Denmark

Let me first associate myself with the statement by my colleague, the Austrian Minister of Foreign Affairs, on behalf of the European Union. We embark upon this session of the General Assembly in the midst of challenges that affect all continents. We can deal with those challenges only if we display resolve and a common vision. That vision, clear and simple, is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. We must strive to maintain international peace and security, respect for human rights and dignified living conditions for all. Every State joining the United Nations has committed itself to that vision. To realize our vision, the rule of law must prevail. We base our national societies on the rule of law, and much is made of the rule of law within our societies. The rule of law offers the strongest defense against arbitrary exercise of power, but we sometimes neglect its importance in the international context. My call for greater commitment to the rule of law internationally is not meant to belittle the progress made. The Charter has inspired an impressive body of specific treaty law governing the behaviour of States. Laws on human rights, disarmament, the environment and outer space, and the law of the sea and international trade law are important examples. We celebrate this year the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the General Assembly in December 1948. The Declaration covers civil and political rights, as well as economic, social, and cultural rights. It has had an immense impact upon the standard-setting work of the United Nations and within each Member State. Human rights are universal. They must be guaranteed to all persons without discrimination and observed by all countries irrespective of their form of government. That is the essence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Indeed, it would be contradictory to talk about human rights if they were not accorded to all human beings, wherever they live. To deny the universality of human rights is to deny our common humanity. Freedom from torture, for example, must be respected everywhere, regardless of local traditions or local problems. Obviously, situations differ, but the human rights foundation is the same everywhere. All States in Vienna in 1993 reaffirmed that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights constitutes a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations. All States further proclaimed that the promotion and protection of human rights is a legitimate concern of the international community. A feature of present-day international law is that, by now, we have almost all the standards against which to hold Governments accountable for their acts. What we are still missing is an effective international machinery to ensure the implementation of all the rules in practice — to move from declarations to deeds. I wish to pay special tribute to the many human rights defenders who struggle in the front line for the defence of our common human values, often at the greatest personal risk. 15 It is a most proper contribution by the United Nations to adopt this year a declaration for the protection of the work of human rights defenders, those who strive to realize the solemn pledges contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We also warmly welcome the progress made in firmly establishing the rights of indigenous peoples. Another landmark contribution was achieved this year through the historic adoption in Rome of a Statute for a permanent International Criminal Court. Time and again, we have observed the failure of national criminal law systems to punish the perpetrators of atrocities and those behind them. The shocking events from Cambodia, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and now Kosovo and elsewhere are fresh on our minds. The prospects for reconciliation and lasting peace are undermined if the perpetrators remain at large. A key objective of the International Criminal Court is exactly to restore the rule of law and end impunity. This is a matter not only of justice, but also of peace and security. The ad hoc Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia have been an important first step, but only a preliminary step. We need a permanent institution. Denmark urges all States to ratify the Statute of the International Criminal Court. It is an urgent task to set this historic building block in the construction of international society in place. In light of experiences gained, the door is open for adjusting the functioning of the Court to the needs of the world community. The review clause in the Statute — a proposition strongly advocated by Denmark all along in the negotiations — assures that. The signature in December last year in Ottawa by 121 States of the Convention to ban the use and production of anti-personnel landmines has established a very important norm in international humanitarian law. For too long has this inhumane, indiscriminate weapon been allowed to claim thousands of innocent civilian victims every year. We welcome the entry into force of the Convention by 1 March 1999. Let us now intensify our joint efforts to clear the many mines already in the ground. Denmark offers its continued support. A most disturbing factor in the international legal order are the terrorist attacks taking innocent lives and jeopardizing relations among States. The international community must continue to condemn all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable under all circumstances, wherever and by whomsoever committed. No ends justify such means, but, apparently, condemnation is not enough. We need to further strengthen international cooperation to prevent, combat and eliminate terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. There must be no safe haven for terrorists. Those responsible for terrorist acts must be brought to justice. If traditional extradition agreements cannot bring about such a result, less traditional arrangements must be contemplated, as envisaged in regard to the horrendous terrorist bombing over Lockerbie. In May this year, India, regrettably, decided to resume nuclear testing after 24 years of self-imposed restraint. Pakistan, regrettably, followed Indiaâs lead and conducted its own tests for the first time. These tests not only contradict the non-test norm that had developed over the past two years. They also endanger peace and stability in the region and internationally. Therefore, the nuclear testing by India and Pakistan is of legitimate concern to the international community. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons enjoys almost universal support. A substantial number of countries have ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, and more are following every month. These two Treaties are the cornerstones of the international non-proliferation regime and the foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. I urge those countries — including India and Pakistan — that have not yet done so, to sign and move to ratify these Treaties without condition. This year marks the first half-century of United Nations peacekeeping. The first mission was established 50 years ago, based on the goals of the United Nations Charter. Since then, United Nations peacekeeping has developed norms and principles of its own: consent of the parties, impartiality and non-use of force. These principles continue to guide the international communityâs efforts in securing peace and stability on all continents. Peacekeeping operations are an important illustration of the resolve of the international community, represented by the United Nations. Their successes are real. In the Middle East and Cyprus, the United Nations has been a source of stability for many years. In Mozambique, United Nations peacekeepers have demobilized thousands of combatants and made room for democratic elections. In the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the 16 United Nations preventive deployment remains an essential stabilizing factor. And in Bosnia and Herzegovina today, the United Nations is responsible for the crucial task of training and restructuring local police forces. Denmark has a long tradition of contributing to United Nations peacekeeping operations. Danish forces took part from the very beginning and have served the United Nations faithfully for the last five decades. In recent years, Danish forces have served all over the world, from the Middle East to the Balkans, as well as in Asia and in Africa. Todayâs peacekeeping challenges differ from those of earlier decades and much work has been done to adjust the United Nations to the new challenges. Denmark has taken an active part in the process. Together with other countries, Denmark aims to improve the United Nations capacity for rapid reaction within the framework of the standby system. Denmark is also engaged in the creation of a new peacekeeping capacity of the Baltic States and of southern Africa. The demand for adjustment and reform continues. There is still work to be done in areas such as preplanning and logistic support. But peacekeeping goes beyond military operations. A broader, integrated approach involving components such as civilian police, preventive diplomacy and humanitarian assistance is called for. Such conceptual flexibility will add to the strength of United Nations peacekeeping. We, the United Nations Members, must be ready to meet our obligations and equip the Organization with the necessary tools for these future challenges. We must also, of course, ensure the safety of personnel working for the United Nations. We are witnessing an enhanced role for regional organizations. Their special expertise has proved valuable in addressing causes of conflict and establishing a basis for settlement. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is a good example. A division of labour between organizations is necessary, but it must not lead to confusion in leadership and responsibility. The United Nations remains the core institution in the international legal order and must maintain a central role in international efforts to ensure peace and security. We are approaching the twenty-first century, a century in which international society also should be governed by the rule of law. The norms of international law are universal but, sadly, they are not always universally respected. Respect for national sovereignty cannot be invoked as an excuse to avoid the obligations of international cooperation and international law. International criticism of violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law is fully legitimate. The role of the United Nations in this respect remains crucial. Indeed, direct intervention by the international community through the United Nations can be fully justified and legitimate, including in grave cases of humanitarian law being violated. Respect for the rule of law in international relations can be ensured only if the international community and the United Nations possess the instruments and the resolve to act. In this respect, regrettably, we must note a certain paralysis in recent years in the face of grave humanitarian conflicts and emergencies. Disagreement among Member States on how to deal with a particular crisis weakens the resolve of the United Nations to act. But we must, unfortunately, also note a lack of general support for the United Nations in certain quarters. The least we can expect from Members is for them to make the necessary resources available for the Organization, inter alia, by paying their contributions in full, on time and without conditions. We must find ways which enhance the ability of the United Nations to deal with violations of international peace and security and other serious breaches of international law. Failure to act on such challenges is morally indefensible and betrays the principles of the United Nations Charter. Violations and breaches must be met convincingly, with resolve and with the legitimacy of international law. Legitimacy will usually be provided by the Security Council. That is how it should be. Disagreement in the Security Council about a particular line of action must, however, never lead to the paralysis of the international community. If, for instance, members of the Security Council cannot agree on a mandate for a peace operation, they must allow for other possibilities for effective action. 17 When faced with an urgent agenda, the option should not be action or no action, but what line of action. There will usually be a broad range of actions available for the international community. It is a question of choice and political will. It does not suffice to leave everything to the humanitarian agencies. Emergency relief, however necessary, is not a substitute for political action. A reform of the Security Council can serve to strengthen the authority of the Council. But in the end we depend on the readiness of the members of the Council to act and to apply the same yardstick to all cases. I should also like to emphasize the role and prerogatives of the Secretary-General in the field of peace and security. The Secretary-General has exercised these functions in a highly commendable way. Before concluding, I wish to refer to the normative role of the United Nations as an important aspect of the rule of law. In particular, the United Nations conferences of the past decade have set valuable norms for improving living conditions for mankind. Common standards have been set in such important areas as eradication of poverty, environmentally sustainable development, gender equality and promotion and protection of human rights. Achievements have been made in meeting these standards, but much remains to be done. The responsibility falls both to Member States and to the international institutions. The United Nations system must ensure, on its part, an effective and coordinated follow-up to the global United Nations conferences. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that the financial resources are provided to attain these common standards. Denmark will continue to contribute development assistance in the amount of 1 per cent of our gross national product. Let me conclude by expressing my conviction that the best way to promote the rule of law in international relations is through respect for democratic norms in our own societies. The norm-setting activities of the United Nations have given an indispensable impetus towards democratization and good governance. Assistance to the establishment of democratic institutions in developing countries and countries with economies in transition can also make an important contribution. This is an overriding objectives of Denmarkâs considerable assistance to those countries. Whatever challenges we face to the international legal order, we must never fail in our determination to follow the words of the preamble of the Charter: “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small”.