General Assembly Session 52 meeting 72

The Acting President

I now call on representatives wishing to make statements in explanation of vote before the voting.

Mr. Mirzaee-Yangejeh (Iran)

I wish to explain the position of my delegation concerning draft resolution I in document A/52/653.

International terrorism, one of the most troublesome phenomena of contemporary international relations, has never been confined to certain parts of the world. My country, like many other States, has suffered immensely from the harsh impacts of this inhumane phenomenon in past years. We therefore share the increasing concern of the international community over acts of terrorism carried out in different forms and manifestations by individuals, groups and States, taking the lives of innocent civilians and causing irreparable material damage as well as mental and emotional anguish. The Islamic Republic of Iran is determined to take decisive measures, along with the other members of the international community, towards the elimination of international terrorism.

My delegation did not oppose the adoption of draft resolution I in the Sixth Committee and will not object to its approval by the General Assembly. However, we would like to register our reservation with regard to paragraph 2 of article 19 of the draft International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. This paragraph is unprecedented and is not included in any of the existing instruments relating to combating terrorism. The phrase "in the exercise of their official duties" contained in this paragraph is vague and has not been defined in this draft or any other relevant international instrument. Thus, it leaves room for a broader interpretation of the immunities of military forces than is provided for in general international law. We are of the opinion that it is imprudent to include such an imprecise and politically compromised term in the draft convention, which is assumed to be the basis for the prosecution and punishment of the culprits who commit such criminal acts.

Furthermore, we would like to recall that non-use of force or threat of use of force in international relations is a Charter obligation of all Member States. Labelling the activities of the military forces of States as "official duties" cannot and should not be justified in any circumstances if such activities run counter to the accepted norms and principles of international law.

Mr. Kamal (Pakistan)

Pakistan strongly condemns terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. We condemn terrorism wherever perpetrated, whether by individual groups or by States, or whether it results in violence or threat of violence against innocent persons. Terrorism is repugnant irrespective of the motivation involved. We ourselves have been victim of terrorist acts, including cross-border terrorism. We understand the implications of the scourge of terrorism.

In this spirit, we actively contributed to the proceedings of the Ad Hoc Committee and the Working Group. Their task was to draft the text of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. The Ad Hoc Committee and the Working Group could not complete their work.

Given the wide divergences of views in this area of international law, the Group submitted an incomplete report to the Committee. The draft included no language for a set of articles which were numbered as articles 1.4 and 3 in the original proposal.

The Committee did not accept our proposal, supported by several other States, that the Ad Hoc Committee continue its work. We believed that it would have been useful to reach consensus language on the areas of differences.

We therefore continue to believe that the Convention has very serious gaps in the preamble and in other areas. We would like to state our objections as follows and enter our reservations on the articles to which they relate.

First, the Convention does not include references to a comprehensive understanding of the issue of terrorism. As stipulated in its resolutions 40/61 and 46/51, the General Assembly has been consistently stressing that all States should contribute to the progressive elimination of the causes underlying terrorism. The Assembly urged States to pay special attention to all situations, including colonialism and situations involving massive and flagrant violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The States were also urged to attend to those situations involving alien occupation that might give rise to international terrorism and might endanger international peace and security.

The Convention takes no step to fulfil this mandate of the General Assembly. It also does not reflect the essential distinction between terrorism and the legitimate struggle of peoples for self-determination.

Second, article 2 includes the words "unlawfully and intentionally", which indicate approbation of certain forms of terrorism.

Third, the Convention grants exception from the scope of its application to the activities of military forces. The eleventh preambular paragraph, article 1, paragraph 4, and article 19, paragraph 2, replace the content of article 3 in the original proposal. These articles still do not reflect views based on the consensus language of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages. On the basis of that precedent, the Convention should have excluded from its application the situations of armed conflict, as defined in article 1, paragraph 4, of Protocol I to the Geneva Convention of 1949. These are the situations in which people are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation and racist regimes in the exercise of their right to self-determination.

