Third Committee Approves 12 Draft Resolutions, Including Texts on Mercenaries, Unilateral Coercive Measures, Indigenous Peoples and Right to Food
The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) approved 12 draft resolutions today, covering issues that included the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights, imposition of unilateral coercive measures, rights of Indigenous Peoples, right to self-determination and right to food.
The Committee approved a draft on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination by a recorded vote of 126 in favour to 52 against, with 6 abstentions (Kiribati, Liberia, Palau, Mexico, Tonga and Switzerland), which would have the Assembly request all States to exercise the utmost vigilance against any kind of recruitment, training, hiring or financing of mercenaries by private companies.
While the representative of Cuba spotlighted the threat that use of mercenaries represents to the enjoyment of human rights and peace and security, the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom warned against conflating the actions of mercenaries with those of private security and military companies. “They are very different entities,” stressed the representative of the United Kingdom, adding that the latter are responsible, law-abiding and vital to protecting diplomatic missions and non-Governmental organizations.
In further action, the Committee approved a draft on enlargement of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (document A/C.3/78/L.26) by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to 3 against (China, Somalia, Lesotho), with 41 abstentions, which would have the Assembly decide to increase the number of members of the Executive Committee from 108 States to 109 States.
Guatemala’s delegate stressed that putting procedural resolutions such as “L.26” to a vote sets a bad precedent for the United Nations.
Meanwhile, Libya’s delegate, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, underscored that countries seeking to join this body should be aware of refugee cases. Guatemala — the country that sought to join the Executive Committee — is not fit to do so, as it voted against a humanitarian resolution during the General Assembly’s exceptional session on the Gaza strip and the catastrophic situation therein, he recalled, adding that Palestinian refugees are one of the most vulnerable groups.
The Committee also approved a draft on human rights and unilateral coercive measures by a recorded vote of 128 in favour, 54 against, with no abstentions, which would have the Assembly urge States to cease implementing unilateral measures with all their extraterritorial effects, condemn the inclusion of Member States in unilateral lists under false pretexts, including false allegations of terrorism sponsorship, and urge the Human Rights Council to consider their negative impact.
Before the vote, the representative of the United States said that this resolution does not advance respect for human rights. “It is not sanctions that undermine human rights, but those who commit human rights abuses,” he said, citing sanctions as a useful tool that can promote accountability in human rights abuses and violations, respond to malign behaviour and counter terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Expressing a different view, Venezuela’s delegate, speaking on behalf of the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations, firmly condemned unilateral coercive measures. Such cruel, inhumane, destabilizing and illegal measures severely affect the capacities of over 30 countries around the world, hampering their attainment of sustainable development goals, he added.
Relatedly, the Committee approved by consensus a draft resolution on the right to food, by which the Assembly would note with great concern that millions of people worldwide are facing famine or severe food insecurity due to factors such as armed conflicts and drought, and urge for additional efforts to prepare for increasing global food insecurity.
After the approval, the representative of Belarus underscored that the international community cannot ignore that tens of thousands of people lack the right to food. Describing unilateral coercive measures as “an insurmountable obstacle” to the right to food, he said they create humanitarian crises, affecting the most vulnerable.
Echoing his stance, Cuba’s delegate — who introduced the draft — said the international community has the power to stop hunger and has not yet done so — a reality that is “ethically unacceptable”.
The Committee also approved draft resolutions on several other issues: Rights of Indigenous Peoples; promoting a democratic and equitable international order; promoting international cooperation; promoting equitable geographical distribution in membership of human rights treaty bodies; human rights and cultural diversity; and the right to development.
Action on Draft Resolutions
The Committee next took up the draft resolution titled “Enlargement of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees” (document A/C.3/78/L.26), which the Chair noted contains no programme budget implications.
A recorded vote was requested.
Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Guatemala expressed surprise that someone requested a vote. Noting that “L.26” is a procedural resolution, she said that putting these types of resolutions to a vote sets a bad precedent for the United Nations.
The Committee approved “L.26” by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to 3 against (China, Somalia, Lesotho), with 41 abstentions. By the text, the Assembly would decide to increase the number of members of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from 108 States to 109 States. Further, it would request the Economic and Social Council to elect the additional member at a meeting of its management segment in 2024.
Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, on behalf of the Arab Group, the representative of Libya said the Group abstained in voting as countries that seek to join this body should be aware of refugee cases. However, Guatemala — the country that sought to join the Executive Committee — voted against a humanitarian resolution during the exceptional session on the Gaza strip and the catastrophic situation therein. In light of the above, the Arab Group does not think that Guatemala is going to respect the principles of humanitarian work and human rights and of protecting civilians, refugees and vulnerable persons. The Palestinian refugees in Gaza are one of the most vulnerable groups, he stressed, adding that dozens of workers of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) have lost their lives due to the shelling. Guatemala does not have what it takes to join this Committee, he asserted.
