A/78/PV.96 General Assembly

Since no candidate obtained the required two-thirds majority in the previous ballot at the 88th plenary meeting on 7 June (see A/78/PV.88), there still remains one seat to be filled from among the Eastern European States. We shall therefore proceed to the thirteenth restricted ballot. In accordance with rule 94 of the rules of procedure, this twenty-sixth round of balloting shall be restricted to the two States from among the Eastern European States that were not elected but obtained the largest number of votes in the previous unrestricted ballot, namely, North Macedonia and the Russian Federation. Before we begin the voting process, I should like to remind representatives that pursuant to rule 88 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, no representative shall interrupt the voting except on a point of order on the actual conduct of the voting. We shall now begin the voting process. Ballot papers will now be distributed and the voting has thus begun. Members are requested to put an “X” in the box next to the name printed on the ballot paper. There should not be more than one checked box for the vacant seat to be filled. A ballot will be declared invalid if both boxes are checked. Any notations other than a vote in favour of an eligible Member State will be disregarded.

In the interests of time, the General Assembly will now proceed to consider the other items announced in The Journal of the United Nations while the ballots are being counted. The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of sub-item (b) of agenda item 113.

In accordance with rule 70 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, I now give the floor to Ms. Mô Bleeker, Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Responsibility to Protect, to make a statement on behalf of the Secretary-General. Ms. Bleeker: I shall now read out a statement on behalf of the Secretary-General. “Nineteen years ago, at the 2005 World Summit, the General Assembly recognized that each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The adoption of that principle raised great hopes. It was seen as a promise on the part of the States Members of the United Nations that they would make every effort to prevent such crimes and to protect their own populations from those atrocities. “Yet it is apparent that the promise of halting atrocity crimes remains largely unfulfilled. All too often, we react to early warnings about the risk of atrocity crimes with indifference or denial. We do not take timely decisions to prevent and halt atrocities or we are shocked into inaction. Today we are witnessing the blatant disregard, violation and abuse of international humanitarian law and international human rights law by State and non-State actors in real time. “In 2005, Member States also agreed that the international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise the responsibility to protect. If peaceful means are inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations, the international community should stand ready to take collective action. Such action should be timely and decisive, conducted through the Security Council and in strict accordance with the procedures outlined in our Charter of the United Nations. “However, a lack of unanimity among permanent members of the Council has at times prevented it from exercising its duty to maintain international peace and security. As such moments occur more often in recent memory, they threaten to undermine trust in the international system. They result in a growing sense of unease among nations and populations that Governments and international organizations are failing to deliver for them or that double standards are being implemented. Seeking to fill that void, the General Assembly has seen fit to act and make recommendations regarding international peace and security. “The report being discussed (A/78/901) today reflects upon the challenges we are facing and suggests ways forward to implement the responsibility to protect. It also identifies the progress realized since 2005. That progress includes knowledge and practical experience of risk factors, causes and dynamics that drive atrocity crimes, all of which have been studied in detail or examined in opinions by international tribunals. Furthermore, as understanding has developed, so have the tools and instruments designed to support early decision-making from an atrocity prevention and protection viewpoint available to all stakeholders  — the United Nations, Member States, regional bodies and civil society actors. “Lessons learned from past experience demonstrate that no society is immune to atrocity crimes. Governments, in consultation with national, regional and international prevention experts, as appropriate, and with civil society, are responsible for the ongoing task of monitoring and ensuring that adequate atrocity prevention and protection measures are in place. Given all of that expertise, why do atrocity crimes continue to happen? “There is no simple answer to that question. The report attempts to underscore that neither is the problem rooted only in a lack of political will nor is it simply about disagreements on the responsibility to protect — a concept that, by its own definition, can be operationalized in a collective manner only by adhering to procedures outlined in the Charter that every State Member of the United Nations is obligated to uphold in good faith. Rather, the report touches upon several more nuanced factors, among them the challenge of agreeing on measures that prevent and protect against atrocity crimes and how to implement them. “The twentieth anniversary of the responsibility to protect in 2025 represents a unique opportunity to take stock, analyse and identify ways for Member States to work together, with full respect for one another’s sovereign equality and territorial integrity, as good neighbours to protect populations from atrocities. “Leading up to that anniversary, Member States that have created national prevention mechanisms and regional bodies that have developed collaborative efforts could share their experiences, best practices and lessons learned, enabling other Member States to consider how or whether those models could be adapted to their realities. Such a stock-taking exercise and exchange would contribute to recommendations on the responsibility to protect, reflecting the broadest consensus among Member States with regard to atrocity prevention and protection. My Special Adviser is ready to support all Member States in that endeavour, upon their request. “The responsibility to protect expresses our deepest commitment on a collective level to protect humankind from atrocities everywhere in the world. I am very keen to listen to Members’ recommendations to make our commitment a reality.”

I thank the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the responsibility to protect for her statement on behalf of the Secretary-General.

I have the honour of delivering this statement on behalf of the Group of Friends of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), consisting of 55 Member States and the European Union, and this year co-chaired by Croatia, Guatemala and Morocco. We would like to thank the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect, Mô Bleeker, for reading out the Secretary-General’s statement. As this is the first time Ms. Bleeker joins us in the General Assembly as the Special Adviser on R2P, we would like to welcome her. The late distribution of this year’s thematic report of the Secretary-General (A/78/901) did not, unfortunately, allow enough time for reflection and feedback. That is regrettable, as annual debates on R2P provide an important opportunity for Member States to reflect upon the contents of the report, consider its recommendations and discuss with the wider United Nations membership progress and challenges in the context of the report’s theme. This year’s debate is taking place as populations around the globe are facing extreme levels of violence, mass atrocities and displacement. Despite the international community’s commitment to preventing and protecting civilians from atrocities, today we are bearing witness to a pervasive degradation of respect for civilian lives and an appalling disregard for the norms and laws designed to prevent the hazards of armed conflict and minimize their impact on civilians. Millions of people are enduring unspeakable suffering amid violence or repressive policies that target and persecute vulnerable populations, destroy civilian infrastructure and the social fabric of a society, including cultural property, and, at times, tear entire communities and countries apart. Far too many populations are facing extreme shortages of food, water and medicine as human-made humanitarian catastrophes continue to unfold and worsen, while humanitarian access is deliberately obstructed or blocked, causing differentiated consequences for women and girls. Consistently upholding our collective responsibility to protect populations from atrocities, no matter who they are or where they are from, is critical and is the need of the hour. Over the past two decades, considerable progress has been made in understanding the risk factors, causes and dynamics that drive atrocities. Relevant information on the risks of atrocities, the existing potential to prevent their occurrence and the institutional capacity to protect vulnerable populations and to hold perpetrators of atrocity crimes accountable are widely available. Despite those advances, the international community has been unable to prevent the commission of atrocities in a number of critical cases. Today’s debate is important for reaffirming our collective commitment to the responsibility to protect and to improving our responses, including by focusing on prevention and recognizing risk factors and indicators as patterns in the context in which they arise and addressing them in a timely manner. As we near the twentieth anniversary since the adoption of the responsibility to protect, it is imperative that policies, practices and structures that enhance our preventive capabilities and ability to respond to unfolding crises be at the centre of discussions and engender the necessary political will at all times. R2P should be paramount within our shared mission to advance peace and security, human rights, the rule of law and development. In that context, we would like to reaffirm our full support for the mandate of the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect. As underlined in our statements in previous General Assembly debates, we encourage the Secretary- General’s two Special Advisers on the Prevention of Genocide and on R2P to use their leadership roles to advance atrocity prevention and R2P and to highlight risks around the world. We urge the Special Advisers to strengthen those efforts, share their analyses with the wider United Nations membership and regularly provide the necessary early warning assessments and recommendations on how to prevent atrocities, including to the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council. We also encourage the two Special Advisers to work with all relevant parts of the United Nations system to overcome siloes and address atrocity risks holistically. We would like to encourage the Secretary-General not only to include in his future reports concrete, action-oriented recommendations on how to enhance the protection of vulnerable populations and uphold our collective responsibility to protect, but to also include assessments of the implementation of recommendations of previous reports. Recommendations are important to outline specific steps or actions to better prevent atrocity crimes and can identify key areas for improvement. In addition, integrating conflict prevention into long-term development strategies and addressing socioeconomic inequalities is essential to creating conditions for sustainable peace and frameworks of accountability. We encourage broader participation and collaboration with civil society organizations to ensure that the voices of those most impacted by atrocities are heard and integrated into our strategies and policies. We would like to thank the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect for its invaluable work as secretariat of the Global Network of R2P Focal Points and the Group of Friends in both New York and Geneva. As we approach the twentieth anniversary of the World Summit, it would be prudent to take stock as well as to look forward into how to improve implementation and remove obstacles. The anniversary is the perfect time to review what has been achieved and what lies ahead. Let us use the time until 2025 to gather best practices, identify challenges and strengthen our strategies. I should now like to add a brief statement in my national capacity. In addition to the 20-year review of the R2P mandate in general, we also need an independent review of the functioning of the joint office of the Special Advisers on the Prevention of Genocide and on the Responsibility to Protect, resulting in recommendations as to how it could be strengthened and made more efficient, especially with regard to the R2P mandate.

