A/64/PV.107 General Assembly

Representatives will also recall that, at its 2nd plenary meeting, on 18 September 2009, the General Assembly allocated this sub-item to the Fifth Committee. In order for the Assembly to proceed expeditiously on this sub-item, may I take it that the Assembly agrees to consider this sub-item directly in plenary meeting? It was so decided.

May I further take it that the Assembly agrees to proceed immediately to the consideration of sub-item (e) of agenda item 112? It was so decided.

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-item (e) of agenda item 112? It was so decided.

In connection with draft decision A/64/L.60, entitled “International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States between 1 January and 31 December 1994”, I wish to put on the record the following statement on financial implications on behalf of the Secretary-General, in accordance with rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly. By paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of the draft decision, the General Assembly would: “(c) [Decide] to extend the terms of office of the following permanent judges at the Tribunal, who are members of the Appeals Chamber, until 31 December 2012 or until the completion of the cases to which they are assigned, if sooner: Mehmet Güney (Turkey) Andrésia Vaz (Senegal) “(d) [Decide] to extend the terms of office of the following permanent judges at the International Tribunal, who are members of the Trial Chambers, until 31 December 2011 or until the completion of the cases to which they are assigned, if sooner: Charles Michael Dennis Byron (Saint Kitts and Nevis) Khalida Rachid Khan (Pakistan) Arlette Ramaroson (Madagascar) William H. Sekule (United Republic of Tanzania) Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov (Russian Federation) “(e) [Decide] to extend the terms of office of the following ad litem judges at the Tribunal, who are members of the Trial Chambers, until 31 December 2011 or until the completion of the cases to which they are assigned, if sooner: Aydin Sefa Akay (Turkey) Florence Rita Arrey (Cameroon) Solomy Balungi Bossa (Uganda) Vagn Joensen (Denmark) Gberdao Gustave Kam (Burkina Faso) Lee Gacuiga Muthoga (Kenya) Seon Ki Park (Republic of Korea) Mparany Mamy Richard Rajohnson (Madagascar) Emile Francis Short (Ghana)”. On 28 May 2010, the President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda provided the Security Council with his assessment of the implementation of the completion strategy of the Tribunal (see S/2010/289). The President informed the Council that, due to delays in certain trials and judgement writing, the recent apprehension of fugitives and staffing constraints have resulted in the revision of projections related to the completion strategy. Accordingly, the President requested that the terms of office of the aforementioned judges be extended, as outlined above. The cost associated with the extension of the judges is estimated at $1,392,200 for the biennium 2010-2011. The delay in the completion strategy, for the reasons I have just outlined, has a significant impact on the functioning and overall resource requirements of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Secretary-General would present at the main part of the sixty-fifth session of the General Assembly the revised proposals relating to the budget of the Tribunal for the biennium 2010-2011. The additional resource requirements, inter alia, would include the estimates related to the judges. Accordingly, should the General Assembly adopt the draft decision, details of the resource requirements relating to the extension of the terms of office of the judges would be provided by the Secretary-General to the General Assembly at the main part of its sixty-fifth session in the context of the report on the revised estimates relating to the budget of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda for the biennium 2010- 2011.

The Assembly will now take action on draft decision A/64/L.60. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt the draft decision?

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 127.

In connection with draft decision A/64/L.59, entitled “International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991”, I wish to put on record the following statement of financial implications on behalf of the Secretary-General, in accordance with rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly. By paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of the draft decision, the General Assembly would: “(c) [Decide] to extend the terms of office of the following permanent judges at the International Tribunal, who are members of the Appeals Chamber, until 31 December 2012 or until the completion of the cases to which they are assigned or until the completion of their term as members of the Appeals Chamber, if sooner: Carmel Agius (Malta) Liu Daqun (China) Theodor Meron (United States of America) Fausto Pocar (Italy) Patrick Robinson (Jamaica) “(d) [Decide] to extend the terms of office of the following permanent judges at the International Tribunal, who are members of the Trial Chambers, until 31 December 2011 or until the completion of the cases to which they are assigned, if sooner: Jean-Claude Antonetti (France) Guy Delvoie (Belgium) Burton Hall (Bahamas) Christoph Flügge (Germany) O-Gon Kwon (Republic of Korea) Bakone Justice Moloto (South Africa) Howard Morrison (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) Alphons Orie (Netherlands) “(e) [Decide] to extend the terms of office of the following ad litem judges at the International Tribunal, who are members of the Trial Chambers, until 31 December 2011 or until the completion of the cases to which they are assigned, if sooner: Melville Baird (Trinidad and Tobago) Pedro David (Argentina) Elizabeth Gwaunza (Zimbabwe) Frederik Harhoff (Denmark) Flavia Lattanzi (Italy) Antoine Kesia-Mbe Mindua (Democratic Republic of the Congo) Prisca Matimba Nyambe (Zambia) Michèle Picard (France) Árpád Prandler (Hungary) Stefan Trechsel (Switzerland)”. On 31 May 2010, the President of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia provided the Security Council with his assessment on the implementation of the completion strategy of the Tribunal (see S/2010/270). The President informed the Council that unforeseeable factors beyond the Tribunal’s control and staffing constraints had resulted in the revision of projections related to the completion strategy. Accordingly, the President requested that the terms of office of the aforementioned judges be extended, as just outlined. The cost associated with the extension of the terms of the judges is estimated at $2,975,400 for the biennium 2010-2011. The delay in the completion strategy, for reasons I just outlined, has a significant impact on the functioning and overall resource requirements of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Secretary-General will present, during the main part of the sixty-fifth session of the General Assembly, the revised proposals relating to the budget of the Tribunal for the biennium 2010-2011. The additional resource requirements would include, inter alia, the estimates related to the judges. Accordingly, should the General Assembly adopt the draft decision, details on the resource requirements relating to the extension of the terms of office of the judges would be provided by the Secretary-General to the General Assembly during the main part of its sixty- fifth session in the context of the report on the revised estimates relating to the budget of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia for the biennium 2010-2011.

