FOURTH COMMITTEE CONCLUDES WORK FOR SESSION, HANDS OVER 26 DRAFT TEXTS TO GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON PALESTINE REFUGEES, DECOLONIZATION, PUBLIC INFORMATION, OUTER SPACE

Sixty-second General Assembly

Fourth Committee

24^th Meeting (AM)

FOURTH COMMITTEE CONCLUDES WORK FOR SESSION, HANDS OVER 26 DRAFT TEXTS TO GENERAL

ASSEMBLY ON PALESTINE REFUGEES, DECOLONIZATION, PUBLIC INFORMATION, OUTER SPACE

By Vote of 85-8-70, General Assembly Would Ask Special Committee Investigating

Israeli Practices to Continue Its Work, By Terms of One of 11 Texts Approved Today

The General Assembly would ask the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories to continue those investigations, especially violations of the Geneva Convention relative to civilian protection in wartime, according to one of 11 draft resolutions –- nine of them relating to the Middle East -- approved today by the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization).

By a recorded vote of 85 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 70 abstentions, the Committee would have the Assembly express grave concern about the critical situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, since 28 September 2000 as a result of unlawful Israeli practices and measures.  It would condemn all illegal Israeli settlement activities and the construction of the wall, as well as the excessive and indiscriminate use of force against civilians, including extrajudicial executions.

Under a further provision of that traditional Fourth Committee text, the Assembly would reiterate its demand that Israel cooperate with the Special Committee in implementing its mandate.  (For details of the vote, see annex VI.)

A draft resolution on assistance to Palestine refugees, approved by a recorded vote of 160 in favour to 1 against (Israel), with 6 abstentions (Cameroon, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), would have the Assembly affirm the need to continue the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and extend the Agency’s mandate until the end of June 2011 (see annex II).

Deeply concerned about the critical financial situation of the Agency, the Assembly, under a related text on UNRWA’s operations, would urge all States, specialized agencies and non-governmental organizations to continue and to increase their contributions to the Agency so as to ease the ongoing financial constraints, exacerbated by the current humanitarian situation on the ground that had resulted in rising expenditures, particularly with regard to emergency services, and to support the Agency’s valuable and necessary work in assisting the Palestine refugees in all fields of operation.

The draft text on UNRWA’s operations was approved by a recorded vote of 159 in favour to 6 against (Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 1 abstention (Cameroon) (see annex IV).

Recorded votes were also required for two additional texts relating to UNRWA.  The first was on the situation of those who were displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities, and the second on Palestine refugees’ properties and revenues.  (See annexes III and V, respectively.)

Also by recorded votes, the Committee approved four other draft texts relating to the report of the Special Committee to investigate Israeli practices, including on the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Israeli settlements in all of the Occupied Territories, Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people, and the situation in the occupied Syrian Golan.  (See annexes VII, VIII, IX and X, respectively.)

The Committee also took action on two draft resolutions on international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space, which were introduced by the representative of France.  The first text on registering space objects was approved by consensus.

The second space-related text on the peaceful uses of outer space, was approved after a vote was held on one of its provisions, which called for the endorsement of the work plan for 2007 of the United Nations Platform for Space-based Information for Disaster Management and Emergency Response (UN-SPIDER), along with its platform programme for the biennium 2007-2009 and plan of work for the period 2008-2009. 

The Committee voted to retain that provision –- operative paragraph 42 -– by a recorded vote of 148 in favour to 6 against (Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, United Kingdom, United States), with 3 abstentions (Italy, New Zealand, Poland) (see annex I).

Expressing regret that the “draft could not be approved by consensus as had been the tradition for 20 years”, the United States’ representative said the text would result in financial implications that were inconsistent with previous agreements that the programme would be funded through voluntary contributions and by a rearrangement of the Office for Outer Space Affairs’ priorities, if needed.  If adopted by the General Assembly, the resolution would have programme budget implications of $604,000 in the biennium 2008-2009 for additional resources. 

Saying that the Office had agreed during the last session that if it did not receive its full budget request, it would prepare a reduced work plan, he noted that he had sought to work with other Member States on that basis.  He found it disturbing, however, that others had chosen to disrupt the tradition of consensus.

In contrast, Brazil’s delegate said that the language of the paragraph in question, which his country had supported, provided a good basis for compromise.  He also underlined that UN-SPIDER’s budget should come from voluntary contributions. 

