A/41/PV.53 General Assembly

The General Assembly has before it a note by the Secretary-General contained in document A/41/613. May I take it that the General Assembly takes note of that document? It was so decided.

We have concluded our consideration of agenda item 7.

In previous years the Assembly has .taken note of the annual report of the Secretary-General. This document has been referred to with great interest on several occasions in the course of this session. If I hear no objection, may I consider that the Assembly wishes to take note of the report of the Secretary-General? It was so decided.

That concludes our consideration of agenda item 10.

I call Oft the representative of the Comros, who wishes to introduce draft reso1utio~ A/41/L.23. Hr. KAPE (Comros) (interpretation from Prench): One year ago my country, the Islamic Pedera1 Republic of Comeros, celebrated the tenth anniversary of its accession to international sovereignty. That welcome occurrence, which was the outcome of ten years of effort to achieve development by the people and Government of Comros, would undoubtedly have becolle a symbol of the national unity of our country had it not been for the problem which for 10 years in succession has been the subject of our consideration in the Asselllb1y. I refer, of course, to the question of the Comorian Island of Mayotte. As the Assembiy knows, this problem, which is of the greatest concern not only to the people and Government of Comoros but also to the international community as a whole, arose out of an injustice and a flagrant violation of public international law and French internal law. Every time we have had occasion to consider this matter, whether within the Asse..,ly or in other international or regional organizations, we have explained that this is a trwaped-up problem carefully invented to destroy the unity of a country whose homogeneous people share the same language, culture and religion. It will be recalled that France, during more than a century's presence in the Comoros, never questioned the unity of the Comeros Archipelago .de up of the islands of Anjouan, Grand Comore, Mayotte and Moheli - quite the contrary. Successive Prench Governments based themselves on the history of the situation and frequently stressed the need to respect the territorial unity of our country. That was why, when France was led to recognize the desire of the Comoros for independence, a referendum on self-determination was organized, on 22 December 1974, under a French law. The provisions of that law indicated that the result of the vote would be counted overall, as a whole, not on an island-by-island basis, so as to emphasize and preserve the undeniable unity of ou~ archipelago. Accordingly, the Secretary of State for OVerseas Departments and Territories stated, on ~6 August 1974, in the French National Assembly, referring to our self-determination referendum, that the choice of the French Government was an overall referendum, for three reasons. He went on to say the following: liThe first ls a legal reason because, under the rules of international law, a territory preserves the borders that it had as a colony. The second reason is that one cannot conceive of different statuses for the different islands of the archipelago. Lastly, it is not the desire of France to pit Comorians one against the other." Mr. Olivier Stirn then said~ "France refuses to split up the Comoros, which have the same people, the same Islamic religion and the same economic interests." What was said then was confirmed two months later by the then President of the Frenc:h Republic, Mr. Vale~y Giscard d'Estaing, at a press conference on 24 October 1914, when he said: lilt is an archipelago that makes up a whole. It is a people that is homogeneous and iu whi~:-' there are no, or very few, people of French origin. Is it reasonable to imagine that a part of the archipelago should become independent and one island, whatever sympathy one might feel for its inhabitants, should have a different status? I believe we have to accept the realities Of, our time. The Comros are one and have alt6"'ys been one. It is natural that they should have a common future, even though some of them might have wished for a different solution. It is not for us, when the territory becomes independent, to suggest that we destroy the unity of what has always been the single Comoro Archipelago.- In view of these statements, it will be understood why, on 22 December 1974, the people of Comoros went peacefully and calmly to the ballot box to determine their future. The question we had to answer was, -Do you wish the Comoros to become independent?" It was not, -Do you wish the island of Moheli to become independent? Do you wish the island of Mayotte to becom!'! independent? Do you wish the island of the Grand Comore to become independent? Do you wish the island of Anjouan to become independent?- Those are the names of the four islands. No island in our archipelago was called upon to determine its future separately on 22 December 1974. The answer to the question was clear and unequivt:Cal, for 95 per cent of Comorians voted in favour of independence for their country. There was nothing for the Government and Parliament of France to do but draw the logical, obvious concllllsions from the outcome of the referendum. Unfortunately, instead of respecting the commitments entered into and the clearly and freely expressed wishes of the people, the French Government passed a law which balkanized our archipelago. , The law admittedly recognizes the independence of the Comorian State but without the island of Mayotte, part of its national territory, separated on the basis that part of the population of Mayotte had come out against independence. This illegal, unjust and arbitrary action was immediately and unanimously condemned by the international community on the ground that it was a violation not only of French internal law but also of international public law. Indeed, it was a violation of the sacrosanct law of the indivisibility of overseas territories and colonial entities which, nevertheless, is held in high regard in the French Constitution. It was also a violation of the sacred principle of the inviolability of the borders inherited from colonization, as provided for in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) ~ the Declaration of the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and General Assembly resolution 2621 (XXV), which relates to the implementation of that Declaration. It was by virtue of that right that my country, the Islamic Federal Republic cf the Comoros, was admitted to membership of the United Nations as a sovereign State consisting of four islands, inclUding Mayotte, by General Assembly resolution 3365 (XXX), which was adc'pted unanimously by the General Assembly on. 12 November 1975. The French Government, faced with general condemnation, and in order to give a legal tinge to its act of force, decided to organize, on 8 February and 11 April 1976, two other referendums in Mayotte, invoking article 53, paragraph 3 of the French Constitution, which states: "No cession, exchange or adjunction of territory is valid without the consent of the populations concerned." The argument put forward was that they wished to give the inhabitants of Mayotte an opportunity to determine their future, but nobody can ignore the fact , that it was not a cession, exchange or adjunction of territory that was involved, but rather the secession of a single territory - from the COIIlOro archipelago - for which the procedure ~nd modalities had proceeded in good and due form on 22 December 1974. I would recall that the Unite,l Nations responded strongly to this abusive interpretation of the right of secession. In General Assembly resolution 31/4 of 21 OCtober 1976, it states that the occupation by France of the Comorian island of Mayotte: Ill••• constitutes a flagrant encroachment on the national unity of the Comorian State ••• III Following the lead of the United Nations, a11 the major international and regional organizations unanimously expressed their condemnation of this incident, thus reflecting the position and awareness of the international community. These are the actual irrefutable facts that make up this distressing problem now before us. When one is familiar with the homgeneity of the Comrian population, the ties of blood that from the very beginning have brought together the inhabitants of the various islands in our archipelago, it is easier to understand the pain that we feel as a PeOple who have shared a very closely knit collllllOn social life. Separating Mayotte from the other sister islands is a harsh blow to our young State, but it is also a blow to entire families who suddenly, overnight, found themselves arbitrarily split up and separated one from the other. The negative effects of this separation are not only of a social and human nature but have also had serious repercussions on the economy of the archipelago. Because the four islands of the Comoros complement one another, in that they have common interests and have always had an economy which developed in perfect symbiosis as a result of the specific production and acti~ities of each of them, it is inconceivable to separate the fate of l#..ayotte from that of the other sister islands. TO separate Mayotte is seriously to jeopardize the harmonious ~evelopment of our archipelago, and accordingly the future of all the inhabitants. This is why the people and GoverlllDent of the Comoros, while retaining their composure, are nevertheless, seriously concerned over this continuing problem. The Assenbly will agree with me that it is no different from other problems in various parts of the world which keep entire regions in a state of tension, thereby engendering an a~~sphere of violence and ana~chy. As for the people and Go'lernment of the Comoros, under the enlightened leadership of Mr. Ahmed Abdallah Abderemane, President of the Islamic Federal Republic of the Comeros, they have so far chosen negotiation9 as a way of resolving this problem, rejecting any recourse to violence. By acting in this way, they ar:e respecting the principles of peace and harmony enshrined in the Charter of our Organization. This approach, dictated by wisdom, must not be taken as weakness and our people must not be allowed to become victims of their desire to be conciliatory. We have always deplored the fact that all steps taken with a view to resolving this problem have always come up against a lack of understanding. Thus we cannot fail to welcome the fact that for the first time this year real action has been taken at the international and bilateral levels to restore dialogue with the French authorities. Indeed, following the steps taken by the President of the Republic of Senegal, Hr. Abdou Diouf, then Chairman of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the French Prime Minister, Mr. Jacques Chirac, received a delegation from the OAU in Paris. At that meeting, the delegation of the OAU, consisting of Foreign Ministers and the Secretary-General, reaffirmed Africa's position on this question clearly and firmly to the French Government. The delegation called upon France to respect the unity and territorial integrity of the Isla.tc Federal Republic of th~ Comoros, in accordance with the sacred principle of the i"violability of borde!'s inherited from colonialization and with the co_itments entered into by Prance at the eve of the referendulI on selfedetermination for the Cosmrcs. The French Pri_ Minister, who listened carefully to the position of OAU, expressed a wish to continue this dialogue with OAU. On the bilateral level, we would emphasize the fact that the Comorian Gcwernaent has not remained idle. It has on several occasions established contacts with the French autho.dties, some at of the highest State level, in order to a~ance the Comorian cause., In the last few months, Mr. Ahmed Abdallah Abderenaane, President of the Islamic Federal Republic of the Comoros, has discussed this utter on several occ!1sions with the French Prime Minister, Mr. Jaoques Chirac, in a very frank and open atmosphere. Following one such talk, the French Pri_ Minister made the following statement to the press; WThe President of the Comoros has informed us of his position on the problem of Mayotte and that position is now well known. It is clear and not subject to change. I have naturally taKen careful note of that position. As everyone is aware and understands, there is a problem. I hope that a reasonable solution that is acceptable to all can be found. W More recently, to enable him to become familiar with the facts about our archipelago, the President of the Islamic Federal Rapublic of the COllOros invited the Prime Minister of France, Mr. Jaoques Chirac, ~o visit Moron!, our capital, after visiting the island of Mayotte. We felt that this invitation was a demonstration of our good faith in the use of dialogue and in efforts to reach agreement. We are firmly convinced that during bis visit to our country our distinguished guest was able to appreciate the natural identity and complementary nature of the four islands that make up the Comoro Archipelago. We believe that it is time for France, whose historical influence has always resulted from the unity of its great people, to show imagination in seeking with the united Nations a just and lasting solution to this problem so as to preserve th.~ unity of our country. Indeed, no matter what arguments may be put forward, the just settlement of this problem must necessarily respect the unity and territorial integrity of the Islamic Federal Republic of the Comoros. We believe that Prance, by restoring law and justice to our country, would emerge with-greater prestige from a difficult situation that is not in keeping with its traditions or with the image of itself that it had at the time of the decolonization of other former African Territories. The people and Government of the Comoros, conscious of the rightness of their cause and the justice of their claim, are determined to continue their efforts until their just cause triumphs. The international community, faithfUl to the sacred principles enshrined in the Charter of our Organization, owes it to itself to redouble its vigilance and show even greater firmness in supporting our people and Government. The draft resolution now before the Assembly emphasizes the need to establish a frank and serious dialogue which would make it possible to arrive without delay at a just and lasting settlement of this question. I sincerely hope that we shall be able to adopt it unanimously. Hr. AL-MIDEllfI (OrDan) (interpretation from Arabic): The question of the Comorian island of Mayotte remains on our agenda. Once again we are discussing this question and the need to find a just solution, through negotiations between the two parties to the conflict, that would restore sovereignty to the Islamic Federal Republic of the Comoros. It is regrettable that \;here has been no progress on this question in spite of all the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly, the 1'IlOst recent of which was General Ass~mly resolution 40/62, of 9 December 1985, as well as the resolutions of other international org~nizations, such as the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Organization of African Unity, all of which called for a just solution. The Sultanate of OIIlan, based on its friendly relations with the two parties to the conflict and in line with its approach based on respect for the independence, unity, national sovereignty ii)M territorial integrity of all States and the inadmissibility of interference in the internal affairs of States, appeals to the responsible party to respond to the calls of the international community for it to return the island of Mayotte to the rest of the C01llOros