3rd Meeting l8 October 2007 3:00p.r n. Trusteeship Counci Clharnber I Workirrg Groupof the Sixth Committee Terrorisnr on Measures EliminateIntemational to

Statement by Ms. Maria Telalian (Greece)on the bilateral contacts concerning outstanding issuesrelating to the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism 't-hank you very much Mr. Clrairman.

Irollowirig my statementon Monday, 15 October, fuilher bilateral contacls with delegationswere held this week, on Tuesday, l6 October, and Wednesday, I 7 C)ctober.

'I"he purposeof these bilateral contactswas 1.oprovide delegations with funher opportunitiesto discussthe text containing elementsof a package to the clutstanding the draft comprehensive issuessurrou.nding convention, which were presented February during the last session the in of Ad Hoc Comrnittee. particular,it was hopedto ascertainwhetherthose In

I

could help to move the process elements forward.

In the colrsultations and soundings, Chairmanand the Coordinator the sought to firfther clariff how theseelementsought to be contextualizedin tlre scheme underthe draft convention,in the light of views cxpressed, both during the Sixtlr Committeedebateon lneasures eliminateintentational to terrorismand the bilateralcontactsTheseissues rcvolved arounda nurnber-

of certainconsiderations, including:the irnportance to affectthe exercise not of the right of peoplesto selfdetermination, need to captureconcerns the relating to "State terrorism", the satisfactory resolution of matters concerningpotentialirnpunityof military forcesof a Stateand the necessity to clearly delineatebetweenactivitiesfalling under the scopeof the draft conventionand thosegoverned international by humanitarian law In the overall schemeof the draft comprehensive conventionall tlr.ese aspects are addressedin draft article 18. It is, however, irnportant to
. .-'-'.,.-/-'-\r'v

emphasize the outsetthat an appreciation draft article 18,-.I!9* at of constituent eiements have to. be .193d t ylole, would_8"*ll_g-ojptt. 3s witlroutrelatingit to the otherarticles the draftconvention, particular' of in
draft article 2, which provides,for tbe purposeof the draft convention, the criminal law definition of act.s terrorism.Paragr^aph of draft article 2 is of I

il; ^;J i;.;#;

;;;"*J

;irh-;r"law-tu-1" tv '"r_;9i;;" ""nauJ "--';:'--- '
---::ffi#g='"'

These key terms. readlp {la! 7rtj,919,2,,tggg_ther ary with draftarticleI8, fn the lattero$l carues from th3 out the 1con9.of ggry_:llioncertainactivities
that are regulated otherfields of law. by

In seekingto provide exclusionary elements, is understood it that the
draft convention will have to operate in the context of an overall international legal framework where other rules of intemational law are also

ro the p;;;ibi;, ;h;;; i- ;; ;ft"*pr in a'un"'ti"i- ia t" qnp_Ugtq"". .. the safegua{ epplig4tq! Ih?!other law.i; does; Uvil t-agrine S,f
unlawfulotherwise lawfulactsundersuchlaw. At ihe sarne tirneit seeks to
close any loopholes that may invite possibilitie* fo_I. igp_unify fo1 _c*er1ai6 tategories of persons. Our efforts in the past several years have been to seek
'a --^-'

to fine-tune the provisions in ways that close the concemsfor gaps of possibleirnpunity.

It would be esseutial stress to threepointsthat embrace issues the that were raised in the bilateralcontacts. First. paragraphI of draft article 18, which states that nothing in the convention rnuffi. obligations and responsibilities States,peoples and individuals *0.. of intenrationallaw, in particular the purposes and principles of tl-re Charterand intemational hurnanitarian law, has not been contentious. sets out the It overarchingprinciplesthat underpinwhat is excludedfrorn the scopeof the draft convention, includinganyjenlgms t o
self-detennination. This is negotiated language tliat has stood the test clf time, since the adoption of the'ferrorist bombings convention

secondly,as pointedout earlier,the definiticlnof actsof terrorismin draft arlicle 2 includes acts undeftakenby "any person". By excluding certainactivitiesof annedforcesof a Stalein paragraptr ofGn uttii" f S Z
the clear understanding has a.twayl-"hg._gn such activities ar-egqvgned by that

other rules of intemationut tar.f tt r.^
address question "military forcesof a State",that is to sayactivitiesof the of "arrned forces of a State" ig2g4ggUryS 3nd other personscapturedby the "military forcesof a definition of State"in article I of the draft convention_ It rvas also cleai from the very begiming that therewas a needto clo.se the gap in relationto activities military forcesof a Statea.cting the exercise of in
of tlreir officizrl duties. As is well known, paragraph3 of draft article g l provides that activities undertaken by miiitary forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties inasnruchas they are governeclby other rules

