Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07USUNNEWYORK914
2007-10-24 22:07:00
UNCLASSIFIED
USUN New York
Cable title:
UNGA/C-6:ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST A CONVENTION ON
how-toVZCZCXYZ0011 RR RUEHWEB DE RUCNDT #0914 2972207 ZNR UUUUU ZZH R 242207Z OCT 07 FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2871 INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 0985 RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN 0874 RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA 0876 RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS 0323 RUEHGT/AMEMBASSY GUATEMALA 0164 RUEHKL/AMEMBASSY KUALA LUMPUR 0645 RUEHLI/AMEMBASSY LISBON 0518 RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 1187 RUEHME/AMEMBASSY MEXICO 0602 RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 1064 RUEHNR/AMEMBASSY NAIROBI 0654 RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI 1886 RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 0932 RUEHSA/AMEMBASSY PRETORIA 0770 RUEHQT/AMEMBASSY QUITO 0128 RUEHSN/AMEMBASSY SAN SALVADOR 0141 RUEHSM/AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM 0519 RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 8343 RUEHVI/AMEMBASSY VIENNA 0481 RUEHWR/AMEMBASSY WARSAW 3232 RUEHUB/USINT HAVANA 0213 RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA 0690
UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000914
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: UNGA UNGA
SUBJECT: UNGA/C-6:ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST A CONVENTION ON
DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION
UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000914
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: UNGA UNGA
SUBJECT: UNGA/C-6:ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST A CONVENTION ON
DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION
1. During the October 19 debate on diplomatic protection the
following delegations addressed the Sixth Committee: Canada
(on behalf of CANZ),Norway (on behalf of Denmark, Sweden,
Finland and Iceland),Portugal, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Venezuela, China, Poland, Mexico, Germany, Malaysia, Austria,
South Africa, Japan, the United States, Kenya, Brazil,
Greece, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, India,
Iran and Ecuador (Note: Statements pouched to L-CID/Karen
Kizer. End Note.)
2. The debate on diplomatic protection was focused on whether
Member States should take more time to reflect upon the draft
articles, or whether States should follow the recommendation
of the International Law Commission and negotiate a
convention. The main arguments in support of a convention
were that codification of the articles would strengthen
international law and extend diplomatic protection to
refugees and stateless persons. India, Ecuador, the Russian
Federation, Brazil, Kenya, Norway (on behalf of Denmark,
Sweden, Finland and Iceland),Cuba and Portugal spoke in
favor of a convention. On the other hand, several
delegations expressed reservations about the utility of a
convention at this time. The UK stated it would prefer to
reflect upon the draft articles for a period of time and
observe how the articles develop through their application in
State practice and use in international courts and tribunals.
Japan sounded a similar note and suggested the Sixth
Committee return to the issue in 2012.
3. Background Note: The text on diplomatic protection
consists of 19 articles, divided into four parts: general
provisions, nationality, local remedies and miscellaneous
provisions. The International Law Commission began work on
the articles in 1997, noting that an instrument on diplomatic
protection would compliment its work on State responsibility.
The draft articles concern the rules governing the
conditions and circumstances in which diplomatic protection
might be exercised. End Background Note.
WOLFF
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: UNGA UNGA
SUBJECT: UNGA/C-6:ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST A CONVENTION ON
DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION
1. During the October 19 debate on diplomatic protection the
following delegations addressed the Sixth Committee: Canada
(on behalf of CANZ),Norway (on behalf of Denmark, Sweden,
Finland and Iceland),Portugal, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Venezuela, China, Poland, Mexico, Germany, Malaysia, Austria,
South Africa, Japan, the United States, Kenya, Brazil,
Greece, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, India,
Iran and Ecuador (Note: Statements pouched to L-CID/Karen
Kizer. End Note.)
2. The debate on diplomatic protection was focused on whether
Member States should take more time to reflect upon the draft
articles, or whether States should follow the recommendation
of the International Law Commission and negotiate a
convention. The main arguments in support of a convention
were that codification of the articles would strengthen
international law and extend diplomatic protection to
refugees and stateless persons. India, Ecuador, the Russian
Federation, Brazil, Kenya, Norway (on behalf of Denmark,
Sweden, Finland and Iceland),Cuba and Portugal spoke in
favor of a convention. On the other hand, several
delegations expressed reservations about the utility of a
convention at this time. The UK stated it would prefer to
reflect upon the draft articles for a period of time and
observe how the articles develop through their application in
State practice and use in international courts and tribunals.
Japan sounded a similar note and suggested the Sixth
Committee return to the issue in 2012.
3. Background Note: The text on diplomatic protection
consists of 19 articles, divided into four parts: general
provisions, nationality, local remedies and miscellaneous
provisions. The International Law Commission began work on
the articles in 1997, noting that an instrument on diplomatic
protection would compliment its work on State responsibility.
The draft articles concern the rules governing the
conditions and circumstances in which diplomatic protection
might be exercised. End Background Note.
WOLFF