Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Speaking on December 6, the U.S. Representative, Monroe Leigh, Legal Adviser of the Department of State, responded to the three major objections that had been raised to adopting measures to deal with terrorism. The objections were that national liberation movements must have a free hand in their fight for self-determination; that acts of violence by states must also be considered; and that there can be no action against terrorism until the causes of terrorism are eliminated. Although expressing sympathy for the motives behind these arguments, he said they were unconvincing from the standpoint of the progressive development of international law. He pointed out that just as there are limits imposed by the laws of war on what a state can do in selfdefense, there are limits imposed by a civilized society on what measures liberation movements can use to achieve their freedom. He challenged the notion that the solution of terrorism by individuals must await solution of the problem of so-called state terrorism, noting that nothing would be accomplished by the United Nations if all problems had to be solved concurrently. With respect to the argument that a convention must await solution of the causes of terrorism, he pointed out that crime occurred in all countries and, in many cases, had its roots in social causes. Yet all states apprehended, prosecuted, and punished criminals, even though the causes of the criminal conduct were not wholly understood. He concluded by urging all members to join in a common effort to protect mankind from barbaric acts of violence which had already cost so many lives to so little purpose.

On December 9, Zaire introduced (on behalf of 21 African and Asian states and Yugoslavia) a resolution to reconvene the Ad Hoc Committee on International Terrorism to continue its work under the same mandate as that given it in 1972. The draft resolution, which was similar to the one adopted in 1972, urged states to seek solutions to the causes of terrorism; reaffirmed the legitimacy of the struggle, particularly the struggle of national liberation movements, for self-determination and independence; and condemned only the "repressive and terrorist acts by colonial, racist and alien regimes in denying peoples their legitimate right to self-determination and independence and other human. rights and fundamental freedoms."

The resolution was approved by the Sixth Committee on December 10 by a rollcall vote of 86 to 8 (U.S.), with 24 abstentions. Before the vote Mr. Rosenstock explained why the United States opposed the resolution. He said that the Ad Hoc Committee had failed in its work because its mandate contained material irrelevant to the prevention of

terrorism and that some effort should have been made to adjust this mandate. He regretted the repetition of irrelevant issues that might lead some to interpret the resolution as inciting rather than curbing violence.

On December 15 the Assembly in plenary session adopted the resolution by a vote of 100 to 9 (U.S.), with 27 abstentions.11/

VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS

On December 15, 1975, the 30th General Assembly had, on the initiative of the U.S.S.R., adopted without vote a resolution inviting states to submit to the Secretary General their comments and observations on ways to ensure the implementation of the provisions of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and on the desirability of elaborating provisions concerning the status of the diplo matic courier. During 1976, 15 states, including the United States, submitted their views to the Secretary General.

The U.S. submission on August 18 urged widespread adherence to the Vienna Convention. It said that the best way of ensuring application of the rules of the Convention was through acceptance of the Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes. With regard to the status of the diplomatic courier, the United States believed that the existing provisions of the Convention were adequate and did not need elaboration.

The Sixth Committee of the 31st General Assembly considered the Secretary General's report, consisting simply of a compilation of the replies from states, at three meetings on December 7, 8, and 9.

On December 7, the U.S.S.R. introduced a draft resolution, which in its final form was sponsored by 22 states. In preambular paragraphs the draft expressed concern over the violations of the rules of diplomatic law relating, in particular, to the status of the diplomatic courier and diplomatic bag and recognized the advisability of studying the question of that status. In operative paragraphs the draft (1) urged states to become parties to and strictly implement the Vienna Convention; (2) invited states to submit or supplement their views on the Vienna Convention and on the desirability of elaborating provisions concerning the status of

11/ Resolution 31/102.

the diplomatic courier; (3) requested the International Law Commission to study the proposals on the elaboration of a protocol concerning the status of the diplomatic courier and diplomatic bag; and (4) requested the Secretary General to submit to the General Assembly at its 33rd session an analytical report on ways and means to ensure the implementation of the Vienna Convention, taking into account the comments of states and, if available, the results of the study of the Commission.

On December 7 Mr. Rosenstock expressed U.S. opposition to the resolution. Although he stressed the importance of the Vienna Convention and urged its implementation, he said violations of the Convention could more easily be alleviated by adherence to the Optional Protocol than by elaborating new provisions. He also said that the United States was not prepared to express its concern at violations of the Convention until the sponsors of the resolution had given specific examples of the violations. He doubted the utility of further study of the diplomatic courier and bag provisions. Noting that only 15 states had responded to the request for comments and a number of them opposed further study, he said that both consideration by the International Law Commission and preparation of an analytical study by the Secretary General were premature. He concluded that while the discussion to date had been useful and that while it might be useful to review the status of the Vienna Convention periodically, he saw no need to inscribe the item again on the Assembly's agenda.

