Resolutions Sat. The UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution on the Boeing crash in Ukraine. The basis for the illegality of the UN Security Council Resolution
Everyone has heard that Zionism was defined by the UN Security Council as a form of racism and racial discrimination . Let's look at this in more detail.
In 1975, the UN General Assembly adopted fundamental decision condemn Zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination. The basis for the adoption of Resolution No. 3379 of November 9, 1975 was the daily inhumane and repressive practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory. Then the UN, and before others international organizations and conferences, condemned the criminal alliance of Zionism and the South African apartheid regime, the racist policies of Israel in the occupied Arab territories, identified Zionism as a threat to all humanity and called on all peoples of the world to resist this misanthropic ideology.
UN Resolution 3379, which classifies Zionism as a form of racism, was not built from scratch, but is the result of a whole series of resolutions adopted by the General Assembly itself. All of these resolutions condemned Israel's actions as racist, starting with GA Resolution 2546 of 1969, as well as other resolutions - 2727 of 1970, Resolution 3005 of 1972, Resolution 3092 of 1973 and Resolution 3246 of 1974 All of these resolutions condemn Israel's violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories. The matter does not end there, as many other resolutions were passed condemning racism in Israel right up to the present day.
After the collapse of the USSR, in 1991, under pressure from Israel and the United States (in particular, the administration of George H. W. Bush), the UN withdrew this resolution without any explanation : Resolution 4686 of December 16, 1991 repeals Resolution 3379. Pay attention to how quickly Resolution 3379 was canceled - literally a week after the USSR was officially destroyed.
The text of Resolution No. 3379 can be found by downloading a pdf file from the page of the 30th UN General Assembly on the official UN website. This file contains a scanned document in image form and not in text form, so below is the full text of Resolution No. 3379 in Russian and English.
Finally, a video clip (1.1MB) in which Israeli Ambassador to the United States Isaac Herzog tears the text of Resolution 3379 in half (the video was filmed on the day of the adoption of Resolution 3379 - November 10, 1975).
21.02.2017
The report provides a rationale for the illegality of UN Security Council Resolution No. 2334 of December 23, 2016.
The arguments presented in the work provide grounds for exposing the inconsistency of almost all UN Security Council resolutions adopted in relation to Israel.
International legal formalization and further implementation of the facts and evidence set out in the report will intensify the collapse of the entire UN anti-Israeli dossier.
Abbreviations adopted in the report:
Charter – UN Charter
SB – UN Security Council
GA – UN General Assembly
Author Vyacheslav SnegirevA striking example of hostility towards Israel was the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution No. 2334 of December 23, 2016, the content of which is aimed at harming the security of the State of Israel.
This decision was condemned by a number of reputable politicians, including the current US President Donald Trump. But despite this, today it continues to remain in force, and on its basis the next anti-Israeli attacks are being prepared.
Of particular concern is the lack of a legal mechanism for revoking such a resolution. Any initiative aimed at adopting a new resolution ( repealing Resolution 2334), is predicted to be blocked in the UN Security Council.
The current foreign policy situation requires the search for a non-standard solution that can break the growing negativity.
The presented report contains a solution option, the implementation of which will not only completely nullify the entire anti-Israeli “legacy” of the UN, but will also initiate a review of other UN decisions by states whose interests were in any way infringed upon in this organization.
The report provides a rationale for the illegality of UN Security Council Resolution No. 2334. The arguments presented in the work provide grounds for exposing the inconsistency of almost all Security Council resolutions adopted in relation to Israel.
International legal formalization and further implementation of the facts and evidence set out in the report will intensify the collapse of the entire UN anti-Israeli dossier. The given justification for the illegality of Security Council decisions, like a domino principle, will also start the process of delegitimizing anti-Israeli GA resolutions, which in most cases were adopted based on previously accepted documents SB.
The idea proposed in the report will undoubtedly receive political development. The demonstrated mechanism for delegitimizing Security Council resolutions will undoubtedly be of interest to other states that experience bias on the part of the UN. And this process will only increase.
The basis for the illegality of the UN Security Council Resolution
UN Security Council Resolution No. 2334 of December 23, 2016 is obviously illegal, since its adoption was carried out in violation of the provisions of the UN Charter.
The requirements of the UN Charter are such that a Security Council resolution can be considered adopted only if all five permanent members of the Security Council vote for its adoption.
If at least one of the five permanent members of the Security Council abstained from voting (as well as voted against or was absent from the meeting), then, regardless of the number of votes cast for the resolution by non-permanent members of the Security Council, the adoption of such a resolution becomes impossible.
