Speakers Call for Equal Treatment in Rule of Law Application, Multilateral Treaty Processes, as Sixth Committee Debate Continues
Underscoring parity and fairness, delegates called for the equal treatment of States in the promotion of the rule of law, as well as improved leverage for countries with limited capacities in multilateral treaty processes, as the Sixth Committee (Legal) continued its deliberations today on the principle.
An inclusive and effective multinational treaty framework, said Iran’s representative, could contribute to creating a rule-based system where “might” did not replace “right”. The unilateral and extraterritorial application of domestic legislation against other countries contravened the rule of law at the international level.
Syria’s representative said the challenges facing the rule of law at the international level had not been due to a lack of mechanisms or international instruments, but to double standards exercised by certain powerful countries. Those countries’ imposition of unilateral decisions on others without the Security Council’s explicit mandate had disfigured the Charter’s provisions.
Echoing that position, the delegate of Venezuela emphasized that assigning a monopoly to a handful of Member States who possessed exercise of the veto on issues of global peace and security was in contravention of the rule of law. The Security Council had undermined the rule of law on repeated occasions without any accountability, actions which had led his country to enter a reservation under paragraph 28 of the High-Level Declaration on the Rule of Law.
Similarly, Pakistan’s representative underscored the need for a just application of the rule of law, stating that the Security Council should set an example in fairness and ensure uniform implementation of its resolutions under Chapters VI and VII. Chapter VII should be invoked as a last resort. On the session’s subtopic on multilateral treaty processes in the promotion of the principle, he said that inclusivity and transparency were essential for the successful development and implementation of any treaty.
Lebanon’s representative said that, while States had an undeniable role in multilateral treaty processes, for countries with limited capacities, negotiations was often arduous due to inadequate infrastructure, manpower and financial resources. Because States with greater resources enhanced their abilities to negotiate more favourable terms, attention could be paid to available legal services and expertise in multilateral settings to address that matter.
Offering a different perspective, Slovenia’s representative said that, for smaller States, multilateral treaty processes enhanced equal opportunities in promoting and advancing the rule of law, and mitigated effects of disparities of power. His country, along with others, was leading the initiative for the adoption of a new multilateral treaty focused on mutual legal assistance and extradition with respect to the domestic investigation and prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Delegations today also heard recent national experiences in upholding the rule of law even in the midst of political instability. Among them was that of Guatemala whose representative recalled that in April 2015, Guatemala’s citizens, through a peaceful, grass-roots movement, had protested the failure of the Government’s economic, political and social framework, which eventually led to the dismissal of the country’s Vice-President and President.
Myanmar’s representative also described the reconciliation process in his country where an olive branch had been extended to all ethnic armed groups in the country. Subsequent negotiations had led to the finalization of the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement between the Government and eight armed groups in August. The signing of the agreement would end six decades of internal strife.
Also speaking today were representatives of Belarus, Sudan, Libya, Austria, Senegal, United States, Nicaragua, Estonia, Eritrea, Switzerland, Qatar, Russian Federation, Malaysia, Iraq, Paraguay, Zambia, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Ghana, Egypt, Morocco, Israel, Maldives, Indonesia, Algeria, Mozambique, Thailand, Ethiopia, Tunisia, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe, Costa Rica, Argentina, Turkey, Armenia, Poland and India.
The Sixth Committee will reconvene Friday, 16 October, at 10 a.m. to conclude its debate on the rule of law and to take up criminal accountability.
Statements
ILYA ADAMOV (Belarus), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, said that the rule of law should be considered in conjunction with sustainable development. In addition, further attention should be given to laws on the protection of the rights of refugees and migrants and on associated crimes. However, the concept of rule of law should not be used to destabilize the constitutional order of any State, nor should unilateral coercive measures be used that interrupted international relations and cooperation. Furthermore, the time had come to renew the annual review of multilateral treaty processes, as well as to consider Article 102 of the United Nations Charter, given technological advances since its last review in 1978. He requested that the Secretary-General’s next report address how the fundamental principles of the rule of law were being implemented within the United Nations.
