CYIL 2012

PETR VÁLEK CYIL 3 ȍ2012Ȏ the privilege to support Ambassador Perera as one of the “Friends of the Chair” in his efforts. The debate on the “outstanding issues” both in the Working Group and during informal consultations, however, did not bring anything new. In spite of this, Maria Telalian made a bold attempt to break the negotiation deadlock by presenting a draft accompanying resolution to the CCIT. The idea behind this draft resolution was to address in this document some of the main concerns of the OIC, in particular State terrorism and a high-level conference. Regarding State terrorism, the draft resolution contained a preambular paragraph which reads as follows: “Reaffirming the duty of every State to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force, and noting that it constitutes an obligation under customary international law”. With the exception of the last sentence on the customary international law status, this paragraph was taken from the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. 73 Pursuant to operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution, the question of convening a high level conference would continue to be discussed within the agenda item on measures to eliminate international terrorism. This draft resolution, however, was rejected by the OIC. According to its leading members, the draft resolution needs to address State terrorism (in their specific understanding of the term), the right of peoples to self-determination, as well as the root causes of terrorism, which this draft – in their view – did not. Furthermore, they newly re-opened the definition of the crime of terrorism in Article 2 of the CCIT, which they saw as a purely “law enforcement definition”. Most importantly, they stated that consideration of such a draft resolution was premature and that, from a procedural point of view, the text of the CCIT should be agreed first. This view was expressed also by other States. Although some delegations expressed support for this initiative, due to the critical view of the key players, this attempt to make progress in the negotiations turned out to be unsuccessful. The Working Group also listened to the statement of Mrs. Maria Telalian on her bilateral contacts, which is how the CCIT negotiations have been done so far by the present Coordinator (it means that the key players do not negotiate with each other directly). After admitting the growing frustration, she also believed that that the differences, from the legal point of view, are not so far apart. She stressed that with respect to Article 3, the only differences between the 2002 proposal and the OIC proposal are in paragraphs 2 (“the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict” vs. “the activities of the parties during an armed conflict, including in situations of foreign occupation”) and 3 (“inasmuch as they are governed by other rules of international law” vs. “inasmuch as they are in conformity with international law”). In this context, she pointed out that these differences were addressed by her 73 Resolution of the GA No. 2625 (XXV) of October 24, 1970.

308