The Committee next took up the draft resolution titled “Enlargement of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees” (document A/C.3/78/L.28), which the Chair noted contains no programme budget implications.
Introducing L.28, the representative of Ukraine welcomed approval of the similar resolution “L.26”. A recent United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) report highlighted that 108.4 million are displaced worldwide, including as a result of the Russian Federation’s full-scale invasion of his country, he said, adding that Ukraine is fully committed to contributing to UNHCR and its Executive Committee. Over the past nine years, his Government has addressed the challenges of forced displacement as more than 11 million Ukrainians have been displaced — 5 million within the country and 6.2 million abroad. Ukraine’s experience in practical solutions would be an asset to the Executive Committee in providing humanitarian assistance, he added. He voiced regret that, for the first time ever, resolutions previously approved by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) are put to a vote, which risks politicizing the UNHCR in fulfilling its humanitarian mandate. He called on the Third Committee to approve the draft by consensus.
A recorded vote was requested.
The Russian Federation, speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, said assisting refugees is important in maintaining peace and security, adding that the UNHCR contributes significantly to these goals. However, the politicization of human rights activities and the UNHCR harms such cooperation. After the 2014 illegal coup in Ukraine when ultraradical nationalists came to power, civil war broke out in the country. The Russian Federation started to host Ukrainian refugees and has continued to do so since the escalation of hostilities in the Donbass. Ukraine has political motives in this resolution and will not facilitate efforts to assist refugees and other displaced persons, he said. Calling for a vote, he noted that his delegation will vote against the draft.
The draft “L.28” was approved by a vote of 121 in favour, to 4 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Nicaragua, Russian Federation and Syria), with 42 abstentions. The draft “L.28” would have the General Assembly take note of Economic and Social Council decision 2023/354 of 26 July 2023 concerning the enlargement of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as well as the request regarding the enlargement of the Executive Committee in the note verbale dated 26 April 2023 from the Permanent Mission of Ukraine to the Secretary-General. It would decide to increase the number of members of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from 109 States to 110 States, and request the Economic and Social Council to elect the additional member at a meeting of its management segment in 2024.
In explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Libya took the floor to reiterate the Arab Group’s position underscoring the importance of sticking to principles. The Arab Group would have liked to see Ukraine vote in favour of the resolution on the situation in Gaza, he said, noting that the move was strange as the country has issues relating to refugees. Most of the members of the Arab Group abstained for these reasons.
In explanation of vote, Spain said the European Union regrets the requests for votes on technical resolutions. Both Guatemala and Ukraine satisfy the criteria to be on the Executive Committee and for this reason the bloc has voted in favour for both “L.26” and “L.28”.
Right of Reply
In exercise of the right of reply, the representative of Guatemala said she deeply regretted taking the floor again, but her Government must reject statements made by her Libyan colleague. The Third Committee is not the place to discuss the outcome of the General Assembly special session last Friday. Further, the Foreign Minister of Guatemala provided an explanation of vote during the session, she said, inviting the Committee to consult it to understand her country’s position. She noted that Guatemala is always ready to discuss differences in perception — but not in this Committee. Her delegation rejects allegations that Guatemala does not follow international law and that it is insensitive to humanitarian situations. Her delegation deeply regrets the situation the Palestinian population finds itself in, as well as that of the Israeli population. Guatemala also condemns Hamas, she said, calling on the group to release all hostages, including 30 babies and the elderly. Her delegation is sensitive to the humanitarian situation, but that situation has been inflicted by Hamas and its terrorist actions, she underlined.
The representative of Libya stressed that the Committee is indeed the place to discuss the matter, as it is a discussion on the principles of human rights. Recalling the resolution resulting from the General Assembly special session, he underscored that the international community is clear on support for human rights, a ceasefire or truce to save lives, but Guatemala voted against it and that is a fact, he said. The resolution was not political. It was based on saving lives and stopping all aggression against Gaza and the Palestinians. Over 10,000 victims have been killed in Gaza, of whom 3,000 are babies, which is “shocking”, he said. As the Committee addresses issues such as the rights of women and children in armed conflict, his delegation expects from those preaching human rights to look at what is happening in UNRWA camps. “How many refugees were targeted deliberately?” he asked. “We have to stand up together to stop this aggression and to save lives because by the minute we’re losing so many,” he said. Nothing will stop it without a ceasefire and then addressing the root causes, he said, underscoring that nothing started on 7 October. There have been seven decades of challenges and conflict and the international community cannot shy away from this, he said.
Action on Draft Resolutions
Next, the Committee turned to the draft resolution titled “Rights of Indigenous Peoples” (document A/C.3/78/L.20/Rev.1), which the Chair noted contains no programme budget implications.