PAW LWIN SEIN (Myanmar), emphasizing that the national reconciliation and reconsolidation process was a crucial for his country’s peace and stability, said that his Government had extended an olive branch to all ethnic armed groups. The subsequent negotiations had led to the finalization of the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement between the Government and eight armed groups in August. The signing of the Agreement, which would end six decades of internal strife, was to be held tomorrow in Nay Pyi Taw. Over the past four years, Myanmar had passed or amended 189 laws, with an aim to facilitate the reform process and conform with regional and international norms. Myanmar had enacted the National Human Rights Commission Law in 2014 to bring it in line with the Paris Principles [Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions]. It also was participating in the work of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights. As part of its efforts to become party to international instruments, especially those related to human rights and disarmament, Myanmar had signed the Additional Protocol to the Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
IDRESS MOHAMMED ALI MOHAMMED SAEED (Sudan), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, said the Secretariat’s report should focus on the rule of law at the international level. Capacity building was the “right way” for strengthening the rule of law at the national level. Moreover, focus on the provision of technical support at the request of States should pertain to the Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law and the publication and teaching of international law. Resources needed to be mobilized so that the Programme could continue. He expressed astonishment that the Organization’s report mentioned the International Court of Justice only briefly in the annex and not in the body of the report. International regional arbitration mechanisms were effective tools for settling conflicts in a legal, just and transparent way. The international community must avoid politicization in the area of international justice or “take any country hostage”. Discussions about the International Criminal Court had been used to politicize the judicial system, endangering it as a whole.
ANA CRISTINA RODRIGUEZ (Guatemala), associating herself with the Non-Aligned Movement and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), said that the regulations pertaining to registration and publication of treaties had not been reviewed or updated since 1946. The complexity of modern multilateral treaty processes required necessary resources to the Treaty Unit. In regards to the separation of the rule of law at the international and national levels, that topic did not require such distinction given the duality of the process which required an international phase during negotiations and a national phase for its adoption. In April 2015, Guatemala’s citizens, through a peaceful, grassroots movement, had protested the failure of the Government’s economic, political and social framework. Due to scandals and acts of corruption, various key officials, including the Vice-President and later the President himself, were dismissed. Moreover, despite serious challenges to its democracy, there had been no breakdown in the country’s Constitutional order. The International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala was crucial in supporting the public prosecution office in its investigations and key trials. She expressed thanks for the United Nations’ partnership with her country, which would renew the Commission’s mandate for another two years.
ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia) said that, for smaller States, multilateral treaty processes enhanced equal opportunities in promoting and advancing the rule of law, and mitigated effects of disparities of power. Such States could then make a notable contribution towards a rule-governed international order. On the prevention of mass atrocities, Slovenia, Argentina, Belgium and the Netherlands were leading the initiative for the adoption of a new multilateral treaty. It would focus on mutual legal assistance and extradition with respect to the domestic investigation and prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes; the initiative had received the support of almost 50 countries so far. Slovenia had also organized two international conferences this year prioritizing international criminal justice: the Rights for Peace conference in April, and the Bled Strategic Forum in September.
ESSA A. E. ESSA (Libya), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement and African Group, said that despite the difficult situation facing his country, the national authorities were committed to establishing rule of law and to abiding by all international obligations. That included, among other things, ensuring that national forces acted in accordance with international instruments. He thanked the United Nations for its help with capacity building. Multilateral treaties were one of the key sources of international law, and were essential to its further development, he said, emphasizing that the architecture for their implementation must be respected. He supported the right of the Palestinian people to be governed by rule of law and urged the provision of full Member status for Palestine in the Organization.
NADIA ALEXANDRA KALB (Austria), associating with the European Union, said that, as a strong supporter of the International Criminal Court, Austria had ratified the Kampala Amendments to that body’s Statute. On the role of multilateral treaty processes in advancing the rule of law, he emphasized the work of the International Law Commission and its practice of inviting the views of States during ongoing consideration of topics and elaboration of draft articles or guidelines. The Universal Periodic Review in the framework of the United Nations Human Rights Council played an important role in monitoring implementation of and compliance with multilateral treaties. Austria’s delegation to the second Periodic Review hearing in November would be led by that country’s Minister of Justice. Finally, he said that Austria had strongly advocated for the rule of law throughout negotiations on the Agenda 2030 adopted in September, adding that the rule of law continued to be a “crucial element” in implementing goals and measuring success.
GORGUI CISS (Senegal), associating himself with the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, said that the implementation of the rule of law was dependent on national ownership. Thus, negotiations on multilateral treaties must be transparent. The growing number of countries and stakeholders participating in negotiations made those more complex and left them in the hands of experts. Thus the role of the Secretary-General, as depository of multilateral treaties, was all the more important. He also stressed the importance of the United Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law in that regard. Pointing out that the adoption of a balanced approach between the national and international aspects of rule of law would determine the principle’s effectiveness, he called for the strengthening of national capacities and for better coordination within the United Nations system and other stakeholders.