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the Benelux countries: Belgium, Luxembourg and my own country, the Kingdom of the Netherlands. We align ourselves with the statement just made on behalf of the Group of Friends of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)and the statement to be made on behalf of the European Union. The Benelux countries welcome the appointment of Mô Bleeker as the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect. We reiterate our full support for her mandate and for the work of the United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect. Our countries attach particular importance to the responsibility to protect, a norm that is an integral part of a just international order based on respect for the rule of law. Preventing atrocity crimes is a key task for the United Nations. It aligns with the United Nations purpose of maintaining international peace and security, promoting human rights and fostering international cooperation, as outlined in Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations. Atrocity crimes affect all three pillars of the United Nations work and their costs go far beyond the monetary. Those crimes affect the very fabric of societies. As a staunch supporter of R2P, we want to ensure a continuous, constructive and sustainable dialogue on prevention and protection. We reiterate the importance of resolution 75/277, by which the Assembly permanently included the responsibility to protect on its agenda, and it is crucial to recall our shared commitment to preventing mass atrocities and discussing strategies to better protect populations. In our view, collective efforts at all levels are necessary at the national level, in cooperation with United Nations Member States, and also at the multilateral level, in particular in the Security Council. If there is a clear signal that atrocity crimes are taking place, the Security Council has the responsibility to respond to it. Populations should be protected and universal human rights respected at all times. Fighting impunity and holding perpetrators to account also serves the aim of deterring future human rights violators. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is therefore proud to be the host State of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which unites countries around the world in their ambition to end impunity for the most serious international crimes. We fully support the Court’s mandate, including from the perspective of the responsibility to protect, because ensuring accountability helps to break cycles of impunity, violence and revenge, and thereby contributes to atrocity prevention. We therefore call on all States to become parties to the Rome Statute. The ICC, however, is a court of last resort. It is States that have the primary responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of international crimes. In order to successfully investigate and prosecute international crimes at the national level, inter-State cooperation is essential as suspects, witnesses and evidence are often scattered all across the world. The Ljubljana-The Hague Convention on International Cooperation in the Investigation and Prosecution of the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, War Crimes and Other International Crimes is an important new instrument that offers present-day possibilities for cooperation among States, such as mutual legal assistance and extradition. As a multilateral treaty, the Ljubljana-The Hague Convention will allow States to establish a uniform legal framework, together with a large number of other States. We therefore call on all States to become parties to the Ljubljana-The Hague Convention, as that would significantly strengthen our joint capacity to prosecute international crimes at the national level and make a tangible contribution to the prevention of those crimes. It is also of the utmost importance to exchange best practices on the strengthening of the first and second pillars of R2P. For that, we need to use all tools at our disposal. The Human Rights Council in Geneva plays a crucial role in that regard. In our view, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights should have the mandate to brief the Human Rights Council and the Security Council on his or her own initiative when available data point to a heightened risk of human rights violation. That would further strengthen the cooperation and interaction between New York and Geneva, which are essential to our commitment to preventing mass atrocities. We also encourage the Secretary-General to include an assessment of atrocity crime risks in his annual reports. Action-oriented reports, with concrete follow- up on recommendations from previous reports, would allow the international community to better implement the responsibility to protect. Finally, the role of civil society is indispensable at the local, regional, national and international levels. At all those levels, non-governmental organizations, such as the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect and other organizations within the International Coalition for R2P, support countries in fulfilling their international obligations. Our engagement with the responsibility to protect principle is clear. Let us practice what we preach and together prevent atrocity crimes from happening. We reiterate the urgent need for Member States to fulfil their obligations under international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international refugee law, which are fundamental to the commitment to the responsibility to protect. Allow me to conclude by emphasizing that the responsibility to protect civilian populations lies primarily with the States concerned, and we therefore urge all Member States to assume their responsibility to protect in order to advance security, peace and human rights for all.

I have the great honour to speak on behalf of France and Mexico. Responsibility calls on us to prevent atrocity crimes before they occur and, where appropriate, to respond forcefully when they do occur. In 2005, we committed ourselves to ending the most serious forms of violence and persecution. History has shown us the cost of inaction. We have witnessed the catastrophic consequences that occur when the international community fails to act promptly. With the sovereignty of States comes the responsibility to take the measures necessary for the well-being of our populations. The international community as a whole has the responsibility to react when a State is clearly unwilling or unable to fulfil its primary responsibility to protect civilian populations or when it is the perpetrator of atrocity crimes. Today I want to underline the crucial role that the international community plays in the effort to guarantee the human rights of individuals. When a State fails to do so, the ripple effects can destabilize entire regions and undermine global peace and security. In that context, I would like to highlight the Franco-Mexican initiative on restricting the use of the veto in the Security Council. That declaration represents a significant step towards ensuring that the international community acts decisively in the face of mass atrocities. The initiative calls on the permanent members of the Security Council to restrict the use of the veto, especially when action is necessary to prevent or respond to possible acts of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. (spoke in French) The use of the veto must never be an instrument of political convenience and must not prevent perpetrators from being held accountable for the atrocities committed. The Franco-Mexican initiative reminds us that the Security Council has a duty to act in the face of such crimes. The initiative is aimed not only at strengthening our collective capacity to prevent the most serious atrocities in the context of the United Nations system, but also at ensuring that the international community can uphold the principles of justice and human dignity enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. We are living in difficult times, in which multilateralism and international law are being tested every day. It is therefore time to raise our voices and act. The Franco-Mexican initiative respects the powers of the Security Council and its members. It requires no revision of the Charter; all it needs is simple political will. We therefore take this opportunity to urge all States that have not yet done so, in particular the permanent members of the Security Council, to join the initiative. Today’s formal debate is more important than ever to strengthening our prevention and response capacities and to renewing our collective commitment to alleviating the suffering of civilian populations and ending violence. We take this opportunity to reiterate our concerns about the humanitarian situation in many parts of the world.

As the counting of the ballots has been completed for the election of a member of the Economic and Social Council, I will now briefly suspend the debate on this item. The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 129.

The result of the voting is as follows: Eastern European States (1 seat) Number of ballot papers: 177 Number of invalid ballots: 0 Number of valid ballots: 177 Abstentions: 1 Number of members present and voting: 176 Required two-thirds majority: 118 Number of votes obtained: Russian Federation 100 North Macedonia 76 The President: One seat therefore remains to be filled from among the Eastern European States. In accordance with rule 94 of the rules of procedure, we should continue with the series of balloting. Further balloting will take place on a date to be announced. The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of sub-item (b) of agenda item 113.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has the honour to take the floor on behalf of the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations, whose member States reaffirm their commitment to respecting, promoting and protecting all human rights and fundamental freedoms, to which they attach the utmost importance. In that context, we express our categorical rejection of the commission of crimes against humanity, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide, while emphasizing the central role of States as guarantors of the safety, security and well- being of their respective populations. The Group of Friends considers the Charter of the United Nations to be the code of conduct that has ruled international relations among States for the past 78 years, based on principles that, in addition to being the basis of international law, remain today as relevant as they were in 1945. We therefore call on countries to uphold the international system, with the United Nations at its core, the international order underpinned by international law and the basic norms of international relations based on the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter. We believe that ensuring compliance with and strict adherence to both the letter and the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations is fundamental to ensuring the realization of the three pillars of our Organization, as well as to advancing towards the establishment of a more peaceful and prosperous world and a truly just and equitable world order. We must therefore avoid any sort of accommodative interpretation of the unique and foundational framework of the United Nations. We take this opportunity to reiterate our serious concerns over current and growing threats to the Charter of the United Nations, including attempts to advance such non-consensual and controversial notions as the responsibility to protect. Such approaches — coupled with the growing resort to unilateralism, to claims of exceptionalism and to attempts to ignore and even replace the purposes and principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter with a new set of so-called rules that, to say the least, remain unknown — threaten to undermine multilateralism, the rule of law, particularly at the international level, and the United Nations system as a whole. Moreover, we also note that there is no intergovernmentally agreed basis for the position and mandate of the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect. The biased reports produced by that office, which seek to extol the notion in question, contribute in no way to providing answers to the many questions that continue to arise from the lack of a clear definition or scope, while completely and perhaps deliberately ignoring the tragic consequences resulting from its application in the recent past, which ultimately validate the legitimate concerns that continue to linger. In that context, we take this opportunity to express our concern over the discontinuation of the prior practice of requesting Member States’ opinions on the topics to be addressed in the reports of the Secretary- General. Such an approach leads to non-transparent and further bias in the work on the notion of the responsibility to protect. Instead of working on the aspects of importance to Member States, like studying the cases of misuse of that concept, the Secretariat now exercises full discretion in that regard without having a clear mandate for proceeding along those lines. Much attention has been devoted to the importance of prevention within the General Assembly and other main bodies of our Organization. Indeed, by signing the founding Charter of the United Nations, States committed, among other things, to saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to promoting social progress and to ensuring respect for fundamental human rights. Therefore, the ideals of preventing conflicts or the commission of serious crimes remain very relevant today. However, the emphasis placed on prevention in the most recent report of the Secretary-General (A/78/901) in the context of the notion of the responsibility to protect seems to be completely artificial. It is unfair to claim that the so-called root causes of the violations and abuses to be addressed through the notion of the responsibility to protect are internal problems of the concerned States, including due to a lack of security or good governance. We all know, for instance, that this is not the case in those countries where the notion has been applied in the past, and that such conditions and the ensuing crises were instead a direct consequence of foreign interventionism and obscure plans to serve the geopolitical interests of others, not of the peoples who are supposedly being protected in application of that infamous notion. We therefore call for lessons to be learned from the experiences of the recent past in which the notion of the responsibility to protect has been invoked, so that we can avoid duplicating the resulting tragedies. We propose a return to the core values and principles that unite us, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, instead of allocating resources — especially at a time when our Organization is facing a well- known crisis of liquidity  — to producing divisive and non-mandated reports and advancing notions of a speculative and dubious nature. The Group of Friends considers the Charter of the United Nations to be both a milestone and a true act of faith in the best of humanity. Its provisions, which are legally binding on all its signatories, contain a set of voluntarily agreed cardinal principles to guide our international relations: the sovereign equality of States, respect for territorial integrity, the self-determination of peoples, refraining from the threat or use of force against the political independence of any State, and non-intervention in the internal affairs of another State. Such commitments, as enshrined in the founding Charter of our Organization, must be implemented in good faith. We therefore cannot stress strongly enough that early warning and prevention must fully respect each and every tenet enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, as well as the norms of international law. In that context, we believe that, instead of pushing for controversial approaches that have the potential to further increase tensions and mistrust around the globe, the international community should make greater use of the tools of multilateralism and diplomacy for the peaceful settlement of disputes, in accordance with the applicable norms of international law, with the due consent of parties to a dispute and in the interest of jointly addressing common challenges facing us all as a global community with a shared future. The notion of the responsibility to protect may initially have had truly altruistic intentions. However, the course of history has shown us its catastrophic consequences when it is selectively invoked, particularly in countries with vast natural resources. Unfortunately, we shall continue to see more of its negative impacts as the notion continues to be used  — or, arguably, abused  — for the sake of promoting and justifying interventionist agendas disguised as humanitarianism that in no way ultimately respond to its claimed intentions. In addition, the definition and scope of the concept, which is highly politicized and has also raised serious and legitimate concerns for a significant number of States, remain unclear. Almost 20 years after the adoption of the World Summit Outcome document (resolution 60/1), doubts persist and many questions remain unanswered, especially those raised by the nations of the developing world. If the real intention is to protect the population, why do we not start by promoting and strengthening international solidarity and cooperation in the fight against poverty, hunger and inequality? Why do we not start by addressing the root causes of conflicts? Why do we not focus on dialogue, negotiation, tolerance, mutual understanding and respect? Why do we not join in calling for an end to the illegal application of unilateral coercive measures against entire nations and peoples? Why do we not all call for accountability for the multiple crimes committed on a daily basis in the State of Palestine against Palestinians? It is the lack of answers and, in many cases, the deafening silence in response to such doubts and concerns, that demonstrate that the responsibility to protect is riddled with double standards. The ongoing carnage in Palestine is perhaps, and painfully, the greatest case in point, as many of the advocates of that nefarious notion are the very same ones defending the occupying Power and shielding it from its responsibilities, ultimately further prolonging both the suffering of the Palestinian people and the prevailing cycle of impunity. All of that serves to prove that the concept only seems to serve agendas of a dubious nature, promoted by certain Governments, particularly those of the global North, that seek to sustain their domination of the global South through colonial and neocolonial practices, including the weaponization of human rights, the economy and the international financial system, particularly against nations that have made the free and sovereign decision to own their own destiny, remain politically independent and not allow certain countries of the developed world to intervene in their internal affairs. With those reflections, we conclude by reaffirming our determination to preserving, promoting and defending the prevalence and validity of the Charter of the United Nations, while calling on all responsible members of the international community to desist from such practices, to promote win-win cooperation once and for all and to engage in good faith in order to effectively honour the aspirations of we the peoples of the United Nations.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the eight Nordic-Baltic countries: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden and my own country, Latvia. We would like to thank the Secretary-General for the sixteenth thematic report, entitled “Responsibility to protect: the commitment to prevent and protect populations from atrocity crimes” (A/78/901). Today’s opportunity to discuss the new responsibility to protect (R2P) report and the state of atrocity prevention with the Secretary-General’s newly appointed Special Adviser on R2P is appreciated. We underscore the importance of the Special Adviser on R2P’s regular presence in New York to help advance the implementation of R2P, together with United Nations Member States and the Secretariat. Despite our shared commitment, rooted in the Charter of the United Nations, to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, the Secretary-General’s report is another stark reminder that the world is facing the highest number of violent conflicts since the Second World War. States and non-State actors commit atrocities against civilians, sexual and gender-based violence has increased and deadlocks within the Security Council have kept it from effectively carrying out its duty to maintain international peace and prevent atrocity crimes. In times like these, R2P demands our active contributions and our unwavering resolve. All United Nations Member States have a shared responsibility to prevent and respond to atrocity crimes, and the Secretary-General’s report would therefore have benefited from recommendations for the full implementation of R2P. We continue to call on the Secretary-General’s two Special Advisers on R2P and the Prevention of Genocide and their office to jointly develop and share practical recommendations on atrocity prevention. They should provide Member States and the wider negotiation United Nations system with concrete, timely and practical advice on how to better implement R2P and genocide prevention when atrocity risks emerge or atrocity crimes are committed in specific countries. We also call on the office to develop and share regular updates about the root causes and warning signs of new atrocity crimes. Practical examples will help increase our understanding of how to more effectively translate the R2P principle into concrete action and to prevent them in the first place. Moreover, we agree with the report that we must recognize the vital role of regional organizations in implementing the three pillars of the responsibility to protect. In our view, sincere regional cooperation can contribute to effective early warning, rapid response and long-term stabilization efforts to help prevent new atrocities. Member States must work hand in hand with regional bodies to address the recommendations contained in the report before us. Accountability is an essential part of how we build resilient societies. We reiterate the importance of the fight against impunity and of ensuring victims’ rights, as well as of accountability for international crimes and violations of international law, irrespective of where or in what context they occur. We support the establishment of a special tribunal for the crime of aggression to address Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has led to numerous atrocity crimes of the kind that we seek to prevent under R2P. If there are no consequences for violations, impunity festers and violations recur. Finally, we take this opportunity to reiterate the importance of a forward-looking assessment of the state of R2P and its implementation at the national, regional and global levels as we prepare for the twentieth anniversary of the World Summit Outcome document (resolution 60/1) next year. We invite the Special Adviser to share her ideas for such an assessment with Member States.

