Security Council meeting 5052-Resu.1

The President

In accordance with the understanding reached in the Council's prior consultations, I shall take it that the Security Council agrees to extend an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure to Mr. Mark Malloch Brown, Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme.

It is so decided.

I invite Mr. Malloch Brown to take a seat at the Council table.

The Council will now hear a briefing by Mr. Malloch Brown, to whom I give the floor.

Mr. Malloch Brown

For the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the rule of law has moved centre stage, particularly, of course, for the countries that we are discussing today -- those in crisis and in post-conflict situations. The rule of law is, after all, the indispensable platform for development. People and economies need rules if the sustained interactions that build societies are to take place.

But, if I may say so, the rule of law is too important to be left to lawyers. The rule of law must be rooted in the social and political context of a nation. It is an expression of the fundamental social contract arrived at when peace replaces war and people find the terms on which they can live together: minorities with majorities; losers with winners; women with men. Legitimacy, availability and accessibility govern the success of new laws in a post-conflict society. Do the laws meet the test of being adequately home-grown, or has somebody else's legal system been imported wholesale? Is there a court system able to restrain over-zealous police and military? Is there one that offers affordable, rapid redress to the emerging new small businessmen and women to encourage them to enter the formal economy by protecting their property rights, and indeed, giving them the very right to do honest business when warlords, crime and corruption are still rampant?

UNDP has been working on these issues throughout the world. Drawing on a very thorough recent review of our work in post-conflict and transitional countries -- the conclusions of which have helped to form and shape the collective thinking of the United Nations as outlined in the Secretary-General's report -- I would like to reiterate some of the key distilled lessons from our perspective.

Our starting point, as the Secretary-General made clear this morning, is that too often international assistance on the rule of law has ignored the link between the rule of law and politics. Assistance is often technocratic and apolitical in nature, focusing on the transfer of technical know-how to State institutions and on the technical modernization of institutions such as the courts and the police. In the first post-conflict stages, a policeman or policewoman in a neighbourhood often matters much more than a computer at the police station, but given violence and training issues, the first -- the bobby on the beat -- may be much harder to pull off.

Too often, rule-of-law assistance neglects the need to build consensus among national stakeholders on the type of reform needed. As a result, rule-of-law reforms, which we -- I think, like everybody else here -- consider to include the police and prison systems, can lack the necessary legitimacy to be truly effective in providing the platform for sustainable peace and development. Events in Haiti are one example of this. There, the failure was larger than a failure of laws, but the lack of local legitimacy in the new rule-of-law system, particularly with regard to the police, was one element in a broader crisis of institutions.

For that reason, we have found that international assistance needs to aim at building indigenous support for reform. Reform efforts rarely incorporate public participation in the design and implementation of projects. Crucially, most projects are implemented in consultation only with Governments, to the exclusion of civil society. Experience demonstrates that future United Nations assistance needs a component for public debate and must rely more on project proposals by local actors. The United Nations has an important role to play in facilitating negotiations among national stakeholders in order to build that political will for rule-of-law reform. The emphasis that the Secretary-General put on this point is very welcome.

All this work needs to take place in the context of a comprehensive approach. The rule of law is a system of interrelated institutions which cannot be considered separately: actions in any one impact on them all. However, we have found that rule-of-law assistance is often piecemeal and does not acknowledge these linkages. For example, assistance to El Salvador, Guatemala and Haiti in many ways viewed the public security sector separately from the judicial and correctional sectors. It is the failure to develop complementary reforms across sectors and institutions that has often resulted in conflict and lack of clarity on the roles of different institutions.

Despite that, however, cooperation among donors is too often the exception rather than the rule, resulting in a failure to accumulate information and lessons learned. For example, in Guatemala, a country of 10 million people and 419 judges, by 1996 there had already been more than 50 reports on various aspects of its judicial system, financed by 22 donors. In addition, donors have often engaged in overlapping or contradictory projects. In Nicaragua, more than 11 donors are involved in rule-of-law reform, often in overlapping projects. Given this predicament, it is vital that donors coordinate and accept direction from the recipient country when they evaluate a country's needs, develop a framework of assistance and implement the projects.

Less elevated, but at least as important practically, is the need for early, transparent commercial laws to be put in place. That brings business out of the informal sector and, by protecting property rights and transactions, allows a market economy to take shape and provides business owners with an environment in which they can develop and provide the growth, jobs and prosperity that are a vital emollient for the scars of conflict.

Clearly, throughout such efforts -- again as the Secretary-General said this morning -- issues of truth and reconciliation often risk overshadowing early justice development. But we do need to be cautious. There is a time and place for the matter of truth and reconciliation: too early retributive justice can undermine a fragile peace and the even more fragile trust between the former enemies on which it rests. Yet truth and justice postponed means hidden graves deep in the minds of men and women -- at least for the families of victims. And that can prevent a society from turning the page to a new era of peace.

More broadly, I would just like to add that we are working with the Secretariat to support electoral processes. I recognize that that is on the edge of the rule of law, but it is critically linked. This year alone, UNDP will have supported elections in 19 countries, including two weeks ago in Indonesia and this week in Afghanistan. Elections matter. They are the road from post-conflict to longer-term legitimacy and social consensus. Yet we have learned that if elections are premature and not placed within the process of building the rule of law, the electoral process is undermined. Then, rather than aiding the reconstruction and recovery process, weak State institutions can radicalize political discourse and exacerbate the difficult task of reaching agreements, building coalitions among national stakeholders and protecting minority rights.

Finally, I hope that within the United Nations system we are making good progress in pooling our expertise and resources to support the various rule-of-law aspects of peace operations. In Afghanistan, Iraq and Haiti, UNDP made available some of its own expert staff to advise the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on such rule-of-law issues. That has led to joint assessments, joint programming and joint resource mobilization, culminating in enhanced cooperation in the United Nations system to support national capacity-building for the rule of law.

Critical to the work and continued relevance of the United Nations in this area are the working partnerships between the Department of Political Affairs, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, the Office of Legal Affairs, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, UNDP and others.

Recognizing the interdependence between the rule of law and development, and the social, political and economic context within which the rule of law must be rooted, it is clear that we owe it to the countries where we work and to ourselves to deliver the holistic approach to the rule of law that we preach to them.

The President

I thank Mr. Malloch Brown for his statement.

Moving forward, in order to optimize our time, I will not individually invite speakers to take seats at the Council table and then to resume their seats at the side of the Council Chamber. When a speaker is taking the floor, the Conference Officer will seat the next speaker on the list at the table.

I now give the floor to the representative of the Netherlands.

Mr. van den Berg (Netherlands)

Mr. President, I would like to thank you for joining us here in New York and for presiding over this important thematic debate in the Security Council.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union. The candidate countries Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and Croatia, the countries of the Stabilization and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia and Montenegro, and the European Free Trade Association countries Iceland and Norway, members of the European Economic Area, align themselves with this declaration.

There is no peace without justice, and there is no justice without the rule of law. As the Secretary-General himself put it before the General Assembly in his speech on 21 September, the rule of law is indeed at risk. The fundamental principles of the rule of law are flouted not only by individuals, armed groups and terrorists, but also by Member States themselves. The European Union thanks the Secretary-General for his excellent and timely report (S/2004/616) and welcomes the vital importance that the Council attaches to work on justice and the rule of law.

The European Union is committed to an international order based on the rule of law, with the United Nations at its core. At the international level, all countries need a framework of fair rules and the confidence that others will obey them. The maintenance and promotion of the rule of law is an ever-present imperative.

In conflict and post-conflict societies, there are additional challenges to the rule of law: at the very moment when the need for justice is greatest, the legal structures necessary to deliver such justice may well be absent, sometimes due to the conflict, at other times when existing structures may have lost much of their credibility.

The European Union welcomes the conclusions and recommendations set out in the report of the Secretary-General and expresses its support for the inclusion of justice and rule of law elements in resolutions and mandates. We urge all States to endorse the entire set of recommendations set out in the report. We also strongly urge the United Nations Secretariat to take forward the recommendations in the report. The European Union would also welcome expert meetings on specific parts of the report in order to specify the necessary actions in concrete situations and any initiatives of Member States in this regard. Some, such as Finland, Germany and Jordan, have put forward thoughts on the organizational consequences for the Secretariat. These are also worth studying.

The European Union would like to point to the measures set out in paragraph 65 of the report, which include strengthening the capacity of the Secretariat. Adequate resources need to be secured for relevant departments, in particular the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, so as to respond to the increased United Nations involvement in this area. The European Union urges other Member States and international organizations to contribute national expertise and materials. The rule of law has been identified as one of four main priority fields within civilian aspects of the common European Union Security and Defence Policy.

In line with the report of the Secretary-General, the European Union recognizes the need to incorporate gender justice and gender sensitivity in all efforts and activities related to justice and the rule of law, as well as the need to ensure full participation of women.

The European Union welcomes the fact that the Secretary-General has listed some norms and standards for international assistance. Peace agreements endorsed by the United Nations, and Security Council resolutions and mandates, should never promise amnesties for genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity. Also, the United Nations should never establish or directly participate in a tribunal that can impose capital punishment.

The European Union realizes that when the international community is called to intervene in conflict and post-conflict societies, there is no one-size-fits-all formula. Our strategies should take into account national cultures and traditions, as well as local structures and capabilities. We should work towards "locally owned" sustainable post-conflict structures with well-functioning justice systems, through which future disputes can be peacefully settled.

