Liechtenstein, 2002

Let me first extend

my congratulations and a warm welcome to

Switzerland, a neighbouring country of Liechtenstein,

on its membership in the United Nations. Switzerland

has for centuries lived the ideals of the United Nations

as a place where peoples of different ethnic

backgrounds, languages, cultures and religions have

peacefully lived together and have founded a nation

based on democratic principles and the rule of law.

Now its people have chosen to join the United Nations.

We look forward to Switzerland's contribution, its

expertise and experience in the challenging work of

this Organization. Together with the admission of East

Timor a few days from now, this brings the United

Nations even closer to being what it was intended to

be, a truly universal family of nations.

In the past year, the United Nations has again

convened a number of meetings at the highest level, with

the best intentions and the most ambitious agendas. Those

included the special session on children, the International

Conference on Financing for Development and the World

Summit on Sustainable Development. All these meetings

have resulted in important outcomes, but they have

sometimes fallen short of the expectations of those most

directly affected. Bigger is not always better. We

believe that the era of such world conferences and

summits has come to a close. We have established good

standards and must now focus on their implementation.

The Millennium Development Goals must be given

primary importance in this respect.

A few years ago, we had hoped to be entering an

era of the primacy of the rule of law. Small States in

particular rely on the rule of law, both at the national

and at the international levels, where this Organization

plays a particular role. Today, we are all challenged

more than ever to uphold the principle of the rule of

law. The events of 11 September made us realize that

no person and no place is immune to the threat of

international terrorism. The international community,

and especially this Organization, responded vigorously.

For weeks immediately after the attacks, countries

were determined to join forces to oppose and eliminate

the threat to all of us. Today provides a good

opportunity not only to commemorate those who have

died at the hands of international terrorists, but also to

reassess our common response and responsibility as the

international community.

In looking back, we realize today that the sense of

working together we all felt was short-lived and that it

has not extended to all areas. After the terrorist attacks

there was recognition that international terrorism can

only be fought successfully if all States and nations

work together. This raised hopes for an era of genuine

multilateralism. However, those hopes vanished

quickly and were replaced by the realization that

unilateralism and confrontation were again dominant.

One example of such confrontation was the

debates on the International Criminal Court, which

extended even to the Security Council. Holding these

debates implied, ironically, that the International

Criminal Court jeopardized peacekeeping operations of

the United Nations. As a State party to the Rome

Statute, we welcomed the entry into force of the Statute

on 1 July as a true landmark in the history of

international justice. We remain fully committed to

preserving the integrity of the Court's Statute. We

found it therefore disquieting that the Council dealt

with the International Criminal Court in a manner

suggesting that the Court posed a threat to international

peace and security.

The Security Council, above all, is called upon to

uphold the rule of law. The state of affairs worldwide

makes it abundantly clear that credible and effective

28

action by the Council is needed now more than ever.

Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) illustrates how

determined action by the Council can contribute to

fighting real threats to international peace and security.

My Government has attached the highest priority to the

work of the Counter-Terrorism Committee established

pursuant to that resolution. We submitted on time two

comprehensive reports on our national implementation

thereof. One year after the inception of the Committee's

work, we have to take stock of its achievements and of the

challenges ahead. There are obviously different stages of

implementation worldwide and diverging capacities of

States, especially in the area of combating the

financing of terrorism.

Thus, it is imperative to introduce minimal

standards to which all States need to adhere. Such an

effort to set and implement benchmarks will ensure the

practical impact and continued political relevance of

the Counter-Terrorism Committee. We all must strive

to bring our national enforcement and cooperation

mechanisms to the highest achievable standards. This,

however, must be accompanied by a set of minimum

standards which are observed and enforced globally. As

stated on previous occasions, Liechtenstein stands

ready to make its contribution to developing such

standards and to contribute to compliance enhancement

by offering our extensive practical expertise.

Injustice must not be fought through injustice.

The fight against terrorism must therefore go hand in

hand with basic standards of the rule of law.

Overzealous action must not, as has occurred in some

instances, jeopardize the rights of the individual. Non-

derogable human rights, as contained in the relevant

international treaties, must be safeguarded under all

circumstances. States have an obligation to ensure that

people who are suspected of having committed acts of

terrorism are treated in accordance with the relevant

standards. The United Nations, as the primary

international law-making body, has a special

responsibility in this respect and has to live up to its

obligation to be the guardian of the rule of law.

When the United Nations is called upon to uphold

the rule of law, it must, of course, ensure first and

foremost the legality of its own actions in all areas and,

in particular, when it comes to armed action and

intervention. The Charter of the United Nations

provides for the sanctioning of such action by the

Security Council. The debates of the past few weeks

have made it clear that nothing can replace — as

Secretary-General Kofi Annan put it so aptly — the

unique international legitimacy provided through a

decision of the Council. Legality, and thus political

credibility, are ensured through seizing the Council. At

the same time, however, the full implementation of all

such decisions must be ensured. This must therefore be

the way to go for the international community.