Describing Best National Practices, Delegates Stress Access to Justice Crucial Driver for Rule of Law, as Sixth Committee Debate on Principle Continues
Sharing best practices to ensure access to justice as a critical driver of the rule of law, speakers described the unique characteristics of the principle when implemented into national platforms, legal programmes and initiatives, as the Sixth Committee (Legal) continued its deliberations on the matter today (see Press Release GA/L/3519).
“Mere formal existence of justice does not mean there is access to justice,” the representative of Costa Rica said. The scope of democracy, which did not end at free elections, required participation and accountability. Noting “the constant and historic violations” of the rights of people of African descent in Costa Rica, he outlined the adoption of an institutional policy to ensure access to justice.
The representative of Myanmar, underscoring that it was the first year of his country’s democracy, highlighted the place rule of law took in the creation of a newly formed Government. That included establishing community forums and mock trials, as well as organizing law centres around the country to provide knowledge, skills, and general awareness of democratic legal systems.
Also elucidating on transforming a government in a post-conflict setting, the representative of Sri Lanka said that his country was actively conscious of the value of a nation built on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. Since the change of administration in 2015, amendments had been made to the Constitution, term limits to the Presidency had been introduced and Parliamentary oversight committees had been established.
Access to justice in hard-to-reach areas where different languages were spoken brought unique challenges of promoting the principle, said the representative of Senegal. His country’s system of “proximity justice” tackled those unique obstacles through small law clinics in individual neighbourhoods and communities. Those outposts of justice settled small disputes and provided alternative ways to judicial practices through mediation, while using local languages to overcome linguistic barriers.
However, unexpected issues arose for Tonga when incorporating the principle into democracy, said its representative. When his Government attempted to accede to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), it was thwarted by unprecedented opposition from stakeholders. Ironically, it was because of the Constitution’s further democratization that such challenges were arising, he said.
Nonetheless, advancement of the rule of law in the face of a “tragic legacy” was key for building a democratic society, said the representative of Afghanistan, who described years of struggle in his country as “a constant conflict between legitimacy and illegitimacy, legality and illegality.” Fifteen years ago, he said, “we were a country forgotten by the global community,” but due to the central role of the United Nations in coordinating international support, Afghanistan had regained its place in the community of nations.
Also speaking today were representatives of Indonesia, Venezuela, Lao’s Peoples Democratic Republic, India, Liechtenstein, Zambia, Japan, United States, Nicaragua, Kenya, Bangladesh, Tunisia, Georgia, Maldives, Slovenia, Ghana, United Republic of Tanzania, Malaysia, Israel, Nigeria, Guatemala, Mexico, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Morocco, Argentina, Viet Nam, Iran, Republic of Korea, Pakistan, Botswana, Kuwait, Philippines, China and Nepal.
The representatives of the Philippines and China spoke in exercise of the right of reply.
The Sixth Committee will next meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, 7 October, to continue its consideration of the rule of law and to take up criminal accountability.
Statements on Rule of Law
ACHSANUL HABIB (Indonesia), associating himself with Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Non-Aligned Movement, said his country’s Constitution stated clearly that access to justice was one of the most essential elements of democracy and the rule of law. Outlining a number of laws aimed at ensuring access to justice for its citizens, including several related to witness and victim protection, access to courts in remote areas and the creation of an ombudsman commission, he said capacity building and technical assistance to developing countries was critical. Expressing concern about the rule of law at the international level, and stressing that all States – regardless of size, power and circumstances – were subject to the primacy of law, he said the rule of law and particularly the United Nations system was being “tested and overstretched”. Going forward, all States must be fully committed to an international order grounded in international law and the United Nations Charter, and all organs of the Organization must be seen to function according to the highest standards of justice and fairness.