under the ISovereignty of the Isluic Federal Republic of the CollOros. This is the eleventh year that the General Assembly hl1s considered this question, but to no avail, despite the fact that the united Nations Charter states that constructive dialogue and mutual understanding aDDng States should be encouraged. The resolutions of this Organization which affirm the sovereignty of the Comoros over the island of Mayotte and call upon the friendly French Government to respect the pledges made on the eve of the referendulI of 22 December 1974 to determine the future of the archipelago and to respect the tenitorial integrity of those islands have, regrettably, not been followed up by this organization. It is therefore imperative for all the parties concerned to demonstrate the political will to implement those resolutions. The positive developments on this question about which we have been told must prompt us to encourage the parties to the dispute to engage in intensive dialogue to bring about understanding between those two friendly countries and restore this ieland to the ranks of the other Comorian islands. We are encouraged by the sincere desire shown by the Islamic Pederal Republic of the Comoros to engage in dialogue to reach IS prompt solution to the problem, thereby bringing national unity to all four islands and eliminating the problems that might stand in the way of the social and economic development of the islands. Such a settlement would also help to restore pol~tical stability to that area. The position of my c:ountry on this question is very clear. we fully support the sovereignty of the Islamic: Federal Republic: of the Comoros over the island of Mayotte, which has been affirmed in several General Assembly resolutions. The SUltanate of oman supports c:onstructive dialogue between the parties to the dispute and mutual understanding between those two friendly countries. In the light of our relations of friendship and respect with both countries, we call upon France to extend a helping hand and initiate constructive negotiations in order to settle the problem, and upon the United Nations to reactivate and support negotiations towards a permanent, just solution to this matter. In view of all this, OIDan has sponsored the draft resolution before the General Assembly on the question of the Comorian island of Mayotte, as it has similar draft resolutions in past years. We hope that a prompt settlement of this question, based upon the rec:ommendations in the report of the secretary-General (A/41/76S), will be possible. We welc:ome that report, and particularly the positive developments relating to the French Government's decision not to conduct a referendum in the island. Finally, we should like to pay tribute to the efforts made through the good offices of all parties, while we affirm at the same time the importance of the efforts of the United Nations to conduct negotiations and encourage dialogue between the parties to the conflict so that those efforts might lead to deletion of this item from the agenda of the General Assembly. Mr. OYOUE (Gabon) (interpretation from French): Only a few days ago Africa lost one of its worthy sons, President Samora Moises Machel of the Republic of Mozambique. Following this tragic event may I be allowed on behalf of the Read of State, Government and the PeOple of Gabon to express the sincere condolences of my delegation to the Government and fraternal people of Mozambique. Mr. President, your important election to the presidency of the forty-first session of the General Assembly has reflected honour on my delegation. With your permission we should like to take this opportunity to extend to you, Sir, our warmest congratulations on your election. The delegation of Gabon to this session, which it is my heavy responsibility to lead, is convinced tha~ your long experience known to everyone and your diplomatic talents will make it possible for this General Assembly to conclude its work successfully on many of its agenda items. Over the years the question of Mayotte has become increasingly a source of concern for the international community. Therefore the General Assembly finds itself confronted with this problem year after year at this time of the year. The Islamic Federal Republic of the Comoros has a special characteristic, namely its unity. This unity is not artificial, as some would claimJ rather it is based on the origin and the common history of the sister islands which constitute the Federal Republic, namely, the islands of Anjouan, Mayotte, Moheli and Grande-Comore. In this context it would be right to say that the Comoras is one of the few countries in the world with a homogeneous people sharing the same language, culture and religion. (Nr. Oyoue, Gabon) The Islamic Federal Republic of the Comoros has been independent since 1975. It was admitted to the United Hations in Decermer of that same year. unfortunately, however, its territorial integrity has not yet been guaranteed. In this connection it should be pointed out that the occupation of Mayotte is a violation of the sacrosanct principle of the inViolability of borders inherited from colonialismJ that is an important principle upheld by the Organization of African Unity (OAU). The separation of Mayotte from the other islands of the Comoros has been a blow to that young country. That separation has had a negative effect not only of a humanitarian but also of an economic nature. separating Mayotte from the Comoros as a whole deprives the archipelago of an important part of its great economic potential. From the standpoint of recent and past history, we must say that neither Mayotte's being part of the Comoros as a whole nor restitution by France to the Islamic Federal Republic should pose a problem. The Comoro Archipelago was colonized by France for more than a century as a single colonial unit. Therefore the results of the referendum on self-determination of 22 December 1974, in which 95 per cent of the population voted in favour of their country's independence had to be counted as a whole and not on an island-by-island basis. The impasse regarding Mayotte has lasted too long. The time has come for a solution. Gabon, a peaceand freedo~lOYing country for which dialogue, nationally and internationally, represents an unshakeable force, believes today more than ever that any solution to the problem of Mayotte IIIlst be based on negotiations. Violent means would only make the situation more complex than it already is. Such action would undermine the principles of peace and co-operation as set forth in the Charter of our international Organization. (Mr. Oyoue, Gabon) The people and Government of the Comoros, who are convinced that just causes always triumph ultimately, continue to believe in the soundness and the effectiveness of the approach just outlined. That is why President Ahmed Abdallah Abderamane of the Republic of the COlllOros has in recent months once again tried to establish many contacts at the highest level with French authorities. Re has met with Presid~nt Francois Mitterand and with Prime Minister Jacques Chirac. Similar action was taken by the OAU Ad Roe Committee of Seven on the question of Mayotte. On 21 May 1986 there was a meeting of the Committee at Librevllle in Gabon. Later they met with the Prime Minister of France on 8 July 1986. The purpose of that meeting, as explained during the interview with the French authorities by the Chairman of the Ad Roe Committee, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Co-operation of the Republic of Gabon, Mr. Martin Bongo, was twofold: to call upon France to respect the unity and territorial integrity of the Comoro archipelago in conformity with the pledge made by France on the eve of the referendum for self-determination and in line with Africa's stand on the inviolability of borders inherited from colonialism and secondly to invite France to define, as soon as possible, practical modalities for the return of the island of Mayotte to the Comoros. All these contacts and talks which I have just outlined were not conclusive. But it should rightly be pointed out that in this situation, which had become IIIOre co~lex and confused, there was one ray of hope: the French Government decided recently to abandon its efforts to organize a referendum on self-determination in Mayotte. That decision, which m¥ delegation believes is wise and encouraging, shows that France is beginning to be willing to accept a negotiated settlement to the dispute. My country, Gabon, having been the Chairman of the OAU Ad Roe Conmittee of Seven on the Comorian island of Mayotte for the past 10 years, and based on the , experience that we have acquired over this decade, is absolutely convinced that (Mr. Oyoue, Gabon) the 4eterllill~ticn Dhown by Prance and the Comoros to reconcile their positions by resu1l1ng a dialogue on the dispute, together with the efforts of the Ad Hoc Committee of the OAU alght well prove decisive but will not be sufficient to settle this question in a just, lasting and rapid manner. (Mr. Oyoue, Gabon) All Member States, and the international coJIIDunity as a whole, must take parallel action and must encourage Prance to give the negotiations with the Islamic Federal Republic of the Comoros fresh momentum, in order to accelerate the return of the island of Mayotte to its place within the Comoros. Moreover, such action is in keeping with the spirit and the letter of resolution Dl/RES.1051 (XLIV), on the question of the Comorian island of Mayotte, adopted by the Council of Ministers of the Organization of African unity at its fo~ty-fourth regular session, held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from 21 to 26 July 1986. Mr. RASum AHMED (Pakistan): For several years now the question of the Comorian island of Mayotte baa been on the agenda of the General Assen1bly, which has adopted several resolutions reaffirming the sovereignty of the Government of Comoros ewer the island of Mayotte. Similarly resolutions and decisions adopted in other international forums, including the Movement of the Non-Aligned countries, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Organization of African Unity, have reaffirmed the unity and territorial integrity of the Comeros and called for early negotiations between Prance and the Comeros with a view to achieving an honourable and just settlement. Pakistan has a special interest in the speedy settlement of the question of Mayotte, as it enjoys close and friendly relations with both France and the Islamic Republic of the Comeros. Furthermore, the issue concerns the territorial integrity of a sister Islamic and non-aligned country, the justness of whose cause has been repeatedly upheld by the international community. The continued separation of Mayotte from other islands of the COmorian archipelago is also affecting the economy of the Islamic Federal Republic of the Comoros and that of the archipelago as a whole. (Mr. Rashid Ahmed, Pakistan) In seeking a speedy and just solution of the question of the COmorian island of Mayotte, we cannot disregard General Assembly resolution 3~91 (XXIX), of 13 December 1974, which affirm the unity and territorial integrity of the COmeros and e.asizes that the archipelago comprises the islands of Anjouan, Grande-Comore, Mayotte and Moheli. General Assembly resolution 1514 (XVI), of 14 December 1960, on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples clearly maintains that the principle of self-determination applies to a colonial entity as a whole, which should have been the case in regard to the COl1Dros archipelago.* The need for early negotiations and dialogue between the two parties has been one of the central elements in all the resolutions adopted on this subject by the General Assemly, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Organization of African Unity. Therefore Pakistan sincerely welcomes the resUlllption of dialogue between the French authol:ities and the Organization of African Unity Ad Hoc COlllllittee of Seven in July this year in Paris. There have also been several contacts at the high~st level between the two Governments, which have unanimously expressed their sincere desire to continue the dialogue with a view to reaching a just solution of the problem that would be acceptable to all parties. The recent decision by the GOvernment of France not to hold a referendum in the Comorian island of Mayotte, as reported in the secretary-Generales report contained in document A/4l/765, is an important development which sets the pace for future negotiations between the two countries. *Mr. Matturi (Sierra Leone), Vice-President, took the Chair. (Mr. Rashid Ahmed, Pakistan) We are confident that the sincere intentions and efforts of both the parties will be translated into concrete results in ~le near future, results which will preserve the unity and territorial integrity of the Comoros by restoring its sovereignty over the island of Mayotte. The draft resolution introduced by the Foreign Minister of the Comoros this ~ning once again brings out the position consistently held ~ the international community on this issue and urges bo~t parties to accelerate the process of negotiation with a view to ensuring peace and security in the region. In extending our full support for this draft resolution, we are motivated by an earnest desire to encourage an expeditious process of negotiation between the two countries leading to an early solution of the problem on the basis of justice and recogniZed principles of international law. Mr. amOK (Singapore): At its twenty-ninth session, in 1974, the General Assembly adopted resolution 3291 (XXIX), affirming the principles of the unity and inviolability of the territorial integrity of the Islamic Federal Republic of the Comoros. It was the hope of all of us then that that resolution would be a positive contribution, complementing efforts to reach a solution to the question of the Comorian island of Mayotte. Regrettably, 12 years later, there has been little substantive action taken to ensure the return of the island to the Islamic Federal Republic of the Comeros. My delegation is very grateful to the representative of the Comeros for his extremely informative statement today, which has provided this Assell'bly "ith clear and concise information as regards the present position on this matter. My deZlgation also wishes to thank the Secretary-General for his report contained in document A/4l/765, dated 27 October 1986, which my delegation only (Mr. Cheat. Singapore) received this morning. The repor:l: does provide eertain information that ean be viewed in a positive way. The Organization of Atr1ean Unity has not been resting on this matter, and the Organization of Afriean Unity sU1IIIIit Conferenee has adopted resolutions reaffirming the sovereignty of the Islamie Federal Republie of the! Comoros over the Comorian island of Mayotte and has ealled upon France to honour the eollDitllent that it entered into on the eve of the independenee of the Comoros, namely, . to respeet the territorial integrity of the CoiilOl'OS arehipelago. (Mr. Cheok,'Singapore) It should also be noted that Mr. Abdou Diouf, President of the Republic of Senegal and former Chairman of the OAU, played a crucial personal role in persueding the Prime Minister of France, Mr. Jacaues Chirac, to meet with a delegation of the OAU Ad Roc Committee of Seven with a view to discussing the auestio~, and that the meeting took place in Paris on 8 July this year in a cordial atmosphere. As a result of the meeting, the French Prime Minister expressed his desire to continue the dialogue with the OAU. At the bilateral level, President Abdallah of the Comoros has had several meetings with President Mitterand and with Prime Minister Chirac. The significant development that has resulted from these high-level contacts is that the French