report of the special committee on the charter of the ... · chapter paragraphs page ... 162–198...

A/55/33

United Nations

Report of the SpecialCommittee on the Charter ofthe United Nations and on theStrengthening of the Role ofthe Organization

General AssemblyOfficial RecordsFifty-fifth sessionSupplement No. 33 (A/55/33)

Report of the Special Committee on theCharter of the United Nations and onthe Strengthening of the Role ofthe Organization

General AssemblyOfficial RecordsFifty-fifth sessionSupplement No. 33 (A/55/33)

United Nations • New York, 2000

A/55/33

Note

Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letterscombined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a UnitedNations document.

ISSN 0255-1276

iii

[Original: Arabic/English/Russian][22 May 2000]

ContentsChapter Paragraphs Page

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1–14 1

II. Recommendations of the Special Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2

III. Maintenance of international peace and security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16–125 2

A. Implementation of Charter provisions related to assistance to third Statesaffected by sanctions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16–49 2

B. Consideration of the revised working paper submitted by the RussianFederation entitled “Basic conditions and standard criteria for theintroduction of sanctions and other coercive measures and theirimplementation” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50–97 6

C. Consideration of the working paper submitted by the Russian Federationentitled “Fundamentals of the legal basis for United Nations peacekeepingoperations in the context of Chapter VI of the Charter of the UnitedNations” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98–111 16

D. Consideration of the working papers submitted by Cuba at the 1997 and1998 sessions of the Special Committee, entitled “Strengthening of the roleof the Organization and enhancing its effectiveness”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112–118 19

E. Consideration of the revised proposal presented by the Libyan ArabJamahiriya with a view to strengthening the role of the United Nations in themaintenance of international peace and security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 20

F. Consideration of the working paper submitted by the Russian Federation andBelarus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120–125 20

IV. Peaceful settlement of disputes

Consideration of the revised proposal submitted by Sierra Leone entitled“Establishment of a dispute prevention and early settlement service” . . . . . . . . . . . 126–155 21

V. Proposals concerning the Trusteeship Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156–160 27

VI. Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs and Repertoire of the Practice ofthe Security Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 28

iv

VII. Working methods of the Special Committee, identification of new subjects,assistance to working groups on the revitalization of the work of the UnitedNations and coordination between the Special Committee and other workinggroups dealing with the reform of the Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162–198 29

A. Working methods of the Special Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162–195 29

B. Identification of new subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196–197 34

C. Assistance to working groups on the revitalization of the work of the UnitedNations and coordination between the Special Committee and other workinggroups dealing with the reform of the Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 34

1

A/55/33

Chapter IIntroduction

1. The Special Committee on the Charter of theUnited Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role ofthe Organization was convened in accordance withGeneral Assembly resolution 54/106 of 9 December1999 and met at United Nations Headquarters from 10to 20 April 2000.

2. In accordance with paragraph 5 of GeneralAssembly resolution 50/52 of 11 December 1995, theSpecial Committee was open to all States Members ofthe United Nations.

3. On behalf of the Secretary-General, Hans Corell,Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, the LegalCounsel, opened the session.

4. The Director of the Codification Division of theOffice of Legal Affairs, Václav Mikulka, acted asSecretary of the Committee, assisted by the PrincipalLegal Officer, Sachiko Kuwabara-Yamamoto (DeputySecretary).

5. At its 232nd meeting, on 10 April 2000, theSpecial Committee, bearing in mind the terms of theagreement regarding the election of the officersreached at its session in 1981,1 and taking into accountthe results of the pre-session consultations among itsMember States, elected its Bureau, as follows:

Chairman:Saeid Mirzaee-Yengejeh (Islamic Republic ofIran)

Vice-Chairpersons:Georg Witschel (Germany)Roberto Lavalle-Valdés (Guatemala)Juliet Semambo Kalema (Uganda)

Rapporteur:Ioana Gabriela Stancu (Romania)

6. The Bureau of the Special Committee also servedas the Bureau of the Working Group.

7. Also at its 232nd meeting, the Special Committeeadopted the following agenda (A/AC.182/L.106):

1. Opening of the session.

2. Election of officers.

3. Adoption of the agenda.

4. Organization of work.

5. Consideration of the questions mentioned inGeneral Assembly resolution 54/106 of 9December 1999, in accordance with themandate of the Special Committee as set outin that resolution.

6. Adoption of the report.

8. At its 233rd meeting, on 10 April 2000, theSpecial Committee established a Working Group of theWhole and agreed on the following organization ofwork: proposals relating to the maintenance ofinternational peace and security (eight meetings);proposals regarding the peaceful settlement of disputesbetween States (two meetings); proposals concerningthe Trusteeship Council (one meeting); proposals onthe ways and means of improving working methods ofthe Committee (two meetings); the question of theidentification of new subjects (one meeting); and theconsideration and adoption of the report (threemeetings). The distribution of meetings would beapplied with the necessary degree of flexibility, takinginto account the progress achieved in the considerationof the items.

9. General statements touching upon all items orupon several of them were made prior to theconsideration of each of the specific items in theWorking Group. The substance of those generalstatements is reflected in the relevant sections of thepresent report.

10. With regard to the question of the maintenance ofinternational peace and security, the Special Committeehad before it the report of the Secretary-Generalentitled “Implementation of the provisions of theCharter of the United Nations related to assistance tothird States affected by the application of sanctions”(A/54/383 and Add.1); a revised working papersubmitted by the Russian Federation entitled “Basicconditions and standard criteria for the introduction ofsanctions and other coercive measures and theirimplementation” (A/AC.182/L.100/Rev.1; see paras.50-97 below); a working paper submitted by theRussian Federation at the 1998 session of theCommittee entitled “Basic conditions and criteria forthe introduction of sanctions and other coercivemeasures and their implementation”(A/AC.182/L.100);2 an informal working papersubmitted by the Russian Federation at the 1997session of the Committee, entitled “Some views on the

2

A/55/33

importance of and urgent need for the elaboration of adraft declaration on the basic principles and criteria forthe work of United Nations peacekeeping missions andmechanisms for the prevention and settlement of crisesand conflicts” (A/AC.182/L.89/Add.1);3 a workingpaper also submitted by the Russian Federation at the1998 session of the Committee, entitled “Fundamentalsof the legal basis for United Nations peacekeepingoperations in the context of Chapter VI of the Charterof the United Nations” (A/AC.182/L.89/Add.2 andCorr.1);4 a working paper submitted by the delegationof Cuba at the 1998 session of the Committee entitled“Strengthening the role of the Organization andenhancing its effectiveness” (A/AC.182/L.93/Add.1);5

a revised proposal also submitted at the 1998 sessionby the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya with a view tostrengthening the role of the United Nations in themaintenance of international peace and security(A/AC.182/L.99);6 and a working paper submitted atthe 1999 session of the Committee by the RussianFederation and Belarus containing a draft resolution ofthe General Assembly and a revision thereof(A/AC.182/L.104/Rev.1).7

11. With regard to the topic “Peaceful settlement ofdisputes between States”, the Special Committee hadbefore it a revised proposal entitled “Establishment of adispute prevention and early settlement service”(A/AC.182/L.96), submitted by Sierra Leone at theCommittee’s 1997 session and orally revised at the1998 session;8 and an informal paper entitled“Elements for a resolution on dispute prevention andsettlement”, submitted by the United Kingdom of GreatBritain and Northern Ireland at the 1999 session of theCommittee.9

12. With regard to the topic “Working methods of theSpecial Committee”, the Special Committee had beforeit a working paper submitted by the delegation of Japanentitled “Ways and means of improving the workingmethods and enhancing the efficiency of the SpecialCommittee” (A/AC.182/L.107; see paras. 163-193below) and a proposal submitted also by the delegationof Japan entitled “Proposal submitted by Japan on waysand means of improving the working methods andenhancing the efficiency of the Special Committee onthe Charter of the United Nations and on theStrengthening of the Role of the Organization”(A/AC.182/L.108; see para. 194 below).

13. The Special Committee also had before it aninformal paper prepared by the Secretariat entitled

“Mechanisms established by the General Assembly inthe context of dispute prevention and settlement”(A/AC.182/2000/INF/2).

14. At its 234th and 235th meetings, on 19 April, theSpecial Committee adopted the report of its 2000session.

Chapter IIRecommendations of the SpecialCommittee

15. The Special Committee submits to the GeneralAssembly, as regards the question of theimplementation of the provisions of the Charter of theUnited Nations related to assistance to third Statesaffected by the application of sanctions under ChapterVII of the Charter, the recommendations contained inparagraphs 48 and 49 below.

Chapter IIIMaintenance of international peaceand security

A. Implementation of Charter provisionsrelated to assistance to third Statesaffected by sanctions

16. During the general debate held at the 232ndmeeting of the Special Committee, on 10 April 2000,delegations stressed that the topic should remain apriority item on the agenda of the Special Committee.

17. Some delegations recognized the continuingefforts undertaken by the Security Council to, interalia, enhance the vigilance of the application ofsanctions, evaluate the humanitarian impact ofsanctions on vulnerable groups within the target States,as well as their impact on third States, streamline theworking procedures of the sanctions committees andfacilitate access to them by third States affected by theimplementation of sanctions. In this connection,attention was drawn to the note by the President of theSecurity Council of 29 January 1999 (S/1999/92) andto the recent establishment by the Security Council ofan informal working group with a mandate to considerissues related to improving the effectiveness ofsanctions.

3

A/55/33

18. Some delegations stressed that sanctions shouldbe imposed only as an exceptional measure once all theother peaceful methods for settling disputes had beenexhausted. A prior assessment of the potential impactof sanctions and assessment of the impact also duringtheir implementation, both on the target State and onthird States, was also deemed necessary.

19. Some delegations expressed their support fortargeted sanctions and, in this regard, appreciation wasvoiced for the expert seminar on targeted financialsanctions, held in Interlaken, Switzerland, in March1999, and the seminar on “Smart sanctions, the nextstep: arms embargoes and travel sanctions”, held atBonn, Germany, in November 1999.

20. Nonetheless, the point was also made that it wasstill necessary to adopt effective measures in order tofully implement Article 50 of the Charter. In thisconnection, it was stated that practical and timelyassistance to third States affected by the application ofsanctions would further contribute to an effective andcomprehensive approach by the internationalcommunity to sanctions imposed by the SecurityCouncil. The view was expressed that it was necessaryto establish an appropriate and permanent mechanismthat could be activated automatically to address theissue of assistance to third States affected by sanctions.

21. Delegations spoke in favour of continuing theirconsideration of the report of the Secretary-General onthe implementation of provisions of the Charter relatedto assistance to third States affected by the applicationof sanctions (A/53/312), including the valuablerecommendations and main findings of the ad hocexpert group meeting, held in New York from 24 to 28June 1998, concerning the development of a possiblemethodology for assessing the consequences actuallyincurred by third States as a result of preventive orenforcement measures and the exploration ofinnovative and practical measures of internationalassistance that could be provided to third States.

22. Delegations welcomed the recent report of theSecretary-General on the same subject (A/54/383 andAdd.1) containing the views of States, internationalfinancial institutions, organizations of the UnitedNations system and other relevant internationalorganizations regarding the report of the ad hoc expertgroup. Hope was expressed that these comments wouldassist the Secretary-General in elaborating andpresenting to the General Assembly his views on the

deliberations, main findings and recommendations ofthe ad hoc expert group, in accordance with paragraph5 of Assembly resolution 54/107 of 9 December 1999.

23. A suggestion was made that, after a thoroughreview of conclusions and proposals of the ad hocexpert group (A/53/312, paras. 49-57), the SpecialCommittee could formulate recommendations to theGeneral Assembly on those proposals. It was statedthat the recommendations of the ad hoc expert group,along with the views presented by States andinstitutions contained in the report of the Secretary-General (A/54/383 and Add.1), constituted a sufficientbasis for reaching an agreement on the practicalimplementation of Article 50 of the Charter.

24. Some delegations, however, were of the viewthat, prior to embarking on a substantive discussion ofthe detailed suggestions of the ad hoc expert group, theSpecial Committee could benefit from the views to bepresented by the Secretary-General to the GeneralAssembly, in particular as regards the political,financial and administrative feasibility of thesuggestions.

25. Some delegations were of the opinion that theGeneral Assembly, the Economic and Social Counciland the Committee for Programme and Coordination,as well as the international financial institutions andother international organizations, including regionalorganizations, as well as United Nations funds andprogrammes, had a vital role to play with respect toaddressing the special economic problems of thirdStates affected by the application of sanctions.

26. With regard to the development of a possiblemethodology, it was pointed out that several issues hadto be clarified, such as the rules that should be appliedto States indirectly affected by sanctions; the scale foridentifying the amount of assistance to be provided tosuch States; the provision of assistance, taking intoaccount the level of a State’s economic developmentand the nature of its relations with the target State.

27. In this context, it was also noted that theelaboration of procedures for the identification andproper categorization of various effects of sanctions,the review of methods applicable in estimating theincurred losses and costs and, subsequently, the designof feasible measures of relief merited carefulexamination.

4

A/55/33

28. As regards the exploration of innovative andpractical measures of international assistance to theaffected third States, support was expressed for thesuggestion of the ad hoc expert group to apply, for thepurpose of mitigating adverse effects of sanctions,funding procedures similar to those adopted forpeacekeeping operations.

29. A point was made that assistance to third Statesshould be supplemented by non-financial measuressuch as special trade preferences, tariff adjustments,quota allocations, special commodity purchaseagreements, the lowering of tariffs, preferentialtreatment for suppliers, encouragement of theparticipation of companies from third States ininternational efforts for post-conflict rehabilitation anddevelopment, attracting foreign direct investments intheir economies and giving priority to the contractorsof the affected third States for the humanitarianinvestments in the target State.

30. At the 9th to 11th meetings of the WorkingGroup, on 14, 17 and 18 April, some delegationsreiterated their views that the practical proposals putforward by the ad hoc expert group were positive andthat the recommendations made were generallyacceptable.

31. Particular attention was drawn to the followingproposals by the ad hoc expert group, which hadobtained a large measure of support: to draw up atentative list of potential effects of sanctions on thirdStates; to prepare for the Security Council an advancedassessment of the potential impact of sanctions on thetargeted State and, in particular, on third States; toentrust the Secretariat with the task of monitoring theeffects of sanctions, as well as providing technicalassistance to third States in preparing the explanatorymaterials to be attached to their requests forconsultations with the Security Council; and to appoint,in the most severe cases, a special representative of theSecretary-General to undertake a full assessment of theconsequences of sanctions incurred by affected States.In this connection, references were made to previousreports of the Secretary-General, as well as resolutionsof the General Assembly and the note of the Presidentof the Security Council (S/1999/92) containing theelements of the above-mentioned recommendations ofthe ad hoc expert group.

32. Support was expressed by some delegations for ageneral discussion of the issues raised by the ad hoc

expert group. It was felt that General Assemblyresolution 54/107 constituted a sufficient legal basis forsuch an exercise, irrespective of what might be decidedin other organs of the Organization, which were subjectto different mandates. Furthermore, it was stated thatsome of the views of the Secretary-General on the topicof sanctions were already in the public domain10 andthat the views to be submitted by the Secretary-Generalto the Assembly would not be binding upondelegations. It was stated that the working group onsanctions established by the Security Council couldalso benefit from the opinions expressed by delegationsin the Special Committee.

33. Concern was expressed that yet another round ofgeneral discussion on the agenda item could result inrepetition. Therefore, a proposal was put forward tocommence consideration, on a paragraph-by-paragraphbasis, of the findings of the ad hoc expert group. Suchan exercise would be preliminary, non-binding, of aninformal nature and not precluded by the provisions ofGeneral Assembly resolution 54/106 of 9 December1999. Those delegations favouring this approachindicated that such a preliminary exchange of views onthe recommendations of the ad hoc expert group wouldshed light on which recommendations commandedsupport from Member States. Since the SpecialCommittee had been instructed by the GeneralAssembly to deal with the subject matter on a prioritybasis, such action would also be more in line with themandate of the Committee.