The Assembly will now take action on draft decision A/64/L.59. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt the draft decision?

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 128.

On behalf of the Government of Japan and the other sponsors, I have the distinct honour to introduce draft resolution A/64/L.61, entitled “Follow-up to paragraph 143 on human security of the 2005 World Summit Outcome”. The sponsors of this draft resolution are Armenia, Austria, Australia, Afghanistan, Benin, Cambodia, Canada, the Central African Republic, Chile, Congo, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Fiji, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, the Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, the Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Senegal, Slovenia, South Africa, Switzerland, Thailand, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania, the United States of America, Uzbekistan and Vanuatu. Before presenting the elements of the draft resolution, allow me to briefly touch upon the background behind this first-ever draft resolution of the General Assembly on human security. Human security is mentioned in paragraph 143 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome document (resolution 60/1), which was unanimously agreed by our political leaders. That paragraph reads as follows: “We stress the right of people to live in freedom and dignity, free from poverty and despair. We recognize that all individuals, in particular vulnerable people, are entitled to freedom from fear and freedom from want, with an equal opportunity to enjoy all their rights and fully develop their human potential. To this end, we commit ourselves to discussing and defining the notion of human security in the General Assembly.” To follow up on this important commitment made by our heads of State and Government, Japan took the initiative of organizing, in the United Nations, an informal group called “Friends of Human Security” in October 2006 and promoted the debate on human security among Member States. Since the second meeting, Japan, together with Mexico as Co-Chair, has organized biannual meetings of the Friends of Human Security, which has developed into an open-ended forum for interested Member States and United Nations organizations. More than 140 Member States have participated in the seven meetings held to date. The Friends of Human Security agreed to promote the human security approach — a human-centred and integrated approach — in addressing United Nations agendas including the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), peacebuilding, climate change, humanitarian assistance and protection of women and children, among others. It has done so in a practical manner, on the basis of a working definition of human security: to protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfilment. Last year, the Friends of Human Security group took the initiative to request the Secretary-General, His Excellency Mr. Ban Ki-moon, to prepare a full report on human security, which was issued as document A/64/701. We are grateful to the Secretary-General for his contribution, which was an important input for consideration by the General Assembly. We are also grateful to the President of the General Assembly, His Excellency Mr. Ali Treki, for kindly organizing the first formal debate on human security in plenary meeting, held on 20 and 21 May. As the initiator of the debate, we are pleased with the positive, high-quality participation of so many and with the strong support expressed for the significance of the human security approach. I believe the constructive debates have greatly facilitated broadening the common understanding of human security among Member States and have faithfully implemented the commitment of our leaders. In the preambular paragraphs of the draft resolution before us, the General Assembly recalls paragraph 143 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome and reaffirms its respect for all the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Human security will be promoted in the United Nations in conformity with the Charter. Article 1 of the Charter lists the purposes of the United Nations, namely international peace and security, friendly relations among nations, cooperation in the economic, social, cultural and humanitarian fields, and respect for human rights. Article 2 lists the principles of the United Nations, which include sovereign equality, peaceful settlement of disputes, refraining from the threat or use of force against territorial integrity, and non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of Member States. In the operative part of the draft resolution, the General Assembly takes note of the Assembly’s first formal debate on human security, held in May, in which Member States actively contributed actively to forging a common understanding of the concept based on the valuable inputs of the Secretary-General in his report on human security. In the resolution, the Assembly also takes note of the ongoing efforts to define the notion of human security, which have been led by many Governments at the national level, as well as through international initiatives at the regional and global levels. We are fully cognizant of a number of worthwhile initiatives taken in this regard. The draft resolution further recognizes the need to continue discussions to achieve an agreement on the definition of human security. Finally, the draft resolution requests the Secretary-General to seek the views of the Member States on this important notion and to submit a report to the General Assembly at its sixty-sixth session. We urge the Secretary-General to intensify his interaction with Member States. The General Assembly also decides to continue its consideration of this matter. We look forward to continuing active discussions on human security within the framework of the General Assembly. Today’s multiple and interrelated threats affect the lives of millions of people. Global issues such as the economic and financial crisis, food insecurity, global health problems, issues related to the Millennium Development Goals, climate change, conflict, refugees and internally displaced persons, peacebuilding, drug trafficking, transnational organized crime, gender equality and protection of women and children, to name but a few, affect the security and safety of each and every human being no matter where he or she lives. Vulnerable people suffer most from those global challenges. A country-level aggregated approach will not suffice to effectively tackle these broad and deeply interconnected global issues. We need to address those issues in an integrated and comprehensive manner and to focus not only on the national level but also on the level of the individual. It is within such a context that Governments are expected to comprehensively support the survival, livelihood and dignity of their peoples as a fundamental basis of national security. The United Nations system has been supporting Member States in addressing human security challenges, including through the United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security, established by the Secretary- General in 1999. The Trust Fund to date has supported projects to enhance human security for vulnerable people in over 80 countries in very concrete ways. There is strong interest in and broad appreciation for this Trust Fund. We urge Member States to make generous contributions to the Fund. We should actively promote and support practical measures aimed at protecting and empowering people and communities, in parallel with the continued discussion in New York towards an agreement on definition. The adoption of this draft resolution on human security is an important milestone in implementing the commitment set out in the World Summit Outcome and in promoting a human security approach in United Nations activities. I wish in particular to thank the sponsors for their support and their commitment to this initiative. I wish also to express my appreciation to all representatives who participated actively in the negotiations for their understanding. I sincerely hope that the draft resolution will receive the full endorsement of the General Assembly and be adopted by consensus.