I now give the floor to the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its member States. The candidate countries North Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Georgia, as well as Andorra, Monaco and San Marino, align themselves with this statement. We thank the Secretary-General for his recently published report (A/78/901) on the responsibility to protect (R2P). We also thank the Secretary-General’s Special Advisers on the Prevention of Genocide and on the Responsibility to Protect and their office, whose work we actively support. The concept of the responsibility to protect emerged in reaction to the horrible experiences of mass atrocities we witnessed in the twentieth century, notably the Holocaust, the genocide and crimes against humanity committed on the killing fields of Cambodia, and the genocides in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Two of the atrocities I have just cited took place in Europe, and acknowledging our history explains the fact that today we are among the most committed and outspoken advocates of the responsibility to protect. The imperative need for each State to protect its population from genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing, and to use our best efforts to prevent such crimes, including their incitement, is a lesson that arises from those experiences and from our own history. As the Secretary-General’s report reaffirms, atrocity crimes tend to be preceded by serious human rights violations and abuses by State and non-State actors. That is why we must be vigilant against systematic violations of civil and political rights, as well as of economic, social and cultural rights and of the civic space needed to protect and promote those rights. To that end, the EU uses conflict analysis tools and the EU Early Warning System to identify and tackle underlying causes of mass atrocities. The EU works to ensure that our development cooperation with partner countries takes risks of conflict and mass atrocities into account. We encourage the United Nations and its Member States to consider measures for detecting and responding to early warning signs of atrocity risks in their development plans and programming. The effective operationalization of R2P requires a multistakeholder approach that recognizes the roles of State and non-State actors alike, and comprehensive data on situations on the ground. We reiterate our call upon the Secretary-General to include in his future reports on the topic an analysis of trends regarding risks of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing and their prevention. We would also appreciate the inclusion of concrete recommendations for the full implementation of the responsibility to protect, as well as a follow-up assessment of the recommendations of past reports. The prevention of atrocities must be a non-negotiable priority at both the national and the international levels. If and when prevention efforts fail, we must collectively ensure a timely and decisive response. The Security Council, as the primary bearer of the duty to maintain international peace and security, needs to assume its responsibility and take urgent action to protect civilian populations at risk of mass atrocities. The EU urges all Security Council members to better utilize the Council’s working methods to bring potential atrocity situations under consideration as early as possible. We also encourage United Nations Member States to support the French-Mexican initiative on the use of the veto in cases of mass atrocities and to join the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group’s code of conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Lastly, we emphasize the need to redouble our efforts to end impunity and to ensure accountability for atrocity crimes and other gross violations of human rights and reiterate our strong support for the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. Ahead of the Summit of the Future in September, the approaching peacebuilding architecture review and the twentieth anniversary of R2P in 2025, today’s debate provides a timely opportunity to reaffirm and strengthen our collective commitment to international law and R2P principles. Let us keep in mind that the responsibility to protect is a commitment to act for each of us. Each State is to assess its own situation and specific challenges to preventing mass atrocities and protecting its own population. As the Secretary-General states in his report, the failure of the international community to prevent and address atrocity crimes and protect civilians erodes trust in our multilateral system. It is time for us all to achieve more tangible results in that regard.

I deliver this statement on behalf of Canada, New Zealand and my own country, Australia (CANZ). I thank the Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect, Ms. Mô Bleeker, for presenting the Secretary- General’s thematic report for 2024 (A/78/901). We welcome her appointment and look forward to supporting her in her role. This debate provides an important moment for us to reflect on the political and moral commitment we unanimously made 19 years ago to preventing and protecting populations from atrocity crimes. Yet despite our efforts, we continue to see the perpetration of atrocities in numerous situations around the world. The Secretary-General’s latest report outlines worrisome global trends. Of particular concern, it notes that Member States have sometimes met early warning or evidence of atrocity crimes with indifference, denial or even active repression. We cannot allow those trends to continue. CANZ believes that the responsibility to protect (R2P) can continue to make an important contribution to protecting our populations. We are aware of concerns around the intention of R2P. In that regard, we wish to make the following three key points. First, we note that there is wide acceptance among Member States of the first and second pillars and we underscore the important role that the Human Rights Council and the International Court of Justice play in contributing to those atrocity prevention objectives. The third pillar calls on the international community to respond with timely and decisive action if a State is manifestly failing to meet its protection responsibilities. That can and should be achieved through negotiation, capacity-building and mediation. We stress that military force is a last resource and must be exercised in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Secondly, CANZ believes that the responsibility to protect should not be seen as a threat to sovereignty. Rather, we see it as the responsible exercise of sovereignty by Member States in order to protect their populations. Thirdly, we need practical guidance and concrete measures that States can take to protect populations from atrocity crimes at home and abroad. That is why Australia commissioned the R2P framework for action, which provides practical actions that all States can take to build resilience and implement R2P. We urge Member States to use the framework. We also urge the Secretary-General to make and follow up on specific R2P recommendations and to address atrocity risks in specific country situations. Now more than ever, we must continue to promote and defend our collective political commitment to the principle of R2P and its implementation. We must uphold our common and shared humanity.

Costa Rica appreciates the convening of this important debate, underscoring the importance of advancing this global principle. We thank Ms. Mô Beekler for her statement and wish her success as the new Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Responsibility to Protect. Costa Rica aligns itself with the statement delivered by the representative of Croatia on behalf of the Group of Friends of the Responsibility to Protect. In its national capacity, Costa Rica would like to emphasize three points. First, we acknowledge that this year’s report (A/78/901) was delayed due to circumstances beyond the new Special Adviser’s control, particularly her late appointment. It is regrettable that several months elapsed between the resignation of the previous Special Adviser and Ms. Bleeker’s appointment. Such administrative delays are concerning, especially amid widespread suffering caused by violence, repressive policies targeting vulnerable populations, and humanitarian crises exacerbated by extreme shortages of food, water and medicine. The deliberate obstruction of the delivery of humanitarian assistance, which particularly impacts women and children, is concerning. Beyond the issue of delayed appointments, we must ask whether we are providing our Special Advisers with the conditions necessary to fulfil their mandates effectively. Costa Rica urges enhanced dialogue to find sustainable solutions that ensure adequate administrative and financial resources for the Special Adviser without undermining other complementary mandates. Secondly, we appreciate the focus of this year’s report’s on evaluating the current state of prevention and protection against atrocity crimes. The report highlights patterns of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights abuses, as well as trends in enabling factors for atrocity crimes. The report would have benefited from exploring the correlation between mass atrocity crimes and the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, including their illicit manufacture, brokering, transfer, circulation, excessive accumulation and uncontrolled proliferation, which initiate, exacerbate and sustain armed violence, have a wide range of negative humanitarian and socioeconomic consequences, undermine the rule of law and respect for international humanitarian law and international human rights law, and impede the provision of humanitarian assistance to people affected by armed violence, particularly where State capacities are weak. In that context, Costa Rica  — having presided over the fourth United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, including its International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons, which concluded last Friday — underscores the critical need to forge synergies and complementarities between the responsibility to protect agenda and arms control, specifically regarding small arms and light weapons and their ammunition. The illicit proliferation of such weapons and their ammunition not only exacerbates conflicts but also amplifies the likelihood of atrocity crimes. Thirdly, the report highlights the pervasive misuse of digital technologies in disseminating misinformation, disinformation and hate speech, often fuelling violence and specifically targeting minorities. Social media have exacerbated the propagation of gender-based hate speech, resulting in profound psychological, social and safety repercussions for women, thereby impeding their full and equitable participation in society, both in peacetime and amid conflict and its aftermath. Women are indispensable throughout all phases of the responsibility to protect framework. They excel in sounding early alarms before conflicts escalate and in leveraging their community ties and awareness. In conflicts, women often lead in mediation and negotiation efforts, yet they remain disproportionately vulnerable to gender-based violence, demanding urgent, gender-sensitive policies. In post-conflict settings, despite their crucial roles in mediation and reconciliation, women are frequently sidelined. Without prioritizing women, lasting peace — the very goal that responsibility to protect strives to achieve — hangs in precarious balance. In that regard, Costa Rica thanks Ms. Alice Wairimu Nderitu, Under-Secretary-General and Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, for her pivotal support in developing our national plan of action against hate speech and disinformation. Our national plan of action empowers victims of hate speech with legal aid and hotlines, prioritizes education for prevention, employs artificial intelligence for accountability, and engages all sectors. The plan recognizes the profound impact of words, which can be as lethal as bullets. Costa Rica acknowledges the challenges outlined in the report and calls for instilling a culture of prevention, which is not merely an option but a moral imperative within the framework of the responsibility to protect. Our task now is to enhance our collective efforts in prevention and protection, especially as we approach the twentieth anniversary of the commitments affirmed in the 2005 World Summit Outcome (resolution 60/1).