34. Other delegations, however, were of the view thatthe Special Committee should not proceed with aparagraph-by-paragraph discussion of therecommendations of the ad hoc expert group, even inan informal context, in the absence of a filtering of therecommendations. Nonetheless, it was noted thatdelegations were still free to present their views on anyof the recommendations referred to.

35. Some delegations reiterated their position that theSpecial Committee needed to have the views of theSecretary-General prior to proceeding with a moresubstantive discussion on assistance to third Statesaffected by sanctions. These delegations expressed theopinion that the views to be submitted by theSecretary-General to the General Assembly werecrucial to considering the different issues raised bysanctions, including those related to Article 50 of theCharter. Furthermore, it was of fundamentalimportance to see what direction the Security Council

5

A/55/33

itself would take, given the fact that it had justestablished a working group on sanctions that was tosubmit a report by the end of November 2000.Consequently, these delegations deemed that it wouldbe detrimental for the Special Committee to begindiscussion of the recommendations of the ad hoc expertgroup without having all the necessary substantiveelements.

36. Some delegations highlighted the importance thatsanctions played in the maintenance of internationalpeace and security. The point was made that, in caseswhere the imposition of sanctions had not led tomodification of the behaviour of the target State, therewas no longer justification to maintain them.

37. Support was expressed by some delegations forresorting to sanctions only as a last resort in casesunder Chapter VII of the Charter. In this connection,particular importance was attached to first exhaustingthe peaceful methods of settling disputes. It wasdeemed that once the Security Council decided toproceed with sanctions, they should be imposed inaccordance with established criteria and a specific timeframe. The point was made that this would impede theSecurity Council from employing sanctions as apolitical tool. Furthermore, it was stated that the targetState should have access to the Council prior to theimposition of sanctions and whenever a review of saidsanctions took place. Third States affected by sanctionsshould also be allowed to consult with the Council. Inthis regard, a call was made for the establishment bythe Security Council of a permanent mechanism forconsultation with third States confronting economicproblems resulting from the preventive measuresadopted by the Council.

38. The view was expressed that, in many instances,sanctions caused severe damage to the population of athird State with links to the target State and that therelevant provisions of the Charter were never intendedto harm the interests of third States. It was also notedthat sanctions should not affect a State’s right todevelopment and that they should also take intoaccount the impact upon migrant workers in thirdStates. Some delegations also called for dueconsideration to be given to the need to provide thecivilian population with humanitarian supplies.

39. The point was made that the United Nationssystem, international financial institutions and regionaland international organizations, as well as Member

States, all had a role to play in alleviating the burdenborne by third States affected by sanctions. It wasnoted that the need for credible means to implementArticle 50 of the Charter flowed from the obligationswhich States had accepted. Notwithstanding thoseobligations, neighbouring countries usually bore adisproportionate burden while carrying out their dutieson behalf of the international community.

40. Some delegations stressed the importance ofexamining the impact of sanctions on the target State,since the detrimental effects sanctions inflicted uponthird States could not be separated from the effect theyproduced upon the former. However, the point was alsomade that the mandate of the Special Committee waslimited to considering the issue of assistance to thirdStates affected by sanctions and thus did not includethe examination of the effects of sanctions upon thetarget States.

41. Some States welcomed the initiatives that dealtwith the imposition of targeted sanctions directed atimposing limitations on the financial transactions ofcertain individuals or groups, as well as restricting themovement of their family members. In this connection,it was stated that further studies were warranted todetermine why in some cases targeted sanctions hadproven effective and why in others the desired resultshad not been attained.

42. The point was made that, in assessing the impactof sanctions, it was vital to analyse both the direct andthe indirect effects. Examples of the former are theproblems posed by the loss of trade and thebreakdowns in transportation networks, while theindirect effects include the failure to collect taxes andcustom duties, the decline in employment and livingstandards, along with the ensuing need to augmentresources for social services.

43. It was also suggested that among the measureswhich could be implemented to relieve the detrimentaleffect of sanctions upon third States was to channelassistance to those sectors of the third State’s economythat were deeply affected by the sanctions. In thisregard, attention was called to involve the UnitedNations, as well as the regional economic commissionsand the international financial institutions.

44. Additional measures suggested to alleviate thedetrimental effect of sanctions upon third Statesincluded an early assessment of the effects ofsanctions, including on-site visits and consultations

6

A/55/33

between the Security Council sanctions committees andthe third State; allowing for exceptions on some itemsof vital importance to third States; reducing the effectsupon the civilian populations of third States;dispatching a special representative of the Secretary-General to undertake a full assessment of theconsequences of sanctions upon third States; anddispatching a fact-finding mission to the third State.

45. As regards the suggestion to appoint a specialrepresentative of the Secretary-General and to dispatcha fact-finding mission to carry out impact assessments,it was noted that care was required since it wasnecessary to think about the mandate to be given andthe financial implications that might arise, matters onwhich the views of the Secretary-General himselfwould be most helpful. In this regard, the point wasmade that both the appointment of a specialrepresentative and of a fact-finding mission constitutedpractice in the Organization, as evidenced by pastreports of the Secretary-General on the issue ofsanctions.

46. The point was made that it was necessary torespect the delicate balance between the major organsof the United Nations. While respecting thecompetence of the Security Council to imposesanctions, the view was expressed that the GeneralAssembly and its related organs needed to revise theguidelines and principles of the Charter in relation tocoercive measures. Such a task could be entrusted tothe Special Committee, which had the appropriateexpertise and transparency. In this regard, it was notedthat the latest reports of the sanctions committees ofthe Security Council did not take into consideration anassessment of the impact of sanctions or theireffectiveness or how the role of the United Nation isenhanced. A call was made for the sanctionscommittees to hold open recorded meetings and toinclude information such as that referred to above intheir reports.

47. The point was also made that the SpecialCommittee and the Sixth Committee should be able toconvey the results of their respective discussions onsanctions to the recently established Security Councilworking group.

48. The Special Committee welcomed once again thereport of the Secretary-General summarizing thedeliberations and main findings of the ad hoc expertgroup convened pursuant to General Assembly

resolution 52/162 of 15 December 1997 (A/53/312) andrecommended that at its fifty-fifth session theAssembly should continue to consider, in anappropriate substantive manner and framework, theresults of the ad hoc expert group meeting, taking intoaccount the relevant debate in the Committee at its2000 session, the views of States, the organizations ofthe United Nations system, the international financialinstitutions and other relevant internationalorganizations, as contained in the report of theSecretary-General (A/54/383 and Add.1), as well as theviews of the Secretary-General regarding thedeliberations and main findings of the ad hoc expertgroup to be submitted pursuant to Assembly resolution54/107, and the relevant information to be submitted bythe Secretary-General on the follow-up to the note ofthe President of the Security Council (S/1999/92), andto address further the question of the implementation ofthe provisions of the Charter relating to assistance tothird States affected by the application of sanctionsunder Chapter VII and the implementation of GeneralAssembly resolutions 50/51, 51/208, 52/162, 53/107and 54/107, taking into account all reports of theSecretary-General on this subject and the text on thequestion of sanctions imposed by the United Nationscontained in annex II to General Assembly resolution51/242, as well as the proposals presented and viewsexpressed by the Special Committee.

49. The Special Committee further encouraged theSecretary-General to present, in due time forconsideration of the Sixth Committee, his views on thedeliberations and main findings of the ad hoc expertgroup on the implementation of the provisions of theCharter relating to assistance to third States affected bythe application of sanctions, as provided in GeneralAssembly resolution 54/107.

B. Consideration of the revised workingpaper submitted by the RussianFederation entitled “Basic conditionsand standard criteria for theintroduction of sanctions and othercoercive measures and theirimplementation”

50. During the general debate held at the 232ndmeeting of the Special Committee, reference was madeto concerns relating to the humanitarian impact of

7

A/55/33

sanctions. The view was expressed that the SpecialCommittee should consider the possibility ofestablishing a mechanism to study the potential impactof sanctions prior to their implementation, with a viewboth to obtaining their desired objectives faster and tominimizing any negative humanitarian effects. Supportwas further expressed by some delegations for theworking paper proposed by the Russian Federation(A/AC.182/L.100),11 which was described asconstituting a useful basis for further consideration ofthe question of sanctions. The hope was also expressedby them that the working paper would continue to beconsidered at the current session, with a view toobtaining positive results. The sponsor delegation alsotook the opportunity to express its satisfaction with thework undertaken at the previous session of the SpecialCommittee and noted that the eventual product wouldbe of undeniable assistance to the Security Council.

51. At the 233rd meeting of the Special Committee,support was again expressed for the proposal.However, a further view was expressed that aparagraph-by-paragraph consideration of the workingpaper would be subject to the same concerns raised inparagraphs 36 and 37 of the report of the SpecialCommittee on the work of its 1999 session12 andshould be undertaken on the understanding that it wasonly a preliminary discussion of the working paper,and that silence should not be taken to signifyagreement.

52. The proposal was considered at the 1st to 4thmeetings of the Working Group, held from 10 to 12April 2000. At the 1st meeting, the sponsor delegationannounced its submission of a revised working paperentitled “Basic conditions and standard criteria for theintroduction of sanctions and other coercive measuresand their implementation” (A/AC.182/L.100/Rev.1),which read as follows:

“I

“The basic conditions and standard criteriafor the introduction and application of sanctionsinclude the following elements:

“1. The application of sanctions is anextreme measure and is permitted only after allother peaceful means of settling the dispute orconflict and of maintaining or restoringinternational peace and security, including theprovisional measures provided for in Article 40of the Charter of the United Nations, have been

exhausted and only when the Security Councilhas determined the existence of a threat to peace,a breach of the peace or an act of aggression.

“2. Sanctions must be introduced in strictconformity with the provisions of the Charter ofthe United Nations and the rules of internationallaw and justice, pursue clearly defined purposes,have a time-frame, be subject to regular review,taking into account the views of the State whichis the object of sanctions, where appropriate, andprovide for clearly stipulated conditions forlifting them, and the lifting of them must not belinked to the situation in neighbouring countries.

“3. Before the introduction of sanctions,the State or party which is the object of SecurityCouncil sanctions must, as a rule, be givenunambiguous notice.

“4. The use of sanctions for the purpose ofoverthrowing or changing the lawful regime orexisting political order in the country which is theobject of sanctions is not permissible.

“5. The purpose of sanctions is to modifythe behaviour of the party which is the object ofsanctions and which is threatening internationalpeace and security, not to punish or otherwiseexact retribution.

“6. The creation of a situation in whichthe consequences of the introduction of sanctionswould inflict considerable material and financialharm on third States is not permissible.

“7. The imposition on a State which is theobject of sanctions of additional conditions forcessation or suspension of sanctions is notpermissible except as a result of newlydiscovered circumstances and except whereexplicitly provided for in Security Councildecisions.

“8. Objective assessment of the short-termand long-term socio-economic and humanitarianconsequences of sanctions is necessary both atthe stage of their preparation and in the course oftheir implementation.

“9. The Secretariat must provide theSecurity Council and the sanctions committees, attheir request, with an assessment of thehumanitarian and economic impact of sanctions.

8

A/55/33

“10. Efforts should be made to allow thepopulation of the State which is the object ofsanctions to gain access to appropriate resourcesand procedures for financing humanitarianimports.

“11. Following the introduction ofsanctions, the Secretariat should be given theresponsibility of monitoring their effects so thatthe Security Council and its sanctions committeesmay receive timely information and earlyestimates of the impact of the sanctions regime onthird countries which have suffered or may sufferseriously as a result of their implementation, andso that the Security Council, while maintainingthe effectiveness of the sanctions regime, maymake the necessary corrections or partial changesto its implementation or to the regime itself inorder to mitigate the negative impact of thesanctions on third countries.

“II

“In considering the question of sanctions,special attention should be paid to the‘humanitarian limits’ of sanctions. Their maincomponents could be the following provisions:

“1. When the Security Council considersissues relating to sanctions, account must betaken of humanitarian considerations, which areequally pressing in time of peace and in time ofarmed conflict.

“2. Decisions on sanctions must not createsituations in which fundamental human rights notsubject to suspension even in an emergencysituation would be violated, above all the right tolife, the right to freedom from hunger, the right toprevent and cure epidemic and other diseases andcombat them, and the right to create conditionswhich would ensure medical services for all andcare in the event of illness.

“3. The adoption of decisions and theimplementation of sanctions should not createsituations which would cause unnecessarysuffering to the civilian population, especially itsmost vulnerable sectors.

“4. Sanctions may not be open-ended andshould be subject to periodic adjustment, takinginto account the humanitarian situation and

depending on the fulfilment by the State which isthe object of sanctions of the requirements of theSecurity Council.

“5. The temporary suspension of sanctionsis desirable in emergency situations and cases offorce majeure (Natural disasters, threat of famine,mass disturbances resulting in the disorganizationof the country’s Government) in order to preventa humanitarian disaster.

“6. Impermissibility of measures likely tocause a serious deterioration in the situation ofthe civil population and breakdown of theinfrastructure of the State which is the object ofsanctions.

“7. Ensuring unimpeded and non-discriminatory access of the population ofcountries which are the object of sanctions tohumanitarian assistance.

“8. Consideration of the views ofinternational humanitarian organizations ofgenerally recognized authority in drawing up andimplementing sanctions regimes. Exclusion ofinternational humanitarian organizations from theeffect of sanctions limitations with a view tofacilitating their work in countries which are theobject of sanctions.

“9. Utmost simplification of the regimeestablished for delivery of humanitarian suppliesrequired for the sustenance of the population, andexclusion of medical supplies and staple fooditems from the scope of the sanctions regime.Basic or standard medical and agriculturalequipment and basic or standard educationalitems should also be exempted.

“10. Strict observance of the principles ofimpartiality and the impermissibility of any formof discrimination in the provision of humanitarianand medical assistance and other forms ofhumanitarian support for all sectors and groups ofthe population.

“11. All information on the humanitarianconsequences of the introduction andimplementation of sanctions, including thosewhich have a bearing on the basic livingconditions of the civilian population of the Statewhich is the object of sanctions and on its socio-economic development, must be objective and

9

A/55/33

must be as transparent as possible, and must betaken into account by the Security Council and itssanctions committees, with a view to themodification of the sanctions regime and,ultimately, to the full or partial lifting of thesanctions.

“12. The State which is the object ofsanctions should exert all possible efforts tofacilitate the equitable and unimpededdistribution of humanitarian assistance.

“13. It is of paramount importance, inintroducing and implementing sanctions, toobserve the humanitarian limits of sanctions toensure that they will contribute to themaintenance of international peace and securityand that they will be legitimate from thestandpoint of the Charter of the United Nationsand the rules of international law and justice.”

53. In introducing the working paper, the sponsordelegation referred generally to the timeliness of theSpecial Committee’s consideration of the question ofsanctions. It pointed to the fact that the issue was beingconsidered in a number of forums, both within andoutside the Organization. It was also stated that thequestion of sanctions affected all States withoutexception, and that the Special Committee couldconsider preparing a document for submission to theforthcoming Millennium Assembly of the UnitedNations.