The European Union emphasizes the important role that criminal justice has to play in a society's efforts to come to terms with past abuses. We also recognize the need to give greater attention to meeting the needs of victims -- providing appropriate reparations for harm suffered. The European Union supports the full range of transitional justice mechanisms, as well as international efforts to end impunity for the most serious international crimes.

The most significant of these efforts is beyond doubt the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is now fully operational. The great advantage of the ICC compared with its predecessors is that it is readily available when the need arises. The European Union strongly believes that the Court will be an effective tool of the international community to buttress the rule of law and combat impunity. As the Secretary-General pointed out in his report, the Security Council has a particular role to play in this regard, as it is empowered to refer situations to the Court, even in cases where countries are not States parties to the Statute of the Court. The European Union shares the conviction of the Secretary-General that all States Members of the United Nations that have not yet done so should ratify the Rome Statute at the earliest possible opportunity.

The European Union notes the report's balanced appraisal of the lessons to be learned from the experience of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals. All these lessons have convinced the European Union even more of the importance of the establishment of the permanent International Criminal Court.

The assessment of contributions to both ad hoc Tribunals are determined by all and are to be paid by all in full and on time. We have learned that some are in considerable arrears, up to tens of millions of dollars, thus stifling the ongoing work at the Tribunals. Also, the European Union would like to draw attention to the Special Court for Sierra Leone, as well as to the future establishment of the so-called Khmer Rouge tribunals. We support the idea of financing partially those United Nations-sponsored efforts to assess contributions to the extent possible.

The European Union would support a request by the Security Council to the Secretary-General to keep the Council informed on progress in taking forward the recommendations set out in the report, and supports the Council's intention to consider this matter again within six months.

The President

I now give the floor to the representative of Australia.

Mr. Dauth (Australia)

Thank you, Mr. President, and welcome to New York. We want to thank the United Kingdom for convening this second open debate on justice and the rule of law, and we very much welcome the report of Secretary-General (S/2004/616), which will be a valuable tool in our collective efforts to achieve transitional justice and entrench the rule of law in States which have been torn apart by conflict.

As others have remarked, the report identifies valuable lessons learned, and articulates important recommendations for United Nations approaches to transitional justice and rule of law issues, which, as Mark Malloch Brown so wisely said, are too important to be left to lawyers. These issues include the need to assess existing capacity in a State emerging from conflict, the importance of developing comprehensive long-term approaches, the need to ensure that responses are tailored to the specific political, cultural and social characteristics of the State concerned, the importance of involving all domestic constituencies throughout the process, and the need to build national capacity.

Australia's long history of involvement in peacekeeping operations and other assistance missions confirms these lessons. Let me talk about some specific lessons learned by Australia in recent experience. These flesh out the sorts of general points which I thought Mark was making so eloquently in his helpful remarks.

The experience of the Australian-led Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands is particularly relevant for us and, I think, more generally. The reason for the request by the Government of the Solomon Islands for assistance was a fundamental breakdown in law and order in the very institutions of the State. It was only through restoring the rule of law that a durable peace could be achieved. In devising and implementing a regional response, Australia and Pacific Islands Forum partners worked closely with the people of the Solomon Islands to develop a comprehensive rule of law strategy. This included assessing the state of the Solomon Islands' justice system, providing assistance for the judiciary and to strengthen correctional services, and the deployment of 300 police from the region, who were authorized to use executive powers within the Solomon Islands to support the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force. The police were supported by a deployment of defence force personnel who assisted the deployment and provided additional support for police personnel. This strategy has now paid rich dividends with the arrest of a large number of alleged criminals and, importantly, the removal and destruction of small arms. Law and order have now been re-established, and peace and security restored in the Solomon Islands.

The experience of Timor-Leste also indicates the importance of long-term strategies to develop the rule of law. Successive United Nations missions have played an important role in the establishment of the rule of law in Timor-Leste, of course. As the Secretary-General's report notes, activities at the community level to achieve transitional justice and reconciliation -- including the work of the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation -- hold important lessons for the United Nations in devising, implementing and supporting rule of law strategies in the future.

The Secretary-General's report notes that a major obstacle to effectively addressing rule of law issues from the outset of a peace operation has been the fact that police are often too slowly deployed; frequently have insufficient mandates or skills; or, indeed, are in too short a supply, I think we need to note. To address that critical gap, Australia has created the International Deployment Group, a body consisting of 500 police available to participate in peace, capacity-building and stability missions. These police will be drawn from Australian police services and will have specialized training to equip them for such missions. Many of them will have previous experience in peace operations -- in the Solomon Islands and East Timor, for example. We urge other States to consider developing such mechanisms to ensure that trained civilian police are available to participate in peace operations.

The report also notes the importance of international institutions in supporting domestic efforts to deliver justice and entrench the rule of law. In that context, the establishment of the International Criminal Court was a highly significant development. The Court has an essential role to play in facilitating justice and accountability, particularly through the complementarity principle, which is a central feature, of course, of the Court's Statute.

As the Secretary-General's report notes, another recent approach to achieving transitional justice is the provision of international support for mixed institutions, such as in the case of Cambodia. Australia welcomes Cambodia's signature on 4 October of the agreement between Cambodia and the United Nations to establish an Extraordinary Chambers in Cambodia to try senior Khmer Rouge leaders. We remain committed to assisting this process and call on Cambodia and other States to join Australia in providing funding for the trials. That will enable justice to be done -- justice for which the people of Cambodia have been waiting for far too long.

Let me, in closing, note the forthcoming review by the Executive Committee on Peace and Security on matching resources with peacekeeping operations to facilitate the establishment of the rule of law and transitional justice. Australia will continue to follow that process closely.

The President

I now give the floor to the representative of Jordan.

Mr. Al-Hussein (Jordan)

We are grateful to you, Sir, for your spirited and able leadership on this vital issue, and we thank you most sincerely for having organized today's discussion, which affords us an opportunity to comment on the Secretary-General's report on the rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies.

It is, from every angle, a very fine report -- one that we welcome most warmly. It is thoughtful throughout and very well written. In particular, my delegation appreciates the repeated references the report makes to the pivotal importance of common sense -- that those who plan for rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies must be guided by those simple tenets of the obvious: listen to the local actors; know what is unique from what is not and therefore -- drawing from our shared historical experiences -- what is relevant to the circumstances in question from what is not; appreciate the broader picture when seizing on the details; and do all this before sequencing an approach, maintaining, always, a policy that is nimble and alive to changing conditions. We applaud that way of thinking and congratulate the Secretary-General on a very well produced, analytical report.

My delegation would very much like to offer three observations on the detail itself. The first relates to the refrain, found particularly in paragraphs 41 and 42 of the report, that the two ad hoc Tribunals are and have been expensive propositions -- the insinuation being, perhaps, that they have become too expensive and may not even worth it. Indeed, so often has that assertion of high cost been repeated in this Chamber in the context of the Tribunals that we can safely say it has now become almost a given to many Governments, as well as to the United Nations itself. But why?

In all honesty, my delegation is at a loss to know where this thinking comes from, and we believe that it needs to be thought through further. For a start, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) costs the United Nations membership, per year, close to $175 million, which, to my delegation's way of thinking, is a very reasonable amount. For $175 million is less than one twentieth of what the United Nations paid annually, during the war, to maintain its peacekeeping operation in the former Yugoslavia -- less than one twentieth. Put another way, the ICTY would have to continue operating until 2014 for its budget over the span of 20 years to measure up to what this Organization spent in one year alone -- 1994 -- on the operations of the United Nations Protection Force. And were it not for the ICTY, we can all be certain that the Dayton Peace Agreement would not have held in the form it has done for the past nine years. And so, if the alternative to justice and accountability is a likely return to a condition of general warfare, with all its familiar consequences, can the amounts already spent on the ICTY be construed as too great?

Much is often made by those who question the cost of the seeming absence of any impact the ongoing work of the ICTY has on the situation on the ground. And yet, we would argue, it is simply not necessary for the peoples of the former Yugoslavia to know what exact cases are now before the Court, who the defendants are, who is litigating or who is judging; or to know the judgements and the sentences; or even to understand the jurisprudence for there to exist a state of continuing peace. What is important is that the majority of people are aware that the Tribunal exists and that it functions properly -- that is, that those accused of bearing the greatest responsibility for the commission of the worst crimes are being prosecuted. And that is sufficient.

With the international community prepared to spend almost $1 trillion a year on weapons -- that historic companion of war -- how can we say that anything we have spent thus far on justice -- the surest companion of peace -- is too expensive? In short, we the international community clamour in an ad hoc manner for instant results when it comes to international criminal justice, and we insist that those results must be quantifiable, when the very systems of justice we seek to create aspire to much more than simply that. We suffer collectively from a very short memory. We tend to be thrifty when it comes to spending on law, and generous when it comes to spending on weapons.

Our second observation concerns the Secretary-General's conclusions and recommendations, which are found at the end of the report and with which we agree almost entirely. We would have liked to see, however, the inclusion, in the last portion of the report, of the Secretary-General's pertinent observations concerning the International Criminal Court and its significance, remarks found earlier in the report. With three more countries having acceded to the Rome Statute in recent days, bringing the total number of States parties to 97, the majority of Member States of the United Nations are now party to the Statute, and all of those were ratifications were concluded in only six years. That is by no means a small accomplishment.