The representative of Bolivia, introducing the draft, highlighted new elements in the text, including a request to the President of the General Assembly to convene, within existing resources, a high-level event to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the outcome document of the high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly, known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples. She further requested that the use of capital letters for “Indigenous Peoples” be reflected in all official languages of the United Nations. The representative of Colombia, noting the co-sponsorship of the draft by her multi-ethnic and multicultural country, welcomed several elements of the text, including its emphasis on improving the participation of Indigenous Peoples in meetings at the United Nations, and in processes and negotiations on issues that affect them.
Brazil’s delegate, citing its delegation’s co-sponsorship of the “balanced” text, voiced support for its contents, including its emphasis on improving the promotion and participation of Indigenous Peoples.
The representative of Iran wished to disassociate herself from divisive and non-consensual language contained in preambular paragraphs 13 and 14, as well as operative paragraphs 23 and 32. As well, her delegation understands that references to conventions and treaties in the text only apply to State parties of those instruments. Further, she emphasized that Indigenous Peoples who migrate are migrants, not Indigenous Peoples, adding that two different legal frameworks apply to both categories of persons.
The Committee then approved “L.20/Rev.1” without a vote, by which the Assembly would urge Governments and the UN system, in cooperation with Indigenous Peoples, to continue implementing appropriate national measures to achieve the ends of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It would urge Member States to implement World Health Assembly resolution 76.16 titled “The health of Indigenous Peoples” and take necessary measures to ensure the rights, protection and safety of Indigenous Peoples. The Assembly would also urge Governments to ensure that Indigenous Peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories and that no relocation shall take place without their free, prior and informed consent after agreement on just and fair compensation, with the option of return, where possible.
The representative of Senegal welcomed the strengthening of solidarity with Indigenous Peoples in the text, and its call for their rights to be strengthened at all levels. However, he wished to disassociate from operative paragraph 23, referring to “multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination”, as well as other passages with such language.
The representative of Hungary, emphasizing the difficulties faced by vulnerable groups, such as linguistic and ethnic minorities, requiring special attention from States, wished to disassociate himself from preambular paragraph 11, which refers to the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, which his country voted against in December 2018 and does not implement. As well, he disassociated from operative paragraph 23, which contains a reference to data disaggregated by gender, noting that his country collects data disaggregated by sex.
The representative of Malaysia wished to disassociate himself from preambular paragraphs 13 and 14, as well as from operative paragraph 23.
The United Kingdom’s delegate said that his delegation recognizes the full protection of rights and freedoms of individuals on an equal basis; it does not recognize collective rights, which could leave individuals vulnerable.
Indonesia’s representative voiced a reservation with operative paragraph 17, on the participation of Indigenous Peoples in processes and negotiations on issues that affect them, adding that such participation must be firmly rooted in existing modalities. Further, she also voiced reservations with language such as “multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination” in the text, noting that the implementation of the text should be aligned with national legal frameworks.
Slovakia’s delegate, also speaking for Bulgaria, France and Romania, welcoming the text’s recognition that Indigenous Peoples are disproportionately affected by climate change, poverty and violence, said she did not recognize collective rights attributed to a group, based on common origin, language, or belief. Therefore, her delegation cannot support such language in the text.
The representative of Canada, also speaking for Australia, Iceland and Norway, said that Indigenous Peoples should not be conflated with local groups and minority representatives.
Gambia’s delegate wished to disassociate herself from terms such as “multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination”.
An observer for the Holy See noted with concern attempts in the text to impose predetermined models of health, which are not culturally sensitive, and other non-universally agreed language. He wished to voice his reservations with certain aspects of the text, noting that “gender” should be understood as being grounded in biological and sexual difference. Language such as “multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination” undermines the universality of human rights.
The Committee next took up the draft resolution titled “Use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination” (document A/C.3/78/L.29), which the Chair noted contains no programme budget implications.
The representative of Cuba stressed that the use of mercenaries represents an obstacle to the enjoyment of human rights and a threat to peace and security. Describing this year’s draft as a technical update of the previous resolution that preserves its traditional content, he said the use of mercenaries is a form of violation to human rights and the right to self-determination.
A recorded vote was requested.
The representative of Cuba asked who has requested the vote. The Chair responded that it was the United States.
Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of the United States, whose delegation voted against the draft, condemned the grave threat that non-State armed groups continue to present to States’ abilities to protect human rights. Nevertheless, he drew a sharp contrast between mercenaries’ activities and the proper role that private military and security companies can play. He stressed that the UN Working Group on the use of mercenaries should focus its attention solely on the issue of mercenaries.
The resolution was approved by a recorded vote of 126 in favour to 52 against, with 6 abstentions (Kiribati, Liberia, Palau, Mexico, Tonga and Switzerland).