ISAÍAS ARTURO MEDINA MEJÍAS (Venezuela), associating himself with the Community of Latin American and Caribbean Nations (CELAC) and the Non-Aligned Movement, stated that in a just international order, there should be no distinctions or privileges between States. Rule of law was enshrined in his country’s legal system, which was in alignment with international treaties. As the prime source of international law, multilateral and bilateral treaties were crucial for the settlement of disputes. Calling for a genuinely democratic regime at the United Nations, he added that without improving membership and decision-making, particularly within the Security Council, rule of law at the international level would only be a utopian wish. Double standards and selective application of international norms undermined the credibility of the United Nations. In particular, the sanctions committees should be used to support political processes and the ombudspersons should be more autonomous.
VASSANA MOUNSAVENG (Lao People’s Democratic Republic), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement and ASEAN, stated that his country had ratified major international treaties under the auspices of the United Nations as well as under international, regional and bilateral frameworks. Those treaties had been transposed into the national laws and regulations and were being implemented in good faith. The adoption of his country’s Constitution in 1991 and its subsequent amendment was the turning point in the governance and legal system, transforming the society from one based on executive orders to one based on rule of law. He underscored the importance of that principle for the advancement of peace as well the achievement of human rights.
THANT SIN (Myanmar) said his country’s new democratic Government envisioned four main areas of domestic policy: national reconciliation, internal peace, drafting of a constitution, and improving quality of life. The new Government had also emphasized the rule of law to promote peace, stability, democracy and development. Year one of a strategic action plan aimed at improving access to justice, implementation of a new Supreme Court case management plan, and developing an electronic case information system, among other things. Myanmar had established rule of law centres in various parts of the nation to provide knowledge, skills, values and general awareness of law. Community forums, roundtable discussions and mock trials were being organized.
KOTESWARA RAO MADIMI (India), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, pointed out that there was no agreed definition of the “rule of law” and that the underlying principle at the international level was observance of sovereign equality and non-interference. Law must stand the test of fundamental human values, and all enactments should be open to review in order to adapt to new developments. Otherwise, the principle could become “an instrument of oppression” and give legitimacy to laws that violated basic human rights. His country was party to several multilateral treaties and conventions, including those adopted by the United Nations that addressed human rights and terrorism conventions. As well, India’s Constitution ensured that everyone had the right to have any dispute decided in a fair public hearing before an independent court or tribunal or any other independent and impartial forum. He also highlighted measures to promote access to justice, and recommended a scheme to give priority to the cases of acid attack victims, who were mostly women and girls.
JÖRN EIERMANN (Liechtenstein) noted that in the Secretary-General’s report on strengthening and coordinating the United Nations rule of law activities, there was an omission of the several States that had ratified the Kampala Amendments on the crime of aggression. As 32 State Parties had ratified the Amendment, the requirement of 30 for the activation of the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression had been met. He said he looked forward to that activation by the Assembly of State Parties in 2017. With regard to the implementation of multilateral treaties, his Government was working to incorporate the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development into its domestic platform. The Agenda recognized the rule of law as an enabler and outcome of sustainable development. He also highlighted that Liechtenstein would soon ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure, which would elevate the Convention to the same level as other human rights treaties.
MWABA PATRICIA KASESE-BOTA (Zambia), associating herself with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, said that multilateral treaties were important instruments because they influenced the structure of international relations in a predictable and fair way. It was a matter of concern that the process of reaching international agreements had taken on new dynamics which delayed the finalization of treaties. Zambia was party to many multilateral treaties and had signed the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Because it was necessary to develop legal and institutional frameworks which reflected the basic tenets of the rule of law, her Government had also embarked on judicial reforms to facilitate the modernization of that sector. Those reforms would enhance independence, accountability, flexibility and fairness.
JUN HASEBE (Japan), emphasizing that rule of law was the essential foundation of any society, voiced his support for the work of international judicial organs, such as the International Criminal Court and the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Japan had not only provided human and financial resources to support those institutions, but was also promoting capacity building abroad. As enshrined in the Charter, the General Assembly had a role to play in the progressive development of international law and he commended the work of the International Law Commission in that regard. Turning to national efforts, he noted that his country had established a legal support centre in 2006 to provide judicial support and legal aid to people in need, including in areas where access to law was not available.