54. The introductory remarks of the sponsordelegation on section I of the working paper arereflected under the respective paragraph headingsbelow. With regard to section II, it was observed thatno change had been made to the introductory chapeau.As to paragraph 1, the original reference to “which areeven more pressing in time of peace than in time ofwar” had been reformulated to read “which are equallypressing in time of peace and in time of armedconflict”. Paragraph 2 remained substantially the same.Paragraph 3 had been reformulated. In particular, thereference to “excessive suffering” had been changed to“unnecessary suffering”. Paragraph 4 had also beenreformulated at the suggestion of some delegations toinclude the limitation on “open-ended” sanctions.Paragraph 5 remained substantially the same with theexception of the inclusion of a non-exhaustive list ofexamples of force majeure in parentheses. Besides areversal in the order of previous paragraphs 6 and 7,

their contents remained the same. Previous paragraphs8 and 9 were merged, with previous paragraph 9 nowreflected as a second sentence in paragraph 8.Paragraph 9 now contained the contents of previousparagraph 10, with the addition of a new sentence tocover the exemption of medical and agriculturalequipment and educational items. Paragraph 10 trackedthe language of previous paragraph 11. Paragraphs 11to 13 were new and had been included in response toproposals made in the Working Group at the previoussession of the Special Committee.

55. The Working Group subsequently discussed therevised working paper, on a paragraph-by-paragraphbasis, but was only able to consider section I, owing toa lack of time. On commencing the consideration of theworking paper, several delegations reiterated theirprevious reservations, reflected, inter alia, in theabove-mentioned paragraphs in the 1999 report. Theyexpressed the view that they were willing to participatein the discussion on the same understanding, i.e., thatthe discussion was preliminary in nature, and that, ashad been the case the previous year, silence should notbe construed as agreement. In addition, the view wasexpressed that it was not clear that the SpecialCommittee was the appropriate forum for consideringthe issue in question. Doubts were also expressedregarding the propriety of the General Assemblyinstructing the Security Council on how it shouldimplement its sanctions regimes. A question was raisedas to the timing of the proposal in the light of thecurrent work on, inter alia, targeted sanctions beingundertaken in other bodies within the United Nations,such as the soon to be established informal workinggroup of the Security Council which would considerissues related to improving the effectiveness of UnitedNations sanctions, and outside the Organization.Further reference was made to the expert seminar heldin Interlaken, Switzerland, in March 1999, on targetedfinancial sanctions, and the first expert seminar on thetopic of “Smart sanctions, the next step: armsembargoes and travel sanctions”, held in Bonn,Germany, in November 1999. In that regard, the viewwas expressed that the proposal was out of step withcurrent developments in the Organization concerningsanctions,13 especially with regard to the emergingrecognition of the importance of “targeted” sanctions.It was further pointed out that the Secretary-General, inhis report to the Millennium Assembly of the UnitedNations, had described sanctions as offering theSecurity Council “an important instrument to enforce

10

A/55/33

its decisions”.14 In that regard, the concern wasexpressed that the working paper would undermine theability of the Council to utilize sanctions to that end.Furthermore, it was maintained that the SecurityCouncil was the more appropriate organ to take thelead on the matter.

56. Conversely, some delegations were of the viewthat the proposal was timely, that the SpecialCommittee was the appropriate forum for consideringthe matter and that the possibility of duplication ofwork with other bodies was not of serious concern,given the fact that such duplication was a commonfeature of the work of the Organization. The point wasmade that the seriousness of the topic required that itbe considered by all bodies of the United Nations.Furthermore, it was disputed whether the proposalwould actually impede the work of the SecurityCouncil.

57. The sponsor delegation reiterated its view that theGeneral Assembly, and in particular the SpecialCommittee, did enjoy the competency to consider thematter, and referred to Article 11 of the Charter of theUnited Nations in support. Reference was also made tothe competency of the General Assembly, under Article13, to make recommendations for the purpose ofencouraging the progressive development ofinternational law and its codification, and examples ofother legal texts developed by the Assembly, includingthe Declaration on Friendly Relations,15 were cited.The sponsor delegation also expressed its willingnessto include references in the working paper to currentdevelopments elsewhere in the Organization, forexample, in regard to the Security Council’s resort to“targeted sanctions”. The opinion was also expressed inthe Working Group that Article 10 of the Charterprovided a further basis for the Special Committee’sconsideration of the topic.

58. As to the working paper itself, concern wasexpressed in the Working Group regarding the use ofcasual formulations, which did not adequately reflectthe language of the Charter of the United Nations.Criticism was also expressed regarding the rigid andcategorical terms in which many of the provisions wereformulated. It was noted that such formulation couldunnecessarily impede the ability of the SecurityCouncil to take action under Chapter VII. Referencewas made in that regard to the formulation of the titleas well. A general preference was expressed foraligning the text with the consensus formulation of

similar provisions contained in the resolution adoptedby the General Assembly in 1997 on the “Supplementto an Agenda for Peace” (General Assembly resolution51/242, annex II). A further point was made that theproposed text could impinge on the accepted authorityof the Security Council to interpret those provisions ofthe Charter applicable to it on its own.

59. Regarding the form of the final text, the view wasexpressed that it could be formulated in the form of aset of recommendations or practical suggestions for theSecurity Council. It was, however, pointed out that anysuch recommendations or suggestions could not bebinding on the Security Council. It was also proposedthat the final text should be accompanied by apreamble clarifying the nature of the text and itsrelationship with the work of the Security Council. Atthe same time, it was pointed out that since theSecurity Council was currently considering the matteritself, any such recommendations should be finalizedsoon in order to allow the Council to benefit fromthem.

Paragraph 1

60. The sponsor delegation, in introducing paragraph1, pointed to some of the changes made to the previoustext: the word “extreme” had been introduced toreplace “radical” in the first sentence, and the phrase“and of maintaining or restoring international peaceand security, including the provisional measuresprovided for in Article 40 of the Charter of the UnitedNations”, had been added. The reference to provisionalmeasures had been inserted to cover the possibility oftheir imposition in terms of Article 40. Reference wasmade in that regard to the relatively frequent resort toprovisional measures by the Security Council in thepast.

61. It was noted, by way of a general remark on theparagraph, that the Charter pointedly did not include areference to “sanctions” and that any such reference inthe current text was likewise inappropriate. It was alsonoted that the working paper did not sufficientlydifferentiate between the different types of sanctions.Furthermore, it was observed that sanctions should notnecessarily be seen as a measure of last resort. Instead,it was pointed out, sanctions could in fact beconsidered, in certain cases such as arms embargoes, aspreventative measures. Conversely, the view wasexpressed that while the formulation could beimproved, the basic thrust of the provision, viz., that

11

A/55/33

sanctions should be applied only as a last resort, wascorrect.

62. Concerning the reference to “extreme measures”,it was observed that such concept would prove difficultto define in practice. Furthermore, the reference tosanctions only being permissible “after all otherpeaceful means of settling the dispute” had beenexhausted was queried. It was stated that Chapter VIIdid not focus on settling the underlying dispute, butrather was concerned with maintaining or restoringinternational peace and security in the face of a threatto or breach of the peace, or act of aggression.

63. Several delegations also expressed the view thatthe paragraph as currently formulated unduly restrictedthe activities of the Security Council, beyond what waspermitted under the Charter. In particular, the referenceto provisional measures, as presented in the workingpaper, could be read to mean that the Council wasrequired to first decide on provisional measures beforeimposing sanctions. It was pointed out by variousdelegations that such an approach would be at variancewith the Charter itself, which, in Article 40, providedthat the Council “may” impose such measures.

64. The view was expressed that the concludingreference to the determination by the Security Councilof the existence to a threat to peace, a breach of thepeace or an act of aggression was too narrowlyconstrued in that it did not recognize the competence ofregional intergovernmental organizations to take actionon behalf of the Council. Indeed, it was subsequentlystated in the Working Group that the entire last phrasewas superfluous and could be deleted. Conversely,support was expressed for retaining the phrase inquestion in its current form, since action by regionalorganizations applied to a different context than thatunder consideration.

65. In terms of a further view on the concludingphrase, the existing formulation was flawed in that itdid not foresee the possibility of sanctions beingadopted by regional intergovernmental organizationsand/or individual States, without a prior determinationby the Security Council, but in conformity withinternational law and the Charter. In that regard, thefollowing alternative formulation was proposed, basedon that found in General Assembly resolution 51/242,annex II, para. 1:

“As Security Council action under Chapter VII ofthe Charter of the United Nations, sanctions are a

matter of the utmost seriousness and concern.Sanctions should be resorted to only with theutmost caution, when other peaceful optionsprovided by the Charter are inadequate.”

66. In response, the sponsor delegation referred to theconcerns raised relating to the question of the taking ofprovisional measures. It agreed that the matter was notclear and suggested that the Special Committee couldconsider at some point in the future the question ofwhether the taking of provisional measures wasmandatory or merely optional. While agreement wasexpressed with the view that each principal organ,including the Security Council, had the freedom tointerpret the provisions of the Charter applicable to it,the view was expressed that the question of sanctionsfell into the sphere of both the General Assembly andthe Security Council. With regard to the concludingphrase, it was noted that the language was based onthat found in the Charter itself. Furthermore, regionalintergovernmental organizations did not enjoy thecompetence to determine the existence of a threat tothe peace, or the breach of such peace. Only theSecurity Council could do so. Indeed, it was observedthat notifying the Security Council after the use offorce was a violation of the Charter. At the same time,it was recognized that such regional organizationsmight enjoy the right to use coercive measures, as longas they were not unlawful. The sponsor delegationfurther expressed its flexibility on resorting to existingconsensus language found in other documents.

Paragraph 2

67. In introducing paragraph 2, the sponsordelegation indicated that the text followed the wordingof previous paragraph 3, except for the new phrase“taking into account the views of the State which is theobject of sanctions, where appropriate”.

68. Concern was expressed regarding the categoricalmanner in which the paragraph was formulated. Theview was also expressed that certain parts of theparagraph seemed too vague and required clarification.Others maintained that the paragraph was of the utmostimportance, since it discussed the criteria for theimplementation of coercive measures. In that regard, apreference was expressed for the current drafting,which was described as serving as a good basis fordeliberations.

12

A/55/33

69. Suggestions were made to replace the expression“in strict conformity”, in the first line, with “inconformity” or “in accordance”, or to simply delete thequalifying word “strict”. Consistent with theterminology used in paragraph 6, the proposal wasmade to replace, at the end of paragraph 2, thereference to “neighbouring countries” with thereference to “third States”. In terms of a furthersuggestion, the ideas contained in the paragraph couldbe divided into two parts: the first part would includethe principle that sanctions should be introduced instrict conformity with the Charter, and rules ofinternational law and justice; and the second partwould focus on specific conditions for lifting suchsanctions.

70. Some delegations expressed doubts regarding thereference to “rules of ... justice” and proposed that theword “justice” be deleted. The observation was madethat only the reference to the Charter should beretained. Others preferred retaining the reference to“justice”. They recalled that the reference to“principles of justice” could be found in different partsof the Charter, which was itself based on the principlesof justice. The view was expressed that sanctions couldnot be used as a basis for intervening in the internalaffairs of States and that sanctions, or any coercivemeasures, could be taken only in strict compliance withthe Charter, the rules of international law, justice,international humanitarian law and the principles ofinternational human rights law.

71. Different views were expressed regarding theproposal that sanctions “have a time-frame”. Severaldelegations maintained that that notion was unrealisticand counter-productive, as opposed to the idea ofperiodic review of sanctions, which was supported inthe Working Group. Furthermore, it could adverselyaffect the effectiveness of the sanctions in question. Itwas also pointed out that the need for such a time-frame was less important in the context of “targeted”sanctions than in that of general sanctions and thatsubjecting the application of sanctions to any timelimits was inappropriate in view of the ability of theSecurity Council to determine the time-frame ofsanctions itself, as recognized in General Assemblyresolution 51/242, annex II, paragraph 3. It wastherefore proposed that the reference to “time-frame”should be deleted. Others were of the view that theintroduction of the time-frame was not counter-productive, but rather important, since sanctions should

not be applied indefinitely. It would also help to avoidsituations where sanctions were applied indefinitely asa result of the exercise of the veto by one of thepermanent members of the Security Council. Theintroduction of a specific time-frame for sanctions wasa viable option that would be the most practical at thecurrent stage, the alternative being the abolition of theveto. The introduction of a time-frame would assist inefforts to reform the Security Council and theOrganization. That objective had the support of allMember States. The suggestion was also made that astanding body could assess the effectiveness ofsanctions, review compliance therewith and conductmultifaceted monitoring of such sanctions based onmeasurable criteria, including an agreed time-frame.

72. Several delegations opposed the inclusion of thenew phrase that account should be taken of “the viewsof the State, which was the object of sanctions, whereappropriate,” as being misleading. It was pointed outthat such a requirement was not in conformity with rule37 of the provisional rules of procedure of the SecurityCouncil, relating to the invitation of concerned Statesto meetings of the Council. The proposal was made toreplace the paragraph with the following: “Sanctionsshould be established in strict conformity with theCharter, with clear objectives, provision for regularreview and precise conditions for their lifting. TheSecurity Council has the ability to determine the time-frame of sanctions.” The proposed language was basedon paragraphs 2 and 3 of annex II to General Assemblyresolution 51/242. Conversely, the observation wasmade that a requirement to take into account the viewsof the State which was the object of sanctions, flowedfrom the provisions of Articles 31 and 32 of theCharter. By way of compromise, it was proposed that,in accordance with Article 32 of the Charter, the phrase“the views of the State which is the object ofsanctions” could be replaced with “the views of theState which is a party to a dispute under considerationby the Security Council”.

73. As to the stipulation of conditions for the liftingof sanctions, the view was expressed that the paragraphshould be considered in conjunction with paragraph 6prohibiting the creation of a situation in whichsanctions would inflict considerable material andfinancial harm on third States. The view was alsoexpressed that specific, calculated criteria or conditionswhich should be met by the target State should beestablished in order to have the sanctions lifted.

13

A/55/33

74. Several delegations queried the reference in thelast line to a prohibition on linking the lifting ofsanctions to situations in neighbouring countries. Tosome, any linkage to situations in neighbouring Stateswould restrict the ability of Security Council to takeaction. It was also suggested that the situation inneighbouring countries could affect the decision to liftsanctions. The Special Committee’s attention was alsodrawn to the possible contradiction with paragraph 6.Conversely, it was noted that the lifting of sanctionsshould depend on the behaviour of the State againstwhich they were directed. In terms of a furtherproposal, the following text would be added to the endof paragraph 2:

“It is not permissible to impose on a State, whichis the object of sanctions, additional conditionsfor cessation or suspension of sanctions, except ifjustified by newly discovered seriouscircumstances.”

75. In commenting on the debate, the sponsordelegation observed that it would be prepared to acceptsome of the proposals made, including the deletion ofthe word “strict”. On the question of the reference torules of “justice”, it proposed that the text should bereformulated to read “… principles of justice andinternational law”, along the lines of Article 1 of theCharter. Caution was also expressed against taking theview that the Security Council could undertakeenforcement measures under Chapter VII with respectto humanitarian situations, since that Chapter onlyempowered the Council to act in cases of threats to thepeace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression. Italso supported the proposal to divide the text into twoparts, as well as aligning it with the relevant provisionsof paragraph 3 of General Assembly resolution 51/242,annex II.

Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5

76. The sponsor delegation indicated, by way ofintroduction, that paragraphs 3 and 4 were substantiallythe same as paragraphs 4 and 7 contained in theprevious working paper. Paragraph 5, however, wasnew. It was based on paragraph 5 of General Assemblyresolution 51/242, annex II, and explained the purposeof sanctions, i.e., to modify the behaviour of the partywhich was the object of sanctions, and not to punish orotherwise exact retribution.

77. In connection with paragraph 3, the observationwas made that the principle of giving prior“unambiguous notice” should be aligned with thecorresponding provisions in paragraph 7 of GeneralAssembly resolution 51/242, annex II. The qualifyingword “unambiguous” should thus be replaced by theword “clear”. In addition it was suggested that theword “must” should be substituted by “could”.