Turning to the second portion of the recommendations, where they relate specifically to the United Nations system, we are pleased to join the delegation of Finland in attaching ourselves to the remarks made earlier by the Permanent Representative of Germany on what possible institutional changes could be considered by the Executive Committee on Peace and Security in the foreseeable future, as proposed in our joint non-paper. My delegation believes earnestly that if we wish ourselves and the United Nations a high measure of success in that area, it will ultimately only be attainable through the establishment of a dedicated rule-of-law department -- a field-oriented legal and judicial service.

Finally, it is important that the Security Council is hosting this second thematic debate on justice and the rule of law and the role of the United Nations, for it not only compliments well the priorities established by the Secretary-General in his speech before the General Assembly two weeks ago but also because it will, we hope, set the tone in the times ahead for the Council's own approach to the rule of law, the recognition of the law's primacy and the law's centrality to the maintenance of international peace and security. In the same vein, my delegation looks forward to the Council's upcoming consideration of the advisory opinion rendered recently by the United Nations highest judicial body, the International Court of Justice, in a matter known to everyone here that is also of substantial importance to my delegation. We hope that, when that time comes, the Council's actions will be consistent with its current reflections.

The President

I now give the floor to the representative of Finland.

Ms. Rasi (Finland)

Finland fully associates itself with the statement made by the Netherlands on behalf of the European Union.

Finland played an active role in the process leading to the publication of the report of the Secretary-General on transitional justice and the rule of law in conflict and post-conflict societies, which is under discussion today. Together with the United Kingdom, other interested delegations and the International Center for Transitional Justice, Finland organized a series of seminars bringing together interested Member States, the Secretariat and civil society, thereby facilitating inclusive discussions on themes central to the report.

Finland views the report of the Secretary-General as an important milestone. It has given the United Nations a chance to consider the lessons learned in this area and, perhaps even more importantly, to reflect upon what should be done in the future. The report recognizes that the Organization has in recent years increased its focus on transitional justice and rule of law issues in its efforts to bring peace and stability to conflict-torn societies. There is an increased demand for United Nations action, which has been responded to, inter alia, by including rule of law and justice components in the recently established United Nations peace operations in Liberia, Côte d'Ivoire and Haiti.

In planning the United Nations response, it is important that the strategy be based on national needs and that local actors are fully engaged in the planning and implementation process. Any strategy should aim to strengthen the capacity of State institutions. After all, there is no long-term stability if national institutions are unable to take over when the international presence ceases. We view the rule of law and respect for human rights as essential to achieving long-term sustainability. Without the rule of law and respect for human rights there is a risk that a State could revert to conflict.

Dealing with atrocities against civilian populations -- and especially against women, children, minorities and refugees -- becomes a core issue in the process of establishing trust in the judicial system in States emerging from conflict. In that connection, Finland wishes to give its full support to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and to ad hoc tribunals. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda have played a significant role in ensuring accountability where national judicial systems have failed to do so. As for deterrence and prevention, the impact of the ICC may well be even more important. The ICC has the great advantage of being available when need arises. That means, among other things, that enhancing respect for the rule of law must not be left to the post-conflict phase, but should be addressed while a conflict is still raging.

At the same time, the ICC is an institution for exceptional situations only. The primary responsibility for bringing offenders of international crimes to justice continues to rest with States. The impact of the ICC will have to be measured also by its indirect effect in encouraging States to incorporate and apply the rules of the Statute in their national jurisdictions. One could speak of the role of the Court in mainstreaming accountability for the most serious crimes and in building local rule of law. That term also emphasizes the role of the ICC in setting standards for national jurisdictions, including a high level of due process rights for defendants.

Finland believes that the increase in the demand for the involvement of the United Nations in rule-of-law and transitional justice-related issues should be met by enhancing the capacity of the Organization. To that end, adequate resources should be created at United Nations Headquarters. We hope to see proposals from the Secretary-General on that matter in the near future. We especially hope to see the capacity of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) enhanced in this area, as we recognize that it is vital that the issues relating to the rule of law are addressed from the beginning of an operation. In DPKO, resources are perhaps most urgently needed in the Criminal Law and Judicial Advisory Unit, the currently two-person Unit responsible for the judicial and corrections components of a growing number of United Nations peace operations, as well as in the Civilian Police Division.

Meeting the growing challenges also requires effective cooperation within the entire United Nations system. Finland therefore strongly believes that rule-of-law and transitional justice issues warrant their own dedicated entity in the United Nations Secretariat. For that purpose, Finland has prepared a non-paper, together with Germany and Jordan, reflecting upon the possibilities for future institutional structures in the United Nations. The non-paper has just been presented to the Council by my German colleague, and it was circulated to all the Permanent Missions prior to this Security Council debate. Our sincere hope is that the ideas presented in the non-paper can provide a starting point for future Executive Committee on Peace and Security deliberations on enhancing arrangements by the United Nations system for supporting the rule of law and transitional justice.

The United Nations should strengthen partnership arrangements with regional organizations, individual Member States and civil society organizations, which often have valuable expertise and resources in this area.

Effective coordination among all those involved in the rule of law and transitional justice projects, including those of UNDP, in conflict areas could ensure complementarity of action and success in delivering positive results. More cooperation is also needed to provide the United Nations with competent staff to deploy to its operations.

Finland hopes the report of the Secretary-General will enable the United Nations to further develop its action in the area of rule of law and transitional justice. To that end, it is crucial that the various recommendations laid out in the report be effectively implemented. We want to emphasize that the report can lead to results only if matched by a commitment on the part of the United Nations and Member States to provide adequate resources and political support. In that respect, we were pleased to hear Secretary-General Kofi Annan affirm in his speech to the General Assembly on 21 September (see A/59/PV.3), and again today, that he would make strengthening the rule of law and transitional justice a priority for the rest of his term of office.

Finland wants to express its commitment to continue working towards strengthening the rule of law and transitional justice and calls on other interested Member States to join in this process.

The President

I now call on the representative of Austria.

Mr. Pfanzelter (Austria)

Austria fully endorses the statement made earlier by Ambassador Dirk Jan van den Berg on behalf of the European Union.

I would like to elaborate very briefly on the following two points. First, in his excellent report (S/2004/616), the Secretary-General stressed that the most significant recent development in the international community's struggle to advance the cause of justice and the rule of law was the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC). In last year's debate, I expressed the confidence that the United Nations and the ICC would cooperate successfully to achieve their common goal of strengthening the rule of law and justice in international relations. We are very pleased to note that just a few days ago the Secretary-General and the President of the International Criminal Court signed the Relationship Agreement between the United Nations and the ICC. This is an important step forward in enhancing the cooperation between the two organizations. My delegation is convinced that close cooperation between the United Nations and the ICC will guarantee success in our common efforts to end impunity and to strengthen the rule of law.

Secondly, my Government warmly welcomes the Secretary-General's pledge to make the strengthening of the rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies a priority for the remainder of his term. In this respect, and in view of the unique role and responsibility of the Security Council, the Austrian Foreign Minister announced the initiation of a discourse on the role and functions of the Security Council in strengthening an international system based on the rule of law. As a first step, Austria will convene a panel, on 4 November, on the question of "The Security Council as world legislator", during this year's International Law Week at the United Nations in New York. The panel, which is being organized in cooperation with New York University, is designed to enhance the dialogue between theory and practice on this important topic. We hope that this initiative will contribute to a stimulating and fruitful discussion.

The President

I offer my apologies; I have to depart. I would like to thank everybody for their cooperation in the handling of today's meeting. I intend to hand over to Sir Emyr Jones Parry, our Permanent Representative.

I now give the floor to the representative of Uganda.

Mr. Butagira (Uganda)

The rule of law should be viewed in the wider context of the economic and social setting. Allow me to congratulate the Secretary-General on his report (S/2004/616), which is excellent, especially on the issue of adequate funding for the reform of the justice system. Uganda fully endorses the recommendations in that report.

The United Nations, over the years, has endeavoured to put in place an institutional architecture to regulate the conduct of States, based on the rule of law, respect for human rights and the promotion of good governance: the prerequisites for conflict prevention. Thus, an array of conventions, such as the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Statute of the International Criminal Court, and so forth, have been elaborated. Through numerous General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, the United Nations is at the centre of the globalized world and has done remarkably well in advancing world order and security, despite a few setbacks. The Charter of the United Nations remains a beacon of hope. All those instruments add up to a code of conduct in conflict and post-conflict situations, especially in dealing with the culture of impunity.

One of the subjects that fascinated me when I was studying law at Harvard Law School, was the subject of exemption clauses in the field of contracts. An array of ingenious devices was devised to circumvent the application of exemption clauses. Thus, exemption clauses were not looked upon favourably. In the field of the application of international law, there should be no exemption clauses. Both the mighty and the weak must be treated equally. In extremely rare cases, national interest may justify a departure from recognized norms, but such departure should be well grounded in law and should be the exception rather than the rule. In this way, the United Nations would gain credibility.