STEPHEN TOWNLEY (United States) stated that implementation of multilateral treaties was a critical focus, beginning at the early stages of treaty negotiation. The United States followed a formal process designed to ensure that all agencies responsible for implementing the agreement understood what it would provide for and what actions they would be called upon to give. An important part of the process was a legal analysis of the text, which identified the laws and authorities that his country would rely on to implement the agreement. With regard to the topic of access to justice for all, he said that the United States had established the White House Legal Aid Interagency Roundtable, with a mandate to integrate civil legal aid into national programmes and policies. Highlighting legal aid programmes that worked with indigenous communities, he also welcomed the adoption by the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice of a resolution to promote access to criminal legal aid.
AMRITH ROHAN PERERA (Sri Lanka) stated that his country, having “suffered a dark period under the yoke of terrorism” and the accompanying culture of impunity, was actively conscious of the value of a nation built on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. Since the change of administration in 2015, Sri Lanka had undertaken significant and compelling reforms to restore and strengthen the rule of law. That included far-reaching amendments to the Constitution, introducing term limits to the Presidency, and establishing oversight committees to strengthen the Parliament. In times of transition from conflict, accountability and redressing victims promoted civic trust and strengthened democracy. Furthermore, while the principle of rule of law had traditionally been approached in the context of individual rights, it also applied to sustainable development.
ALINA JULIA ARGÜELLO GONZÁLEZ (Nicaragua), associating her delegation with the Non-Aligned Movement and CELAC, said that her country had been recognized for its work to provide guarantees as a “safe country”. Also highlighted was its capacity for managing foreign investments and projects recognized by the World Bank and other financial institutions, which had helped with development and the scaling up of social programmes. Nicaragua’s relations with international financial institutions were sovereign, she stressed, adding that her country was committed to all initiatives geared to overhauling the United Nations to meet the growing demand for a democratic Organization that served the best interests of sovereign security.
ANTHONY ANDANJE (Kenya), associating his delegation with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, stressed that the rule of law could not exist without a transparent legal system. The main components were a clear set of laws that were freely and easily accessible to all, strong enforcement structures and an independent judiciary to protect citizens against the arbitrary use of power by the State, individuals or any other organization. At the national level, Kenya was continuing to implement, institutionalize and entrench the provisions of the 2010 Constitution and was on track to fulfil its obligations espoused in Goal 16 of the Sustainable Development Goals. Capacity building was key to promoting the rule of law and strengthening the national capacities of Member States, including through greater technical assistance. He emphasized that it was necessary to account for the customs and national political, socioeconomic realities and laws of each State.
MASUD BIN MOMEN (Bangladesh), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, said that, as a State party to humanitarian law and criminal justice treaties, he welcomed ratifications and accessions to the core instruments in those areas, adding that in September his country had deposited its instrument of ratification to the Paris Agreement. The issues of addressing impunity, ensuring accountability and “liquidating the legacies of the past” were of critical importance, and the international community should support national judicial processes to fight a culture of impunity in instances of mass atrocities. While noting the United Nations’ work in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic, Mali, South Sudan and Darfur, Sudan, he suggested developing tools for assessing the impact of the Organization’s work in legal and judicial reform, with the overarching objective of sustaining peace in conflict-affected settings.
SOUMAYA BOURHIL (Tunisia), associating herself with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, stated that the rule of law was linked to the three pillars of the United Nations. Noting the subtopics of the current debate, she added that international agreements and the implementation of their provisions were vital to enhancing relations between States, thereby fulfilling the United Nations’ primary objective of resolving international disputes peacefully. Calling for a more level playing field in the negotiations process, she reaffirmed the pivotal role played by the Secretariat in providing advice on multilateral conventions and promoting the participation of developing countries in the preparation of complex multilateral agreements.
