Acknowledging Geneva Conventions’ 150th Anniversary, Legal Committee Speakers Urge Ratification of Additional Protocols, Fact-Finding Commission to Be Deployed
Marking the 150th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, speakers in today’s Sixth Committee (Legal) debate urged Member States to ratify the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts, with the aim of strengthening international humanitarian law.
Switzerland’s representative pointed out that 150 years ago, the first Geneva Convention had enshrined the notion in international law that, even during times of war, a minimum of humanity must be preserved. Since then, her Government and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) had worked together to propel international humanitarian law onto the international stage.
Two of their recent joint initiatives were being implemented, she said, the first on “Strengthening International Compliance with International Humanitarian Law”, focused on exploring the means to do so through consultations with States and other relevant actors, and the second through the Montreux Document on pertinent international legal obligations and good practices for States related to operations of private military and security companies during armed conflict.
Urging States that had not yet done so to ratify the Additional Protocols and support the Montreux Document, she said that the two instruments completed the Geneva Conventions and improved the legal protection granted to civilians and the wounded.
While many speakers echoed the need to ratify the Protocols, Qatar’s representative stressed that ratification was not enough, as demonstrated by current infractions of international humanitarian law in a number of the world’s regions. The mechanisms adopted must also be implemented. The International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission should be used along with other United Nations bodies, to help document and curb such infractions, he stressed, a stance taken by a number of other speakers.
The representative of the United Kingdom concurred, stating that the Fact-Finding Commission had the potential “to help disperse the fog of war” by providing clarity about what had taken place in conflict. However, it was regrettable that the Commission had not once been deployed since its formation. Discussions were needed to consider ways it might be best used in the future.
Concluding consideration of the United Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law, speakers continued to lament its lack of funding and to urge that resources be allocated to the Programme from the regular budget. Portugal’s representative stated that providing the Programme regular budgetary resources for the 2016-2017 biennium would be a true contribution by the United Nations to the promotion of the rule of law.
Also speaking on the Programme of Assistance were representatives of Tonga (for Pacific small island developing States), Thailand, China, Guatemala, New Zealand, Qatar, France, Kenya, Trinidad and Tobago, Lebanon, Chile, Sierra Leone and Saudi Arabia.
Other speakers on the Additional Protocols represented South Africa (speaking for the African Group), Sweden (speaking for the Nordic Countries), Costa Rica (speaking for the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC)), Russian Federation, Cuba, Egypt, Argentina, Peru, Australia, Israel and Monaco. A representative of the European Union also spoke.
The Sixth Committee (Legal) will next meet at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday 21 October to conclude its consideration of the status of the Additional Protocols, and to commence consideration of effective measures to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives, as well as to take up the Administration of Justice at the United Nations.
Background
The Sixth Committee met today to conclude its deliberations of the United Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law. For background see Press Release GA/L/3482.
It would then commence consideration of reports on the Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts (document A/69/184) and its addendum (document A/69/184/Add.1); and Consideration of effective measures to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives (document A/69/185) and its addendum (document A/69/185/Add.1).
Statements
TEVITA SUKA MANGISI (Tonga), speaking on behalf of the twelve Pacific small island developing States represented at the United Nations, said their countries’ geographic remoteness, limited economies of scale, narrow resource base, susceptibility to the impacts of climate change, as well as sensitivity to severe disruption from natural disasters, was hindering their path towards sustainable development. Notwithstanding those numerous challenges, their developing countries received great benefits in working in international law, especially from the regional courses in international law, the international fellowships, the Audiovisual Library of International Law, and publications. In that regard, they were concerned about the continued insufficient funding and the lack of regular budgetary funding for the Programme of Assistance, and the resulting cancelation of the Regional Course for Asia-Pacific in 2014. They welcomed the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, and urged Member States to take timely measures to include the Programme of Assistance in the Organization’s regular budget.