By its terms, the Assembly would express deep concern at the continuation of acts or threats of foreign military intervention and occupation that are threatening to suppress, or have already suppressed, the right to self-determination of peoples. It would sound alarm over the danger that activities of mercenaries constitute to peace and security in developing countries, particularly in areas of armed conflict.
Additionally, the Assembly would urge States to take legislative measures to ensure their territories are not used for, and that their nationals do not take part in, the recruitment, financing, training or transit of mercenaries for the planning of activities designed to impede the right of peoples to self-determination, to destabilize or overthrow the Government of any State or to impair the territorial integrity or political unity of independent States.
The Assembly would also request States to exercise the utmost vigilance against any kind of recruitment, training, hiring or financing of mercenaries by private companies and impose a specific ban on such companies intervening in armed conflicts or actions to destabilize constitutional regimes. Further by the text, it would call on States to investigate the possibility of mercenary involvement whenever and wherever criminal acts of a terrorist nature occur and to bring to trial those found responsible or to consider their extradition.
Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Argentina said her delegation voted in favour of the draft. However, he stressed that the draft “L.29” must be adopted like other UN General Assembly resolutions as well as those of the Decolonization Committee.
The representative of the United Kingdom recognized the importance of holding mercenaries to account for human rights abuses. However, the draft conflates the actions of mercenaries with those of private military and security companies. “They are very different entities,” he stressed, adding that private and military and security companies are responsible, law-abiding and vital to protecting diplomatic missions and non-Governmental organizations. Noting that his delegation’s proposals were rejected, he said it voted against the draft.
The representative of Chile, noting that her country has traditionally supported the draft, voiced concern that it puts increasing stress on State sovereignty. The future versions of this draft could better address the impact that the use of mercenaries has on the right to life and the threat that it represents for vulnerable groups such as children, women and minorities. She said the draft should be reformulated to address the matter in a more appropriate way and ensure broader support.
Next, the Committee turned to the draft resolution titled “Promotion of a democratic and equitable international order” (document A/C.3/78/L.32), which the Chair noted contains no programme budget implications.
Introducing the draft resolution, Cuba’s representative underscored the need to create a more democratic and equitable world order, noting that the current one — as confirmed by the COVID-19 pandemic and other global challenges — demonstates the privileges of rich countries and excludes the developing world. He stressed that this draft resolution should be approved by consensus, adding that, if a vote is requested, Member States are encouraged to vote in favour of the text.
A recorded vote was requested.
Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of the United States said his country has concerns with the general premise of the draft resolution and with specific aspects of the text. For this reason, his delegation has requested a vote and will vote against the draft, he said.
The Committee then approved “L.32” by a recorded vote of 123 in favour to 54 against, with 7 abstentions (Armenia, Chile, Costa Rica, Liberia, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay). By its terms, the General Assembly would urge all actors on the international scene to build an order based on inclusion, social justice, equality and equity, human dignity, solidarity, mutual understanding and promotion of and respect for cultural diversity and universal human rights.
It would call on all Member States to fulfil their commitments expressed during the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and maximize the benefits of globalization. The Assembly would also call on Member States to continue supporting international cooperation and multilateral efforts, under the UN system’s leadership, to mobilize a coordinated global response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its adverse social, economic and financial impact on all societies.
The Committee next took up the draft resolution titled “Strengthening United Nations action in the field of human rights through the promotion of international cooperation and the importance of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity” (document A/C.3/78/L.33), which the Chair said contains no programme budget implications.
Noting that the draft is mostly a technical update of the resolution adopted by consensus during the Committee’s seventy-sixth session, the representative of Cuba introduced language highlighting the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the thirtieth anniversary of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.
The Committee then approved “L.33” without a vote, by which the Assembly would reiterate that all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and pursue economic, social and cultural development. It would stress the need for impartial information on political, economic and social situations and events of all countries, and highlight the role of the media in raising public awareness of issues of public interest. Further, it would request the Secretary-General to invite Member States to present practical proposals that would contribute to the strengthening of United Nations action in the field of human rights through the promotion of international cooperation based on the principles of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity.
The Committee next took up the draft resolution titled “The right to food” (document A/C.3/78/L.35), which the Chair noted contains no programme budget implications.
Introducing the draft “L.35”, the representative of Cuba said that hunger is an outrage and a violation of human dignity. The international community has the power to stop hunger and has not yet done so — a reality that is “ethically unacceptable”, he said. His delegation presented the draft again this year, he said, noting that the text is mostly the same, highlighting the consequences of the COVID‑19 pandemic on exacerbating hunger as well as including the increase in food prices and fertilizer. The draft further stresses that the use of hunger as a weapon is banned in international law, he said. Elements introduced this year were the result of transparent negotiations during elaboration of the draft, he said. The resolution on the right to food should be adopted by consensus, sending an unequivocal message highlighting the unethical paradox that the world produces enough food, but hunger remains.
In explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of the United Kingdom said it is committed to fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and has been addressing it through various measures. However, the Covenant is not integrated into domestic law and article 2 does not require State parties to do so. His delegation does not believe that examining the international financial architecture in relation to the right to food will be useful, he said, noting that his delegation will join consensus nonetheless.
The Committee approved “L.35” by consensus. By the text, the General Assembly would note with great concern that millions of people are facing famine or severe food insecurity; that armed conflicts and drought are among factors exacerbating the phenomena; and that additional efforts, including international support, to prepare for increasing global food insecurity are urgently needed. It would stress the obligation of States and parties to armed conflicts to protect civilians, calling on Member States and other stakeholders to provide a coordinated emergency response to food and nutrition needs of affected populations.
The Assembly would also stress that the primary responsibility of States is to protect the right to food and that the international community should provide cooperation to support national and regional efforts to ensure food security, and that improving access to productive resources and responsible public investment in rural development is essential for eradicating hunger and poverty. It would urge States that have not yet done so to favourably consider becoming parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. It would further urge States to give priority in their development strategies and expenditures to the realization of the right to food.
Taking the floor after the vote, the representative of Belarus said the right to food is fundamental, creating a foundation for development for all. The international community cannot ignore that tens of thousands of people lack the right to food, he said. Unilateral coercive measures are a serious threat and often an insurmountable obstacle to the right to food. They create humanitarian crises, affecting the most vulnerable in the population. This is what occurred with sanctions in his country on fertilizer, affecting agricultural production in many States, leading to a catastrophe in food production, which has been highlighted by World Food Programme (WFP) reports and special mandates holders. Calling for an end to all unilateral coercive measures, he said Belarus is ready to assist all countries in achieving food security.
Next, the representative of Japan said his delegation joined consensus but must express its concerns on operative paragraph 51. References to and conversation on the international financial infrastructure are better presented in other fora, he said.
The representative of the United States said that 800 million people experience hunger throughout the world and his country will continue to lead solutions in food security, which is essential for peace and prosperity. Affordable access to food is a human need, he said, noting that the United States has provided over 50 per cent of the WFP budget this year. Other international cooperation includes the “Feed the Future” programme, through which, together with the African Union and other actors, efforts are focused on producing climate resilient crops and addressing hunger. The United States dissociates from preambular paragraph 13 and operative paragraph 34, he said, expressing concern over use of the term “international financial architecture,” which has no internationally agreed upon meaning.
The Committee then took up the draft resolution titled “Enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights” (document A/C.3/78/L.37), which the Chair noted contains no programme budget implications.
The representative of Cuba, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, introducing the text, said it aims to strengthen international cooperation in the field of human rights. The text is a technical update of what was introduced last year; however, it introduces some new language, including a reference to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.
The Committee then approved “L.37” without a vote, by which the General Assembly would stress the importance of international cooperation for improving living conditions of all in every country, particularly developing countries. It would urge all actors on the international scene to build an international order based on inclusion, justice, equity, mutual understanding and promotion of and respect for cultural diversity and universal human rights. It would emphasize the role of international cooperation in increasing capacities of Member States in the field of human rights through, inter alia, the provision of technical assistance.
By further terms, the Assembly would urge States to take measures enhancing bilateral, regional and international cooperation to address the adverse impact of consecutive and compounded global crises, such as economic, food and climate change, on the full enjoyment of human rights. It would request the Secretary-General, in collaboration with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, to consult States and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations on ways and means for the enhancement of international cooperation and genuine dialogue in the United Nations human rights machinery, including the Human Rights Council.
The representative of the United States said his delegation will disassociate from preambular paragraph 5, due to its incorrect assertion that enhancing international cooperation is essential for the protection of human rights. The lack of development cannot be invoked in support of the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights. He went on to note the non-binding nature of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, while also noting his country’s long-standing concerns with the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, including its singling out the State of Israel and overbroad restrictions on freedom of expression.
The Committee next took up the draft resolution titled “Promotion of equitable geographical distribution in the membership of the human rights treaty bodies” (document A/C.3/78/L.38), which the Chair noted contains no programme budget implications.
The representative of Cuba, speaking for the Non-Aligned Movement and introducing the draft resolution, said that equitable geographic representation in the membership of human rights treaty bodies is an essential requirement. He reiterated concerns about the current membership imbalance, noting that the text reaffirms the importance of national and regional specificities as well as various historic and cultural heritages and economic, political and legal systems associated with them. Stressing that the draft resolution should be approved by consensus, he said that, if a vote is requested, Member States are encouraged to vote in favour of the text.