INGA KANCHAVELI (Georgia) said that for the successful implementation of the 2030 Agenda, States must provide access to justice for all by building effective, accountable and inclusive institutions. At the national level, Georgia had focused on ensuring the judiciary’s independence from any outside interference and building public confidence in the courts system. As a result of the measures undertaken, the High Council of Justice had become more democratic and transparent, and life tenure of judges had been introduced. Furthermore, the amendments to the Organic Law of Georgia on the Constitutional Court and the law on legal proceedings had been entered into force. Turning to the peaceful settlement of disputes, she said that Georgia supported an effective and efficient interplay between national justice systems and the International Criminal Court in the fight against impunity. Due to the occupation of the Tskhinvali region by the Russian Federation, the Government had been restricted to conduct investigative activities in the occupied territories. In January, the Pre-trial Chamber I had authorized the International Criminal Court Prosecutor to proceed with the investigation.
AHMED SAREER (Maldives) stated that a holistic approach to strengthening the rule of law must address the issue of national resilience and the capacity of a State and society to withstand systemic shocks. Such resilience was achieved only by a robust legal framework established through democratic processes and a pluralistic political culture. His country had chosen to invest in “our young democracy”. That journey had begun in 2008, with the inception of the new Constitution, which enshrined the rights and responsibilities of its people. In addition, the Maldives was party to eight of the nine human rights conventions and had consistently maintained the constitutionally guaranteed rights through specific legislation, including the Gender Equality Act that was recently passed.
PETRA LANGERHOLC (Slovenia) stated that multilateral treaties played an important part in strengthening the rule of law. Building capacities and sharing of best practices in the field of treaty implementation was therefore indispensable. Turning to her country’s practice, she referred to the international law principle of pacta sunt servanda - commitments assumed must be respected - and stressed that internal law could not serve as justification for the non-fulfillment of an agreement. Upon their entry into force, treaty provisions were integrated into the domestic legal system. The Constitution stipulated that laws and other regulations must comply with generally accepted principles of international law and treaties. Though the legal system of Slovenia did not recognize the primacy of international law over constitutional provisions, she noted that in the hierarchy of legal acts, international agreements did rank above statutory provisions.
AUDREY NAANA ABAYENA (Ghana), associating herself with the Africa Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, said that the process of ratification and implementation of multilateral treaties was enshrined in her country’s Constitution. Access to legal representation and legal aid were also provided for under the Constitution. She highlighted the Justice for All Programme as an example of legal aid assistance, which afforded prisoners on remand access to legal representation. With regard to advancing the rule of law, she noted that capacity building and technical assistance were crucial. She referred to the United Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law, noting it was important in the attainment of that goal.
ROLANDO CASTRO CORDOBA (Costa Rica), aligning himself with CELAC, said that the scope of democracy must be understood beyond the holding of free elections. It required full political participation, gender equality and freedom of expression, legal certainty, accountability and access to justice. Noting that the “mere formal existence of justice does not mean there is access to justice,” he said that Costa Rica’s Access to Justice Commission was the lead institution for vulnerable populations, including the disabled, older persons, persons deprived of liberty, sexually diverse groups, refugees, victims of sexual violence, and girls, boys and adolescents. He also noted his country’s institutional policy for access to justice for people of African descent, which sought to level “the constant and historic violations” of their rights. Also highlighted was Costa Rica’s online database that allows citizens to see what has been done to abide by international commitments. Active participation of citizens and a civil society with access to information was core to the rule of law.