78. While accepting that, as a general rule, therequirement of prior notice was correct, concern wasnevertheless expressed that this might limit the abilityof the Security Council to act quickly in certaininstances. Prior notice could also be inappropriate, asin the case of the freezing of assets. In support of theprovision, it was pointed out that in the light of Article33 of the Charter parties to any disputes thecontinuance of which was likely to endanger themaintenance of international peace and security mustbe given the opportunity to seek solutions. In addition,it was observed that the notion of prior notice wasimplied in Article 31, allowing for the participation ofaffected non-members of the Security Council inrelevant discussions. It was also recognized that inmost cases the Security Council already did give noticeprior to imposing sanctions. The paragraph was thusimportant and should be retained in the text.

79. As regards paragraph 4, it was pointed out thatwhile it was generally understood that sanctions shouldnot have the purpose of overthrowing or changing thelawful regime or existing political order in the targetcountry, the Security Council had in the past resorted tosanctions aimed at restoring the “lawful” governmentof a Member State which had undergone a coup d’état(as was the case in Haiti) or at changing adiscriminatory political system like apartheid in SouthAfrica, and Southern Rhodesia. The proposed provisiontherefore could negatively affect the ability of theSecurity Council to act in situations referred to above.Indeed, the observation was made that in certaininstances the Security Council could take actiondirected against the leadership of the target State inorder to restore international peace and security. It wasalso noted that the concept of “lawful regime” washighly contentious since it could be understood toinclude dictatorships. Conversely, the view wasexpressed that all provisions of the paragraph wereimportant, since overthrowing a legally electedpolitical regime was not permissible, and was

14

A/55/33

inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations,especially Article 2, paragraph 7.

80. In terms of suggested modifications, while it wasproposed that only the phrase “existing political order”be deleted, others expressed a preference for thedeletion of the paragraph in its entirety, or alternativelyits replacement with the text of paragraph 5 of GeneralAssembly resolution 51/242, annex II. It was alsosuggested that the paragraph could be aligned with theprovisions of paragraph 2 of General Assemblyresolution 53/10 of 26 October 1998, reaffirming theinalienable right of every State to economic and socialdevelopment and to choose the political, economic andsocial system that it deems to be most appropriate forthe welfare of its people, in accordance with itsnational plans and policies. In terms of a furthersuggestion, paragraphs 4 and 5 could be merged, withthe provisions of paragraph 5 preceding those ofparagraph 4. Alternatively, a preference was expressedfor retaining the paragraph in its current form.

81. With respect to paragraph 5, the suggestion wasmade that it should be deleted since its thrust wasreflected in paragraph 5 of General Assemblyresolution 51/242, annex II. The view was alsoexpressed that the paragraph was drafted in excessivelycategorical terms rather than formulating arecommendation on the matter in line with Articles 10,11 and 13 of the Charter. Others were of the view thatthe paragraph was essential and should be retained. Itwas also observed that if the paragraph were to bemerged with paragraph 4, the resultant text would haveto be given careful consideration.

82. Responding to the above comments, the sponsordelegation observed that it was open to suggestions ondrafting the proposed provisions in a more flexiblemanner and aligning them closer to the correspondingparagraphs of annex II of General Assembly resolution51/242. The proposed merger of paragraphs 4 and 5was also agreeable to the sponsor delegation. At thesame time, it stressed that sanctions could not be usedfor overthrowing political leaders legally elected by thepopulation of the target country.


83. In introducing paragraph 6, the sponsordelegation noted that it repeated verbatim paragraph 8of the previous working paper. As regards paragraph 7,it followed paragraph 9 of the previous working paper

with the addition of the concluding phrase “and exceptwhere explicitly provided for in Security Councildecisions”. Paragraph 8 tracked, without any change,paragraph 10 of the previous working paper.

84. With regard to paragraph 6, the observation wasmade that while it was generally understood thatsanctions regimes should avoid as far as possibleharmful consequences on third States, the languageused in the paragraph was too categorical, inflexible,peremptory and rigid. It was therefore suggested that itshould be aligned, inter alia, with paragraph 25 ofGeneral Assembly resolution 51/242, annex II, callingupon the Security Council, the General Assembly andother relevant organs to intensify their efforts toaddress the special economic problems of thirdcountries affected by sanctions regimes. It was alsoobserved that paragraphs 6 and 8 were inter-linked andcould be merged into a single paragraph. Thesuggestion was advanced that the role of internationalfinancial institutions, and other governmental andregional organizations, as suggested in the report of theSecretary-General containing a summary of thedeliberations and main findings of the ad hoc expertgroup meeting on developing a methodology forassessing the consequences incurred by third States asa result of preventive or enforcement measures(A/53/312), and in the note of the President of theSecurity Council (S/1999/92), should be provided for.It was also noted that the provision could bereformulated so as to ensure that the consequences ofsanctions for third States were to be evaluated prior totheir imposition on the target State. Others called forthe deletion of the paragraph.

85. The view was also expressed that the paragraphappeared to contradict paragraph 2, and concern wasvoiced that paragraph 8 was not consistent with Article50 of the Charter of the United Nations. Alternatively,the view was expressed that the proposed provision didnot contradict Article 50. Others, in agreeing with thethrust of the paragraph, sought clarification as to whowas being referred to in the phrase “the creation of asituation”.

86. Concerning paragraph 7, the observation wasmade that its purpose was unclear, as it was settled thatthe imposition on the target State of new sanctions oradditional conditions was exclusively within thecompetence of the Security Council; accordingly, theprovision was not necessary and could be deleted. Itwas also remarked that the provision was too self-

15

A/55/33

restricting. Concern was also expressed that theproposed paragraph could be understood as preventingthe Security Council from undertaking periodic reviewsof sanctions regimes, or limiting its ability to act whenneeded. At the same time, the observation was madethat the Council should periodically review theeffectiveness of sanctions regimes with a view toestablishing whether additional conditions for cessationor suspension of sanctions were warranted.

87. Regarding paragraph 8, a preference wasexpressed for more flexible wording. It was noted thata requirement of prior assessment of the consequencesof sanctions could not be imposed on the SecurityCouncil as it could negatively affect its ability to takeswift action. However, the view was also expressedthat sanctions were extreme measures and an“objective assessment” of their humanitarian impact ontarget States as well as on third countries wasappropriate. It was recalled that in the past practice ofthe Council there had been instances (for example, inthe case of Sierra Leone) where arrangements weremade foreseeing that the Secretariat, upon request,would provide an assessment of the humanitarian needsand the possible negative effects of sanctions.

88. The view was expressed that “objectiveassessments” should include an evaluation ofpreventive and corrective measures. It was alsoindicated that an assessment of sanctions regimesmight be relevant at all stages of their implementation.The suggestion was advanced that the provisions onassessment of the socio-economic and humanitarianconsequences of sanctions should be considered inconjunction with section II of the working paper. It wasalso commented that from the current text it was notclear who would be entrusted with the preparation ofassessments.

89. In commenting on the remarks made in theWorking Group, the sponsor delegation observed, withrespect to paragraph 6, that impermissible “situations”could be viewed objectively, on the understanding thatthe Security Council was expected to ensure that it wasnot the source of such situations. It also maintainedthat the proposed text did not contravene Article 50 ofthe Charter. It noted, furthermore, that the impositionof sanctions could result in irreparable damage andgive rise to substantial collateral harm; therefore, anadvance assessment of such sanctions, to be made bythe Secretariat, was appropriate. The sponsordelegation expressed its receptiveness to the drafting

suggestions aimed at making the text more flexible andcompatible with annex II of General Assemblyresolution 51/242.


90. Concerning paragraphs 9 to 11, the sponsordelegation noted that they were new additions.Paragraphs 9 and 11 were based on the note of thePresident of the Security Council of 29 January 1999(S/1999/92). Paragraph 10 drew its inspiration fromGeneral Assembly resolution 51/242, annex II.

91. While support was expressed during the debatefor the purport of paragraph 9, the view was alsoexpressed that the imperative reference to “must”contained an implicit criticism of the willingness of theSecretariat to undertake such assessments. Suchcriticism was considered unwarranted. Instead, it wassuggested that, if the paragraph was to be retained, itcould be reformulated along the lines of paragraph 9 ofthe note of the President of the Security Councilreferred to above, so as to place the emphasis on theSecurity Council being encouraged to request such anassessment from the Secretariat. Conversely, apreference was expressed for retaining the provision aspresented.

92. As to paragraph 10, the attention of the SpecialCommittee was drawn to the difference between theproposed text, which referred to the “population of theState”, and paragraph 18 of annex II to GeneralAssembly resolution 51/242, which referred instead to“target countries”. The view was expressed that theparagraph should instead refer to the target State. Thatwould be the general rule, to which some exceptions incases where no central authority existed, could beconsidered. In terms of a further view, the SecurityCouncil would be required to first certify the economicsituation of the population in question, so as to ensurethat it could properly benefit from the envisagedresources and financing. At the same time, doubt wasexpressed with regard to the wisdom of categorizingpopulations for purposes of humanitarian assistance,and support was expressed for the retention of thereference to “population”. Reference was also madeduring the discussion to General Comment No. 8(1997) on the relationship between economic sanctionsand respect for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,adopted by the Committee on Economic, Social andCultural Rights at its seventeenth session, on 4December 1997.16

16

A/55/33

93. A further suggestion was made to considerdiscussing paragraph 10 in the context of section II,and in the light of the discussion of the provisionstherein relating to the humanitarian impact ofsanctions. It was also proposed to replace paragraph 10with the last sentence of paragraph 4 of annex II toresolution 51/242, together with the entire paragraph18 of the same text. The proposed revised paragraph 10would thus read:

“Sanctions regimes must also ensure thatappropriate conditions are created for allowing anadequate supply of humanitarian material to reachthe civilian population. Foodstuffs, medicines andmedical supplies should be exempted from UnitedNations sanctions regimes. Basic or standardmedical and agricultural equipment and basic orstandard educational items should also beexempted; a list should be drawn up for thatpurpose. Other essential humanitarian goodsshould be considered for exemption by therelevant United Nations bodies, including thesanctions committees. In this regard it isrecognized that efforts should be made to allowtarget countries to have access to appropriateresources and procedures for financinghumanitarian imports.”

Conversely, in supporting the retention of the currentformulation of the paragraph, the point was made that adistinction should be drawn between the legal principleand what was possible on the ground.

94. Regarding paragraph 11, support was expressedin the Working Group for the establishment of amonitoring mechanism. It was suggested thatparagraph 11 should more closely track similaractivities being undertaken in other forums. It was alsosuggested that the paragraph should be consideredagain in the future in the light of the expectedcomments of the Secretary-General on how best toevaluate the impact of sanctions on third States.

95. Furthermore, doubts were expressed as towhether the Secretariat should be given theresponsibility of monitoring the effects of sanctions.While flexibility on the matter was expressed, it wassuggested that the responsibility should instead be thatof the Security Council and its sanctions committees,working with the assistance of the Secretariat.

96. In terms of a further suggestion, paragraph 11would be reformulated as follows:

“Following the introduction of sanctions,the Secretariat should be requested to assist inmonitoring their impact on third countries whichhave suffered or may suffer as a result of theirimplementation, so that the Security Council andits sanctions committees may receive timelyinformation and early estimates in that regard,and may, while maintaining the effectiveness ofthe sanctions regime, make the necessarycorrections or partial changes to itsimplementation or to the regime itself in order tomitigate the negative impact of the sanctions onthird countries.”

97. The sponsor delegation, referring to thecomments on paragraph 9, agreed to a reformulationthat made the wording less categorical, while at thesame time not imposing an obligation on theSecretariat. Instead, the emphasis would be placed onencouraging the Security Council to avail itself ofexisting mechanisms within the Secretariat. Onparagraph 10, the view was expressed that the questionof its location in the draft articles, i.e., whether itshould be moved to section II, should only beconsidered after the completion of the discussion onboth sections. Furthermore, it was pointed out that thereference to “population” had been inserted on purposein recognition of the fact that invariably it was thegeneral population of the target State that bore theburden of sanctions. However, the sponsor delegationdeclared itself open to other proposed formulations. Italso expressed interest in the reference to GeneralComment No. 8 (1997), and to the possibility ofincluding a sentence on ensuring unimpeded access tohumanitarian assistance and procedures. Concerningparagraph 11, the sponsor delegation noted the supportin the Special Committee for the basic thrust of theprovision, subject to finalizing its formulation andtaking into account the work currently beingundertaken in other forums.

C. Consideration of the working papersubmitted by the Russian Federationentitled “Fundamentals of the legalbasis for United Nations peacekeepingoperations in the context of Chapter VIof the Charter of the United Nations”

98. During the general debate held at the 232ndmeeting of the Special Committee, on 10 April 2000,

17

A/55/33

the sponsor delegation, the Russian Federation,referred to the working paper entitled “Fundamentalsof the legal basis for United Nations peacekeepingoperations in the context of Chapter VI of the Charterof the United Nations” (A/AC.182/L.89/Add.2 andCorr.1)17 submitted by the Russian delegation at the1998 session of the Special Committee. The sponsordelegation reiterated that the aim of the proposal was toimprove the United Nations peacekeeping operationsby elaborating the legal basis of those operations. Itwas pointed out that relevant recommendations to beelaborated in this area would take into account theextensive experience of the Organization in the field ofpeacekeeping. Owing to the multifaceted nature of theissue, it was suggested that the focus first be on thedevelopment of a legal framework of the peacekeepingmissions carried out with the consent of States in thecontext of Chapter VI of the Charter. The workingpaper identified key elements of said legal frameworkas a basis for the discussion, which included a cleardefinition of the mandate of peacekeeping operations,including humanitarian assistance; establishing thelimits to the peacekeepers’ right to self-defence, whilestrengthening their protection; analysing themechanism of apportioning responsibility between theUnited Nations and troop-contributing States for thedamage caused in the course of peacekeepingoperations; and specifying basic principles ofpeacekeeping, including the principles of neutrality,impartiality and non-interference in the internal affairsof the States parties to the conflict. The sponsordelegation suggested that a working group, consistingof experts from the Special Committee on the Charterand from the Special Committee on PeacekeepingOperations, be established for the further complexconsideration of the principles and criteria for the workof peacekeeping missions.

99. While the view was expressed that the workingpaper contained some basic ideas which were usefuland that it would be beneficial to prepare a declarationon the subject, some other delegations pointed out thatthe work of the Committee on this issue was aduplication of work of other United Nations bodiesspecifically mandated to deal with the issues ofpeacekeeping, notably the Special Committee onPeacekeeping Operations.

100. At the 4th meeting of the Working Group, on 12April 2000, the sponsor delegation, while recallingviews expressed in the past, reiterated its proposal

made during the general debate that consideration begiven to the convening of a meeting or theestablishment of a joint working group of the SpecialCommittee on the Charter and the Special Committeeon Peacekeeping Operations to hold discussions on thedraft proposal and other matters relating topeacekeeping. In its view, such cooperation wouldcontribute to a “soft codification” of existing principlesand criteria in this field. In this connection, the sponsordelegation stated that it would be desirable to requestthe Secretary-General to prepare a study on the existingpractice applicable to the convening of joint meetingsor the establishment of joint working groups or othersimilar bodies of the General Assembly. The availableprecedents could assist the Special Committee on theCharter to take a decision on the matter.

101. During the ensuing discussion, some delegationsreaffirmed positions expressed during previoussessions of the Special Committee. In particular, it waspointed out that the proposal under considerationoverlapped with the work of other bodies, in particularthe Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations. Itwas observed that the Special Committee onPeacekeeping Operations, which had held a productivesession from 11 February to 10 March 2000, was theonly forum in the United Nations to review the wholequestion of peacekeeping operations in all theiraspects, including legal aspects. Some delegationsstated that they did not view the consideration of theproposal useful or necessary. The view was alsoexpressed doubting the benefit that would be derivedfrom the proposed declaration. Another view wasexpressed that the proposal had no added value becauseit was general in nature.