KRAIJAKR THIRATAYAKINANT (Thailand), associating himself with the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, praised the Programme of Assistance and said that it would be regrettable if the Audiovisual Library would have to be cancelled due to lack of funding. The Programme’s fellowship programmes had allowed successive generations of legal practitioners around the world to advance their knowledge, and the regional courses offered opportunities to lawyers for high quality training from renowned practitioners, and to share experiences with participants from different legal backgrounds. Noting that Thailand had hosted a regional course for Asia and the Pacific in 2012, he expressed concern at the lack of regular budgetary funding for the Programme. It was surprising that Member States could not agree on allocating a very small portion of the Organization’s budget to the Programme that all had applauded, he said.
XIANG XIN (China), associating himself with the Group of 77 and China, noted with regret that, due to lack of resources, regional courses in Asia and Latin America had been forced to be cancelled on several occasions. It was unsustainable to conduct the regional courses and keep the Audiovisual Library going on voluntary contributions. The cost of the Programme of Assistance should be included in the regular budget to solve the problem of insufficient resources. Over the past few years, China had made annual donations of $30,000 to support the regional courses in international law in Asia and Africa and the Audiovisual Library.
ANA CRISTINA RODRIGUEZ PINEDA (Guatemala), associating herself with the Group of 77 and China and the Community of Latin America and Caribbean States (CELAC), noted the benefits her country had received from participation in the Programme of Assistance. Given its limited resources, she expressed pleasure at its increased use of new technologies in spreading information on international law, but cautioned that countries must have access to that technology. Financial resources were required to keep the Programme viable. In that context, she suggested consideration of a rotation of regional courses as a means to economize.
ALEXANDRA LENNOX-MARWICK (New Zealand) said the regional courses provided an invaluable opportunity for young lawyers not only to receive high-quality training, but to do so alongside other lawyers from their region. He recognized the willingness of Ethiopia, Thailand and Uruguay to host those courses, and expressed concern that the courses for the Asia-Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean were unable to go forward in the current year. His country had consistently contributed to the Programme for many years. However, voluntary contributions had proved inadequate. He voiced hope that the consensus on the Programme’s importance would lead to a solution, and encouraged States to consider voluntary contributions to the Programme, alongside broader efforts. In that light, New Zealand would make an additional voluntary contribution this year to both the regional courses and the Audiovisual Library.
Mr. ALKHATER (Qatar) said the current situation faced by the international community showed the growing need for the Programme to reinforce international peace and security and promote respect among nations. His country believed in the importance of international law, and enshrined it in its policy. It had been keen on sending their legal experts to take part in training programmes, and had allowed legal professionals to participate in the Programme. His country shared the concern of the Group of 77 and China regarding the cancelation of the regional course for Asia and the Pacific for 2013 because of budgetary constraints. It was also of concern that another regional course had been cancelled for Latin America and the Caribbean. He urged international institutions and donor countries to provide assistance to the Programme, to allow it to continue its training activities. His country would continue to assist the Programme’s efforts in raising awareness of international law and promoting peace and security at the global level.
BÉATRICE LE FRAPER DU HELLEN (France), associating herself with the European Union Delegation, emphasized the political nature of the Programme, as it contributed to rule of law and maintaining peace and security. At a time when General Assembly resolutions increasingly called for fighting radicalism and extremism, the Programme must be adequately financed. She called upon Member States to provide those resources.
JAMES N. WAWERU (Kenya), associating himself with the Group of 77 and China, and the African Group, said that it had become clear that voluntary funding was unreliable, unsatisfactory, unpredictable, and disruptive, as demonstrated by the last minute cancellation of several regional courses and the uncertain future of the Audiovisual Library. There was a critical and crucial need for a reliable and “pre-determined” mode of funding. He joined those delegations in calling for budgetary funding for all activities under the Programme of Assistance from the regular budget of the United Nations.