of international law arenot governedby this Convention.As has beennoted at previousoccasions practicallyall jurisdictionsrnilitary forcesof a State in are subject to a code of conduct *"pu.*" A.t" "iriii;;;, ;il*il;" possibility of being tried through a court martial.That reality lrastherefore breen reflected in this paragraph. The phrase"inasrnuchas they are govemed
lt

by other mles of international law" embracesboth conduct that rnay be

\

*i,fr p"ruJ:"pt +, i1
sho-qldbe understoodthat such carve-out does not make lawful otherwise unlawful acts.It-sirnplyrecognizes other: that laws would apply and does4gt preclude pro_secution un4er such laws. The addition that was proposedto I

paragraph4, in the text submittedduring the 2007 sessionof the Ad I{oc - Cotnmiftee, namely the referenceto the fact that "acts which would amount to an offence a^s defi'ed in a.rticle2 of this Co.r'ffi
under such laws", together with the new preambular language based on the
\
I

Nuclear terrorism convention, seeksto buttressthe fact that there is an inner

I I

core of conduct which if committed would constitutean .offencewhich
--.ffi

ll

ive of the resime that would article 18 already establisheda demarcation T-udly, paragraph2 of clraft. between what is coveredby the draft conventionand activities of armed forces during armed conflict, "as those terms are und"erstood under illtenrationalhumanitarian law", a phrasewhich is not without significanceHowever, h order to provide further clarify a new paragraph framed as a l, "without prejudice clause"was addedduring the2007session the Ad Hoc of .,without prejudice,, of u ffi statement which is subsequentlyelucidated with regard to rules of intemationallaw applicablefor certain ac1.s which would be lawful under cornmittee. This paragraph "onrir[

intemational humanitarianlaw. The term "lawful" in this context should,

from an internation hurnanitarianaw pe$pe9!y9r. al I ptqp-ui;G;!d;;a
with its double negative connotation,i.e* "not unlawful acts" since
intemational humanitarian law does not in a literal sense define which acts

are "lawful", but which acts are prohibited.I1.fryey-e1, view of the needto in

distinguish thoseactsthat are "unlawful"underparagraph of draft article 1 2, which provides that the convention only covers"unlawful activities"
to actsa!1o _u{awful" under internationalhumanitarian -(whichnl.o1i1ate

raw) 19"" lh9 :]ffi"_j:

fT:{lph

s w31 used bgilgmore as "1rpp'i"*;"

the circumstances. paragraph, This together with draft article l8 as a whole, is drafted in such a way as to provide the necessary direction to those that

wilf'l;e fespdniibl-e IfiffiG"pffi;di"; "f'th" d.;ft "#""ti;. roa""a, it wiII be fo1J!e_ e_s_ qgqte_q!eu!k$Sj14f9g!:!th949il9_Ruk " .parti and
interpretations in the light of the circrunstances specific cases.What is key in

to this eletnentis the principle that international humanitarianlaw is not

plg.ql.qlt

ilris convention. it is not a clean If ,l"lin.4io_rit ir pr""ir"l
, tlt" rolrtigr *uy lig, in fhct, ir.r

because in matters of this nature there is a potential overlap, and as I stated

on Monday, if th".. ir u ""rtui that suchoverlapexists. recognizing

During the bilateralcontacts, without delving into lgr? delegations, tlie substance the text, expressed of supportfor the elements and considered that they constitute a step in the right direction towar-dsa cornpromise solution and sele as a useful basisfor our future deliberations. was also It noted that at the_sunset might be useful to contemplate it possibilitiesof offcringtlg igt31qg!"..*ithin which the convention beennegotiated has in 1heaccompanying resolution.- is hopedthat theseadditiona.l It clarifications *

which were provided during the bilateral contactsoffer additional insights may need into the issuesirnplicatedby the text. It is realizedthat delegations more time to study and reflect upon the proposal and on the clarifications offered. Delegationsare urged to considertheseelementscarefully and view them as a good faith atternptto find a compromise solution that rnay be to acceptable all.

Let me conclude by noting that the issue of the procedure of deliberations was also raised during the informal meetings- Some delegationsconsideredthat the format of bilateral contacts,as combined witlr the otber interventions within the structure the negotiations, of provided a satisfactoryinformal framework for advancingthe processof negotiations. Thank vou.