The rule of law should also mean that the United Nations does not stand idly by while some States, either through failed systems -- that is, failed States -- or through an inability to act, are unable to protect their citizens from being butchered or otherwise grossly abused. Indeed, the notion of sovereignty should imply the obligation on the part of the State to protect its citizens. Where this is lacking, the international community should intervene on humanitarian grounds. I, therefore, commend the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty co-chaired by Gareth Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun, which elaborated on this concept. Sovereignty should not be used as a cloak to cover gross human rights abuses by nations.

Attention should now be focused on defining the parameters of that right to intervene on humanitarian grounds so that it is firmly embedded in international law.

The causes of conflict should be addressed, poverty in particular. Justice and the rule of law mean that all nations, big and small, developed and developing, should benefit equally from the benefits of globalization. For developing countries, this implies, for instance, access to international markets for their products, with the elimination of trade barriers. Trade, not loans, should be at the centre of the international development agenda. This does not mean, however, that we should do away with loans. Loans and grants should supplement trade. The developed countries should live up to the promises they made at various international United Nations conferences, such as those set out in the Monterrey Consensus. Lastly, on this issue, debts for developing countries, both multilateral and bilateral, should be entirely written off in order to kick-start meaningful economic development.

Trials by tribunals set up by the United Nations are slow-moving. Not only are they costly: justice delayed is justice denied. The United Nations should delegate some of the cases to be tried by local courts with international observers.

The Charter of the United Nations places primary responsibility for maintaining peace and security on the shoulders of the Security Council. For practical reasons, in some instances that responsibility has been devolved to regional organizations. In that regard, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the nascent Peace and Security Council of the African Union have played an important role in maintaining peace and security on the African continent. However, that devolution should not mean abdication. We see the dangerous trend of a hands-off policy by the Security Council in peacekeeping operations in Africa. That trend should be discouraged. Both the Security Council and regional organizations should work in partnership where appropriate.

Lastly, let me say a word about the right to self-defence, which is enshrined in the Charter. There was a time when this was not an issue, since aggressive attacks would take place on the territory of the State defending itself. The problem arises, however, when a State has to defend itself on the territory of the offending State. Surely a State has a right to nip attacks in the bud and for that purpose carry out a pre-emptive attack. The problem is, where should the line be drawn between acts of aggression and acts aimed at warding off immediate threats of attack? The international community should elaborate on this issue, since it has a direct bearing on conflict resolution.

The President

The next speaker is the representative of Switzerland, to whom I give the floor.

Mr. Maurer (Switzerland)

At the outset, I should like to thank the United Kingdom for having convened this open debate on justice and the rule of law and, in so doing, enabled us to have an exchange of views on a topic that Switzerland deems to be essential and of priority interest.

Switzerland thanks the Secretary-General for his report on the rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies, dated 23 August 2004. The report addresses questions that are key to advancing the process of reflection and the efforts undertaken to allow our Organization to better contribute to the re-establishment of the rule of law and to the administration of an effective, impartial and professional justice in societies in conflict or post-conflict situations. That concept is just as crucial in the process of elaborating sustainable development policies. Let me just say that in both cases, we are speaking of the "rule of law" -- not "rule by law".

The report recalls the crucial importance of respect for the international norms recognized by the Charter of the United Nations as well as in the context of human rights law, humanitarian law, international criminal law and refugee law. No lasting peace is possible without unconditional respect for those norms. Switzerland recalls, in that respect, that, according to article 1 common to the Geneva Conventions, all States have a duty to respect, and to ensure, respect for the fundamental standards of humanitarian law.

In his report, the Secretary-General rightly stresses the need to base efforts to promote justice and the rule of law on processes that take account of local realities, and to support them by making better use of existing competences and capacities in the countries concerned. However, strict respect for the rule of law by United Nations organs and Member States in all their activities and their interactions at the international level remains indispensable if the Organization is to maintain its credibility in the process of the promotion of the rule of law at the level of individual States.

I would like to highlight two particular aspects of the question of the rule of law: international criminal justice and the rule of law as an essential factor in the promotion of peace.

The ad hoc international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda have made a considerable contribution to re-establishing justice and combating impunity in the regions concerned. The tribunals have also played a historical role in the development of international criminal law. It is essential that they receive the means necessary to discharge their mandates, as was eloquently stated earlier by the Permanent Representative of Jordan.

Furthermore, Switzerland agrees with the Secretary-General's assessment that

"the most significant recent development in the international community's long struggle to advance the cause of justice and rule of law was the establishment of the International Criminal Court". (S/2004/616, para. 49)

With the recent accessions to the Rome Statute, more than half the States Members of the United Nations are now States parties to the Statute. The Court embodies the hope for a definitive end to impunity. Nevertheless, as the Secretary-General stated in the course of his address to the General Assembly,

Mr. Maurer (Switzerland)

"the rule of law starts at home" (A/59/PV.3, p. 3).

Mr. Maurer (Switzerland)

That consideration is underlined by the principle of complementarity incorporated into the Rome Statute.

In this context, we would like to call on those States that have not yet done so to ratify the Rome Statute and fully to collaborate with the Court. Switzerland also invites the Security Council to assume its responsibilities and to exercise its particular competence as recognized by the Rome Statute, namely that of bringing before the International Criminal Court situations in countries that are not parties to the Statute.

The Secretary-General's report underlines the importance of the rule of law for the stabilization of post-conflict societies. It is thus necessary to clarify what the rule of law means in terms of concepts, policies and operations. Democratic legislative procedures; equality before the law and fairness in the application of the law; a humane penal system and a police force anchored in civil society -- all these are elements of a transition process which deserve increased support. Furthermore, those elements must be given greater weight in the context of the efforts of the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the General Assembly, the Secretariat, and in particular the United Nations funds and programmes. In that context, we would note that the preliminary recommendations made in the report of the Secretary-General do not go as far as the text itself had led us to hope.

Switzerland calls on the Security Council and all Member States to ensure that adequate means are available to better meet the challenges posed by the promotion of justice and of the rule of law.

Finally, we should not lose sight of the fact that steps to promote the rule of law and transitional justice are less costly, and their results longer-lasting, than the consequences of conflict, insecurity and impunity. Switzerland plans actively to participate in the process of reflection undertaken with regard to these questions.

The President

The next speaker is the representative of South Africa, to whom I give the floor.

Mr. Maqungo (South Africa)

The strengthening of, and adherence to, the rule of law has always been central to ensuring democracy in conflict and post-conflict societies. We are therefore pleased that the Secretary-General has presented a report, entitled "The rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies", that captures the wealth of relevant expertise and experience within the United Nations system. We welcome this report because it provides valuable lessons which the Council can utilize in implementing its resolutions and mandates.

The exercise of the rule of law, especially in conflict and post-conflict societies, is critical in creating conditions for peace and security that allow for development to take hold. Quite often, in conflict and post-conflict areas, especially in Africa, our experience has been that poverty and underdevelopment contribute to non-adherence to the rule of law. Yet it is that same rule of law that, when applied to regulate the conduct of individuals with each other and with the State, creates conditions for sustainable development.

The Secretary-General states that

"Peace and stability can only prevail if the population perceives that politically charged issues, such as ethnic discrimination, unequal distribution of wealth and social services, abuse of power, denial of the right to property or citizenship and territorial disputes between States, can be addressed in a legitimate and fair manner." (S/2004/616, para. 4)

The Secretary-General further states that,

"In formulating recommendations for the Security Council, planning mission mandates and structures, and conceiving assistance programmes, it is imperative that both the Security Council and the United Nations system carefully consider the particular rule of law and justice needs in each host country" (ibid., para. 14).

The Secretary-General also makes the point that, "a piecemeal approach to the rule of law and transitional justice will not bring satisfactory results in a war-torn or atrocity-scarred nation" (ibid., para. 23). Our experience with our own peace process in South Africa led us to the same conclusion: that the rule of law and transitional justice must address the causes of the conflict and the effects the conflict had on the population.

In South Africa, the cause of the conflict was the oppressive policy of apartheid. We adopted a constitution that builds a non-racial society to resolve that cause of that conflict. Following democratic elections in 1994, we put in place, within that constitution, State institutions supporting constitutional democracy, such as a Public Protector, a Human Rights Commission and a Gender Equality Commission. Furthermore, our Government promulgated legislation on affirmative action and passed policies on Black Economic Empowerment to ensure that the problem of unequal distribution of wealth was addressed.

We also had established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as a process to promote national unity and reconciliation to heal the wounds inflicted by the oppressive apartheid policy on our society. That process offered an opportunity for victims to face their perpetrators and find closure and for the perpetrators to seek the forgiveness of their victims. The meetings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission were held in public and broadcast on television so that the whole country could be part of the healing process. Only those who had told the whole truth were granted amnesty.

We have set up institutions for collective reparation, such as the Freedom Park, to promote programmes to remember those who died in pursuit of our democracy and we are also engaged in providing individual reparation measures. Reparations are the State's way of participating in the healing process and restoring some dignity to those who suffered under the apartheid policy.

We are the first to concede that our South African experience may not be applicable to other countries emerging from conflict and the lessons we have learned may not travel well. However, the point made in the Secretary-General's report is that adherence to the rule of law can contribute to lasting peace and security.

We wish to associate ourselves with the recommendations made by other delegations regarding the institutional changes necessary to enable the United Nations to better cope with its work to strengthen the rule of law and transitional justice. The importance of the rule of law and transitional justice cannot be overemphasized.

