Committee on Charter

and United Nations Role

255^th Meeting (AM)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON UNITED NATIONS CHARTER OPENS 2009 SESSION AT HEADQUARTERS

Delegations Say Close Monitoring of Sanctions Can Avoid Unintended

Consequences; Discuss Strengthening General Assembly Role in Peace, Security Matters

The Committee mandated by the General Assembly to weigh proposals on enhancing the United Nations Charter launched its 2009 session today, hearing from a dozen delegations on issues related to strengthening and legitimizing sanctions through their targeted use, the ongoing need to mitigate their humanitarian and economic impact on civilian populations and third States, and the Assembly’s authority vis-à-vis their use.

Formally known as the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization, the Committee was established in 1975 to examine proposals to bolster the Organization’s role in maintaining peace and security, develop cooperation among nations and promote the rules of international law.

Throughout the morning, speakers stressed that sanctions were an important tool under the Charter for the maintenance of peace and security, but their credibility must be safeguarded by reducing the likelihood of adverse socio-economic and humanitarian side effects on third States.  Echoing other speakers, the representative of the Czech Republic, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that could be done if sanctions were carefully designed, implemented and monitored with clear benchmarks, and periodically reviewed.

To that end, Cuba’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said sanctions should only be considered if an actual threat to international peace and security or an act of aggression existed ‑- and then, after a thorough review of their short- and long-term effects was undertaken.

Underlining that sentiment, the representative of China said that, while the Security Council had increased its use of targeted sanctions, such measures could still have large impacts on third States, making certain assessment mechanisms or other operable practical measures to aid third States necessary.  Calls for special funds and multilateral assistance in such cases warranted in-depth consideration.

Conversely, the representative of the United States underlined results of the Security Council’s recent concerted efforts to impose sanctions that minimized unintended economic consequences, and suggested that, with steps to eliminate such economic burdens in place, a specific fund was not needed to mitigate them.  He also highlighted, as welcome signs of progress towards greater fairness in United Nations sanctions regimes, the Security Council’s adoption of resolution 1730 (2006), in which a focal point was established within the Secretariat to handle listing and delisting requests, and resolution 1822 (2008) which provided clear criteria for sanctions against Al-Qaida and the Taliban.

Stressing that, for its part, the General Assembly could make concrete recommendations to enhance the practicality of sanctions and minimize unintended consequences, the representative of the Russian Federation noted the progress made in revising the working paper his delegation first submitted in 1998 entitled “Basic conditions and standard criteria for the introduction and implementation of sanctions imposed by the United Nations”.  In light of the document’s broad support, which had been evident, he said, during a clause-by-clause discussion during the Special Committee’s last session, it could be recommended for adoption by the General Assembly as an annex to the Special Committee’s resolution.

The representative of Mexico, speaking on behalf of the Rio Group, underlined the need for such concrete results and said a lack of such practical outcomes in past sessions invited reflection about the need for better approaches for the efficiency of Special Committee’s work.  He further stressed that, looking ahead, the challenge was to enable the Committee to exercise its mandate as a useful part of the Assembly’s machinery.

In other organizational matters, the Special Committee adopted its work programme for the session, which is expected to conclude on 25 February.  It also elected Emmanuel Bichet ( Switzerland) as Chairman, and Ara Margarian ( Armenia) and Marcelo Bohlke ( Brazil) as two of its three Vice Chairpersons.  (Consultations among the Group of Asian States on the remaining nomination for Vice Chairperson were ongoing.)  Kautu Moeletsi ( Lesotho), nominated by the Group of Africa States, was elected as Rapporteur.

Also speaking today were the representatives of Senegal on behalf of the Africa Group, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Japan and Iran.

The representatives of the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Special Committee will reconvene in plenary session on 25 February.

Background

The Special Committee had before it several documents, including : General Assembly resolution 63/127 (2008); Special Committee reports for the 2007 and 2008 sessions (documents A/62/33 and A/63/33); four reports of the Secretary-General for the implementation of the provisions of the Charter related to assistance to third States affected by the application of sanctions (documents A/53/312, A/61/304, A/62/206 and Corr.1, and A/63/224); and its provisional agenda (document A/AC.182/L.127).

