Liechtenstein, 2006

Madam

President, let me first of all express my happiness at

seeing you preside over the General Assembly. Your

election sends a clear signal concerning the ever-

stronger participation of women in decision-making

processes worldwide. We value your impressive track

record on women’s rights in particular, and we will

assist you in every possible way in the fulfilment of

your difficult task.

We can take pride in the many accomplishments

achieved during the past session, most prominently the

establishment of the Human Rights Council and of the

Peacebuilding Commission. These are important

institutional advances which offer us a real opportunity

to do things differently and to do them better. They do

not, however, automatically guarantee the results that

we had in mind when we made the decision that new

institutions were needed. No structural change,

however skilfully crafted, can bring about substantive

change in and of itself. In the area of human rights in

particular, we must increase our efforts in order to

create the truly new international discourse that is

needed, based on cooperation and the even-handed

implementation of international standards. Only a new

partnership in the field of human rights, with the full

participation of all stakeholders, including civil society

and the private sector, can ensure that people

worldwide enjoy all the human rights to which they are

entitled. It is only through such a new partnership that

we will be able to make the quantum leap towards an

era of implementation.

One of the major issues that we did not resolve

following the World Summit in September 2005 is

Security Council reform. Here again, we are of the

view that structural change is needed but that it is not

sufficient in itself. On the one hand, the Council must

be given a new structure and a different composition in

order to maintain its credibility worldwide. It must

better reflect the geopolitical realities of the twenty-

first century, which are fundamentally different from

those that prevailed at the time of the creation of the

Organization. But we must also address the equally

urgent necessity to improve the way in which the

Council goes about its daily business.

Time and again we have witnessed occasions on

which the Council did not live up to its mandate, as

enshrined in the Charter, to act on behalf of the

membership as a whole. A better representation of the

views of the general membership is therefore essential

for its effectiveness and credibility, in particular

through a stronger involvement on the part of non-

members of the Council that have a particular interest

in, or expertise on, a given subject. We are satisfied to

see that the Council has taken a step in the right

direction in that regard, and we will remain committed

to helping to improve its working methods.

Working methods and enlargement are clearly

complementary elements of Security Council reform. It

would appear that, after a pause of more than a year, it

is time to try our hand again at expanding the Council,

preferably through a sober approach that takes into

account the experiences gained in 2005.

Like many before me, I would like to applaud

Secretary-General Kofi Annan for his outstanding

tenure at the helm of the Organization. One key

element of his legacy is the high priority he has

attached to the rule of law. We agree that the core

strength of the United Nations is its solid grounding in

international law, its proud track record in promoting

international law, and the unique legitimacy it can

provide in making decisions. In our globalized world,

06-53317 32

in which non-State actors play an ever-increasing role,

clear rules are needed which are applied equally to

everyone, in a transparent manner.

However, we have yet to witness the advent of an

era of the rule of law, as called for by the Secretary-

General. On the contrary, we have witnessed a

dangerous erosion of international law, in particular

international humanitarian law, and we must urgently

find ways to place the issue of the rule of law high on

the agenda of the Organization. We will work with

others to ensure that the General Assembly makes

concrete progress on this matter during this session.

While there are negative trends in the area of

respect for international law, we have made some

significant advances, in particular in the area of

international justice. It is now commonly understood

that there can be no impunity for international crimes

and that no one who has committed them is immune.

This is a historic development which has found its

most powerful expression in the establishment of the

International Criminal Court. The Court is now seized

of three situations, one of which was referred to it by

the Security Council, and more than 100 States have

become parties to the Rome Statute. This very strong

momentum can be maintained only if States and,

indeed, the Organization lend their active support to a

judicial institution which fully relies on such

cooperation in gathering evidence and arresting

indictees. Most importantly, we must realize that peace

and justice are, in the long run, complementary

concepts, and we must uphold the principle that there

can be no amnesty for the worst crimes under

international law.

The international fight against terrorism poses a

particularly complex challenge in the area of the rule

of law. First, we must complement the existing

international legal framework by adopting a

comprehensive convention against terrorism. We have

put forward our ideas in this respect and hope that they

can help in reaching an agreement, which is long

overdue. Secondly, it must be clear that the fight

against terrorism and the observance of human rights

and international humanitarian law are complementary

and mutually reinforcing. Human rights are at the core

of the value system of the international community, as

we all recognized at the Summit last year. Curtailing

them in the name of the fight against terrorism would

therefore play into the hands of terrorists, who fight

this very system with fanatic zeal. Last but not least,

the United Nations, and the Security Council in

particular, must lead by example in upholding due

process and the rights of individuals.

When I spoke in this Hall last year, I presented a

mixed assessment of the outcome of the World

Summit. On the one hand, I expressed disappointment

at the vagueness or even complete absence of some

aspects of United Nations reform, but I also warmly

welcomed some real advances. The recognition of the

responsibility to protect constituted such an advance;

indeed, it was a real milestone in the Outcome

Document. Today, we must acknowledge that the

international community has not followed up the

commitment it made at the World Summit with

concrete action.

The situation in Darfur, irrespective of the

definition of the crime in question, clearly falls within

the scope of the responsibility to protect, but we have

yet to see the action necessary in accordance with our

common commitment to protect civilian populations.

The United Nations, in spite of its shortcomings,

remains the only such Organization of global reach and

is uniquely placed to address the complex challenges

the world is facing today. However, it will be capable

of living up to this role only if we re-establish the

institutional balance within the system. In particular,

the General Assembly must reassert its role as a central

policymaking body and work on a par with the Security

Council.

The most prominent topics for the Organization

in the coming weeks are clear: the situation in Darfur,

the Middle East, the nuclear programme of Iran and the

appointment of a new Secretary-General. All these

topics are dealt with in the Security Council, while the

General Assembly plays at best a secondary role. The

Assembly must, therefore, address in parallel, and

make progress on, the development agenda in all its

aspects, system-wide coherence, disarmament, Security

Council reform and other priority areas of the work of

the organization. A better division of work between the

two most important organs will make the Organization

as a whole more effective and more efficient. It is,

therefore, in the common interest of all States to make

the General Assembly the central policymaking body it

was designed to be by the founding fathers.