A recorded vote was requested.
Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of the United States said his delegation will vote against the draft resolution and encouraged other Member States to do likewise. Noting that State parties to human rights treaty bodies have already established relevant elections considerations, he stressed that the text could undermine the independence of these treaty based human rights mechanisms.
The Committee then approved the draft resolution with 128 votes in favour to 52 against, with no abstentions. By the text, the General Assembly would reiterate that States parties to United Nations human rights instruments should consider, in their nomination of members to human rights treaty bodies, that these committees be composed of persons of high moral character and recognized competence in the field of human rights. In addition, a strong consideration shall be given to equitable geographical distribution of membership and to representation of different forms of civilization and of the principal legal systems.
By further terms, the Assembly would urge States parties to United Nations human rights instruments and bureau members to initiate a debate on ways and means to ensure equitable geographical distribution in the membership of human rights treaty bodies. It also recommended, when considering the possible allocation of seats on each treaty body on a regional basis, the introduction of flexible procedures that encompass the established criteria.
Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Spain, speaking for the European Union, said it is not up to the General Assembly to modify provisions or treaties. The decision about who should be elected as an expert should be based on provisions established and the merit of candidates, she stressed, noting that the bloc is against establishing quotas by geographical region. In this regard, the European Union will not support the text, she asserted.
The representative of Canada, expressing concern that the establishment of a quota system for appointments falls outside the General Assembly’s mandate, said the treaty bodies reform process will have a profound impact on whether and how the system can overcome its current challenges.
The Committee next took up the draft resolution titled “Human rights and cultural diversity” (document A/C.3/78/L.44), which the Chair noted contains no programme budget implications.
The representative of Cuba, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, introduced the draft as a technical update of the resolution adopted two years ago. The language is the outcome of transparent negotiations open to all delegations, he said.
By its terms, the Assembly would express concern over the adverse impacts of, lack of respect for and recognition of cultural diversity on human rights, justice, friendship and the fundamental right to development. It would emphasize that dialogue among religions, cultures and civilizations should be enhanced, and that States should oppose all attempts at uniculturalism and promote dialogue among civilizations, a culture of peace, tolerance and interfaith dialogue. Further, it would call on States to embark on intercultural initiatives to promote all human rights, ensure their political and legal systems reflect multicultural diversity within their societies and promote respect for cultural diversity to advance the objectives of peace, development and universally accepted human rights.
A recorded vote was requested.
The representative of Cuba asked who requested the vote. The Chair responded that it was the United States.
Explaining its vote against the draft before the vote, the representative of the United States reiterated its continued support for cultural pluralism, tolerance, cooperation and dialogue across different cultures and civilizations. However, the United States is concerned that the concept of cultural diversity expressed in the draft can be misused to legitimize human rights abuses and elevate a particular nation, people or social group above another. The draft misrepresents the relationship between cultural diversity and international human rights law. Furthermore, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) should not take up the initiatives proposed in the draft.
The resolution was approved by recorded vote of 130 in favour to 54 against, with no abstentions. By its terms, the Assembly would express concern over the adverse impacts of lack of respect for and recognition of cultural diversity on human rights, justice, friendship and the fundamental right to development. It would emphasize that dialogue among religions, cultures and civilizations should be enhanced, and that States should oppose all attempts at uniculturalism and promote dialogue among civilizations, a culture of peace, tolerance and interfaith dialogue. Further, it would call on States to embark on intercultural initiatives on human rights to promote all human rights, ensure their political and legal systems reflect the multicultural diversity within their societies, and promote respect for cultural diversity to advance the objectives of peace, development and universally accepted human rights.
The Committee next took up the draft resolution titled “Human rights and unilateral coercive measures” (document A/C.3/78/L.45), which the Chair noted contains no programme budget implications.
Introducing the draft “L.45”, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, the representative of Cuba noted that it is a technical rollover. This year, language has been adopted on the anniversaries of the Vienna Declaration and Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Unilateral coercive measures affect the enjoyment of all human rights, he said voicing opposition to them. He requested all delegations to vote in favour, supporting the UN Charter, international law and full implementation of human rights for all.
A recorded vote was requested.
In explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of the United States said this resolution does not advance respect for human rights. His country is committed to work with all parties to achieve human rights objectives, but a small number of Member States are advancing a politically motivated agenda related to so-called “unilateral coercive measures”. Sanctions are a useful tool that can promote accountability for human rights abuses and violations, respond to malign behaviour and counter transnational crime and terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, he said, noting that his country uses them in a manner consistent with international law in line with these objectives and is not alone in that practice. This resolution inappropriately challenges States’ abilities to address legitimate national interests, including national security concerns and attempts to undermine the international community’s ability to respond to human rights violations. Aware of unintended consequences, the United States co-penned Security Council resolution 2664 (2022), which eased the delivery of aid, while ensuring that it will not be diverted or used by malicious actors. Those who suggest sanctions are inherently unjustified advance a false narrative. Simply put, “It is not sanctions that undermine human rights, but those who commit human rights abuses,” he said, noting that his delegation requested the vote and would vote against the resolution.