The representative of Indonesia introduced the four draft texts relating to UNRWA.  The representative of Cuba tabled the five draft resolutions relating to the Special Committee to investigate Israeli practices.

During consideration of the various draft texts, the representatives of Japan, Mexico, Thailand, United Kingdom, Syria, Netherlands, Portugal (on behalf of the European Union), Canada and Iran spoke in explanation of position.

The representative of the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations also spoke.

In concluding remarks, the Chairman noted that the Fourth Committee had approved 24 draft resolutions and two draft decisions, and had held 24 formal meetings.

Background

The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) met today to consider all pending draft resolutions on its agenda. 

The first two drafts pertained to the peaceful uses of outer space, the first of which included recommendations on enhancing the practice of States and international intergovernmental organizations in registering space objects (document A/C.4/62/L.8).  By that draft, the General Assembly would recommend that States that had not yet ratified or acceded to the Registration Convention should do so.  Until then, it was recommended that such States should furnish information in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1721 B (XVI) of 20 December 1961 [on international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space].

By further provisions, the Assembly would have States consider furnishing appropriate information to the Secretary-General, with a view to harmonizing practices relating to space objects.  Such information would include the geostationary orbit location of objects; any change of status in operations, such as when a space object is no longer functional; the approximate date of decay or re-entry, if possible; the date and physical conditions of moving a space object to a disposal orbit [an orbit where spacecraft are intentionally placed at the end of their operational life]; and web links to official information on space objects.

The Assembly would further recommend that a solution should be sought in cases where an international intergovernmental organization conducting space activities had not yet declared its acceptance of the rights and obligations under the Registration Convention, and that a general backup solution be provided for registration by international intergovernmental organizations conducting space activities in cases where there was no consensus on registration among the States members of such organizations.  The Assembly would also request the Office for Outer Space Affairs to make available to all States and international intergovernmental organizations a model registration form.

The second draft, on international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space (document A/C.4/62/L.9), would have the Assembly endorse the work plan for 2007 of the United Nations Platform for Space-based Information for Disaster Management and Emergency Response (UN-SPIDER), as well as its platform programme for the period 2007-2009 and plan of work for the period 2008-2009.  It would request the Secretary-General to implement those activities. 

By a further term of the text, the Assembly would urge all States, in particular those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the goal of preventing an arms race in outer space. 

By other provisions, the Assembly would endorse the Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.  It would decide that Bolivia and Switzerland would become members of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.

Programme budget implications of that are contained in document A/C.4/62/L.19, by which the Assembly, in implementation that text, would approve additional resources amounting to $604,000 under section 6, “peaceful uses of outer space”, and $78,000 under section 35, staff assessment.  It would represent a charge against the contingency fund and, as such, would require additional appropriations under the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009 to be approved by the General Assembly at its current session.

The Committee also had before it several draft resolutions relating to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).  The first of which, a proposed text on assistance to Palestine refugees (document A/C.4/62/L.10), would have the Assembly affirm the need to continue the Agency’s work, and affirm the importance of its unimpeded operation pending the resolution of the question of the Palestine refugees.  It would have the Assembly call on all donors to continue to make the most generous efforts possible to meet the Agency’s anticipated needs, particularly in light of the ongoing deterioration of the socio-economic and humanitarian situation in the region.  It would also have the Assembly extend the Agency’s mandate until 30 June 2011.

A draft text on persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities (document A/C.4/62/L.11) would have the Assembly reaffirm the right of all persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities to return to their homes or former places of residence in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967.  It would endorse the efforts of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA to provide humanitarian assistance on an emergency basis and as a temporary measure to persons in the area who are currently displaced and in serious need of continued assistance.  Further, it would have the Assembly strongly appeal to all Governments, organizations and individuals to contribute generously to the Agency and to other intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations concerned.

A draft text on operations of the UNRWA (document A/C.4/62/L.12) would have the Assembly call on Israel to comply fully with the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and to abide by Articles 100, 104 and 105 of the United Nations Charter and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, in order to ensure the safety of Agency personnel, the protection of its institutions and the safeguarding of its facilities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.

It would further urge the Government of Israel to speedily compensate the Agency for damages to its property and facilities resulting from actions by the Israeli side, and to reimburse all transit charges and financial losses incurred as a result of delays and restrictions on movement and access it imposed.  It would affirm that the Agency’s functioning remained essential in all the fields of operation, and would reiterate its previous appeals to all States, specialized agencies and non-governmental organizations to continue and to augment the special allocations for grants and scholarships for higher education and vocational training centres for Palestine refugees.  It would urge these entities to increase their contributions to the Agency to ease ongoing financial constraints.