authorities recently decided not to hold a referendum in the Comorian territory of Mayotte. This was corroborated by the Permanent Mission of France in its note to the Secretary-General dated 24 october 1986, in which it said~ WIn the present context, the French Government does not intend to take measures with a view to organizing a possible referendum." (A/41/765, para. 17) The Singapore Government's policy relating to this question is guided by a number of factors. The first is that any solution to this long-standing problem must be based on respect for the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the Islamic Federal Republic of the Comaros. The second is our close and f~iendly relations with both France and tbe Comoros. The third is the calm, reasoned, measured and open-minded manner in which the Comoros has pu~sued its just cause through peaceful means, as well as its continuing faith in and commitment to this Organization's ability to assist in the resolution of the problem. The fourth is our concern that the continued delay in finding a Ek"luUon to this issue could exacerbate the situation and conplicate its resoluUon. :!r.d ~d9ht be detrimental to peace and stability in that region of Africa. The iift~" :~ ,'\'e\~ the will of the (!If. Check, Singapore) international community, as expressed in the forums of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Organization of African Unity and the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, and here at the United Nations itself, still awaits its full implementation. Bearing in mind these f~ctors, my delegation hopes that the Governments of Prance and the Comoros will intensify their efforts through negotiations to bring about a solution of the auestion of MayottG consistent witb the decisions of the United Nations. Draft resolution A/4l/L.23, dated 31 (l;::t~'\ber 1986, once again highlights the principled position maintained by the i._t;ernational conununity on this issue, and urges the reopening of the dialogue between France and the Comoros. The langumge of the draft resolution is moderate, balanced and clear. It also seeks the good offices of the SecretGry-General to ~esolve the problem by peaceful negotl~tions. In supporting the draft resolution, my delegation is motivated by an earnest aesire to encourage an expeditious process of negotiations between the two countries, leading to an early solution of the problem on the basis of justice and recognized principles. ~. SARRE (Senegal) (interpretation from French): For the eleventh year in succession the General Assembly is having to consider the question of the Comerian Island of Mayotte. Since it was put on the Assembly's agenda in 1975 the auestion has been given continuing attention by the international community, which for more than a decade has witnessed tireless efforts both by the parties concerned, France and the Comoro~, and by the Organization of Afdcan unity (OAU), the O~ganization of the Islamic Conference, the Non-Aligned Movement and the united Nations in the search for a just &n~ final so~~tion to the problem. Despite those constant efforts, it must be acknoWledged that no substantial progress has been made along the linea so much desired by the vast majority of (Mr. Sarre, Senegal) countries represented here. That le not for any laok of proposals. Suffioe it to recall the generous approach on 8 July this year in Paris to the Prime Minister of Franoe by the OAU's Committee of Seven dealing with the Comorian Island of Mayotte, and the pressing appeals issued by the sixteenth ministerial meeting of the Organization of the Islamio Conference, held in Fez, Morocco, in January this year, and more recently by the eighth summit Conference of Non-Aligned Countries held in Danre in September. At its forty-fourth ordinary session, held in Addis Ababa from 21 to 26 July this year, the Council of Ministers of OAU adopted resolution CM/Res.10Sl (XLIV), in whioh, inter alia, it called on the Organization's Ad Hoc Committee of Seven and the OAU general secretariat to oontinue the efforts already undertaken and to maintain the momentum following the meeting with the French authorities, with a view to the Comorian island of Mayotte being restored to the Federal Islamic Republio of Comoros as soon as possible. It is regrettable that the constructive proposals I have mentioned and the commitment of the parties directly concerned to settle Mayotte's future once and for all through negotiations have not yet yielded the desired results. The documents of OAU and of the united Nations - in partioular, the Secretary-General's report (A/41/76S) - clearly show that the situation regarding Mayotte remains unchanged. Senegal, which maintains excellent relations with both the Comoros and France, is aware of the delicate nature of the problem. That is why we remain convinced that only the persistent pursuit of dialogue between the two parties can create the conditions for a just solution aocep'table to all. (Mr. Sart', Senegal) My country is happy th~t in their bilate~al relations, marked by fra~kneBs and cordiality, both the COIIOros and Prance have;,shown the'international cOJl1llunity their common desire to oc~rcome tbe obstacles that remain in the way of a truly constructive dialogue. That common desire to find an'honourable solution to the auestion of the Comorian island of Mayotte strengthens N¥ delegation's conviction that a peaceful, just and lasting settlement of the problem of Mayotte is possible, prOVided both parties demonstrate the same political resolve to make progress. (Mr. Sarr', Senegal) Senegal who1e-heartedly u~ges the rapid resumption of serious dialogue in the " .' spirit of the united Na~ions Charter and the relevant texts of the Organization of ,', African Unity and the united Nations, particularly General Assembly resolution 3385 (XXX) of 12 November 1975, which reaffirmed . , athe necessity of respecting the unity and territorial integrity of the Comoro Archipelago, composed of the islands of Anjouan, Grand8-Comore, Mayotte and Moh'li-. (resolution 3385 (XXX), third preambular paragraph) It is imperative that a just solution be found rapidly to the question of the Comorian island of Mayotte, for that question could not only tarnish the image and reputation of a great country but also, in the ~ong term, threaten international peace and security. This Organization, one of whose primary tasles is the promotion of peace and understanding among peoples and nations, must take the uniaue opportunity provided by the International ~ear of Peace to make an urgent appeal to the parties directly concerned to give new and resolute impetus to this matter, by embarking upon a process that will lead to the speedy preparation of an agreement marking the final solution to the problem of Mayotte. For its part, Senegal will - as in the past - spare no effort to contribute to the establishment of a climate of confidence between the two parties and to the auest for an honourable solution to the problem. Such a solution, if it is just and lasting, will undoubtedly have beneficial effects on the relations between the authorities of the two countries and between the French and Comorian peoples - which, over and above their historical and cultural ties, remain equally devoted to the common ideals of international peace and solidarity. PROGRAMME Ol!' WORK

I wish to inform members that, on the basis of . , consultations, it has been agreed to postpone the consideration of agenda item 32, "Law of the sea", at this stage. Members will be informed of the new date for the consideration of this item as soon as feasible. I thank all those involved for thei~ co-operation.

We have heard the last speaker in the debate on this item. We shall now begin the voting process on draft resolution A/4l/L.23. A recorded vote has been reauested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Eauatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraa, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic RepUblic, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaw!r Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambiaue, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab RepUblic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United RepUblic of Tanzania, uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zimbabwe Against: France Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Germany, Feder~l Republic of, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Spain, united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Draft resolution A/41/L.23 was adopted by 122 votes to 1, with 22 abstentions.*

The Assembly has now concluded its consideration of ~genda item 31. *Subseauently the delegations of Guyana, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Saint tucla and Zambia advised the Secretariat that they hao intended to vote in favour. AGBNDA ITEM 13 REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT or JUSTICE (A/4l/4) The PRESIDENT,: The Assembly will now turn to the report of the International Court of Justice covering the period 1 August 1985 to 31 July 1986. If I hear no objection I shall take it that the General Assembly takes note of the report. I t was so decidea"

The Assembly has concluded its consideration of agenda item 13.

I· call on the representative of Nicaragua who wishes to introduce the draft resolution on this item. Mr. D'ESCOTO BROCKMANN (Nicaragua) (interpretation from Spanish): The illegal veto cast by the United States in the Security Council on Tuesday, 28 October, has compelled us to request the inclusion, as an urgent matter, of a new item on the agenda of the forty-first session of the General Assembly, entitled "JUdgment of the International Court of Justice of 27 June 1986 concerning military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua: need for immediate compliance". The draft resolution vetoed by the united States limited itself to reminding the Government of that country that in conformity with its obligations under the Charter it must abide by the International Court of Justice's jUdgment of 27 June 1986 and immediately halt the war of aggression that the United States carries out, directs and promotes against Nicaragua. The United States aggression against Nicaragua is open and is conducted in broad daylight. The aggressor St~te itself boasts of it, when its representatives confirm that it is financing and training the mercenaries, and shamelessly reiterate that this policy will he changed only if Nicaragua abandons its revolution and submits to imperialist domination. In addition to blackmailing and putting pressure upon those Governments that disapprove of its aggressive policYI the Government of th~ united States is setting up operational bases and training camps and arranging for logistical support for its mercen~rieso We have come before the United Nations on several occasions to denounce this aggression and describe its nature. Until about two years ago there were quite a few who fell for the falsehoods of Mrs. Kirkpatrick, for exanple, when she made use of this rostrum to defend the cri~inal policy of her Governme~t. She accused us of being paranoid, of suffering from a persecution complex, and she alleged that the war in Nicaragua was a Nicaraguan matter, to be settled between Nicaraguans, in which the united States Government was a mere onlooker. On Sunday, 26 October, a front-page article in The New York Times reported in-fighting between the military and political leaders in the war against Nic~raguao According to that article all those leaders are Americans, officials of the united States Government, who are apparently divided by their different views on how to ·win· in Nicaragua. It is obvious that the war being waged against Nicaragua is a united States war and that the so-called contras are merely hired hands serving the diabolical aims of the Reagan administration. A little less than two months ago the Non-Aligned Movement, at its latest sw.it meeting, held in Barare, once again denounced this fact enphatically and unambiguously in the following statement: RThe Beads of state or Government reiterated their firm solidarity with Nicaragua and demanded the immediate cessation of all threats and hostile acts against Nicaragua inclUding attacks, the financing of mercenary groups by the united States Government and coercive economic measures taken against the people and Government of that country, all of which are aimed at overthrowing the legitimately-constituted Government of Nicaragua and which increase the risk of a generalized conflict. They appealed to all members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, as vell as the international community, to give SOlidarity and all such assistance as Nicara9ua may require in order to preserve its right of self-determination, national independence, sovereignty and ·territorial integrity.- (A/4l/697, para. 228) Everyone is well aware that my Government, in view of the failure of its many efforts and the efforts of third countries to induce the United States to follow the path of dialogue and abandon its policy of force against Nicaragua, was obliged to turn to the International Cou~t of Justice in April 1984. On la May of that year the Court indicated certain provisional measures of protection, which were not heeded by the United States. The United Statee challenged the Court's jurisdiction in the case and on 26 November 1984 the Court addressed the issues of jurisdiction and the admissibility of the application, and ruled that it had jurisdiction in law. (Mr. D'Escoto Brockmann, Nicaragua) Finally, on 27 June of this year, the COurt made publ~c judgement on the merits of the suit. In th&t judgement the Court condemned the united states for ito ,..:"~,egal policy e.l,;Iainst Nicaragua. Moreover, the COurt ordered that the United States halt immediately its entire illegal, aggressive policy against Nicaragua and in particular that it cease "training, arming, equipping, fi~ancing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, suppo~tin~ and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua". (5/18221, para. 292) In this regard, the Eighth COnference of Beads of State or GOvernment of Non-Aligned Countries,·meeting in Barare, urged the United States of America: "to comply wit~ the rulIng of 10 May 1984 on Provisional Measures of Protection and the judgment of 2 November 1984 on the jurisdiction and admissibility of the demand of 9 April 1984 presented by Nicaragua. They further called upon the United States to comply witb the decision of the International Court of Justice delivered on 27 June 1986, especially the findings of the Court that the United States, by its many hostile acts against Nicaragua, violated international law, that it is under a duty immediately to cease and to refrain from all such acts, that it is under an obligation to make reparations to the Republic of Nicaragua, and that the form and amount of such reparations, failing agre~aent between the parties, will be settled by the COurt". (A/4l/697, para. 22~) The Nicaraguan Government, as usual, has been extremely patient witti the united States. Nicaragua waited for the united States to give full consideration to, and to comply with, the judgement. Yet the official response of the Reagan Administration was to ask Congress for $100 million more to ("tv~Atinue to finance genocide against our people, give the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (Mr. D'Escoto Brockmann, Nicara.gua) rosponsibility for running the war and approve sending united States military advisers to train its contra .erc~naries. In the face of such a clear and flagrant violation of the COurt's jUdge~nt, what could Nicaragua do? Article 94, paragraph 1, of the Charter establishes clearly and unequivocally that REach Member of the united Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International COurt of Justice in any case to which it is a party. Paragraph 2 of the same Article, without allowing for any kind of exceptions, states: -If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the COurt, the other party may have recourse to the Security COuncil, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon m~asures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.- Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Charter states: RAll Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter. ft There is nothing that allows a State to evade the obligation to comply with a judgement of the International COurt of Justice in connection with a dispute to which it is a party. The united States ia therefore under an obligation to comply immediately and faithfully with the judgement of 27 July 1986, especially since it has the privilege of being one of the permanent members of the Security council. That privilege was conferred upon it so that it would act in accordance with the principles and purposes of the Charter, not wantonly violate its obligations under (Mr. D'ES,;it,1;O Srockmann, Nicaragu~T international law and treaties, and ride roughshOd over the rights of small nations and peoples with its enormous military and economic might. What happened in the security OOuncil over the past few days was truly historic. It was the first time in the history of our Organization that a case was brought b~fore the security COUncil under Article 94 of the Charter, that is, for non-eompliance with a judgement of the International COurt of Justice. It is not surprising that this has not occurred previously, given the fact that this is the first case of total contempt for a jUdgement and stubborn determination by a country to continue to commit crimes for which it has been condemned. It is also the first time that Article 27 of the Charter has been violated in such a clear and undeniable manner. The representative of the current Government of the united states to the Organization has put forward the thesis that his GOvernment rejects "the proposition that we have consented to the jurisdiction of the Court in the case brought by Nicaragua. COnsequently, we do not believe that the current ~tem brought by Nicaragua under Chapter XIV, Article 94, of the Charter has any merit. There is nothing in Chapter XIV of the Charter that speaks to the question of jurisdiction and nothing anywhere in the Charter that can be said to create consent to jurisdiction where none exists." (S/PV.2716, p. 7) The paragraph from the statement that I have just quoted ia legal nonsense pure and simple. Nicaragua has never brought any question of the Court's jurisdiction before the Security council. Chapter XIV of the Charter sets forth the treaty basis of the International court of Justice. Article 93 states: "All Members of the Unit~d Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice." (Hr. D'Escoto Brockmann, Nicaragua) It is in the Statute of the International COurt of Justice, particularly Article 36, tha~ matters of jurisdiction are established, and its paragraph 6 clearly states: -In the event of a dispute as to Whether the Court has jurisdiction, the ( matter shall be settled by the decision of the COurt.- Thus, it is not for any country or any other body to decide on the jurisdiction of the COurt, it is for the COurt alone to decide. In the 27 June 1986 judgement the Court stated once again what it had decided on the issue of jurisdiction, recalling that (Mr. D'Escoto Brockmann, Nicaragua) RBy its'Judgment of 26 November 1984, the Court found that it had jurisdiction to entertain the present case, first on the basis of the United States deolaration of acceptance of jurisdiction, under the optional clause of Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, deposited on 26 August 1946 and secondly on the basis of article XXIV of a Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Naviqation between the Parties, si~ned at Managua on 21 January 1956. The OOurc notes that since the institution of the present proceedings, both bases of jurisdiction have been terminated. On 1 May 1985 the United States gave written notice to the Government of Nicaragua to terminate the Treaty, in accordance with article XXV, paragraph 3, thereof) that notice expired, and thus terminated the treaty relationship, on 1 May 1986. On 7 October 1985 the United States deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations a notice terminating the declaration under the optional clause, in accordance with the terms of that declaration, and that notice expired on 7 April 1986. These circumstances do not however affect the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, or its jurisdiction under article XXIV, paragraph 2, of the Treaty to determine 'any dispute between the Parties as to the interpretation or application' of the Treaty." (5/18221, para. 36) As a result of this second setback suffered by the United States, the United States notified the Court on 18 January 1985 that it was withdrawing from the suit. The Court, in paragraph 27 of its jUdgement, notes in this regard that: -When a State named as part~ to proceedings before the court decides not to appear in the proceedings, or not to defend its case, the Court usually expresses regret, because such a decision obviously has a negative impact on ~he sound administration of justice (cf. Fisheries Jurisdiction, p. 9, para. 17, p. 181, para. 18, Nuclear Testa, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 257, para. l5~ p. 461, para. 15, Aegean Sea COntinental Shelf, I.C.J. Reports 1978, 9. 7, para. 15, United States Diplomatic and COnsular Staff in Tehran, I.C.J. Reports 1980, p. 18, para. 33). In the present case, the COurt regrets even more deeply the decision of the respondent State not to participate in the present phase of the proceedings, because this decision was made after the United States had participated fully in the proceedings on the request for provisional measures, and the proceedings on jurisdiction and admissibility. Having taken part in the proceedings to argue that the court lacked jurisdiction, the United States thereby acknowledged that the court had the power to make a finding on its own jurisdiction to rule upon the merits. It is not possible to argue that the court had jurisdiction only to declare that it lacked jurisdiction. In the normal course of events, for a party to appear before a court entails acceptance of the possibility of the COurt's finding against that party. Furthermore the Court is bound to emphasize that the non-participation of a party in the proceedings at any stage of the case cannot, in any circumstances, affect the validity of its judgment. NOr does such validity depend upon the acceptance of that jUdgment by one party. The fact that a State purports to 'reserve its rights' in respect of a future decision of the COurt, after the COurt has determined that it has jurisdiction, is clearly of no effect on the validity of that decision. Under Article 36, paragraph 6, of its Statute, the COurt has jurisdiction to determine any dispute as to its own jurisdiction, and its judgment on that matte~, as on the merits, is final and binding on the parties under Articles 59 and 60 of the Statute (cf. COrfu Channel, JUdgment of 15 December 1949, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 248)." (para. 27) (Hr. D'Escoto Broc::kmann, Nicaragua) From the aforementioned it is clear that the judgement handed down by the International COurt of Justice on 27 June 1986 is a judgement issued strictly in accordance with the law and, as the COurt itself stated, -is final and binding on the parties under articles 59 and 60 of the Statute-. Therefore, Nicaragua, faced with the notorious noncompliance of the united States, went before the Security COuncil to ask that, in accordance with Article 94, paragraph 2 of the Charter, the Council make recommendations or adopt appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the judgement. Draft resolution S/18428 presented by COngo, Ghana, Madagascar, Trinidad and Tobago and the United Arab Emirates, had that as its objective. Its aim was for the Council to remind the United States of America of its duty as a Member of the United Nations to abide by the ruling of the Court. As we demonstrated previously, there is no legal way for the United States to avoid compliance. When the United States of America repeated in the COuncil the arguments it has always employed to justify its illegal policy against Nicaragua - arguments that incidentally were totally rejected by the COurt itself - it was seeking to create institutional confusion. The Council's function in the matter presented by Nicaragua, in accordance with Article 94 of the Charter, is not to listen to arguments that were made before the COurt and that were rejected there, but rather, at the very least, to proceed to remind the aggressor State of its duty under the Charter to ·comply with the judgement. The only matter that the members of the Council had to consider was whether, in light of the appropriation of another $100 million to continue financing the war against Nicaragua, as well as other flagrant a~ts· in contempt of the judgement of the International Court of Justice of 27 June 1986, it became necessary or not to urge the United States of America (Mr. D'Bsc:oto Brockmann, Nicaras.ua) i In that context, draft resolution S/18428 was totally in iII1IIediately to COIIPly. order and the united States, being a ~rty to the dispute referred to in the jUdge_nt, should, in accordance with Article 27, paragraph 3 of the Charter, have refrained fro. voting. Article 27 of the Charter is clear~ W1. Each memer of the Security Council shall have one vote. • 2. Decisions of the security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members. ·3•. Decisions of the security Council on all other matters· - namely, non-procedural - ·shall be _de by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurl'lng votes of the permanent membersJ provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.· In othe~ words, there are two cases under Article 27 of the Charter in which the veto cannot be used: first, when the question is one of procedureJ and, secondly, when the country in question is a party to a dispute in which a means of peaceful settlement is in process or there exists a jUdgement of the International Court of Justice or some other instrument of a similar - in other words, binding - nature which has resulted from one of the means of peaceful settlement contemplated in Chapter VI or in Article 52 of the Charter. In all other cases, the veto is allowed. Here, we are dealing with a case in which paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the Charter was unquestionably applicable, and the United States had no right to vote, much less to use its veto. There was no way that the draft resolution considered by the Security Council could be legally vetoed by the United States. Any of the other permanent members could have exercised the veto, but not the United States. Therefore, since the draft resolution wee not vetoed by any member of the Council not debarred from exercising its right of veto, the draft was legally adopted and should have been proclaimed as a legitimate resolution of the Security Council. In 1948 several permanent members of the security Council - China, the United States, i'cance and the United Kingdom, to be precise - went before the General Assembly seeking clarification on which items should be considered as procedural in Security Council votes, as regards the applicability of paragraph 2 of Article 27 of the Charter. On 14 April 1949, the General Assembly a~opted a draft resolution on this matter, sponsored by China, France, the United Kingdom and the United States, adopted as resolution 267 (Ill). That resolution, based on Article 10 of the Charter, lists the type of resolutions to be considered questions of procedure and therefore not subject to veto. Among those it includes decisions that limit themselves to reminding Member States of their obligations under the Charter. It was precisely that type of resolution that was vetoed illegally on 28 October by the United States. During the discussion of draft resolution A/AC.24/20 sponsored by four permanent members of the Security Council regarding the problem of voting in the Security Council the United States representative, Ambassador Warren R. Austin,head of the delegation at the time, expressed ideas that sound as if they had been forlll11ated to be applied to the United States today: -All Members of the United Nations had assumed definite obligations under the Charter. Those obligations were binding upon all nations, large and small. The permanent members of the Security Council could not evade or nullify those obligations by virtue of their special position; they could not use the privileged vote they were granted by the Charter to defeat the Charter. If a permanent memer attempted, contrary to its obligations under Article 2, to destroy the political independence of its neighbour by force, it could not evade or obscure the responsibility for that violation by casting a negative vote when the victim took the case before the Council. No permanent member, (Hr. D' Escoto Brockmann, Nicaragua) through the exercise o:f the veto, could deprive Membars of the United Nations of the right to defend themselves or take away the legal i:ight or mral duty of other members to come to the aid of the victim in defence of the principles of the Charter-. Nicaragua's presentation, both before the Security Council and now before the General Assembly, of a case related to the obligation incumbent upon a Member State to coq»ly with a judgement of the International Court of Justice in a matter to which it is a party, has been complicated by the United States attempt unilaterally to confer on itself a greater prerogative than thcoe recognized traditionally for a permanent member of the Security Council. The united States has illegally vetoed a decision of the Council when it should not even have participated in the voting. This conclusion is reached by applying the criteria approved by the General Assembly in resolution 267 (Ill), or by applying Article 27 of the Charter. Nicaragua rejects this violation of the Charter perpetrated by the present United States Administration, and reserves the right to return to this question of illegality in the future. The General Assembly will. now begin considering the item that Nicaragua wished to have included in the agenda. Under this item a draft resolution has been introduced whi~~ is fundamentally the same as the one submitted to the Security Council. There the draft resolution obtained 11 vot~s in favour and 1 against - that of the United States. The illegal vote and veto by the United States, besides representing a clear rejection of the means of peaceful settlement of disputes, also demonstrates the determination of the United States Government to continue its illegal use of force against Nicaragua, which is precisely what the Court ordered it to cease. (Mr. D'Bscoto Brockmann, Nicaragua) The General Asselllbly, by having agreed to consider that iteJl, Jlust be prepared to be objective and far-sighted. It is not only a Batter of whether Nicaragua's legal arCJUments are correct, but of foreseeing the consequences of failing to take the lleaBUJ:es necessary to prevent a State from putting itself above international law. It is obvious that if the Government of the United States were permitted to put itself above the law, we would help to bury forever the possibility of peace in the wor.ld based on respect for: the sovereign and juridical equality of States. (Nr. D' Bscoto Brookmann, Nicaragua) To tolerate such conthctwould be to deprive the United Nations