Sixth Committee: Legal
Searching for Consensus in International Law
Section Coordinated and Written By Namrita Talwar
|
“It was difficult to develop the question of ‘human life’ and to conclude consensus on the wording of the Declaration on Human Cloning.”
— Mohamed Bennouna
Permanent Representative of Morocco
Chairman of the Sixth Committee
|
|
The essence in the functioning of the Sixth Committee lies on total consensus among United Nations Member States on resolutions dealing with wide-ranging international legal matters. “For the Legal Committee it is not advisable to have any decision adopted by a majority, as we need consensus in the international community for its validity”, Committee Chairman Mohamed Bennouna of Morocco told the UN Chronicle.
In keeping with tradition, the General Assembly adopted its resolutions—a total of 20—without a vote. However, it deferred decision on its most controversial issue concerning the convention on human reproductive cloning. The current disagreement revives a vastly acrimonious debate on human cloning for the third consecutive year. Costa Rica, the United States and Latin American countries, which support a total ban, argue that a partial ban would encourage the creation of a black market in human embryos.
During the debate, the Committee decided to establish a working group which met in February 2005 to finalize the text of the United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning. “It was difficult to develop the question of ‘human life’ and to conclude consensus on the wording of the Declaration”, Ambassador Bennouna said.
Roberto Tovar, Foreign Minister of Costa Rica, said that “cloning reduces the human being to a mere object of industrial production and manipulation”. He added: “Today we must decide whether the international community will adopt a utilitarian ethic that justifies the deliberate creation of human embryos, with the purpose of destroying them for scientific experiments.”
Another resolution, proposed by Belgium, called for a partial ban on cloning that would permit scientific research to pursue cures for diseases. Its representative, Marc Pecsteen de Buytswerve, said that the draft contained a mandate for a convention that would simultaneously cover reproductive cloning and other forms of human cloning, so as to meet the wishes of delegations to treat the two questions in the framework of a single outline. Reproductive cloning would be banned without exception, he said.
As to other forms of cloning, three options were offered: they could either be banned, submitted to a moratorium or be regulated through national legislation that submitted research to strict controls to avoid misuse—the nature of those controls could be elaborated in the convention. Speaking on behalf of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, Gökcen Tugral of Turkey said the Islamic States were opposed to a vote. “A vote on either of the draft resolutions, by which one side would impose its views on the other, would only create a negative atmosphere.”
On 8 March, the General Assembly adopted by a vote of 84 to 34, with 37 abstentions, the non-binding UN Declaration on Human Cloning, capping four years of contentious debate. It had urged Member States to prohibit all forms of human cloning, including cloning of human embryos for stem cell research.
One of the other heavily debated topics was on the issue of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which investigates and prosecutes individuals accused of carrying out inhuman crimes and genocide. By resolution 59/43, which was adopted without a vote, the Assembly called upon all States to consider ratifying and acceding without delay to the Rome Statute, and becoming parties to the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the ICC. Felix Awanbor of Nigeria welcomed the positive developments in the ICC since its Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002. He urged that meetings of States parties be held alternately at The Hague and in New York, as it would enhance the Court’s political visibility and result in greater participation in its work by more delegations. However, the representative of the United States dissociated his country from consensus on the resolution. Nicolas Rostow said that it was an important principle of his country that none of its citizens be subject to the jurisdiction of an outside court.
A resolution on the elaboration of two conventions concerning terrorism was also the subject of continued debate in the Sixth Committee. The Assembly strongly condemned all acts of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable and urged States, as a matter of priority, to become parties to the relevant conventions and protocols on the subject. It decided that its Ad Hoc Committee on terrorism should meet from 28 March to 1 April 2005 to expedite the elaboration of the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism and to resolve outstanding issues relating to the convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism. However, the Sixth Committee hit a roadblock on the definition of “terrorism”. Chairman Bennouna said this was difficult “as we have to distinguish between the acts of terrorism and legitimate resistance of use of force in certain context. We need a definition to be agreed upon in order for us to conduct and improve the fight against terrorists.”
Terrorism differed from all other crimes in its purpose. Its objective was to put a population in a state of terror and keep it there while forcing a government or organization to either act or not act in a given direction, María Cuéllar of Colombia said during the debate. She urged States to set aside their political considerations so as to finalize the instruments dealing with international terrorism. “Timely conclusion of the work on the drafts of a comprehensive convention on terrorism and of a convention on nuclear terrorism assumes special importance”, Oleksiy Ilnytskyi of Ukraine told the Chronicle.
In another text, the Assembly invited States to become parties to the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, and agreed with the general understanding that the instrument did not cover criminal proceedings. The completion of the new convention was the culmination of 35 years of work by the International Law Commission, the Sixth Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee. Its goal is to allow States to coordinate national policies in regards to jurisdiction in disputes or lawsuits filed over international commercial activities.
The Convention is open for signature until 17 January 2007 and will enter into force after it has been signed and ratified by 30 States. The signing constitutes the first step towards the conclusion of a treaty under international law. “The adoption of the Convention on Jurisdictional Immunity of States and Their Property concludes a long process of codification that started in the seventies within the framework of the International Law Commission. It represents a positive step that will be useful for us to develop national legislation on the subject,” Alejandro Basáñez of Mexico told the Chronicle. “The Convention is a legal tool that prevents a State or its property from being sued in any other country.”
Questions relating to protection of foreign shareholders and compensation for innocent victims of trans-boundary harm were also raised in the Sixth Committee. Luis Serradas Tavares of Portugal said the draft articles on diplomatic protection were too generous to these shareholders. There was no added value in making specific provisions for them. The draft articles were intended to protect nationals, and provisions for them as investors should be dealt with in other contexts, such as bilateral treaties for protecting foreign investments.
The Assembly also invited six intergovernmental organizations to participate in its work and sessions as observers: the Southern African Development Community; the Shanghai Cooperation Organization; the Collective Security Treaty Organization; the Economic Community of West African States; the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States; and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation.
|
Looking Into Safety of UN Workforce
Many United Nations personnel working in war-torn areas often face the daunting task of carrying out peacekeeping and relief efforts under precarious and high-risk environments. There are times when they are threatened, robbed, beaten, held hostage, raped or murdered. For that reason, the UN General Assembly in 1994 adopted the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, with the purpose of strengthening the legal protection given to its staff and urging countries to take all necessary measures to prevent crimes against such persons and ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice.
The implementation of the Convention has drawn more attention since the August 2003 terrorist attack against the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq at its headquarters in Baghdad, which killed 22 persons, including its top envoy, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and left more than a hundred wounded. “It is a matter of deep concern to us”, Amy Laurenson of New Zealand told the Chronicle. There has been a dramatic increase in the security risks faced by UN staff members, especially in the field, she said. In this regard, the General Assembly adopted unanimously a resolution on the scope of legal protection under the Convention, urging States to take all appropriate measures to prevent crimes against United Nations and associated personnel, and to consider becoming parties to and respect fully their obligations under relevant international instruments, particularly the 1994 Convention, which entered into force in January 1999 and has been ratified or acceded to by 77 countries.
—Marga Dorao-Moris
|
Go Back Top
|
|
Print 