LILIAN A. MUKASA (United Republic of Tanzania) highlighted the recent progress made by the Tanzanian judiciary in dealing with the backlog of cases in various regions of the country. That was partly due to the almost doubling of High Court judges, in addition to the introduction of the First-In, First-Out system that organized the handling of cases according to their court registration dates. Also launched was the Zero Case Backlog Policy that assigned a minimum number of cases to be finalized per year. The establishment of mobile courts in areas lacking such institutions was a priority for her Government, she underscored, highlighting that court procedures had been modernized and legal aid coverage had been extended, including the offering of free legal services to the most vulnerable parts of the population. Despite all those efforts, challenges remained; some people still believed courts were for the “elite few”. In addition, language barriers also made it difficult for citizens to comprehend their rights, as most laws were written in English.
MOHD RADZI HARUN (Malaysia), aligning himself with ASEAN, said that rule of law was guaranteed under the Constitution of his country. Subsequent to the completion of international treaties, an act of Parliament had to be enacted to integrate those treaties into Malaysia’s domestic laws. The Malaysian courts took into consideration principles enunciated under international laws and norms. Every citizen in Malaysia was able to obtain legal services, including those belonging to vulnerable groups. Mobile courts had been established to guarantee justice to rural populations. His country was committed to upholding the rule of law at the national and international levels.
AMIT HEUMANN (Israel) said that at the domestic level, rule of law translated into good governance and a robust independent judicial system. As an “island of democracy in a sea of instability,” his country was committed to the rule of law, and though “threatened ceaselessly with war and destruction,” Israel was staying in its commitment to that principle. Quoting a former chief justice of his country, he said “a democracy must sometimes fight with one hand tied behind its back. Even so, the democracy has the upper hand.” In too many parts of the world, rule of law was being used to discriminate against citizens, not protect them. In contrast, Israel had striven to build an inclusive society where women were leaders, from classrooms to operating rooms.
TAIWO ABIDOGUN (Nigeria), associating his delegation with the African Group, said that “sharing national practices of States in the implementation of multilateral treaties is akin to peer review in examining our prevailing system and improving where necessary.” The principle was a fundamental article in Nigeria’s national jurisprudence. Nigeria’s Constitution provided the basis for a rule of law approach to governance, and its law making process was “people-oriented.” The promotion of the concept at all levels was a vital means of strengthening cooperation, enduring peace and security among States. His Government had enacted the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act, which sought to eliminate violence in private and public places and provided maximum protection and effective remedies for victims, particularly the most vulnerable. Also enacted was the Administration of Criminal Justice Act in 2015, which provided a criminal justice system that promoted the protection of the rights of the suspect, the defendant and the victim.
OMAR CASTAÑEBA (Guatemala), associating his statement with the Non-Aligned Movement and CELAC, underscored the importance of access to justice for all and stressed that justice must be timely and must be implemented. Noting the challenges to accessing judicial mechanisms in Guatemala, he highlighted the support given by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Because of that support, Guatemala had strengthened national capacity to investigate and hold trials on violations of human rights. As well, justice in his country had been aided by the United Nations with the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala. It was a one-off model of effective institutional strengthening, and was created on the request of Guatemala.
PABLO ADRÍAN ARROCHA OLABUENAGA (Mexico) stated that the rule of law was critical for the future development of the three pillars of the United Nations. There were always challenges in establishing the rule of law nationally and internationally, and therefore the Sixth Committee’s discussion would remain relevant. Recommending that the Secretary-General be given the power to request advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice, he voiced concern that there were still countries that had not accepted that Court’s jurisdiction. Turning to the subtopics, he thanked the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs, stressing that it was extremely important to have a transparent judicial system. Mexico was implementing a system of criminal justice that focussed on transparency, mediation, conciliation, reparation of harm and respect for the human rights of the victim and the accused. His country was also considering alternative methods of conflict resolution outside the criminal justice system.
MEHDI REMAOUN (Algeria), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, said the proliferation of institutional structures, such as conferences of parties and treaty bodies, made implementation of commitments more complex for States’ parties. Furthermore, increasingly elaborate final clauses required greater attention. Insisting on justice for all at the international level, he said it was sad that decolonization issues were still being discussed in 2016. Practical measures to facilitate access to justice in cases involving colonial domination or foreign occupation were a matter for those parties responsible for the suffering. Those parties had to assume their responsibilities before the international community in order to implement relevant United Nations resolutions and international law provisions.