A proposal from Cuba, entitled “Further revised working paper on strengthening the role of the Organization and enhancing its effectiveness”, was expected to be available by 18 February.

The Committee, formally known as the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization, was established in 1974 to examine proposals to strengthen the Organization’s role in maintaining peace and security, develop cooperation among nations and promote the rules of international law.

Statements

JAN KUBIŠTA (Czech Republic), speaking on behalf of the European Union, recalled that, on the question of maintaining international peace and security, the Special Committee in its last session focused on the revised working paper submitted by the Russian Federation.  Given the progress made and ongoing work on that paper, the European Union saw little value in Libya’s proposal on a similar issue.

Unequivocally supporting the recognition by the 2005 World Summit that sanctions were an important tool under the Charter to maintain peace and security, he urged enhancing their credibility by reducing their possible adverse consequences on the socio-economic and humanitarian situation, and on third States.  To be effective, sanctions had to be carefully designed, implemented and monitored with clear benchmarks, and periodically reviewed.

While recognizing the importance of targeted United Nations sanctions, he said such measures also must be based on fair and clear procedures, particularly for individuals, and he welcomed the adoption of Security Council resolution 1822 (2008), which introduced important new elements to enhance the transparency and fairness of the Al-Qaida/Taliban sanctions regime.  His delegation had made proposals to underline the importance of fair listing and de-listing procedures during discussions of the Russian proposal.

On assistance to third States affected by sanctions, he said methods adopted by the Security Council to target sanctions were increasingly successful in avoiding unintended effects, and that none of the sanctions committees had been approached by States about special economic problems arising from sanctions implementation since 2003 -- positive developments which the Committee should acknowledge.  He urged the Committee’s immediate conclusion of work on that issue.  Recalling the United Nations’ duty under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Charter to settle international disputes by peaceful means, he recognized the important role of the International Court of Justice.

As for the Committee’s future work, he hoped that this year it would follow its 2006 decision to reform its working methods and he supported reducing the duration of its session to one week.  As some issues had lingered on the agenda, the Rio Group’s proposal should be clarified before further consideration.  Finally, he appreciated progress made in the preparation of the Repertory of Practice of the United Nations, and ongoing efforts to reduce the backlog in the preparation of the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council.

PAUL BADJI (Senegal), speaking on behalf of the African Group, underlined the agreements contained in the 2005 World Summit outcome document, particularly those sections concerning sanctions, rule of law and the strengthening of the United Nations.  The Security Council’s power to impose sanctions should be exercised in accordance with the Charter and international law and should be considered only after all means of peacefully settling disputes under Chapter VI were exhausted.  Sanctions should be imposed for a precise time frame, periodically reviewed and lifted as soon as their objectives were achieved.  They should also be non-selective and targeted to mitigate their humanitarian effects.

He went on to stress the need for strict adherence to Article 50 of the Charter, which stipulates that those States experiencing special economic problems due to such enforcement measures should have the right to consult with the Council on possible solutions.  He rejected as a violation of international law and the right to development imposition of unilateral economic sanctions against developing countries as an instrument of foreign policy.

He further expressed keen interest in the issues raised in Libya’s proposal on sanctions, particularly the possibility of compensatory payments to target and/or third States for damages done by sanctions found to have been imposed in a manner inconsistent with the Charter.  He reaffirmed the important role played by judicial mechanisms such as the International Court of Justice.  He welcomed the progress in eliminating the backlog in the publication of the Repertory of Practice of the United Nations and the Repertoire of Practice of the Security Council.

ABELARDO MORENO (Cuba), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, underlined the need to strengthen the role of the United Nations, which was the central and indispensable forum for international cooperation, economic development and social progress, peace and security, and human rights and the rule of law.  The democratization of the Organization’s principal organs and respect for the General Assembly’s role and authority, including on questions of international peace and security, were important elements in the Organizational reform process.  He noted the contributions the Special Committee could make in examining that reform process’s legal matters.

Stressing that the imposition of sanctions by the Security Council remained an issue of serious concern, he said the Council should act in accordance with the Charter’s purposes and principles.  Indeed, sanctions should be considered only after all other means of peacefully settling disputes were exhausted and a thorough consideration of the short- and long-term effects of such sanctions was undertaken.