EDEN CHARLES (Trinidad and Tobago), associating himself with CELAC and the Group of 77 and China, said that as a member of the Advisory Committee, his country had made voluntary contributions to the trust fund established by the General Assembly to assist the Codification Division in discharging its mandate. Stressing that no programme could subsist solely on voluntary contributions, which was often dependent on the national budgets of Member States, he said that the current system undermined the effectiveness of the Programme, which was never designed to be funded primarily by voluntary contributions. He underlined the need to secure funding from the regular budget, stating full support for the Advisory Committee’s recommendations to revisit the issue of funding for the Programme for the 2014-2015 biennium, particularly for the regional courses and the Audiovisual Library for 2015. He also endorsed the Advisory Committee’s recommendations to request the Secretary-General to include additional resources under the proposed programme budget for the 2016-2017 biennium for the organization of regional courses in the three regions every year, and for the further development of the Audiovisual Library.
YOUSSEF HITTI (Lebanon), associating himself with the Group of 77 and China, noting that his delegation was a Member of the Programme’s Advisory Committee, said, “We deplore the financial issues which this Programme must grapple with and that threaten its future.” That was not acceptable, particularly given the increased demand for regional courses and the increased use of the Audiovisual Library. He suggested consideration be given to fully resourcing the Programme through the regular budget of the United Nations, while also exploring alternative means of funding.
JAVIER GOROSTEGUI (Chile), associating himself with CELAC and the Group of 77 and China, said that international law was an essential dimension to the rule of law, and should guide international relations among States. He expressed regret that the administrative and financial fallout had impacted the Programme’s activities due to a lack of contributions from Member States, in particular the regional course in Uruguay, which had been cancelled. His country had just contributed $10,000 towards that being picked up as soon as possible. While voluntary contributions might improve the Programme, they could not be depended upon. Noting that the Programme of Assistance in 2015 would be 50 years old, he said he would like to celebrate the anniversary with a stronger and revitalized Programme.
JOÃO MIGUEL MADUREIRA (Portugal), associating himself with the European Union, also noted his membership in the Programme’s Advisory Committee. It had been widely recognized that running the Programme on voluntary contributions, as it was at present, was not sustainable. The Sixth Committee had approved resolutions, requesting resources through the regular budget, that had been adopted by consensus in the General Assembly. However, those resources had not materialized. The Programme was at serious risk of ending. The time had come to provide regular budgetary funding for the 2016-2017 biennium. Such funding would be a true contribution by the United Nations to the promotion of the rule of law.
AMADU KOROMA (Sierra Leone), associating himself with the Group of 77 and China, and the African Group, said the relevance of the Programme of Assistance had not waned since it was first established by the General Assembly in 1965. In light of today’s global peace and security challenges, the relevance of the Programme could not be over-emphasized. He expressed appreciation to the Advisory Committee and the Codification Division for all their hard work and efforts, and underscored the importance of the Programme’s activities. It was regrettable that, as a result of continuing financial difficulties, some of those could not be implemented, such as the regional courses in international law for Asia and the Pacific and for Latin America and the Caribbean. He was concerned as well that there had been a significant decline in voluntary contributions for the Audiovisual Library, threatening the continuation of its activities in 2015. Stressing the Programme’s need for a more reliable method of funding, he joined other delegations that had advocated for the activities of the Programme to come on the Organization’s regular budget. As well, efforts should be made to encourage the private sector to support the activities of the Programme.
Mr. ALBOGAMI (Saudi Arabia) expressed support for the efforts of the Group of 77 and China in its efforts to assist the Programme. He stressed the importance of the regional courses and access to the Audiovisual Library in assisting the attorneys of his region. He further expressed concern at the lack of financing from the regular budget for the Programme, calling for regular budgetary resources for the regional courses, the Programme’s technological resources and the Hamilton Shirley Amerisinghe Fellowship on the Law of the Sea.
Statements on Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949
THEMBILE JOYINI (South Africa), speaking for the African Group, expressed concern that notwithstanding the existence of international humanitarian law as contained in the Geneva Conventions, the Additional Protocols, and customary international law, the rules continued to be flouted. As there were many examples of violations, with civilians increasingly becoming the victims of war, it remained a challenge to the proponents of international humanitarian law to ensure global compliance to international humanitarian law and to protect the innocent. In that regard, as the means and methods of armed conflict evolved, so must international humanitarian law.