However, the Security Council announced its adoption. This happened because for many years the Security Council has been interpreting the conditions for the adoption of resolutions in its own way, and based this illegal interpretation on a norm distorted as a result of official forgery.
This practice of Security Council has been going on for decades and has already become a kind of “established tradition.” Now, when it has begun to go beyond what is permitted, it must be stopped, and all the anti-Israeli legacy of the UN that has accumulated as a result of such activities must be delegitimized and collapsed.
The origins of the illegality of the UN Security Council Resolution
About half of all UN Security Council resolutions are invalid from the moment of their adoption.
At any time and any state can refuse to implement decisions of the Security Council due to their inconsistency with the UN Charter.
It is immediately necessary to clarify that the justification for the illegality of the above-mentioned resolutions can only be carried out on the basis of the Russian, French and Spanish texts of the UN Charter, which among themselves, as well as with the English text, are authentic.
The inconsistency and insignificance of these resolutions comes from the results of voting on them in the Security Council, the results of which do not meet the conditions that apply to the adoption of such decisions.
The use of the English text is not possible, since it contains a very significant discrepancy with other texts of the UN Charter. Particularly alarming is the fact that such a discrepancy is present precisely in that article of the UN Charter, the content of which was called the basis, the foundation of the UN, and its inclusion in the UN Charter was preceded by colossal expert and explanatory work.
Given such close attention to the content of the article on the part of the organizers of the 1945 San Francisco Conference, it is unlikely that the error could have been a consequence of the negligence of the performers.
A comparison of Article 27 of the UN Charter in all four texts shows that in paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the English text the word “all” is missing. While this word is present in texts in other languages.
In the Russian, French and Spanish texts of the Charter, the phrase in paragraph 3 of Article 27 has the following meaning: “ including matching votes everyone permanent members of the Security Council", in the English text, due to the absence of the word "all", the phrase takes on a different meaning - " including concurring votes of permanent members”, that is, not all permanent members, but, for example, two.
It is important to note that in other articles of the English text of the UN Charter (which will be discussed below), where the drafters obviously really wanted a certain phrase to mean all the permanent members of the Security Council, the word “all” is present and completely coincides with the texts UN Charter in other languages.
Was there any official fraud, and also why the word “all” should have been in paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the Charter and what was the meaning of this article during the formation of the UN Charter, during the San Francisco Peace Conference of 1945 year will become clear as you read this Report.
It should be pointed out that the presence in the English text of a discrepancy with the texts of the Charter in other languages does not in the least complicate the process of exposing the illegality of a number of Security Council resolutions. Since, in accordance with Article 111 of the Charter, all its texts are authentic among themselves, evidence will be given on the basis of French, Russian and Spanish texts.
Any attempts by opponents to claim the priority of the English text of the Charter in relation to texts in other languages will be obviously null and void.
Conditions giving grounds to consider a UN Security Council resolution adopted
In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the UN Charter, a decision of the Security Council (except for procedural matters) is considered adopted if nine members of the Council vote for it, including Council.
It is very important to pay attention to the phrase “ concurring votes of all permanent members ", since it is key in this norm, and it is it that determines the most important condition, compliance with which gives the Security Council the right to consider that the resolution has been adopted.
First, the resolution must be submitted at least nine votes of members of the Security Council.
Second of these nine votes, five the votes must be from the permanent members of the Security Council and, as stated in the UN Charter, the votes of these permanent members must be “ matching" That is, all five permanent members of the Security Council must participate in the voting and all five must vote for the resolution.
But despite the requirement clearly formulated by the UN Charter, the Security Council interprets this norm in its own way.
Under such circumstances, it is not particularly surprising that a discrepancy in the texts of the UN Charter appears in this article.
The SC's interpretation is illegal and absurd for two reasons, all of which are set out in the UN Charter.
Firstly, if the UN Charter implied that when voting in the Security Council, the positions of only the permanent members participating in the vote are taken into account, then its norms would have stated this unambiguously, just as it was done in relation to the GA.
Thus, Article 18 of the UN Charter, which describes the voting procedure in the GA, clearly indicates a different option for making decisions based on voting results, namely, not taking as a basis for counting total quantity members of the GA, but only “ present and voting ».
In relation to decisions of the Security Council, such a procedure is not established in the UN Charter, but it is clearly stated that when voting, the votes of all permanent members of the Security Council must coincide.
Secondly, what under the phrase “ all permanent members “means all five permanent members of the Security Council (and not just those participating in voting), as proven by the norm set out in Chapter 13 of the UN Charter.