A draft text on Palestine refugees’ properties and their revenues (document A/C.4/62/L.13) would have the Assembly reaffirm that the Palestine refugees were entitled to their property and to the income derived therefrom, in conformity with the principles of equity and justice.  It would also request the Secretary-General to take all appropriate steps, in consultation with the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, for the protection of Arab property, assets and property rights in Israel.  It would again call upon Israel and all parties concerned to render all facilities and assistance to the Secretary-General in the resolution’s implementation.  It would also urge the Palestinian and Israeli sides, as agreed between them, to deal with the important issue of Palestine refugees’ properties and revenues within the framework of the final status negotiations of the Middle East peace process.

The Committee also had before it several draft resolutions relating to the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories.

The first, entitled work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories (document A/C.4/62/L.14), would have the Assembly reiterate its demand that Israel, the occupying Power, cooperate, in accordance with its obligations as a Member State of the United Nations, with the Special Committee in implementing its mandate.

By the same text, the Assembly would request the Special Committee, pending complete termination of the Israeli occupation, to continue to investigate Israeli policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab Territories occupied by Israel since 1967, especially Israeli violations of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.  The Committee would also consult, as appropriate, with the International Committee of the Red Cross to ensure that the welfare and human rights of the peoples of the Occupied Territories were safeguarded.

By another draft resolution, on the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other occupied Arab territories (document A/C.4/62/L.15), the Assembly would reaffirm that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967.

The text would have the Assembly demand that Israel accept the de jure applicability of the Convention in the Occupied Arab Territories, and that it comply scrupulously with the provisions of that Convention.  All High Contracting Parties to the Convention would be called on to continue to exert all efforts to ensure respect for its provisions by Israel.

In a draft resolution on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan (document A/C.4/62/L.16), the Assembly would call on Israel to comply strictly with its obligations under international law with respect to the alteration of the character and status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.

Expressing grave concern about the construction and expansion of Israeli settlements in and around Occupied East Jerusalem -- including Israel’s so-called E-1 plan, aimed at connecting its illegal settlements around and further isolating Occupied East Jerusalem -- and reiterating its opposition to any activities involving the confiscation of land and the de facto annexation of land in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and in the occupied Syrian Golan, the Assembly would reiterate its demand for the immediate and complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in those areas.

By further terms, the Assembly would demand that Israel, the occupying Power, comply with its legal obligations, as mentioned in the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice [the Court found that the construction by Israel of a wall inside the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and its associated regime, is contrary to international law].

By a draft on the occupied Syrian Golan (document A/C.4/62/L.18), the Assembly would call upon Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions on the occupied Syrian Golan, in particular Security Council resolution 497 (1981), in which the Council, among other things, had decided that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan was null and void and without international legal effect.

The Assembly would also call on Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan, and in particular, to desist from the establishment of settlements.  The Assembly would further call on Israel to desist from imposing Israeli citizenship and Israeli identity cards on the Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan, and from its repressive measures against the population of the occupied Syrian Golan.  It would call once again on Member States not to recognize any of the legislative or administrative measures and actions referred to above.

By a draft resolution on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (document A/C.4/62/L.17), the Assembly would reiterate that all measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, that violated the relevant provisions of the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and were contrary to the relevant Security Council resolutions, were illegal and had no validity.  It would demand that Israel comply fully with the Fourth Geneva Convention’s provisions and immediately cease all measures and actions taken in violation and in breach of the Convention, including all its settlement activities and the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem. 

The Assembly would condemn all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction, especially the excessive use of force by the Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians.

Also by the text, the Assembly would note the Israeli withdrawal from within the Gaza Strip and parts of the northern West Bank and the dismantling of settlements there as a step towards implementing the Road Map, while also calling upon Israel to comply strictly with its obligations under international and humanitarian law with respect to the alteration of the character and status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. 

The Assembly would further demand that Israel cease all practices and actions that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people and call on it to release all remaining tax revenues due to the Palestinian Authority, cease its restrictions on movement, and implement the Agreement of Movement and Access and the Agreed Principles for the Rafah Crossing.  It would also urge Members States to continue to provide emergency assistance to the Palestinian people to alleviate the financial crisis and dire socio-economic and humanitarian situation they faced, particularly in the Gaza Strip.