He said the way forward could be found in States’ adoption, ratification and codification in national laws of the various conventions and the 1977 protocols on the law of armed conflict, and in the implementation on the ground. Just as Governments had the primary responsibility of assuring the safety and protection of their civilians at all times, national courts had the clear obligation to bring before the bench those accused of grave breaches of international humanitarian law and resulting national laws. The United Nations should assist Member States, at their request, in the dissemination and effective domestication of international humanitarian law instruments. It should also play a vital role in monitoring adherence to international humanitarian law during times of armed conflict. A proactive approach of dissemination and education should be its primary focus, not a reactive approach where action was taken only after grave breaches of international humanitarian law had occurred.
GILLES MARHIC, Delegation of the European Union, said that the promotion and respect of international humanitarian law was crucial to the protection of victims of armed conflict. The Geneva Conventions enjoyed universal acceptance, and many provisions of the 1977 Additional Protocols were recognized as customary international humanitarian law. Accountability was crucial to secure compliance. There must be no climate of impunity, and victims of violations must be provided remedies in accordance with international humanitarian law. Towards that end, the Union’s Strategic Framework’s Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy contained activities on compliance with the Additional Protocols. During the reporting period, it had promoted dissemination and training in the field, and had conducted outreach towards ratification of Protocols I and II.
He urged all Member States that had not yet done so to accede to all the additional Protocols, and to consider accepting the competence of the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission. He also welcomed the ratification of the Arms Trade Treaty by 53 States, which would enable its entry into force in December of this year. The International Committee of the Red Cross’ (ICRC) efforts to explore and identify means to strengthen the application of international humanitarian law was also welcomed. The Union had also participated in the International Conference on the Montreux Document regarding the private military and security companies in December 2013. He pointed out that the Union and its member States had provided the largest financial contribution to ICRC in 2013, including provisions for international humanitarian law training, and dissemination for military and security forces and armed non-State actors in key conflict affected countries.
PERNILLA NILSSON (Sweden), speaking also for Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway, said the protection of civilians must improve, notably by addressing the lack of respect for the agreed rules and principles of the existing legal framework. She welcomed ongoing discussions for improving the situation of victims of armed conflict, especially the initiative by Switzerland and ICRC on enhancing compliance mechanisms. The Security Council’s decision on the protection of humanitarian personnel was an important development, vis-à-vis improving conditions for those providing health care during armed conflict.
On other matters, she said the Arms Trade Treaty would make a “considerable” contribution to the fight against uncontrolled trade in conventional weapons, noting that the Nordic countries had ratified or approved that accord. She encouraged States that had not done so to do likewise. Each State was obliged to investigate and prosecute serious violations of international humanitarian law, as solutions to the impunity gap must be found at the domestic level. She called on States to engage in the process for strengthening compliance with international humanitarian law, so that the thirty-second International Red Cross and Red Crescent Conference would deliver strong results.
GEORGINA GUILLEN-GRILLO (Costa Rica), speaking on behalf of CELAC, called on countries that had not yet done so to provide the Secretary-General with information on domestic progress regarding the application and promotion of international humanitarian law. States must ensure the application of such law in order to respond to new challenges, including armed conflict. A key challenge was to ensure that combatants respected that law in situations where access to humanitarian assistance must be ensured.
In addition, she said, it was crucial to respect the civilian character of non-combatants of civilian facilities, especially as Protocol I outlined that armed attacks should be limited to military objectives. Encouraging States that had not done so to consider establishing a national commission to advise authorities on the implementation of international humanitarian law, she said such law must be integral to the training of armed forces, including those participating in peacekeeping operations. She encouraged States to consider accepting the jurisdiction of the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission, calling on States parties to the Geneva Conventions that had not yet done so to become parties to the Additional Protocols.