The deletion of article 19, paragraph 2, had been proposed. It could not be accepted as drafted. Its formulation sanctified State terrorism. State terrorism is the most ignoble form of terrorism. The Non-Aligned Movement, at its summit meeting in Jakarta in September 1992, condemned the use of State power for the suppression of, and use of violence against, innocent civilians struggling against foreign occupation to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination. It also denounced the brutalization of peoples kept under foreign occupation as the gravest form of terrorism. We believe, therefore, that terrorist activities of the military forces of the State cannot be excluded from the scope of this Convention.

Article 19, paragraph 2, stipulates that the activities undertaken by military forces of a State in connection with their official duties will be governed by other rules of international law and not by this Convention. This would make any type of activity by the armed forces immune from the application of this Convention, even if such activity amounted to terrorism. We believe that only those activities of armed forces undertaken pursuant to Chapters VII and VIII of the Charter of the United Nations can be immune from the scope of this Convention.

We would thus have preferred that paragraph 2 of article 19 not be included in the text. If it were to be included, article 19, paragraph 2, should have ended with the words "are not governed by this Convention", where they appear for the first time in line three. Then, through a further amendment, the words "which are governed by" in the second line should have been replaced by the words "insofar as they conform to". Article 19, paragraph 2, would then have read as follows:

"The activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, insofar as they conform to that law, are not governed by this Convention."

Fourth, the eleventh preambular paragraph should have included references to relevant instruments of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts.

Fifth, the definition given in article 1, paragraph 4, must also conform to the provisions of Protocol I to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949.

Sixth, we had also submitted that paragraphs 1 and 5 of article 9 should have been made subject to domestic law. The obligations as stated in that article cannot be assumed in view of domestic law constraints.

Seventh, article 11 does not align its language to the provisions of our laws which only recognize offences of a political nature.

Eighth, and finally, in article 22, paragraph 1, the requirement of only 22 ratifications for the entry into force of the Convention is highly inappropriate for an Organization of 185 Members. This figure of 22 can be suitable only for a subregional organization. The number of ratifications should have been fixed at one third of the total membership of the United Nations.

We therefore enter our reservations to the following articles of the Convention: article 2, paragraph 1; the set of articles relating to the exception given to the activities of military forces in article 19, paragraph 2, article 1, paragraph 4, and the eleventh preambular paragraph; article 9, paragraphs 1 and 5; article 11; and article 22, paragraph 1.

Pakistan remains committed to the elimination of the evil of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. We are determined to put the sinister threat of terrorism to an end. In view of these considerations, we have decided to join the consensus on this Convention subject to the above reservations.

We would also like to comment on draft resolution II, "Measures to eliminate international terrorism". We note that this year's draft resolution on measures to eliminate international terrorism this year includes a reference to all relevant resolutions of the General Assembly on terrorism. This represents only a reluctant acknowledgment of the mandate given by the Assembly in resolutions 40/61 and 46/51. Those resolutions emphasized the need for the progressive elimination of the causes underlying terrorism.

We will continue to work with the Legal Committee to expand the scope of its work on measures to eliminate international terrorism so as to include in its deliberations all aspects of terrorism that were addressed in resolutions 40/61 and 46/51.

Ms. Flores Liera (Mexico)

As a demonstration of its firm support for the struggle against international terrorism, my delegation will join the consensus in adopting draft resolution I contained in document A/52/653, by which the Assembly would adopt a new International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. We are convinced that the effectiveness of our work to combat this scourge calls for joint, consensus decisions by the community of nations.

The negotiation of the Convention that we will shortly be adopting was particularly complex and called for great willingness to compromise on the part of all the delegations participating in the work. Like any text adopted under such circumstances, it contains elements that will need to be looked at domestically.

Given the magnitude of the phenomenon of terrorism, we would have preferred the instrument to be broader in scope and of more general application. At the same time, we feel it would have been desirable for the content of certain of its provisions to be more precise.

With respect to article 11, Mexico understands the expressions "an offence connected with a political offence" and "an offence inspired by political motives" to refer to the same idea: a political offence in the strict sense, as specifically defined by different national legal codes.

Finally, with respect to article 19, my delegation wishes to reiterate that only those activities of armed forces that are governed by other rules of international law are beyond the scope of this Convention.