Article 108 states that “ amendments to this Charter shall enter into force for all Members of the Organization after they have been adopted by a two-thirds vote of the members of the General Assembly and ratified, in accordance with their constitutional procedure, by two-thirds of the Members of the Organization, ».
Also, paragraph 2 of Article 109 states, “ any change to this Charter recommended by a two-thirds vote of the Conference will come into force upon ratification, in accordance with their constitutional procedure, by two-thirds of the Members of the Organization, including ».
In terms of content, Articles 27, 108 and 109 of the UN Charter have a similar context. They explain the role of permanent members of the Security Council in procedures requiring their participation in voting. Article 27 describes the actions of permanent members when voting in the Security Council, and Articles 108 and 109 set out the role of permanent members in voting in the General Assembly when amending the UN Charter.
All of these articles (27, 108 and 109) contain the phrase “ all permanent members of the Security Council ", which, being in the text of one normative act, can have only one, unique, meaning that applies to all articles of the document.
In Articles 108 and 109, under the phrase “ all permanent members of the Security Council " means all five permanent members. This was clearly demonstrated during events aimed at amending the UN Charter.
On December 17, 1963, the GA adopted Resolution No. 1991, which amended Articles 23, 27 and 61 of the UN Charter. The voting results showed that of the five permanent members of the Security Council, only China supported these changes, the USSR and France voted against, and the USA and Great Britain abstained.
However, despite the fact that only one permanent member of the Security Council supported the changes introduced by the resolution, in order for these amendments to come into force, the UN had to wait until all five permanent members ratify these changes. That is, wait until the conditions set out in Articles 108 and 109 are met, namely ratification “ all permanent members of the Security Council ».
Despite two-thirds of the ratifications, the changes to the UN Charter came into force only on the day when the United States, the last of the five permanent members of the Security Council, ratified the amendments.
With the described fact, making changes to its Charter, the UN confirmed that the phrase “ including all permanent members of the Security Council » , means only all five permanent members.
If this phrase had a different interpretation, for example, the one with which the Security Council illegally exposes paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the UN Charter (implying not all five permanent members, but only the permanent members who voted “FOR”), then the UN would not require ratification of the amendments by the permanent members of the Security Council - the USA and Great Britain - abstained. After all, it is the votes of permanent members who abstain that are removed from the concept of “ all permanent members"When voting in the Security Council.
In order to finally expose the illegality and absurdity of the interpretation of paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the UN Charter applied by the Security Council, it is necessary to simply compare the context of Articles 27, 108 and 109 of the UN Charter.
Having studied the comparative table, there is no doubt that the phrase “ including all permanent members of the Security Council" in its meaning, it is absolutely no different from the phrase “ including matching votes all permanent members of the Council" written in Article 27 of the UN Charter.
But even against the backdrop of such objective disarming evidence, the Security Council continues to interpret the same phrase differently in the articles of the same normative act.
Perhaps the phrase “coinciding votes” contained in Article 27, but absent in Articles 108, 109, gives the Security Council some basis?
But even here, legal and historical documents do not leave the Security Council any opportunity to justify their illegal interpretation of the Charter.
The meaning and significance that was put into paragraph 3 of Article 27 when the UN Charter was signed is clearly visible in the content of the documents of the United Nations Conference in San Francisco, held from April 25 to June 26, 1945, as a result of which the UN was created.
On June 7, 1945, as part of the Conference, it was published Statement by the delegations of the four inviting governments on voting procedures in the Security Council (Statement). The content of this Statement formed the so-called “Yalta voting formula in the Security Council” and was included in Article 27 of the UN Charter.
This Statement was prepared by the USSR, USA, Great Britain and China, for all other founding states of the UN. It was an official commentary on the content and meaning of Article 27 of the UN Charter.
This document finally clarifies and proves that a Security Council resolution can be considered adopted only when all five permanent members of the Security Council vote for its adoption.
In the very first paragraph of this Statement, after a description of what should be understood by the first group of decisions, there follows an explanation of the voting procedure in the Security Council necessary for making such decisions.
In paragraph 1 of this document, it is written: « The Yalta formula provides that the first group of decisions will be made by qualified voting, that is, by the votes of seven members including the concurring votes of the five permanent members ».
Comparing this explanation and the wording on voting set out in paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the UN Charter...
... there remains no doubt that in 1945, when drafting Article 27 of the UN Charter, the phrase “ including the concurring votes of all permanent members ", the founding states understood it as set out in paragraph 1 of the Statement, that is, " including the concurring votes of the five permanent members».