SERGEY A. LEONIDCHENKO (Russian Federation) said his country attached special significance to observing the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Convention of 1949 as a very important component of international humanitarian law. Concerning the universalization of the Additional Protocols, he called on States, who had not yet done so, to consider that option as soon as possible. He said that his country was genuinely interested in national experiences in implementation of international humanitarian law and initiatives in dissemination of knowledge in that very important area of international law. It valued the special role of the International Committee of the Red Cross in protecting victims of armed conflict and in disseminating information on international humanitarian law. Drawing attention to opportunities to use in armed conflict the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission established under paragraph 90 of Additional Protocol I, he said the obligation to observe norms of international humanitarian law lay first and foremost with States. His country was continuing to adopt all positive measures to implement and disseminate information in additional provisions of international humanitarian law.
TANIERIS DIEGUEZ LAO (Cuba), associating herself with CELAC, said that civilian populations were increasingly becoming targets of abuse in areas of armed conflicts that resulted, among other things, from efforts by some towards political gains. Such conflicts were the primary source of violations of international humanitarian law. She opposed efforts by some to reinterpret those norms in order to weasel out of complying with them. It was important to consolidate the regime relating to armed conflict, in order for it to be protected. Political manipulation and double standards, under the pretext of protecting civilians or the responsibility to protect, weakened international humanitarian law. States that fomented conflicts within other States for political ends must be held accountable. Cuban national legislation had incorporated all necessary guarantees for compliance with those norms, especially on the protection of civilians. Her country also had experience in disseminating and teaching international humanitarian law through a centre sponsored by ICRC and the Cuban Red Cross, and had made strides in introducing those concepts into the armed forces.
DAMARIS CARNAL (Switzerland) noted that the first Geneva Convention came into existence 150 years ago, enshrining the notion in international law that even in times of war, a minimum of humanity must be preserved. Her country and the International Committee on the Red Cross began working together to help propel international humanitarian law onto the international stage. Such contributions were being continued through several joint initiatives. The first, “Strengthening International Compliance with International Humanitarian Law”, aimed at exploring the means to do so through consultations with States and other relevant actors, based on resolution 1 of the thirty-first International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in late 2011. Following final consultations in spring 2015, they would present, in a report, options and recommendations arising from those consultations. He encouraged all States to actively participate. A panel discussion on the matter would take place 28 October. The second initiative was the Montreux Document on pertinent international legal obligations and good practices for States related to operations of private military and security companies during armed conflict, adopted in 2008. The document was now supported by 50 States and three international organizations. He encouraged States that had not yet done so to communicate their support for the document. He further encouraged States that had not yet done so to ratify the Additional Protocols as soon as possible. The two instruments completed the Geneva Conventions and improved the legal protection granted to civilians and the wounded.
AMR ELHAMAMY (Egypt), associating himself with the African Group, said his country attached importance to Protocol I, in particular, of the Geneva Convention. It regretted breaches of international humanitarian law by Israel in the Gaza Strip, including its destruction of United Nations facilities, and called on Israel to comply with its obligations under international law. He commended ICRC’s role in promoting and disseminating international humanitarian law, and encouraged its continued efforts in that regard. He also called on Member States’ to comply with international humanitarian law and to intensify their efforts in raising awareness of it.
NATALIA BABIO (Argentina), associating herself with CELAC, said that in her country, humanitarian law had been incorporated into many law schools. In addition, courses had been organized for the armed forces. A national commission for the implementation of international humanitarian law monitored internal implementation, fostered dissemination of norms, and was in charge of the internal process for ratifying amendments to the Rome Statute. More broadly, she said the Security Council should continue its engagement on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, while the General Assembly should continue to highlight the role of fact-finding. States should consider accepting the competence of the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission. She urged full compliance with obligations arising from the Hague Conventions, as well as the Geneva Conventions and the Protocols.
ANGEL HORNA (Peru), associating himself with CELAC, said his country’s Ministry of Justice had promoted the implementation of international humanitarian law through training activities. His country also had a national commission on studying and applying international humanitarian law, which served as an advisory body to the Executive Branch. That commission was also involved in limiting the effects of armed conflict and provided protection to those who did not participate or who had stopped participating in armed conflict. The support and advice from ICRC had allowed that commission to have better results in its work. His country was a party to most of treaties in international humanitarian law. As a member of the Human Rights Council, it was rigorous in its compliance for the protection of human rights. It had also adopted legal provisions in favour of women and vulnerable members of the population. With regard to capacity-building, it had also made it compulsory to disseminate information on human rights and international humanitarian law at all levels of the educational system, be they civil or military. With the support of the Red Cross, it had organized a number of activities to disseminate information and provide training on international humanitarian law for its central and local governments.