I should like to consult the Assembly with a view to proceeding immediately to consider the draft resolution contained in document A/64/L.61. In this connection, since the draft resolution was circulated only this morning, it would be necessary to waive the relevant provision of rule 78 of the rules of procedure, which reads as follows: “As a general rule, no proposal shall be discussed or put to the vote at any meeting of the General Assembly unless copies of it have been circulated to all delegations not later than the day preceding the meeting.” Unless I hear any objection, I will take it that the Assembly agrees with this proposal. It was so decided.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/64/L.61, entitled “Follow-up to paragraph 143 on human security of the 2005 World Summit Outcome”. May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/64/L.61?

Before giving the floor to speakers in explanation of position on the resolution just adopted, may I remind delegations that explanations of vote or position are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela expresses its most sincere gratitude to the delegations of Japan and Jordan for the constructive, open and flexible manner in which they conducted the negotiations on draft resolution A/64/L.61 and for their tireless efforts to accommodate the concerns of all delegations in the text. Our delegation has joined the consensus on the resolution because we consider it necessary to continue the debate on the notion of human security and to agree on a consensus definition of the notion within the General Assembly before promoting its implementation in activities of the United Nations system. Our delegation joined the consensus on the draft resolution also based on the understanding that the discussion on the notion of human security should focus exclusively on the economic and social development of our peoples and on seeking the well-being of human beings through the full and effective exercise of the right to development. Here, it is our understanding that the notion of human security and its future definition should be aimed at eradicating poverty, hunger, marginalization and social exclusion and at achieving social justice and the full development of our peoples. In addition, my delegation believes that the debate on the notion of human security should be confined to the fundamental principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter. In this regard, it is our understanding that any future definition of the notion of human security should be based on unrestricted respect for the principles of sovereignty, equality among States, territorial integrity, non-interference in the internal affairs of States and non-use of force.

The delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran joined the consensus today on resolution 64/291, entitled “Follow-up to paragraph 143 on human security of the 2005 World Summit Outcome”, with a view to continuing consideration of the notion of human security within the framework of the General Assembly and in order to come up with a negotiated agreed definition of this notion in a transparent and inclusive manner. Such a definition must closely follow and be in line with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, including respect for the sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of Member States, as well as non-interference in the internal affairs of States Members of the United Nations. My delegation takes this opportunity to commend the delegations of Japan and Jordan for their professional and transparent conduct of the negotiations on the resolution at hand.

I would like to make a statement on behalf of the European Union. The European Union would like to thank the delegations of Japan and Jordan for their efforts to reach consensus on resolution 64/291, on human security. The European Union is well aware of the added value of the concept of human security as a means to empower people to address, holistically, the multidimensional threats and challenges that we face today. The concept should be considered in a balanced way. There is no development without security, no security without development, and neither without respect for human rights. We welcome the adoption of the resolution and would like to reaffirm the European Union’s support of Japan’s and Jordan’s efforts on human security.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of position. The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda items 48 and 114.