Finally, this statement is proven by paragraph 9 of the Statement, which specifies the content of the wording set out in paragraph 1. It says:
«… In order for Security Council decisions by majority vote to be possible, the only practical method would be to provide for non-procedural decisions plus the concurring votes of at least two non-permanent members.”
That is, this paragraph, developing the provisions of paragraph 1 of the Statement, confirms that the phrase “ the concurring votes of the five permanent members" stands for " unanimity of permanent members ».
Consequently, any non-procedural decision of the UN Security Council can be adopted only on the condition that its adoption all five permanent members will vote unanimously.
The UN Charter provides ( and this was explained in the Statement) only the only case when a permanent member abstaining from voting in the Security Council does not violate the unanimity of the permanent members of the Security Council.
This option is permitted when a permanent member of the Security Council is itself a party to the dispute on which a decision is being made. It becomes his responsibility to abstain from voting.
In all other cases, for a resolution to be adopted, there must be unanimity during voting ( that is, all five) permanent members.
The old state of affairs will no longer exist
The international legal formalization and subsequent implementation of the arguments set out in the report will predictably give rise to a statement in the Security Council about seventy years of practice in applying the existing procedure for adopting resolutions. In order to maintain the status quo, interested parties will rush to invent arguments about the “uniqueness and immutability” of existing “traditions” in the activities of the Security Council.
But the selected facts and presented evidence will not only block such arguments, but will also put the Security Council in a “zugzwang” position, that is, in a situation where any of its actions aimed at justifying the ongoing arbitrariness will lead to a deterioration of its current positions.
The UN Charter is an international treaty. And as mentioned above, the term used in the document can only have a single term that applies to the entire normative act, meaning.
The report highlights the facts of different interpretations by the Security Council of the phrase “ all permanent members of the Security Council ».
This circumstance requires the Security Council to give a precise answer about which interpretation of the phrase is correct: in Article 27 ( where the Security Council understands by this term only permanent members of the Security Council participating in voting) or in articles 108 and 109 ( where the Security Council agrees that this term means all five permanent members of the Security Council).
If the Security Council insists that the phrase “ all permanent members of the Security Council” means only the votes of permanent members voting, as is illegally done when applying Article 27 of the UN Charter, then the same interpretation would have to extend to Articles 108 and 109 of the Charter. This means that from now on it will be possible to make changes to the UN Charter without the mandatory ratification of such amendments by the five permanent members of the Security Council. That is, the Security Council will no longer be able to block amendments to the UN Charter.
If the Security Council agrees that the phrase “ all permanent members of the Security Council ” means all five permanent members of the Security Council, as follows from the practice of applying Articles 108 and 109 of the UN Charter, then by this circumstance he recognizes that the voting results in the Security Council are summed up in violation of the UN Charter. This consent will mean that any resolution that does not receive unanimous approval by all five permanent members of the Security Council ( all five must vote YES), will be considered illegal from the moment of its adoption.
Whatever the reaction of the Security Council to the arguments set out in the report, the previous state of affairs will no longer exist.
Sooner or later, the questions raised in the report will launch reform processes and force the Security Council to make a decision on the further application of Articles 27, 108 and 109 of the UN Charter. He will have to make a choice in favor of one or another interpretation of the term « all permanent members of the Security Council» . And by making such a choice, the Security Council will be forced to sacrifice something: the past or the future.
A sacrifice to the past, and therefore a bet on the future, will be the agreement that the term under discussion means all five permanent members of the Security Council. Such recognition will mean that about half of the Security Council resolutions lose their legitimacy and a colossal part of the international legal dossier is nullified. But the Security Council will retain control over the process of amending the UN Charter. The past collapses, but a powerful future endures.
If the Security Council continues to defend the position that the phrase « all permanent members of the Security Council» does not mean the unanimity of the five permanent members when voting, then interested actors in world politics will demand that this understanding of the term be extended to Articles 108 and 109 of the UN Charter. This will mark the loss of influence of the permanent members of the Security Council on the procedure for amending the UN Charter, which will inevitably, by introducing significant changes to the UN Charter, lead to a revision of the status of permanent members of the Security Council. This development of events will deprive the Security Council of its future, but will preserve the array of documents accumulated in the past.
Ignoring the facts set out in the report will give rise to a situation where any state demanding revenge in the international arena and not being satisfied with the result achieved at the UN will raise this topic every time, appealing to the circumstances indicated in the report.
The seeds of the UN reformation have already been planted in the soil and shoots will undoubtedly sprout.
Promotion of the initiative
The presented report contains grounds that make it possible to initiate the procedure for the repeal of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 and the subsequent delegitimization of the entire anti-Israeli dossier of the UN Security Council.