Emphasizing the need to preserve Palestinian institutions and infrastructure and the promotion of Palestinian civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, it would demand that Israel comply with its obligations under international law, as mentioned in the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and in General Assembly resolutions ES-10/15 and ES-10/13, and cease construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, dismantle it, repeal or render ineffective all legislative and regulatory acts relating to it, and make reparations for all damages caused by its construction. 

Also by the text, the Assembly would stress the need for respect for the unity and territorial contiguity and integrity of all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and for guarantees for the freedom of movement of persons and goods there.

International Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space

The representative of France, who is chair of the Working Group of the Whole on the International Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, introduced the two draft resolutions under that topic.  Turning to the text on international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space (document A/C.4/62/L.9), he said the draft would set the work programme of the United Nations Platform for Space-based Information for Disaster Management and Emergency Response (UN-SPIDER) for the coming year.

Drawing attention to the guidelines regarding space debris, which were included in the annex of the report of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space to the General Assembly, he noted that those guidelines were one of the resolution’s major elements and would give direction to the reduction of space debris.  The guidelines were the result of five years of work and would improve the safety of outer space deployments.

He also highlighted operative paragraphs 40 and 42, which dealt with the work plan of the UN-SPIDER programme, which had been initiated in December 2006 by the General Assembly resolution 61/110.  After the disasters in South and South-East Asia in 2005, the international community had mobilized and produced the Hyogo Declaration for 2005-2015, which recognized the importance of using space technology in disaster management.  The UN-SPIDER programme made that intention real and concrete.

The traditional consensus for the resolution was absent, he said.  The dispute centred on operative paragraph 42, which concerned the programme’s funding.  The complete and full implementation of the work plan of the UN-SPIDER programme that had been envisioned during the meeting of Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space presupposed the granting of additional resources.  The request for additional resources was made officially this month.

By adopting the omnibus resolution, he said that the Committee would make it possible for the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space to continue its work in 2008 and beyond.

In introducing the text on recommendations on enhancing the practice of States and international intergovernmental organizations in registering space objects (document A/C.4/62/L.8), he noted that the draft was a culmination of work of the Legal Subcommittee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.  The text was drawn up by consensus and should be so approved.

Committee Chairman ABDALMAHMOOD ABDALHALEEM MOHAMAD ( Sudan) said that the draft resolution on space objects had no programme budget implications, but drew attention to programme budget implications of the second draft text, on international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space, which were contained in document A/C.4/62/L.19.

In a general statement before action, the representative of Japan said that, since the latter draft (on the peaceful uses of outer space) contained a paragraph not agreed upon by the Working Group, he requested that action not be taken and that consultations on the draft continue.

The representative of the United States then requested a separate vote on that paragraph.

The representative of Japan again took the floor, saying he regretted that the text had been tabled when certain Members had wished to continue negotiations.  He found it necessary to vote against the paragraph, which was unacceptable to his Government.  Last year, the Committee had adopted the resolution establishing UN-SPIDER by consensus, which had made clear that the programme should not result in an increase in the United Nations regular budget.  The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space had itself adopted, by consensus, a report reiterating that sentiment.  He regretted not being able to support the draft this year.

The Committee then moved to take action on the first draft text, on recommendations on enhancing the practice of States and international intergovernmental organizations in registering space objects (document A/C.4/62/L.8), which it approved without a vote.

Following that action, the Committee moved to a vote on operative paragraph 42 of the text on international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space (document A/C.4/62/L.9), which was approved by a vote of 148 in favour to 6 against (Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, United Kingdom, United States), with 3 abstentions (Italy, New Zealand, Poland) (see annex I).

In an explanation of vote after action, the representative of the United States said he regretted that the draft could not be approved by consensus, as had been the tradition for 20 years.

He said that operative paragraph 42 was unacceptable to his Government.  Throughout informal consultations and working group sessions, he had expressed reservations about its formulation.  At present, the draft would result in financial implications, which were inconsistent with the agreement made previously that the programme would be funded through voluntary contributions and a rearrangement of priorities, if needed, of the Office for Outer Space Affairs in such a way that had no negative impact on its activities.  He noted that the Office had agreed during the last session that, if it did not receive the total amount requested in its budget, it would prepare a reduced work plan.  It was on that basis that he had sought to work with other Member States.  He found it disturbing that others had chosen to disrupt the tradition of consensus.

The draft resolution as a whole was then approved without a vote.

