Kingdom of Denmark, 1998

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”.