Initially it was assumed that this would be done government agencies Israel. But Israeli Foreign Ministry officials ignored this report without even reading its contents. Obviously, the possible repeal of Resolution 2334 violates someone's personal agreements.
In such circumstances, it is only possible to promote this initiative within the framework of public diplomacy. The laws of democratic states allow public structures to initiate consideration of issues foreign policy in organs state power these countries.
It is possible to promote such an initiative only non-standard methods, step by step reducing the room for maneuver for groups interested in maintaining the anti-Israel status quo. Non-standard actions will block the legal possibilities of such groups, since their arguments are built mainly on ordinary international legal clichés that are not able to withstand real arguments.
In order to launch this process, it is necessary to carry out colossal work on the international legal registration of the corresponding package of documents.
Promoting an initiative on your own will require a lot of effort and some expenses: professional translation of prepared documentation into the appropriate languages, payment of duties, fees, postage and various legal support.
e-mail: [email protected]
2017-02-21Historical background
In the late 1970s, political pressure on Israel increased sharply. 90 states out of 138 represented at the UN at that time almost unquestioningly supported any Arab proposal.
This was the policy of the bloc of non-aligned countries, which united a number of third world states, in which Arab states and Muslim countries had serious weight and powerful influence. The “non-aligned” were traditionally supported by the states of the socialist bloc and countries of socialist orientation.
Relying on an automatic majority, Arab countries easily promoted anti-Israeli resolutions in various UN bodies. Thus, in 1979, the UN Security Council adopted 7 anti-Israeli resolutions, and in the first six months of 1980, already 8.
The last straw for Israel's patience was Annex A/ES-7/8 to the protocol of the decision of the Sixth Conference of Heads of State and Government of Non-Aligned Countries on July 22, 1980, which declared a number of basic principles of a comprehensive settlement and directly stated in paragraph 102, paragraph (d) ):
“The city of Jerusalem is an integral part of occupied Palestine. It must be completely abandoned and unconditionally handed over to Arab sovereignty."
Original text (English)
The city of Jerusalem is an integral part of occupied Palestine. It must be evacuated in its entirety and restored unconditionally to Arab sovereignty;
Israel's reaction was immediate.
On July 30, 1980, the Knesset adopted the so-called “Basic Law” for Jerusalem, in which it declared that:
1. Jerusalem, one and indivisible, is the capital of Israel.
2. The President of the State, the Knesset, the Government and Supreme Court.
Original text (Hebrew)
1. ירושלים השלמה והמאוחדת היא בירת ישראל.
2. ירושלים היא מקום מושבם של נשיא המדינה, הכנסת, הממשלה ובית המשפט העליון.
The law also provided for the protection of holy places from desecration and from anything that could interfere with the freedom of access to them by representatives of various religions or offend their feelings.
In addition, the law contained provisions regarding the development of the city in economic and other areas.
Meanwhile, Jerusalem has always been given important.
In September 1948, the Israeli authorities established the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, and already on February 17, 1949, a meeting of the Knesset was held in Jerusalem, at which Chaim Weizmann took the oath of office as president of the country.
It should also be noted that back on January 23, 1950, the Knesset proclaimed Jerusalem the capital of Israel and continued the transfer to the city government agencies, when Jordan took steps to extend its jurisdiction to East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Upon completion Six Day War On June 27, 1967, the Knesset passed the “Holy Sites Protection Law,” which applies the laws, jurisdiction and administrative regulations existing in Israel to East Jerusalem and certain surrounding areas that were previously under Jordanian control. .
By the same decree, the united city was proclaimed the single and indivisible capital of the country. It was this status of the city that was recorded in the first article of the “Basic Law” on Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, adopted on July 30, 1980.
The essence of the resolution
Israel's decision to pass legislation that formally annexed East Jerusalem and declared the unified city the capital of Israel was rejected by the Security Council and the General Assembly.
The Council condemned Israel's adoption of the Basic Law on Jerusalem and its refusal to implement relevant Security Council resolutions.
He confirmed that the adoption of this law constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the application in the Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem, Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians during war, August 12, 1949.
Interpretation
In Resolution 478, the UN Security Council actually repeated its position on Jerusalem, which had already been established over decades, expressed in resolutions 252 (1968), 267 (1969), 271 (1969), 298 (1971), 465 (1980) .) and 476 (1980).