We are convinced that international criminal justice systems, such as the International Criminal Court and the international tribunals established by the United Nations, can contribute to establishing a lasting peace in the areas where they are utilized. We wish to encourage the Security Council to exercise its mandate to refer situations to the International Criminal Court when national assessment needs dictate such a referral. That will guarantee that the practice of the rule of law becomes the bedrock for strengthening democracy.

Finally, my delegation supports the overall conclusions and recommendations of the Secretary-General. We wish to underline the importance of considering the needs of each specific situation so as to avoid developing common strategies for each and every conflict or post-conflict situation. After all, there can be no one-size-fits-all solution for every problem.

The President

I now call on the representative of Liechtenstein.

Mr. Wenaweser (Liechtenstein)

Mr. President, it is a pleasure to see you preside over this meeting and I thank you for your initiative in convening this important debate.

We welcome the report of the Secretary-General and the set of actionable recommendations contained in it. Even when limited to conflict and post-conflict societies, the topic of the rule of law and transitional justice is a very vast one, and we thus need a clear focus in our debates. We therefore think it might be useful if the next report -- and we support a follow-up report to be submitted in six months' time -- could give Member States some guidance as to what topics could be central to our next debate.

The rule of law is an indispensable element of sound domestic policies, often referred to as good governance, and thus of sustainable development worldwide. Liechtenstein attaches great importance to the rule of law and is willing to assist other States through capacity-building in areas where we have relevant expertise. Our authorities are currently discussing with the United Nations Development Programme office in Belgrade the modalities for hosting an international conference on strengthening international cooperation in combating financial crime. That event will offer an opportunity for judges, prosecutors and other officials to exchange their expertise and experiences in the area of best practices.

It is clear that the United Nations must play a central role in the promotion of the rule of law. We therefore support the relevant efforts undertaken in the Security Council and elsewhere and welcome the leadership exercised by the Secretary-General.

The rule of law at the domestic level, as we are debating it today, 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. Such respect for the rule of law is a prerequisite for credible international assistance efforts to foster the rule of law at the national level.

The concept of the rule of law as defined in paragraph 6 of the report before us makes it clear that the rule of law has both a formal and a substantive component. Governance must not only be in accordance with the law, but the law itself must be in conformity with international human rights standards. It is thus crucial that the United Nations, in assisting societies emerging from conflict, promote respect for those standards. The rejection of any endorsement of amnesty for genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity is but one such standard. Helping countries to cope with their transitional justice needs is not a purely technical, juridical exercise, but a substantive political process. In providing such assistance, the United Nations must uphold fundamental standards, while at the same time working with the specifics of any given situation.

There are -- and this debate has made this very clear -- no standard solutions or models that can uniformly be applied to all conflict or post-conflict situations. One of the most important lessons from the past in our view must be the principle of ownership. The goal of international or internationally assisted efforts must always be to enable the country concerned to ensure respect for the rule of law on its own.

The International Criminal Court is an institution that can play an instrumental role in that respect. The principle of complementarity upon which it is based constitutes a strong incentive for States parties to strengthen their national judiciaries, a key component of the rule of law. Bringing the perpetrators of the worst crimes to justice is one key function of the Court. Another is to be a component of international efforts, led by the United Nations, to ensure effective and independent prosecutions and trials at the national level worldwide.

A continued and intensive working relationship between the United Nations and its specialized agencies and programmes on the one hand, and the Court on the other, is therefore a necessity. We are confident that the relationship agreement signed between the two institutions just two days ago will be the basis for a constructive and mutually beneficial working relationship. As stated in the report before us, the Security Council has a particular role to play with regard to the International Criminal Court. The referral of situations to the Court is a unique and potentially powerful tool for the Council in ensuring that the worst crimes do not go unpunished.

The lessons learned from the ad hoc tribunals established by this Council will show the way forward for the ICC, as well as for other forms of assistance to national criminal justice systems, such as hybrid tribunals or other mechanisms that might, in certain cases, be the preferred or, indeed, complementary solutions. Once again, national ownership and a long-term contribution to the administration of justice in the society concerned must be key goals. We continue to support the ad hoc tribunals in their efforts to finish their work by 2010.

The Secretary-General's report shows that the United Nations has for many years been very active in helping countries strengthen national justice systems. These efforts and the availability of relevant expertise need to be systematically enhanced. The Executive Committee on Peace and Security should look into these matters, as suggested in the report, and make proposals for a number of institutional arrangements, including the development of a comprehensive roster of experts. As the importance of these activities increases gradually, the work carried out by the relevant players should be better coordinated and more accessible to Member States. A coordinating body, such as a unit or focal point within the Secretariat, is therefore needed, and we strongly support relevant discussions on this topic. We particularly welcome the non-paper submitted and introduced this morning by Germany, also on behalf of Finland and Jordan.

The President

I now give the floor to the representative of Belarus.

Mr. Sychov (Belarus)

First of all, I wish to thank the delegation of the United Kingdom for organizing a discussion in the Security Council on "Justice and the rule of law: the United Nations role". We believe that the discussion of this item is important and timely. We would also like to express our gratitude to the Secretary-General for preparing a report for today's discussion. It is very important that, in that report, the importance of observing the international norms set forth in the United Nations Charter is emphasized.

The Security Council and the United Nations as a whole make a valuable contribution to the re-establishment of national legal systems in post-conflict societies, particularly in the field of transitional justice. The participation of the Security Council in the exercise of international justice with respect to persons who have committed crimes during conflicts substantially influenced the development of the system of international criminal tribunals and international humanitarian law.

At the same time, this participation has generated many critical observations by members of the international community. These critical observations mainly relate to the correlation between Council activities and national efforts to restore justice and achieve national reconciliation in post-conflict societies. The lessons learned through the functioning of the international tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda confirm that transitional justice systems must be based to a greater extent on national foundations. The United Nations peacekeeping missions are also a key aspect of the Organization's involvement in establishing the rule of law and rebuilding a justice system in conflict and post-conflict societies. The Security Council should focus greater attention on the issue of the safety of the personnel engaged in those missions.

The Republic of Belarus understands the topic for consideration during today's open meeting to be much broader than simply "Justice and the rule of law in conflict and post-conflict societies". The Security Council plays a considerable role in strengthening the rule of law in international relations, mainly in the area of its primary responsibility, the maintenance of international peace and security. It is the principal United Nations organ legitimizing the use of force for resolving situations posing a threat to international peace and security and the application of other enforcement measures against States under Chapter VII of the Charter. Belarus does not accept any legal conceptual innovations aimed at sidestepping or limiting the power of the Security Council to authorize or limit the use of military force. There should be no double standards in such an important realm of international law as the law of international security.

New global challenges have appeared in the twenty-first century and the Security Council has had to respond to these new challenges. A number of important resolutions on suppressing terrorism and preventing non-State actors from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, in particular resolutions 1373 (2001) and 1540 (2004), have been adopted. These resolutions show that the Council has been going beyond mere political enforcement and has been making a genuine impact on setting up norms of international law. Belarus believes that the involvement of the Security Council in forming rules of international law can be justified only by exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that constitute a threat to international peace and security.

It is important for the Security Council to become a more democratic and representative organ of the United Nations and to ensure general consent of States with respect to its setting of norms. In this connection, we call upon the members of the Security Council to make a comprehensive examination of its decisions to define the compliance of those decisions with the provisions of universal treaties and other norms of international law. The practice of including in resolutions political elements that contradict existing international law challenges the idea of the supremacy of law.

We note in this connection the need for more constructive and comprehensive action on the criteria to be used for the imposition of sanctions by the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council.

In conclusion, allow me to say that I support continuing the practice of holding open Security Council debates on the United Nations role in ensuring the rule of law and strengthening justice. In considering this issue, major emphasis should be placed on the issues of the rule of law in international relations and the role of the Security Council in securing this rule.

The President

I now give the floor to the Permanent Observer of Palestine.

Mr. Al-Kidwa (Palestine)

The rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies is a matter of great importance to Palestine. We are a society that has been trying to rebuild itself and its institutions, including in the justice sector, as if we were in a post-conflict situation. The international community provided us with assistance in this field, and some have even tried to hold us accountable to the standards of justice that would be applied to a post-conflict situation.

The problem, however, is that, in reality, we remain in the midst of a raging conflict in which the stronger party, the occupying Power, continues to colonize Palestinian land and commit illegal acts against the Palestinian people, seeking to ensure that we do not succeed in our post-conflict reconstruction and to create conditions intended to negate our national rights and even our national existence. For example, while the Palestinian Legislative Council has been trying to create a body of Palestinian laws to replace those that existed before, the occupying Power continues to enforce its military orders and even to invoke British emergency regulations in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, while at the same time establishing a separate legal system for the illegal Israeli settlers.

The international community must draw some conclusions. It is imperative to ensure, at the very least, a clear basis for an end to the conflict before one delves into the tasks of post-conflict reconstruction. Ignoring the crux of the problem and shelving international law with regard to the conflict itself can only lead to failure.

Today's debate concerns a broader theme, and we welcome that, for there exists a simple reality: without justice one cannot have peace, and without law one cannot have justice. Further, in the absence of compliance with the law and "playing by the rules", it is chaos that will prevail, with outcomes that are difficult to fully predict. We welcome the intention of the Secretary-General to focus on the rule of law in the coming period. We also welcome the increasing significance that the International Criminal Court is acquiring within the international debate, and we strongly hope that more centrality is given to the International Court of Justice, as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations system.