of its reason for existence. We should be going back to the days before 1945 and _king the horror of a third world war inevitable. There can be no doubt that Nicaragua's tenacious and unwavering defence of its rights as a sovereign state will lead to the strengthening of the cause of peace, by strengthening the entire U~ited Nations ~stem, including the International Cou~~ of Justice. In introducing the item we are now discussing we have kept in mind the overall interests represented by the Charter of the United NationsJ the hopes of the poor, impoverishe.d peoples for peace and development, the defence of the right to self-determination and independence, without foreign pressures or intervention. We all know that these are objectives supported by the overwhellling majority of the Member States of the United Nations. That is why we know that we can count on an overwhelming majority in favour of this draft resolution, which has as its exclusive purpose the defence of the Charter, which establishes the binding nature of the jUdgements of the International Court of Justice. Lastly, I should like to reiterate our request that this item be Raintained on the agenda of the General Assembly until the 1986 jUdgement of the International Court of Justice has been complied with by the united States Government. Mr. OKUN (United States of America): As my delegation stated in the General Committee on 30 OCtober, the united States believes the new item proposed by Ntcaragua is not an appropriate item for consideration by the General Assembly. In regard to judgements of the Internat.ional Court of Justice, Article 94, paragraph 2, provides that a ·party may have recourse to the security Council-. There is no mention of any role for the General Assembly. Por this reason, until now no Member: Ste.te has 1:(",,~l,,"~steU the: General Assembly to take a decision on an .issue of this nature. Ev~'a those Hemec Sti?tes which have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Internationel Court of Justice should have serious reservations about involving the General Assembly in illPlementing decisions of the International Court of Justice. The United States believes that the question that Nicaragua has insisted on bringing up today must be considered in the context of what is happening within Nicaragua and between Nicaragua and its neighbours in Central America. I will have more to say about that presently. As we have often stated before, it is not enough to claim that, just because Article 36, paragraph 6, of the Court's statute says that it may decide disputes concerning jurisdiction~ the Court indeed did have jurisdiction in this particular dispute. No court, inclUding the International Court of Justice, has the legal power to assert jurisdiction where there is no basis for that jurisdiction. The absence of any foundation in either law or fact for the Court's assertion of jurisdiction in this case is clear. Look at the language and the negotiating history of the Charter of the United Nations. Look at the language and the negotiating history of the Statt!te of the International Court of Justice. l.oOOk at the consistent inl:erpretation of these instruments by the Court, by the security Council and by Member States. The resolution before us today is based on a fundamentally flawed interpretation of the sig~aificance and validity of the decision of the International Court of Justice. MOreover, even if it were not so flawed, it is not appropriate for consideration by the General Assembly. Those are two of the reasons why my delegation will vote against this draft resolution. Given this background, why has Nicaragua chosen to COIIe to tho General Asseatlly today? As they have done, so often in' the Secur i.ty Council In the past, the Sandinistas clearly intend to aanipulate the'United Nations General Asse~ly for propaganda purposes. If Nicaragua had wished serious consideration of this issue in its totality, it would have agreed to take it:up as part of item 42, on the situation in Central AIIlerica, which is already on the General Assembly's agenda for discussion. In spite of what the representative of Niearagu& has asserted here this morning, the iS8ue at stake is the crisis in Cer.ual America and how to resolve it. Nicaragua has twisted the issue by portrsying it as a conflict between Nicaragua and the United states. My Government, the people of Central America and the Sandinistas themselves know that this is not the case. The Sandinlsta regime is respon~ible for the crisis. It has waged a campaign of subvers\Oft against all its neighbours and a ca~ign of repression against its own people, ·"hose revolution it has betrayed. During the 1979 revolYtion in Nicaragua the Sandinistas pledged to follow a policy of nOD-alignment. They promised not to eX~i:t their revolution. But, from the outset, the Sandinistas planned to ally themselves with Cuba and the SOviet bloc. By 1980 the sanainistas were deeply involved in regional s~bversion, supporting the Marxist guerrillas seeking to overthrow the Government of El Salvador. The evidence that 9roves this support is massive and undeniable. It ranges from statements by former guerrillas and mountains of captlJ.recl docuEnts to physical proof such as captured weapons and munitions. Nicaraguan subversion gO'lS far beyond El Salvador. The Sandinis\.}:.~ proYide clandestine assist~~ce to subversive groups throughout the region. The Sandinistas directly participated in the 1983 and 19B4.attempts to infiltrate subversives into (Mr. Okun, United States) Honduras, as captured subversives the~elves ha~e admitted. The Sandinistas have also supported terrorists in Costa Rica,. and their agents have repeatedly atteapted assassinations in that country. The Nicaraguan connection with the weapons used by the Colombian M-19 in the bloody attack on the Palace of Justice 1n Bogota Is well known. A threatening rise in Nicaragua's conventional forces has accompanied the Sandinistas' subversion of their neighbcurs. Since 1979 the Sandinistas have created the largest army in the history of Central America - 10 times the size of SOmoza's army. To equip it they have received from their Cuban amd Soviet allies an arsenal without precedent in the region, including fleets of combat helicopters, battalions of tanks and armoured vehicles and scores of artillery pieces and rocket launchers. They have militarized Nicaragua, turning the country into an armed camp. I refer members to an article printed just last Wednesday in The New York Times on the latest delivery of Soviet helicopter gunships. EVei7Y day these formidable weapons, piloted in many cases by Cubans, are killing ever larger numbers of Nicaraguans. (Mr. Okun, United States) Just as the Sandinista8 have betrayed their neighbours, all of whom welcomed the Nicaraguan revolution, they have also betrayed the Nicaraguans who believed the Sandinista premises of freedOll aDd dOllOCracy. In recent IIOnths the Sandinista regime has ruthlessly intensified the consolidation of its totalitarian rule. Using its secret police - 10 tt-es the size of 8omOza's - and its network of CUban-inspired block comaittees, it has created an at.asphere of fear and repression that far exceeds the worflt excesses of the Somoza regime.. The Sandinistas have suspended even the ~~t basic of human rights. They have engaged in a systematic pattern of summary executions, arbitrary detentions and physical aDd psychological abuse of prisoners. Let me cblell for a moment on the Sandinistas' violations of human rights. According to the human rights office of the Organization of American States, there are at present some 2,000 Nicaraguan prisoners who have been tried or are awaiting trial by the so-called Popular Anti-Somocista Tribunals, whose conviction rate is 99 per cent. The Organization of American States report notes that these p~igoners enjoy no presumption of innocence, have limited access to defence counsel and face judges whose -impartiality, fairneas and independence of jUdgment are seriously co~rOlllised·• Since the Nicaraguan representative insists upon invoking the rule of law and concepts of justice before the Assembly, let me call to the attenti.~~ of those who may have missed it the description of the Sandinista system for dispensing justice which appeared in the 31 october issue of The New York Times. The article reported that the popular tribunals have become a principal Sandinista instrument for repressing the peaceful democratic opposition under the guise of adjudicating • national security csses. It stated: (Mr. Okun, United states) -Independent labor unionist~, opposition party activists, journalists and otber peaceful dissidents have been proclaimed 'counter-revolutionaries' and given stiff jail ter~ by the tribunals ••• -The common experience of political defendants is arrest without warrant and incommunicado detention. Though the tribunals' summary procedures are meant to expedite justice, many defendants are held for several months before being charged or tried. They are interrogated in harsh conditions, invariablY mAking self-incrimi~ating statements under duress and sometimes torture. Once charges are brought, proceedings are speedy ••• -Human rights groups have noted that several lawyers have been imprisoned for too vigorously defending political clients.- (The New York Times, 31 OCtob!-r 1986. p. A35) The Sandinistas claim that they somehow have been given a mandate to rule Nicaragua. From whom or what did they obtain this mandate? certainly not from the hUndreds of thousands of Nicaraguans who participated in the 1979 revolution, thinking it would bring genuine democracy to Nicaragua, wbo subsequently have had to flee the country. The Sandinistas have persecuted the genuinely democratic political parties that played such a noble role In the revolution, and have forced many of thei~ leaders into exile, as well as harassing and inttmidatlng those who chose to remain. Among the many tragic ironies of the Sandlnista betrayal of the revolution is the fate of La Prensa. The assassination of La Prens&'s publisher in 1978 was the spark which ignited the revolution. In June this year the sandinista r4gime closed down La Prensa as the last step in its seven-year effort to stamp out a free press, which is one of the essential elements of democratic government. Because the draft resolution totally ignores the situation that prevails between Nicaragua and its neighbours, making not even a single reference to the Contadora process, and because it also ignores the fundamental principles of human (Mr. Okun, United states) rlghts embodied in the Charter, my delegation believes it is a totally unacceptable portrayal of the tragic reality of Cent",ral America. This is yet another reason why my delegation will vote against the draft resolution. My delegation had been planning to elaborate its views on how to reach a peaceful settlement in Central America during the long-scheduled plenary debate on Central America. In spite of today's diversionary exercise by the Sandinistas, it still plans to do so. Let me nevertheless restate the fundamental approach of my Government to the conflict in the region. The united States continues to seek a negotiated settlement. It has supported, and continues to suppc:o:t, the COntadora process in its quest for a regional solution. United States policy towards Nicaragua remains fully consistent with the 21 points of the Contadora Document of Objectives agreed to by the four Oontadora Group countries and the five Central American countries, inclUding Nicaragua, in September 1983. The united states has stated repeatedly and categorically that it would abide by a comprehensive, verifiable, and simultaneous implementation of the Document of Objectives. But only the full realization of all 21 points, including true national reconciliation and democratization in Nicaragua, can lead to a lasting peace in Central America. Once again the United States calls on the Sandinistas to enter into serious negotiations with the democratic opposition aimed at achieving national reconciliation and democratization. OUr long-standing olffer to hold simultaneous talks with the Sandinistas if they undertake such negotiations still stands. My delegation is concerned that the tactics used so blatantly by the Sandinistas in provoking this debate today have been designee! with one purpose in mind. They wish to avoid answering the following basic questions about their intentions towards their neighbours and theil own people. Why do the Sandinistas (Mr. Okun, united States) continue to attack and subvert their neighbours? Why do they continue to destroy those within Nicaragua - sucb as labour u~ions, the free press,.the Church," the private sector and even the Miskito Indians - who cling to the ideals of the revolution and attempt peacefully to make these ideals a reality? Why do the Sandinistas need a secret police 10 times the size of somoza's? And, finally, why are the Sandinistas unwilling to enter into the dialogue with all of the democratic opposition that could lead to genuine national reconciliation? We ask: when will this body and - more important - the Nicaraguan people, be given answers to these questions? Mr. MOYA PALENCIA (Mexico) (interpretation from Spanish) I My delegation had the opportunity of explaining its views on this subject in detail last week in the Security COuncil. we do not intend to repeat what tfe said then, but we are convinced that this is a case that goes beyond the confines of a unilateral claim by one Member State against another and that it involves the very viability of the international legal order envisaged in the Charter. That affects and concerns all of us. (Mr. Moxa Pal.ncia, Mexico) My delegation is well .wal:e of the political illPUcationa of the point at issue, the substance of which entails a p.:oble. of respect for the right to aelf-deter.ination of the claimant country as vell as respect for the principle of non-intervention, and, by the SaIIe token, affects the ~ecadous balance of peace in the central Medcan region and the world. My delegathn, however, wishes to take a basically legal approach to this subject, because of ita present an4 future importance. PrOIl the juridical point of view, we think it 1. clear that the issue that Nicaragua unsuccessfully raised a fev days ago in the Security COUncil, and is today raising in the General Asseably, is the need for i-.ediate ca.pliance with or execution of a judgement of the International (»urt of Justice, which is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and to whose Statute all Mellbers of the United Nations are ipso facto parties. '!'bus, Article 94 of the C!larter provides that -Bach Membe~ of the United Nations ~~ert.kea to coaply with the decision of the International COurt of Justice in any case to which it is a party••••-. And, if that is not done, -the other party ..y h~ve recourse to the s.curity council, whieh aay, i~ it deems necessery, ake rec0m88ndationa or decide upon Maauree to be taken to give effect to the judgeBent-. The Security COuncil considered Nicaragua's request that effect be given to the judgement in question - the first reqgeat of that kind presented in the h1story of the united NatiGns - but the COuncil was unable to uke the recollllendation contained In a draft resolution propo8~ by a nuaber of countries, ~JWing to the veto cast by the State that was the other party il\; the case before .::he COurt. (Mr. Moxa Pa1encia, Mexico) Today the matter is before the General Assembly, as is a draft resolution whose text is identical to that submitted to the Security Council. The draft resolution before the Assembly urgently calls for full and immediate compliance with the Judgment of the International Court of Jus~ice of 27 June 1986, and requests the Secretary-Genera1 to keep the General Assembly informed on the implementation of the resolution. The procedures envisag~.