Mr. Obeid (Syria)

We joined the consensus in the Sixth Committee on draft resolutions A/C.6/52/L.13 and A/C.6/52/L.24, as contained in document A/52/653, and will not oppose the consensus in plenary. However, we should like to explain our position and our understanding of these draft resolutions, as well as our reason for joining the consensus.

My delegation joined the consensus on the draft resolution entitled "Measures to eliminate international terrorism" because we wish to continue helping in the search for practical measures to combat international terrorism, which we condemn in all its forms and manifestations, because we believe in the need to defeat this phenomenon. However, we have always stressed the need for a clear definition of international terrorism that is generally agreed.

As to this definition, we emphasize our belief in the need for a clear distinction between terrorism, which we condemn, and the struggle of peoples under foreign occupation to realize their legitimate right to resist it and to liberate their territories, in accordance with the Charter and relevant resolutions of the United Nations and with international law. We believe that resistance is legitimate, not terroristic. The equation of terrorism with legitimate resistance to occupation is a misinformation of international public opinion and contravenes international conventions and laws.

On this basis, we consider the opposition to the inclusion in the draft resolution of a clear distinction between the terrorism that we condemn and the legitimate right to resistance, as well as of a reference to General Assembly resolution 46/51, whose importance we emphasize, to represent a rejection of international cooperation in the combat against terrorism on a sound basis. It also represents a manifest desire to impose an erroneous concept and to falsely exploit ambiguity against countries accused of terrorism without proof or evidence. These countries have the right to resist and to a legitimate defence of their interests. Occupation and the exercise of all forms of foreign and arbitrary domination of occupied peoples are manifestations of state terrorism that we must endeavour to eradicate. Our first duty is to safeguard and guarantee the fundamental rights of individuals in accordance with international norms and the United Nations Charter.

The Syrian Arab Republic has suffered greatly from terrorism. We are convinced that it should be strenuously combated within the framework of international cooperation aimed at eradicating and preventing it in all its manifestations on land, in the air or by sea. We therefore joined the consensus in the Sixth Committee and will join it here in plenary. We reiterate that our country is party to the most important treaties to combat this dangerous phenomenon and is ready to cooperate further and engage in further action in that regard.

My delegation also insisted on including a reference to resolution 46/51 because of its importance in emphasizing the legitimate right to resist occupation and to distinguish it from terrorism. The clear reference in the draft resolution to the Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations reiterates the importance of the right of all peoples to self-determination, bearing in mind the special situation of peoples under occupation and other forms of foreign domination and the recognition of the right of peoples to take any legitimate measure, in keeping with the United Nations Charter, to realize their inalienable right to self-determination. My delegation also welcomes the inclusion in the draft resolution of paragraph 4, which calls upon all States, with the aim of enhancing the efficient implementation of relevant legal instruments, to avoid the dissemination of inaccurate or unverified information related to terrorism.

As for the draft convention annexed to draft resolution I in document A/52/653, my delegation also joined the consensus in the Sixth Committee in favour of the draft resolution and will join the consensus in plenary on the following bases:

First, Syria condemns and fights against all forms and methods of terrorism. However, we distinguish clearly between terrorism, an offence severely punishable by national law, and legitimate resistance to foreign occupation. Here, we would refer once again to the fact that Syria has joined most of the international conventions on these offences.

Secondly, in my delegation's opinion, not enough time was allowed to undertake extensive research on the content of the draft resolution. The hurried and selective approach to proposals made by delegations, as well as the neglect of and lack of time to study others, led to lacunae in the text of the draft resolution and a failure to make it more balanced and clear. We are now faced with a convention that deals with the most serious of crimes and offences -- terrorism -- without defining it or attempting to eradicate the doubts arising from the ambiguity of the term, which is being used for the first time in the title of an international convention. The lack of a definition of terrorism in such a convention is astonishing and frustrating, because it runs counter to the usual United Nations working methods and to the basic principles for drafting the most important elements of international conventions.

We are also astonished because the draft resolution makes no reference to important consensus resolutions of the General Assembly on the issue of terrorism, in particular resolution 46/51. The delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic is determined to maintain the Sixth Committee's method of work by consensus and its decision-making mechanism. Because of our keen interest in developing new legal methods of combating terrorism, which we condemn in all its forms and manifestations, we have limited ourselves to making the observations that we have just presented.

