

For 37 years, he said, Israel had been turning a deaf ear to the international community’s calls for respecting the Geneva Conventions and Protocols.  There were many steps the international community could take to put pressure on Israel to comply.  Those steps should be taken.

ITTIPORN BOONPRACONG (Thailand) informed the Committee of the progress his country was making towards becoming a party to the 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 1949.  The cabinet had approved accession to Protocol I and a parliamentary Act necessary for the implementation of all the provisions of the Protocol –- particularly those relating to the prosecution of war criminals -– were being drafted.  The Thai Criminal Code was being amended to conform to the provisions of article 77 (5), which prohibited the imposition of the death penalty on persons under the age of 18.

GUAN JIAN (China) said his country had honoured its obligations under the Protocols in good faith and had adopted many positive and useful measures for the study, dissemination and implementation of the Geneva Conventions and their two Protocols.  Extensive information about the Conventions and their Protocols were also being disseminated within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.  In June, a seminar was organized by the Army for countries of the Asia and Pacific region.

OLEKSANDER KUPCHYSHYN (Ukraine) said the United Nations played a leading role in strengthening legal mechanisms and establishing minimal requirements to protect victims of war.  The Security Council made an important contribution with its consideration of various aspects of the question, such as protection of children.  Urgent measures should be taken to solve the problem of targeting and using children in armed conflicts.  States that were parties to the conflict must realize their responsibilities to fully recognize and implement Security Council resolutions.

He said the International Committee of the Red Cross played an important role in promoting humanitarian law and assisting governments to implement it.  His country had ratified an agreement with the Red Cross to open an ICRC Mission in Ukraine.

JERZY MAKAROWSKI (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the Nordic Countries, said the International Criminal Court would be of paramount importance for bringing about compliance with international humanitarian law.  The International Fact-Finding Commissions must play a role in that.  The international community must react to breaches of international humanitarian law at an early stage.  There must be greater effectiveness to deter future breaches of international humanitarian law.  The role and importance of the ICRC must be emphasized.

Finally, he said, respect for international humanitarian law and its implementation rested primarily with each State.  However, all parties to an armed conflict must respect humanitarian law.  All belligerents must respect the existing body of this law with respect to ensuring the protection of civilians.

AHN EUN-JU (Republic of Korea) said her Government had established the Korean National Committee for International Humanitarian Law with a mandate, among others, to make recommendations on measures to implement international humanitarian laws.  It was also charged with disseminating information about them.  The Government had accepted the competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission provided for in article 90 of Protocol I.

The Republic of Korea had accepted the amendment to article I of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which May Be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects.  It had also ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict.

She urged the Sixth Committee to recognize and support the efforts of the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization to promote implementation and dissemination of international humanitarian law.

ALFONSO ASCENCIO (Mexico) said his country was disseminating information about international humanitarian laws.  The National Defence Secretary had promoted dissemination of a manual on their provisions in military institutions and among the armed forces.  Armed forces personnel had participated in relevant courses nationally and overseas.  The International Committee of the Red Cross had given assistance.  Mexico had submitted draft resolutions on international humanitarian laws, which had been approved at the summit of the Americas.

He also mentioned efforts his country had made at the regional level to disseminate information about international humanitarian laws with the assistance of the International Committee of the Red Cross.  He commended the ICRC for its co-operation with his country, noting that it had recently established its regional offices in Mexico City.

ALI HAFRAD (Algeria) said his country had joined most of the international humanitarian laws.  It had in October 2001 ratified the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-personnel mines.  He welcomed the Secretary-General’s report on the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and its provisions on protection of civilians in armed conflict.  He said the report had major shortcomings, in that it did not say anything about the plight of civilians in the occupied Palestinian territories.

STEPAN KUZMENKOV (Russian Federation) said not all Member States were ready to implement their obligations under the two protocols, which did have certain shortcomings.  Even so, the protocols strengthened the legal regime for affording protection in armed conflict.  Most importantly, the International Fact-Finding Committees should carry out their work with respect for the principles of equality and impartiality with regard to examining war crimes.

GEORGES PACLISANU, Observer for the International Committee of the Red Cross, said steps to improve respect for humanitarian law required steps to be taken in peacetime.  States must adopt all legislative, administrative and other measures required to give effect to international norms at the national level.

To date, he continued, 192 States were party to the Geneva Conventions, 165 had acceded to the First Additional Protocol and 156 to the Second.  Other States had taken steps toward becoming parties to those key humanitarian law instruments.  States should bear in mind the possibility of recognizing the competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission.  They should make use of the Commission’s good offices in situations of international or non-international armed conflict.