I deliver this statement on behalf of my Ambassador, who this morning is chairing the informal negotiations with Member States in his capacity as co-facilitator of the intergovernmental process on the World Social Summit. At the outset, I would like to thank and commend President Francis for organizing this formal debate of the General Assembly on the responsibility to protect (R2P). This year’s debate is taking place at a time marked by an exacerbation in discrimination, abuse, violence, hate speech, armed conflict and even crimes against humanity. It is therefore important that we reaffirm our collective commitment to the responsibility to protect so that we can improve the ability of the international community to prevent genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. Since the publication of the first report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of the responsibility to protect in 2009 (A/63/677), that concept has taken on new dimensions in the light of recent developments, marked by the emergence of new threats, actors and crises. As co-chair of the Group of Friends of the Responsibility to Protect, Morocco reiterates its firm conviction that the responsibility to protect necessarily involves the strengthening of democracy and the rule of law, as well as the implementation of the provisions of international humanitarian law and human rights law. The Kingdom of Morocco take this opportunity to welcome the recent appointment of Ms. Mô Bleeker to the post of Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Responsibility to Protect and to sincerely thank her for her statement and for her efforts. My delegation also welcomes the relevance of the recent report of the Secretary-General (A/78/901), which attaches particular importance to prevention, to identifying risk factors and indicators that could allow for the commission of crimes of atrocity in the short and long terms and, above all, to conducting regular evaluations of existing and emerging dynamics to better strengthen the protection of civilian populations. I would now like to express my delegation’s perspectives regarding the following elements. First, the Kingdom of Morocco has always prioritized a consensus-based approach to the responsibility to protect; hence its conviction that a prevention programme is required to move forward with R2P. Indeed, no Member State or region can consider itself immune to the risks of crimes of atrocity. It is therefore important to establish a robust national institutional architecture to not only defend the rule of law, but also and in particular to promote and respect human rights, ensure peace and security and guarantee development. Secondly, Morocco is firmly convinced that there is no better investment for the international community than national resilience. In that context, Morocco is firmly committed to the full implementation of the Fez Plan of Action for Religious Leaders and Actors to Prevent Incitement to Violence that Could Lead to Atrocity Crimes, which highlights the voices, authority and exemplary role of religious leaders in combating hate speech and preventing violent extremism — two significant potential factors that can lead to mass atrocities. The Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence was designed to that end. Well aware that hate speech is a major precursor to protecting human rights, Morocco has made combating that scourge a national and international priority. Thus, on 18 June the international community celebrated the third commemoration of the International Day for Countering Hate Speech, following the adoption of resolutions 75/309 and 77/318, submitted to the General Assembly by Morocco and adopted unanimously in 2021 and 2023, respectively. Thirdly, Morocco is deeply concerned over the malicious use of new and emerging digital technologies by bad actors. While the spread of hate speech, xenophobia and disinformation is not a new phenomenon, social media platforms, messaging and other means of digital communication have allowed for the exponential dissemination of content that could incite to violence and targeting. To that end, the use of information and communications technologies and artificial intelligence, including predictive analysis, machine learning and data collection, should be used to promote user access to effective content in accordance with international law and human rights obligations. Lastly, States must fulfil their responsibilities to combat impunity in order to prevent the recurrence of mass atrocities. In that vein, efforts to ensure accountability at the national level should be encouraged and supported, including by strengthening judicial cooperation among States. Important mechanisms, such as the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the Human Rights Council, are in a good position to support prevention efforts, and we encourage Member States to make better use of the UPR process as a preventative mechanism, To conclude, the Kingdom of Morocco reiterates its firm commitment to the responsibility to protect. Next year will mark the twentieth anniversary of the 2005 World Summit. It will be an excellent opportunity to take stock of the success that has been achieved and to underscore the need for more tangible results in the prevention of atrocities and the protection of the civilian population, as well as to share lessons learned over the past two decades. Together, we can decide to honour the deep commitment known as the responsibility to protect.

We appreciate the convening of this plenary meeting to address the responsibility to protect (R2P), an issue to which Guatemala attaches great importance. We take note of the report entitled “Responsibility to protect: the commitment to prevent and protect populations from atrocity crimes” (A/78/901), and in that context we would like to make some additional comments. This annual debate is taking place in an international setting in which it is necessary to return to that norm of international security and human rights, which was enshrined in resolution 60/1, adopted at the United Nations World Summit in 2005, with the purpose of helping to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Guatemala welcomes this formal debate on the responsibility to protect. We acknowledge the efforts of all Member States that supported resolution 75/277, which empowered the Secretary-General to issue an annual report on R2P and made R2P a standing item on the Assembly’s agenda. The adoption of that resolution reflected the interest of Member States in raising awareness and sharing best practices on how to individually and collectively improve our capacity to prevent genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. The responsibility to protect remains the most effective principle for preventing threats of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Each State has the primary responsibility to protect its population and prevent atrocities such as those we have seen in the past. That is precisely what underlies the origin and relevance of the responsibility to protect in terms of its observance today, a concept that is supported by the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, particularly that of saving future generations from the scourge of war and promoting peace among peoples and nations. This year, we celebrate the seventy-sixth anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (resolution 217 A (III)), which is why the responsibility to protect must be recognized as an exceptional way of defending populations from mass atrocities and must therefore be strengthened, particularly in the light of the hotbeds of tension in which similar patterns predominate, leading, in the worst cases, to the commission of new crimes against humanity and cases of ethnic cleansing. We also reaffirm that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development provides a framework for global cooperation to achieve a better and more sustainable future that can significantly contribute to atrocity prevention efforts. Eradicating poverty and providing development assistance can address the instability that can drive the perpetration of atrocity crimes. We also welcome the Secretary-General’s appointment of Ms. Mô Bleeker as his Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect. It is important that we take advantage of the inputs generated by Special Advisers, which can be of great value to the work of United Nations intergovernmental bodies, including the Security Council and the Human Rights Council. I recall that Guatemala has supported resolutions on the responsibility to protect since their inception and since 2006 has been a member of the Group of Friends of the Responsibility to Protect, which seeks to highlight the relevance of that important principle and the prevention of atrocities and to link them to the agendas of the United Nations. For that reason, and due to the importance we attach to that norm, as of this year Guatemala is a co-chair of the Group of Friends on the Responsibility to Protect in New York, together with the delegations of Croatia and Morocco. From our national perspective, the responsibility to protect is a principle that conforms to our Constitution, as the State of Guatemala is organized to protect the person and the family and its supreme goal is the achievement of the common good. In that area and in order to support the protection of civilians, Guatemala is honoured to be a country that contributes to the maintenance of peace by the United Nations. My delegation reiterates the call to uphold international obligations arising from international human rights law, international humanitarian law and refugee law, to which the component of protecting the civilian population is intrinsically linked. Guatemala recognizes that the principle of the responsibility to protect is complemented by the concept of sustainable peace, as it prioritizes respect for and observance of human rights, based on a preventive approach in order to avoid confrontations. In conclusion, we welcome the coordinated efforts and work carried out by the Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, as well as the activities of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. However, we also consider it necessary to carry out an evaluation of the functioning of the joint office of the Special Advisers on the Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect in order to strengthen its mandate and effectiveness, especially as we commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the principle of the responsibility to protect.

I thank the Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect for presenting the Secretary-General’s report (A/78/901), underscoring the urgency of addressing challenges related to the prevention agenda. The report highlights the necessity for States and the international community to uphold their commitments to protecting populations and the vital role of civil society organizations in advocating for the prevention of mass atrocity crimes worldwide. Despite the efforts made and commitments voiced, the reality remains that atrocities continue to occur, often in blatant disregard of international humanitarian and human rights laws on the part of various actors. While the report of the Secretary-General highlights many important conceptual aspects related to prevention and protection, it is imperative to reflect and address particular situations where gross violations persist with impunity. Less than a year ago, in September 2023, a large-scale offensive against Nagorno-Karabakh resulted in the mass forced displacement of the entire Armenian population from their ancestral homeland. Over 100,000 people sought refuge in Armenia, leaving behind their homes, properties, shrines and millennia- old cultural and religious heritage. Azerbaijan’s violent attack was preceded by a 10-month blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh, in direct breach of international humanitarian law and the legally binding orders of the International Court of Justice, instigating a man-made humanitarian catastrophe, with devastating impact on civilians. The premeditated and well-planned aggression against a people under blockade, which drove the entire population into forced displacement, is an explicit case of ethnic cleansing, perpetrated under the watch of the international community. It prompted the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide to issue a statement on 22 September 2023, stressing that, “Military action can only contribute to escalate what is already a tense situation and to put the civilian population in the area at risk of violence, including risk of genocide and related atrocity crimes.” The entire United Nations system, including its humanitarian and political arms, have yet to acknowledge the gravity of those violations and to reflect on the failure to prevent them, while making efforts to work towards ensuring dignified conditions for the forcefully displaced refugees to return to their places of origin, as guaranteed by international law. There is an urgent need to evaluate the current toolbox of the United Nations system for prevention, to establish more responsive and effective mechanisms for addressing the root causes of conflict, and to ensure accountability for atrocity crimes and for violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law. Compliance with the legally binding decisions of international courts and tribunals is fundamental to ensuring that perpetrators of atrocity crimes are brought to justice. Armenia is resolute in fighting atrocity crimes, including through mechanisms provided by the International Criminal Court. The Armenian people understand deeply the suffering and devastation that genocide inflicts. Our history compels us to advocate for justice, accountability and remembrance. Armenia has traditionally promoted resolutions related to genocide prevention and memorialization, having introduced the first resolution on that topic at the Commission on Human Rights back in 1998. Subsequently, the scope and substance of the resolutions on the subject have been fundamentally enriched. At the forefront of our efforts stand the recurrent resolutions on genocide prevention, which we have been introducing at the Human Rights Council, as well as the General Assembly, establishing the International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and of the Prevention of This Crime. Resolution 69/323 stands as a cornerstone of our efforts to raise awareness and to honour those who have fallen victim to past inaction, as well as to stress the importance of collective tribute and respect towards the victims, survivors and descendants of all genocides, crimes adjudicated in international courts of law and those whose perpetrators were never brought to justice. Armenia has regularly hosted the Global Forum Against the Crime of Genocide, attended by public figures and religious, academic, civil society and media representatives from across the world, to contribute to multilateral efforts in promoting the global prevention agenda. The fifth Global Forum Against the Crime of Genocide, to be held in December, will elaborate on the challenges of early warning and timely action and the ways to strengthen the effectiveness of international mechanisms in addressing the risks of genocide and other atrocity crimes. As the report of the Secretary-General indicates, failure to effectively protect populations from atrocities erodes trust in the international system. Without proactive action to address those challenges, the cycle of atrocities and human suffering will persist, undermining the fundamental principles of justice, human dignity and respect for human rights on a global scale. It is imperative to bridge that implementation gap by refining strategies, enhancing the capacities of relevant stakeholders and fostering a culture of proactive intervention to address the root causes of atrocities before they escalate.