If we are to succeed in building and institutionalizing a culture of law -- especially in post-conflict situations -- we must ensure that conflicts are resolved on the basis of law. In the case of Palestine, the law has been elusive. At best it has been sidelined, and at worst it has been transgressed in the most egregious manner. The rights of the Palestine refugees under international refugee law have been ignored, including their right to private property. The human rights of the Palestinian people under international human rights law have been systematically violated. The rights of Palestinian protected persons under international humanitarian law have been trampled. And even our rights under the Charter have been denied, including our erga omnes rights such as the right to self-determination.

It seems accurate to say that this is an unprecedented case. The United Nations, especially the Security Council, has failed in a historic way. It has failed to implement its own resolutions; it has failed for more than 37 years to prevent the insidious and active colonization of Palestinian land and constant attempts to change the status of Jerusalem, a city of international importance; and it has failed to be faithful to the purposes and principles of the Charter. In short, it has failed to uphold the law.

To be fair, this is not the failure of the membership as a whole. True, a few might have tried to appease the aggressor at the expense of the law; but, more significantly, one permanent member has consistently prevented the Council from taking serious actions, has provided the occupying Power with unjustified diplomatic protection and has actively tried to neutralize -- and at times even to negate -- the law. The consequences of that behaviour have been extremely detrimental, not only in terms of the rights of the Palestinian people, but also in terms of the international system and its authority and credibility. That pattern of behaviour has undermined the rule of law and has deepened cynicism regarding justice and the rule of law, alienating those who believe in it and discouraging reliance on it.

While that has been a disastrous factor in the case of Palestine -- compounding and prolonging the conflict -- we should not resign ourselves to accepting that that is the way it has to be. Indeed, it is our deep hope that that pattern -- and not the law -- will be cast aside when the issue of the ICJ's advisory opinion, which conclusively defined the applicable rules and principles of international law on the matter -- is brought before the Council for consideration. The importance of that issue with regard to the debate on justice and the rule of law -- both generally and specifically in terms of Palestine -- should not be underestimated. A prerequisite for the building by the Palestinian people of a different culture internally is the existence of a culture in which their rights are respected and in which the laws are upheld by an international community that promotes justice and peace by applying the same standard of law to all the peoples of the world.

The President

I call on the representative of Sweden.

Mr. Lidén (Sweden)

Sweden fully aligns itself with the statement made earlier by the representative of the Netherlands on behalf of the European Union. Nonetheless, I would like to take the floor to highlight some issues that Sweden believes to be of particular importance.

As Members of the Organization, we have a duty to respect and promote the rule of law. That applies both at the national level and in our international relations. Without the rule of law, there can be neither economic progress nor social justice. We therefore welcome the Secretary-General's intention to make the rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies a priority for the remainder of his tenure.

As in our intervention in the debate on this item last year, Sweden would like to put extra emphasis on the issue of prevention. In the Secretary-General's words, "an ounce of prevention is worth significantly more than a pound of cure" (S/2004/616, para. 4). The experience of the United Nations in the field of justice and the rule of law in post-conflict situations should enhance our ability to act early to prevent conflicts. As stated by the Secretary-General, the root causes of conflict have often been left unaddressed:

"Peace and stability can only prevail if the population perceives that politically charged issues, such as ethnic discrimination, unequal distribution of wealth and social services, abuse of power, denial of the right to property or citizenship and territorial disputes between States, can be addressed in a legitimate and fair manner. Viewed this way, prevention is the first imperative of justice." (Ibid.)

Sweden fully subscribes to that view. To recognize these links and to address the root causes in time will require enhanced coordination among all the relevant actors.

Prevention is one of the Security Council's responsibilities, as reaffirmed by its resolution 1366 (2001). Peace-building efforts in the area of the rule of law and justice in post-conflict societies constitute one form of preventive action. It reduces the risk that such societies will fall back into conflict.

Domestic institutions must be complemented by international and multilateral action. The existence of the International Criminal Court is a deterrent for presumptive perpetrators; so is the readiness of domestic legal systems to apply universal jurisdiction for international crimes. Not only do we need to make the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court universal; we also must increase cooperation between domestic legal authorities.

Increased focus on those matters requires concrete action within the Secretariat, and changes in the Organization may be needed. In that context, I welcome the interesting proposals on the rule of law and transitional justice submitted by Finland, Germany and Jordan.

Another key issue is the division of labour between the various bodies of the United Nations and the international community. This should be determined by needs, not by budgetary concerns. Further, we must ensure better cooperation between those bodies, not least regarding the transition of responsibilities. The overall aim must be to work towards establishing the rule of law in a coherent fashion and through the whole transition from conflict to peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance to sustainable development.

Finally, let me stress three facts that are sometimes overlooked.

First, attorneys -- defence lawyers and others -- are vital to a nation's legal system. Not only do they provide the representation and assistance to which both accused and victims have a right; they also contribute to the rule of law, by ensuring that authorities are held to account and by defending human rights. Secondly, concerning the importance of gender justice, the outcome of the conference organized by the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) and the International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC) conference in September could prove valuable in mainstreaming gender issues in the area of the rule of law and in contributing to further implementation of Security Council resolution 1325 (2000) concerning women and peace and security.

Thirdly, no one -- including peacekeepers -- is above the law. We welcome the bulletin of the Secretary-General on special measures for protection from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, and believe it is essential that any United Nations personnel not complying with those minimum standards be held accountable.

The rule of law is a means of protecting the dignity of all human beings as well as the foundation for well-functioning societies. Sweden is grateful that the issue of rule of law and transitional justice is brought to the fore and that it remains on the agenda of the Security Council and the United Nations at large. It is by focusing on the promotion and respect for justice and the rule of law in conflict and post-conflict societies that we might be able to prevent conflicts from reoccurring.

The President

I thank the representative of Sweden. I now give the floor to the representative of Argentina.

Mr. D'Alotto (Argentina)

Allow me first to thank you, Sir, for convening the open debate. I would also like to thank our compatriot, Mr. Juan Méndez, Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide and Director of the International Center for Transitional Justice, for his very useful and interesting statement. We would also like to thank Mr. Mark Malloch Brown of the United Nations Development Programme for his interesting statement this afternoon, which injected the development perspective into our debate.

The Secretary-General dedicated his inaugural statement at the fifty-ninth session of the General Assembly to underlining the importance of law and justice at the national and international level. This is not the first time the Security Council has analysed the question of the rule of law and justice. In our opinion, it is fitting that, under the presidency of the United Kingdom, we should again follow up on developments in this field.

One year ago, Argentina concluded its statement in the debate on this same topic with the following words,

"imagination, flexibility and resources will always be indispensable. But perhaps the most important of all is for the Security Council, the Secretariat and all organs of the United Nations to institutionalize once and for all in their procedures, strategies and policies the elements that the United Kingdom has invited us to consider today. Justice and the rule of law are prerequisites for community life. Peace is not possible without them". (S/PV.4835, p. 29)

The Secretary-General, in the report before us today (S/2004/616), has presented a series of forward-looking recommendations along these lines. We consider them essential for the future efforts of the United Nations in strengthening the rule of law and the reign of justice in societies where conflict has taken place or exists and in places where institutions have collapsed.

As stated in the report, the United Nations has accumulated great experience in the task of reconstructing peace after conflict, such as in Timor-Leste and Kosovo. We know that this task has not been easy. The United Nations is also committed to it in Haiti. It is important, then, not to waste the experience but to transform it into something productive.

One specific point in the report that we would like to emphasize, is that, as the Secretary-General noted, the United Nations, and the Security Council, in particular, must conduct a careful analysis of specific needs in terms of the rule of law and justice in every country hosting peacekeeping missions or assistance programmes. Such an analysis is also necessary in order to identify the part to be played by the United Nations in peacekeeping operations. Peacekeeping operations, especially the most complex ones -- and most of the current operations are complex -- must include from the outset strengthening the rule of law components within their mandates.

As the Secretary-General has stated, we must avoid the introduction of foreign models. The affected societies must have ownership of the reconstruction process, and in that sense, the active participation of civil society is fundamental.

We must, therefore, work on preparing a set of practical proposals or guidelines to assist and guide the work of the organs and areas involved. The opportunity to do so is here and now, while we are all involved in the process of reforming and strengthening the Organization. This is why the recommendations in paragraphs 64 and 65 of the report should be carefully followed up. We must find a suitable way of putting them into practice, so that the ideas expressed in the report of the Secretary-General and this debate can produce tangible results.

We consider that recommendations (a) and (b) of paragraph 65 should serve as the initial point of departure for work on the institutionalization of the issue in the agenda of the United Nations. In recommendation (a), the Executive Committee on Peace and Security is asked to craft proposals to improve the ability of the United Nations system to support the rule of law and justice. In recommendation (b), the integration of those considerations into the planning of peacekeeping missions is requested.

The legal basis for United Nations response and international action must include, in addition to the Charter, the legal framework at the international level covering human rights, international humanitarian law, international criminal law and the international rights of refugees.

We would like to emphasize that the international community can currently rely on a number of instruments created to bring to justice the perpetrators of serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law, in keeping with that legal framework.

