YouSaid · the spoken record

Meetarbhan

lines on the record
9
first
2012-01-19
most recent
2012-01-19
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. “24) The credibility of the debate over the rule of law will be challenged if it is essentially limited to the rule of law within States and does not encompass the rule of law among States.”

    2012-01-19 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.6705Resumption1 (2012) · source

  2. “In his 20 August 2010 report on strengthening and coordinating United Nations rule of law activities, the Secretary-General stated: "In 2008, I emphasized that in fulfilling its responsibilities, the United Nations must work towards the universal application at the international level of the Organization's definition of the principle of the rule of law." (A/65/318, para. 9) In the same report he went on to say, "The principle that all individuals and entities, including States, are accountable to the law lies at the heart of the rule of law. Responsibility of all subjects of international law for fulfilling their obligations is thus essential to any concept of rule of law at the international level." (ibia'., para.”

    2012-01-19 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.6705Resumption1 (2012) · source

  3. “The philosophy underlying such standards could be that respect for the rule of law at the international level entails a commitment to good-faith negotiation, conciliation, mediation or other forms of non-judicial or quasi-judicial settlement of legal disputes. Alternatively, when a State does not accept any of those, the standards of conduct could provide that the State will submit to some form of international adjudication. No subject of international law should be left without any means or forum for the settlement of a dispute or for determination of the law.”

    2012-01-19 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.6705Resumption1 (2012) · source

  4. “My delegation is fully conscious of the fact that it might not be realistic to expect that States are ready to accept compulsory jurisdiction or that the international legal order would contain provisions on justiciability and judicial authority similar to what obtains in domestic legal orders. However, the United Nations has a duty, as part of the promotion and strengthening of the rule of law in the maintenance of international peace and security, to initiate a constructive dialogue on the whole issue of the settlement of legal disputes. Initially, that debate could focus on the adoption of standards of conduct to which all States would subscribe.”

    2012-01-19 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.6705Resumption1 (2012) · source

  5. “One State involved in a dispute may refuse to negotiate in good faith and seek to ensure that no international tribunal can determine the law applicable to the dispute. Mauritius welcomes the decision of the President of the General Assembly to adopt, as the theme for the current session of the General Assembly, "The role of mediation in the settlement of disputes by peaceful means". Mauritius also welcomes the decision to convene a high-level meeting on the rule of law during the sixty-seventh session. However, my delegation wants to stress that the debate on the rule of law must apply at both the national and international levels. We therefore look forward to Member States discussing the rule of law as it applies to inter-State relations as part of the forthcoming debates.”

    2012-01-19 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.6705Resumption1 (2012) · source

  6. “The international community has yet to set up adequate machinery for the settlement of legal disputes that is available to all States. Only about one third of the United Nations membership has made declarations under Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. Many States that have made such declarations have also stated reservations that limit the Court's jurisdiction or, in many cases, exclude it. Other States seek to vary or revoke their declaration when a dispute is submitted or is about to be submitted to the Court, to exclude the competence of the Court over the dispute concerned. Those examples illustrate the kind of difficulties a State may have in settling a claim under international law.”

    2012-01-19 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.6705Resumption1 (2012) · source

  7. “Giving consent is too often a matter of bargaining power between the parties, and the stronger party will often withhold consent because it can bear the cost of denying the weaker party access to a judicial determination of the law applying to the contentious issue. Parties of similar size or economic power therefore could be more likely to accept that a dispute between them be referred to adjudication or arbitration, but legal disputes between two parties of unequal strength are likely to remain unresolved. That is not consistent with the application of the rule of law at the international level. Security requires an appropriate legal framework for the redress of grievances or the settlement of disputes so that some States are not frustrated in their attempts to find a peaceful settlement to their legal disputes.”

    2012-01-19 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.6705Resumption1 (2012) · source

  8. “Article 33 spells out the means and ways of doing so. In the same spirit, in its Chapter XIV, the Charter provides for the establishment of the International Court of Justice. However, recourse to international adjudication for the settlement of disputes between States has historically required the consent of the States concerned. In recent times, a number of bilateral or multilateral agreements have provided for the prior commitment of States to submit to arbitration or adjudication. Mauritius welcomes that development. However, recourse to judicial or quasi-judicial means or arbitration for determining disputes between States still requires, as a general rule, the consent of both parties.”

    2012-01-19 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.6705Resumption1 (2012) · source

  9. “My delegation wishes to focus exclusively on one aspect of this debate, although we support the view that the many issues raised by other speakers deserve attention and consideration. The rule of law, whether at the national or international levels, requires enforcement and adequate machinery for the settlement of disputes. Those are essential components of the rule of law because a normative framework, however well constructed, is not sufficient. Unfortunately, that dimension of the rule of law is often overlooked at the international level. The rule of law at the international level can be really meaningful only if there is adequate machinery for the redress of grievances and the settlement of disputes. Article 2 of the United Nations Charter provides that all Members shall settle their disputes by peaceful means.”

    2012-01-19 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.6705Resumption1 (2012) · source