Further, such measures should only be imposed when a threat to international peace and security or an act of aggression existed and not as preventive measures in instances of mere violations of international law, norms or standards.  Targeted sanctions might be a better alternative if the population of the targeted State was not victimized directly or indirectly.  Nevertheless, the objectives of sanctions should be clearly defined for a specific time frame.  They should be periodically reviewed and lifted as soon as their objectives were achieved.

ALEJANDRO ALDAY (Mexico), speaking on behalf of the Rio Group, said the possibility of fully executing the Committee’s mandate relied on the political will of States and full adoption of its newly approved methods of work.  It was imperative that States increase their efforts to proceed with that through the configuration of a solid thematic agenda, based on new identified subjects that would allow for optimum use of resources assigned to the Committee by the General Assembly.

He said the Group had introduced a proposal on “The consideration of the legal aspects of the reform of the United Nations”, the aim of which was to consider aspects under strict technical and legal perspectives and, if justifiable, elaborate recommendations related to Charter amendments.  That proposal was inspired by the Group’s belief in the Committee’s advisory functions for the Assembly in specialized legal questions related to the Charter and, on those grounds, the Group reserved the right to come back to that proposal in future sessions if the Committee responded positively.  He reiterated the Group’s belief that the legitimacy of sanctions regimes impacted their effectiveness.

The Committee should continue its consideration of all items related to questions of the maintenance of international peace and security and, in that context, the Group was ready to contribute to the satisfactory conclusion of the Russian document.  As for the Repertory of Practice of the United Nations and the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council, he recognized the Secretariat’s work in updating those documents.  Looking ahead, he said the challenge was to enable the Committee to exercise its mandate as a useful part of the Assembly’s machinery.  The latest sessions, and lack of concrete results, invited reflection about the need for better approaches for the efficiency of its work.

YUN YONG IL (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) regretted that there continued to be a series of violations of the principles of the Charter in the United Nations’ activities.  The General Assembly was being marginalized in addressing crucial international issues, and the encroachment on its power by the Security Council, notably in dealing with humanitarian and election issues, had reached a “critical stage”.  It could not be overlooked that the Council imposed sanctions and coercive measures on States, condemning their “righteous acts” to safeguard sovereignty as a threat to international peace and security, and made no issue of “extra-large” crimes, such as aggression on Afghanistan and Iraq.

As long as the Council was misused by certain countries as a tool for legitimizing their pursuit of strategic interests, and as a court for handling only developing countries, a call for building a new world based on the Charter would remain empty talk, he said.  States must take steps to strengthen the United Nations and there was a need to enhance the General Assembly’s authority, empowering it to endorse Council resolutions relating to sanctions and the use of force.  The Council should be reformed in such a way as to ensure full representation of developing countries.

He said an example of the serious infringement of the Charter principles was the “UN Command” in South Korea, which was set up illegally by the United States in 1950 and had been used for the execution of hostile policy towards the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  Without its dismantlement, the United Nations could not be free from the disgrace of its name abused by the United States.  He called on the Committee to pay attention to that issue.

GENNADY V. KUZMIN ( Russian Federation), stressing that concrete and practical results were needed from the Special Committee’s discussion, highlighted the sanctions issue as a priority for his delegation.  He noted the efforts being made to assess the strengths and weaknesses of sanctions, as well as the steps being taken to recognize standards and best practices, particularly in the area of sanctions and human rights.  For its part, the General Assembly could make practical recommendations to enhance the practicality of sanctions and minimize unintended consequences.

Turning to the Special Committee’s consideration of the Russian Federation’s working paper on “Basic conditions and standard criteria for the introduction and implementation of sanctions imposed by the United Nations”, he noted that few outstanding issues remained.  In light of the broad support the document enjoyed and following the clause-by-clause discussion of it that had been undertaken during the Special Committee’s last session, he suggested the Special Committee could recommend that the General Assembly adopt it as an annex to its resolution.

ASIF GARAYEV (Azerbaijan) said the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document reminded the international community of the obligation of States to settle international disputes by peaceful means and reaffirmed that the relevant provisions of the United Nations Charter were sufficient to address the full range of threats to international peace and security.