Next, the representative of Niger condemned the blockade decided on his country by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which runs counter to the Community’s protocols. Illegal sanctions have a devastating impact on women and children in Niger, blocking supply chains and access to other important goods. Voicing support for the draft resolution, he spoke against all such measures, which prevent women and children form enjoying their right to food.
Approved by a recorded vote of 128 in favour, 54 against and no abstentions, “L.45” would have the Assembly urge States to cease adopting or implementing unilateral measures with all their extraterritorial effects. It would also condemn the inclusion of Member States in unilateral lists under false pretexts, including false allegations of terrorism sponsorship.
Further, the Assembly would condemn the continuing unilateral application and enforcement by certain Powers of unilateral coercive measures as tools for political and economic pressure against developing countries to prevent them from deciding their own political, economic and social systems. It would also urge the Human Rights Council to consider the negative impact of those measures and would request the High Commissioner for Human Rights to give priority to the present resolution in his annual report to the General Assembly.
Speaking after the vote, the representative of Venezuela, speaking on behalf of the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations, noted that the Group was established two years ago following actions threatening the Charter. He voiced firm condemnation of unilateral coercive measures, which are interventionist and destabilizing, running counter to the spirit of the Charter. Such cruel and inhumane measures severely affect capacities of over 30 countries around the world, hampering attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in those countries. Unilateral coercive measures are contrary to human rights, and their implementation is illegal he added. It is hypocritical for some countries to champion human rights and adopt these measures, which cause human rights violations and impede development.
The representative of Spain, speaking on behalf of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, said that references to the anniversaries of the of the Vienna Declaration and Universal Declaration of Human Rights do not address the bloc’s reservations on the draft resolution. The European Union’s restrictive measures are selective and gradual, targeting specific policies and leaders in line with international law and considering humanitarian situations. Grains, medication and other supplies are never the target of Union sanctions, she said, noting that the bloc is ready to cooperate with all Member States in fulfilling the UN charter and all human rights obligations.
The representative of the United Kingdom said her country opposes the draft resolution, as sanctions are part of its foreign policy focused on deterring human rights violation and breaches of international law. There is no conflict with the UN Charter, she added. Her delegation has consistently opposed such resolutions and will continue to do so to prevent the proliferation of misinformation on the subject.
The representative of Chile noted that it supported the draft resolution, as it understands that unilateral coercive measures stray from the UN Charter and he peace among states. Expressing concern on the impact on the enjoyment of human rights, she said often unilateral coercive measures have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups. Discussions of unilateral coercive measures and their impact on human rights must retain objective, she said, rejecting any political use of this resolution. Its spirit should focus exclusively on those affected by them, she underscored.
The representative of Belarus welcomed the passage of the resolution, reiterating that all unilateral coercive measures unauthorized by the Security Council are illegal under international law. He condemned overreaching interpretations of extraterritorial jurisdiction and called for an end to all unilateral coercive measures.
The representative of Cuba, responding to issues raised by the United States’ representative, said the text on unilateral coercive measures is well-defined and has nothing to do with Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations; it only defines those kinds of measures that run counter to the Charter and international law. On the United States’ justification of their request for a vote on the text — that such measures are used in response to human rights violations by individuals and countries — he stressed: “Where are the unilateral coercive measures on human rights violations with the situation in Gaza?” On the assertion that such measures do not have a humanitarian impact, he asserted that no resident of Cuba escapes the daily negative impact of the embargo imposed by the United States on that country for 60 years.
The Committee next took up the draft resolution titled “The right to development” (document A/C.3/78/L.46), which the Chair noted contains no programme budget implications.
The representative of Cuba, presenting the text on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said it adheres to the text adopted last year, while strengthening the language through references to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As well, it requests the Secretary-General to submit a report to the General Assembly at its seventy-ninth session on implementation of the resolution, including reform of the international financial architecture.
A vote was requested on the text by the United States’ representative, who said that, while his country has contributed over $100 billion to drive development over the past two years alone, his delegation believes the present text pushes a detrimental narrative that pushes development over human rights, thereby tilting the balance between the two imperatives. Further, the text appears to protect States, not individuals. As the right to development does not have a universally agreed international meaning, and there was a lack of meaningful negotiation on the text, which lacked wide support, his delegation called for a vote and will respectfully vote against the text.