The Security Council, in a creative interpretation of its powers under article 39 of the Charter, has created special tribunals to judge the most serious crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and to respond to situations in Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Timor-Leste and Afghanistan. We must mention the important role played by truth and reconciliation commissions, as in the case of Sierra Leone.

However, the main instrument available to the international community in its fight against impunity is the International Criminal Court (ICC). We agree with the Secretary-General that it is extremely necessary to promote and support the Court's central role in the effort to strengthen the rule of law.

We must ensure that the Court has the necessary resources to be able to fulfil its functions. During these early years of its existence it is indispensable to support the work of the Office of the Prosecutor in the investigation and to prosecution of persons responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, whenever national authorities are unable or unwilling to do so.

International tribunals can act as a deterrent within the scheme of international security that has emerged over the last few years. They are a useful tool in the maintenance of international peace and security, which is the responsibility of the United Nations, and in particular of the Security Council.

To our way of thinking, there are no prefabricated solutions. That is why, in addition to the measures which the United Nations and the international tribunals take in order to strengthen the rule of law and justice, it will also be of vital importance to carefully analyse and learn from the experience accumulated at the national level in individual countries.

Argentina is a democracy where the rule of law prevails. The institutional stability which our country has enjoyed for more than 20 years demonstrates its strength. We therefore believe that our experience in successfully transitioning to democracy, as well as the experience of other States Members of the Organization in that respect, could be of use to those societies that are undergoing the process today.

The President

The next speaker is the representative of Singapore, to whom I give the floor.

Mr. Menon (Singapore)

I would like at the outset to thank you, Sir, and the delegation of the United Kingdom, for leading the effort on this important subject, which has culminated in the excellent report of the Secretary-General on the rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies (S/2004/616).

In his statement to the General Assembly two weeks ago (see A/59/PV.3), the Secretary-General pointed out that the rule of law starts at home, but that in too many places it remains elusive. He further said that it is by reintroducing the rule of law, and confidence in its impartial application, that we can hope to resuscitate societies shattered by conflict. With those few words, the Secretary-General put his finger on a major underlying cause of conflict and identified the approach to putting a country back on its feet. Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the immense difficulties of trying to put a post-conflict State back together once its political, economic and social fabric have been torn apart. It can sometimes be close to an impossible task -- like all the King's men trying to put Humpty-Dumpty together again.

It is therefore apt that the Secretary-General stressed in his report that prevention is worth significantly more than cure. We share the Secretary-General's view on that matter, as well as the views expressed by the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme, Mr. Mark Malloch Brown, an hour ago on the need to anchor justice and the rule of law in societies.

As a multiracial, multireligious nation, we in Singapore have never taken racial, religious and political stability for granted and have always made conscious efforts to promote social cohesion through sharing the benefits of progress, equal opportunities for all and a meritocracy -- the best man or woman for the job, especially as leaders in Government. Similarly, we have always made it a point to ensure that the rule of law is applied indiscriminately both to citizens and to non-citizens. Singapore therefore welcomes the call to strengthen the rule of law in the administration of justice in all States, and the steps put forward to address issues of transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies.

The Singapore delegation has been involved with a number of other delegations and external organizations, such as the International Center for Transitional Justice, in a series of useful discussions and exchanges of views on the experiences of the international community on this subject, especially over the past 10 years. I would like to make some broad observations on this subject of transitional justice and the rule of law, in relation to which I would like to highlight two aspects.

First, in a post-conflict situation, the challenge of filling the rule of law vacuum is a key one for many United Nations peace operations. The report recognizes the large and growing demand for expertise in assisting post-conflict countries to establish transitional justice processes, restore shattered justice systems and rebuild the rule of law. That is why it is vital that the United Nations develop a framework to tap existing external expertise and resources to complement the Secretariat's in-house experience. In post-conflict situations, there is also often a need to introduce immediately a transitional set of laws, if the old bodies of law, where they existed, had been unfair, abused or otherwise discredited. In this regard, having a broad set of internationally-accepted transitional criminal codes, which should preferably have some built-in flexibility to allow adaptation to the different local contexts, could be invaluable to post-conflict work.

Together with that, where a culture of the rule of law has been absent, one may need to provide for some form of public education to instil such a culture -- a culture that most of us who live in functional societies may take for granted.

The second aspect is that of transitional justice. That should be neither an end in itself nor an exercise aimed at salving the international community's conscience for its past inactions. Rather, it should take into account the best interests of the victims of violence and grave injustice, while at the same time serving a broader goal of sending a signal to all would-be perpetrators of large-scale abuses that the era of impunity is over. In this regard, it is important to bear in mind that no two societies and situations are the same, and that there are no model answers that one can simply apply to a post-conflict situation.

The institutions and practices of established States have evolved over time -- sometimes over centuries -- while those of most new States, including States in a post-conflict situation, have had to be either created from scratch or elaborated immediately and put into place. This is clearly not the best way to get things done. It is therefore important that national stakeholders be closely consulted with a view to arriving at a solution that best serves the interests of the people in terms of transitional justice, bearing in mind what would work best to help heal wounds, using the limited resources available and taking account of the urgent competition for these resources, and, where applicable, the risk of its impact on fragile peace processes.

On the last point, unfortunately, the reality is that in many post-conflict situations the international community lacks either the political will or the capacity to ensure the disarmament of armed groups, which remain a source of lawlessness and a threat to peace and stability, thereby creating the potential of renewed conflict. It would be counter-productive for us if, in our haste and impatience to pursue transitional justice, we were to cause a return to conflict, renewed violence and suffering.

The Secretary-General's report has also rightly pointed out that the international community, in helping to bring about transitional justice and the rule of law, should bear in mind that its role is not to create international substitutes for national structures but to help build domestic justice capacities. This is important because the goal is to leave in place a sustainable independent system that works, even if such a goal can be attained only after years, rather than months, which is especially likely to be the case if there is a need to train the local judiciary and judicial personnel from scratch.

Questions have been asked as to what justice, especially transitional justice, is worth. This is not an easy question to answer. In this regard, I would like to cite the reply to a question that the British Broadcasting Corporation posed, in an interview on 4 October, to William Shawcross, a long-time advocate of bringing the Khmer Rouge to justice. After noting that the Cambodian Government had estimated that the trials under the Cambodia Tribunal were going to cost $50 million, Mr. Shawcross said: "that raises another very interesting question: would that money not be better spent for Cambodia by reinvigorating and restoring the Cambodian judicial system?"

I leave that as food for thought. But before I conclude, I would like to note that what we -- that is, a small number of delegations, including members of the Security Council -- have been doing on this issue can be qualified as norm-making. This is why my delegation welcomes this open debate. It is appropriate that this issue now be discussed by the General Assembly, the principal norm-making body of the United Nations -- especially if we acknowledge that the rule of law is something that should be mainstreamed into every part of the United Nations system, which will require the universal support of all Member States. In this regard, I understand that discussions on this issue are being envisaged for later this month in the Sixth Committee. My delegation welcomes that development.

The President

The next speaker is the representative of Burundi, to whom I give the floor.

Mr. Nteturuye (Burundi)

The delegation of Burundi welcomes the initiative taken by the presidency of the United Kingdom, which, for the second year in a row, is organizing a debate on justice and the rule of law. We would also like to welcome the Secretary-General's very clear-sighted report (S/2004/616) around which we are basing our debate.

In order not to take up too much time, I shall deliver a condensed version of my statement and distribute the full text.

This debate is taking place more than four months after the adoption by the Council -- on 21 May 2004 -- of resolution 1545 (2004), which authorized the deployment of the United Nations Operation in Burundi. It is also taking place a few days after the deposit, here in New York on 21 September 2004, of the instruments of ratification of the Statute of the International Criminal Court by the Government of Burundi.

Last year I concluded my statement to the Council by affirming that Burundi needed a form of justice that would bring reconciliation and healing, after having emphasized that, in order for it to come about, such reconciliation must be based on truth and justice.

Since that time, provisional immunity granted to political leaders returning from exile, as well as the release of hundreds of political prisoners, as recommended by an international ad hoc committee, have caused upheaval in the prisons of my country. Indeed, prisoners from various political groups in the country have come together and denounced what they are calling a justice that protects those who gave orders and punishes those who followed orders. They have threatened to make public all the secrets they hold with regard to the responsibility of certain current leaders for the violence that has afflicted the country.

What does that mean? It means that the provisional immunity granted political leaders is an extremely delicate political instrument in a situation of internal conflict where a manipulating elite is already hiding behind mass actions. It also means that the peace process is failing, if the high-level officials accused or convicted for playing a role in the national tragedy were those primarily responsible for the elections. This is even more dangerous when the elections could lead to a situation where the executioners are rehabilitated and given popular legitimacy, while the victims are once again threatened -- more so than before -- and are forced to seek shelter, which they would not find, when they were expecting reparation and rehabilitation.

The Security Council, which was asked in the Arusha Peace Agreement to set up an international judicial commission of inquiry, first preferred to send to Burundi an assessment mission from the Secretary-General last May. I was pleased to learn this morning that the report of the assessment mission is finally going to be made available very soon. The mission was able to observe on the ground the strong desire of Burundians of all political stripes to see the commission of inquiry established as soon as possible.

