18 Nov 2024
Mr Chairman,
1 I thank members of the Committee for once again adopting the sovereignty amendment with an overwhelming majority of votes.
The message is unmistakable: the sovereignty amendment is an integral part of the resolution. It cannot and will not be defeated and repeatedly denied with impunity.
2 I would like to make a sincere appeal to the proponents of the moratorium resolution. Please stop this charade. Please stop the arbitrary practice of deleting our proposal and then proceeding to co-sponsor the very same proposal after it has been amended. By repeatedly deleting our proposal, you are demonstrating utter disrespect for the views of many countries. In a multilateral system based on international law, there is no reason why one group of countries should be allowed to impose their views and their legal systems on the rest of the world. In fact, in an exquisite demonstration of double standards, some of the leading proponents of the moratorium resolution who have just spoken this afternoon are themselves the biggest advocates of sovereignty in their own national capitals on a range of issues. These are widely reported in the media.
Mr Chairman,
3 It is my hope that, one day, the proponents will demonstrate seriousness by incorporating the text of the sovereignty amendment into the zero draft of the resolution. That will be a good starting point for a dialogue based on mutual respect.
Mr Chairman,
4 The amendment adopted today has addressed an important omission, but the text of the resolution remains riddled with flaws and inconsistencies. For example, having reaffirmed the sovereign right of countries to determine their own legal systems, it is contradictory to express concern about the use of a legitimate legal penalty in the same resolution.
5 The text of the resolution this year, unfortunately, is a clear example of legislative over-reach, because it seeks to constrain what is clearly permitted under international law. The reality is that international law does not prohibit the use of the death penalty. In fact, Article 6.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights specifically provides for its use for the most serious crimes, in accordance with due process of law. This resolution ignores Article 6.2 and moreover, it seeks to override the legislation or constitution of many sovereign nations. That is why it is time to review and overhaul the approach taken by the proponents, to fix once and for all the contradictions and inconsistencies in this resolution. As always, my delegation stands ready to engage in dialogue, on the basis of mutual respect and understanding, if the proponents are willing.
6 My delegation will vote NO on the resolution, and we call on all delegations to do the same. Thank you.
. . . . .