The representative of Mexico expressed regret that the text on international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space had required a vote.  According to its principles of efficiency, austerity and transparency, Mexico had voted against operative paragraph 42, which it believed changed the nature of financing the UN-SPIDER programme, since the General Assembly resolution that created the programme had said that its budget would come from voluntary contributions.

He said that, despite its vote against that paragraph, his delegation had voted for the resolution as a whole because it was committed to the international disaster programme.  Thus, he reiterated his support for the UN-SPIDER programme.   Mexico would continue to work constructively on behalf of the peaceful uses of outer space and the prevention of natural disasters.

Similarly, the representative of Japan expressed deep regret that the resolution had not achieved consensus.  Japan had dissociated itself with the consensus, concerned that the current draft incurred additional expenditures from the regular United Nations budget.  The resolution that created UN-SPIDER had made it clear that the programme should not result in increases in the United Nations budget.  Still, Japan was committed to contributing to this budget.  His delegation strongly wished that sponsoring countries would have exhausted the negotiating process before tabling the discussion.

Noting that his country had voted in favour of the resolution, the representative of Brazil said the language of operative paragraph 42 provided a good basis for compromise.  He underlined that that budget should come from voluntary contributions.  The report of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space said that if UN-SPIDER did not receive sufficient funding, the office would present a reduced work plan.  Brazil believed that UN-SPIDER should have a nimble structure and could provide important help in disaster management.

The representative of Thailand expressed disappointment that consensus on UN-SPIDER’s funding had not been found.  His country appreciated the benefits that could come from UN-SPIDER, which was intended to help developing countries that could not create disaster management plans on their own.  As a member of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, his delegation had voted for the approval of the work plan, which had already been endorsed by the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space earlier this year.

The representative of the United Kingdom said he had voted against operative paragraph 42.  He supported UN-SPIDER’s underlying principles, which stated that it should be funded through voluntary contributions and not result in an increase in the total budget of the United Nations.  The United Kingdom did not believe that there should be a change in that policy at a time of intense pressure on the budget, but, having approved the draft as a whole, he added that operative paragraph 42 should be implemented on an exceptional basis.  He also highlighted the fact that the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) had the sole competence to take decisions on administrative and budgetary matters.

The representative of the United States, in an addendum to his previous statement, said he wished to disassociated himself from the consensus.

Draft Resolutions on the Middle East

Before taking up the draft resolutions relating to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the Committee Secretary said there were no programme budget implications associated with eight of the resolutions on the Middle East.

Regarding the text on the work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories (document A/C.4/62/L.14), he said a provision of $297,000 for the Special Committee had been included in the proposed programme budget for the 2008-2009 biennium, and so, adoption of the draft text would not entail any additional appropriation.

The representative of Indonesia then introduced the four draft texts relating to UNRWA, saying that those addressed the important principles and issues regarding the Palestine refugees and displaced persons.  UNRWA had provided education, health and other social services to the refugees for nearly 58 years, carrying out its important mandate under constant financial constraints and difficult circumstances on the ground.  Those circumstances had become increasingly difficult in the past year, owing to continuing Israeli military actions against the Palestinian people, the continued construction of the separation wall, and the prolonged closures and restrictions on movement, particularly in the besieged Gaza Strip.

The Committee then proceeded to take recorded votes on all four draft resolutions relating to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).

The draft resolution on assistance to Palestine refugees (document A/C.4/62/L.10) was approved by a recorded vote with 160 in favour to 1 against (Israel), with 6 abstentions (Cameroon, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States) (see annex II).

The text on persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities (document A/C.4/62/L.11) was approved by a recorded vote of 158 in favour to 6 against (Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 1 abstention (Canada) (see annex III).

The draft text on operations of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (document A/C.4/62/L.12) was approved by a recorded vote of 159 in favour to 6 against (Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 1 abstention (Cameroon) (see annex IV).

The text on Palestine refugees’ properties and their revenues (document A/C.4/62/L.13) was approved by a vote of 158 in favour to 6 against (Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 1 abstention (Cameroon) (see annex V).

The five draft resolutions relating to the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories were introduced by the representative of Cuba, who noted that consideration of that Committee’s report was an important item on the Fourth Committee’s agenda.  The most recent report of the Special Committee had made clear that the situation in the Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem, had continued to deteriorate, owing to Israel’s continuing human rights violations.  Given that the brutal occupation had gone on for over 40 years, the United Nations needed to act urgently to require that Israel faced up to those violations; the international community must send a signal to that effect.