Text of the resolution
UN Security Council Resolution No. 478 dated August 20, 1980
Security Council,
Recalling its resolution 476 (1980), reaffirming the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory through the use of force,
Deeply concerned by the adoption in the Israeli Knesset of the “Basic Law” proclaiming a change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its implications for peace and security,
Noting that Israel has not complied with resolution 476 (1980),
Reaffirming its determination to explore practical ways and means, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to ensure full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980) in the event of non-compliance by Israel,
1. Condemns in the strongest terms the adoption by Israel of the “Basic Law” for Jerusalem and the refusal to implement the relevant Security Council resolutions;
2. Confirms that the adoption by Israel of the “Basic Law” constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem;
3. Declares that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have changed or are intended to change the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent "Basic Law" of Jerusalem, are null and void and must be immediately cancelled;
4. Also reaffirms that these measures and actions represent a serious obstacle to the achievement of a comprehensive, equitable and lasting peace in the Middle East;
5. Decides not to recognize the “Basic Law” and such other actions of Israel which, as a result of this law, are aimed at changing the character and status of Jerusalem, and calls:
a) all Member States comply with this decision;
b) those states that have established diplomatic missions in Jerusalem, withdraw such missions from the Holy City;
6. Requests the Secretary-General to submit to it, by 15 November 1980, a report on the implementation of this resolution;
7. Decides to keep this serious situation under review.
The final text excludes the use of force and leaves the final solution to the problem with the Security Council
Security Council,
Recalling all its previous respective revolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of August 6, 1990, 678 (1990) of November 29, 1990, 686 (1991) of March 2, 1991, 687 (1991) of April 3, 1991 of the year, 688 (1991) dated April 5, 1991, 707 (1991) dated August 15, 1991. 715 (1991) dated 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) dated 14 April 1995 and 1284 (1999) dated 17 December 1999, and on all relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and recalling its intention to fully implement it,
Recognizing the threat posed by Iraq's failure to comply with Council resolutions and the proliferation of weapons mass destruction and missiles long range For international peace and safety,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to support the implementation of its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990), and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Regretting the fact that Iraq has not provided accurate, complete, definitive and comprehensive information, as required by resolution 687 (1991), on all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction programs and ballistic missiles range greater than 150 km and all stocks of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programs, including those which it asserts are being carried out for purposes unrelated to materials that can be used for production nuclear weapons,
Also deploring the fact that Iraq has repeatedly prevented immediate, unconditional and unhindered access to sites identified by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and International agency By atomic energy(IAEA), did not cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,
Deploring the lack of international monitoring, inspection and control of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles in Iraq since December 1998, as required by the relevant resolutions, despite the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional and unhindered access to the United Nations Commission Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection (UNMOVIC), established by resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and deploring the resulting continued crisis in the area and suffering for the Iraqi people,
Also deploring the failure of the Government of Iraq to fulfill its obligations under the resolution; 687 (1991) regarding terrorism, resolution 688 (1991) regarding ending repression of its civilian population and allowing international humanitarian organizations access to all those in need of assistance in Iraq and resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991) and 1284 ( 1999) regarding the return of Kuwaitis and third-country nationals illegally detained by Iraq or cooperation in clarifying their fate or regarding the return of Kuwaiti property illegally seized by Iraq,
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991), the Council stated that the ceasefire would be based on Iraq's acceptance of the provisions of that resolution, including the responsibilities imposed on Iraq contained therein,
Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq, without conditions or restrictions, with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions, and recalling that Security Council resolutions constitute the criterion for Iraq's performance of its obligations,
Recalling that the effective functioning of UNMOVIC - as the successor organization to the Special Commission - and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,
Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq to the Secretary-General as a necessary first step towards ending Iraq's persistent failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,
Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA addressed to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq outlining practical follow-up measures to their meeting in Vienna, which are preconditions for the resumption of inspections UNMOVIC and IAEA in Iraq, and expressing the most serious concerns in this regard. that Iraq has not yet confirmed its agreement with respect to the measures outlined in this letter,
reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity Iraq, Kuwait and neighboring countries.