Welcoming the International Criminal Court and its commitment to international humanitarian law through its Advisory Service, he said the effective protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict was also of concern.  Also, the work of national committees in implementing international law had proved very useful.

SABRI CHAABANI (Tunisia) said the protocols were an integral part of international humanitarian law.  All countries must respect the rules of such laws, particularly with regard to protecting civilians in armed conflict, a provision that was most relevant to the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories.  The international community must bring pressure to bear in getting respect for the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice.

ROBERTO LAVALLE-VALDES (Guatemala) suggested that the statement made by the International Committee of the Red Cross be made available as an official document.

Statements in Right of Reply

Israel’s representative said the Committee was not the right forum to discuss the situation in the Middle East.  International humanitarian law should not be used for political purposes to present a one-sided view of the situation in the occupied territories.  Israel had the right to protect its people.  It also had responsibilities, and it accepted those.  However, it was time to stop pretending that only one party had responsibility for the human rights situation in the area.  Responsibility for the need to live in terror and the situation of the Palestinian people themselves being killed by suicide bombers among them must be borne by all parties.

Jordan’s representative said this was the appropriate forum to discuss the application of international humanitarian law.  He welcomed Israel’s statement that it would respect its obligations as an occupying force, but the principle of the right to defence had certain well-defined elements.  For example, the measure used must not be a form of collective punishment; excessive force must not be used.  Every State had the right to defend its citizens, but it also had international obligations.

The Observer for Palestine said Israel was interested in silencing everyone who wanted to bring up the situation of international humanitarian law in the occupied territories.  Indiscriminate attacks were being carried out and excessive force was being used.  The International Court of Justice had affirmed Israel’s right and duty to protect its citizens, but it had also affirmed that it must meet its obligations.

Statements on Enhancing Diplomacy-Related Safeguards

CETA NOLAND (Netherlands) speaking for the European Union and its associated States, said high priority should be given to ensuring the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives.  The European Union strongly condemned recent heinous acts against the Australian and Greek embassies in Jakarta, and on Netherlands and Jordanian embassies in Baghdad.  Such acts could never be justified, she said.  She emphasized the responsibilities of host States to ensure, as the General Assembly had repeatedly stated, the protection, safety and security of missions, representatives and other officials present on their territory in an official capacity.

AASMUND ERIKSEN (Norway), speaking also for the other Nordic countries -– Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Sweden -- said they strongly condemned acts of violence against diplomatic and consular representatives, as well as against representatives of international intergovernmental organizations and their officials.  They also stressed that such acts were not justified.  They were particularly concerned about incidents that impeded the work of representatives and officials.  They drew attention to reporting procedures on violations of the protection of diplomatic and consular premises and personnel, and to guidelines governing them.

MERCEDES DE ARMAS GARCIA (Cuba) strongly condemned attacks on diplomatic and consular missions and representatives, which should not go unpunished.  Cuba had respect for the immunities of those missions and their personnel.  At home, Cuban authorities provided security for those missions and their representatives in the country, and punished harshly those responsible for acts against them.  Cuba strongly favoured agreements and existing instruments on the subject.  The item before the meeting was extremely relevant.

BEN PLAYLE (Australia) spoke of the bombing of the Australian Embassy in Jakarta just last month.  While none of its own staff had been killed, he said, nine Indonesians had died in the attack.  Australia deeply regretted that loss and was assisting those who had suffered as a result of the bombing by providing financial help and helping to strengthen the capacity of Indonesian emergency services.  All States must work together to ensure the safety and security of diplomatic and consular missions since they were a high-priority target.

KONE SIFANA IBSEN (Burkina Faso) said some States lagged on their responsibilities with regard to protecting the diplomatic premises of those they had invited into their countries.  The report before the Committee made clear what had happened to his country’s diplomatic facilities in Côte d’Ivoire.  Every State must ensure that diplomatic persons and facilities were not violated anywhere in its territory.

JONNY SINAGA (Indonesia) said his country had ratified four of the seven instruments with regard to the safeguarding of diplomatic persons and properties.  With reference to the compulsory settlement of disputes, States should have the option of exploring a settlement through negotiation rather than by automatic reference to judicial mechanisms.  The police and intelligence officials of his country had established cooperative measures with foreign embassies to afford greater protection for diplomatic missions in the country as a high priority.

ALESSANE DIALLO (Mali) said violence carried out against diplomatic and consular representatives were unacceptable.  It was a threat to international relations.  The principles of the instruments must be upheld so that diplomatic and consular personnel could carry out their duties.  They were a guarantee of safety and placed legal obligations on parties.  Any weakening in the legal obligations to protect diplomatic and consular persons or property damaged international relations.  Perpetrators of such acts must be punished.

* *** *