STEPHEN TOWNLEY (United States) pointed out that treaties were not the only tools at the international community’s disposal to advance common interests, including the rule of law. In many areas, non-binding instruments could promote international cooperation, shape State conduct and provide advantages, including greater flexibility and faster implementation, thus making them preferable to treaties. Furthermore, clarity of treaty drafting ensured that the broad range of actors who would be responsible for giving effect to its obligations understood and were able to apply the treaty’s provisions. Thus, for each treaty the United States might join, it carefully considered whether any new legislation would be required for its implementation, and if so, would then adopt such legislation before becoming a party. In treaty processes, non-governmental organizations could also play a useful role in providing input during negotiations and in holding a State accountable for its obligations.
ALINA JULIA ARGÜELLO GONZÁLEZ (Nicaragua) said her country had demonstrated its commitment to rule of law at the national level by returning economic, political, social and cultural rights to its people, particularly its women and children. She also expressed commitment to all measures that would recast the United Nations as a democratic institution where the interests of all States would prevail. Her country’s commitment to the international rule of law was demonstrated by its frequent use of the International Court of Justice and for having always abided by its rulings. The work of that body was not only important to the peaceful resolution of disputes, it was vital to the full implementation of international instruments that had been acquired and entered into to preserve the sovereign equality of all States. She urged all States that had not done so to recognize jurisdiction of the International Court without conditions and, in so doing, to advance the rule of law.
GERT AUVAART (Estonia), associating himself with the European Union, stated that modern technology was valuable in building the necessary effective and accountable institutions, and was powerful at enabling sustainable development. Estonia had developed an “e-governance” system to increase transparency and help eliminate corruption, and offered it to all countries that shared those goals. Accountability was a domestic responsibility, and it was essential for States to build national capacities to investigate and prosecute serious international crimes. That included incorporating the Rome Statute crimes into domestic criminal codes and ensuring robust witness protection programs so “those who are brave enough to come forward are safe enough to do so”, he said.
STEPHANIE GEBREMEDHIN (Eritrea), associating herself with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, said her country, despite instability in its region, had strived to build a comprehensive, efficient, effective and accessible justice system in the past two decades. It had enacted a proclamation to establish community courts, which elected judges, one of whom must be a woman, through public election for a two-year term. Electing women in each community court contributed to the greater emancipation of women and their involvement in the judicial process. Also, new penal and civil codes had been published after a comprehensive drafting and deliberation process that took into consideration international and universal human rights issues. To ensure awareness of those laws by all sectors of society, a campaign had been launched and documents had been translated into Tigrinya, Arabic and English. The Ministry of Justice, as well as law enforcement bodies, were fully engaged in enhancing their institutional and human capacity.
DAMARIS CARNAL (Switzerland) said that it was “unjustly pejorative” to say that the number of treaties was escalating rapidly, and it was also contradictory to state that it was getting more and more difficult to codify the law on urgent subjects. However, as outlined by the Secretary-General, the increasingly complex process of drawing up treaties could be demotivating, and it was important to improve the general understanding of the codification process. Switzerland had published a Practice Guide to International Treaties which might be useful; the 2015 edition was available in English, German and French. He also highlighted the important role of the depositary of multilateral treaties. Switzerland currently exercised that role for about 80 treaties, and consistently drew a clear distinction between its role as Party and as depositary State. He suggested that the Summary Practice of the Secretary-General as Depositary of Multilateral Treaties be reviewed to enhance the reliability and due form of treaty actions, increase legal certainty, and improve adhesion to treaties in general.
Mr. NASER BIN FAISAL AL-THANI (Qatar) said that, as international crises had shown, countries with weaknesses in rule of law had been more prone to economic and social problems. Thus, it was important to promote the principle as the main tool in preventing the emergence of conflict, as well as in keeping and building peace. Qatar’s national agencies had put in place a legal framework in accordance with the High-Level Declaration on the Rule of Law, aligning that framework with its obligations at the international level. At the international level, his country had continued to collaborate with international bodies for the promotion and enhancement of the rule of law. Towards that end, it had made all available resources available to the Doha Centre for the Rule of Law and Countering Terrorism since its creation in 2012. The Centre had organized a number of meetings, seminars, and workshops for specialists in the region.