She then introduced the five related draft resolutions, reiterating their main points and calling on members to support them all.

Before moving to take action, the representative of Argentina said he had meant to vote in favour of the draft on persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities (document A/C.4/62/L.11), and asked that it be reflected in the meeting’s official records.

In a general statement before action, the representative of Syria said that certain provisions in the draft text on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (document A/C.4/62/L.17) had been drafted in a manner that sought to hold the Palestine party responsible for their own plight on the same level as the Israel occupier.  That would send the wrong political signal to the Israeli occupying Power and encourage it to continue its inhumane practices against the Palestinian people.  In particular, he rejected the contents of preambular paragraph 19 and operative paragraph 4.

However, he would vote in favour of that resolution because he believed that implementation of those provisions were linked to Israel’s commitment to the contents of the other paragraphs of the text, namely the cessation of the use of excessive force and collective punishment; the end of the confiscation of land and the establishment of illegal settlements; and a halt to the construction of the separation wall on Palestinian Territory, and other activities to change the legal status of the Occupied Territory.  The text would also have Israel stop imprisoning Palestinian people, including women and children.

He said his Government regretted the developments that had taken place between Palestinians, and hoped that the resolution would encourage dialogue between them.  Nevertheless, his reservations on the text still stood, and he asked that they be reflected in the meeting’s official records.

The representative of the Netherlands, returning to the draft resolution on Palestine refugees’ properties and their revenues, “L.13”, asked that his vote in favour of the resolution be reflected in the meeting’s record.

The representative of Senegal asked that his delegation be added to the list of co-sponsors of the draft resolution on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people, “L.17”.

The Committee then proceeded to take action on the draft resolutions relating to the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories.

On a point of order, the representative of Nicaragua asked for clarification as to which delegation had requested a recorded vote on the draft relating to the work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories (document A/C.4/62/L.14).  The Chairman said Israel had made that request.

Then, the draft text on the work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories (document A/C.4/62/L.14) was approved by a vote of 85 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 70 abstentions (see annex VI).

The draft resolution on the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other Occupied Arab Territories (document A/C.4/62/L.15), was approved by a vote of 155 in favour to 6 against (Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 5 abstentions (Angola, Australia, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Malawi) (see annex VII).

The draft text on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan (document A/C.4/62/L.16) was approved by a vote of 154 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 4 abstentions (Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Malawi, Tonga) (see annex VIII).

The draft resolution on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (document A/C.4/62/L.17) was approved by a vote of 148 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 7 abstentions (Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, El Salvador, Honduras, Malawi, Uganda, Tonga) (see annex IX).

The Committee then turned to the draft resolution on the occupied Syrian Golan (document A/C.4/62/L.18), approving it by a recorded vote of 154 in favour to 1 against (Israel), with 9 abstentions (Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Federated States of Micronesia, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Tonga, United States) (see annex X).

The representative of Portugal, on behalf of the European Union, said he had voted in favour of the text because the Union attached great importance to the issue of the human rights of the Palestinian people.  He called on all parties to respect and protect those rights.  Stopping acts of terror was also important, and, as such, the European Union reiterated its condemnation of the firing of rockets into Israel.  He stressed the need to address the subject in a balanced manner, and reiterated an appeal to Israel and Palestine to endeavour to advance the peace process, expressing support for the ministerial meeting opening today.

The representative of Canada expressed concern regarding the Assembly’s disproportionate focus on the situation in the Middle East and for passing resolutions singling out one party -- Israel.  The debate on Arab-Israeli issues should be fair-minded and reflect the responsibility of all parties towards achieving a two-State solution.  At the same time, he reiterated his Government’s support for any resolutions touching on a key aspect of the Arab-Israeli issue, namely that Israel was bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention and must comply with its provisions.  Its settlements violated that Convention.  He had supported that resolution, in order to uphold that principle.

Nonetheless, he said he was still concerned by the text’s unbalanced language, saying it was divisive at a time when the international community should be working hard to bring the relevant parties together.  In addition, he had abstained from the vote on persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities because the text had failed to mention the need to deal with refugees as part of a comprehensive solution.  He would continue to encourage the Assembly to assist parties towards peace, rather than contribute to their further polarization.