The peace agreement also provides for the creation of a truth and reconciliation commission. The texts creating that commission have just been adopted by the National Assembly, and the Senate will approve them as well during its current session.

Burundians are beginning to worry, because they still remember another piece of work left unfinished by the United Nations: the report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Burundi (S/1996/682), which set out very serious conclusions on the identification of those behind what the same report called acts of genocide. The report was shelved instead of leading to concrete action or being reviewed or supplemented, if the Council deemed necessary. The Council's lack of action on its own report created a situation in which some Burundians now refer to the conclusions of that report while others reject it.

Another investigative report came out two years later. What I have in mind is the report (S/1998/1096, annex) that assembled information on the sale or supply of arms to those Rwandans based in the Democratic Republic of the Congo who were responsible for genocide. The report not only confirmed the existence of deliveries of arms to those mass killers, but it contained unpublished documents on cooperation between those killers and the Burundian rebel movements, also located in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. No action followed that report, which nevertheless shed light on the threat of genocide that still exists in the Great Lakes region, as confirmed by the heinous massacre on 13 August of Congolese refugees in the Gatumba camp in Burundi.

Here again, the Gatumba investigation is dragging its heels. Its conclusions would allow the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Burundi -- and even the United Nations and the African Union -- to decide on legal and political action to be carried out with regard to the groups responsible for the massacre, in particular the PALIPEHUTU/FNL, which has claimed responsibility for this deed from the very first day and which heads of State of the subregion have now declared to be a terrorist organization.

The Security Council has already shown that it can take strong measures to try those responsible for serious crimes -- when, for example, it created the ad hoc international tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the extraordinary chambers to try Khmer Rouge leaders in Cambodia. For the time being, Burundians are asking only for an international judicial commission of inquiry. When the truth emerges from that investigation and from the investigation to be carried out by the national Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Burundians will be in a position to decide what type of justice should be meted out to the guilty in order to achieve reconciliation. But this United Nations contribution is urgent, because after elections it will be politically delicate to try those who have been elected, who will in fact be tempted to initiate laws that will protect them and whitewash them forever.

Since the deployment of the United Nations Operation in Burundi (ONUB), the Organization has been playing a central role in the follow-up of the peace process in Burundi. The Burundian population hopes that, thanks to the presence and the assistance of ONUB, the peace process will culminate in a genuine peace that will lay the foundation for economic reconstruction and national reconciliation. Because ONUB is deployed in the field, it is, de facto, a credible point of reference and the international community's legitimate representative in Burundi. That is why the head of ONUB, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, is trying, in addition to mediation, to coordinate and synchronize the activities of external and internal partners for peace in Burundi. The Government of Burundi reiterates its commitment to cooperate fully with Ms. McAskie, who is leading ONUB on behalf of the Secretary-General and the Security Council for the cause of peace in Burundi and on its borders.

The President

I now give the floor to the representative of India.

Mr. Sen (India)

We congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the Council presidency for the month of October. We also congratulate Ambassador Juan Antonio Yáñez-Barnuevo and other members of the Spanish delegation for their able stewardship of the Council in September.

My delegation welcomes this opportunity to participate in the open Council to discuss the item "Justice and the rule of law: the United Nations role". As your compatriot and fellow diplomat turned political leader, Paddy Ashdown, famously observed on 28 October 2002 in his New York Times article "What I learned in Bosnia", "In hindsight, we should have put the establishment of the rule of law first, for everything else depends on it."

To adhere to the time limit that the President set earlier, I shall outline only the essential points of my statement, since the full text has been circulated.

We have read with interest the report of the Secretary-General (S/2004/616) on the rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies. We commend the Secretary-General for emphasizing the need to eschew a one-size-fits-all formula and the importation of foreign models, and for stressing the importance of basing our work on national assessments, national participation and national needs and aspirations.

The temptation to impose external models without the required sensitivity to cultural and other factors is sometimes strong on the part of many. The emphasis on international norms and standards often leads some Member States, international organizations and civil society organizations down that path.

Even as we underscore the importance of respecting international standards, the assistance rendered to a particular society recovering from conflict must necessarily take into account its sociocultural specificities and particularities so that the support rendered by the international community becomes durable and sustainable. If the gulf between the legal structure and social norms in that society is too wide, giving effect to legal prescriptions could carry far too high a socio-political cost.

To our mind, the specific function of the legal system is crucial. Many conflicts arise from clan, ethnic, economic and other group grievances. It is important to address these through the process of the administration of law itself. Segmental entities can be transformed into healthy political competition that sustains constitutional order. The constitutional expert Granville Austin therefore has rightly said: "This is messy, but it is democracy and social revolution in action." Some traditional liberal Western models, therefore, may not be adequate. A multicultural, socially activist legal arrangement would, in such cases, be far more appropriate.

We agree with the Secretary-General that the careful sequencing of activities relating to rule of law reforms and transitional justice with post-conflict elections is vital not only to ensure their success and legitimacy, but also to preserve the fragile peace processes in societies emerging from conflict. United Nations peacekeeping operations are envisaged as short-term interventions. While the idea of incorporating components of rule of law reforms and transitional justice activities in a United Nations peacekeeping operation may be unexceptionable, we ought to remember that building the rule of law and fostering democracy are long-term processes. These are beyond the capability of personnel traditionally involved in peacekeeping operations. However, we strongly believe that they can lay a vital foundation if they embody, in their outlook and behaviour, a long-standing democratic and multicultural tradition.

In the past decade, the United Nations has resorted increasingly to establishing a wide range of special criminal tribunals, including ad hoc criminal tribunals, as subsidiary organs of the Security Council. Their track record has been mixed. In some cases, they have succeeded in establishing accountability for perpetrators and in instilling greater public confidence in post-conflict societies that have enabled those societies to move forward. The exact balance between retributive justice and the need for reconciliation through an amnesty should be determined not a priori or ideologically, but strictly by pragmatic considerations of establishing an enduring peace.

The Secretary-General is also correct in being chary of a dependence on voluntary contributions for the financing of United Nations tribunals, not only because of its ephemeral nature, but also because of the undue influence that this could give to donors in dealing with vulnerable local institutions normally characteristic of post-conflict societies.

Any meaningful capacity-building is possible only when the society concerned establishes its governing institutions and supreme law and moves into the institution-building phase. National stakeholders have to set their reform vision and agenda for that purpose so that they can claim local ownership. That work can be done both multilaterally and very effectively on a bilateral basis as well.

I should also like to refer in that context to the capacity and expertise within the United Nations system in the area of the rule of law and transitional justice. We find that such expertise exists not only in different parts of the Secretariat, but also in the secretariats of the funds and programmes. The need for different parts of the Secretariat, including those of the funds and programmes, to work synergetically and in cooperation with each other rather than in competition, cannot be overemphasized. There has been some talk of creating an independent structure dedicated exclusively to that question. We are not yet convinced of the efficacy of such an approach. At this stage, better coordination among existing units and optimal utilization of the existing resources are called for.

The role of the United Nations in supporting the rule of law and transitional justice in post-conflict societies must involve assistance through a system-wide, coherent, needs-based approach which can result in the consolidation of security and peace, social justice and democracy. In all those areas, the United Nations should play a supportive and facilitating role.

The President

I thank the representative of India for the way in which he set out the main points of his circulated speech. I commend that to colleagues.

I now give the floor to the representative of the Republic of Korea.

Mr. Kim Sam-hoon (Republic of Korea)

I would like to thank you, Sir, for initiating this important discussion of the rule of law and transitional justice. As the Secretary-General made clear in his address to the General Assembly last month, we are duty-bound to protect, enhance and extend the rule of law to all people in all places, including societies that are making the difficult transition from conflict to peace.

In that regard, we welcome the report of the Secretary-General as being comprehensive and realistic in pointing the way forward. The Secretary-General's recommendations in paragraph 64 are worthy of serious consideration by Member States and the Security Council. In particular, we support the emphasis on respect for the human rights of those groups that are most vulnerable to conflict, such as women and children.

We wish to call attention to important developments in the way that the Security Council has functioned since the end of the cold war. First, we are pleased to note that cooperation among Security Council members has increased substantially as the Council discharges its solemn responsibility to maintain international peace and security. Secondly, the conflicts addressed by the Security Council since the early 1990s have tended to be intra-State conflicts stemming from failing or failed States, rather than the inter-State conflicts that have traditionally been the Council's focus. Those conflicts within States raise a different set of issues and require a different approach. In that regard, we welcome and support the Security Council's recent trend towards integrating transitional justice and rule-of-law concerns into the mandates of United Nations peace missions.

Indeed, the rule of law, the promotion of human rights, the delivery of justice and the establishment of democratic institutions can no longer be considered luxuries, if ever they could. Rather, they are indispensable requirements for restoring peace and preventing conflict-ravaged societies from relapsing into violence and chaos. Without a reasonable degree of justice and rule of law, peace is simply not sustainable.

Peace missions in conflict and post-conflict societies must integrate into their operations three key aspects of justice and the rule of law. These are re-establishing the legal order that existed prior to the conflict, undertaking reform of the justice system, both substantively and procedurally, and administering transitional justice fairly and effectively in a way that facilitates the healing process and expedites national reconciliation. Peace missions must also engage in strategic planning to ensure that the justice system does not break down once the mission is terminated, and as such, it is imperative that peace missions work towards establishing sustainable national capacities for justice administration