In light of the discussion to justify the unilateral use of force on the “false pretext of self-defence” during the Special Committee’s last session, he stressed that the right of self-defence constituted one of two exceptions to the Charter’s broad ban on the use of inter-State force.  In practice, every State had to judge for itself whether self-defence was necessary and, in that instance, the acting State decided, unilaterally, when, where and how to employ counter-force when attacked.

The Security Council came into the picture only subsequently and could adopt a binding decision either endorsing or rejecting the invocation of self-defence.  It could also do nothing -- either by choice or due to a political reality -- or it could issue non-binding recommendations.  Typically, the Council called on both parties to cease their fire, withdraw their forces and seek an amicable solution, he said.

Under Article 39 of the Charter, the Council could also play a wider role, he said.  In some well-known instances, it had recognized that a specific conflict situation endangered “peace and security in the region”.  Yet, the difference in practical terms between a threat to the peace, as formally determined by the Council, and a situation that endangered peace, which was merely acknowledged by it, was not clear. Thus, if the Council really wished the parties to a conflict to disengage, it had no choice but to adopt a legally binding Chapter VII decision imposing a mandatory ceasefire.  Short of such an explicit decree to cease from using force, any State acting in self-defence retained its right to proceed to act.  Given that, he invited the Committee to review the document A/63/662, which his delegation had circulated.

Turning to sanctions, he said that, when fighting flared up between States, the Council rarely determined in a binding fashion who had initiated an armed attack and who the victim was.  Thus, the ambiguous language of Council resolutions should not be used as a means of escaping responsibility and the imposition of sanctions.  Indeed, there should be a better understanding that contravening international law, undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States and ignoring a Security Council resolution could be hazardous given the possibilities of moving towards a sanctions regime.

SHEN QIN MIN( China) said that, because the Special Committee had considered assistance to third States affected by sanctions for over 10 years, the issue should be given early and special consideration during the current discussion.  This was particularly true given the fact that, while the Security Council had increased its use of targeted sanctions, such measures could still have large impacts on third States.  Indeed, certain assessment mechanisms or other operable practical measures to aid third States were necessary.  Calls for special funds and multilateral assistance in such cases warranted in-depth consideration.

Generally, sanctions should have strict criteria, she said.  A complete and standardized regime would enjoy a firmer and political basis that would secure wider support among Member States.  To this end, the Russian Federation’s proposal should be approved.  While her delegation also supported the consideration of other realistic and viable proposals, it felt that the solemnity and rigour of the Special Committee’s work had to be preserved.  Thus, new proposals should not include suggestions to change the United Nations Charter.

ÇAĞLA TANSU-SEÇKIN (Turkey), welcoming the progress made on the working paper submitted by the Russian Federation entitled “Basic conditions and standard criteria for the introduction and implementation of sanctions imposed by the United Nations” during the Special Committee’s 2008 session, encouraged delegations to preserve the momentum this week.  When completed, the work of the Special Committee would make considerable contribution to the sanctions regime.

She said that even as the sanction regime was improved, a mechanism to assist third States affected by sanctions should be available and ready to function if needed.  To this end, a methodology for assessing the impact on third States should be developed and feasible measures for assisting those affected explored.  This could be undertaken by the Special Committee or by a working group established in the Sixth Committee.  The findings of an Ad Hoc Expert Group that was convened in June 1998 (document A/53/312) could provide a basis for that effort.  She also encouraged delegations to consider contributing to the trust fund so the publication of the Repertory of Practice of the United Nations Organs and the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council would continue.

JAMES DONOVAN ( United States) expressed the hope that the Special Committee’s current session would work efficiently while avoiding any duplication of work being carried out elsewhere in the Organization.  Noting positive measures elsewhere in the United Nations to address the sanctions regime, including targeted sanctions, he suggested that some proposals before the Special Committee might be redundant in this regard.  He agreed that Article 50 of the Charter allowed the right of any affected State to consult the Security Council, but stressed that it did not require the Council to take any specific action.

He went on to underline the results of the Council’s concerned efforts to impose sanctions that minimized unintended economic consequences.  The United States recognized that compliance incurred costs in some cases but did not feel a specific fund was needed to mitigate them, particularly since the Council had taken steps to eliminate such economic burdens.  The Secretary-General’s report observed that in nearly every case in which an individual’s funds were frozen, the targeted party had been able to access funds in particular circumstances.