We would have preferred the convention to include a clear distinction between the crime of terrorism and the legitimate right of peoples to resist occupation by any method they deem to be in keeping with international legitimacy, especially the United Nations Charter and international humanitarian law, and with the clear distinction between terrorism as a crime and legitimate resistance. We reemphasize the great importance of the eleventh preambular paragraph of the draft resolution, because it links the activities of military forces to international law. The exception of certain actions from application of the Convention does not mean that we condone illegitimate acts, legitimizing them or stopping their prosecution under other laws.

The following phrase should have been inserted in article 19, paragraph 2:

"legitimate actions which are taken according to the Charter of the United Nations and international law."

This addition would make the text clearer and more transparent, especially because we have not included a definition of "official duties" and because there is no mention of the norms applicable to them. This represents a very serious shortcoming in the drafting of the Convention, especially because that ambiguity and confusion may result in military forces undertaking terrorist acts as part of their official duties to which the Convention does not apply. However, this Convention has been drafted in order to combat terrorism by individuals and not to give legitimacy to the actions of military forces.

These are some of my delegation's observations. However, we are keen to reach consensus because of our deep desire to combat terrorism. We hope that concerted efforts will be made and that better methods will be introduced into our future work so that all points of views and proposals by delegations will be taken into account equally and without double standards or selectivity in their treatment.

The Acting President

I would like to remind speakers that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes.

Mr. Suheimat (Jordan)

I would like to make a few remarks on the draft resolution entitled "International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings", which is contained in document A/52/653 and is being considered under agenda item 152.

Jordan reiterates its condemnation of international terrorist acts in all their forms, condemns the perpetrators of all such acts and calls for the heaviest punishments for them. We would like to pay tribute here to the United Nations for its role in the adoption of international decisions and declarations aimed at eliminating international terrorism.

We have followed with keen interest the work of the Ad Hoc Committee established by General Assembly resolution 51/210 and the Working Group of the Sixth Committee on a draft International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. We welcome that Convention and are prepared to commit ourselves to its rules and provisions.

However, we would like to place on record our reservations with regard to article 19, paragraph 2, which contains an exception for acts and other activities committed by military forces with regard to armed conflicts, and activity undertaken by the military forces of a State in the performance of their duties because those acts are governed by other rules of international law. We do not believe that those acts should be exempted from the application of the rules of this Convention.

Mr. Gao Feng (China)

China has always had a clear-cut and consistent position on the question of the suppression of international terrorism: we are against international terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. We are also against using terrorism as a means of achieving political aims. We oppose acts of any State or organization to organize or encourage international terrorism.

We have not only acceded to most of the international conventions relating to the suppression of international terrorism, but have also participated actively in the work of the Ad Hoc Committee and the Working Group to negotiate the draft International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. Although many delegations made enormous efforts, the Working Group, meeting from 22 September to 3 October, failed to reach a consensus on all the articles of this Convention, and some important questions remained unresolved.

My delegation has always advocated resolving these outstanding questions through consultations and discussions. Regrettably, when the draft was presented for consideration in the Sixth Committee there had been no full consultations among countries regarding some controversial articles. There has therefore been no reasonable solution. On the contrary, the Convention was adopted in the Committee in disregard of the differing opinions of some countries. Some of the provisions and articles contained in the Convention have thus not been accepted by all countries.

In view of this, my delegation cannot take part in the decision on draft resolution I, contained in paragraph 18 of document A/52/653.

The Acting President

The Assembly will now take a decision on the two draft resolutions recommended by the Sixth Committee in paragraph 18 of its report contained in document A/52/653.

We turn first to draft resolution I, entitled "International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings", which the Sixth Committee adopted without a vote.

May I consider that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The Acting President

The Sixth Committee adopted draft resolution II, entitled "Measures to eliminate international terrorism", without a vote.

May I consider that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The Acting President

I shall now call on those delegations wishing to make statements in explanation of position.

