YouSaid · the spoken record

Kamal

lines on the record: 124
first: 1995-11-22
most recent: 2000-05-12
sittings or episodes: 13
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

“Kofi Annan, and his Special Envoy, Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi, for their concerted efforts towards the restoration of peace in Afghanistan. It was due to a timely initiative of the Secretary General that the ministerial meeting of the "six plus two" countries was convened in New York on 21 September 1998. The meeting took a number of important decisions, including the decision to request Ambassador Brahimi to visit the region to defuse the potentially volatile situation created by the tension between Afghanistan and Iran. Ambassador Brahimi's visit to Afghanistan, in coordination with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, enabled him to take up directly with Mullah Mohammad Omar the demands put forward by the Foreign Ministers of the six plus two countries.”
1998-12-08 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3952 (1998) · source
“These positive developments are attributable to the concerted efforts of the international community, particularly the United Nations and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and to the determination of the people and leadership of Afghanistan to restore peace in their country. Despite these positive developments, much needs to be done to steer the country out of the devastation of a protracted conflict and to put it on the track of reconciliation, progress and prosperity. The people of Afghanistan deserve peace after seeing the plundering of their country as a result of a prolonged and brutal Soviet occupation and the subsequent internal power struggle among the Afghan factions. We want to place on record our appreciation to the Secretary-General, Mr.”
1998-12-08 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3952 (1998) · source
“Since this is the first time I have addressed the Council under your presidency, Sir, allow me to share with you our pleasure at seeing you, the Ambassador of a friendly and brotherly country, chairing the meetings of the Council this month. Allow me also to express through you our appreciation to your predecessor, Ambassador Peter Burleigh, for the highly efficient manner in which he guided the affairs of the Council last month. Since the last full meeting of the Security Council on the Afghanistan issue, on 28 August 1998, there has been a significant improvement in the internal situation of Afghanistan as well as a visible reduction in the tension between Afghanistan and Iran.”
1998-12-08 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3952 (1998) · source
“In conclusion, I should like to reaffirm our support for and cooperation with for the Secretary-General in his efforts to identify the causes of conflict and for the promotion of durable peace in Africa and in other parts of the world.”
1998-09-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3932 (1998) · source
“This issue needs to be addressed on a priority basis. Some of the reasons for such occurrences have been identified in the report of the Secretary- General, the most important reason being "A general mistrust and suspicion regarding the motives and intentions of humanitarian organizations" (ibid., para. 27) We need to study in greater detail the reasons for suspicion and mistrust, and suggest effective measures to curtail these negative tendencies. While we believe that the General Assembly has primary responsibility for providing policy guidance for the United Nations humanitarian operations, the Security Council must also continue to play its due role in the complex dynamics of conflicts in various parts of the world. However, care needs to be taken so that discrimination is avoided and selectivity is minimized.”
1998-09-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3932 (1998) · source
“In recent years, a number of humanitarian operations have been undertaken by the United Nations in conflict areas through the establishment of safety zones, safe areas, neutralized zones, demilitarized zones and safe corridors. While these efforts were generally welcomed by the international community, the double standard in enforcing humanitarian access in different parts of the world has become the subject of criticism by Member States and humanitarian agencies alike. We believe that there should be uniform humanitarian treatment for all, irrespective of cast, colour or region. It is a matter of grave concern that between January 1992 and August 1998, 153 United Nations international and local staff members lost their lives in the line of duty. We render our condolences to their bereaved families.”
1998-09-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3932 (1998) · source
“Conflict situations also persist in other parts of our region, resulting in similar problems of displaced persons, civilian victims and gross human rights violations. The Secretary-General has rightly pointed out the problem of humanitarian access in conflict areas. There is a need for an in- depth study aimed at ascertaining the reasons for the growing resistance in some societies to unhindered access to humanitarian organizations. We also agree with the assertion of the Secretary- General that the "issue of resources is of critical importance not only for the purpose of ensuring access but also for the provision of humanitarian assistance itself. Humanitarian access must be supported by sufficient funds" (S/I998/883, para. 21).”
1998-09-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3932 (1998) · source
“Pakistan actively participated in the deliberations of the United Nations Diplomatic Conference in Rome. It is our firm conviction that refugees, displaced persons and other victims of conflict should be provided protection and assistance under international law. In fulfilling its moral obligations under international law, Pakistan continues to host close to 1.5 million Afghan refugees. Despite the adverse impact of such a large number of refugees on our political, social and economic systems, we will continue to provide shelter to these Afghan refugees. Unfortunately, there has been a continuing reduction in the assistance provided by the international community for the Afghan refugees in Pakistan. They seem to have been totally abandoned by the international community.”