Expressing gratitude to the Secretary-General and the members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,
Determined to ensure full implementation of its decisions,
acting on the basis Chapter VII United Nations Charter,
1. Finds that Iraq has been and continues to be in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular by refusing to cooperate with United Nations and IAEA inspectors and to complete measures in accordance with paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, recognizing the provisions of paragraph 1 above, to give Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament responsibilities in accordance with relevant Council resolutions; and accordingly decides to introduce an enhanced inspection regime to ensure the complete and verifiable completion of the disarmament process provided for in resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent Council resolutions;
3. Decides that in order to begin to fulfill its disarmament responsibilities, the Government of Iraq, in addition to submitting the required semi-annual statements, shall submit to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council, no later than 30 days from the date of adoption of this resolution, an accurate, complete and comprehensive current moment a statement outlining all aspects of its programs to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and other delivery systems, such as unmanned aerial vehicles and spray systems, intended for use on aircraft, including all stocks and exact location such weapons, components, subcomponents, stockpiles of agents and related materials and equipment, the location and operation of its research, development and production facilities, and all other chemical, biological and nuclear programs, including those which, according to him, are intended for purposes unrelated to the production of weapons or weapons-grade materials;
4. Decides that misrepresentations or omissions in applications submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and Iraq's failure at any time to comply with this resolution and to cooperate fully in its implementation will constitute a further material breach by Iraq of its responsibilities, and this will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;
5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA with immediate, unhindered, unconditional and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, structures, equipment, documentation and vehicles which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted and confidential access to all officials and other persons with whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wishes to be interviewed in a format or place of the choice of UNMOVIC or the IAEA in the exercise by them of any aspect of their mandates, Decides further that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may, at their discretion, conduct interviews in Iraq or outside Iraq, facilitate the travel of interviewees and their families outside Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may be conducted without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days after the adoption of this resolution, and to inform the Council thereof 60 days after the resumption of inspections;
6. Endorses the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA addressed to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, contained in the annex to this resolution, and decides that the provisions of this letter shall be binding on Iraq,
7. Further decides that in view of the prolonged interruption caused by Iraq in ensuring the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to be able to carry out the tasks set out in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions, and notwithstanding previous agreements, the Council hereby establishes the following revised and Additional powers that are binding on Iraq to facilitate their work in Iraq:
UNMOVIC and the IAEA determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams include the most qualified and experienced experts available,
All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy privileges and immunities consistent with those accorded to experts on assignment as provided in the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;
UNMOVIC and the IAEA must have unrestricted rights of entry into and exit from Iraq, the right of free, unrestricted and immediate entry into and departure from inspected sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including the right of immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access to presidential facilities, equal access to other facilities”, regardless of the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);
UNMOVIC and the IAEA have the right to obtain from Iraq the names of all personnel currently and previously associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missile programs and related research, development and production facilities;
Security at UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities is ensured by a sufficient number of United Nations security personnel;
UNMOVIC and the IAEA have the right, for the purpose of “freezing” a site subject to inspection, to declare prohibited zones, including adjacent areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq ceases ground air traffic, so that no changes are made at the inspected facility and nothing is removed from it;
UNMOBIC and the IAEA have the right to unimpeded and unrestricted use and landing of fixed-wing and helicopters, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance aircraft;
UNMOVIC and the IAEA have the right, at their sole discretion, to seize, destroy or render harmless in a controlled manner all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, documentation, materials and other related items and the right to secure or close any facilities or equipment for the production of the above mentioned items; And
UNMOVIC and the IAEA have the right to the unimpeded entry and use of equipment or materials for inspections and the right to seize and remove any equipment, materials or documents of which they come into possession during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;
8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take hostile action or threaten such action against any representative or member of the staff of the United Nations or the IAEA or any Member State taking action pursuant to any Council resolution;
9. Requests the Secretary-General to immediately notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; requires that Iraq confirm within 7 days of this notification its intention to fully comply with this resolution; and also demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional and active cooperation with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
10. Requests all Member States to provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA their full support in the implementation of their mandates, including by providing any information relating to proscribed programs or other aspects of their mandates, including Iraq's attempts since 1998 to acquire proscribed items, and by making recommendations regarding sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions for conducting such interviews and data to be collected, the results of which should be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
11. Instructs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and General Director The IAEA will immediately report to Sonnet any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament responsibilities, including responsibilities relating to inspections under this resolution;
12. Decides to meet immediately upon receipt of the report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above to consider the situation and the need to ensure full compliance with all relevant Council resolutions in order to ensure international peace and security;
13. Recalls in this regard that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that further breaches of its responsibilities will result in serious consequences for it;
14. Decides to remain seized of this matter.
InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.