~ in the Charter for ensuring that judgements of the International Court are given effect are very similar to those contained in the overwhelming majority of - if not all - the domestic legislation governing lawsuits in Member States, including that of the parties to the conflict. The various legal codes state that when the parties - or one of them - fail to comply with the obligations flowing from a judgement of a competent tribunal, urgent measures may be taken to deal with this non-compliance. In Ang1e-Sexon law, such a situation and the complex of measures pertaining to ensuring compliance ensuring compliance are considered under what is known as ·contempt of court·. In the case before us, Nicaragua, through draft resolution A/41/L.22 of 31 OCtober 1986, and the statement by its Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Migue1 D'Escoto, is requesting the A8semb1y to call urgently for the full and immediate compliance by the other party with the Judgment of the International Court. My delegation believes that the appropriateness and urgency of this call and of Nicaragua's right to reauest the General Assembly to make it are beyond question, in View of the result of its request recently considered in the Security Council. We feel that the international oommunity, regardless of any particular position taken on the substance of the issue that led to the litigation, must support compliance with the Judgment. Failing to do that would undermine the legal foundations of th~ international order as well as the inrportance and coJlt)uJ ~J01Y (Hr. Moxa Palencia, Mexico) be tantamount to undermining the very foundations of the civilized coexistence of nations. The Security Council and the International Court of Justice were established precisely to ensure the application of the purposes and principles c~: t~ Charter, primarily those relating to the maintenance of international peace and s~~u~ity. President Harry Truman, in closing the San Prancisco Conference on 25 June 1945, described the Charter as a great instrument for peace, security and human progress in the world, and added that the principle of justice was the cornerstone of the Charter. Today, the matter we are considering preci~ely affects the maintenance of international peace and security and the very survival of the principle of justice - a concept that i8 basic to the community of nations. The other legal problem raised by Nicaragua's complaint is the indiscriminate, and therefore wrongful, use of the right of veto by the permanent members of the Security Oouncil. When the United Nations was bein~ established 3 Mexico submitted a draft for the Charter which was organically more democratic ana which called for the elimination of the veto. That is referl'ed to by Mr. Luis Padilla Nervo, who was the head of the Mexicn delegation to the San Prancisco Conference, in a book published in 1985. But, as this distinguished diplomat also states in his book, the idea prevailed that peace depended on unity among the major Powers and that it was necessary to maintain that unity, and at the time the veto seemed to be the right instrument for doing that. It has been said that the veto right was the price that the small nations had to pay the large Powers to bring the united Nations into being. However that may be, this high prlce was paid to dissuade the 9~eat Powers from engaging in conflicts and to persuade them to work together to keep the peace and actively to (Mr. Mgra Palencia, Mexico) always understood that the right of veto was to be regarded as ac exeeption and that it was to be used to uphold and apply the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter - and not in any way to grant i..unity for violating or failing to cOJllPly with it. The widespread, constant use of the veto in the Security Council, often against principles expressly laid down in the Charter and without respect for its purposes and spirit, has in fEet chAnged the nature of the Council. The President of Mexico, Miguel de la Madrid, in his statement to the General Assembly on 24 September this year, said: -The indiscriminate use of the right of veto has, unfortunately, all too freauently, kept the Security Council from fully achieVing its aims and has prevented that ll1pOrtant body from speaking out on events and conflicts that threaten international peace and security·. (A/41/PV.8, p. 7) Today we are dealing with a case in point - but this one has particular features. The recomJlendation that the Security Council had planned to m~ke - for the first time - to ensure compliance with a judgeJlent of the International Court of Justice calling for the cessation of all military or paramilitary assistance against Nicaragua, could not be made because of the veto cast by the State that was the other party in the litigation. Some of the relevant provisions of the Charter have already been mentioned here - in particular, Article 27. Reference has also been made to a resolution, sponsored by four permanent members of tile Council, which was adopted by the General Assembly on 14 April 1949. That resolution, on t~e basis of Article 10 of the Charter, lists the kinds of resolutions that should not be vetoed, inclllldlng those ~hat are l:lllited to reminding Mellber States of their obligations under our constitlllent document. Now, that is precisely what was reauested in the draft resolution that the Council was unable to adopt. (Mr. Mgya Palencia, Mexico) In any case, it seems clear that no permanent member of the Security Council can exercise its veto when it is a party to a dispute before the Council.. This is particularly so when that dispute has been put before the International Court of Justice and on which the Court has handed down a binding judgment. As stated in paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the Charter, this is particularly true when the matter raised is related to Chapter VI of the Charter pertaining to the peaceful settlement of disputes. The oontrary view ~,uld lead to the conclusion that the permanent members of the Security Council are in fact not SUbject to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, notwithstanding the Charter's provisions. It would also prompt the conclusion that they can avoid compliance with the Court's findings by unilaterally vetoing the Security Council' s decision that the Court's ru11ng should be iJll)lemented, or, as in this case, that the parties should abide by the Court's ruling. The delegation of Mexico finds most positive and appropriate that any Member State which feels that international law has been violated against it should go before the International Court of Justice with its claim. That procedure contributes to the peaceful settlement of international disputes through es~entially legal procedures not relating to any political considerations.. Action of that kind implies respect for the international legal order and a desire to settle disputes by peaceful means. But such a position would be discouraged even more than it is now if judgements by the Court remain unfulfilled and if. the Security Council of the United Nations becomes unable to take action promoting compliance with the findings of the international Court of Justice. (Mr. Moxa Palencia, Mexico) ~: The QUestion of the veto 1n the Security Council was one of those issues which was most discussed at the San Prancisco Conference. Many delegations harboured serious doubts about the so-called fule of unanimity among the permanent members of the Council. That rule unauestionably was one of the major causes of the paralysis of the former League of Nations. On 7 June 1945 in a joint statement, the four co-sponsors of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals plus France, replied to the ~arious auestions which had been raised pertaining to the veto. Reference was made to the limitations which later were included in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 27 of the Charter. In the light of that joint declaration, the Mexican delegation on 13 June 1945 stated that it was imperative that the five permanent members "formally reaffirm" the contents of their declaration to the effect that "they will resort to the veto, in so far as it concerns peaceful settlements only in entirely exceptional circumstances." All those declarations appear in volume 11 of the documents of the United nations Conference on International Organization, issued in San Francisco in 1945, on page 531. Our country's present position has not changed. We remain convinced that the veto was given the major Powers precisely to help them attain the gOB-l and discharge the primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security and i~lement1ng the principles and purposes of the Charter. It should most certainly not be used to prevent settlement of disputes among Member States and cover up violations of interna~ional law in general and of the Charter in particular, or to help them avoid compliance with the judgments of the International court of Justice. In our opinion, the permanent members of the Security Council must amply demonstrate their political will and UBe the veto only on excepUonal occasions. It must not be allowed to become a source of privilege, ineffective, which it has E'&rtI8ined for a number of years, most regrettably, all of which has had a very harmful effect on international peace and balance. For all these reasons, the General Assembly, the suprue body representing the entire Organization, exercising its powers under the Charter, in particular its powers under Articles 10 and 11, should consider the question put before it by Nicaragua and adopt the draft resolution to which we have been referring. If it does so, it will in fact be eq»hasizing the intel:est of the international community of nations in ensuring respect for the international legal order and its desire to obtain compliance with the jUdgement of the International COurt of Justice. This would also help to make progress towards the peaceful settlement of the dispute and towards the attainment of peace in the region of Central America.

I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their vote before the vote on draft resolution A/4l/L.22. May I rer-jall that those statements are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations frcm their seats. Mr. MEZA fEl Salvador) (interpretation from Spanish): I have asked to take part in this debate at the present time in order to explain to this gathering the vote against the draft resolution presented by Nicaragua which my delegation is planning to cast. MI delegation is firmly convinced that this ~ssembly is not the right place to deal with the jUdgement of the International Court of Justice of 27 June 1986. The draft resolution proposed by Nicaragua will most certainly not promote the cause of (~r. HezeI, El S.elvador) (~r. HezeI, El S.elvador) international law, nor the soarch for: peace aw.J justice. To the extent that the international law, nor the soarch for: peace aw.J justice. To the extent that the United Nations Charter confers responsibility for consideration of judgements of United Nations Charter confers responsibility for consideration of judgements of the International Court of Justice upon a body other than the Court itself, it does the International Court of Justice upon a body other than the Court itself, it does so on the Security Council, not on the General ASlSembly. Conseauently, it is the so on the Security Council, not on the General ASlSembly. Conseauently, it is the Council which should deal with the matter before us. Council which should deal with the matter before us. But the main auestion is whether Ni~ar~gua's draft resolution will promote But the main auestion is whether Ni~ar~gua's draft resolution will promote peace and law, or be used by Nicaragua to continue its false, one-sided portrayal peace and law, or be used by Nicaragua to continue its false, one-sided portrayal of the conflict in Central Al'IIedca? tn the opinion of my delegation, that question of the conflict in Central Al'IIedca? tn the opinion of my delegation, that question contains its own reply. Nicaragua went to the Court to secure a propaganda contains its own reply. Nicaragua went to the Court to secure a propaganda victory. As many had anticipated, Nic&ragua has sought to raise the question of victory. As many had anticipated, Nic&ragua has sought to raise the question of the Court's judgement of 27 June in every possible international forum to obtain a the Court's judgement of 27 June in every possible international forum to obtain a greater political and promote its own cause for propaganda advantage. greater political and promote its own cause for propaganda advantage. (Mr. Meze, El Salvador) (Mr. Meze, El Salvador) That is why Nicaragua has COlle before the Asselllbly and it is also precisely why we That is why Nicaragua has COlle before the Asselllbly and it is also precisely why we should reject Nicaragua's manoeuvres. If the draft resolution were adoI;lted, should reject Nicaragua's manoeuvres. If the draft resolution were adoI;lted, international law would be the loser, contrary to what some would claim. international law would be the loser, contrary to what some would claim. My delegation took part in the debate on Nicaragua's case at the International My delegation took part in the debate on Nicaragua's case at the International COurt of Justice and not only put forward the facts pertaining to Nicaragua's COurt of Justice and not only put forward the facts pertaining to Nicaragua's aggression against my country but also stated that the COurt did not have aggression against my country but also stated that the COurt did not have jurisdiction in this matter and that Nicaragua's allegations were inadmissible. My jurisdiction in this matter and that Nicaragua's allegations were inadmissible. My Government's intervention was based on Article 63 of the Statute of the COurt, Government's intervention was based on Article 63 of the Statute of the COurt, because what was involVed was the interpretation of mUltilateral treaties, in because what was involVed was the interpretation of mUltilateral treaties, in particular the united Nations Charter and the Statute of the COurt, to which particular the united Nations Charter and the Statute of the COurt, to which El Salvador is a party. The interpretation of those treaties in questions of the El Salvador is a party. The interpretation of those treaties in questions of the jurisdiction of the Court and the inadmissibility of Nicaragua's case will jurisdiction of the Court and the inadmissibility of Nicaragua's case will inevitably and directly affect Bl Salvador's rights under international law, inevitably and directly affect Bl Salvador's rights under international law, despite the fact - and I take this opportunity to put this on record - that despite the fact - and I take this opportunity to put this on record - that El Salvador has since 1975 expressed a general reservation rega~ding the El Salvador has since 1975 expressed a general reservation rega~ding the jurisdiction of the Court. Moreover, our country has always been respectful of jurisdiction of the Court. Moreover, our country has always been respectful of that COurt. that COurt. Nicaragua has presented the judgement of the COurt of 27 June 1986 as proof of Nicaragua has presented the judgement of the COurt of 27 June 1986 as proof of the innocence of the sandinista regime. MY delegation knows very well that that is the innocence of the sandinista regime. MY delegation knows very well that that is false. Nicaragua has portrayed the judgement of 27 June as a victory for false. Nicaragua has portrayed the judgement of 27 June as a victory for international law. My delegation knows very well that that t/JO is untrue. international law. My delegation knows very well that that t/JO is untrue. All countries which, like El Salvador, are poor and militarily weak and have All countries which, like El Salvador, are poor and militarily weak and have been unlawfully attacked by powerful neighbours should give serious thought to the been unlawfully attacked by powerful neighbours should give serious thought to the implications of the COurt's judgemel1lt' of 27 June 1986. implications of the COurt's judgemel1lt' of 27 June 1986. Mr. BUKET!