MAXIM V. MUSIKHIN (Russian Federation), voicing support for efforts by the Secretariat to organize treaty events, proposed that “treaty days” be made a regular feature of the Assembly’s regular session. In addition, he stressed the importance of the United Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law, and urged that it be provided sufficient resources. However, the “rights up front” strategy as an internal initiative of the Secretariat, referenced in the report, had been designed without the agreement or participation of Member States and that many of its elements were questionable. He also questioned some of the report’s terminology, noting that “atrocity crimes” was not a concept in international law. Furthermore, many points in the summary of past rule of law discussions needed to be amended, such as the statement that rule of law was an inalienable part of the Charter. That was not the case, he said. The Charter did not mention “rule of law” at all, but addressed international law. He also objected to the Secretary-General’s definition of the term.
FARHANI AHMAD TAJUDDIN (Malaysia) associating with ASEAN and the Non-Aligned Movement, said that respect for the rule of law at the international level was fundamental to achieving durable and sustainable international peace and security. Reviewing how international law and treaty obligations were transformed into her country’s domestic laws, she added that multilateral treaties played an integral role towards the development of comprehensive international legal frameworks. Malaysia’s participation in multilateral treaty making forums had not come without challenges, which included the multifaceted areas of law in traditional subject-matter treaties. As Free Trade Agreements were entered into with developed States, she noted that the inclusion of human rights elements complicated their negotiation and conclusion.
Mr. HUMAM AL-SALMAN (Iraq) said that his country’s commitment to the rule of law was evident in its Constitution, which upheld good governance, the separation of powers, freedom of the press, and freedom of expression, among others. His country was launching a series of reforms to reduce social class differences, as well as to restore confidence in the Government, institutions and people. The principle of non-interference in the affairs of other States was stipulated in the Constitution. Underscoring the importance of the Rule of Law Coordination Group and the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), he said multilateral cooperation was critical for political, technical and economic development. The Iraqi Parliament had established a draft law in August of this year, as well as a national law commission, and had raised awareness of international humanitarian law and its application at the national level. The contribution of experts was also important in institutional capacity building.
FEDERICO ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ FRANCO (Paraguay), aligning himself with Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), said that coincidental to the sub-topic of the current session, a seminar for Latin America and the Caribbean on Treaty Law and Practice had been held in Paraguay in May of this year, organized in cooperation with the Treaty Division of the United Nations. Fifty-five Government officials representing fourteen countries from around the region had participated for three productive days. He urged other Member States, particularly members of CELAC, to participate in such seminars. The rule of law was fully enforced in his country. Despite a history which had included wars and a lengthy dictatorship, the country had now been able to enjoy democracy for 20 years. He stressed that the rule of law required respect for the rights of every State.
SYLVESTER MUNDANDA (Zambia), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, said that while major progress had been recorded in bringing the world to a common understanding of State obligations and duties, it remained a concern that in some cases it took a long time to finalize treaties. Expressing gratitude for the work of several United Nations Groups and Commissions, he noted that the rule of law was both an enabler and a facilitator of development. Implementation of the rule of law remained a challenge, particularly in developing countries, and he called upon the international community to render technical assistance to facilitate the enhancement and strengthening of institutions dealing with that.
ROHAN PERERA (Sri Lanka) said that in January 2015 his country had elected a new president with a clear mandate to strengthen the rule of law, rebuild democratic institutions, and usher in reconciliation and good governance. Parliamentary elections in August further cemented that mandate. Since then the new Government had undertaken significant reforms, including enacting essential and far-reaching amendments to the Constitution to limit the powers of the presidency. The Parliament also intended to establish by law a Sustainable Development Council with a mandate to implement the 2030 Agenda. In addition, a new law would give effect to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. A new programme and plan of action to advance human rights was also being implemented. Underscoring the role of developing States in multilateral treaty processes, he said his country had contributed to the negotiation of a number of international treaties and in particular to the codification of the Law of the Sea.
HUSSEIN ABULLAHI (Nigeria), associating himself with the African Group, noted that security and public order should be ensured by a well-governed security sector predicated on the rule of law and respect for human rights. In that regard, the Committee’s deliberations could provide a new perspective on the nexus between the rule of law and the maintenance of international peace and security. As the rule of law principle was enshrined in the Charter, there were corresponding regional instruments in Africa embedded in the African Union Constitutive Act and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) protocols. The concept was also fundamental to Nigeria’s national jurisprudence as a country governed by a written constitution with a people-oriented legislative process and independent judiciary. The Government complied with rulings of its own judiciary, as it did with rulings of the International Court of Justice, as witnessed by the ruling on the land and maritime border dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon.