102. Some delegations pointed out that the legal natureof the proposal gave it a special character, appropriatefor consideration by the Special Committee on theCharter. It was furthermore stated that recentdevelopments in international law, including theadoption of the 1998 Rome Statute of the InternationalCriminal Court, containing provisions which had someimplications on peacekeeping, necessitated that focusbe given to the legal aspects of peacekeepingoperations.

103. Concerning the procedural proposal for a jointmeeting, doubts were expressed about its feasibility. Itwas pointed out that representatives who participate inthe work of the Special Committee on the Charter had abusy schedule, including meetings of the Preparatory

18

A/55/33

Commission for the International Criminal Court.Similarly, the Special Committee on PeacekeepingOperations was scheduled to have an informal meetingto consider its work during 2000. Some delegationspointed out that a joint meeting of the two committeeswas unnecessary and burdensome. In their view, it wasup to each delegation to coordinate its efforts and takecoherent positions when participating in the work ofvarious committees. It was also stated that to convenesuch a joint meeting of the committees was a pointlessexercise because such an approach was not going toovercome the substantive objections to the proposal.Other delegations stated that it would be premature torequest the Secretary-General to prepare a study on theprecedents regarding the convening of such a meetingwithout first soliciting the views of the SpecialCommittee on Peacekeeping Operations. To theirknowledge, the Committee in question had not raisedthe issue, nor had it requested the assistance of theSpecial Committee on the Charter in this respect. Itwas therefore suggested that the sponsor delegationshould raise the matter in that Committee as well. Aview was also expressed doubting the relevance of thepractice of other joint working groups or similarbodies, considering the specific nature of the work ofthe Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations aswell as its mandate.

104. Some delegations said that they did not have afirm position on the question because sound argumentshad been advanced by both sides. Those delegationsdid not object to consulting with the SpecialCommittee on Peacekeeping while at the same timesoliciting the assistance of the Secretariat on thequestion of the existing practice. It was suggested thatthe Chairman of the Special Committee on the Chartercould consult the Chairman of the Special Committeeon Peacekeeping Operations. A point was howevermade doubting whether the chairmanship of aparticular committee extended beyond the duration ofthat committee’s session. It was also suggested that thesponsor delegation could convene informalconsultations involving representatives of bothcommittees. It was recalled that representatives of theSixth and Second Committees had held informalconsultations on the question of oceans and law of thesea during the fifty-fourth session of the GeneralAssembly. The proposal on the convening of informalconsultations was supported by some delegations asbeing practical.

105. Some delegations supported the proposal to holda joint meeting or to establish a joint working group, ifthe administrative conditions were clarified by theSecretariat. Such a meeting could help in clarifyingcertain aspects of the question and it did notnecessarily mean that a new instrument would have tobe elaborated.

106. Commenting on the decision-making processesinvolved, the point was made that a mandate for anyjoint meeting should only be given by the GeneralAssembly. In this connection, it was envisaged that anysuch meeting could not in any event be held until 2001at the earliest.

107. The sponsor delegation expressed preference foradvance clarifications from the Secretariat because theinformation provided would help the delegation todecide how best to approach the Special Committee onPeacekeeping Operations on the question. For example,it was stressed that it was not clear how such a meetingwould be convened or a working group established,whether through agreement between the chairmen ofthe two committees or a decision of the twocommittees or of the General Assembly. The sponsordelegation also doubted whether the proposedconvening of informal consultations would assurerepresentation of all interested delegations. Inresponding to a question about the scope of the requestto the Secretariat, the sponsor delegation stated that itdid not want a detailed study on the issue. It onlysought information on: (a) whether there had been jointmeetings or there had been precedents of joint workinggroups or similar bodies in the framework of theGeneral Assembly that had taken place in the lastseveral years; (b) the documents prepared if any; and(c) the procedure followed to convene such meetings.

108. Some delegations wondered whether, with theclarifications given, the request to the Secretariatshould be based on a decision of the SpecialCommittee on the Charter. Some delegations pointedout that while some delegations had requestedinformation from the Secretariat, it had to be clearlyunderstood that the Committee had not asked for suchinformation and that the unnecessary utilization of theresources of the Secretariat should be avoided.

109. The sponsor delegation expressed the hope thatthe Secretariat would be in a position to provide theinformation sought. It therefore proposed thesuspension of the consideration of the proposal. After

19

A/55/33

some discussion, the Working Group deferred theconclusion of its consideration of the proposal only forthe purpose of receiving a presentation from theSecretariat if information sought by the sponsordelegation was available before the conclusion of theWorking Group’s substantive discussion. A view wasexpressed that the sponsor delegation should providethe delegations with a text of its proposal for a jointmeeting/Working Group for their respective capitals.

110. At the 9th meeting of the Working Group, on 14April 2000, the Secretary of the Committee orallypresented the information requested by the sponsordelegation. The Secretariat had made contacts withofficials of the Department of General AssemblyAffairs and Conference Services, including those of thesecretariats of the Second and Third Committees. Asfar as those officials were able to determine, there wasno precedent for any joint session of the Committee orjoint working group during the period under review(see para. 107 above). However, there had been jointbriefings for the Second and Third Committees on theitem entitled “Further measures for the restructuringand revitalization of the United Nations in theeconomic, social and related fields”,18 the bureaux ofthe two Committees did meet though on a completelyinformal basis and without any documentation resultingfrom such a meeting. Occasionally there were jointmeetings of other bodies (for example, the bureaux ofthe two preparatory committees for the two specialsessions of the General Assembly to be held in June2000), also on a very informal basis. In the light of theabove information and in the absence of any provisionsin the rules of procedure of the General Assembly forestablishing a joint working group, there was noestablished practice for the procedure to be followed inthat regard.

111. The sponsor delegation thanked the Secretariatfor the information and recalled that such precedentsexisted in the practice of the United Nations; forexample, there was a joint working group of the Thirdand the Sixth Committees of the General Assembly onthe preparation of a draft convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitations to war crimes andcrimes against humanity.19 The sponsor delegationindicated that the information given would help it todecide on the next course of action.

D. Consideration of the working paperssubmitted by Cuba at the 1997 and1998 sessions of the Special Committee,entitled “Strengthening of the role ofthe Organization and enhancing itseffectiveness”

112. During the general debate held at the 232ndmeeting of the Special Committee, on 10 April 2000,the delegation of Cuba recalled the proposals whichhad been put forward in 1992 and which werecontained in previous reports of the SpecialCommittee.20 It was noted in this regard that thepremise for such proposals was that thedemocratization of the Organization, which wouldinclude the Security Council, should be carried out in abalanced way. In this connection, the delegation ofCuba was of the view that its working paper(A/AC.182/L.93/Add.1)21 had a particular validitysince it dealt with the competence of the SecurityCouncil and the General Assembly in the maintenanceof international peace and security at a time when theAssembly had been increasingly marginalized by theSecurity Council. The sponsor delegation felt that theproposal sought, on the basis of the provisions of theCharter, to reverse that imbalance and expressed thehope that it would constitute an important input to thedebate on the issue.

113. At the 4th meeting of the Working Group, on 12April 2000, the sponsor delegation indicated thatalthough the General Assembly had established otherworking groups to deal with the reform of the UnitedNations, the results obtained had been quite modest insome cases, had gone on to become part of theinstitutional memory or had been forgotten in othercases, while negotiations on other aspects of the reformhad reached an impasse. In this connection, the sponsordelegation considered that the debates in the SpecialCommittee could constitute an important contributionto the negotiations undertaken in other organs.

114. Although the sponsor delegation recognized thatsome aspects of the reforms contained in its initialproposals on the working methods of the SecurityCouncil had been overtaken by the negotiations carriedout in the Open-Ended Working Group on the Questionof Equitable Representation on and Increase in theMembership of the Security Council and Other Mattersrelated to the Security Council, and that some had beenincorporated into the Council’s practice, there were

20

A/55/33

nonetheless other elements that still meritedconsideration.

115. At the 5th meeting of the Working Group, on 12April 2000, the sponsor delegation invited delegationsto reflect on the following issues and expressed thehope that their consideration would be given priority:

(a) The necessity to identify the ways andmeans to ensure that the General Assembly canperiodically assess, in practical ways, the work of theSecurity Council, including the work of the permanentmembers, beyond the consideration of its annual reportto the General Assembly;

(b) The necessity to promote a debate on thebalance between the functions of the principal organsof the United Nations, in accordance with the Charter,and to consider the appropriate forum to do so.

116. Some delegations expressed their support for theproposal by the sponsor delegation to consider therecent change in the delicate balance between thefunctions of the General Assembly and the SecurityCouncil, to the detriment of the former. It was notedthat the Assembly also had a role in the maintenance ofinternational peace and security, which was not anexclusive function of the Security Council. The pointwas also raised that the International Court of Justice,not the Security Council, had a role to play in the caseof legal disputes. In that connection, attention wasdrawn to Article 36, paragraph 3, of the Charter.Reference was also made to the declarations andresolutions adopted by the General Assembly on thequestion of fact-finding missions as an effective meansof establishing the facts impartially, which in turnwould necessarily assist in reaching a peacefulsettlement of the conflict in question.

117. Some delegations were of the view that thedynamic negotiating process in the Open-EndedWorking Group on the Question of EquitableRepresentation on and Increase in the Membership ofthe Security Council and Other Matters related to theSecurity Council was addressing the points raised bythe sponsor delegation and that that Working Groupwas the appropriate forum for such discussions. Asregards the first point raised by the sponsor delegation,it was noted that there might be a barrier to having theGeneral Assembly assess the Security Council.

118. For its part, the sponsor delegation indicated that,although some aspects of its proposal could be

considered by the Open-Ended Working Group referredto above, it preferred a substantive debate in theGeneral Assembly.

E. Consideration of the revised proposalpresented by the Libyan ArabJamahiriya with a view tostrengthening the role of the UnitedNations in the maintenance ofinternational peace and security

119. At the 5th meeting of the Working Group, on12 April 2000, the delegation of the Libyan ArabJamahiriya recalled its revised proposal(A/AC.182/L.99)22 and expressed the hope that theSpecial Committee could begin its consideration in duecourse.

F. Consideration of the working papersubmitted by the Russian Federationand Belarus

120. During the general debate held in the SpecialCommittee, at its 232nd meeting, on 10 April 2000,reference was made to the proposal by the RussianFederation and Belarus, submitted at the previoussession of the Special Committee(A/AC.182/L.104/Rev.1),23 to recommend that anadvisory opinion be requested from the InternationalCourt of Justice as to the legal consequences of theresort to the use of force by States, either without theprior authorization of the Security Council or outsidethe context of self-defence. The Russian Federation, asco-sponsor, reiterated its view that no State or group ofStates was entitled to bypass the United Nations whenresorting to the use of force, and that enforcementmeasures might only be undertaken within theparameters of the Charter of the United Nations, andwith the authorization of the Security Council. It notedthat the working paper had been proposed in defence ofkey provisions of the Charter, and that the SpecialCommittee was thus the appropriate forum for itsdiscussion. Reference was also made to anotherdocument prepared by the Russian Federation entitled“Concept of the world in the twenty-first century”,24 inwhich a new concept of peace had been proposed.

121. It was stated in the Special Committee that theproposal under consideration reflected many important

21

A/55/33

aspects relative to the functioning, efficiency andlegitimacy of the United Nations, at a time of greatcomplexity for the international community. Referencewas made in particular to the principles contained inthe Act of Veracruz of 19 March 1999, which reflecteda basic consensus among some Member States on theneed to strengthen the United Nations, with due respectto the objectives and principles set forth in the Charter,as a way of promoting the maintenance of internationalpeace and security. Another view was expressed that,apart from the exercise of self-defence under Article51, any military action against a sovereign Stateconstituted a violation of the Charter.

122. The working paper was next discussed in thecontext of the Working Group at its 5th meeting, on 12April 2000. The Russian Federation, in introducing thediscussion on the proposal, pointed to the need toaffirm the immutability of the principle of the non-useof force and other related principles. At the same time,it was recognized that the principle of non-interventionwas evolving in the direction of greater transparency,and that in some cases enforcement measures could beresorted to in the face of flagrant violations of humanrights. The examples of Haiti, Somalia and East Timorwere referred to in that regard. However, it was alsoreiterated that, under the Charter, only the SecurityCouncil may act on behalf of the internationalcommunity, and that calling into question the need toresolve disputes peacefully on the basis of the equalityof States was tantamount to calling into questioninternational law itself. Reference was again made tothe above-mentioned new concept of peace for thetwenty-first century, proposed by the RussianFederation for consideration by the MillenniumAssembly of the United Nations. The new conceptincluded as a key aspect the issue of the use of armedforce in international relations. In the sponsor’s view, itwas important to ensure that the system of internationalsecurity established by the United Nations became areliable impediment to armed conflict. As such, theworking paper had been proposed with a view to theprogressive development of the legal principles relatedto the non-use of force. It was recommended that theSpecial Committee continue to consider the topic at its2001 session, taking into account the outcome of theMillennium Assembly, with a view to developingrecommendations on the proposal to be submitted tothe General Assembly at its fifty-sixth session in 2001.

123. The delegation of Belarus, also in its capacity asco-sponsor, stated its view that the system establishedby the Charter remained the cornerstone formaintaining international peace and security. It furtherdescribed the operative provisions of the proposal andexpressed the view that the proposal did not infringe onthe competence of the Security Council. It observedfurther that the International Court of Justice’sinterpretation of Chapter VII could serve as a basis forthe Special Committee’s development of further textson the maintenance of international peace and security.

124. During the ensuing debate, the view wasexpressed that the violations of the Charter beingreferred to constituted aggression and State terrorism.Therefore the proposal was supported so as tostrengthen the prestige of the Organization and toreaffirm the principles on which the Charter was built.Support was also expressed for a careful review of theproposal, followed by its submission to the GeneralAssembly at its fifty-fifth session for consideration.

125. Others thanked the sponsor delegations for theirproposal and information and reiterated their positionsas elaborated during the previous session of the SpecialCommittee, and reflected in its report. Reference wasalso made to the comment of the Russian Federationthat the matter would be considered at the MillenniumAssembly, and therefore, in the light of that view, thatthe Special Committee should not consider theproposal further. The view was expressed thatconsideration of the topic should continue at its nextsession.

Chapter IVPeaceful settlement of disputes

Consideration of the revised proposalsubmitted by Sierra Leone entitled“Establishment of a dispute preventionand early settlement service”

126. During the general debate held at the 232ndmeeting of the Special Committee, on 10 April 2000,some delegations recalled the work of the SpecialCommittee on the proposal submitted by SierraLeone,25 in particular the informal working papersubmitted by the United Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Ireland at the 1999 session,26 and noted thatthe proposal, with its emphasis on existing

22

A/55/33

mechanisms, merited further study. Those delegationsexpressed the hope that concrete results would beachieved during the current session of the SpecialCommittee on the basis of that proposal.

