UN Chronicle | Sixth Committee: Legal - Cloning Concerns; The Criminal Court

Sixth Committee: Legal
Cloning Concerns; The Criminal Court
By Vikram Sura with Jonas Hagen, for the Chronicle

Article

In a key debate with implications for the future of human medicine, the Sixth (Legal) Committee grappled with the potential misuse of medical technology to produce human clones. The proposal for an international agreement to place a series of checks and balances on human cloning has been circulating in the Committee for two years. During the debate this session, countries dodged each other over two approaches to the issue: to ban cloning altogether—for reproduction and medical research—or allow scope for research. Limited therapeutic cloning produces tissue or organs, while reproductive cloning produces an identical twin from the cell of the donor.

France and Germany pioneered a resolution in 2001 that sought to ban reproduction but allow research in cloning technology. In 2002, the debate roughly split countries sixty to forty. The delegate of Germany, Christian Walter Much, told the UN Chronicle: "The resolution of France and Germany was to start negotiations in two stages: first, ban reproductive cloning on which there is consensus in the UN; and second, negotiate where there is still no consensus, that is on therapeutic cloning."

A competing resolution, sponsored by Spain, the United States and the Philippines, aimed for a total ban on all forms of cloning. "It was highly unlikely that this approach would yield results with the necessary urgency." Mr. Much also said that a convention on cloning should strive for the widest possible acceptance, just like other conventions in the human rights field. "As this was not possible, we reluctantly agreed to postpone the discussion to the next session."

The debate provoked discussion that went beyond the lay and the secular. Birhanemeskel Abebe of Ethiopia told the Chronicle that therapeutic cloning was a "prejudicial" and "misleading" act and should be banned, because "human beings have a right not to be created as objects of experimentations". He added: "We believe human cloning should be banned, because it upsets the social order by confounding the meaning of parenthood and confusing the identity and kinship relations of any cloned child."

Ambassador Arpad Prandler of Hungary. Chairman, Sixth Committee.

Committee Chairman Arpad Prandler of Hungary summed up the contentious debate, stating to the Chronicle that the item on cloning was a "multifaceted and very difficult" problem, involving scientific, ethical, religious and even political differences. He said the Committee, being aware that a confrontation on the two approaches could not be avoided and in line with its tradition of consensus, therefore decided to postpone the item to the next (fifty-eighth) session.

While the Committee adopted a total of 19 resolutions, all without a vote, the cloning issue ended as one of two draft decisions, meaning it was not yet ready even for a vote.

The other issue concerns a draft comprehensive counter-terrorism convention. "Frankly, the major element to be resolved among delegations is still the definition of terrorism". Ambassador Prandler recalled that "it has been discussed in the UN for more than thirty years. If we wish to elaborate a comprehensive convention, then it should also have a kind of definition."

The Committee debate on terrorism involved regional and bilateral perspectives, even as a majority of countries said that the "scourge of terrorism" had to be fought in the international and domestic arenas. But substantially significant differences remained because the definition of terrorism was still elusive. Along with a comprehensive anti-terrorism convention, the Committee also attempted to draft an international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism.

On the definition of terrorism, the delegate of Sudan, speaking for the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that acts of terrorism that involved attacks on civilian populations should be differentiated from "legitimate" struggles of peoples under "colonial, alien or foreign domination for self-determination" and "national liberation, as recognized and defined by the United Nations".

A Latin American diplomat who did not wish to be identified told the Chronicle that during the debate on nuclear terrorism, discussions stalled on the issue of "use" of nuclear weapons by legitimate military forces, while on the question of drafting a comprehensive anti-terrorism convention, he said: "I don't think there would be any future programme."

Roberto Lavalle of Guatemala told the Chronicle that by "adopting the two declarations and the treaties concerning terrorism the Committee had recommended, the General Assembly had made a very significant contribution to the fight against this scourge. However, since the layman neither followed nor had adequate understanding of international legal developments of a fairly complex and technical nature, the public is unable to appreciate the value of this contribution which predates September 11. The man in the street should nevertheless have some idea of the importance of that work, as well as of the treaties against terrorism adopted under the aegis of the United Nations", he said.

Photograph of a ceremony in New York City on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. UN Photo

Ambassador Luis Gallegos Chiriboga of Ecuador told the Chronicle that the "combat" against violence and terrorism had to be looked at from a "holistic" view. "We expressed our concern that the fight against terrorism must include poverty and underdevelopment—conditions that are used as a pretext for terrorist activities."

Another key resolution before the Committee was on the International Criminal Court (ICC)—a permanent court with the power to investigate and bring to justice individuals who commit genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. In 1992, the General Assembly directed the International Law Commission to draft a proposal for an ICC, while the establishment by the Security Council of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia in 1993 and for Rwanda in 1994 created public interest in the ICC.

Ioana Gabriela Stancu of Romania told the Chronicle that the next important challenge for the ICC was the election of judges and the prosecutor. "It is essential for the future credibility and legitimacy of the Court that the whole process and its results be transparent, but the major challenge for the ICC in the long run remains achieving universal adherence to its Statute, while at the same time safeguarding the integrity thereof."

Chairman Prandler said that certain Member States "may not wish to tie their hands in a way with the Statute of the Court, but if indeed the ICC will function impartially, without prejudice and onesidedness, then it will achieve a commanding respect by all States. I hope that those countries that so far have not accepted the idea of a permanent Criminal Court will reconsider their position." Although the number of States parties to the Statute has reached 80, among the larger and important nations, China, India and the United States have so far refused to accept the ICC."

The Committee also adopted without a vote a resolution on the "Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts"—an item that was included in the agenda of the General Assembly in 1982. It later requested the Secretary-General to submit at its fifty-seventh session a report on the status of the additional Protocols. The first Protocol is on "Protection of victims of international armed conflicts", which states that "methods and means of warfare is not unlimited", while the second relates to "Protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts", which applies only to internal armed conflicts in which "dissident armed forces, under responsible command, exercise control over a part of the national territory".

"Whereas the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 are accepted by almost all States without any exception", Ambassador Prandler said, "their two Additional Protocols are so far not universally adhered to by all States, especially the second Protocol." He stressed the importance of the relevant resolution being adopted without a vote.

The Committee approved two other resolutions, including one on assistance to third States affected by sanctions, which states that the Security Council and the UN Secretariat should include "in both pre-assessment and ongoing assessment reports" what effect sanctions would have on third States. The other resolution, on "Prevention and peaceful settlement of disputes", urges States to use existing measures to prevent and settle disputes, and also urges the UN Secretariat to respond to crises through sharing information, developing an early-warning plan, training and cooperating with regional organizations.

In addition to the items mentioned above, "the Sixth Committee, which is the most important legal body dealing with diverse matters in the field of international law", Chairman Prandler said, "some other important and complex agenda items were also discussed, such as the protection of diplomats, the annual report of the International Law Commission, which in itself contains a great number of complex issues, and host country relations. The tone in the Committee was calmer this year", he concluded.

"The 'combat' against violence and terrorism had to be looked at from a 'holistic' view."
—Ambassador Luis Gallegos Chiriboga of Ecuador

Go Back Top