The General Assembly, Having subjected the situation in Palestine to further consideration,
1. Expresses deep satisfaction at the results achieved by the late United Nations Mediator in promoting a peaceful solution to the future situation in Palestine, for which he sacrificed his life; and expresses its gratitude to the Acting Mediator and his staff for their tireless efforts and dedication to duty in their work in Palestine;
2. establishes a Conciliation Commission consisting of representatives of three member states of the Organization, which must perform the following functions:
(a) To undertake, so far as it deems necessary under existing circumstances, the performance of the functions assigned to the United Nations Mediator in Palestine by General Assembly resolution 186(8-2) of 14 May 1948;
(b) to carry out certain specified functions and directives given to it by this resolution and such additional functions and directives as may be given to it by the General Assembly or the Security Council;
(c) to assume, on the proposal of the Security Council, any of those functions currently assigned to the United Nations Mediator in Palestine or to the United Nations Truce Commission in Palestine by resolutions of the Security Council, the office of Mediator being abolished thereafter how the Security Council will request the Conciliation Commission to assume all remaining functions of the United Nations Mediator in Palestine which have been entrusted to it by the Security Council;
3. Decides that the Assembly Committee, composed of representatives of China, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and France, shall submit, before the end of the first part of this session of the General Assembly, for the approval of the Assembly, a proposal for the selection of three States that will form part of the Conciliation Commission ;
4. Requests the Commission to immediately begin to carry out its functions with a view to establishing contact between the parties themselves and the Commission as soon as possible;
5. Calls on all interested governments and authorities to expand the scope of negotiations provided for in the Security Council resolution of November 16, 1948 and to seek agreement through negotiations, either directly or through the Conciliation Commission, with a view to the final resolution of all issues between them;
6. Authorizes the Conciliation Commission to take measures to assist the governments and authorities concerned with a view to the final resolution of all issues on which there are differences between them;
7. Decides that the Holy Places - including Nazareth - buildings and sites of religious significance in Palestine shall be protected and free access to them shall be ensured in accordance with existing rights and historically established traditions: that agreements on this matter shall be effectively supervised United Nations; that the United Nations Conciliation Commission, when presenting to the fourth regular session of the General Assembly its detailed proposals for a permanent international regime for the territory of Jerusalem, should include recommendations regarding the Holy Places in that territory; that in relation to the Holy Places in the remaining parts of Palestine the Commission should refer to political authorities relevant areas requesting appropriate formal guarantees regarding the protection of the Holy Sites and access to them; and that these activities should be submitted to the General Assembly for approval;
8. Decides that, in view of its close connection with the three world religions, the Jerusalem area, including the present territory of the Jerusalem municipality, as well as the villages and towns adjacent to it, the easternmost of which will be Abu Dis, and the southernmost Bethlehem, the westernmost Ein Karim (including the built-up part of Mots), and the northernmost Shufat, was given a special and different regime from the rest of Palestine and was to be placed under effective control United Nations;
invites the Security Council to take further measures to ensure the demilitarization of Jerusalem with the least delay possible;
Directs the Conciliation Commission to submit to the fourth regular session of the General Assembly detailed proposals for a permanent international regime for the Jerusalem area, which should ensure maximum local autonomy for the various groups, compatible with special international status Jerusalem area;
The Conciliation Commission is authorized to appoint a representative of the United Nations who shall cooperate with the local authorities in matters of temporary administration of the Jerusalem area;
9. Decides that, pending agreement on more detailed arrangements between the Governments and authorities concerned, all the inhabitants of Palestine shall be given the freest possible access to Jerusalem by road, railways, as well as by air; and invites the Conciliation Commission to immediately report to the Security Council, so that it can take appropriate measures, all attempts by anyone to impede this access;
10. Invites the Conciliation Commission to seek the conclusion of agreements between the governments and authorities concerned that will facilitate economic development area, including agreements on access to ports and airports and on the use of transport and communications;
11. Decides that refugees who wish to return to their homes and live peacefully with their neighbors should be given this opportunity in the shortest possible time, with payment of compensation for the property of those who choose not to return, and for loss and damage to property, which should be compensated by the appropriate governments or authorities in accordance with the principles of international law or the law of equity; and invites the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement, economic and social rehabilitation and compensation of refugees, and to maintain close liaison with the Director of United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the relevant United Nations bodies and agencies ;
12. Authorizes the Conciliation Commission to appoint, in order to effectively discharge its functions and duties under this resolution, subsidiary bodies and technical experts to act on its behalf in all cases where it deems it necessary;
the official seat of the Conciliation Commission is established in Jerusalem; the authorities responsible for maintaining order in Jerusalem will be responsible for accepting all necessary measures to ensure the security of the Commission; The Secretary General will provide a limited number of guards to protect the personnel and premises of the Commission;
13. Invites the Conciliation Commission to submit periodic progress reports Secretary General for transmission to the Security Council and members of the United Nations;
14. Calls upon all interested governments and authorities to cooperate with the Conciliation Commission and to take all possible measures to facilitate the implementation of this resolution;
15. Instructs the Secretary General to provide the necessary personnel and equipment and to take measures to provide the necessary funds to implement the provisions of this resolution.
One hundred eighty-sixth plenary meeting.
December 11, 1948