127. At the 6th meeting of the Working Group, on 13April, the delegations of Sierra Leone and the UnitedKingdom submitted a joint revised informal workingpaper, which read as follows:

“The General Assembly,

“Recalling Article 33 of the Charter of theUnited Nations, and underlining the obligation ofMember States to seek a solution of their disputesby peaceful means of their choice,

“Noting with appreciation the work done bythe delegation of Sierra Leone during recentsessions of the Special Committee on the Charterof the United Nations and on the Strengthening ofthe Role of the Organization to encourage Statesto focus on the need to settle peacefully disputesbetween them at an early stage before they arelikely to endanger the maintenance ofinternational peace and security,

“Emphasizing the need to promote thepeaceful settlement of disputes,

“Recalling the various procedures andmethods for prevention of disputes and thepeaceful settlement of disputes available toStates, including fact-finding missions, good-willmissions, special envoys, observers, good offices,mediators and conciliators,

“Recalling also its previous relevantresolutions, in particular resolution 2329 (XXII)of 18 December 1967, in which it requested theSecretary-General to prepare a register of expertswhose services States parties to a dispute mightuse for fact-finding in relation to the dispute;resolution 44/415 of 4 December 1989, the annexto which contains a draft document on resort to acommission of good offices, mediation orconciliation within the United Nations; andresolution 50/50 of 11 December 1995, the annexto which contains the United Nations ModelRules for the Conciliation of Disputes betweenStates,

“Noting with satisfaction that, pursuant toits recommendation contained in resolution

47/120 of 18 December 1992, the Secretary-General established a list of eminent andqualified experts for his use in fact-finding andother missions, and that this list has recently beenupdated,

“Recalling further that certain multilateraltreaties, of which the Secretary-General is adepositary, provide for the creation of lists ofconciliators and arbitrators for use by States inthe settlement of their disputes,

“Reaffirming the important role played bythe International Court of Justice and theInternational Tribunal for the Law of the Sea inthe settlement of disputes between States,

“1. Reaffirms the duty of all States to findpeaceful means by which to settle any dispute towhich they are parties before such dispute islikely to endanger the maintenance ofinternational peace and security;

“2. Encourages States parties to anydispute to endeavour to settle it as early aspossible;

“3. Notes the wide variety of proceduresand methods for the prevention of disputes andthe peaceful settlement of disputes currentlyavailable to States, both inside and outside theUnited Nations system;

“4. Takes note of the useful paperprepared by the Secretariat entitled ‘Mechanismsestablished by the General Assembly in thecontext of dispute prevention and settlement’(A/AC.182/2000/INF/2);

“5. Urges States parties to any dispute tomake the most effective use of existingprocedures and methods for dispute settlement;

“6. Encourages States to nominatesuitably qualified persons who are willing toprovide fact-finding services, for inclusion in theregister set up by the Secretary-General pursuantto paragraph 4 of General Assembly resolution2329 (XXII);

“7. Encourages also eligible States tonominate suitably qualified persons to have theirnames included in the lists of conciliators andarbitrators provided for under certain treaties, ofwhich the Secretary-General is depositary,

23

A/55/33

including the Vienna Convention on the Law ofTreaties and the United Nations Convention onthe Law of the Sea;

“8. Reminds States of the important roleplayed by the International Court of Justice andthe International Tribunal for the Law of the Seain the peaceful settlement of disputes;

“9. Requests the Secretary-General to takesuch steps as he deems necessary from time totime to encourage States to designate suitablyqualified persons for inclusion in the various listsreferred to above which he has responsibility formaintaining.”

128. In introducing the working paper, the delegationof the United Kingdom stated that in revising theinformal paper submitted during the 1999 session theco-sponsors had sought to clarify the scope andobjectives of the draft, as well as to incorporateadditional references to relevant existing mechanisms,including those created by major multilateral treaties.The co-sponsors had taken into account, inter alia, thenote by the Secretariat entitled “Mechanismsestablished by the General Assembly in the context ofdispute prevention and settlement”, prepared inresponse to a request contained in paragraph 108 of thereport of the Special Committee on its previoussession27 and circulated at the 5th meeting of theWorking Group on 12 April. The co-sponsor delegationnoted that, apart from some stylistic changes, the firstpreambular paragraph remained substantially the same.The second preambular paragraph was also unchanged,except for minor amendments to align the text with thelanguage of Article 33 of the Charter of the UnitedNations. In this connection, it was noted that the words“likely to cause a threat” were replaced by “likely toendanger”. The third preambular paragraph remainedunchanged. The fourth preambular paragraph was new,containing an illustrative list of procedures and means.It was also noted that the previous fourth preambularparagraph had been deleted because the Panelestablished by resolution 268 (III) D had never beenused, and consequently, operative paragraph 4 of theprevious informal paper had also been deleted. Thefifth preambular paragraph was a combination of theprevious fifth and sixth preambular paragraphs and italso included other relevant resolutions. It was pointedout that consideration could be given to the addition ofother resolutions, such as resolution 46/59, the annexto which contains the Declaration on Fact-finding by

the United Nations in the Field of the Maintenance ofInternational Peace and Security. The sixth preambularparagraph was new and took into account the paperprepared by the Secretariat. The seventh preambularparagraph was also new, focusing on regimesestablished in multilateral treaties of which theSecretary-General was the depositary. It was stated thatthis paragraph had to be read together with operativeparagraph 7, which was more specific, and singled outtwo multilateral treaties of immediate interest. Theeighth preambular paragraph was also new andacknowledged the importance of judicial settlement ofdisputes.

129. Turning to the operative paragraphs, thedelegation of the United Kingdom noted thatparagraphs 1 and 2 were previously paragraph 1; minorchanges had been introduced to paragraph 1 to ensurecompatibility with the provisions of the Charter.Paragraph 3, formerly paragraph 2, remained largelyunchanged, except for the addition of the notion ofprevention of disputes. Paragraph 4 was new and tooknote of the Secretariat’s paper. In this connection, arequest was made that the paper be issued as an officialUnited Nations document. Paragraph 5, originallyparagraph 3, was unchanged. Paragraph 6 was anamended version of the former paragraphs 5 and 6.Paragraph 7 was new and made specific reference tothe Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and theUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea sincethose instruments established lists of conciliators andarbitrators.28 Paragraph 8 was new and was related tothe eighth preambular paragraph. Paragraph 9 was arevised version of the previous paragraph 6 and wasintended to apply to all instruments that establishedlists of experts referred to in the draft resolution. Inconcluding, it was noted that the co-sponsors remainedopen to suggestions and welcomed comments fromdelegations. The other co-sponsor delegation, SierraLeone, informed the meeting that it was prepared tohold informal consultations on the proposal.

130. Support was expressed for the revised informalpaper, noting that it was a good basis for further work.The view was expressed that the paper containedpositive improvements, and underlined the newapproach that placed emphasis on the existingmechanisms on peaceful settlement of disputes. It wasnoted that the support given to the proposed textdemonstrated how the Special Committee was uniquelyqualified to consider matters to which the Charter

24

A/55/33

attached primary importance, such as the peacefulsettlement of disputes. It was recommended that aneffort be made to conclude the consideration of theproposal during the current session of the SpecialCommittee, and an opportunity to discuss the textinformally was welcomed. Appreciation for the paperprepared by the Secretariat and support for its issuanceas an official document of the United Nations29 wasalso expressed.

131. Some delegations, while welcoming anorientation that encouraged the use of existingmechanisms, cautioned against taking a partialapproach to a subject that demanded a comprehensiveanalysis and on which important achievements hadalready been made. It was pointed out that the principleof the peaceful settlement of disputes, which wasclosely linked to other principles of international law,should not be considered in isolation and any draftshould clearly reflect all the principles in a holisticfashion. In this context, it was observed that theGeneral Assembly had adopted a number of importantresolutions and declarations which reaffirmed and dealtwith the issues involved comprehensively. Theseinstruments included resolutions 2627 (XXV), 2734(XXV) and 40/9 as well as the Declaration onPrinciples of International Law concerning FriendlyRelations and Cooperation among States in accordancewith the Charter of the United Nations (resolution 2625(XXV)) and the Manila Declaration on the PeacefulSettlement of International Disputes (resolution 37/10).One delegation expressed doubts as to the usefulness ofadopting in future a new document in the context of amechanism for the peaceful settlement of disputes.

132. The importance of the purposes and principles ofthe Charter as well as the principle of free choice ofmeans was also stressed. With regard to the latter, therelevance of traditional means of settlement ofdisputes, in particular negotiation, was highlighted.The consensual nature of the means and methods ofdispute settlement was emphasized, and it was alsonoted that the revised informal paper omitted animportant element contained in the original proposal,namely, the voluntary nature of the services offered.30

The view was also expressed that the informal paperdid not add any new element to the existing body ofinstruments.

133. The observation was made that the paper did notsufficiently address the question of prevention ofdisputes. In this connection, it was noted that the

existence of a new generation of conflicts required anappropriate response, which included a comprehensivestrategy for conflict prevention. Advocating more time,some delegations stated that the seriousness of theissues under consideration demanded reflection anddeliberation. Doubt was expressed as to whether aresolution was the most appropriate instrument to beadopted.

134. The delegation of the United Kingdom reiteratedthe flexibility of the co-sponsors with regard to thecontent of the informal paper. It also pointed out thatthe sponsors had made a conscious attempt tostreamline the resolution and avoided being over-ambitious, so as not to lose the focus and scope of theproposal. It also expressed the hope that a concreteoutcome would be achieved during the current sessionof the Special Committee.

135. At its 6th and 7th meetings, on 13 April, theWorking Group discussed the revised informal workingpapers on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. Somedelegations expressed reservations over the detailedconsideration of the paper at that stage, maintainingthat the aim of the proposal was conceptually andtextually not clear. They stated that their silence shouldnot be interpreted as acceptance of, or acquiescence in,the proposal and they reserved the right to revert to theproposal after consulting their authorities.

First preambular paragraph

136. A suggestion was made to identify an overarchingtheme and define the purpose of the proposal, clearlysetting out its focus. In this regard, a suggestion wasmade to agree first on the title of the resolution, whichcould confine consideration only to mechanismsestablished by the General Assembly. In addition, aspecific proposal was made that the title should beamended to read “Prevention of disputes byencouraging States to make use of the existing meansfor dispute settlement”. Some delegations proposed areaffirmation of the purposes and principles of theCharter before the principle of free choice of means,emphasizing the need for a specific reference to theobligations under Article 2, paragraphs 3 and 4, of theCharter in the current paragraph or in a separateopening preambular paragraph. The necessity ofrecalling all resolutions of the General Assembly thatwere related to the subject matter was also stressed. Itwas suggested that the reference to Article 33 shouldbe in operative paragraph 1, as opposed to the current

25

A/55/33

paragraph. It was also suggested that the language ofArticle 33 should be followed closely, in particular“their choice” should be “their own choice”. It wasproposed that the paragraph should not only recall thetraditional means of dispute settlement but also reflectany new elements that were peculiar to conflictprevention.

137. In the light of the discussions held previously onthe initial proposal by Sierra Leone, a view wasexpressed cautioning against being over-ambitious andstating that the revised informal paper struck amanageable balance to build upon.

Second preambular paragraph

138. An observation was made that the wording of theparagraph was vague and not entirely satisfactory. Inparticular, it was not clear whether the statement ofappreciation in the text should be to the delegation ofSierra Leone or to the Special Committee.

Third preambular paragraph

139. The point was made that the question of thepeaceful settlement of disputes should be consideredalso in the context of early warning and conflictprevention. It was therefore suggested that the phrase“early warning and prevention and” be inserted afterthe word “Emphasizing”.

Fourth preambular paragraph

140. A suggestion was made that the paragraph shouldrefer to binding third-party dispute settlementprocedures as well. The extension of the procedures tothe Security Council as well as the General Assemblywas also proposed. Some delegations expressedconcern with the listing of the mechanisms, indicatingthat its scope was unclear, and requested its deletion;others questioned the appropriateness of including non-traditional mechanisms such as special envoys andobservers. Other delegations, however, favoured theretention of the list since it added specificity to theparagraph. Moreover, it was suggested that the listcould be expanded to include such notions aspreventive deployment, as means of prevention,provided the deployment was made with the consent ofthe parties concerned. On the other hand, some doubtwas expressed as to whether preventive deploymentwas a means of settlement of disputes. It was alsostated that the means of prevention were not well

established. It was further pointed out that the questionof consent was implied in the language of the firstpreambular paragraph.

141. It was proposed that since the list was intended tobe only illustrative, the words “inter alia” could beused in the text. Some delegations observed that if thelist was retained, all the traditional means referred to inArticle 33 of the Charter should be added. In thisconnection, it was suggested that the traditional means,such as negotiation, should be accorded primacy in thelisting over the other means that were currently in thetext.

Fifth preambular paragraph

142. A view was expressed suggesting thecombination of this paragraph with the fourthpreambular paragraph in order to avoid the problemsraised regarding the scope of the fourth preambularparagraph. Some delegations supported the additionalreference to the Declaration on Fact-finding. Aproposal was also made to include, as a minimum, theDeclaration on Principles of International Lawconcerning Friendly Relations, the Manila Declarationand the Declaration on the Prevention and Removal ofDisputes and Situations Which May ThreatenInternational Peace and Security and on the Role of theOrganization in this Field (General Assemblyresolution 43/51, annex) because those instrumentsprovided the basic framework for the consideration ofquestions relating to the peaceful settlement ofdisputes.

Sixth preambular paragraph

143. There were no comments made with respect tothe sixth preambular paragraph.

Seventh preambular paragraph

144. The view was expressed that the seventhpreambular paragraph should be specific and list someexamples. At the same time, the restriction to certainmultilateral treaties, of which the Secretary-Generalwas a depositary, was questioned. In this connection, itwas proposed that the reference to the Secretary-General be deleted. It was noted that such a deletionmight usefully entail a wider interpretation that wouldinclude such bodies as the Permanent Court ofArbitration.

26

A/55/33

145. The delegation of the United Kingdom, whileopen to suggestions, clarified that the restriction wasintended to give the proposal a United Nations focus.Under operative paragraph 9, the Secretary-Generalwould have a role of encouraging States to designatesuitably qualified persons for inclusion in the variouslists that these instruments have established. It alsoreminded delegations that the paragraph should be readtogether with operative paragraph 7.

Eighth preambular paragraph

146. The point was made that this paragraph shouldinclude references to the important role played by theSecurity Council, as the principal organ with theprimary responsibility for the maintenance ofinternational peace and security, as well as to theGeneral Assembly. Some delegations, while agreeingwith the inclusion of a reference to the SecurityCouncil, doubted the reference to the GeneralAssembly since the eventual instrument was going tobe adopted by the same Assembly. Other delegationspreferred retaining the paragraph without changebecause it was concerned with judicial settlement ofdisputes. It was therefore suggested that the additionalreferences to the role of Security Council could be thesubject of a separate paragraph. A point was madestressing the need to strike an appropriate balance inthe text between judicial and political settlement. Asuggestion was also made to delete either the eighthpreambular paragraph or operative paragraph 8 sincethey covered similar ground. A proposal was made toadd the words “and other international tribunals” after“Law of the Sea”, in order to broaden the scope of theparagraph. Alternatively, the addition of the words“inter alia” after the word “played” was suggested.Other delegations, however, objected to theamendment, pointing out that its actual scope wouldremain unclear. In response, the Permanent Court ofArbitration was cited as an example of an internationaltribunal to which the paragraph, if amended, wouldapply.

Operative paragraphs 1 and 2

147. The need to maintain in the above paragraphs thebalance between dispute prevention and disputesettlement was reiterated by some delegations. It wastherefore suggested that notions of early warning andthe ability to take anticipatory action in order toprevent an aggravation of the situation needed to be

addressed in paragraph 1 or in a separate paragraph. Apoint was also made that the current paragraph shouldbe preceded by another paragraph that would lay downthe international legal foundation for settlement ofdisputes and prevention of situations, namely, theCharter, decisions of the Security Council and the ruleof international law and justice. The importance of theobligations under the Charter, particularly Article 2,paragraph 3, was stressed.