Mr. Karev (Russia)

The Russian delegation welcomes the adoption of the Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and views it as an important contribution to the expansion of the international legal basis for combating international terrorism. However, we do have some specific concerns about what has been enshrined in the Convention, namely with respect to the possibility of denying in certain conditions the extradition and legal assistance given with regard to crimes which fall under the Convention.

In this connection, we would like to inform the General Assembly of our position of principle on this question, which consists in the following. The Russian Federation believes that the provisions of article 12 should apply in such a way as to ensure definitive responsibility for the crime committed which falls under the Convention without prejudice to the effectiveness of international cooperation on the questions of extradition and legal assistance. This also applies to paragraph 5 of article 9, which deals with bringing other extradition treaties and arrangements between States parties in line with the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.

Ms. Baykal (Turkey)

Turkey welcomes the adoption by the General Assembly without a vote of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. The Convention has significant importance since it is the first global legal document to recognize terrorist bombings as crimes. While welcoming the adoption of the Convention by the General Assembly, we would like to express our position for the record regarding certain articles of the Convention.

The scope of the Convention is determined by its article 2. It is a very positive development that the article recognizes an act committed with the intent to destroy property as a crime. On the other hand, it is a serious shortcoming of the article that it does not recognize that an act committed for the sole purpose of provoking a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons as a crime. It is well known that most terrorist crimes are committed with the sole intention of provoking terror.

The Convention adopted a few minutes ago is an extradition Convention. My delegation has, from the beginning of the deliberations on the Convention, worked to strengthen the extradition provisions to guarantee that individuals who commit crimes in the scope of the Convention do not do so with impunity, as sometimes happens. The current text of articles 9 and 12 should not be interpreted in such a way that these offenders are neither tried nor persecuted. Furthermore, we believe that mutual legal assistance and extradition are two different concepts and that the conditions for rejecting a request for extradition should not be valid for mutual legal assistance.

Article 19 of the Convention clearly establishes that the Convention does not govern the activities undertaken by the military forces of a State. Furthermore, we believe that the first part of the sentence, which states that

"The activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, which are governed by the law, are not governed by this Convention" [A/52/653, p. 16],

should not be interpreted as giving a different legal status to the armed forces and groups other than the armed forces of a State, as currently understood and applied in international law.

Mr. Hamdan (Lebanon)

My delegation would like to state its position on the draft resolution contained in document A/52/653, entitled "International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings". We wholeheartedly share in the general appreciation for the historic event that is the adoption of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. My delegation, so as to enable international initiatives to be successful and in a spirit of solidarity with the international community in its efforts to suppress terrorist bombings, did not oppose the adoption without a vote of this draft resolution. We strongly reiterate our condemnation of all terrorist attacks that involve organized acts of violence using explosive devices and other acts directed against civilians.

However, we wish to reaffirm certain basic principles governing Lebanon's position as well as our interpretation of the provisions of the Convention.

First, in the combat against terrorism, international efforts should not lead to partiality or injustice vis-à-vis any party. Secondly, these efforts must be accompanied by similar ones aimed at understanding the root causes of terrorism and its development, as this is necessary to contain, reduce and ultimately to do away with terrorism. We regret that the Convention does not include a definition of terrorist bombings and that so far we have no international definition of the concept of terrorism in general.

Thirdly, we would point out that the reference made in the preamble to the Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations and to the resolutions adopted previously by the General Assembly, in particular resolution 49/60, which refers back to resolution 46/51, as well as the reference in article 19, that is, the importance of distinguishing between the provisions of that Convention and the provisions of international humanitarian law and of not violating the rights, obligations and responsibilities of States and individuals under international law, in particular the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international humanitarian law.

We interpret this reference as follows: first, this Convention shall not apply to acts of resistance to foreign occupation and therefore does not apply to resistance to the Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory. Lebanon firmly maintains that acts of resistance against the Israeli occupation of these Lebanese territories do not come under the definition of terrorist acts but are legitimate acts of resistance against the aggressor that is occupying its territories -- acts of self-defence in accordance with the principles of international law and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Convention does not legitimize Israeli practices in the Lebanese territories occupied by Israel. Furthermore, the Convention does not in any way justify Israeli practices or the continued Israeli occupation of Lebanon's territories. This occupation remains one of the odious manifestations of State terrorism.