TOFIG MUSAYEV (Azerbaijan) stated that greater efforts were needed to ensure a unified approach to the rule of law and to address the major threats and challenges that continued to affect the international legal order. Commitment to resolving disputes through peaceful means was one of the cornerstones of the principle on an international platform. However, if a State used force to seize the territory of another State, and then claimed that the latter was under an obligation to comply with the principle of non-use of force, it was a contradiction of the United Nations Charter. Calling for timely and unbiased international efforts towards putting an end to illegal situations, he added that “the wrongs of the recent past left unpunished and unrecognized” continued to impede progress in achieving long-awaited peace and reconciliation and could even play a key role in the eruption of new conflicts.
HASSAN LASRI (Morocco), stressing that justice was an indispensable element for promoting development, said that his country was undertaking a comprehensive reform of the justice system. The goal of the reform was to improve judicial effectiveness and access to law and justice. His Government was updating the judicial professions, strengthening the guarantee of a fair trial, modernizing judicial administration, updating infrastructure, and updating family justice services. Another area of focus was the establishment of a free legal aid system, wherein the Kingdom provided legal assistance units free of charge and assigned social workers to various parts of the family justice system. In addition, Morocco was also harmonizing its national laws with international norms in fields such as human rights and counterterrorism.
ABDOULAYE BARRO (Senegal), associating himself with the African Group, the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), stated that new ways of settling conflict were essential components of the rule of law. He noted that spaces should be created for in-depth consultation with civil society to develop joint initiatives. There was a fundamental right for people to express grievances. Senegal’s system of “proximity justice” provided access to justice, legal information, settled small disputes and provided alternative ways of gaining justice through mediation in small law clinics. He highlighted that, as the name indicated, those clinics were located in hard-to-reach locales and individual neighbourhoods, so that services were easily accessible. As well, proceedings were minimally formal and local languages were used to overcome linguistic barriers.
MARTÍN GARCÍA MORITÁN (Argentina), aligning himself with CELAC, said that capacity building by the United Nations was essential for reinforcing the rule of law in many countries, especially in post-conflict countries where the police and the judiciary needed strengthening. “Justice and peace are not only compatible, but also complementary,” he said. Turning to the subtopic of access to justice for all, he said that his country provided free legal aid and would be hosting the Second International Conference on Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems in November. The Conference would consider the possibility of setting up a worldwide network of legal aid providers, with a view to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 16.3.
NGUYEN PHUONG NGA (Viet Nam), associating herself with ASEAN and the Non-Aligned Movement, said that underestimating the rule of law was causing conflicts and tensions around the world. All disputes must be settled by peaceful means, keeping in mind Article 33 of the Charter. The Asia-Pacific region contained risk of conflicts, including in the South China Sea, which threatened international peace and security. Voicing concern about recent developments in the region, she called on all parties to exercise self-restraint. Viet Nam, aiming to improve its judicial system, had formulated laws on the operation of political institutions and had strengthened the legal system to ensure human rights for all people.
SEYED ALI MOUSAVI (Iran), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, said the rule of law was embodied in the Charter’s well-established principles of international law, including the sovereign equality of States, the prohibition of threat or use of force and the prohibition of intervention in the internal affairs of other States. All United Nations organs, especially the Security Council, were obliged to respect the Charter’s principles and should at no time encroach upon the fundamental human rights of individuals, in particular in imposing unjust and illegitimate measures. Highlighting the principle of State immunity as one of the cornerstones of the international legal order, he stressed that claims against a sovereign State must be pursued either in accordance with mechanisms provided for in bilateral or multilateral agreements or through international courts of tribunals, as appropriate. It was a matter of grave concern that a few countries seemed to believe that they could easily defy and breach the fundamental principle of State immunity by unilaterally waiving the immunity of States under a groundless legal doctrine not recognized by the international community. He voiced his rejection of such unlawful and unilateral decisions, adding that those States would be held responsible for their actions.