ANASTASIA CARAYANIDES (Australia) welcomed progress towards the universalization of the Additional Protocols, strongly encouraging States that had not yet become parties to all three instruments to do so. The protection of civilians and civilian medical personnel were two of the many binding rules on all armed conflict parties. Australia had sought to use its time on the Security Council to promote compliance with international humanitarian law, including by reminding those parties of their obligations, and calling for greater accountability. She encouraged States to recognize the competence of the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission, expressing hope that the Fourth Meeting of States would involve the identification of a possible compliance mechanism, to be presented for consideration at the thirty-second International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent.
YOUSEF SULTAN LARAM (Qatar) welcomed the decision by the State of Palestine to adhere to the Convention, and commended international recognition for the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. However, their ratification was not enough, as demonstrated by current infractions of international humanitarian law in a number of the world’s regions, and children and women were paying the price. Mechanisms adopted must be implemented, he stressed. The International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission should be used, along with other United Nations bodies, to help document and curb such infractions. He welcomed the High-level Statement by the General Assembly and further welcomed ICRC efforts towards making the Fact-Finding Commission universal.
JESSE CLARKE (United Kingdom), associating himself with the European Union, said his country was deeply concerned that in recent years a number of humanitarian workers and medical personnel had been seemingly targeted and killed. He urged all parties to armed conflict to abide by international humanitarian law and protect people, vehicles and buildings, bearing one of the protective emblems. Voicing support for the current initiative, coordinated by ICRC and the Swiss Government, to strengthen mechanisms of compliance with international humanitarian law, he said that such efforts were essential to ensure that international humanitarian law remained relevant, and that issues of compliance were dealt with in appropriate international fora. The International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission had the potential “to help disperse the fog of war” by providing clarity about what had taken place in conflict. Stating regret that the Commission had not once been deployed since its formation, he urged all States parties to Additional Protocol I to recognize the Commission’s competence and to join in discussions to consider ways it might be best used in the future.
MEITAL NIR-TAL (Israel) said that among a wide range of challenges facing the law of armed conflict, asymmetric warfare was particularly problematic, as it involved a State adhering to those laws facing a non-State entity that did not see itself as bound by them. The law of armed conflict was premised on the distinction between civilians and combatants. However, terrorists participating in asymmetric warfare intentionally placed themselves among civilian populations, using innocent people as human shields and abusing medical facilities and ambulances. Such abhorrent practices had been part of her country’s reality for decades. Noting that hers was not the only country with concerns regarding the Additional Protocols, she said Israel remained committed to the Geneva Conventions and customary international law, among other pertinent conventions to which it was party. Further, Israel also demonstrated its ability to conduct thorough, credible and independent investigations into allegations of violations of that law. Its Supreme Court opened its doors to any affected party, whether citizens or not, and including Palestinians, and its High Court of Justice had gained international recognitions for the delicate balance of its decisions between effectively fighting terrorism and the protection of human and civil rights. Furthermore, the country also had intensified the legal training of its soldiers.
ISABELLE PICCO (Monaco), noting that the nature of conflicts had evolved since 1949 and 1977, said the majority of current conflicts was shaking up the rule of law and denying human rights. She paid tribute to the Red Cross for its dedication and work to help victims of armed conflict. Her country had deposited its ratification instruments to the four Geneva Conventions, among others. She welcomed the work of the International Institute of Humanitarian Law in San Remo, and the courses it offered. The Principality had established solid links with the Monaco Red Cross, and had cooperated fully to promote international humanitarian law. On 21 October, Monaco would receive the President of the Red Cross, and take that opportunity to consolidate relations and to study areas for cooperation.