Hungary aligns itself with the statements delivered on behalf of the Group of Friends of the Responsibility to Protect and on behalf of the European Union and wishes to add a few remarks in its national capacity. Let us begin by welcoming the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect, Ms. Mô Bleeker, who has addressed the General Assembly for the first time in that capacity. We also thank the Secretary-General for issuing his annual report (A/78/901). The annual reports are instrumental in helping Member States to understand the various aspects of the concept of the responsibility to protect (R2P). The reports inform national efforts to build the resilience of their societies to the risk of atrocity crimes, which in turn contributes massively to the prevention of those crimes. Having said that, Hungary shares the interest in reviewing the question of how the reports can better facilitate the efforts of Member States. We echo the call for concrete and action-oriented recommendations or best practices on how to live up to the collective responsibility to protect. Also, we support completing the reports with the inclusion of assessments of the implementation of past recommendations. Stepping out of the dedicated institutional framework for the R2P principle, we also wish to highlight that other processes under the auspices of the United Nations also dovetail with the responsibility to protect and can be mutually reinforcing. As a prime example, we recall that, at the seventy- ninth session, the Sixth Committee has been tasked with taking a decision on the next steps concerning the draft articles on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity, prepared by the International Law Commission. The draft articles have a dual focus. Not only do they prescribe the punishment of those heinous crimes, but they also include a strong prevention component. The obligation to prevent, should it be codified — permit me to add — in negotiations, would significantly improve the global architecture of atrocity prevention. Among the major atrocity crimes, war crimes and genocide are already the subjects of a global treaty that requires States to prevent and punish such conduct and to cooperate among themselves toward those ends. By contrast, there is no such treaty dedicated to the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. Therefore, this fall a critical opportunity will arise for States to take steps to close the gap and to promote international cooperation in that regard, and Hungary fully backs that endeavour. Enhancing international cooperation brings us to our final point, which is the importance of the collaboration of national R2P experts. We encourage all Member States to appoint a national R2P focal point and to join the growing Global Network of R2P Focal Points. Sixty- one Member States and two regional organizations have appointed an R2P Focal Point to date and are building their national and collective capacity to prevent mass atrocity crimes. We can only maximize the network effect if we have as many participants as possible.

The instability of the international situation, manifested by the ever-growing number of armed conflicts, is a serious test for the international community and its ability to prevent genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. We are deeply concerned that, despite a robust international legal framework in the area of civilian protection, the situation of civilians is actually dramatically deteriorating in all conflict areas. We condemn all attacks perpetrated against the civilian population and urge States and international institutions to intensify their efforts to prevent atrocities. In so saying, Poland aligns itself with the statement delivered by the observer of the European Union on behalf of its member States. The significance of the principle of the responsibility to protect (R2P) is now more crucial than ever. In that context, Poland welcomes the Secretary-General’s report (A/78/901) and its recommendations on the commitment to preventing and protecting populations from atrocity crimes. We strongly support the mandates of the Special Advisers on the Prevention of Genocide and on the Responsibility to Protect and their work towards the operationalization of the R2P principle. This year’s R2P report rightly points out that prevention and protection from atrocity crimes must be approached as part of a continuous process. It should encompass the implementation of proactive actions and policies against structural, societal and political factors that might create an enabling environment for the future commission of atrocities. Resilient and accountable State institutions, good governance and inclusive and sustainable development anchored in the protection of human rights are indispensable for prevention purposes. For an effective implementation of R2P, meaningful community engagement and the participation of local civil society in monitoring, reporting and early warning efforts are particularly needed. In that vein, Poland advocates for enhancing early warning mechanisms at both the national and the international levels. It is pivotal to foster situational awareness and risk assessment capacities within various United Nations entities. Let me also refer to the essential role of the main United Nations bodies in responding to cases involving mass atrocity crimes and in implementing the R2P principle. Poland reiterates that the Security Council should be efficient, transparent and accountable and that the veto right should be exercised in a responsible way. In that regard, we support initiatives aimed at limiting and voluntarily refraining from the use of veto in cases of mass atrocities, including the French-Mexican initiative on the use of veto and the code of conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, presented by the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group. The objective of the principle of the responsibility to protect is to ensure the protection of populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. I wish to underline that the latter category lacks a stand-alone international treaty that would codify States’ responsibilities in the prevention and punishment of such crimes. Poland believes that it is vitally important to supplement the current international treaty framework in that regard. Invoking the legacy of a Polish lawyer of Jewish origin, Rafał Lemkin  — the author of the concept of genocide and a driving force behind the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide  — we strongly support the elaboration of a convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. A victim- oriented and child-sensitive treaty would strengthen the international legal framework for preventing and combating the crimes against humanity that we are sadly witnessing in all areas of the world, and significantly contribute to the implementation of States’ responsibilities towards their citizens. In upholding the principles of international law, Poland remains convinced that the responsibility to protect is an essential tool in preventing and protecting societies from mass atrocities. At the same time, we strongly oppose any unjustified and illegitimate actions against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, conducted under false accusations in violation of the Charter of the United Nations. Russia’s interventions in Ukraine completely distort the notion of protection and serve solely political purposes. Russia’s actions constitute a blatant example of disregard for international law, international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Ensuring accountability for their violations remains crucial not only to delivering justice to their numerous victims, but also to preventing their recurrence.

On behalf of Switzerland, I wish at the outset to congratulate Ms. Mô Bleeker on her appointment as Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Responsibility to Protect. We wish her every success in that role and encourage her to bring new perspectives to that essential role, which faces significant challenges. The principle of the responsibility to protect (R2P) was adopted in 2005 by all United Nations Member States with the aim of ending and preventing mass atrocities. Switzerland reaffirms its full support for the principle, including as a member of the Group of Friends of the Responsibility to Protect, and of course aligns itself with the statement delivered earlier by our Croatian colleague. Switzerland also thanks the Secretary-General for his report (A/78/901) assessing the current state of prevention of and protection against atrocities. In that context, I would like to highlight the following points. First, as highlighted in the Secretary-General’s report, we are today facing an alarming deterioration in respect for international human rights standards and international humanitarian law. Failure to comply with those norms undermines the credibility of the multilateral system. We are currently witnessing the direct consequences of that development for the protection of civilians in many contexts. In that regard, Switzerland reiterates its support for strengthening the international legal framework and for the fight against impunity, as well as for the institutions mandated to carry it out. We emphasize in particular the crucial role of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court and the need to fully respect their independence. In order to further strengthen the existing legal framework, we support the process for an international treaty on crimes against humanity. It is high time to fill the gaps that remain in that area decades after the adoption of conventions on genocide and war crimes. I therefore urge all Member States that have not yet done so to sign the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group’s code of conduct, whereby States refrain from voting against a draft resolution aimed at preventing mass atrocity crimes. Secondly, in accordance with the first pillar of R2P, it is the responsibility of each State to protect its populations against mass atrocity crimes. Prevention at the national level requires national strategies, mechanisms and structures aimed at identifying risk factors and acting in a timely manner. No State is immune to atrocities. Switzerland is committed at the international level to dialogue and the exchange of best practices on the prevention of atrocities. In that respect, the report mentions several initiatives and measures to develop the more comprehensive and effective approach to prevention that the Secretary-General calls for in the New Agenda for Peace. One example is the international network Global Action Against Mass Atrocity Crimes, which provides a platform between States and civil society and thereby contributes to the second pillar of R2P. Switzerland invites all States to join it. Thirdly, allow me to underline the importance of the United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect. It is important that the commitment of the two Special Advisers be part of the broader United Nations agenda on prevention. Switzerland calls on the two Special Advisers to share their recommendations in crisis situations with the Member States, so that the United Nations and its various bodies can respond collectively. Finally, we welcome the intention expressed in the report to take the opportunity of the twentieth anniversary of our common commitment to reflect and work together for a more coherent and effective implementation of the responsibility to protect.

At the 2005 World Summit, held in this very Hall, the world affirmed that we all have the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes and ethnic cleansing. Unfortunately, the ongoing crisis and genocide in Gaza show that we have failed to fulfil that promise. Nearly 40,000 lives have been lost in Gaza in less than a year, including those of countless innocent women and children. That has been made possible through inaction, double standards and lack of political resolve, particularly on the part of those who actually have the power to act. I wish to underline three points in that regard. First, we need synergy and coherence within the United Nations system. Indonesia commends the relentless efforts of the Secretary-General in addressing atrocities in Gaza. He has our full support. We also pay tribute to countless United Nations officials, personnel and humanitarian workers who have chosen to stand up for humanity. However, we cannot help noticing a deafening silence in some parts of the United Nations system, including on the part of those responsible for preventing genocide. Regrettably, Gaza seems to be a taboo subject for some within the system. We call upon every mandate-holder to exercise their conscience in the face of clear atrocities. Secondly, we must strengthen cooperation with regional organizations. The responsibility to protect underscores the pivotal role of regional organizations in helping Member States to fulfil their primary responsibility. Stronger engagement between the United Nations and regional organizations will ensure a more effective and well-targeted response. In our region, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been instrumental in addressing regional situations through ASEAN-led and ASEAN-owned initiatives that provide space for inclusive dialogues, in synergy with relevant international mechanisms. Thirdly, we need to ensure support for national capacity development. Every State has the primary responsibility to protect its population. Good governance and strong institutions are crucial to enhancing States’ ability and capacity to protect their people. Ensuring national ownership is key, not only to building readiness and capacity to identify and respond to potential atrocities, but also to promoting long-term stability and preventing the recurrence of conflicts. Support must thus be available for Member States, particularly countries in post-conflict situation, to enhance their capacity in such areas as early warning, law enforcement and judicial institutions. That must be an integral part of peacebuilding efforts. Finally, Let us unite in our resolute commitment to the responsibility to protect and ensure that our collective actions stand as a shield against any atrocities in Gaza and beyond.

