Liechtenstein, 2004

The United Nations

faces unprecedented challenges: the recent past has

brought about a worrisome erosion in the standing and

credibility that this great Organization has enjoyed

24

worldwide. Use of military force without prior

authorization by the Security Council and increasingly

difficult and dangerous conditions under which United

Nations personnel operate in many places are but two

examples illustrating this trend.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan has given a two-

tiered response. First, he issued a call for an

unequivocal commitment to the principle of

multilateralism, upon which this Organization is built.

And secondly, he commissioned a report from eminent

and highly experienced personalities on how the

Organization should address new threats and

challenges.

Liechtenstein believes that this was the right

response. An unequivocal and unwavering commitment

from all of us is the basis for collective action and for

observing the rules we have set for ourselves. Only this

commitment can give meaning to our decisions to

tackle new challenges, and only this can enable us to

further develop a rules-based framework in order to

look confidently into the future.

We must acknowledge the fact that the challenges

we are facing today were not foreseeable when the

founding fathers agreed on the terms which guide the

work of this Organization. At the same time, we must

always recognize the Charter of the United Nations as

the unique achievement that it is and examine our

current ways of applying this great tool that was passed

down to us. It is therefore our obligation to conduct an

in-depth and sober analysis of these new challenges in

order to make an informed decision about how best to

address them within the framework of the United

Nations system. Changes and creative approaches will

be needed.

We therefore very much look forward to

receiving and considering the report of the High-level

Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change established

by the Secretary-General. But however insightful their

findings and however visionary their recommendations

may be — and we have high hopes that they will be —

the necessary decisions to expand the existing

multilateral architecture will have to be made by us,

the States gathered in this Assembly on the threshold

of the sixtieth anniversary of the United Nations. Not

in 10 years. Now. The time is right.

In a globalized world, collective action is the

necessary response to a great number of challenges.

Effective measures in numerous areas — the

environment, HIV/AIDS, poverty-reduction, the fight

against terrorism, to name but a few — can only be

taken on the basis of genuine and efficient global

cooperation. Such cooperation can only be successful

if it is based on a set of transparent and clear rules

applied in the same manner to everybody who

participates in it. International law is clearly the

primary instrument in this respect. However, we have

witnessed contradictory tendencies in the area of

international law, especially in the recent past.

On the positive side, there have been landmark

achievements, most notably the establishment of the

International Criminal Court. For the first time in the

history of mankind, there is an independent Court,

based on a Statute negotiated by the international

community at a diplomatic conference, that has the

competence to try individuals responsible for the worst

crimes when States themselves fail to do so. We are

sadly reminded every day how much such an

institution is needed. On the negative side, we have

observed a dangerous erosion in the application of

long-standing international law standards, most notably

in the field of international human rights and

international humanitarian law. The stage we have

reached is critical and there can be only one response:

We must urgently reverse this trend and uphold the

primacy of the rule of law, both nationally and

internationally.

We firmly believe that the rule of law is an

indispensable element of sound domestic policies —

often referred to as good governance — and an

indispensable part of sustainable development

worldwide. International organizations, including the

United Nations, are called upon to continue their

efforts to assist States in establishing and applying the

rule of law. We strongly support the efforts made over

the past year to strengthen the role of the United

Nations in that respect.

The rule of law at the domestic level must be

complemented at the international level through full

and unconditional respect for internationally

recognized standards and transparent and fair rules in

international decision-making. We have been very slow

in dealing with the changes in the world and its

consequences, most notably with regard to non-State

actors who fall outside the framework of international

law as we have known it in the past. We must ensure

that all those individuals and groups that play a

significant role in the international arena are not

25

allowed to move in a legal vacuum and we must clarify

which rules apply to them. That, however, we can do

credibly and thus effectively only if we, the

Governments representing States, continue to respect

the standards we have created for ourselves.

The one body that is particularly called upon in

that respect is the Security Council — to many, the

epitome of the United Nations as a whole. The Council

must meticulously observe the mandate given to it

under the Charter and ensure transparency and clarity

in its decision-making. That is of special importance

where the Council’s decisions directly affect the rights

and obligations of individuals who are not entitled to

individual legal remedies — a situation which can be

difficult to reconcile with the rule of law.

A strong momentum is gathering for reform of

the Security Council after more than 10 years of

deliberations on that very complex topic. In light of the

challenges before the Council and the open questions

concerning its role, in particular with regard to

increasing legislative activities, successful reform must

address all aspects. Enlargement to make that body

more modern and representative is one such aspect. We

believe that it is not sound for a universal Organization

to have its major decisions in a truly vital area taken by

only a handful of States.

Furthermore, the working methods of the

Council, its accountability to the membership as a

whole and its mandate must also be addressed.

Liechtenstein, and its delegation in New York in

particular, will continue to stand ready to make their

contribution to that end.

In accordance with the Charter, the Council acts

on behalf of the entire membership in carrying out its

duties, and its decisions are binding on all Member

States. All States should therefore take a strong interest

in its work and make use of their opportunities to

interact with and express their views to the Council,

whether they are members or not. More openness and

inclusiveness in the Security Council are still both

desirable and feasible. The question remains, however:

Is the Security Council too powerful or do we simply

lack the necessary system of checks and balances? We

support a dynamic and strong Security Council and

therefore tend to the latter view, with a clear focus on

an enhanced role for the General Assembly, the only

universal organ of the United Nations. The measures

on revitalization upon which we were able to agree

during the last session show us how far we still have to

go. It must be our goal to make this Assembly an

efficient and effective body that can act and react

quickly and with resolve.

We are still very far away from that goal. The

momentum gathered over the past year must be

translated into further, bold measures and trigger a

process that is not reversible. This is no time for

complacency and no time for indifference. This

Assembly has historical tasks before it. We must leave

lethargy and short-term national interests behind in the

interest of the greater good. Secretary-General Kofi

Annan put it very aptly in his speech this past Tuesday:

If we cannot reach agreement on the way forward,

history will make the decisions for us. We must set a

vision for the future and live up to our responsibility.

We owe this to all future generations and to ourselves.