[CML 010302] 平和への権利に関する国連人権理事会決議

Maeda Akira maeda at zokei.ac.jp
2011年 6月 20日 (月) 10:01:10 JST

前田 朗 です。

6月20 日

ジュネー ヴの国連欧州本部で開催中の国連人権理事会第17会期において、
キューバが提案国となっている、平和への権利に関する決議(L.23)が、賛 成

決議は 2008年以来毎年続いています。今回は、本年4月1日に提出された
人権理事会諮問委員会(専門家委員会)作成の中間報告書をもとに した議論が
への権利宣言草案を作成して、第20会期 (2012年6月の見込み)に提出
に発信してきたアン ケート質問について転送するように要請しています。

下記のよ うに、アメリカ、日本、韓国、EU諸国が反対投票を続けています。
EU(ハンガリー)は、平和の問題は人権理事会で議論するべきでは ない、と
いとか、人権は個人のものであって、人民の平和 への権利といった集団的権利
マスコミは見事に横並びで決 議を無視し、報道しません。

Human Rights Council
MORNING 17 June 2011

Action on Resolution on the Promotion of the Right of Peoples to Peace
In a resolution (A/HRC/17/L.23) regarding the promotion of the right of
peoples to peace, adopted by a vote of 32 in favour, 14 against, and no
abstentions as orally revised, the Council reaffirms that the peoples of
our planet have a sacred right to peace; also reaffirms that the
preservation of the right of peoples to peace and the promotion of its
implementation constitute a fundamental obligation of all States;
stresses the importance of peace for the promotion and protection of all
human rights for all; supports the need to further promote the
realization of the right of peoples to peace and, in that regard,
requests the Advisory Committee, in consultation with Member States,
civil society, academia and all relevant stakeholders, to present a
draft declaration on the right of peoples to peace, and to report on
progress thereon to the Council at its twentieth session; and requests
the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to
retransmit the questionnaire prepared by the Advisory Committee in the
context of its mandate on the issue of the right of peoples to peace,
seeking the views and comments of Member States, civil society, academia
and all relevant stakeholders.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (32): Angola; Argentina; Bahrain; Bangladesh; Brazil; Burkina
Faso; Cameroon; Chile; China; Cuba; Djibouti; Ecuador; Gabon; Ghana;
Guatemala; Jordan; Kyrgyzstan; Malaysia; Maldives; Mauritania;
Mauritius; Mexico; Nigeria; Pakistan; Qatar; Russian Federation; Saudi
Arabia; Senegal; Thailand; Uganda; Uruguay and Zambia.

Against (14): Belgium; France; Hungary; Japan; Norway; Poland; Republic
of Korea; Republic of Moldova; Spain, Ukraine; United Kingdom; United
States; Slovakia and Switzerland.

Abstentions (0):

JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA (Cuba), introducing resolution L.23, said Cuba
recognized the work by civil society on the right to peace. Civil
society and academia should present a draft declaration on the right of
all people to peace at the coming Council session in June 2012. The text
enjoyed the support from a number of nations, including the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea, Syria, Sudan, Uruguay, Dominican Republic,
Sri Lanka, Co^te d’Ivoire, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Egypt and Iran. Cuba
made an oral revision to operative paragraph 14, noting that in line
three the word human was to be deleted. The paragraph was changed to the
“draft declaration on right of peoples to peace”.

ANDRAS DEKANY (Hungary), speaking in an explanation of the vote before
the vote on L.23 on behalf of the European Union, recognized the
relationship between peace and human rights. However, the absence of
peace could not justify the failure to respect human rights. The
European Union believed that most of the issues raised in the draft
resolution were better raised in other fora. The European Union did not
consider it a good use of time to address this issue in the Human Rights
Council, particularly as the General Assembly had already supported a
resolution on the right of people to peace. The European Union thus did
not support the draft resolution. While thanking the Cuban delegation
for convening an informal consultation on the draft resolution, the
European Union could not support the draft resolution, would call for a
vote and would vote against it.

EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN (United States), speaking in an explanation of the
vote before the vote, noted with concern the vulnerabilities of citizens
in conflict zones. However, the draft resolution did not promote peace
or highlight the vulnerability of those in conflict zones, instead it
focused on issues that were primarily a matter of state-to-state
relations. The United States underlined that while human rights were
universal and applied to individuals, collective rights were a distinct
category of rights. Having assessed the report of the Advisory
Committee, the United States anticipated that any effort to move forward
with a draft declaration would be fraught with difficulty and division.
There were other international bodies, particularly the Security
Council, that were better suited to address issues related to
international peace and security.

SALVADOR TINAJERO ESQUIVEL (Mexico), speaking in an explanation of the
vote before the vote on L23, said that this was a relevant matter which
required further study. Mexico noted that there was an intrinsic
relationship between peace and human rights. Regarding the difficulties
of legal rendering of the right, Mexico noted that this right must be
ensured as a human right but must be assured within the context of
international law. It noted that further discussion on the subject
should include how the concept of peace should be treated as a human
right. Mexico expressed doubt on some of the matters included in the
report. Mexico believed the discussion should go into international
security and disarmament a

CML メーリングリストの案内