-BUKAYI (Zaire) (interpretation from French) I The foreign Mr. BUKET!-BUKAYI (Zaire) (interpretation from French) I The foreign policy of Zaire is based on respect for law and the principles governing policy of Zaire is based on respect for law and the principles governing (Mr. Buketi-Bukayi, Zaire) (Mr. Buketi-Bukayi, Zaire) international relations, irrespective of any sUbjective considerations. It is international relations, irrespective of any sUbjective considerations. It is imperative that law be respect~d by all States, without distinction. The force of imperative that law be respect~d by all States, without distinction. The force of arms must be replaced by the force of law so that an atmosphere of peace and arms must be replaced by the force of law so that an atmosphere of peace and security may prevail in international relations, in accordance with the purposes security may prevail in international relations, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. and principles of the United Nations. Since the International COurt of Justice is the supreme organ that states the Since the International COurt of Justice is the supreme organ that states the law on behalf of the international community, its findings and decisions are law on behalf of the international community, its findings and decisions are binding on all States without exception. binding on all States without exception. Accordingly, my delegation will vote in favour of the d~aft resolution Accordingly, my delegation will vote in favour of the d~aft resolution A/41/L.22. A/41/L.22. Mr. HUSSAIN (Maldives): Maldives will support the draft resolution Mr. HUSSAIN (Maldives): Maldives will support the draft resolution because it calls for the strengthening and respect for the jUdgements of the because it calls for the strengthening and respect for the jUdgements of the International Court of Justice. However, Mal~ives is not fully satisfied with the International Court of Justice. However, Mal~ives is not fully satisfied with the format or the text. We would have preferred the draft resolution to be based on format or the text. We would have preferred the draft resolution to be based on actual arguments against the country not accepting the authority of the actual arguments against the country not accepting the authority of the International COurt of Justice, rather than entirely on a statement made by the International COurt of Justice, rather than entirely on a statement made by the leader of the delegation of one of the parties to the dispute. The statement leader of the delegation of one of the parties to the dispute. The statement referred to in the draft resolution is not confined simply to the rejection by the referred to in the draft resolution is not confined simply to the rejection by the other party to the conflict. other party to the conflict. As far as the text is concerned, it lacks the cl~rity and detail which would As far as the text is concerned, it lacks the cl~rity and detail which would have made it more meaningful as far as the objectige of upholding the authority and have made it more meaningful as far as the objectige of upholding the authority and credibility of the International Court of Justice is concerned. credibility of the International Court of Justice is concerned. Mr. ANDRADE DIAZ DURAN (Guatemala) (interpretation from Spanish): The Mr. ANDRADE DIAZ DURAN (Guatemala) (interpretation from Spanish): The delegation of Guatemala, in accordance with instructions from its Government, will delegation of Guatemala, in accordance with instructions from its Government, will abstain in the vote on the draft resolution. That abstention is in accordance with abstain in the vote on the draft resolution. That abstention is in accordance with the foreign policy of our country relating to Central America and is consistent the foreign policy of our country relating to Central America and is consistent (Mr. Andrade Diaz Duran, Guatemala) (Mr. Andrade Diaz Duran, Guatemala) with what we said in the security Council last week. In any event, it is relevant with what we said in the security Council last week. In any event, it is relevant to reaffirm our devotion to the Charter of the United Nations and the generally to reaffirm our devotion to the Charter of the United Nations and the generally accepted principles and norms of international law. In this context, we reiterate accepted principles and norms of international law. In this context, we reiterate our respect for the findings of the International COurt of Justice, the principal our respect for the findings of the International COurt of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, and recognize the procedures and the judicial organ of the United Nations, and recognize the procedures and the corresponding bodies responsible for the implementation of the findings of the corresponding bodies responsible for the implementation of the findings of the court. court. Notwithstanding the legal aspect of ~his matter, which has its own intrinsic Notwithstanding the legal aspect of ~his matter, which has its own intrinsic value and undeniable importance, we cannot disregard the fact that the problem in value and undeniable importance, we cannot disregard the fact that the problem in Central America is extremely complex and deserves ~ be dealt with in all its Central America is extremely complex and deserves ~ be dealt with in all its aspects and studied from all angles. It is also undeniable that the problem of aspects and studied from all angles. It is also undeniable that the problem of Central America is basically a political one, with serious economic and social Central America is basically a political one, with serious economic and social implications. Failure to recognize that reality is, in our view, an error in implications. Failure to recognize that reality is, in our view, an error in evaluating the situation. evaluating the situation. As we said in the Security Council, Guatemala believes in dialogue and As we said in the Security Council, Guatemala believes in dialogue and diplomatic and political negotiations in order to find comprehensive solutions. We diplomatic and political negotiations in order to find comprehensive solutions. We reject all faits accomplis and consider the possibility of a generalized armed reject all faits accomplis and consider the possibility of a generalized armed I confrontation, which would have unforeseeable, catastrophic consequences, extremely I confrontation, which would have unforeseeable, catastrophic consequences, extremely dangerous. dangerous. Guatemala has maintained and persists in a policy of active neutrality, for we Guatemala has maintained and persists in a policy of active neutrality, for we feel that this is the best way in which we can contribute to the restoration of feel that this is the best way in which we can contribute to the restoration of peace and the establishment of conditions in which the integration of Central peace and the establishment of conditions in which the integration of Central America and the development of our peoples will be possible. We maintain a America and the development of our peoples will be possible. We maintain a balanced, neutral position and offer choices which would make it easier to find balanced, neutral position and offer choices which would make it easier to find agreement. We do not take a passive, inactive attitude but, on the contrary, are agreement. We do not take a passive, inactive attitude but, on the contrary, are lating peace. lasting peace. Tbis is the ti.. for the delegation of Guate_la to restate in this foru. ita Tbis is the ti_ for the delegation of Guate_la to restate in this foru. its support an4 unconditional backing for the Contactora proees8 and the Support Group. support anc1 unconditional backing for tll. Contactora proees8 and the Support Group. Last week the Foreign Minister and the Deputy Foreign Minister of Guateula Last week the Foreign Minister and the Deputy Foreign Minister of Guate_la visited all tt>.. countrie. of Central Alledca to invite the GoVernents to visited all tt>.. countd•• of C....tral Alledca to invite the GoVernllents to re1nidate the dialogue within the Contadora fra.work and. to reaetiva~e and re1nidate the dialogue within the Contador81 fra.work and to reaetlva~e and strengthen thOlle negotiations. strengthen thOlle negotiations. Guatemala would also like to reaffirm its neutral position, and at the same Guatemala would also like to reaffirm its neutral position, and at the same time its readiness to co-operate in seeking formulas for an ~greement that could time its readiness to co-operate in seeking formulas for an ~gree_nt that could lead to peace within the framework of democra~J and pluralism that would encourage lead to peace within the framework of democra~J and pluralism that would encourage the integrated developaent of our peoples. These are the main reasons that the integrated developaent of our peoples. These are the main reasons that dete~.ined our delegation's decision to abstain in the vote on the draft resolution dete~.ined our delegation's decision to abstain in the vote on the draft resolution which is n~ before the Assemly. which is n~ before the AsseR:bly. Nr. ALBAN-II)LGUIN (Colombia) (interpretation froll Spanish): Colol!!Ibia has Mr. ALBAN-mLGUIN (Colombia) (interpretation froll Spanish): Colol!!Ibia has always, from the first dawn of its independence, been commited to the ideals of always, frOll the first dawn of its independence, been commited to the ideals of pan-Americanism, and to the ailM of the charters both of our hemispheric pan-Americanism, and to the aim of the charters both of our hemispheric organization and of the United Nations. My country has brought its best traditions organization and of the United Nations. My country has brought its best traditions of international 1_ to these forull8: the principles of non-intervention, the of international 1_ to these forull8: the principles of non-intervention, the peaceful settlement of disputes, the self-determination of peoples and the peaceful settlement of disputes, the self-determination of peoples and the Cllcc:eptance of the findings of international courts of justice. Moreover Colombia Cllcc:eptance of the findings of international courts of justice. Moreover Colombia is convinced of the importance of dialogue as an irreplaceable means of settling is convinced of the importance of dialogue as an irreplaceable means of settling disputes. This tradition neans that Colombia cannot remain aloof from an issue disputes. This tradition means that Colombia cannot remain aloof from an issue such as the one now before us. As Mel'llber States of the United Nations we respect such as the one now before us. As Member States of the United Nations we respect the legal order of this Organization and system which provides the States of the the legal order of this Organization and system which provides the States of the world with the opportunity of living in peace. world with the opportunity of living in peace. In the particular case now before the Assemly, the CQtjrt has done no JIlOre In the particular case now before the Assemly, the COt~rt has done no more than apply the principles in the Charter, which have been endorsed in the documents than apply the principles in the Charter, which have been endorsed in the documents prepared by the Contadora Group and are irreplaceable principles of international prepared by the Contadora Group and are irreplaceable principles of international law. Thus, this is a question of principle going beyond bilateral disputes. It law. Thus, this is a question of principle going beyond bilateral disputes. It refers to the guarantees that all States must have that the international legal refers to the guarantees that all States must have that the international legal order shall prevail in the international community and not the law of might is order shall prevail in the international community and not the law of might is right. My delegation feels it is necessary to respect the decisions of the highest right. My delegation feels it is necessary to respect the decisions of the highest court of justice in the world, which is the legal voice of a community which court of justice in the world, which is the legal voice of a community which regards the Court as the protect~r of the fundamental rights of all States, large regards the Court as the protect~r of the fundamental rights of all States, large and Bull. My delegation Uves up to its commitment as a Member of the United and Bull. My delegation Uves up to its commitment as a Member of the United Nations, and will therefore vote in favour of draft reeolution A/4l/L.22. Our Nations, and will therefore vote in favour of draft reeolution A/4l/L.22. Our decision is ~trictly objective, and closely in accordance with the essential decision is ~trictly objective, and closely in accordance with the essential foundations underlying international peace and coexistence. foundations underlying international peace and coexistence. The PRESmENT: The Assembly will now begin the voting process and take a

The Assembly will now begin the voting process and take a decision on draft resolution A/41/L.22. decision on draft resolution A/41/L.22. A recorded vote has beec requested. A recorded vote has beec requested. A recorded vote was taken. A recorded vote was taken. In favOl.lI:: In favOl.lI:: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, BOtswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Bu~ma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Finland, German Demcratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, MoZambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, SWeden, Syrian Arab Republic, Trinidad and TObago, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, BOtswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Bu~ma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Finland, German Demcratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, MoZambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, SWeden, Syrian Arab Republic, Trinidad and TObago, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against: Against: El salvador, Israel, United States of America El salvador, Israel, United States of America Antigua and Barbuda, Bah~mas, Bahrain, Belgium, Brunei Darussalam, Central African Republic, Chad, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Fe~eral Republic of, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxemourg, Malaysia, Morocco, Niger, oman, Paraguay, Portugal, Rwanda, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, SOmalia, Sri Lanka, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland !bstaining: Antigua and Barbuda, Bah~mas, Bahrain, Belgium, Brunei Darussalam, Central African Republic, Chad, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Fe~eral Republic of, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxemourg, Malaysia, Morocco, Niger, oman, Paraguay, Portugal, Rwanda, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland !bstaining: Draft resolution A/4l/L.22 was adopted by 94 votes to 3, with 47 abstentions (resolution 41/31). Draft resolution A/4l/L.22 was adopted by 94 votes to 3, with 47 abstentions (resolution 41/31).