AUDREY NAANA ABAYENA (Ghana), associating herself with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, said the issues identified in the report, including the changing dynamics of the multilateral treaty processes and the increase in the United Nations’ membership, implied the need for a more inclusive, open and transparent engagement during negotiations. Emphasizing the importance of capacity building and technical assistance in advancing the rule of law, she said the work of the Programme of Assistance, particularly among lawyers from developing countries, was crucial. The Audiovisual Library of International Law also played a unique role by providing high quality training and materials on international law. The regional courses in international law which were held in Africa and Asia Pacific, as well as in Latin America and the Caribbean, sought to deepen the knowledge of participants in international law. As those activities could not be undertaken without adequate and regular budgetary funding, all Member States must join efforts to ensure the sustainability of the Programme.
MOHAMED IBRAHIM EL SHINAWY (Egypt), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, said that rule of law must be respected and observed in the resolution of chronic international conflicts. Emphasizing the need to make active use of existing mechanisms to enhance the principle, he underscored the role of the United Nations and its legal secretariat. International cooperation to build country capacity in the field was essential, something that his country was doing in the Middle East and Africa. The national stability and prosperity of a country was linked to respect for the rule of law, while taking into account individual circumstances and allowing for national ownership. From that perspective, Egypt was bringing national legislation into harmony with international norms, was improving its judiciary and taking legislative and other measures against corruption.
BRENDA NELLY MEDINA MITA (Venezuela), associating himself with CELAC and the Non-Aligned Movement, said his country’s Constitution established that human rights treaties, covenants and conventions entered and ratified into by his country had Constitutional primacy; those instruments prevailed to the extent they contained standards more favourable than those established in its Constitution. “Assigning a monopoly” to a handful of Member States who possessed exercise of the veto on issues of global peace and security was in contravention of the rule of law. He said, among other things, that the Security Council had undermined the rule of law on repeated occasions without any accountability. That body and its abuse of its supposed responsibility to protect via resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya and its lack of treatment of the Palestinian question pointed in that regard and had led his country to enter a reservation under paragraph 28 of the High-Level Declaration on the Rule of Law adopted in September 2012.
Mr. LASRI (Morocco) said that his country had ratified or signed most United Nations conventions, notably those relating to human rights, humanitarian law, protection of the environment and the fight against terrorism. At the national level, his Government sought to strengthen rule of law and institutions that took a participatory and inclusive approach and which had been in place for decades. That approach made possible the consolidation of rule of law, democratic institutions and human rights. Rule of law rested on justice that was independent and impartial, guaranteeing social peace and security, protection of the rights of the most vulnerable, and prevention of extremism, intolerance and radicalization. Thus, Morocco had undertaken reform of the justice system aimed at improving coherence, efficiency, transparency and the provision of equal access.
AMIT HEUMANN (Israel) said that in a region known for intolerance and suppression, his country had stood out in support of the rule of law. Despite the struggles it has faced since its founding, its system was rooted in democracy and pluralism. Israeli women were leaders in every field of discipline, from court room to classroom, from operating room to boardroom. It was third in the world to elect a woman to the highest office. Its basic laws guaranteed the judicial autonomy of its courts and had become internationally known for their ground-breaking judgments. It had strict rules that granted broad-standing rights before the Supreme Court. That allowed citizens and non-citizens, and civil society organizations to petition the high court directly as a court of first instance. Furthermore, his country was engaged in providing technical assistance in many regions and had cooperated with African and east European countries. It had also organized seminars on public defence, counterterrorism and incitement and counterterrorism funding to help further develop the rule of law.
JEFFREY SALIM WAHEED (Maldives) said that at the time of his country’s application for United Nations membership, questions had been raised whether such a small State could be a viable Member of the Organization. Celebrating 50 years of membership in 2015, the Maldives had demonstrated its relevance in the community of nations, as an active member on the Human Rights Council and Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States. The Maldives’ commitment to equitable representation, fundamental rights, and unqualified justice began at home, but the cost of implementing all constitutional rights placed an immense financial burden on a country that had graduated from the list of Least Developed Countries in 2011. With a view to the issue of climate change, he added that there was also the need to build resilience to the vulnerabilities inherent in being the lowest-lying State in the world. The Maldives would continue to welcome United Nations support in strengthening its democratic institutions.