Fourthly, we would stress that article 19, paragraph 2, cannot be interpreted as making lawful certain illegal actions undertaken by the armed forces of any State. All States have always been obliged to see to it that the practices of their institutions, including their armed forces, fall within the legal scope of the Charter of the United Nations and international law. Any rule that goes against these noble principles of international law is necessarily null and void, in keeping with the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Our delegation hopes that no State party will take advantage of the ambiguity of some of the language contained in this paragraph to undertake illegal military actions. No provision of this Convention justifies terrorist acts by any State. This interpretation, to which we attach great importance, is reaffirmed in the eleventh preambular paragraph.

Moreover, we consider that the phrase "inasmuch as they are governed by other rules of international law" that appears in paragraph 2 of article 19 means that the activities undertaken by military forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties are governed by rules of international law.

Fifthly, Lebanon reaffirms its intention to respond favourably to any request for cooperation made by any State party in the framework of existing international or national law. Here we hope that other States parties will give most serious consideration to requests for extradition as mentioned in article 12, and that they will not have recourse to the exceptions mentioned in that article except in exceptional circumstances. It is necessary also to ensure the implementation of paragraph 4 of article 6, paragraph 1 of article 7 and paragraph 1 of article 10.

Paragraph 3 of article 6 refers to notifying the Secretary-General of the jurisdiction a State has established in accordance with paragraph 2 of the same article; in our view, this means that the Secretary-General should make such information public without delay.

Mr. Wenaweser (Liechtenstein)

In explaining our position on the resolution entitled "International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings", which has just been adopted without a vote, I would like to state first and foremost that Liechtenstein condemns terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomsoever committed, and whatever reasons may be invoked to justify such acts. We would also like to take this opportunity to express our sympathy with the victims of terrorist acts world wide. At the same time, we reiterate our view that measures to combat terrorism have to be in full accordance with international human rights standards.

Liechtenstein welcomed the adoption of resolution 51/210, which, inter alia, established an Ad Hoc Committee, the mandate of which included the elaboration of a convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings. We are gratified to note that it has been possible to adopt such a convention, which, we hope, will make a major contribution to enhancing international cooperation to combat terrorism.

We wish to state for the record our understanding of paragraph 2 of article 19, which was the subject of lengthy and indeed very difficult negotiations. The outcome of those complex discussions is acceptable to us because paragraph 2 of article 19 states that the activities undertaken by military forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties do not fall within the purview of the Convention to the extent that they are the subject of other rules of international law. The Convention, thus, does not grant an overall exception to activities by military forces from the scope of application of the Convention. In our view, this ensures an application of this provision that is consistent with existing international law.

It was with that understanding that we joined in the consensus in adopting the Convention, and is with that understanding that we will submit the Convention to our national authorities for consideration.

Ms. Wong (New Zealand)

New Zealand joined consensus on the adoption of the resolution opening the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings for signature, and wishes to make the following comment. During the course of our negotiations, much consideration was given to the relationship between this new Convention, establishing a global "prosecute-or-extradite" regime for those who conduct terrorist bombings, and the activities of military forces of a State.

The partial exclusion in article 19 of certain actions of military forces from the scope of the Convention in no way affects an important general principle. That principle is that members of military forces of a State may be held individually criminally responsible whether or not the State of which they are nationals is also responsible for their actions. The applicability of that principle is made very clear first in the preamble and secondly in the operative provisions.

Article 19 of the Convention was carefully drafted, and reflects the view held by New Zealand and others that the exclusion of certain actions of military forces of a State from the Convention's ambit does not preclude members of the military forces of a State from legal jurisdiction and prosecution where their conduct has been unlawful. To the extent that those activities are governed by other law, that other law may apply. To the extent that they may not be governed by other law, this Convention may be applied.

Since Article 19 does not propose to limit obligations under other law, extradition treaties, like other law, are not reduced in effect. Paragraph 5 of article 9 is consistent with this understanding.