I shall now call on those representatives who have asked

I shall now call on those representatives who have asked to explain their vote on the draft resolution. to explain their vote on the draft resolution. Mr. '!'O&M ZALDUMBIDE (Ecuador) (interpretation from Spanish): In voting Mr. '!'O&M ZALDUMBIDE (Ecuador) (interpretation from Spanish): In voting in favour of the draft resolution that we have just adopted, the delegation of in favour of the draft resolution that we have just adopted, the delegation of ~uador would like to say that we have tried to disregard the substance of the ~uador would like to say that we have tried to disregard the substance of the resolution because of its eminently political implications. By its affirmative resolution because of its eminently political implications. By its affirmative vot2 the delegation of Ecuador merely wished to stress once again our unswerving vot2 the delegation of Ecuador merely wished to stress once again our unswerving respect for the legal and peaceful means provided by international law for the respect for the legal and peaceful means provided by international law for the consideration and settlement of disputes, one of the most' effective ways of which consideration and settlement of disputes, one of the most' effective ways of which is resort to the International Court of Justice and full respect for the Court's is resort to the International Court of Justice and full respect for the Court's jUdgenents.* jUdgenents.* Mr. PHILIPPE (Luxembourg) (interpretation from French): Luxembourg did Mr. PHILIPPE (Luxembourg) (interpretation from French): Luxembourg did not vote against the draft resolution because it recognizes the validity of the not vote against the draft resolution because it recognizes the validity of the jUdgenents of the International Court of Justi':e. We consider that international jUdgenents of the International Court of Justi':e. We consider that international law, however imperfect it may be, is the only defence against arbitrary action and law, however imperfect it may be, is the only defence against arbitrary action and violence in international life. However, Luxembourg did not vote for the draft violence in international life. However, Luxembourg did not vote for the draft resolution in the belief that it is inadvisable to consider the judgement of resolution in the belief that it is inadvisable to consider the judgement of 27 June 1986, in isolation from a general review of the situation in Nicaragua, 27 June 1986, in isolation from a general review of the situation in Nicaragua, including the peace proposals of the Concadora Group, involving concessions by all including the peace proposals of the Concadora Group, involving concessions by all parties concerned in the conflict in Central America. For this two-fold reason my parties concerned in the conflict in Central America. For this two-fold reason my delegation considered it must abstain. delegation considered it must abstain. *Mr. Turkmen (Turkey), Vice-President, took the Chair. *Mr. Turkmen (Turkey), Vice-President, took the Chair. Mr. GUTIERREZ (Costa Rica) (interpretation from Spanish): The delegation Mr. GUTIERREZ (Costa Rica) (interpretation from Spanish): The delegation of Costa Rica abstained in the vote. This vote should bel seen in light of the fact of Costa Rica abstained in the vote. This vote should bel seen in light of the fact that our Government has explicit1¥ accepted the jurisdiction of the International that our Government has explicit1¥ accepted the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in response to a complaint against it entered by Nicaragua in Court of Justice in response to a complaint against it entered by Nicaragua in relation to matters connected with its case against the United States. We accepted relation to matters connectea with its case against the United States. We accepted the jurisdiction of the Court because our country has fully accepted the the jurisdiction of the Court because our country has fully accepted the jurisdiction of the Cou~t, and, wishing as we do to respect our international jurisdiction of the Cou~t, and, wishing as we do to respect our international obligations, we stand ready to aiscuss our rights before that Court. obligations, we stand ready to aiscuss our rights before that Court. 11 r , f 11 r , f we have a clear conscience, for we have complied with our international we have a clear consciencer for we have complied with our international obligations. We are also particularly interested in the Court's giving a judgement obligations. We are also particularly interested in the Court's giving a judgement also on the interference by the Government of Nicaragua in our right of navigation also on the interference by the Government of Nicaragua in our right of navigation in the San Juan river, the freauent acts of aggression by the Government of in the San Juan river r the freauent acts of aggression by the Government of Nicaragua against our borders and the obligations ~f that Government with respect Nicaragua against our borders and the obligations ~f that Government with respect to the very larga number of refugeas that have arrived in our country. to the very larga number of refugeas that have arrived in our country. AccordinglYr we feel that we should save our views for the debate on ~his matter AccordinglYr we feel that we should save our views for the debate on ~his matter before the Court. before the Court. We are also profoundly affected by the faet that there is no clear connection We are also profoundly affected by the faet that there is no clear connection between the actions taken by the Government of Nicar~gua befo~e the International between the actions taken by the Government of NicarDgua before the International Court of Justice and the Contadora process. In accordance with the inter-American Court of Justice and the Contadora process. In accordance with the inter-American Treaty on the peaceful settlement of disputesr a new procedure for the settlement Treaty on the peaceful settlement of disputesr a new procedure for the settlement of disputes cannot be begun between the countries of the Americas until the earlier of disputes cannot be begun between the countries of the Americas until the earlier process has been concluded. Thereforer in bringing its differences with a process has been conclUded. Thereforer in bringing its differences with a neighbour to the Courtr Nicaragua dealt a mortal blow to the Contador& process, neighbour to the courtr Nicaragua dealt a mortal blow to the Contador& processr which h~s been the subject of open rejection by one of the parties. ThQre is a which h~s been the subject of open rejection by one of the parties. Thsre is a clear contradiction between the support given by the Assembly to Contadora and the clear contradiction between the support given by the Assembly to Contadora and the silence over the request mada by Nicaragua. silence over the r~quest mada by Nicaragua. LastlYr my Government recognizes that acceptance of the jurisdietion of the LastlYr my Government recognizes that acceptance of the jurisdietion of the International Court of Justice is a sovereign act of each State. Giv4!n thi6 International Court of Justice is a sovereign act of each State. Giv4!n thi6 Bituationr we were rather surprised that many countries that do not accept the Bituationr we were rather surprised that many countries that do not accept the jurisdiction of the Court for their own international problems are now presenting jurisdiction of the Court for their own international problems are now presenting the Court as a tribu~al with mandatory ju~isdiction, even for those States that the Court as a tribu~al with mandatory ju~isdiction, even for those States that have not recognized it er have denoun~ed it. Such an act, obYiously, has have not recognized it er have denoun~ed it. Such an actr obYiously, has implications that will be discussed in due coursa. implications that will be discussed in due cours~. Mr. JACOBOvtTS de SZEGED (Netherlands): The Netherlands voted in favour Mr. JACOBOvtTS de SZEGED (Netherlands): The Netherlands voted in favour of the draft resolution becaua~ it attaches primary importance to respect for the of the draft resolution becaua~ it attaches primary importance to respect for the rule of law in international relations. The International Court of Justice at The rule of law in international relations. The International Court of Justice at The Hague has played an invaluable role in resolving international disputes and in Hague has played an invaluable role in resolving international disputes and in ,\arifying the rights and obligations of states under the Charter. The Netherlands ,\arifying the rights and obligations of states under the Charter. The Netherlands is one of the ffi.~ countries that have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the is one of the ffi.~ countries that have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court without any reservation. In the view of the Netherlands, all Members of the Court without any reservation. In the view of the Netherlands, all Members of the united Nations should accept the compUlsory jurisdiction of the Court. we would united Nations should accept the compUlsory jurisdiction of the Court. we would have liked the resolution to stress this point. By failing to do so, the have liked the resolution to stress this point. By failing to do so, the resolution falls short of making an unequivocal contribution to furtherance of resolution falls short of making an unequivocal contribution to furtherance of respect for the Court. respect for the Court. We cannot ignore the fact that much of the suppo~t for this resolution comes We cannot ignore the fact that much of the suppo~t for this resolution comes from countries which confess themselves to be supporters of the Court only when it from countries which confess themselves to be supporters of the Court only when it fits their political objectives. We are not convinced by the support from those fits their political objectives. We are not convinced by the support from those Which have not matched or even tried to match the record of respect for the Which have not matched or even tried to match the record of respect for the International Court of Justice which some Members maintain. International Court of Justice which some Members maintain. Finally, I should like to state that the Netherlands is in favour of more Finally, I should like to state that the Netherlands is in favour of more frequent calls on the Court. However, the prestige of the Court would be frequent calls on the Court. However, the prestige of the Court would be threatened if the Court were misused for short-term political gains. Such motives threatened if the Court were misused for short-term political gains. Such motives do come to mind when considering the Court action recently initiated against do come to mind when considering the Court action recently initiated against countries in the region. It is difficult to see how such action can further the countries in the region. It is difficult to see how such action can further the course of a negotiated solution to such a persistent conflict as that facing course of a negotiated solution to such a persistent conflict as that facing Central America. Central America. Mr. SVOBODA (Canada): In voting for draft resolution A/4l/L.22 Canada Mr. SVOBODA (Canada): In voting for draft resolution A/4l/L.22 Canada has registered its full support for the rule of law in international relations, for has registered its full support for the rule of law in international relations, for the International Court of Justice as the highest jUdicial body in the united the International Court of Justice as the highest jUdicial body in the united Nations system and for the central role the Court can and should play in the Nations system and for the central role the Court can and should play in the (Mr.S~oboda, Canada) (Mr.S~oboda, Canada) peaceful settlement of international disputes. Canada accepts the compulsory peaceful settlement of international disputes. Canada accepts the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. While supporting the resolution, we wish to express our concern that it poi.nts While supporting the resolution, we wish to express our concern that it poi.nts only to the United States and fails to mention others, inclUding Nicaragua, that only to the United States and fails to mention others, inclUding Nicaragua, that "intervene in the internal affairs of other States" in the region. "intervene in the internal affairs of other States" in the region. We also wish to note that, in voting for this resolution on the case brought We also wish to note that, in voting for this resolution on the case brought by Nicaragua against the United States, the Canadian Government is mindful of the by Nicaragua against the United States, the Canadian Government is mindful of the complexities of the auestions before the Co~rt in that case as attested by the many complexities of the auestions before the Co~rt in that case as attested by the many dissenting judgements. It is our hope that the Court's judgement will assist the dissenting judgements. It is our hope that the Court's judgement will assist the parties in achieving a peaceful solution of the matters in dispute. parties in achieving a peaceful solution of the matters in dispute. We note also that in invoking the integrity of the International Court of We note also that in invoking the integrity of the International Court of Justice Nicaragua has not maintained the same jUdicial standards, particularly in Justice Nicaragua has not maintained the same jUdicial standards, particularly in its popular anti-Somczist tribunals, which are the subject ~f observations by its popular anti-Somczist tribunals, which are the subject ~f observations by Amnesty International in its 1986 report. Amnesty International in its 1986 report. Mr. HAMADNEH (Jordan) (interpretation from Arabic): My delegation Mr. HAMADNEH (Jordan) (interpretation from Arabic): My delegation abstained in the vote on draft resolution A/4l/L.22, which has just been adopted by abstained in the vote on draft resolution A/4l/L.22, which has just been adopted by the Assembly. Jordan accepts the jurisdiction of the International Court of the Assembly. Jordan accepts the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and we comply with our international obligations. We believe that some of Justice and we comply with our international obligations. We believe that some of the language in the draft resolution could delay agreement between the parties. the language in the draft resolution could delay agreement between the parties. Had it not been for that wording, we would have voted in favour of the draft Had it not been for that wording, we would have voted in favour of the draft resolution. We believe that a policy of constructive dialogue between the various resolution. We believe that a policy of constructive dialogue between the various parties is the best way of arriving at a solution and putting an end to the parties is the best way of arriving at a solution and putting an end to the conflict in that part of the world. conflict in that part of the world. ~he meeting rose at 1.~O p.m. ~he meeting rose at 1.~O p.m.