ACHSANUL HABIB (Indonesia), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement and ASEAN, said the multilateral treaty process, one of the most desirable methods in international law-making activities, demanded that all parties implement the agreed outcome, in good faith. The Charter remained one of the most fundamental multilateral treaties ever concluded. All States needed to strengthen compliance with the Charter and incorporate the principles of Article 2 into their international relations. All major United Nations organs also needed to be mindful of their Charter role. It was imperative, for example, that the Security Council carry out its duties in a just and objective manner and enforce its own resolutions in an impartial manner. In addition, the principles contained in the Charter had to apply equally to all States. The accountability of States in cases of non-compliance with the Charter or other international laws was very important. States’ capacity to implement the rule of law at the international level depended on their ability to respect the rule of law at the national level and the United Nations should to help States towards that end.
MEHDI REMAOUN (Algeria), associating his delegation with the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, emphasized the importance of the rule of law and accountability at the United Nations, including the initiative aiming to hold United Nations officials on missions accountable for their actions. The selective application of international law was one of the reasons some conflicts had still not been resolved. It would be exactly 40 years tomorrow since the International Court of Justice recognized the right to self-determination of the people of Western Sahara, yet holding a referendum had not, to date, been possible. He urged Member States which had not yet ratified the Doha Amendment to do so. Noting Algeria’s regional participation towards stabilization, he also underlined the importance of “accompanying national authorities” in re-establishing or strengthening justice institutions in post-conflict situations.
ANTONIO GUMENDE (Mozambique), associating himself with the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, said that on a domestic level, the Public Probity Law had just been passed, a fundamental achievement in the fight against corruption and wrongdoings in public administration. Since its entry-into-force, corruption practices among civil servants had dropped. In December 2014, a new penal code that criminalized corruption, cybercrimes, domestic violence and other activities had been adopted. Regarding judicial reforms, a new branch of courts of appeal had been created to stand between provincial courts and the Supreme Court. That new branch of courts made it possible to process many pending judiciary cases within a reasonable amount of time. African leaders had also adopted the African Peer Review Mechanism. The voluntary scheme aimed to help African countries strengthen their democratic rule and governance structures through constructive peer scrutiny. Mozambique had voluntarily undergone that scrutiny and was now addressing some concerns identified in the review process.
HOSSEIN GHARIBI (Iran), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, said that establishing an inclusive and effective multinational treaty framework could contribute to creating a rule-based system where “might” did not replace “right”. However, he cautioned against flawed processes that would undermine multilateral legal frameworks and weaken the rule of law. Stressing the need to respect the principle of national ownership, he said the United Nations could assist Member States to exchange best practices towards better serving their citizens within their national justice systems. The unilateral and extraterritorial application of domestic legislation against other countries contravened the rule of law at the international level. Such actions could qualify as internationally wrongful acts, in many cases; that would entail the international responsibility of concerned States to make full reparations for damages to the targeted States.
KOUSSAY ABDULJABBAR ALDAHHAK (Syria), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, said that the challenges facing the rule of law at the international level had not been due to a lack of mechanisms or international instruments, but to double standards exercised by certain powerful countries. Those countries’ imposition of hegemony and unilateral decisions on others without the explicit mandate of the Security Council had disfigured the Charter’s provisions. Underscoring the right of peoples to choose their own political and social systems, as well as the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, he said the rule of law could not exist if the international community stayed silent or Governments supported extremists that targeted his country. Regimes in the West had supported, in the course of five years, foreign terrorist fighters, mercenaries and extremists who had come to wreak destruction and murder in his country. The imposition of unilateral and coercive measures had negatively impacted Syrians and their ability to meet their everyday needs. Drawing attention as well to the occupying authorities who had committed crimes against Syrians and Palestinians under occupation, he called on all Member States to respect international law and the Charter’s provisions.
VIRACHAI PLASAI (Thailand), associating himself with ASEAN and the Non-Aligned Movement, said that the rule of law and sustainable development were inter-related and mutually reinforcing. On that basis, Thailand had initiated three consecutive General Assembly resolutions on the rule of law, crime prevention and criminal justice through the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. Focusing on the needs of vulnerable groups, he stated that “no one should be marginalized when it comes to rule of law.” On Thailand’s initiative, the United Nations had adopted Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-Custodial Measures for Women Offenders, also known as the “Bangkok Rules”, and in the five years since, that country had been actively advocating the implementation of those rules in correctional facilities nationally, regionally and internationally.
