YouSaid · the spoken record

Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf

lines on the record
18
first
2020-12-18
most recent
2020-12-18
sittings or episodes
1
sources
un-security-council

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

  1. “Without a court of law to which disputes can be referred for peaceful resolution, the existence of international rule of law may be called into question. I submit those three modest suggestions to the consideration of the Council, and I remain at its disposal for any questions or clarifications.”

    2020-12-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1286 (2020) · source

  2. “To this end the Council calls upon States that have not yet done so to consider accepting the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with its Statute.” However, in the last eight years, no further presidential statements have been issued by the Council. We believe that such statements contribute to strengthening the relationship between our two organs, as well as the international rule of law. They could be made periodically — every three to five years — starting from today. As the Council knows, to date only 74 Member States have made declarations accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. It is my view that accepting the jurisdiction of the Court means adhering to and strengthening the rule of law at the international level.”

    2020-12-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1286 (2020) · source

  3. “That would allow the Council to see, at first hand, the work of the Court and discuss issues of common interest with all 15 members of the Court. In that regard, I wish to recall that the last visit of the Council to the Court took place on 11 August 2014, six years ago. My third, and last, suggestion concerns the jurisdiction of the Court. The Security Council issued presidential statements in 2006, 2010 and 2012 (S/PRST/2006/28, S/PRST/2010/11 and S/PRST/2012/1), in which it called upon States to consider accepting the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with its Statute. In its 19 January 2012 presidential statement, the Council emphasized “the key role of the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, in adjudicating disputes among States and the value of its work.”

    2020-12-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1286 (2020) · source

  4. “The General Assembly was of the view that a request for an advisory opinion from the Court could play an important role in the Council’s work on the prevention of situations or disputes from becoming a threat to international peace and security. I share that view, and I believe that the Council could consider that possibility more often. My second suggestion relates to the possibility of expanded dialogue between the Court and the Security Council. I therefore suggest that, in addition to the annual briefing of the President of the Court to the Security Council, the Security Council could include in its schedule a visit to the Court once every three years, following the triennial change in the composition of the Court, in which the Council participates through the election or re-election of judges.”

    2020-12-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1286 (2020) · source

  5. “The General Assembly, in its resolution 43/51, of 5 December 1988, entitled “Declaration on the Prevention and Removal of Disputes and Situations Which May Threaten International Peace and Security and on the Role of the United Nations in this Field”, declared that “the Security Council, if it is appropriate for promoting the prevention and removal of disputes or situations, should, at an early stage, consider making use of the provisions of the Charter concerning the possibility of requesting the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question” (General Assembly resolution 43/51, annex, para. 15). Much has been said since then by United Nations organs, including the Security Council, about preventive diplomacy and the need to resolve disputes or diffuse situations at an early stage.”

    2020-12-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1286 (2020) · source

  6. “After all, the wording of Article 36, paragraph 3, of the Charter refers to “recommendations” by the Council, which would be legally non-binding. The Council cannot, therefore, establish the jurisdiction of the Court over a dispute without the consent of the parties. As such, it might be difficult for the Council to make such a recommendation without first ascertaining the consent of the parties to the Court’s jurisdiction. However, the request for an advisory opinion is a different matter. Such an opinion would not be binding and would not be directly addressed to States, but rather would be rendered for the benefit of the Council to clarify a specific legal issue. The Security Council would then be free to do whatever it wished with that opinion.”

    2020-12-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1286 (2020) · source

  7. “In this second part of my statement, I would like to make some specific suggestions that could further reinforce cooperation between our two organs. I will start with the appeal I made to the Council at the end of my last briefing on 28 October. As members may recall, I made an appeal to the Security Council to resume its past tradition of recommending the referral of legal disputes to the Court and to again make use of the Court’s advisory function on legal questions. I said that the United Nations Charter allows the Council to do so. That is true. However, allow me to make a distinction between the two possibilities. I can understand the reluctance of the Council to recommend the referral of a dispute by the parties concerned to the Court unless it is clear that both parties are ready for it.”

    2020-12-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1286 (2020) · source

  8. “Similarly, the Court has clarified how to interpret and determine the binding character of Security Council resolutions in its advisory opinions on the Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) and on Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo, respectively. Those two opinions have contributed to the effectiveness of Council resolutions by removing any doubts that the addressees of such resolutions may have had with regard to their legal value or their interpretation, which must be resolved if they are to be appropriately implemented.”

    2020-12-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1286 (2020) · source

  9. “For instance, the Security Council expanded the scope of the rules of international law to non-State actors in order to maintain international peace and security. The Court has consistently supported the Security Council’s mission to maintain international peace and security. I will mention here only a few examples, starting with the confirmation by the Court, in its advisory opinion on Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter), that the Security Council could establish peacekeeping forces that were to be funded by the general budget of the Organization as part of the “expenses of the Organization” under Article 17, paragraph 2, of the United Nations Charter.”