At the outset, I would like to thank you, Sir, for convening this meeting on the important issue of responsibility to protect (R2P). Myanmar thanks the Secretary-General and his Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide for the annual report entitled “Responsibility to protect: the commitment to prevent and protect populations from atrocity crimes” (A/78/901). R2P is aimed at addressing violations of peremptory norms of international law, including genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The commitment that the United Nations Member States have made to R2P, adopted at the 2005 World Summit, underscores its significance as a global commitment to preventing egregious human rights violations and ensuring the international community’s readiness to take decisive action to protect vulnerable populations. However, sadly, over the past two decades the world has experienced a significant rise in armed conflicts and violations of international law, and the United Nations has failed to prevent such atrocities, including those in Myanmar. The military junta’s continued commission of atrocity crimes against the population in Myanmar, including the Rohingya, is a vivid example of the international community’s failure to protect the people. While understanding that it is the primary responsibility of the State to protect its own population, I wish to stress that the situation in Myanmar is a harrowing reminder of why the international community must uphold its commitment to R2P. Although it is now long overdue, I must reiterate that the need for the global community to intervene and protect vulnerable populations in Myanmar remains imperative, as they are affected by the military’s egregious acts, which have led to widespread tragic suffering and a severe humanitarian crisis in Myanmar. Based on the scenarios over the past three years, the military junta has obviously committed grave breaches of international law against the people since 1 February 2021 through its unlawful military coup. The consequences thus far have led to an unprecedented deterioration of peace, stability and the rule of law in Myanmar. The daily lives of the Myanmar people have been strained to their limits, pushing many to the brink of endurance. Alongside the displacement and migration issues, food insecurity, poverty and hunger are the most visible threats in Myanmar. The recent forced conscription carried out by the military junta has also exacerbated the already dire situation and instilled fear among every household. Young people have been forced to find ways to prevent themselves from being used as human shields and to run and escape from being forcefully recruited. At the same time, the military junta has frequently used the spread of misinformation/disinformation through its controlled media outlets, Myanmar embassies abroad and social media to suppress the people’s resistance movement and to sway the members of the international community. The killing of a renowned monk by the junta forces on 19 June and ensuing developments again proved the junta’s ill-will. I therefore take this opportunity to urge the international community to be mindful of the junta’s malicious intentions and its disinformation/misinformation campaign against the people and resistance forces. Nowadays, people from all walks of life in Myanmar are trapped in a dreadful struggle to afford even the most basic necessities. That economic catastrophe, caused by the illegal coup and the junta’s atrocities and mismanagement, continues to spiral out of control, pushing more and more people into the depths of poverty and hunger. Due to the junta’s atrocities, more than 5,300 people have been brutally killed by junta forces, 3.1 million have been internally displaced, 18.6 million are in need of humanitarian assistance and 13.3 million are projected to face high levels of acute food insecurity. Despite those grim pictures, the military junta continues to escalate its brutal four cuts strategy against the civilian population, burning down thousands of civilian homes in conflict areas and indiscriminately bombing houses, schools and hospitals. The junta is exacting collective punishment on innocent civilians who are not directly involved in the conflict. The systematic and widespread commission of those crimes amounts to crimes against humanity and war crimes, a consensus shared by international scholars and experts. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar and the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar have also repeatedly said loud and clear that that there is ample evidence of crimes against humanity being systematically committed by the Myanmar military junta and that the international community needs to apply them in bringing the perpetrators accountable through justice. In that light, the National Unity Government and the ethnic revolutionary organizations have already enacted transitional justice-related principles in Part II, chapter 7, of the Federal Democracy Charter to hold perpetrators accountable. Moreover, the National Unity Government has declared its acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in accordance with article 12, paragraph 3, of the Rome Statute to address accountability issue in Myanmar. My question here to the States Members of the United Nations and the international community is: What you are waiting for to save lives and to protect the people from such atrocity crimes? We have repeatedly urged them, and it is long overdue, to apply the principles of R2P to protect the helpless people of Myanmar. In conclusion, atrocity crimes are not random incidents; there are numerous early warning signs that should serve as alarms to catalyse preventive action. Therefore, I wish to underscore the following points to be undertaken by the international community. First, in Myanmar the culture of impunity must end to promote justice and accountability. Second, transitional justice is essential to preventing the recurrence of grave violations of international law in Myanmar. Third, individual States, regional organizations and the United Nations system must capitalize on those opportunities more effectively to protect innocent lives. Fourth, the Security Council should demonstrate its seriousness towards its responsibility and commitment to maintaining international peace and stability by using all possible tools at its disposal to stop atrocity crimes, including those committed in Myanmar. Fifth, given the increasingly polarized Security Council, the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council should continue to strengthen their roles in preventing and responding to atrocities, thereby complementing and encouraging the Security Council to fulfil its responsibility. Sixth, the international community must stop providing space for the Myanmar military to perpetrate such heinous crimes against its people. Creating a political exit for the military junta without transitional justice would be like reviving a dead tiger to slaughter the people of Myanmar. Seventh, it is vital for the international community to cut off arms and weapons, jet fuel and financial flows to the military junta. Therefore, I wish to urge the States Members of the United Nations to uphold their commitments, including that made to R2P in 2005, and to act accordingly. Otherwise, the people will bear the brunt of the lack of effective action from the United Nations, especially the Security Council. I urge Members to put humanity first and to extend effective support towards the people of Myanmar and their devoted aspiration to end the military dictatorship and build a federal democratic union in Myanmar. That would indeed serve the best for the protection of our people.

My delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by the representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on behalf of the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations, and expresses its hope that the current meeting, under the agenda item “The responsibility to protect and the prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”, will take place in conformity with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and other international law. I take this opportunity to clarify our position with regard to the responsibility to protect (R2P) as follows. The sovereignty of a State is sacred and inviolable, and respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs are the cornerstone of international relations. From those principles, the responsibility to protect its people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity falls entirely under the sovereignty of each State, and the international community should encourage States to fully exercise that responsibility. However, despite the absence of intergovernmental agreement on the concept of R2P, some countries continue to misuse and apply the concept selectively for their political purposes. In nature, the concept of R2P is a variant of the humanitarian intervention that was rejected by the international community in the past. As such, it is nothing but a political tool to ignore and violate sovereignty and the right to self-determination and to broadly interfere in the internal affairs of other sovereign States. We are deeply concerned that some Western countries unilaterally pursue political, economic and military interventions in order to overthrow the social systems of other sovereign States under the pretext of R2P. It is due to the unlawful interference in internal affairs by Western countries that great upheavals, such as armed conflicts, terrorism, genocide and mass destruction, are long-standing phenomena in the Middle East and some African countries. Consequently, genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity are not attributable to a State’s inadequate ability to protect its people, but to flagrant infringement upon the sovereignty of a sovereign State. R2P, which violates the aforementioned principles, is none other than a sophism to justify interference in the internal affairs of small and developing countries. As such, it is a self-evident truth that small and developing countries will fall victim to R2P. R2P must not be applied to interfere in the internal affairs of a State under any circumstances. In conclusion, my delegation reiterates that the principle of respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs should be strictly observed and the issue of R2P should be dealt with in accordance with the common demands and interests of all Member States.

At the outset, I would like to express my gratitude for this opportunity to debate this important subject. This year’s debate is more important than ever as people around the globe are facing unprecedented levels of mass atrocities and displacement. It is evident that the international community is still struggling to protect civilians. The responsibility to protect (R2P) was endorsed by all States Members of the United Nations at the 2005 World Summit, marking a significant milestone in the development of international norms regarding the protection of human rights. It is aimed at upholding human dignity, promoting global peace and preventing the catastrophic human suffering that results from such crimes, ensuring that sovereignty is not a shield for gross human rights violations. Jordan reiterates its support for the principles of the responsibility to protect, recognizing the imperative to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. As a member of the international community and the United Nations, Jordan upholds the belief that protecting human life and dignity is an individual and collective responsibility. We believe that the international community must act decisively to prevent mass atrocities and protect vulnerable populations. Our support for R2P reflects our dedication to upholding human rights and ensuring accountability for violations. Jordan recognizes the challenges in implementing the R2P agenda, especially during armed conflicts. A prime example is Israel’s latest aggression on Gaza, which has been ongoing for nine months. That barbaric war has severely crippled Gaza’s water sanitation, schools, hospitals, sewage systems and critical infrastructure, leaving displaced Gazans with limited access to basic services, namely, clean water and health care. Damaged facilities and contaminated supplies exacerbate the already deteriorating humanitarian crisis, creating severe health risks for all Gazans. To strengthen the implementation of R2P, the international community needs to fill the legal void in the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. In that regard, we stress the importance of adopting the draft articles on crimes against humanity drawn up by the International Law Commission and call on the international community to ensure that the perpetrators of crimes against humanity are brought to justice. As a State that has been affected by regional conflicts and is a long-standing host to large refugee populations, Jordan calls upon the international community to act with resolve to protect civilians and prevent mass atrocities. We believe in balancing humanitarian imperatives with respect for sovereignty and pursuing lasting peace through diplomacy and cooperation. Finally, Jordan’s perspective on R2P is rooted in its commitment to the Charter of the United Nations, international law, regional stability and humanitarian principles.