The Assembly then adopted “L.46” by a recorded vote of 131 in favour and 26 against, with 25 abstentions. By its terms, it would emphasize the urgent need to make the right to development a reality for everyone. It would recognize that the poorest and most vulnerable are the hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic and that the impact of the crisis has reversed hard-won development and human rights gains and hampered progress on the right to development.
The Assembly would further express deep concern about the negative impact on realization of the right to development owing to further aggravation of the economic and social situation, in particular of developing countries, due to the effects of international energy, food and financial crises, as well as increasing challenges posed by global climate change and loss of biodiversity. By other terms, it would urge developed countries that have not yet done so to make concrete efforts towards meeting the targets of 0.7 per cent of their gross national product for official development assistance to developing countries and 0.15 to 0.2 per cent of their gross national product to least developed countries.
Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Spain, speaking for the European Union, said the bloc is committed to promoting and supporting sustainable development. Noting that the Union accounts for the largest part of official development assistance (ODA) globally, she stressed that the right to development cannot be singled out and used as a pretext by States to not promote and comply with human rights. Pointing to many pending issues on the substance of the text, she said the draft requires more work to achieve consensus.
The representative of Costa Rica, noting that she voted in favour of the draft resolution, expressed concern over the new operative paragraph 7. Recalling that her delegation abstained during adoption of the Human Rights Council resolution 44/18 (2023) in October because it was premature, she expressed regret over the decision to forward it to the General Assembly before consensus was reached. She also voiced regret that the appeals of several Latin American countries not to hasten discussions were ignored.
Argentina’s representative said that he voted in favour of the text, while noting that there is still no unequivocal national position regarding the draft legally binding instrument on the right to development in paragraph 7. He would have preferred that consideration of the document had continued in the Human Rights Council, he added.
The representative of Armenia, noting that he voted in favour of the text, disassociated himself from preambular paragraph 6 of the draft resolution “L.45” and preambular paragraph 24 of the “L.46” text.
The United Kingdom’s representative, while supporting the view that every country should develop and grow economically, said she did not agree that a new treaty should govern this approach. She noted that the treaty proposed lacks a key purpose, particularly what new rights are being set up and for whom. Expressing disappointment that none of her delegation’s concerns were reflected in the text, she said that she has, therefore, voted against the draft.
The representative of Liechtenstein, speaking also on behalf of Australia, Iceland and Norway, said the group continues to believe that the reference to a legally binding instrument on the right to development has the potential to undermine consensus on it and to obstruct achievement of the SDGs. The 1986 Declaration on the Right to Development provides appropriate and sufficient guidance, and the draft resolution could do more harm than good in the pursuit of sustainable development and ensuring no one is left behind. He stressed that operative paragraph 7 does not in any way prejudge the outcomes of the General Assembly, as mandated by the Human Rights Council resolution on a draft international covenant on the right to development. It is now the Assembly’s responsibility to consider and negotiate this draft covenant.
The representative of New Zealand, speaking also on behalf of Switzerland, expressed concern that the draft includes unclear concepts that risk undermining the universality of human rights. While a new legally binding instrument on the right to development would not be an appropriate mechanism for progress, she acknowledged the Human Rights Council’s submission of a draft covenant for the Assembly’s consideration. International consensus is lacking on whether a legally binding instrument is necessary, as existing human rights treaties already provide comprehensive protections. While diverging views persist on implementing the right to development, she expressed hope that a consensual approach can be found.
The representative of Chile, explaining her country’s abstention, considered a broad international consensus to be necessary for a legally binding instrument on the right to development to have a solid foundation. Absolute clarity on the instrument’s content and scope are necessary. She regretted the Human Rights Council’s decision to forward to the General Assembly a draft document that does not fulfil these conditions, and expressed concern that the draft does not account for the progressive development of human rights, leaving out important advances on gender.
The representative of Mexico, explaining her country’s abstention, noted uncertainty about confusing the right to development with economic, social and cultural rights. The right to development is distinct from other rights, and its fulfilment cannot be a pretext not to comply with obligations to other rights. On the draft legally binding instrument, she expressed reservations about lack of clarity or implied setbacks on international standards for human rights.
The representative of Canada, explaining the country’s abstention, said the international community must strengthen initiatives under existing international obligations and frameworks, rather than create new legal obligations. Development cooperation programmes should further realize human rights by increasing the capacities of States as duty bearers to meet their obligations and of rights holders to claim their rights. Development and human rights should not only coexist; advancing human rights has a powerful multiplier effect on development.
The representative of Egypt, explaining its vote in favour, fully supported elaborating a legally binding instrument on the right to development to put it on an equal basis with all human rights. Egypt is a committed supporter of the right to development as an individual and collective right. It cannot be dealt with as a human development index.
The representative of Cuba, in its national capacity and on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, expressed deep gratitude for the broad support for the nine resolutions presented by his delegation.