Mr. Sergiwa (Libya)

We joined in the consensus on draft resolution I in document A/52/653, entitled "International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings", because of our firm position condemning international terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. We believe that the adoption of this resolution will prove to be an important step towards fostering international cooperation in the suppression of terrorist bombings and in prosecuting their perpetrators, especially because my country has been and continues to be a victim of terrorist practices by certain major States.

Permit me to clarify our position on this resolution. First, our interpretation of the reference in the third preambular paragraph to the Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations is that the present Convention has no provisions that could in any way affect the right of peoples under foreign colonialism, domination or occupation to take the legitimate steps necessary for them to exercise their inalienable rights of self-determination, freedom and independence in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Charter and the rules of international law.

Secondly, the exception in paragraph 2 of article 19 of the Convention regarding activities of armed forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties should apply only to legitimate acts carried out by States within the framework of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. We state our reservations with respect to exempting from the applicability of the Convention any illegal act by States, such as occupation, aggression, interference in the internal affairs of other States, and any other act proscribed by international law.

This is in order not to bestow legitimacy on State terrorism, since this is the most horrible form of terrorism.

Thirdly, my delegation considers that the text of the Convention still suffers from many shortcomings, which if given enough time in meetings would have been rectified. As examples, we cite the lack of a definition of "terrorist bombings", and the reference to the "armed forces" in paragraph 4 of article 1, which is considered beyond the scope of the Convention, and the clear contradiction between article 11, which provides for mutual legal assistance among States, regardless of the political motives for a crime, and article 12, which excludes mutual legal assistance if the State requested to extradite has reasons to refuse such extradition.

We have joined the consensus on draft resolution II as well, entitled "Measures to eliminate international terrorism". Our interpretation of this draft resolution is that it should not affect the rights of people living under foreign domination or occupation in their legitimate struggle to put an end to that foreign occupation or domination, as has been reiterated in many General Assembly resolutions, in particular resolution 46/51, which was adopted by consensus.

Mr. Rosenstock (United States)

Since my delegation did not explain its vote in the Committee, even though there is no change in circumstance, we feel completely uninhibited in explaining our vote at this stage of the consideration.

Some of the comments that have been made this afternoon are noteworthy. We, for example, agree 100 per cent with the representative of Pakistan and others who have pointed out that nothing in the instruments we have adopted today justifies terrorism by reference to its causes. That is completely consistent with the Declaration on terrorism adopted at the forth-ninth session of the General Assembly.

We regret only that there was not a more careful reading of article 19, paragraph 1.

The United States is pleased at the consensus adoption of the draft United Nations International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings both in the Sixth Committee and in the plenary. This represents a major achievement of the fifty-second session of the General Assembly. The United States delegation wishes particularly to note the outstanding leadership and guidance of Ambassador Philippe Kirsch, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee established to elaborate the Convention, as well as the members of the Bureau, who worked hard to conclude this instrument successfully. We are also grateful for the excellent support provided by the Secretariat this past year to the Working Group in the Sixth Committee.

Finally, we applaud the hard work, innovation and deep commitment of all those who participated in the drafting of this instrument. Together we have reached common ground in order to advance our common goal of combating international terrorism.

This new legal instrument will be an extremely important addition to the international legal framework addressing terrorism. The Convention is well drafted; its provisions on offences and bases for jurisdiction can readily be implemented in domestic criminal law. The Convention advances extradition law by addressing the issue of the transfer of persons for trial, an innovation in this type of legal instrument. Significantly, the Convention disallows the political-offence exception in extraditions for the defined offences, while preserving the right to deny assistance on the basis of improper motivation by the requesting State.

The Convention creates a legal basis for international mutual legal assistance for investigations or criminal or extradition proceedings brought in respect of offences therein. And the Convention is clear in article 19, paragraph 2, as to the areas to which it does not apply -- that is, to the activities of armed forces in the course of an armed conflict and the activities of military forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties.

It does not say, as one delegation suggested, "to the extent"; it says something else entirely. There seems to be substantial and insufficiently noted confusion between article 19, paragraph 1, on the one hand, and article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter, which speaks to the legality or illegality of the use of force.

The Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings represents a major step forward in the joint effort of the international community to eliminate international terrorism. The United States looks forward to the entry into force of this Convention in the very near future.

The Acting President

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 152?