I thank the Secretary-General for his report on the responsibility to protect (A/78/901), with a focus on prevention and protection. In order to prevent responsibility to protect (R2P) crimes, Brazil believes that there is a need for a comprehensive approach that strengthens coherence between political, security, development, human rights and rule of law activities. In that respect, we believe that the Peacebuilding Commission is well positioned to help fill that gap by playing its bridging role between peace and security efforts and development solutions, as well as by mobilizing international support, in cooperation with the whole United Nations system. We call for increased cooperation among the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the Peacebuilding Commission in order to make the integration of efforts more effective. Brazil agrees with the Secretary-General that the protection provided by applicable international law lies at the heart of the prevention and protection of R2P crimes. That includes the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. Brazil believes that a convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity might also make an important contribution to international law. The work of the International Law Commission (ILC) on the topic seeks to fill an important gap in the international system. Brazil has supported that process since its beginning and considers that the set of draft articles presented by the ILC is a good basis for the negotiation of a future convention on the topic. At the same time, Brazil regrets that, once again, the Secretary-General’s report has adopted the expression “atrocity crimes” to refer to the horrendous acts associated with R2P. As Brazil has underscored in previous interventions, Member States and the United Nations alike should avoid the temptation to proliferate imprecise concepts. The responsibility to protect is not laid down in legally binding instruments, nor does it reflect customary international law. It is a political concept to be used collectively through the United Nations. Under no circumstance may the concept of responsibility to protect be used as a pretext for illegal unilateral sanctions, intervention in domestic affairs or regime change. Likewise, contrary to what is suggested in the report, the concept alone cannot be relied upon by regional organizations for the deployment of armed forces to ensure the physical safety of the civilian population. Brazil reiterates that no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council. Furthermore, the international community, as it exercises its responsibility to protect, must demonstrate a high level of responsibility while protecting. Any collective action should be based on an agreed set of fundamental principles, parameters and procedures, including an emphasis on prevention, preventive diplomacy and the exhaustion of all diplomatic, humanitarian and all other peaceful means available to the protection of civilians. The use of force is a measure of last resort and must respect international law. Brazil looks forward to continuing discussions on the best strategies to advance prevention and protection in relation to R2P crimes, as well as to increase capacity- building and long-term measures capable of promoting more inclusive, diverse and tolerant societies.

At the outset, allow me to thank you, Sir, for convening this important meeting. We take note of the report of the Secretary- General on the responsibility to protect (A/78/901). The responsibility to protect emphasizes that each Government should protect its population from mass atrocity crimes and human rights violations. In 2005, the World Summit unanimously accepted that each State Member bears the responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Timor-Leste believes that, at its core, the responsibility to protect is not merely a theoretical concept but a moral imperative enshrined in international law. The framework, articulated in detail under agenda item 129 in the report of the Secretary-General, serves as a guiding principle for the global community in promoting peace, security and human rights. In essence, the responsibility to protect functions as a commitment to preventing and halting egregious crimes such as genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. That commitment underscores the shared responsibility of nations and global leaders to ensure the protection of vulnerable populations and uphold the inherent dignity and rights of all individuals. By embracing that concept, the international community acknowledges that the prevention of atrocities is not merely a matter of moral obligation but a legal and ethical duty. It necessitates proactive and decisive action to address emerging threats and to intervene when necessary, with the ultimate goal of preserving lives and preventing suffering. Through concerted efforts to hold perpetrators accountable and provide robust protection mechanisms for those at risk, nations can collectively work towards creating a world where violence, persecution and injustice have no place. The implementation of the responsibility to protect demands more than just rhetoric; it necessitates tangible and meaningful actions on the part of States and international organizations. That includes strengthening legal frameworks, enhancing early warning systems, building capacity for conflict prevention and resolution, and supporting peaceful and inclusive societies. The concept of the responsibility to protect holds significant importance for small States around the world. As those nations often have limited resources and capacity to address complex humanitarian crises or mass atrocities, the principle of the responsibility to protect serves as a crucial framework for ensuring their citizens’ safety and well-being. By acknowledging the shared responsibility of the international community to intervene and prevent atrocity crimes and genocide, small States can rely on the support and assistance of larger nations in times of need, as we have heard in the statements made by some of our friends from this rostrum. That concept not only upholds the moral duty to safeguard vulnerable populations, but also reinforces the idea of collective security and solidarity among nations, regardless of their size or power. For small States, the principle of the responsibility to protect offers a sense of reassurance and a mechanism for seeking assistance when facing threats to their people’s lives and fundamental rights. Having said that, Timor-Leste wishes to stress the importance of recognizing that the responsibility to protect rests upon three pillars of equal standing. The first is the responsibility of each State to protects its population; the second is the responsibility of the international community to assist States in protecting their populations; and the third is the responsibility of the international community to protect when a State is manifestly failing to protect its population. Upholding those responsibilities is essential to preventing any politicization of the responsibility to protect concept, which could potentially result in the infringement of State sovereignty or intervention in the internal affairs of any State. It is imperative to strike a balance between intervention and respect for national autonomy in order to effectively address humanitarian crises and uphold human rights.

I wish to begin by acknowledging the importance of this annual debate and, importantly, the provision of the Secretary- General’s annual report on this matter. I further thank him for this year’s report, entitled “Responsibility to protect: the commitment to prevent and protect populations from atrocity crimes” (A78/901). It is also important to applaud the complementary role played by the United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect and the mandate of the two Special Advisers. South Africa agrees with the assessment that there is ongoing disregard for international humanitarian law and international human rights law by State and non-State actors alike, as well as the recognition that this collective failure to protect populations from atrocity crimes has undermined the trust placed in the international system. We are also supportive of the report’s focus on prevention strategies that are focused on addressing concerns before they escalate into crises. Therefore, it is our duty as States and the international community to commit to preventing such acts from occurring and to establishing methodologies that are better aimed at the prevention of such atrocity crimes, as delineated in the Secretary-General’s report. As we are all aware, the notion of the responsibility to protect, as defined in the 2005 World Summit Outcome document (resolution 60/1), highlights that it is the responsibility of the State to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. Unfortunately, history is replete with examples of atrocity crimes that provide greater understanding of the contributing factors that enabled such crimes to occur and provides us with sophisticated tools to identify and implement preventative measures against the recurrence of atrocity crimes. South Africa would like to highlight the following points as they relate to the report of the Secretary- General. First, the growth in violent conflicts throughout the world has seen the employment of tactics by State and non-State actors that have violated international humanitarian law. That reinforces the need and obligation to protect civilians in the conduct of hostilities through the principles of distinction, proportionality, necessity and precaution. That is in particular reference to conflicts where parties have used disproportionate force and, importantly, have not adequately distinguished between military targets and civilian infrastructure. Furthermore, the targeting and total destruction of civilian infrastructure have resulted in human-made humanitarian crises as civilian populations face starvation, illness and death due to lack of humanitarian access. Secondly, increased human rights violations and discrimination against vulnerable groups are indicative of heightened risk of the potential for atrocity crimes. In 2024, the world will experience elections in more than 60 per cent of its nations, which provides a positive message for democracy and people-centred governance. It is equally an opportunity for political rhetoric that relies on the further isolation of communities that are routinely discriminated against and marginalized. We are concerned about specific targeting and discrimination by groups that promote identity incitement and violence. In particular, the rise of gender-based hate speech and violence is extremely concerning, as is the increase in and continuation of discriminatory practices, such as the stigmatization and criminalization of the LGBTQI+ community. Those are early warning signs of high-risk environments to which we should give due regard. Thirdly, the international community has access to a multitude of tools provided by the Charter of the United Nations and international law, including human rights and humanitarian law, on preventative measures for conflicts and atrocity crimes. We should utilize the full array of tools available to the international community to seek peaceful solutions to conflict situations. The commission of such atrocity crimes within conflicts should be equally addressed through the international system, particularly the international legal frameworks available to halt it when it is occurring. In that regard, South Africa made a submission to the International Court of Justice regarding the conflict in Gaza and our assertion that it amounts to an atrocity crime. It is our contention that we are witnessing a genocide unfold and that Israel, as the perpetrator, should cease its actions and permit humanitarian access. The International Court of Justice submission has resulted in the Court’s instructing a halt in actions by Israel, on 24 May, to prevent further civilian harm and allow humanitarian access to the internally displaced Palestinian people in the besieged territory of Gaza. Similarly, South Africa, together with Bangladesh, Bolivia, the Comoros and Djibouti, on 17 November 2023 referred the situation in Palestine to the International Criminal Court (ICC). We welcome the responsible act of the Prosecutor of the ICC on the application for arrest warrants against the perpetrators of those atrocity crimes, and we entrust the ICC with bringing the perpetrators to account and thereby ensuring that the people of Palestine are granted the justice they are entitled to. South Africa will continue to use those platforms to promote and prioritize the prevention of atrocity crimes and encourage peace through negotiations and the end of conflict. We should also note that the Secretary-General’s report has given due recognition to advances in preventative measures that enable the protection of civilian populations. That is a collection of actions taken by key actors throughout society that provide tools for monitoring and evaluation, forums for discussion amongst Member States, such as the Peacebuilding Commission, and international and national commissions of enquiry that collect, consolidate and preserve evidence. Importantly, there is also the generation of critical jurisprudence on atrocity crimes that is contributing to building strong legal frameworks. To that end, South Africa will continue to support the importance of international law and adherence to that law as critical to the prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The essence of the responsibility to protect lies in preventative action and systems before atrocity crimes occur and not when they occur. South Africa agrees that the prevention of atrocity crimes begins well before the risk factors emerge, through the protection and promotion of all human rights, especially those of vulnerable groups. Importantly, the discussion on preventing impending atrocity crimes occurs too late when risk factors were not taken seriously or the international community was unable to act in a preventative manner. I wish to also take this opportunity to reiterate that South Africa remains committed to instruments that promote and implement the responsibility to protect and further acknowledges the details contained in the Secretary-General’s report. In particular, South Africa appreciates the focus on prevention as a continuous process through the important application of constant monitoring and evaluation. An architecture designed towards prevention is more capable of recognizing patterns and can propose timely adjustments. It is important that prevention and protection use evidence and mechanisms to safeguard societies and institutions. That importantly includes adherence to international law, including the role of the United Nations to remind States of their obligations under respective treaties and to take the steps necessary within the United Nations system to halt those actions. In conclusion, we must acknowledge that this plenary meeting is more critical today than ever before as we strive together to protect people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We are witnessing an unfolding of a genocide in Gaza and it is important to note that Israel has several obligations under international law to prevent such atrocity crimes, which it is not fulfilling. That includes the importance of the obligation and legal responsibility of occupying Powers to the people they occupy to protect them from such atrocity crimes and the application of distinction and proportionality to its unjustified military action. The application of the principles of the responsibility to protect should not be selective and apply universally to all States. That is reinforced by frank and open debates that are critical to recognizing our current shortcomings, such that we are able to advance as an international community.

Albania welcomes today’s debate. The responsibility to protect remains the most compelling principle around which the international community can unite when vulnerable populations face the threat of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We thank the Secretary-General for the sixteenth report on the responsibility to protect (A/78/901), which emphasizes in a timely manner the need to produce more tangible results in preventing atrocities and protecting populations and provides recommendations on how to implement the responsibility to protect more effectively and consistently. Albania fully supports the 2005 World Summit Outcome document (resolution 60/1) and calls for the implementation of all three pillars of the responsibility to protect, as well as the intensification of efforts to further strengthen their development at all levels. We commend the work of the Secretary-General’s Special Advisers on the Prevention of Genocide and on the Responsibility to Protect. Their work has led to progress in understanding the risk factors, causes and dynamics that drive atrocity crimes and in enhancing responsiveness to warning signs. The international community has also made strides in its willingness and capacity to hold perpetrators responsible via investigative mechanisms, international courts and tribunals, and national courts under the principle of universal jurisdiction. Despite our efforts, international common goals for peace, security and development are facing multiple challenges. As the world struggles to find long-lasting peace and prosperity, we continue to witness continuing gross violations of international law, violations of the Charter of the United Nations, neglect of human rights and the undermining of fundamental freedoms. Digital technologies, climate change and the spread of hate speech and misinformation have also created environments conducive to atrocity crimes. It is our common and shared responsibility to provide concrete guidance to the world community to uphold fundamental norms and values and address gross violations. As noted in the Secretary-General’s report, the failure to protect populations degrades the credibility of the multilateral system and erodes trust in its capacity to effectively safeguard humankind. To successfully address the root causes of conflict and violence leading to mass atrocities, we must reform strategies and enhance cooperation. States hold the primary responsibility to protect human rights globally. Adopting a comprehensive Government and societal approach is crucial to tackling those challenges effectively. States also have the primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute crimes committed within their jurisdiction, and national accountability efforts should be encouraged and supported. Time is of the essence in translating our commitments into tangible action, as ongoing human rights violations could result in mass killings, refugee crises and widespread suffering. By allowing impunity for mass atrocities to persist, we risk dismantling the rule of law and institutions vital to safeguarding human rights, thereby heightening the likelihood of future atrocities. The Security Council must take the primary responsibility for addressing mass atrocities, refer crises to the International Criminal Court and hold perpetrators accountable. Despite the limited use of that option, progress has been made towards ensuring justice and accountability, but more action is needed. A holistic civil society approach and collaborative efforts among relevant stakeholders are essential for early warnings and public awareness of violations leading to atrocity crimes. Human rights defenders, humanitarian workers, religious leaders and the media can play a significant role in developing and informing early warning and response systems at the national level by raising public awareness about human rights violations and possible atrocity crimes. Cooperation and coordination among stakeholders are vital to building responsive institutions and upholding the rule of law to protect human rights and prevent atrocities. Affected populations, including women and girls, should be involved in the development, implementation and monitoring of civilian protection and atrocity prevention strategies and activities, as well as in negotiations for ceasefires, peace agreements and political transitions. Located in a region where genocide and ethnic cleansing took place not long ago, Albania is deeply concerned about the glorification of war crimes, genocide and distortion of history by Governments and politicians, as neglecting those atrocities creates division and hinders reconciliation. The impact on civil society, human rights defenders, journalists, opposition voices and victims of sexual violence and gender crimes is alarming. Investing in victim protection programmes and fulfilling the needs of affected communities is crucial for promoting a just life. Special attention must also be given to women and girls, ensuring their meaningful participation in decision-making processes. In conclusion, Albania calls for increased support for victims, stronger measures to prevent atrocities and the enhanced participation of women and girls in decision-making for a more inclusive and peaceful world.

Our delegation aligns itself with the statement made by the representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on behalf of the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations. Nicaragua stands firm against genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, which must be fought by complying with commitments to development and peace and respecting sovereignty and multipolarity. We believe that the real danger of the concept of the responsibility to protect is that it has been and continues to be manipulated by interventionists in disguise, who resort to various ploys to justify interference in the internal affairs of States, as well as to the threat and use of force to destabilize and change legitimate Governments. We reiterate that the notion of the responsibility to protect raises serious doubts among many countries, particularly small and developing countries, due to the ambiguity of several elements that are easily manipulated for the political ends of the selfish agenda of imperialism and neocolonialism. Those who advocate for this issue, which does not enjoy international consensus, do not promote with the same conviction the urgent need to address and resolve the fundamental causes of terrible situations, such as poverty, inequalities and structural problems that generate the outbreak of conflicts that lead to extreme situations. Only with true multilateralism and respect for international law and the Charter of the United Nations will it be possible to counteract the impacts of other pandemics imposed by some Powers to the detriment of peace, international security, independence, State sovereignty and the self-determination of peoples. It is imperative to immediately eliminate the unilateral coercive economic measures imposed on our people. We must put an end to such aggressions, which are true obstacles to the eradication of poverty and to progressing towards the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals contained in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Our country is on the path of peace and stability, making its best efforts even in the face of imperial and neocolonialist aggression and consistently developing its policies to guarantee a good life for all our dignified people. Nicaragua is committed to fighting for peace, progress and the future, living in sovereign dignity and with our own identity, firm in favour of more victories in this new multipolar world where the right of all to consolidate a better future must prevail.

Our delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations and wishes to make the following points in its national capacity. Cuba believes that it is a mistake to speak of the responsibility to protect as a principle because it is not a basis or an axiom of international law. That so- called responsibility is simply a notion whose scope, rules of application and assessment mechanisms are far from having been defined and agreed by Member States. With that in mind, it is inappropriate to speak of strengthening the implementation of the responsibility to protect without the existence of a consensus on its implications that resolves differences of interpretation, ensures its universal recognition and acceptance, and confers legitimacy upon actions proposed for its implementation. Cuba believes that the expression “atrocity crimes” continues to be used erroneously when it is included among the four crimes identified in resolution 60/1. In that respect, we recall that many delegations have expressed their disagreement with the use of that term and the term “mass atrocities”, due not only to their legal ambiguity, but also to the absence of a consensus on their definition, which derives from the will of Member States. We express our concern about the selective and politically motivated use of those terms to refer to very diverse situations that are often claimed to be new challenges requiring protection but are easily manipulated, especially when they do not enjoy the General Assembly’s unanimous consent. We also believe that it is not a good idea to grant mandates to other organs, such as the Human Rights Council, to evaluate States with respect to issues that are still being studied and on which there is a lack of consensus. The duty of the international community is to encourage and assist Member States to exercise the responsibility to protect, which is first and foremost their own responsibility. The question of the responsibility to protect continues to raise serious concerns for many countries, in particular small and developing States. In an international system as undemocratic as ours is today, our main concerns are based on the determination of who decides when there is a need to protect, who determines which State is not protecting its population, who determines the forms of action, and on the basis of what criteria, and how to make sure that this topic is not used for interventionist aims. There is no clarity whatsoever on how to guarantee that the option of taking action is not carried out in the absence of the State affected so as to prevent the concept from being used to justify the non-existent right to interfere. International efforts in the prevention of the acts of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity must contribute to strengthening the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, in particular sovereign equality, territorial integrity and self-determination. However, the ambiguities of the concept and the implications of the exercise of its so-called three pillars contradict those principles and purposes. Cuba has always shared the goal of combating such crimes, and to that end we believe that we must recognize the pre-eminence of the principle of voluntary participation, prior request and the consent of States in the context of the so-called responsibility to protect. If the intention is to prevent, we must tackle the root causes of those situations, such as underdevelopment, poverty, the unjust international economic order, inequality and social exclusion, marginalization, food insecurity and other structural problems that determine the outbreak of conflicts that lead to extreme situations and that, unfortunately, are not addressed with the same conviction by those who champion this concept. Where is the obligation of the international community to protect the Palestinians from genocide? The massacre that is taking place in Palestine is perhaps, and very painfully, the best example of the double standards that prevail in the international community. Many of the defenders of the disastrous concept of the responsibility to protect are the same who defend the occupying Power and protect it from fulfilling its responsibilities, which ultimately only prolongs the suffering of the Palestinian people and the prevailing cycle of impunity. The example of Palestine, like so many others, such as that of Libya, that have arisen and continue to arise throughout the world, corroborates the fact that behind the promotion and attempted implementation of the responsibility to protect is only the aim of establishing yet another tool to facilitate interference in internal affairs, regime change agendas and subversion in third countries, usually the small and developing ones, and to ensure that the international community remains passive in the face of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Preventing such crimes is an international responsibility shared by all States.

I would like first to express our appreciation for the report presented by the Secretary-General (A/78/901) and for the work carried out by Ms. Mô Bleeker, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Responsibility to Protect. In 2005, the United Nations met to discuss the future in the name of “we the peoples”, the opening words of the Charter of the United Nations. We recognized that peace and security, development and human rights are the pillars of the United Nations system, the foundations of collective security and well-being. We also recognized that the three pillars are interlinked and mutually reinforcing. In the World Summit Outcome document (resolution 60/1), paragraphs 138 and 139 establish the responsibility to protect not as a threat to the sovereignty of States or a limitation on sovereignty, but as the commitment of States to the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and our common aspiration for a global order based on peace, development, respect for human rights and the dignity of life. Nineteen years have passed. What have we done? Almost two decades after that momentous document, we now have the opportunity to address the future with imagination, ambition and strategy. Today we are once again faced with the renewed challenge of rethinking multilateralism and global governance in times of great turbulence and opportunity. It is also true that, from 2005 to date, many initiatives have emerged to progress the issue. We know that the task is not easy; indeed, it is an extremely difficult task, if not the most difficult, to advance in the United Nations agenda. We therefore celebrate and share the experiences of States, groups of States, regional organizations and the United Nations, as highlighted in the report. We are in a new era that requires new synergies, which is why we particularly underline the reference made in the report to the cooperation of States with civil society. That path must be expanded with new and imaginative mechanisms. No one can be left out, since we are all part of the problems, challenges and solutions. In that context, Argentina stresses that Ms. Mô Bleeker, who is now the Special Representative, has been a great promoter of such cooperation among States and of far-reaching projects. The Global Action Against Mass Atrocities Crimes initiative  — in which States, civil society, academics and personalities from around the world participate, with the support of the United Nations, in their commitment to ending the horrible human custom of mass atrocities — took its first step in Buenos Aires in 2008 when Switzerland, cooperating bilaterally, committed to carrying out an experiment of global scope. That is just one example of how the issue can be addressed not by pointing out what we lack and what we cannot do to advance the responsibility to protect, but rather how we can use the resources and means we have. Even so, when it comes to results, our shortfall is enormous. In addition to the number of dead, refugees, displaced persons, conflicts and atrocious crimes, there is a lack of agreement on a true reform of the Security Council that would allow its functioning to be unblocked and the obstacles inherent in the use of the veto to be removed. We cannot protect without preventing, and we cannot prevent without the full and responsible functioning of all organs of the United Nations. In the words of the 2005 Outcome document, the three pillars of the United Nations are “interdependent and mutually reinforcing” (resolution 60/1, para. 48). Therefore, there is no possible future or sufficient reason to ignore the commitments we have already made and even less reason to not face the challenges before us with boldness, determination and firmness. The report before us today clearly points out all those concepts. Our commitment and obligation to “we the peoples”, as set out in the Charter, require us to do no less.