The Sixth Committee, however, approved the draft resolution on December 9 by a vote of 72 to 2 (U.K., U.S.), with 19 abstentions, and the General Assembly adopted it on December 13 by a recorded vote of 92 to 0, with 25 abstentions (U.S.).1 12/

NON-USE OF FORCE IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

On September 28 the U.S.S.R. requested the inclusion in the agenda of the 31st General Assembly of an additional item entitled "Conclusion of a world treaty on the non-use of force in international relations." The item refers to a draft treaty, prepared by the U.S.S.R., that would outlaw the use of force in international relations. The draft treaty contains language to ban the use or threat of use of any weapons, to encourage disarmament, and to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes. The item was similar to an earlier Soviet

12/ Resolution 31/76.

initiative on the same subject in 1972 which had not, however, called for a world treaty.

When the General Committee considered the request on October 4 there was no objection to placing the item on the agenda, but opinion was sharply. divided on which committee should consider it--the First Committee (Political and Security) as the U.S.S.R. wished, or the Sixth Committee (Legal) as the United States and others proposed. The General Committee compromised by recommending to the General Assembly, without vote, that the item be allocated to the First Committee and, at the appropriate stage, referred to the Sixth Committee for examination of its legal implications. On the same day, also without vote, the Assembly approved the recommendation of the General Committee.

The First Committee considered the item between October 25 and 29; 57 states took part in the debate. On October 25 the Soviet Union introduced a draft resolution, ultimately sponsored by 18 states, that (1) invited states to examine further the draft world treaty and to communicate their views and suggestions on the subject to the Secretary General by June 1, 1977, and (2) requested the Secretary General to report to the 32nd Assembly on the communications received by him.

Speaking on October 28, the U.S. Representative, Ambassador Sherer, said:

"Every member state of the United Nations has pledged to uphold the provisions of that treaty [the UN Charter] including Article 2, paragraph 3, which calls upon all members to settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and Article 2, paragraph 4, which obligates all members to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

"It is precisely because the Charter's basic provisions concerning the conduct of states are so clear and have such broad and authoritative application that the United States views with concern any proposal for their restatement or revision. It is important for world peace that we not diminish the full force and effect of the obligations imposed by the United Nations Charter, and that any attempt to modify those obligations be undertaken only in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.

Ambassador Sherer said that the United States was forced to conclude that, at very best, the Soviet proposal for a treaty on the non-use of force would add nothing to the obligations already undertaken under the Charter and was therefore unnecessary.

on

The First Committee approved the Soviet draft resolution by a rollcall vote of 94 to 2 (Albania, China), with 35 abstentions (France, U.K., U.S.), October 29. On November 8 the General Assembly, by a recorded vote of 88 to 2 (Albania, China), with 31 abstentions (France, U.K., U.S.), adopted the resolution13/as recommended by the First Committee and decided that the Sixth Committee should consider the legal implications of the item and report thereon during the current session.

The Sixth Committee considered the item between November 22 and 25; 39 states, most of whom had also taken part in the First Committee's debate, spoke during this second consideration of the item.

On November 22 Mr. Rosenstock enumerated the legal difficulties the United States had with the item. He noted that the UN Charter already clearly outlawed the use of force and pointed out that if a parallel treaty duplicated the Charter, the rule that all treaties must be observed would be weakened by suggesting that two treaties were better than one. If the two treaties were not identical, some states might seek interpretive loopholes stemming from the differences between the two texts; some might even argue that the elaboration of a second treaty on nonuse of force implied states were free to adopt or reject the Charter's basic prohibition of the threat or use of force. He stressed that the real solution to armed conflicts lay not in more treaties but in greater political will to solve disputes peaceably and also noted that other parts of the UN Charter, such as Chapters VI, VII, and VIII (which affect such interrelated matters as peacekeeping and collective security) were not included in the draft treaty. He pointed out further legal difficulties with the specific language in the draft treaty, and concluded that if the General Assembly decided to proceed with further study of the problem of the use of force, that study should be conducted in the Sixth Committee because of the unique extent of its legal expertise.

The Sixth Committee, however, stopped short of recommending that future consideration of the item be referred to it. On November 25, the Committee

13/Resolution 31/9.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »