•  Home
•  Who We Are
•  What We Do
•  Media Centre
•  Publications
•  Humphrey Award
•  Reference
•  Links
•  Contact Us

The Rule of Law in our Interdependent World

On the United Nations World Summit, Sept. 14-16, 2005

Bilingual text (in English and French)

Jean-Louis Roy
President
Rights & Democracy

Dear Friends,

I am grateful for your invitation and very pleased to be associated with your work and reflections.

I was asked to draw an evaluation of the United Nations Summit which brought together almost all Heads of State and Government at the United Nations Headquarters in New York this past September.

To say the least, the immediate assessments of many observers and activists were harsh and decisive.

“A lost Summit,” proclaimed the New York Times.

“Failure in New York,” declared news agencies with outlets all over the world.

Some proposed the liquidation of all “central, governing structures of the United Nations and the transfer of their legislative responsibilities to the governing bodies of the United Nations agencies.” 

Others evoked “the pile of broken pledges that marked the old United Nations history, this 20^th century institution, and its failure to address the complex and urgent problems of a 21^st century world.”

My friends, I do not see the value of dissolving the United Nations central governing structure.  I do not see the value of a fragmented system in this global age, a fragmented system depending on voluntary contributions and governed by a Board of Shareholders.  I do not see the value of a humanitarian policy completely dependent on “regional organizations” and “coalitions of the willing.”

Let me share with you my marks to appreciate the September Summit results. 

I subscribe to the method of the French School of History, known as “les annales” and refined by the great Polish historian, Bratislaw Geremek.  From a quick evaluation of the short term results of the UN Summit, I will search for the long-term significance and structural impact; and, then, will attempt to evaluate the historical meaning for humanity.

Even if I share some of the disappointments expressed just after the Summit, I am not prepared to discard the extraordinary legacy of the previous century to humanity:  a United Nations Organization at the core of international relations.  Its long term political significance must be fully recognized. 

And we cannot forget what it represents for civilisation:  for the first time in the long history of humanity, the United Nations brought together almost all nations of the world. 

It produced a comprehensive list of “common fundamental values” based on the equal dignity of all human beings.  It has created a system for maintaining global peace and security. 

In its declarations, covenants and treaties, it has pushed States and individuals to protect each other from fear and want; to safeguard the environment; to preserve the public interest and our common heritage. 

It has contributed to the development of a global consciousness about the challenges and responsibilities and shared future, not to mention its priceless contribution to international law, justice and the rule of law.

Majeurs, essentiels et précieux, ces acquis ont été construits en un demi siècle chargé par ailleurs de périls considérables.

Ni le jeu des puissances, ni la guerre froide, ni la décolonisation, ni les conflits nationaux et régionaux, ni la course aux armements et la menace nucléaire, ni l’implosion de l’Union Soviétique, ni l’isolement de la Chine et sa fulgurante émergence actuelle, ni les échecs de la grande maison de verre n’ont eu raison de ce socle que représente l’Organisation des Nations Unies, de sa fonction unique de concertation, de cohésion, de décision et d’interventions globales.

En elle se conjugue :

• La pluralité des énergies, des aspirations, des choix qui transforment le monde vers des directions inattendues et puissantes, déconcertantes et parfois, irréversibles.
• La puissante interaction des forces à l’œuvre dans les changements du monde qui rendent imprévisibles en partie les effets cumulatifs ou les effets d’ensemble de ce qui advient.
• La célérité des changements du monde, de la géopolitique à l’application de la science, célérité qui fait qu’un grand nombre ont pour horizon la crainte de l’avenir, d’autres, son exaltation.  Il faut récuser les mantras des uns et des autres et apprécier ce seul lieu d’une culture de la délibération globale.

Il est à la mode aujourd’hui d’opposer la délibération et les finalités comme si les changements du monde advenaient par eux-mêmes ou étaient connus et intangibles, comme si les changements du monde dépassaient les capacités de connaître, de débattre et de proposer des hommes rassemblés.  Il faut annihiler cet extrême confiscation de la liberté et mettre tout en délibération, y compris l’animation de chaque société et du monde et la confier au plus grand nombre possible.

L’universalité de ce qui advient a pour effet de relativiser les valeurs des uns par rapport à celle des autres.  À moins d’instaurer à nouveau les grands clivages raciaux, religieux ou idéologiques du passé, nous devons apprendre «à persévérer dans ce que nous sommes …et à devenir autre chose», «à perdurer dans le changement», selon l’expression d’Octavio Paz.

Incontestablement, les Nations Unies ont contribué et contribuent en substance et en permanence, à l’élargissement du champ de la délibération pour l’avenir, qui nous protège contre les scénarios catastrophiques ou les exaltations fumeuses.  Mettre en débat les finalités et défaire cette idée si répandue aujourd’hui que ces dernières sont évidentes, partagées et intangibles.  Rien n’est acquis dans le monde tel qu’il est en train de devenir, ni la sécurité, ni la croissance, ni le développement.  Ni leur contraire.

À deux reprises au XX^e siècle, la communauté internationale a ressenti la nécessité de se doter d’institutions communes aux lendemains de la première et de la seconde guerre mondiale.  Le monde venait alors de se fragmenter et de se disloquer, alors que les ressources combinées de l’économie et de la technologie avaient été mises au service d’idéologies niant les fondements de l’unité de la famille humaine.

Notre adhésion aux institutions internationales et notamment celles du système des Nations Unies, ne doit plus reposer uniquement sur la mémoire des besoins de reconstruction d’un monde dévasté, mais bien sur l’enrichissement d’un monde déjà constitué.  Il nous faut faire le pari de l’existence d’un autre miroir que celui de la destruction large du monde pour soutenir la capacité de l’humanité à se penser comme un ensemble, le pari que l’avenir à aménager est aussi porteur que le passé à sortir de ses ruines.

L’existence de ressources institutionnelles regroupant la quasi-totalité des pays du monde, constitue l’un des legs les plus précieux du XX^e siècle, l’assise de la construction durable d’une vraie communauté internationale.  À travers ses crises et ses avancées, le précédant siècle a créé les premières institutions de l’histoire regroupant toute la famille humaine.

Il apparaît impératif qu’à l’interaction continue, multidimensionnelle de plus en plus dense des sociétés humaines correspondent des lieux de délibération, de recherche commune et de décision visant l’aménagement d’un système global fiduciaire de la sécurité, du développement et de la protection des droits de chacun et de tous.

Pour tenir le monde ensemble, pour qu’il nous tienne en lui, nous devons investir dans la mise à jour des  institutions internationales, afin qu’elles reflètent le monde tel qu’il est et tel qu’il advient.

Il s’agit de légitimer à nouveau la délibération entre les diverses composantes de la famille humaine, le travail de reconnaissance des droits et libertés dans le monde, le développement et l’application du droit international, la prévention et le règlement pacifique des conflits, la prise de décision concernant les questions d’ensemble qu’aucun état seul, aussi puissant soit-il, ne peut régler pour tous.  Il s’agit aussi d’intégrer dans le développement ces communautés humaines laissées sur le bord de la route.

Effectuer le passage de la mondialisation vers la communauté mondiale, c’est faire le pari que la famille humaine ne sera pas l’otage des stratégies des groupes de puissance et que son travail sur elle-même contribuera à consolider une éthique universelle.

Le passage ne sera jamais achevé.  J’estime que le Sommet de septembre y a contribué.

It is true that the ambitious reform proposed by the Secretary General was not supported in its entirety.  It is true that the United Nations needs to be reformed, expanded and made more efficient and transparent.

But it is equally true that major elements proposed by Kofi Annan were adopted by consensus.  They are now on the United Nations agenda and will contribute to a reform now in progress – if it is not blocked by the governments that constitute the organization.

While the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts, we cannot forget that the United Nations is composed of nations, of States that have their own agendas and responsibilities. 

No coalition in our world and time—including civil society and the business community—can achieve what governments have the authority and the obligation to do, individually and collectively, in our interdependent world. 

For all its short-comings, the September Summit produced results, especially considering the rapidly evolving situation of international relations and the turbulent international scene.  In this regard, I would underline some of the key features of the declaration of the Heads of State:

First, it articulated a comprehensive view of mankind global situation at the beginning of the 21^st century.

Second, it strongly reaffirmed the “common fundamental values” for all.

Third, it contains a surprisingly strong and repeated commitment to the United Nations and its reform, the principles of the Charter and “determination to foster its strict respect.”

Fourth, it pledges support for the rule of law at the international level;

Lastly, it reaffirms the United Nations Millenium Declaration and Millenium Development Goals, framed in a new and enlarged context including fair trade rules, debts cancellation, a more equitable distribution of investments and increased overseas development assistance in line with the Monterrey Consensus.

1.         A comprehensive view of our global situation

I see in the Summit Declaration the major premises of international law:

• The sovereignty of the State and of all States;
• The obligation of the State, and of all States, as part of  the international community and the United Nations system;
• The needs of humanity as a whole.

I submit to you that we are now experiencing a global system that has integrated the conception of the nation that prevailed in the modern age, the positivist view that stresses the predominance and the authority of the State, as well as an indispensable third element:  the needs of humanity as a whole.

Although the inter-relation between these three elements is evident, their synthesis is still incomplete. 

Obviously, international relations exceed the sovereign will of States.  The reality of other actors and emerging issues must be included to incorporate the global and interdependent condition prevalent in the 21^st century.  This is recognized in a carefully worded section of the Summit Declaration that lists the obligations, challenges, risks and threats that recognize no national boundaries.  It also links countries’ individual responsibilities with an international framework of programming, assistance and sanctions.  As you know, it also proclaims for the first time, the responsibility to protect populations from genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.  Those protections are now obligations on an international level.

2.         Reaffirmation of “common fundamental values”

For the first time in human history, the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed “the inherent dignity, equality and equal inalienable rights of all members of the human family”.

This occurred half a century ago.

The fact that the Summit reaffirms “common fundamental values” is of great significance, especially for those who suffer today as a consequence of disregard and negation of those fundamental values universal values, as well as for those who fight, at the national or regional level, for the full recognition of rights and for the establishment of national or regional institutions to promote and protect those rights. 

The reaffirmation of “common fundamental values” is of great significance for us all.

We are not naïve.  We know both the limits and impact of such pronouncements.  Yet, as recent events demonstrate, situations and developments, the articulation of “common fundamental values” is essential for our time, essential for the future. 

 
This articulation of “common fundamental values” is more than just a repetition of predictable phrases.  It is also a new framework proposed by the Secretary General, a framework that reinforces the links between peace and security, development and human rights.  It expresses the centrality of the common needs, common good and common rights of all of the human family within international relations. 

It also demonstrates the strong input and relevance of the United Nations, which prepared the Summit’s agenda.

But beyond values and principles, the Summit was also political and legal. 

Members States are urged to sign and ratify a long list of conventions and optional protocols related to human rights protection, protection of the environment, illicit trade of small arms and anti-personnel mines.  There is support for the completion, ”as soon as possible”, of the United Nations Declaration on the rights of indigenous people.  It takes strong commitments to end discrimination against women and impunity for violence against women.  Moreover, there is a commitment “as an urgent matter to the establishment of a comprehensive convention on international terrorism”.

3.         The United Nations

Those who are familiar with the political reality of all multilateral institutions as political tools of States—and as political entities bringing together States—will share with me the sense of necessity and inevitability of the United Nations that strongly dominated the September Summit Declaration.

The rhetoric is impeccable.  The political leaders of the world reaffirm their faith in the United Nations and their commitment to the purposes of the Charter.  As we mentioned previously, they highlighted its “central role” in the areas of peace and security, development and human rights.  They also committed themselves to strengthen the United Nations with a view to enhance its authority and efficiency … “and to address the full range of challenges of our times”.

They finally lauded the major United Nations conferences and Summits that shaped a broad development vision, identified a commonly agreed upon objectives and provided multilateral solutions.

The Summit took some decisions which, if given their full effect, will translate into actions, commitments and pledges:

• The establishment of a Peacebuilding Commission to bring together all relevant actors, to mainstream resources, to advise and propose integrated strategies for post-conflict situations.
• The strengthening of the Office of the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, the doubling of its regular budget and the creation of a Human Rights Council.
• The reform of the Security Council as “an essential element” of the United Nations reform, in order to make it more broadly representative, efficient, and transparent, as well as to enhance its effectiveness and the legitimacy and implementation of its decisions.

Behind the establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission appears a real political will in accordance with the Secretary General’s analysis and proposals regarding its mandate, membership and decision-making processes; its connections with national and regional processes; and its funding and implementation calendar.

We were told that there was considerable support for the Human Rights Council prior to the Summit, with similar ambitions to the creation of the Peace-building Commission.  But objections from a dozen recalcitrant States made consensus impossible to achieve.  Nevertheless, the necessity for a stronger, more credible and prestigious human rights body was not lost, and the Human Rights Council “emerged” from the Summit.

I, for one, find it encouraging that a general concept that was simply part of the global debate less than two years ago was included in the Summit’s agenda and was part of the decision of the Heads of States and Government.  As you know, after the Summit, the work on the Human Rights Council that is being conducted through the General Assembly does not require full consensus.  As we speak, there is significant activity at the United Nations in New York to give full effect to the Summit’s commitment to create a Human Rights Council within a year.

The reform of the Security Council is also on the agenda.  What was gained between last year and the Summit is a common concern about efficiency, transparency, increased representation on the Security Council, as well as the necessity to further enhance the legitimacy and implementation of its decisions.

There was no consensus, to say the least, between the Summit’s participants and the Security Council members.  But in spite of criticism and the shortcomings of the actual Security Council, all reform projects, with maybe the exception of the one proposed by the United States, tend to strengthen the Security Council.  No one proposes its disqualification.

Je constate et me réjouis avec le grand juriste français, Robert Badinter, que l’essentiel des avancées du Sommet s’inscrit dans le domaine des droits de l’homme.

D’abord a été proclamé le principe de la responsabilité collective de tous les États membres dans la protection des populations contre ces fléaux que le XX^e siècle a vu se développer : génocides et crimes contre l’humanité.

De la même volonté procède la décision de créer une Commission de consolidation de la Paix, afin d’assurer la continuité de l’action conduite par les Nations Unies dans ces régions où l’appareil d’état s’est effondré et qui sont en proie à tous les maux de l’affrontement ethnique ou de la guerre civile.

Enfin, l’obligation de promouvoir et de protéger les droits de l’homme a été fortement réaffirmée et consolidée.  Le renforcement des moyens d’action du Haut Commissariat aux Droits de l’homme en lieu et place de l’actuelle Commission, concrétise cette réaffirmation et cette consolidation.

L’Assemblée générale doit établir le Conseil des Droits de l’homme sans délai.  Ce dernier doit disposer d’un mandat, d’un statut, et des ressources suffisantes pour :

         Examiner la situation des Droits humains dans tous les pays, sans exclusions, et se saisir de toute situation urgente;

         Renforcer le système des experts indépendants, des procédures spéciales et la participation des organisations gouvernementales;

Bref, l’Assemblée générale doit situer le nouveau Conseil au même niveau que celui du Conseil de sécurité et du Conseil économique et social.  Amnistie Internationale utilise le terme «organe principal».  Ce positionnement donnerait ses pleins effets à la notion des trois piliers des Nations Unies, la Paix et la sécurité, le Développement et les Droits humains.

Que l’essentiel des avancées du Sommet s’inscrive dans le domaine des droits humains revêt une importance majeure  en cette période où ces droits subissent une érosion continue même dans les pays disposant d’une longue tradition démocratique et de protection des droits et libertés.

 4.        The international rule of law

In terms of the international rule of law, the coming together at the United Nations Headquarters of almost all Heads of States and Governments is an achievement of importance, with no precedent in human history before 1975.

The September Summit was, in fact, a meeting about and around the purposes and principles of the Charter and international law.  It was a careful exercise to reaffirm the sovereign equality of all States, as their obligations in accordance with the Charter and within the multilateral system.

Even if all States are sovereign and equal according to international law, no State can stand completely alone at the beginning of the 21^st century.  Even if all States are sovereign and equal, they all are Member States of the United Nations.  Therefore, the sovereign equality of States is qualified by their membership in the United Nations and the constraints of international law.  

The Secretary General’s reform proposal clearly articulates the capacity and the legitimacy of the United Nations as the primary engine for the development of international law and the guardian of the international rule of law.  What happened between this proposal and the Summit’s Declaration is worth remembering.

First, even in the difficult context prevailing today, the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration and covenants on Human Rights, and the major international treaties and conventions, were the core references of the Summit. 

All questions were not resolved, but the relevance of the United Nations was reaffirmed, notably with respect to the legal framework for the use of force in international relations:  “We reiterate the obligations of all Members States to refrain in their international relations from the threat on use of force in any manner, inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.  We also reaffirm that the relevant provisions of the Charter are sufficient to address the full range of threats to international peace and security.”

Those statements do not give new capacity to the United Nations to execute the security mandate that the Security Council may decide, but they have the merit to reaffirm the framework for debate, action and reform.  What is most troubling, perhaps, is the question raised about the representation of new regional and global powers on the Security Council and its legitimacy with its present composition.

Second, the Summit Declaration has fully recognized the importance of a set of imperative norms that have an impact on all States.  Those norms transcend the sovereignty of individual States and constitute “norms of the international community.” Slowly, but decisively, State interests must yield to these norms as the expression of common needs and values of humankind, and in some instance, as the concrete consequence of the new realities of a globalized and interdependent planet.

The Summit Declaration identifies some of these realities that require convergent actions and a common legal framework:

• “Trafficking of persons as a severe threat to humanity;”
• “Infectious diseases as severe risks for the entire world;”
• “Terrorism that recognizes no national boundaries;”
• “Climate change that affects all parts of the world.”

Those recognitions imply more than just an increase in international cooperation.  It evokes the creation of new capacities at the international level, the empowerment of multilateral institutions to take action and decision-making that is binding on all.  In the case of terrorism, a consensus from all United Nations members could greatly reinforce international law and the international rule of law.

Let me close by a brief comment on another achievement of the Summit. 

Some have summarized its substantial pronouncements on the Millennium Development Goals as “self-impotent restatement of goals already agreed upon.”

I strongly disagree.

In the actual context of international relations, I found the Summit Declaration a strong and integrated view of what is needed to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

Mobilizing financial resources and increasing the level of official development assistance are of paramount importance.  The Summit was clear about the target of 0.7% of GNP. 

But it is only one piece of the puzzle.  The Summit was right in referring to greater direct investments, the cancellation of 100% of outstanding debts of poor countries and the building of a non-discriminatory and equitable trading system as a pre-condition for the full realization of the Millennium Development Goals.

I referred previously to the Summit’s shortcomings.  Contrary to what has been said, the ambitious reform plan proposed by the Secretary General was not swept aside.  A large part of it was accepted, while another part has been placed on the international agenda. 

It is up to us to help give them their full effect.  It is up to us also to fight for the inclusion of the global agenda of the need to end impunity for crimes under international law and in consequence, for the strengthening of the International Criminal Court that was excluded from the Summit Declaration.  We know that numerous states expressed their support for the Court during the negotiations.

In many instances, the Summit ’s results will give strength to international law and the international rule of law.  In our imperfect world, we all know that this essential task will never be completed, but also must never be abandoned. 

Nonetheless, for those of us concerned with the long-term reform and efficacy of the United Nations, we must be vigilant that the purposes of the United Nations are not subverted by the actions of individual States.

Let me give you 2 examples of this need for vigilance. 

First, I remind you of the joint statement of all the UN Special Rapporteurs and Independent Experts, when they adopted a joint statement on terrorism and human rights.  They voiced a “profound concern at the multiplication of policies, legislation and practices increasingly being adopted by many countries in the name of the fight against terrorism which affect negatively the enjoyment of virtually all human rights – civil, cultural, economic, political and social.”  Even in countries like , we are in the process of enacting legislation and creating intelligence structures that may have long-term effects that are contrary to their stated purposes of safeguarding democracy and human rights.

The second cause for vigilance is the debate around the Asian Group’s so-called “Non-Paper on Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Special Mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights.”  In this “Non-Paper,” a large number of Asian governments seek to destroy the advancements made in the field of human rights by attempting to stop any scrutiny by UN experts.  While governments have pledged their support for common values and long-term reform at the Summit, they also can turn around and undermine the functioning and evolution of the system in its day-to-day operations.  That is why need a strong Human Rights Council—with a clear mandate and procedures—to which all States will be accountable.