1998-09-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3932 (1998) · source
“We share the view of the Secretary-General that there is a perennial problem of effective compliance by Member States with the relevant norms, principles and provisions of international law in conflict situations. These codes are particularly violated in situations of internal conflict where whole societies are mobilized for war, including armed groups, militias, foreign mercenaries, child soldiers, criminals and other desperate groups. There should be concerted efforts to create awareness about the responsibilities of State authorities for violations of humanitarian norms. In this connection, we welcome the establishment of the International Criminal Court, having jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.”
1998-09-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3932 (1998) · source
“They face adversities, despite the existence of a substantial body of international law and principles evolved over a long period of time to protect civilians, refugees and humanitarian personnel. The 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols of 1977 are well established norms of international humanitarian law for the protection of civilians and other persons who are not party to any hostilities. Similarly, the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees are the principal international instruments concerning the protection of refugees. We have a collective responsibility in ensuring effective adherence to these legal codes by the Members of the United Nations.”
1998-09-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3932 (1998) · source
“We must also thank the Secretary-General for his comprehensive reports on various aspects of the causes of conflict in Africa, as well as for his recommendations for the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in the region. These reports have generated enormous interest among the Member States and encouraged them to address the issues involved with a sense of due urgency. In his latest report, the Secretary-General has aptly identified the obstacles in the way of effective humanitarian operations in various parts of the world. Refugees, displaced persons, other victims of conflicts, and humanitarian personnel are subjected to cruel treatment both in conflict areas and in post-conflict situations.”
1998-09-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3932 (1998) · source
“Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate under your presidency and to render tribute to you for the exceptionally transparent manner in which Sweden is conducting the affairs of the Security Council during this month. Through you, we would also like to salute your predecessor, Ambassador Danilo Turk of Slovenia, for the manner in which he guided the affairs of the Council during the preceding month. Allow me, Sir, to express our gratitude to you for arranging today's meeting to consider the report of the Secretary-General on protection for humanitarian assistance to refugees and others in conflict situations.”
1998-09-29 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3932 (1998) · source
“May I, at this stage, remind the Council of its own resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir. which explicitly provide for the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with the will of the people expressed through a democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. The Prime Minister of Pakistan has already stated, and I would like to reiterate, that Pakistan is ready to enter into talks with India on all matters of mutual concern, including a non-aggression pact, on the basis of a just. equitable and expeditious settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“This would come about if the nations of the world would become true adherents to the principles and purposes of the Charter. The Government and the people of Pakistan have faith in the inherent goodness of humankind. We place great value on the collective civilizational accomplishments of the human race and the eventual triumph of morality. It is in view of these sublime sentiments that we have taken the liberty. today, to make a critical analysis of the shortcomings of the Security Council, which have only contributed to the spread of chaos and anarchy in various parts of the world. Pakistan will continue to comply with its obligations under the Charter and international law. We will continue to seek a just resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, in accordance with Security Council resolutions.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“I regret to say that Pakistan is disappointed. We had pinned our hopes on the United Nations for more than 50 years. We were confident that it would be able to usher in a new era, free from the scourge of war for our succeeding generations. What we have witnessed instead is a tale of missed opportunities, abdication of responsibilities and selective and discriminatory application of the Charter. This track record does not fill anybody with pride. Nor does it conform to the ideals of the founding fathers, or to the principles of democracy. Let me, however, hasten to add that we will still continue to base our conduct and actions on the noble principles of the Charter. The vision of the Charter will, I hope, one day bring the dawn of a new era.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“You have once again ignored the fact that the direct cause of the aggravation of the security situation in South Asia was the unilateral altering by India of the delicate strategic balance that had maintained peace in South Asia for the past two decades. We cannot read any other message in the resolution. The Security Council has once again abandoned its responsibility by asking us to find a mutually acceptable solution. I say this more in sorrow than in anger, for the implications of this approach will be far and wide. It will oblige not only the countries of South Asia, but also 180 States Members of the United Nations, to draw their own conclusions about the pathetic state of the United Nations and the global security order, which is premised to serve the strategic interests of the official nuclear Five.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“If Pakistan and India could have sorted out these problems by themselves, South Asia would not today be nuclearized. What the Security Council is today asking us to do, in short, amounts to an appeal to two nuclear-weapon States to settle their differences on the basis of the de facto situation. This de facto situation is based on complex factors underlying the power balance in strategic and conventional terms. In fact, what you are today asking us to do is to remain embarked on a disastrous course. You are asking us today to cross new thresholds in nuclear and ballistic system escalation. You are asking us today to set aside the Charter and international law, and to base our conduct on the imperatives of maintaining a strategic balance, whatever the cost.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“This resolution also urges India and Pakistan to resume the dialogue between them on all matters pertaining to peace and security and encourages them to find mutually acceptable solutions to address the root causes of tension. The mere mention of the root cause - Kashmir - is not enough. We regret that even the important element contained in the P-5 ministerial communique - their readiness to assist India and Pakistan in promoting reconciliation and cooperation - has been omitted from this resolution. It is evident that by adopting this approach the Council is in fact acknowledging its failure to address the critical elements of the situation. In short, the Council wants Pakistan and India to settle by themselves the issues bedevilling their relations.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“We would have expected the Council to seek to address earnestly and reasonably the following issues: first, reducing the risk of a nuclear conflict; secondly, promoting nuclear restraint and stabilization measures between Pakistan and India; and thirdly, defusing the volatile situation in J ammu and Kashmir, especially along the Line of Control. Unfortunately, the Security Council is once again abnegating its responsibility under the Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security by adopting a totally unpragmatic and unrealistic approach. This resolution urges India and Pakistan to exercise maximum restraint and to avoid threatening military movements, cross-border violations or other provocations in order to prevent an aggravation of the situation.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“While the Security Council adopts this unjust decision, we are confident that the international community, the majority of the membership of the United Nations and the General Assembly, will reject this unfair and unequal decision and uphold its demand for general and complete nuclear disarmament in the shortest period of time by the nuclear-Five States. The resolution before the Council presumes to deal with the security aspects of the situation in South Asia. Here again the Council is ensuring that it would, in fact, have at best a disinterested spectator's role. What are the immediate issues in the context of the situation in South Asia?”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“Pakistan reserves the right to maintain the ability to deter aggression by conventional weapons or non-conventional means. We are also suffering from discrimination at the global level by the nuclear-Five States, who claim for themselves the right to acquire and retain weapons of mass destruction against each other, or against non- nuclear-weapon States, and thus threaten the rest of the world. This discrimination, at the global level, is epitomized by the possession of over 30,000 nuclear weapons, which are in the hands of the nuclear-Five States, and which they claim they will retain indefinitely while taking coercive measures to prevent any other State from acquiring similar capability, even in the legitimate exercise of the right of self-defence. This is totally unjust and unacceptable.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“I therefore dread to say that the Council is about to embark on a totally unrealistic and self-defeating course as far as the future of non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament is concerned. Pakistan has been subjected to double discrimination. At the regional level we are discriminated against because of a failure by the Security Council to make a distinction between action and reaction, between a provocation and a response, between a cause and its effect. Pakistan has acquired its nuclear capability only in reaction to India's steady development of its nuclear weapons programme. We cannot be asked to give up the right to defend our country against any external threat emanating from conventional weapons or weapons of mass destruction.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“Neither do we want to link extraneous issues which only serve to detract from the main issue: the security crisis in South Asia, which has endangered global peace and stability. So a highly skewed and self-defeating approach has been taken by the Security Council in trying to handle non-proliferation, which is strictly not within its competence. The future of non-proliferation cannot be assured by setting aside its very legal and moral basis. This is exactly what is being done today by this Council. It is evident, therefore, that what is at stake is not the future of non-proliferation, but the exclusive privileges and status that the nuclear Five arrogate to monopolize, caring little about the wider aspects.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“It is India which has claimed status as the sixth nuclear-weapon State. Does the Council, by its lopsided approach, desire that we also claim status as a nuclear- weapon State and thus contribute to shredding to bits the myths about the legitimacy or otherwise of nuclear weapons? Moreover, the resolution does not take into account the fact that besides India and Pakistan, there are other States, non-parties to the NPT, which possess nuclear weapons and have acknowledged the fact. We do not want to complicate the issue. The issue is simple and straightforward. It is about the security crisis in South Asia. We do not want to dilute the focus and enter into academic arguments about non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“If the Council is really concerned today about non-proliferation, then the resolution that it has adopted does less than full justice to the predominant views of the Non-Aligned Movement, including those of its members which are parties to the NPT. Let me once again clarify that the issue for Pakistan is one of security and not one of status. Pakistan has demonstrated its nuclear-weapon capability. We have officially stated that the nuclear devices tested on 28 and 30 May 1998 correspond to a weapons configuration compatible with delivery systems. We have already stated that South Asia has been nuclearized. We have been compelled to join the process of nuclearization by India's decision to weaponize and induct nuclear weapons. We have been obliged to do so for our self-defence and to restore the strategic balance in South Asia.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“The N on-Aligned Movement has also categorically pronounced itself on the present situation, whereby nuclear- weapon States insist that nuclear weapons provide unique security benefits and continue to make feverish efforts to monopolize them. The Non- Aligned Movement has said that this is a highly discriminatory and untenable approach, and one that cannot be sustained. The Non-Aligned Movement's ministerial meeting in Cartagena recently affirmed the importance of the adoption of an action plan for the total elimination of all nuclear weapons within a time-bound framework, as well as the need for negotiating and implementing universal, non- discriminatory disarmament measures and mutually agreed confidence-building measures.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“Any attempt at imposition of treaty obligations on non-parties is, by its very nature, unequal and unsustainable. How would the Council deal with the issue so aptly raised by the decision of International Court of Justice on the illegitimacy of nuclear weapons? How would the Council deal with the question of non-proliferation? How would the Council deal with the interlinked issues of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation? The Council has given its verdict. Nuclear disarmament is apparently in safe hands. Nuclear non-proliferation is the only real issue. The Non-Aligned Movement has consistently held that there is no justification for the maintenance of nuclear arsenals or for concepts of international security based on a policy of nuclear deterrence.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“This is contrary to the letter and spirit of the various international instruments and treaties on this subject. Nuclear non-proliferation is the obverse side of nuclear disarmament. Nuclear non-proliferation cannot be promoted in the absence of corresponding progress towards nuclear disarmament. The nuclear Five have continued to use the NPT for a twofold purpose: to legitimize their own possession of huge nuclear arsenals and the right to retain them in perpetuity, and as a blunt instrument to curb further proliferation. It is indeed evident that the resolution welcomes the commitment of the nuclear Five to article VI of the NPT. There could be no more poignant travesty of facts. Treaty provisions cannot be enforced on non-parties. Treaty obligations can only be assumed on a voluntary basis.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“It is in fact a transparent exercise in self-assurance by the official nuclear Five to seek legitimacy for their possession of lethal arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. The nuclear Five draw comfort and questionable legitimacy from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Pakistan had never questioned this dubious distinction that they draw from the NPT. Today we are obliged perforce to reconsider our position. Today for the first time, this sacrosanct institution is being used to confer legitimacy upon the nuclear Five. It is therefore not what is contained in this resolution but what is implied which needs to be seen in its proper legal, strategic and political perspective. For the first time, the Security Council is being asked to play a role in enforcing non-proliferation.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“I wonder whether the Security Council is not about to ignite an extremely short fuse that will destroy the entire global security order as it is envisioned in the United Nations Charter. Now let me deal with salient aspects of this resolution, which I believe fall in the following three categories: non-proliferation, the security problem in South Asia, and the role of the Council. As far as the non-proliferation aspects of this resolution are concerned, we cannot help but comment on the extremely short- sighted approach that the Council has chosen to pursue. This resolution is not an expression of global concern about the failure of non-proliferation and ways and means to deal with this serious issue.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“We deeply regret that the Council has disregarded this Charter provision by not giving us an opportunity to participate in the discussions on this resolution. The attitude of the Council can, in short, be described as, "My mind is made up; please do not confuse me with facts." While I will be pointing out the substantive inadequacies, let me make a more general point. I wish to state for the record and for posterity that the adoption of this resolution will further marginalize the role of the Security Council, not only in dealing effectively with the security crisis in South Asia but on global security issues as a whole. The approach that the Security Council has adopted is again devoid not only of realism but also of legality and morality.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“We are convinced that a comprehensive approach to the issues of peace, security, confidence-building, conventional imbalance, and conventional and nuclear arms control is the only realistic way whereby the Council and the international community could contribute to defusing the security crisis in South Asia, which has endangered global peace and stability. The resolution which has emerged from the consultations is deficient in several aspects. Let me first deal with the procedural points. Under Article 31 of the Charter, any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council may participate, without a vote, in the discussion of any question brought before the Security Council, whenever the latter considers that the interests of that Member are specially affected.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“N on-proliferation is no longer an issue in South Asia. South Asia, which we had wanted to be a nuclear-weapon-free zone, is today nuclearized thanks to the encouragement and acquiescence of major Powers. There is a real danger of nuclear conflict. Proliferation regrettably has taken place. No amount of sermonizing and lamentation can rectify or reverse this unfortunate development. If the Council really wishes to have any role in containing the crisis and in preventing the situation from deteriorating further, it must adopt a pragmatic and realistic approach.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“Today again, the central issue which has bedevilled relations between India and Pakistan and is at the source of all conflicts and tensions in South Asia is being ignored. Now that the Council is seized of the volatile situation in South Asia, we note with regret that the approach that is being adopted is once again devoid of realism. Non- proliferation cannot be pursued by creating or acquiescing in a situation of a security void. This has been and continues to be a major failure on the part of all those who have sought to promote the goal of non-proliferation. It is obviously counter-productive to bank once again on a unidimensional approach to non-proliferation based on selective sanctions, pressures and intimidation. The Council has contented itself to deal with the non- proliferation aspects.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“We sought to draw the attention of the international community to the brutal Indian campaign to deny to the Kashmiri people their inalienable right to self- determination, as provided for in the Council's resolutions. We repeatedly drew the attention of the Secretary- General and the Security Council to the extremely volatile situation in Kashmir resulting from grave violations of the line of control by Indian troops. We urged the Secretary- General and the Council to take cognizance of this situation and even proposed the strengthening of the present United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan. We regret to note that the Council paid no attention whatsoever to Pakistan's repeated warnings and requests.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“We informed the Council about India's provocative actions and unambiguous expression of intent to commit aggression against Pakistan. Unfortunately, the Council did not pay heed to the impending breach of peace. Faced with these ominous developments resulting from India's deliberate and calculated actions to alter the strategic equation, Pakistan was left with no choice but to exercise its nuclear option in its supreme national interest to restore the strategic balance and to preserve peace. For almost 50 years, Pakistan repeatedly drew the attention of the United Nations to the illegal Indian occupation of Jammu and Kashmir. We demanded the implementation of the Council's own resolutions.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“Allow me to begin by congratulating you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Council and by complimenting your predecessor, the Permanent Representative of Kenya, on the excellent manner in which he guided the affairs of the Council last month. Pakistan has kept the United Nations Secretary- General and the Security Council fully informed, at all stages, of the developments pertaining to the current grave situation and security crisis in South Asia. Indeed, to some extent, it was the dereliction of its responsibilities by the Security Council that emboldened India to implement its hegemonic and aggressive designs by crossing the nuclear threshold, threatening the use of nuclear weapons against Pakistan and resorting to nuclear blackmail to impose a military solution on Kashmir.”
1998-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3890 (1998) · source
“We therefore feel that, in accordance with the International Court of Justice Judgments, the parties to the dispute should take recourse to the legal framework provided by the Montreal Convention of 1971 and extend their full cooperation to the Court to decide the case on merits. The Judgments of the International Court of Justice provide a viable way out to address this important issue amicably.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“The General Assembly also stipulated that sanctions should be resorted to only with the utmost caution, when other peaceful options provided by the Charter have been exhausted, and, in the next paragraph of annex II, urged the Council to establish the sanctions "with clear objectives and precise conditions for their lifting". In addition, in paragraph 5, it stressed the need to minimize unintended adverse side effects on the civilian population. The purpose of sanctions should be "to modify the behaviour of a party that is threatening international peace and security and not to punish or otherwise exact retribution".”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“Furthermore, the Security Council should reconsider whether it can remain seized of an issue which is now sub judice in the International Court of Justice. It is a universal norm of jurisprudence that political or administrative organs of a legal system withhold action on a matter which is pending before the relevant judicial organs or institutions of that system. The Member States recognize the Security Council's powers to impose sanctions under Chapter VII. However, in this context, attention is drawn to General Assembly resolution 51/242, annex II, paragraph 1 of which describes sanctions "as a useful international policy tool in the graduated response to threats to international peace and security".”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“The International Court of Justice's Judgment has established that Security Council resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993) did not preclude the admissibility of the cases because the State party concerned had filed its application prior to the adoption of those resolutions. The Security Council needs objectively, dispassionately and comprehensively to examine the implications of the International Court of Justice's Judgments. For the international community, those Judgments constitute a historic development in the evolution, interpretation and growth of international law. The Security Council also needs to give serious consideration to the question of whether the sanctions it had imposed on a State Party to the Montreal Convention in 1992 are still required.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“From the two judgments of the International Court of Justice, it can be inferred, first, that the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal in 1971, provides the legal framework for the case; and secondly, that the International Court of Justice has a role because the parties differed on whether the destruction of the Pan Am aircraft was governed by the Montreal Convention or not. A legal dispute of a general nature concerning the Convention thus existed between the parties. Specific disputes also existed concerning the interpretation and application of Article 7 of the Convention relating to the place of prosecution and of Article 11 of the Convention relating to assistance in connection with criminal proceedings.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“This shows the significance which the authors of the United Nations Charter attached to the International Court of Justice in the arbitration of legal issues. Under Article 7 of the 1971 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, States have been empowered to prosecute alleged offenders, including in the country where the alleged offender might be residing. Article 7 of the Convention thus accords to the States Parties to the Convention the competence either to extradite the suspect or to prosecute the suspect.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“It would be legitimate to ask if all these options had been exhausted before sanctions were imposed on Libya. Under Chapter III, Article 7, of the Charter, the International Court of Justice has been established as one of the principal organs of the United Nations. In Article 92 of the Charter, the International Court of Justice is described as "the principal judicial organ of the United Nations". It is obvious that disputes of a legal kind must be presented to and decided by this Court alone. In fact, Article 96 of the Charter states that when the United Nations itself is faced with a legal problem, either the General Assembly or the Security Council may also request an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“The Lockerbie tragedy shocked the entire world. We deeply mourn the death of those who lost their lives in this tragic disaster. We also deeply sympathize with the bereaved families who lost their near and dear ones as a result of the incident. That dispute now affects the entire international community following the imposition of sanctions against one of the parties to the dispute on the behest of the other three parties. In this connection, Chapter VI, Article 33 of the United Nations Charter is relevant. This Article states that disputes between States must be resolved "first of all, [by] seek[ing] a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice".”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“It is my pleasure to address the Security Council for the second time this month under your distinguished presidency, Sir. We have before us today an issue of far-reaching international legal significance. By its two Judgments issued on 27 February 1998, the International Court of Justice has decided that it has the necessary jurisdiction to deal with the merits of two cases brought by Libya against the United Kingdom and United States under the 1971 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation. The background of this dispute, involving Libya on the one side and France, the United Kingdom and the United States on the other, lies in the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988, in which 270 innocent people were killed.”
1998-03-20 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3864 (1998) · source
“The parties must be heard; they must be heard before conclusions are reached. The facile argument has been made that to hear them would mean bypassing the special representative. So why are we sitting here for this debate? We do not need it: the special representative is good enough. We all have respect for Mr. Norbert Holl. But we are meeting here today so that we can exchange views. And those views have to be based on dialogue and a willingness to listen to all before deciding. I do hope that the Security Council will prove itself to be up to that task of listening to all the representatives of the Afghan people by whatever formula it deems fit.”
1997-04-15 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3765Resumption1 (1997) · source
“The formula with which we, as outsiders, have tried to come forward, is that the country requires a broad-based government. The United Nations has subscribed to that formula. It is fundamental to the United Nations Special Mission to Afghanistan. That is the formula on which we need to go forward. In order to proceed on the basis of that formula, it is essential for this body to hear all the representatives of the Afghan people. It cannot decide in isolation. That was the point that we made: it is incumbent upon the Security Council, if it wants to find a logical and legal solution that will be durable in Afghanistan, to base such a solution on hearing the Afghan people across the board, by any formula that may be deemed fit - inside this Chamber, or outside it if necessary.”
1997-04-15 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3765Resumption1 (1997) · source
“Pakistan is a neighbouring country of Afghanistan and I agree with all the representatives of other neighbouring countries who have spoken today and have expressed fear about the fallout from the situation, the root cause of which is the insistence of this particular Rabbani regime on holding on to power, and its failure to honour commitments solemnly made to colleagues and in the holiest of holies of the Muslim world. It is not in anger that I speak, because I cannot be angry with people who have no legitimacy. But pain can be caused even by a mosquito bite, and it is that pain to which I am responding. We are here in the Security Council to try to help find a solution to the problem of Afghanistan. It is not an easy situation. We are faced with a country that is ethnically divided.”
1997-04-15 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3765Resumption1 (1997) · source
“At the end of the eight months - minority Government that they were - they tried to hold on to their seats, thinking that they could overrun the whole of Afghanistan. That was a moral denial of the commitment that they had given to their own Afghan colleagues. It is their insistence on trying to run matters alone - as a minority which, as is generally known, has the backing of no more than 15 per cent of the population - that has led to the situation in which Afghanistan finds itself today.”
1997-04-15 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.3765Resumption1 (1997) · source