He further welcomed adoption of Security Council resolution 1730 (2006) in which a focal point was established within the Secretariat to handle listing and delisting requests.  Also welcomed was resolution 1822 (2008) which provided clear criteria for sanctions against Al-Qaida and the Taliban.  Given those steps among others, the Special Committee should not duplicate measures and progress taken elsewhere.

NAOBUMI YOKOTA ( Japan) noted that, although measures for improving the Special Committee’s work had been established in 2006, his delegation remained concerned that more on this front must be done.  It had been agreed that meetings should be conducted as efficiently as possible, but that agreement had not been fully implemented.  Japan, however, welcomed the progress made in improving the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council.

ESMAEIL BAGHAEI HAMANEH ( Iran), associating his remarks with those made on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and recognizing the Special Committee’s valuable work in strengthening the work of the United Nations, said the Charter’s provisions were a solid base for preserving international peace and security.  Peaceful international relations could be secured if those provisions were upheld.  But the unwarranted tendency of some to rely on the threat of the use of force endangered the Organization’s principles.

He stressed that his delegation supported all efforts to preserve peace and security in the international system and recognized the Security Council as a key pillar in that effort.  The Council, however, should not exceed its authority to act.  It was bound by international law and could not stand exempt from accountability for its actions.  Nor did that 15-member body enjoy unlimited power.  It should be accountable and responsible in imposing sanctions based on unsubstantiated obligations.  International, coercive measures such as the imposition of sanctions as measure of foreign policy should not be allowed.  Further, the General Assembly should be able to play its part by exercising its mandate in maintaining international peace and security without any interference.

Right of Reply

Taking the floor in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of the Republic of Korea said he wished to respond to allegations levelled by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that the United Nations presence on the Korean peninsula was illegal.  He said that not only had the use of the United Nations flag by the Unified Command been authorized on 7 July 1950 in Security Council resolution 84, other Council resolutions had supported the Command.

On 18 November 1975, the General Assembly also adopted two separate resolutions ‑- 3390 Part A and 3390 Part B ‑- on the Korean question, which urged the parties to enter into negotiations designed to replace the 1950 military agreement and reduce tensions.  Because those two resolutions offset each other, it was misleading to imply that one authoritative resolution existed.  Mentioning one without the other did not do justice to the full complexity of the matter.  Moreover, this Committee was not the place to discuss the United Nations Command.

Responding, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that Council resolution 84 (1950), which the delegation of the Republic of Korea was holding up as definitive support for the United Nations Command, only mentioned the structure.  Further, that resolution did not meet the requirements of Article 27 paragraph 3 of the Charter, which demanded the approval of all the Council’s permanent members.  Nor did the command structure comply with Article 43 of the Charter.  All that proved that the United Nations Command was not recognized.

He said that citing Assembly resolution 3390 ‑- either from the principle point of view of Parts A or B ‑- was insufficient support for the United Nations Command, particularly since it expressed further hopes for the dismantlement of the Command.  The issuance of the North-South Joint Declaration on 15 June 2000 further opened the way for the Korean people to settle their problems by themselves without foreign interference.  Thus, there was no need to maintain the United Nations Command in South Korea.

The representative of the Republic of Korea then said it was regretful that the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had mentioned only part of the agreement and emphasized that Security Council resolution 84 (1950), which provided for the use of the United Nations flag on the Korean peninsula, and resolution 88 (1950) were adopted according to all due legal procedures.

In response, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said the legitimacy of the United Nations Command was not clear.  The Security Council did not mention the United Nations Command, but only the “Unified Command”.  Even the Secretary-General had recognized this.  The United Nations Command did not receive any financial assistance from the Organization and was not subject to any United Nations reporting mechanisms.

He stressed that the problem on the peninsula should be resolved by the Korean people without foreign interference.  Indeed, a peace agreement had not been set out until now because of the aggressive stance of the United States toward his country.  If those in the North and South of Korea complied and fully implemented the North-South agreements of 15 June 2000 and of 4 October 2007, all tension on the peninsula would be solved.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record