TEKEDA ALEMU (Ethiopia), associating his delegation with the Africa Group and Non-Aligned Movement, said that over the last 20 years Ethiopia had made major progress to ensure the rule of law was the basis of governance. However, though considerable progress had been made in implementing the rule of law, it remained far from its goal and any support from the United Nations and Member States that accounted for its national priorities and strategies was appreciated. Underscoring the vital role multilateral treaties played in promoting and advancing the rule of law, he said that the focus should not be on formally concluding a multilateral treaty, but on ensuring set rules were thoroughly implemented. He also said that Ethiopia was honoured to host the African regional courses for international law, held under the Program of Assistance.
NOUR ZARROUK BOUMIZA (Tunisia), praising the role of the General Assembly in drafting and adopting multilateral treaties, said that all countries, particularly developing countries, should participate in that work. On the national level, her county was working to ensure that national laws were in accordance with international law and multilateral treaties. Her Government was committed to ensuring human rights and to enabling all citizens to participate in the life of society. It was for that reason that the Nobel Prize had been awarded to a group from her country [the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet]. As well, Tunisia had established an independent judiciary, turned its back on despotism and been able to hold free and fair elections. National priorities for sustainable development were good governance at all levels and decentralization.
NGUYEN PHUONG NGA (Viet Nam), associating herself with ASEAN and the Non-Aligned Movement, said that the full implementation of the rule of law at national and international levels was crucial for the maintenance of durable peace, peaceful settlement of disputes, effective protection of human rights, and the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. On the matter of establishing an ASEAN Community, she said she was “deeply concerned” about territorial and sovereignty disputes, especially unilateral attempts to change the rules and alter the status quo in disputed areas in the South China Sea in defiance of international law, which posed threats to peace, security and stability in the region. The full and effective implementation of the Declaration of Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea was emphasized, as was the early conclusion of a Code of Conduct. Multilateral treaties represented not only the codification of international customary norms, but also the progressive development of international law and the rule of law.
FREDERICK MUSIIWA MAKAMURE SHAVA (Zimbabwe), associating himself with the Africa Group and Non-Aligned Movement, voiced his concern with the application of unilateral measures, which was contrary to the Charter’s principles and international law. Zimbabwe and other developing countries were the victims of such measures, which undermined socio-economic development and harmonious relations between States. He urged the countries who maintained them to lift them. The African Union’s founding instruments provided a solid framework for the rule of law, including the Constitutive Act which rejected and condemned unconstitutional changes of government. The Southern African Development Community (SADC) Organ on Politics, Defence and Security as well as the Southern Africa Regional Police Chief Cooperation Organisation were at the centre of efforts to combat crime. At the national level, his Government was strengthening the rule of law. In 2013, its Constitution, which had been developed through consultations at all levels and approved by a national referendum, was adopted.
GEORGINA GUILLÉN-GRILLO (Costa Rica), associating herself with CELAC, said that respect for the rule of law meant full compliance with the existing international legal framework. Expressing optimism that international criminal jurisdiction was gradually catching up with perpetrators of the worst crimes of humanity, she paid tribute to the work of the United Nations, its tribunals, and the International Criminal Court. To retain the Court’s credibility, referrals to the Security Council should be based on objective transparent criteria and never political criteria. Therefore, to achieve proper implementation of the Rome Statute, the primary responsibility of States Parties was to victims of mass atrocities. For that reason, cooperation with the Court was crucial. The International Court of Justice played a crucial role in resolving disputes between States and in developing law and bolstering the rule of law. States should respect and abide by its decisions in good faith to guarantee the integrity of each case and bolster the Court’s role in ensuring peace and justice.
JOSÉ LUIS FERNANDEZ VALONI (Argentina), associating himself with CELAC, said that it was necessary to promote democratic institutions to promote the rule of law. He also emphasized the central role played by the International Court of Justice and other specialized tribunals in the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Recalling other means to settle disputes mentioned in the Charter, he referred to the Declaration adopted at the high-level meeting of the General Assembly on the Rule of Law in September 2012. He stressed in particular the use of the Secretary-General’s good offices and reminded parties involved in disputes to comply, in good faith, with calls made by the General Assembly. He also cautioned third parties to refrain from conduct that could frustrate the fulfilment by those parties of their obligations for peaceful resolutions.