148. It was suggested that the second preambularparagraph should remain part of the first preambularparagraph. The observation was also made that theparagraph raised an interesting proposition that neededfurther reflection. In this context, it was stated that inorder to reach a fair and equitable settlement of adispute, an agreement between the parties, determinedon the basis of international legal principles and, as asecondary consideration, the need for a long-term andlasting solution, was paramount. It was thereforesuggested that early settlement might, in certaininstances, exacerbate the situation. It was noted, on thecontrary, citing Article 38, paragraph 2, of the Statuteof the International Court of Justice, that legalconsiderations were not always the basis for reachingan agreement and parties to a dispute might reach asettlement based on any other considerations, providedthere was no conflict with a peremptory norm ofinternational law (jus cogens).

Operative paragraph 3

149. Some delegations suggested deletion ofreferences to prevention because the procedures andmethods of prevention were not clear. In particular, thephrases “wide variety” and “inside and outside”seemed to broaden the scope of the paragraph. It wassuggested that the mechanisms be restricted to theUnited Nations. In response, it was observed that therewere a number of procedures that were available underthe Charter for purposes of prevention of disputes.What needed to be stressed was the fact that thoseprocedures were available only at the request or withthe consent of the parties concerned. It was alsopointed out that the Secretary-General, with anefficient early warning system, could prevent asituation from becoming a dispute. It was noted thatexamples outside the United Nations included the HighCommissioner on Minorities and rapporteur missionswithin the context of the Organization for Security andCooperation in Europe (OSCE), and it was observed

27

A/55/33

that the deployment of such mechanisms or in similarsituations did not always require the consent of theStates concerned. Those examples were also given insupport of a restriction to the procedures and methodswithin the United Nations.


150. Some questions were raised about the status ofthe note by the Secretariat (A/AC.182/2000/INF/2),pointing out that more time was required to study thepaper before any decision as to the inclusion of theparagraph could be made; and also whether it could bereferred to in the resolution. Some concern was alsoexpressed regarding the distribution of the note. Inaddition, an inquiry was made as to whether theHandbook on Peaceful Settlement of Disputes betweenStates, which was a very useful publication by theSecretariat, could be revised and republished. It wasnoted that any decision to revise the Handbook wouldhave to be taken by the General Assembly, taking intoaccount the financial implications.


151. It was suggested that the agreed language of theDeclaration on Principles of International Lawconcerning Friendly Relations could be used in thisparagraph instead. The view was expressed that thirdparties should also be encouraged to respect the meanschosen by States parties to the dispute and shouldavoid interfering under the guise of mediation or offerof good offices. On the other hand, it was noted that tooffer good offices or mediation was a right of thirdStates and the making of such an offer should not beregarded as an unfriendly act by the parties to thedispute.31


152. There were no comments made in respect ofoperative paragraph 6.


153. A proposal was made to delete the reference tothe two Conventions.


154. Some delegations proposed that the text shouldallude to the role of the Security Council as well as thatof the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The suggestion

to delete operative paragraph 8 or the eighthpreambular paragraph was reiterated. The view wasexpressed that, instead of repeating the same languageas in the preamble, the paragraph should encourageStates to make the declaration under Article 36,paragraph 2, of the Statute of the International Court ofJustice, recognizing as compulsory ipso facto thejurisdiction of the Court. A point was, however, madethat it was not unusual for the preambular paragraph ina resolution to have a corresponding paragraph in theoperative part. There were also some doubts raisedabout the proposal concerning the acceptance of thecompulsory jurisdiction of the International Court ofJustice. It was contended that it was contrary to thefundamental consensual nature of the means forsettlement of disputes. It was also pointed out that theparagraph should not duplicate efforts already taken bythe General Assembly, as reflected in resolutionsadopted, for example, on matters relating to oceans andthe law of the sea.

Paragraph 9

155. There were no comments made in respect ofoperative paragraph 9.

Chapter VProposals concerning theTrusteeship Council

156. During the general debate held at the 232ndmeeting of the Special Committee, on 10 April 2000,different views were expressed as regards the future ofthe Trusteeship Council. While support was expressedfor its abolishment, the proposal of the Secretary-General (A/52/849) to reconstitute the Council as aguardian of the common heritage of mankind wasnoted with interest. However, it was also pointed outthat any such change in the mandate of the Councilwould entail a revision of the Charter of the UnitedNations and should be dealt with in the context of thereform of the Organization. It was also observed thatthe continued existence of the Council currentlyentailed no financial implications for the Organization.

157. The topic was taken up at the 5th meeting of theWorking Group, on 12 April 2000, at which time thesponsor delegation, Malta, observed that the divergentviews regarding the role of the Trusteeship Council,conveyed by the Member States to the Secretary-

28

A/55/33

General as well as expressed during the debates of theSpecial Committee and the Sixth Committee, remainedunchanged. The three main views identified were: thatthe Council should be reconstituted as a trustee andguardian of the global commons and commonconcerns, as proposed by the sponsor delegation; thatthe status quo should be maintained, since theCouncil’s historic mission had not yet been fulfilled; orthat the Council should be abolished since its mandatehad indeed been fulfilled. The sponsor delegationreiterated its proposal and reaffirmed that a revisedCouncil would act in trust to safeguard theenvironment, protect the global commons and monitorthe governance of the oceans.

158. The sponsor delegation reiterated its view that theproposal merited an in-depth consideration alsobecause, in the view of the sponsor, it had beenendorsed by the Secretary-General in the context of thereform of the United Nations, in his note entitled “Anew concept of trusteeship” (A/52/849). It was alsoobserved that it would be premature to discuss thedetails regarding the functioning of the proposedmechanism until an agreement was reached on theconcept.

159. Different views were expressed during thesubsequent debate in the Working Group. Whilesupport was expressed for the proposal, it was alsoobserved that it would require further thought in thefuture since it would necessitate an amendment to theCharter, and therefore should be considered in thecontext of the reform of the Charter of the UnitedNations. In that regard, the suggestion was made thatthe sponsor delegation could provide delegations withthe Charter amendments its proposal would entail.

160. The debate focused on a further suggestion toconsider the proposal on a biennial basis, in theframework of the Special Committee. Severaldelegations, including the sponsor delegation,supported the suggestion. Others, however, proposedthat the matter of biennializing the topic should bedecided at the next session of the Special Committee,taking into account the outcome of the forthcomingMillennium Summit and Millennium Assembly of theUnited Nations. The possibility was then raised ofbiennializing the consideration of the topic as of the2001 session of the Special Committee. However, theWorking Group was advised to exercise caution intaking any decisions on the matter. A preference wasalso expressed for retaining the current approach of

considering the proposal on an annual basis. In termsof a further suggestion, the Special Committee couldrecommend that the Sixth Committee, at the fifty-fifthsession of the General Assembly, consider thepossibility of the biennialization of the debate on theproposal, in the light of the result of the above-mentioned meetings. The proposal was also made tocontinue the discussion of the issue during the WorkingGroup’s consideration of the topic on the workingmethods of the Special Committee.

Chapter VIRepertory of Practice of UnitedNations Organs and Repertoire ofthe Practice of the Security Council

161. The ongoing efforts by the Secretary-Generalaimed at reducing the backlog in the publication of theRepertory of Practice of United Nations Organs andRepertoire of the Practice of the Security Council werecommended by some delegations. It was pointed outthat both publications provided the most importantinformation regarding the implementation of theCharter of the United Nations and the work of itsorgans. Some delegations were pleased to note that,following a contribution from the United Kingdom ofGreat Britain and Northern Ireland, a trust fund for theupdating of the Repertoire of the Practice of theSecurity Council was being established, to which allMember States would be invited to contribute.

29

A/55/33

Chapter VIIWorking methods of the SpecialCommittee, identification of newsubjects, assistance to workinggroups on the revitalization of thework of the United Nations andcoordination between the SpecialCommittee and other workinggroups dealing with the reform ofthe Organization

A. Working methods of the SpecialCommittee

162. During the general debate on 10 April 2000,delegations underscored the importance they attachedto the Committee’s efforts to improve its workingmethods and suggested ways to make the SpecialCommittee a more effective and result-oriented body.Some delegations attached particular importance to theneed to avoid duplication and repetition of the work ofother United Nations organs and to have a cut-offmechanism to prevent the protracted discussions oftopics without results. Other delegations, whileagreeing that the ways of improving the workingmethods should be considered, were of the view thatthe format of the Committee’s procedures shouldremain unchanged. One delegation expressed the viewthat, in addition to improving the working methods ofthe Committee, it would be necessary to rely upon thepolitical will of some delegations to debateconstructively some of the proposals submitted in theCommittee.

163. At the 7th meeting of the Working Group, on 13April, the delegation of Japan announced itssubmission of a working paper entitled “Ways andmeans of improving the working methods andenhancing the efficiency of the Special Committee”(A/AC.182/L.107),32 which reads as follows:

“Ways and means of improving theworking methods and enhancing theefficiency of the Special Committee

“1. General principle

“The Special Committee should set a goodexample for other bodies of the United Nations in

improving its working methods and enhancing itsefficiency.

“2. Session of the Special Committee

“The Special Committee should continue itspractice of holding its session, to the extentpossible, later in the first half of any given year.

“3. Conference services

“The Special Committee should make bestuse of the allocated conference services. For thatpurpose, it should, inter alia, meet punctually andreorganize its work programme with flexibility.

“4. Submission of proposals

“(a) Delegations wishing to submit aproposal are encouraged to do so at least onemonth in advance and in the form of an action-oriented text;

“(b) Delegations wishing to submit aproposal should bear in mind the need for theSpecial Committee to avoid duplication andrepetition of the discussions of other forums.

“5. Consideration of proposals

“(a) The Special Committee should setclear priorities in the consideration of proposals;

“(b) Delegations that submitted a proposalare encouraged, after holding a fairlycomprehensive exchange of views on the topicwithin the Special Committee, to ask theCommittee to decide whether it intends tocontinue the discussion on the topic, taking intoconsideration that usefulness of the discussionsand the possibility of reaching a definitive resultin the future.

“6. Duration of the Special Committee

“At the end of each session, the SpecialCommittee should undertake a review todetermine whether the duration of that sessionwas appropriate.

“7. Preparation and adoption of the report

“The Special Committee should prepare andadopt its report to the General Assembly in thesame manner as the Ad Hoc Committee

30

A/55/33

established by General Assembly resolution51/210.

“8. Medium- and long-term programme

“The Special Committee should elaborate amedium- and long-term programme of theCommittee.

“9. New proposal

“When a new proposal is to be introduced,the Special Committee should conduct apreliminary evaluation of its necessity andappropriateness.

“10. Periodic review

“The Special Committee should review theways and means of improving its workingmethods and enhancing its efficiency every year.”

164. In introducing the working paper, the sponsordelegation recalled General Assembly resolution54/106 of 9 December 1999, in which the Assemblyhad requested the Special Committee to consider waysand means of improving its working methods on apriority basis. The main purpose of the working paperwas to assist the Special Committee in this endeavour.The proposal was considered by the Working Group atits 8th and 9th meetings, on 14 April, and at its 10thmeeting, on 17 April.

165. Some delegations expressed general support forthe working paper and described it as timely andconsistent with many suggestions that had previouslybeen made. However, other delegations expressed theirdoubts with regard to the utility of the working paper.Doubts were also expressed that, in improving itsworking methods, the aim of the Special Committeeshould be to set a good example for other subsidiarybodies of the Organization, since the latter wereentitled to arrange their own working methods.Moreover, in accordance with General Assemblyresolution 45/45 of 28 November 1990, whichapproved the conclusions elaborated by the SpecialCommittee in 1990, all subsidiary organs are urged toseek constantly to improve their procedures andmethods of work. It was pointed out that one of thoseconclusions also reflected the idea of “biennialization”in stating that the agenda of the General Assemblyshould be simplified by, inter alia, setting an intervalof more than a year between the discussions on each

particular item. It was suggested that the working paperbe more closely aligned with these conclusions.Mention was also made of the report of the Secretary-General on the forthcoming Millennium Assembly,33

which contained a reference to time limits or “sunsetprovisions”.

166. Some delegations felt that, after a paragraph-by-paragraph consideration in the Working Group, theworking paper should be considered at informalconsultations with a view to transforming it into anaction-oriented document either for a decision of theSpecial Committee concerning its working methods orfor approval by the General Assembly, containing a setof recommendations for all United Nations bodies.Other delegations expressed a strong preference for theworking paper to be considered by the Working Groupitself, as it seemed to them premature to discuss it ininformal consultations, which were used, as a rule, forconsideration of draft decisions or draftrecommendations for approval by the GeneralAssembly. In this connection, doubts were expressedthat the working paper, in its current form, was not onewhich required any action to be taken by the GeneralAssembly. Caution was also expressed that efforts toimprove the working methods of the SpecialCommittee should not have a negative impact on theCommittee’s consideration of the various proposals onits agenda.

167. With regard to the content of the working paper, anumber of suggestions were made, which, amongothers, included preparing a short preamble, merging ordeleting certain paragraphs and adding, at the end ofparagraph 5 (b), the phrase reading “… when theCommittee decides that the continuation of thediscussion on such proposals is not appropriate, theconcerned delegations should be encouraged towithdraw it”. At the 8th meeting, the Working Groupproceeded to conduct a preliminary exchange of viewsof the working paper on a paragraph-by-paragraphbasis.

Paragraph 1. General principle

168. Some delegations, reiterating their doubts as towhether it was justifiable for the Committee to be amodel for other bodies of the United Nations,suggested the deletion of the paragraph.

169. Other delegations found the drafting of thegeneral principle not clear and proposed that the

31

A/55/33

reference to other bodies be removed from the text. Itwas also proposed that the paragraph, in pertinent part,be modified to read either “The Special Committeeshould seek to improve its working methods …” or“The Special Committee should strive consistently toimprove its working methods …”. Yet another viewwas expressed that the idea of setting a good examplewas not a general principle, but rather a goal and that,as such, it could be reflected in the final document.

170. In the discussion that ensued, the nature and theform of the future document was addressed. It wasobserved that the resultant document may take the formof a decision to be adopted by the Special Committee.Another view was expressed that, in accordance withits mandate under paragraph 3 (e) of resolution 54/106,the Special Committee should prepare a documentwhich could take the shape of a decision for approvalby the General Assembly. A general preference wasexpressed that the current discussion should focus on aparagraph-by-paragraph review of the working paperrather than on the format of the future document, whichshould be addressed at a later stage.

171. The sponsor delegation observed that paragraph 1was intended to be part of a recommendation ordecision of the Special Committee. Indeed, the form ofthe document could be discussed at a later stage.However, he pointed out that the format of decisionsand recommendations differed.

Paragraph 2. Session of the Special Committee

172. In introducing paragraph 2, the sponsordelegation recalled that in the past many problems hadbeen experienced in the context of discussions onrelevant draft General Assembly resolutionsconcerning the timing of the sessions of the SpecialCommittee. The purpose of the proposed provision wasto establish the pattern of holding sessions in thespring.

173. Some delegations underscored widespreadagreement in the Committee that its sessions should beheld in the first half of any given year. Recalling thatthe Special Committee, in 1998, had alreadyrecommended to the General Assembly that its futuresessions should be, to the extent possible, scheduledlater in the first half of any given year, the view wasexpressed that it was not advisable to reiterate thisrecommendation once again in the present document.

Paragraph 3. Conference services

174. Some delegations, while noting with appreciationthe significant improvement in the utilization by theSpecial Committee of its allocated conferenceresources, expressed the view that, under paragraph 7of annex VII of the Rules of Procedure of the GeneralAssembly,34 the requirements to fully utilize allocatedconference services and to meet punctually wererequired of all United Nations bodies, not only of theSpecial Committee. The deletion of the paragraph wastherefore suggested. Other delegations supported thethrust of the paragraph and felt that it should beretained in the text, irrespective of the future form ofthe document.