YANG JAIHO (Republic of Korea) stated that, given the lack of an adequate enforcement mechanism in the international community, it was essential that each country took effective measures to ensure faithful implementation of multilateral treaties. Noting that his country had played a pivotal role in promoting the paradigm shift towards climate-resilient development, he said that the Government was taking steps to complete the ratification of the Paris Agreement. Turning to measures to facilitate access to justice for all, he added that his country had established a system for providing legal information to the general public through the website of the Ministry of Government Legislation. A state-of-the-art electronic litigation system had been in operation since 2010, enabling electronic document filing while free legal advice and low-cost legal representation were available through the Korean Legal Aid Corporation.
MAHE’ULI’ULI SANDHURST TUPOUNIUA (Tonga) highlighted the delicate balance of addressing issues at the national level while upholding provisions of multilateral treaties. The collaboration between the International Labour Organization (ILO) and his Government to implement the ILO Constitution in Tonga led to Tonga becoming the Organization’s 187th member in February. However, when his Government announced its intention to accede to the Convention on the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), there was unprecedented opposition from stakeholders and, as a result, Tonga’s access to CEDAW was put on hold. The Government was working with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Regional Office in the Pacific to find ways to gather stakeholders’ support for the Convention. “The implementation of multilateral treaties at the national level is essential to the rule of law in Tonga,” he said, adding that “ironically” it was because of the Constitution’s further democratization that such challenges were arising. “…With time and effort, the high ideals of the rule of law at the national and international levels will be fully accomplished as intended,” he said.
MAHMOUD SAIKAL (Afghanistan), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, stated that his country’s efforts to advance the rule of law faced severe challenges owing to the tragic legacy of more than twenty years of conflict, inherited in 2001 when the country began a new chapter in its modern history. “It has been a constant conflict between legitimacy and illegitimacy, legality and illegality,” he said, with outside extremist groups undermining the stabilization process. His Government was working to consolidate the rule of law as a cornerstone of the strategy to achieve a secure, stable and prosperous Afghanistan. Highlighting the central role of the United Nations in coordinating the international community’s support, he noted that fifteen years ago, “we were a country forgotten by the global community.” Since then, Afghanistan had come a long way, regaining its place in the community of nations.
BILAL AHMAD (Pakistan) said long-standing disputes and situations had to be resolved in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions. Failure to implement resolutions or implement selectively undermined the credibility of the international rule of law. It was critical for the United Nations to lead by example. “A practitioner of realpolitik cannot convince others to embrace legalism or idealism,” he said. Access to justice was critical in a society based on the rule of law and the purpose of multilateral treaties was only fulfilled upon their effective implementation. Pakistan’s priorities included the provision of speedy and inexpensive justice to all. A functioning and competent judiciary, a more sensitive and approachable law enforcement agency, and capacity building of judicial and law enforcement officials, including through a gender sensitive approach, were among the fundamental elements for promoting access to justice in a society. Pakistan remained committed to implementing all multilateral treaties to which it was a party, he said, adding that his country attached high importance to meeting all its international obligations.
NKOLOI NKOLOI (Botswana) said that to reach the milestone of celebrating its fiftieth anniversary of independence in September, his country had to cultivate and deepen a culture of democracy, along with a belief, not in strong men, but in strong, accountable and transparent institutions. The rule of law was essential for sustainable development, just as democracy would not exist without peace. He reiterated his respect for international law, the peaceful settlement of conflicts, the sovereign equality of nations and the prohibition of the threat or use of force. He also welcomed the work of the International Law Commission as it continued to codify international law and supported the exchange of national practices of States in the application of multilateral treaties, including the conduct of regional seminars to promote the understanding of international law.