İPEK ZEYTINOĞLU ÖZKAN (Turkey) said multilateral treaties had enhanced predictability in international relations and paved the way for greater international cooperation in many fields, from transport to trade, from health to communications. Such instruments had also contributed to the enhancement of global peace and security through arms control and disarmament treaties, as well as counterterrorism. More recently treaty processes had evolved to respond to new challenges, such as climate change. The international human rights regime had largely been carved through multilateral treaties, either at global or regional levels. Her country was party to all United Nations principal human rights conventions and to a number of important Council of Europe conventions. It had been instrumental, in particular, in the conclusion of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention).
YOUSSEF HITTI (Lebanon) said that, while States had an undeniable role in multilateral treaty processes, for States with limited capacities, long-lasting negotiations was often arduous due to inadequate infrastructure, manpower and financial resources. States with greater resources, not only enhanced their abilities to negotiate more favourable terms, but also reduced transaction costs when performing their obligations therein. Thus, it was essential to improve the participation of States with limited capacities in multilateral treaty negotiations. The General Assembly played a pivotal role in that regard. Attention could be paid to available legal services and expertise in multilateral settings to address that matter. Capacity-building activities also helped to address practical challenges. He welcomed the regional training courses conducted by the Treaty Section and stressed the critical importance of the Programme of Assistance, through its international law courses, at enhancing knowledge of international law as a means of strengthening international peace and security and promoting friendly relations and cooperation among States.
SAHAK SARGSYAN (Armenia) said the promotion of the rule of law at the national and international levels was mutually inclusive. While recognizing the importance of national ownership of the rule of law, promoting it at the international level should be sufficiently underscored. His country had experienced the first genocide of the twentieth century 100 years ago and continued to face the denial of that “horror”. Therefore, he said he strongly supported the fight against impunity for the most serious crimes, such as genocide and crimes against humanity. His country had initiated a General Assembly resolution designating December 9 as “International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and of the Prevention of this Crime”. On a national level, Armenia’s Constitution guaranteed that all persons were equal before the law and was entitled to equal access to the legal system. Since regaining its independence, Armenia had created a more efficient, effective and independent judiciary in a more predictable “rule-of-law environment”.
SLAWOMIR MAJSZYK (Poland), associating his delegation with the European Union, stated that it was crucial that all States participate in the creation of international law on equal footing and that it was the role of sovereign States to create new norms of international law and decide on the abrogation of previous ones. On multilateral treaty processes, he noted that “more and more countries” were ratifying international treaties, particularly in the areas of human rights and disarmament, to name a few. That was demonstrated in the recent ratifications of the Arms Trade Treaty and the countries’ active participation in the treaty’s implementation. There was also a recent tendency of the International Law Commission to switch from draft treaties to non-binding documents, often taking the form of articles, an “attitude” that he said he supported. More so, he stressed that international custom was the universally recognized set of rules binding for all States around the world. In that regards, deeper analysis was necessary.
KOTESWARA RAO MADIMI (India), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, pointed out that there was no agreed definition of the term “rule of law”. An essential principle was that every executive action had to have legal authority to support it. Independent, efficient and competent judicial systems were the backbone of the rule of law, as they provided legitimate and peaceful means to solve conflicts and provide redress. At the same time, the law-making activity at the national level was exclusively within the sovereign domain of the national legislature. India was the largest democracy in the world bound by rule of law. Listing treaties and conventions to which his country was party, he added that mere codification or enactment of a law at international or domestic levels was not sufficient to promote the cause of the principle. Rule of law must not be confused with rule by the “letter of the law”. Every law codified had to stand the test of fundamental human values. All legal instruments should be open to review. Calling for Security Council reform, he said that global institutions had to be fully reflective of contemporary realities and the rule of law norms to enable them to effectively address global challenges.
BILAL AHMAD (Pakistan), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, said that the just and fair application of the rule of law at the international level was in urgent need of attention. The Security Council should set an example, ensuring that its resolutions under Chapters VI and VII were implemented uniformly and conformed to the purposes and principles of the Charter. Furthermore, Chapter VII should be invoked as a last resort and frequent recourse should be made to the tools available under Chapter VI for the peaceful settlement of disputes. On the sub-topic for the session, he said that inclusivity and transparency were essential for successful development and implementation of any treaty. He also stressed the importance of reaching consensus in developing multilateral treaties at the global level.