The representative of Iran said he had voted in favour of all the texts in order to join others in showing solidarity with the Palestinian people.  However, he was of the view that the internal affairs of the Palestinian people should be addressed by the Palestinians themselves.  Furthermore, the Palestinian crisis could only be settled if the rights of the occupied Palestinian people were fully recognized and restored.  All past initiatives to resolve the issue had failed because they had not dealt with the root causes of the crisis, and because of the uneven and partial opinion of a certain member of the Security Council.  A durable peace in Palestine would only be possible through the return of all refugees, and determining the wishes of the Palestinian people -– through democratic means -- to become a State with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital.

The representative of Burundi said that he had abstained in the vote on the draft resolution on work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, yet his vote had been registered in favour of the text.

The Chairman said the vote would be corrected in the records.

In a general statement on all draft resolutions relating to Palestine, the representative of Syria said the international community had underscored its support for international law and human rights, and had sent a clear message to Israel to put an end to its occupation and to end all its inhuman practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the occupied Syrian Golan.  It had reaffirmed that Israel’s attempt to annex the occupied Syrian Golan, to impose its jurisdiction and to build settlements there were all null and void and had no legal impact before the international community.  In that light, Israel’s continued flagrant violation of international law was serious.

He called on all States to provide assistance to the Special Committee because it was the means for the international community to resist Israel.  Any attempts to weaken the Special Committee did nothing but give cover to Israel’s attempts to violate international law.  Syria had repeatedly stated that it was committed to peace, and had extended its hand to resume peace talks.  Yet Israel had treated those offers with disregard.  Syria had noticed with satisfaction that a small number of States had abstained in the vote relating to the occupied Syrian Golan.  He urged them to vote in favour ofthe resolution in the General Assembly.

The representative of the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine expressed gratitude to all Member States that had voted in favour of the resolutions.  She also appreciated those States that had co-sponsored the resolutions.  As in the past, the negotiations on the texts had been aimed at securing the highest support.  Those resolutions were necessary in light of the ongoing situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the occupied Syrian Golan.  The report on UNRWA showed that humanitarian assistance remained crucial.  The situation of the Palestine refugees, particularly in Gaza, and the obstruction of UNRWA’s work there, was critical.

Regarding the resolutions relating to the report of the Special Committee, she said their texts spoke volumes.  The reality on the ground was Israel’s continued violation of the human rights of the Palestinian refugees.  Serious breaches by the occupying Power continued, and the violations prolonged the suffering of the Palestinian refugees in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.  The resolutions affirmed international law, adherence to which would bring a just solution in the Middle East.  Thus, the work of the Special Committee remained relevant.  Compliance with international law should not be seen as contrary to peace, particularly in light of the meeting taking place today in Annapolis.  Indeed, they were complementary.  Adherence to international law could only aid peace efforts, and not undermine them.

United Nations efforts represented important steps by the international community, she said.  The resolutions adopted today reflected the international community’s commitment to international and humanitarian law.  Peace and human rights violations were not compatible; one negated the other.  Thus, those who sought peace should also seek to uphold human rights.  She was grateful to all delegations that had supported the resolutions, as well as their principled support of the human rights of the Palestinian people. 

Chairman’s Concluding Statement

In his concluding statement, the Chairman reminded members of the Committee that they would be meeting again next year to take up the report of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations and to elect the Bureau for its sixty-third session.

Wrapping up the current session, he noted that the Committee had approved 24 draft resolutions and two draft decisions.  It had held 24 formal meetings, during which it had considered a wide variety of items of concern to the international community, ranging from decolonization issues to public information and outer space matters.  Through its flexible working methods and in-depth consultations, the Committee had proven to be productive and informative.  In its consideration of five decolonization items, 35 speakers were heard during the general debate on the Non-Self Governing Territories, including the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and 55 petitioners on the questions of Gibraltar, Guam and Western Sahara.  It approved 10 draft resolutions and 1 decision on those items.

Under the item on international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space, he said that the Committee made wide-ranging recommendations through two draft resolutions, in support of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs.  The Working Group of the Whole, led by France, had played an important role in paving the way for the approval of those draft resolutions.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had been successful in providing the Fourth Committee with information on the contributions of space technology to climate change.

On questions relating to information, he recalled that the Committee had considered the report of the Committee on Information and had heard from the Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information about the efforts made by his Department to provide new services and to use new technology to promote the United Nations.  Thirty-five speakers took part in the interactive dialogue with him, in demonstration of the Committee’s interest in the Department’s work.