BASHAR ABDULAH E R S ALMOWAIZRI (Kuwait) said his country supported the Secretary-General’s report and the need to create judiciary systems which were independent and transparent. It was necessary to counter terrorism while ensuring respect for human rights. He also welcomed progress in connection with the environment and the recent framework within which to work. The international aspect of the rule of law meant that an international understanding was needed and disputes had to be resolved through international bodies. At the national level, countries had to provide equality for all citizens. Kuwait’s Constitution dated back to 1962, and his country had solid democratic institutions. Expressing his commitment to the Charter, he also stated his support for all efforts by the United Nations to strengthen the rule of law. That would help lead international and national efforts and help create a better world.
LOURDES ORTIZ YPARRAGUIRRE (Philippines), associating herself with the Non-Aligned Movement and ASEAN, said the country’s Constitution, which renounced war as an instrument of national policy, had adopted the principles of international law and had adhered the Philippines to the policies of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations. “When we enter into multilateral treaties, we renew our faith in the rule of law to govern our proper conduct with respect to each other,” she said, noting that one of the treaties in which the Philippines participated was the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In that regard, her Government fully respected as “valid, final and binding” the recent award rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal under the Convention’s Annex VII dispute settlement procedures on the issue of the South China Sea, and was ready to engage and negotiate with the relevant party in order to move forward on the resolution of the dispute.
LI YONGSHENG (China), noting that 2016 marked the forty-fifth anniversary of “the restoration of the legitimate seat of the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations,” stated that as a permanent member of the Security Council, his country had been steadfast in defending international order. On multilateral treaties, he added that China was a State party to nearly five hundred multilateral treaties and had consistently and fully implemented its treaty obligations. Turning to access to justice, he said that China had steadily improved its regime of laws, regulations and policies to protect the litigation rights of parties. Its criminal and civil procedure laws had clearly established the legal system for the protection of the right to litigation. The Government had also reinforced legal assistance to enhance the protection of human rights. On the topic of the arbitration initiated by the Philippines and the award rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal, he added that the arbitration and its awards were null and void. His Government would work directly with concerned States to resolves disputes in the South China Sea.
SABITA NAKARMI (Nepal), associating herself with the Non-Aligned Movement, said her country’s Constitution aimed to protect and promote social and cultural solidarity as well as tolerance and harmony through proportional, inclusive and participatory mechanisms. It also ensured that there would be no discrimination on grounds of ethnicity, language, religion, age or gender. Fourteen constitutional bodies had been established to guarantee the rights of women, children, indigenous groups, minorities, and other marginalized groups. The Government had also made free legal aid services available to marginalized groups, including women and minorities. Despite being a least developed country that was also emerging from armed conflict and a devastating earthquake in 2015, Nepal had made efforts to eradicate poverty and foster economic growth. However, there were challenges related to resources, as well as transit and climate vulnerabilities.
Right of Reply
The representative of the Philippines, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said that China’s position with regard to South China Sea had been exhaustively discussed in the award by the Arbitral Tribunal. That award was final and must be complied with by all parties. The Philippines had announced its willingness to engage with China on the judgement and the award should be the starting point of the negotiation. The award was a part of the jurisprudence of the Law of the Sea and could not be ignored. It was definitely not null and void. The award had ruled that China’s claim to historic rights over the maritime areas of the South China Sea were contrary to the Convention. The Tribunal had also ruled that none of the various maritime features in the South China Sea were islands.
The representative of China, also speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said that the statements by the representative of the Philippines were erroneous from factual and legal perspectives. Regarding the arbitration and the award, “history would render a just judgement on the issue.” His country stood ready to work with ASEAN countries, including the Philippines.
The representative of the Philippines, taking the floor again, said that the arbitration was widely recognized as a peaceful means of resolving the issue. The Tribunal gave every opportunity to China to state its case, and China’s absence did not exclude it from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.