Paragraph 4. Submission of proposals

175. In introducing paragraph 4, the sponsordelegation indicated that subparagraph (a) reflected oneof the ideas found in paragraph 139 of the Committee’s1999 report,35 which encouraged delegations to submittheir proposals at least one month in advance and in theform of an action-oriented text. Subparagraph (b) wasintended to respond to concerns voiced by manydelegations concerning duplication and repetition ofdiscussions in other forums.

176. Some delegations observed that the proposedstrict time limit of “at least one month in advance” forsubmission of proposals was not consistent with theRules of Procedure of the General Assembly, which theSpecial Committee was mandated to follow. Otherdelegations supported the proposed formula as a usefulreminder and indicated that it should be construed as ageneral encouragement.

177. Concerning subparagraph 4 (b), severaldelegations maintained that the Special Committee onthe Charter, as an expert legal body, was mandated todeal with the legal aspects and elements of issueswhich might also be on the agenda of certain otherbodies and that its work in this respect wascomplementary and not duplicative. In their opinion,subparagraph 4 (b) was drafted too rigidly, purportingto establish a restricting rule. Conversely, otherdelegations were of the view that the proposedprovisions were drafted as a sensible generalencouragement, in line with paragraph 28 of annex Vof the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly andparagraph 8 of the annex to resolution 45/45. They,therefore, called for the retention of subparagraph 4(b). In terms of specific modifications, it was suggested

32

A/55/33

that the word “need” be replaced by “importance” or“desirability”. In addition, the qualifying expression“as far as possible” and the word “unnecessary” couldbe inserted after the words “should” and “avoid”,respectively. It was also suggested that subparagraph 4(b) be combined with paragraph 9.

178. In commenting on the debate, the sponsordelegation remarked, with respect to subparagraph 4(a), that while the one month time limit for submissionof proposals was to be construed as an encouragement,it could be substituted by the formula “as far inadvance as possible”. The need to avoid duplicationshould be understood as a general guideline as well.The sponsor noted the specific drafting proposals aspossible compromise solutions and the insertion of theword “unnecessary” was also agreeable to him.

Paragraph 5. Consideration of proposals

179. In introducing paragraph 5, the sponsordelegation observed that subparagraph (a) would callupon the Special Committee to set clear priorities inthe consideration of various proposals in order to havefocused discussions thereon. As to subparagraph (b),the sponsor delegation recalled the withdrawal of itsproposal by Guatemala at the 1999 session of theSpecial Committee and stressed that the thrust of theprovision was to encourage, not to require, delegationsto consider acting in a similar fashion.

180. Regarding subparagraph 5 (a), some delegationsdescribed it as timely, useful and realistic. It wassuggested that the Special Committee should select, ata given session, one to three priority topics forconsideration in a focused and result-oriented manner.Other delegations were of the view that subparagraph 5(a) was drafted in terms that were too categorical and,furthermore, was stating the obvious because theGeneral Assembly, in its resolutions pertaining to thework of the Special Committee, was alreadyestablishing such priorities. Accordingly, theypreferred to delete subparagraph 5 (a).

181. As regards subparagraph 5 (b), it was observedthat the procedure suggested therein required carefulconsideration, especially because the mechanism forwithdrawal of proposals was not clear enough.Concerns were expressed that the proposed provisionmight impinge on the right of Member States to submitproposals under the Rules of Procedure of the GeneralAssembly. It was considered that the Special

Committee should not adopt such a restrictiveprocedure as currently proposed.

182. A proposal was advanced that the paragraph becomplemented by a new subparagraph (c) reading:“Biennialization of consideration of proposals andother standard efficiency-enhancing tools should beutilized by the Special Committee as appropriate”.Some delegations expressed support for the proposal asbeing consistent with the annex to General Assemblyresolution 45/45. They recalled that the SixthCommittee already considered several items on abiannual basis and called upon the Special Committeeto follow this practice. To some other delegations, thenew proposal was unacceptable. Others indicated thatthey needed more time for a thorough considerationthereof. In response to requests to clarify theexpression “standard efficiency-enhancing tools”, itwas observed that the scope of such tools could includevoluntary withdrawals of proposals and considerationthereof on a biannual or longer-term basis.

183. The sponsor delegation, responding to the abovecomments, stated that the Committee might identifyone to three priority topics for consideration at anygiven session. Regarding comments on the mechanismfor withdrawal of proposals, the sponsor delegationreferred again to Guatemala’s example and pointed outthat the proposed provision was meant to confirm theright of delegations to ask the Special Committeewhether it wished to continue the consideration of theirproposals. As to the new subparagraph (c), it wasagreeable to the sponsor delegation.

Paragraph 6. Duration of the SpecialCommittee

184. Some delegations supported the paragraph,stressing that it would allow the Special Committee todecide at the end of each session whether the sameduration would be appropriate for the next session.Other delegations were of the opinion that theparagraph should be deleted as the question of theduration of the sessions of the Special Committee wasa matter to be decided by the General Assembly.

185. A proposal was made to combine paragraph 6 andparagraph 10 (Periodic review) with changes so that itwould read as follows: “At the end of each session, andwith a view towards making any necessaryadjustments, the Special Committee should undertake areview to determine whether the duration of that

33

A/55/33

session was appropriate and whether the SpecialCommittee’s next session would more appropriately beheld the following year or the year thereafter. TheSpecial Committee should also review other ways andmeans of improving its working methods andenhancing its efficiency”. Reservations were expressedon this proposal. Some delegations emphasized that theSpecial Committee had a number of important matterson its agenda and thus needed to hold sessions everyyear. It was also stressed that the duration of thesessions should not be shortened but rather lengthened.Other delegations expressed reservations on the lastsentence of the proposal, noting that it would not beappropriate to consider the ways and means ofimproving the working methods of the SpecialCommittee at every session.

Paragraph 7. Preparation and adoption of thereport

186. Some delegations considered that there was aneed to streamline the procedure for the adoption of thereport and supported the paragraph. Other delegationswere of the opinion that it would not be appropriate tofollow the same procedure as that adopted by the AdHoc Committee established by General Assemblyresolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996, that is, of ashort procedural report with an informal summary ofthe discussions on the substantive issues. Thosedelegations considered that the procedure adopted todate by the Special Committee of producing a reportreflecting the substantive debate should be retained,and called for the deletion of the proposal.

187. The view was expressed that, as the principlebehind the proposal was a good one, the proposalshould be redrafted. The suggestion was also made thatone way of improving the efficiency of the adoption ofthe report would be for the Secretariat to prepare thereport in parts and to distribute them to delegations asand when ready.

188. Guidelines were proposed to assist the Chairmanwith the adoption of the report at the present session:delegations should not reopen the discussion onsubstantive topics; delegations should prepare inwriting any amendments to the report when they feeltheir views have not been correctly reflected; if otherdelegations consider that amendments to the reportwould result in an imbalance, these delegations shouldalso reflect this in writing. The view was expressed thatthe Chairman should be given the task of deciding

whether or not to include any suggested amendments tothe report. The suggestion was made to include anaddendum to the report that would reflect the views ofdelegations on the report.

Paragraph 8. Medium- and long-termprogramme

189. In introducing paragraph 8, the sponsordelegation clarified that the Special Committee was notsupposed to make a final decision on a medium- andlong-term programme, but to make a recommendationto the General Assembly to that effect.

190. Some delegations favoured the proposal toelaborate a medium- and long-term programme. Othersqueried the language of the proposal. It was explainedby the Secretary of the Special Committee that theCommittee might not be in a position to elaborate sucha programme as its mandate was renewed yearly.

Paragraph 9. New proposals

191. In introducing paragraph 9, the sponsordelegation suggested that, in order to avoid confusionwith paragraph 4, the title should be amended to read:“Proposals on new topics”.

192. Some delegations considered that the paragraphinfringed on the sovereignty of States and shouldtherefore be deleted or redrafted. Other delegationssupported the paragraph, subject to the deletion of thewords “to be”.

Paragraph 10. Periodic review

193. Some delegations supported the proposal toperiodically review the ways and means of improvingthe working methods of the Committee, butemphasized that that should not be undertaken everyyear.

194. The debate on the proposal was concluded.

195. At the 11th meeting of the Working Group, on 18April 2000, a proposal CA/AC.182(L.108) for a draftparagraph to be inserted in the report of the SpecialCommittee was submitted by the delegation of Japan.The proposal was not discussed by the Working Group.One delegation, however, made a preliminaryobservation that the first sentence of paragraph 6should be deleted, since the Special Committee was nota standing body. The proposal read as follows:

34

A/55/33

“Paragraph 32

“In response to the request made inaccordance with paragraph 3 (e) of GeneralAssembly resolution 54/106 of 9 December 1999,the Special Committee identified the followingmeasures to improve its working methods andenhance its efficiency:

“(a) The Special Committee will continueto strive to make the best use of allocatedconference services. For that purpose, it will,inter alia, continue to meet punctually andreorganize its work programme with flexibility;

“(b) Delegations wishing to submit aproposal are encouraged to do so as far inadvance as possible and in the form of an action-oriented text;

“(c) Delegations wishing to submit aproposal should bear in mind the importance forthe Special Committee of avoiding unnecessaryduplication and repetition of discussions in otherforums;

“(d) When a proposal on a new topic isintroduced, the Special Committee shouldconduct a preliminary evaluation as to itsnecessity and appropriateness;

“(e) Without prejudice to the right ofdelegations to request that specific items bediscussed in the Special Committee, delegationssubmitting a proposal are encouraged, afterholding a fairly comprehensive exchange ofviews on the item within the Special Committee,to ask the Committee to decide whether it intendsto continue the discussion on the item, taking intoconsideration its usefulness and the possibility ofreaching a definitive result in the future;

“(f) The Special Committee shouldconsider, where appropriate, the question of theduration of the next session with a view tomaking an appropriate recommendation to theGeneral Assembly. The Special Committeeshould continue to periodically review other waysand means of improving its working methods andenhancing its efficiency, including biennializationof the consideration of proposals as well as waysand means of improving the procedure for theadoption of its report.”

B. Identification of new subjects36

196. During the general debate at the 232nd meetingof the Special Committee, on 10 April, somedelegations expressed the view that the SpecialCommittee should elaborate guidelines on, inter alia,the procedure for submitting proposals on newsubjects, the time period for the submission ofproposals and the format of such proposals, whichshould be action-oriented.

197. At the 11th meeting of the Working Group, on 18April, one delegation suggested that the followingsubjects should be included in the programme of futurework of the Special Committee and that they should bereflected in the report for consideration at the nextsession: “Basic conditions for the application ofprovisional measures by the Security Council inaccordance with Article 40 of the Charter of the UnitedNations”; “Elaboration of the definition of the notionof the ‘threat to international peace and security’”; and“Legal means of avoiding the negative consequencesrelated to globalization”. An opposing view consideredthat since the item of the identification of new subjectshad not been discussed at the current session it shouldnot be mentioned in the report. The point was madethat the report should nevertheless reflect the fact thatthe item could not be considered owing to lack of time.The view was also expressed that the fact that theWorking Group was unable to discuss this itemunderscored the need to allocate more time for theconsideration of items on the agenda of the SpecialCommittee.

C. Assistance to working groups on therevitalization of the work of the UnitedNations and coordination between theSpecial Committee and other workinggroups dealing with the reform of theOrganization

198. During the general debate on 10 April, somedelegations reiterated their support for close contactbetween the Special Committee and other bodies of theOrganization dealing with various practical aspects ofthe issues before the Committee, including by holdingjoint meetings37 and exchanging information. In theirview, such contact would promote a mutuallycomplementary way of carrying out activities under therespective mandates of the bodies concerned and would

35

A/55/33

help to avoid duplication of work. A suggestion wasmade that the Special Committee should submit arecommendation to the General Assembly encouraginginformal contacts between the Special Committee andother relevant organs and inviting the representativesof such bodies and relevant units of the Secretariat tobrief the Special Committee on their activities.

Notes

1 Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-sixthSession, Supplement No. 33 (A/36/33), para. 7.

2 Ibid., Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 33 (A/53/33),para. 45.

3 Ibid., Fifty-second Session, Supplement No. 33 andcorrigendum (A/52/33 and Corr.1), para. 58.


5 Ibid., para. 84.6 Ibid., para. 98.7 Ibid., Fifty-fourth Session, Supplement No. 33 and

corrigendum (A/54/33 and Corr.1), para. 101.8 Ibid., Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 33 (A/53/33),

para. 105.9 Ibid., Fifty-fourth Session, Supplement No. 33 and

corrigendum (A/54/33 and Corr.1), para. 107.10 A/54/2000, paras. 229-233 and 365.11 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third

Session, Supplement No. 33 (A/53/33), para. 45.12 Ibid., Fifty-fourth Session, Supplement No. 33 and

corrigendum (A/54/33 and Corr.1).13 See the note by the President of the Security Council

dated 29 January 1999 (S/1999/92), as well as thesubsequent practice of the sanctions committeesestablished by the Council, in particular the report of thePanel of Experts on violations of Security Councilsanctions against the União Nacional para aIndependência Total de Angola (UNITA) (S/2000/203,annex).

14 A/54/2000, para. 229.15 Declaration on Principles of International Law

concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation amongStates in Accordance with the Charter of the UnitedNations, General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV),annex.

16 E/C.12/1997/8; see also Official Records of theEconomic and Social Council, 1998, Supplement No. 2(E/1998/22), annex V.

17 Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-thirdSession, Supplement No. 33 (A/53/33), para. 73.

18 General Assembly resolution 50/227 of 24 May 1996.19 The Joint Working Group was established in 1967. See

Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-secondSession, Annexes, Agenda item 60, document A/6813.

20 Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-seventhSession, Supplement No. 33 (A/47/33); ibid., Forty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 33 (A/48/33); ibid., orty-ninth Session, Supplement No. 33 (A/49/33); ibid., Fifty-second Session, Supplement No. 33 and corrigendum(A/52/33 and Corr.1); ibid., Fifty-third Session,Supplement No. 33 (A/53/33).


22 Ibid., para. 98.23 Ibid., Fifty-fourth Session, Supplement No. 33 and

corrigendum (A/54/33), para. 101.24 Available at <http://www.un.int/russia>.25 For the revised text, see Official Records of the General

Assembly, Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 33(A/53/33), para. 105.

26 Ibid., Fifty-fourth Session, Supplement No. 33 andcorrigendum (A/54/33 and Corr.1), para. 107.

27 Ibid., Supplement No. 33 and corrigendum (A/54/33 andCorr.1).

28 Annex to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treatiesand annexes V and VII to the United Nations Conventionon the Law of the Sea.

29 The information paper was issued as a note by theSecretariat (A/AC.182/2000/INF/2).

30 Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-secondSession, Supplement No. 33 (A/52/33), para. 75; seepara. 12 of the proposal therein.

31 Article 3 of the Convention for the Pacific Settlement ofInternational Disputes, 1899, and article 3 of the 1907Convention.

32 Previously issued as A/AC.182/2000/CRP.1.33 A/54/2000, para. 357.34 Annex VII reproduced the conclusions prepared by the

Special Committee in 1984 on the matter and approvedby the General Assembly in resolution 39/88.

36

A/55/33

35 Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-fourthSession, Supplement No. 33 and corrigendum (A/54/33and Corr.1).

36 For the summary of the discussion in the Working Grouprelevant to this item, see chapter VII of the draft report(A/AC.182/2000/CRP.10, paras. 15, 16, 18, 29 and 30).

37 For the summary of the discussion of this issue in theWorking Group, see chapter III, section C, of the draftreport (A/AC.182/2000/CRP.4, paras. 1, 3, 8, 10-12, andA/AC.182/2000/CRP.4/Add.1, paras. 13 and 14).

00-44244 (E) 290600`````````

report of the special committee on the charter of the ... · chapter paragraphs page ... 162–198...

Documents