Similarly, during the comprehensive review of the whole question of peacekeeping operations in all their aspects, the Committee had held a useful interactive dialogue with the Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, hearing from more than 50 speakers in the general debate on that topic, he noted.  Many issues put forward by delegations during the interactive dialogue, in which 17 countries took part, would be considered in greater detail in the upcoming session of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations.

Turning to the topic of atomic radiation, he noted the growing interest shown by Member States on the work of the Scientific Committee.  In that connection, the Committee had decided to invite six Member States to designate one scientist each to attend the next session of the Scientific Committee as observers.  Enlargement of that Committee would be considered at the next session, after the Secretary-General had had a chance to submit his report on the matter.  The Chairman thanked the delegation of Australiafor its efforts to achieve consensus on the related draft resolution, as well as the secretariat of the Scientific Committeefor its “excellent” presentation during the Committee’s consideration of that item.

In terms of mine action, he noted that the Committee had reached consensus on the relevant draft text through negotiations coordinated by the delegation of Portugal, which would contribute to furthering mine action and related activities.  The biennially recurring item would be taken up again during the sixty-fourth session. 

The Committee’s draft programme of work for the sixty-third session had been discussed, and would be annexed to its report to the plenary, he said.  The Rapporteur had submitted reports on nearly all the items, and would be working on reports on the three items just concluded -- outer space, UNRWA and Israeli practices affecting the human rights of Arabs in Occupied Territories.  He reminded members that the pledging conference for UNRWA would take place on Tuesday, 4 December at 11 a.m.

He paid tribute to his fellow members of the Bureau, whom he thanked for their assistance.  He also thanked the Under-Secretary-General for General Assembly and Conference Management, Shaaban M. Shaaban, and Saijin Zhang, the Committee Secretary.

ANNEX I

Vote on Operative Paragraph 42 of Peaceful Uses of Outer Space

Operative paragraph 42 of the draft resolution on international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space (document A/C.4/62/L.9) was approved by a recorded vote of 148 in favour to 6 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Italy, New Zealand, Poland.

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bhutan, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan.

ANNEX II

Vote on Assistance to Palestine Refugees

The draft resolution on assistance to Palestine refugees (document A/C.4/62/L.10) was approved by a recorded vote of 160 in favour to 1 against, with 6 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Israel.

Abstain:  Cameroon, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bhutan, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu.

ANNEX III

Vote on Displaced Persons

The draft resolution on persons displaced as a result of the 1967 hostilities (document A/C.4/62/L.11) was approved by a recorded vote of 158 in favour to 6 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.

Abstain:  Canada.

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bhutan, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Swaziland, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu.

ANNEX IV

Vote on UNRWA

The draft resolution on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) (document A/C.4/62/L.12) was approved by a recorded vote of 159 in favour to 6 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.

Abstain:  Cameroon.

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bhutan, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu.

ANNEX V

Vote on Palestine Refugees’ Properties and Revenues

The draft resolution on Palestine refugees’ properties and their revenues (document A/C.4/62/L.13) was approved by a recorded vote of 158 in favour to 6 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.

Abstain:  Cameroon.

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bhutan, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Netherlands, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu.

ANNEX VI

Vote on Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices

The draft resolution on the work of the Special Committee to investigate Israeli practices (document A/C.4/62/L.14) was approved by a recorded vote of 85 in favour to 8 against, with 70 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.

Abstain:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu.

ANNEX VII

Vote on Geneva Convention in Time of War

The draft resolution on the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilians in time of war (document A/C.4/62/L.15) was approved by a recorded vote of 155 in favour to 6 against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.

Abstain:  Angola, Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Malawi.

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bhutan, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Swaziland, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu.

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

The draft resolution on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and the occupied Syrian Golan (document A/C.4/62/L.16) was approved by a recorded vote of 154 in favour to 7 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.

Abstain:  Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Malawi, Tonga.

Absent:  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bhutan, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Swaziland, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu.

ANNEX IX

Vote on Israeli Practices

The draft resolution on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people (document A/C.4/62/L.17) was approved by a recorded vote of 148 in favour to 8 against, with 7 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.

Abstain:  Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, El Salvador, Honduras, Malawi, Tonga, Uganda.

Absent:  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bhutan, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Swaziland, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu.

ANNEX X

Vote on Occupied Syrian Golan

The draft resolution on the occupied Syrian Golan (document A/C.4/62/L.18) was approved by a recorded vote of 154 in favour to 1 against, with 9 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Israel.

Abstain:  Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Tonga, United States.

Absent:  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bhutan, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Swaziland, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record