    2020-12-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1286 (2020) · source

  10. “That was the case with resolution 1296 (2000), in which the Council made the link between violations of international law and threats to international peace and security. Some may recall that, in that resolution, the Security Council held that “the deliberate targeting of civilian populations or other protected persons and the committing of systematic, flagrant and widespread violations of international humanitarian and human rights law in situations of armed conflict may constitute a threat to international peace and security” (resolution 1296 (2000) para. 5). In addition to using international law as a parameter for determining the existence of threats to peace, the Council has also used it to address such threats.”

    2020-12-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1286 (2020) · source

  11. “The clarification by the Court of the applicability of the right to self- determination to the people of Namibia, together with the identification of the legal consequences that attached to resolution 276 (1970) of the Security Council, paved the way for concrete actions that later facilitated the access of Namibia to its independence. There are also less visible ways in which the Court and the Council contribute to each other’s work and thus cooperate with each other — mainly through their respective contributions to the development of international law and, hence, to the strengthening of the international rule of law. A few examples here will suffice. For instance, the Security Council has increasingly used international law as a parameter to identify threats to international peace and security.”

    2020-12-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1286 (2020) · source

  12. “Similar to the Corfu Channel judgment, the Namibia advisory opinion also contributed significantly to the rule of law at the international level, as it was the Court’s first opinion to fully take into account the fundamental principle of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The Court noted in the advisory opinion, among other things, that an international instrument has to be interpreted and applied within the framework of the entire legal system prevailing at the time of the interpretation. It also stated that “the subsequent development of international law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all of them”, including the territory of South West Africa (Namibia).”

    2020-12-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1286 (2020) · source

  13. “In addition, the Corfu Channel case remains one of the few instances in which the Court appointed experts, under Article 50 of its Statute, to provide it with their opinion on issues of a technical or scientific character. The same may be said about the 1971 advisory opinion on the Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970). As the Council may recall, that case arose from the decision of the apartheid regime in South Africa to maintain its presence and authority in the territory of South West Africa (Namibia) despite the termination of South Africa’s mandate by the General Assembly.”

    2020-12-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1286 (2020) · source

  14. “The Court also laid down the principle of States’ responsibility for illegal acts committed on their territory, a topic that is still very relevant today, especially in relation to the fight against terrorism, cyberattacks and transboundary environmental damage. At the same time, the Corfu Channel case gave the Court the opportunity to test some of its procedural tools for the first time, when it exercised jurisdiction based on forum prorogatum, that is to say, consent to the jurisdiction of the Court given by the respondent after the initiation of proceedings. The basis for that jurisdiction of the Court, which is not mentioned in its Statute, was later codified in article 38, paragraph 5, of the Rules of Court.”

    2020-12-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1286 (2020) · source

  15. “That case demonstrated that the Charter’s system of cooperation between the Court and the Council, which the drafters had designed in 1945, could produce results. It reinforced faith in the Charter’s framework vis-à-vis the maintenance of international peace as a whole. At the international level, the Corfu Channel case also contributed to the rule of law, as it provided the opportunity for the Court to reaffirm that the “policy of force” had no place whatsoever in the Charter era. The Court’s judgment also clarified the scope of some of the most fundamental principles of the contemporary legal order. For instance, the Court reaffirmed that between independent States, respect for territorial sovereignty is an essential foundation of international relations.”

    2020-12-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1286 (2020) · source

  16. “One may therefore ask: how can the partnership be characterized as strong if the Council has relied so sparingly on its powers under the Charter to make use of the functions of the Court? My answer is that the vitality of the relationship between the two principal organs cannot be evaluated by the quantity, but rather by the quality, of our collaboration. Let me start with the Corfu Channel case. As some may know, the Corfu Channel case was the very first case brought before the Court. It could therefore be said that the Council helped to kick-start the judicial activities of the Court in 1947. Moreover, the referral of the Corfu Channel case to the Court helped avoid a dispute that could have degenerated into a full-blown war involving several protagonists, just a couple of years after the end of the Second World War.”

    2020-12-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1286 (2020) · source

  17. “Council members may recall that in my most recent briefing to the Security Council on 28 October, I referred to the fact that the Council has only once exercised its powers under Article 36, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations to recommend that disputing parties settle their dispute through the Court — in the case of Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania). The Council has also only once requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice under Article 96 of the Charter — in the case of Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970).”

    2020-12-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1286 (2020) · source

  18. “Allow me at the outset to congratulate you, Sir, and the Republic of South Africa on your presidency of the Security Council during the month of December. I am grateful for the opportunity to brief the Council one more time before the end of my term as President of the International Court of Justice. Among the various questions that were suggested for our discussion today, I wish to examine the leading one: “How can we strengthen the partnership between the Council and the Court to uphold the rule of law at the international level?” In my view, that partnership is already strong, but I have no doubt that it can be further strengthened.”

    2020-12-18 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1286 (2020) · source