The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction - Item 85 - A/80/274
🇷🇺 Russian Federation, 🇮🇱 Israel, 🇵🇸 State of Palestine
Спасибо у вас. Thank you, distinguished Mr. Chairman. I will try to be as brief as possible. Unfortunately, we had to use our right to reply because yesterday, once again, we heard from some delegations uh y m yet more anti-Russian remarks pertaining to universal jurisdiction. This institution has been warped into something that is used for political pressure, and this seems to be extremely hypocritical. The committee started to discuss this with the desire, uh, apparently according to our Western colleagues, for fairness, because they were cynically continuing to abuse universal jurisdiction for political purposes. The so-called uh combat against impunity, struggle against impunity is just an excuse to get involved in interference in gross violation of international law. So, who is trying to convince us of the effectiveness of universal jurisdiction more than anyone else? It is those who have broad experience of the systematic use of genocide and war crimes, those who, after the Nuremberg tribunals, refuse to ratify the convention about the Statute of Limitations for war crimes, enabling criminals calmly to go away without any punishment for the heinous crimes that they had committed. It is the um uh people, the successors of those who are who once promoted Nazism and uh who were under Nazi criminals. None of them used universal jurisdiction against their own colleagues in the camps. For example, yesterday, it was very interesting for us to hear the contribution of the distinguished representative of Germany, who Directly listed who his country is intending to use universal jurisdiction against. And very strange that we didn't in that list hear those people who are responsible for the military adventure and forays into Libya, into Afghanistan, and into Iraq. So, in the views of the West, universal jurisdiction is not universal. It is just selective. All of this based on the so called rules based order that has absolutely nothing to do with universal law and international law, and in particular, it has nothing to do with the UN Charter. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh today I would like to begin to exercise our right of reply on a positive note. Particularly I wish to congratulate this distinguished forum. We almost managed to conclude a day of debate while focusing solely on the legal aspects of the agenda. We addressed the challenges, concerns, and opportunities of this important matter of universal jurisdiction almost without any interferences. We were so, so close. But but once again I'm forced to take up the time of this STEM forum to note with regret that the Palestinian delegation could once again not resist the temptation to politicize yet another professional legal discussion. While the rest of us engage in a constructive and substantive legal exchange, they chose to diverge from the fundamental purpose of this committee, unable to refrain from misusing this forum to make inappropriate and derogatory political statements. They remain, it seems, the only delegation in this room that has managed to turn politicization into a true art form, perhaps even profession. Mr. Chair, this is once again underscores the danger of abusing a professional legal forum for neuropolitical agendas that are irrelevant to its purpose. Instead of discussing substance, we left discussing politics. Instead of addressing legal issues, we are forced to listen to the same empty accusations and endless false narratives, none of which contribute anything productive to the legal and interesting debate beforehand. Israel refuses to lower the level of the discussion in this forum by responding to substantively to such accusations. We simply wish to congratulate the forum for almost succeeding to holding depoliticized debate under this item. We almost made it. One day, perhaps, the Palestinian delegation can join the rest of us. Thank you. And congratulations again.
It's okay, just be very brief. Um the same bullying tactics will not work on any of the delegations here, and discussing the violations on crimes of the State of Israel in the legal committee is not empty accusations. I would recommend to the Israeli delegate to go and and read the advisory opinion that was just issued by the International Court of Justice today, of which the court concluded, and I quote, that Israel severely restricted and times completely blocked the entry of a humanitarian aid and development assistance. The court had to remind Israel that there is a prohibition on starvation as a use uh as used for a method of war, and there's a prohibition on forcible transfer, some things that all of us are familiar with, that Israel had to be reminded of. So the bullying tactics will not work on either of us. And I want to congratulate the world today and the legal committee as well for having another advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice that we wish to follow up on. Thank you. Thank you. And I have a second request from the delegation of Israel. Thank you, Chair. Sorry for taking the floor again. And uh unfortunately, again, the Palestinian delegation raised another issue that is not relevant to the uh uh topic before us. We need to talk about the item of universal jurisdiction, but fine. So let me react quickly about that. Israel wishes to clarify its initial position regarding the International Court of Justice advisory opinion that was released this morning. Israel categorically rejects the ICJ's so called advisory opinion, which was entirely predictable from the outset regarding UNRWA. This represents yet another political attempt to impose political measures against Israel under the guise of international law. The advisory opinion regrettably ignores the core issues at the heart of this matter. The focus of the ICJ's opinion should have been on the terrorist activity that UNRWA has been involved in. UNRWA employees directly took part in the October 7th massacre and continue to assist Hamas terrorist operation, all under the auspices of the United Nations. Hamas terror activity within UNRWA took place before the October 7th massacre, during the massacre, and after the massacre. Israel provided the UN with extensive evidence providing Hamas infiltration into UNRWA, but the UN has never investigated the full extent of this infiltration. Nearly two years after October 7, UNRWA still employs around 1,400 Hamas operatives, including active members of Hamas military wing. Israel fully upholds its obligation under international law. Israel fully rejects the politicization of international law, which seeks to produce political outcomes and impose measures intended to harm the state of Israel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. State of Palestine. It's very endearing to watch that the Israeli delegate sets in the United Nations, still attacks the United Nations and still targets the United Nations. If you want to talk about universal jurisdiction, your officials are international fugitives wanted by the ICC. If this is the most relevant part of the debate, everyone should leave the debate with this. Israeli officials are international fugitives wanted by the ICC. And next time when you sit in the room in the United Nations, I recommend that you do not attack the United Nations once again. And the findings of the International Court of Justice are not politicized findings. They are findings and they are authoritative statements on the law that you have clearly been violating for 77 years. Again, read the advisory opinion before you talk. Thank you. Thank you to the State of Palestine. Now, colleagues, I do not have any other requests for the exercise of right of reply. So tomorrow we will continue at 10 a.m. with the delegation of the United Kingdom Vietnam ICRC. Then we will turn to the agenda item of diplomatic protection, and after that we will consider the United Nations program of assistance agenda item. This meeting is adjourned.
Verbatim from the transcript. A reply is identified from its own words, the Chair's grant, or its place in the right-of-reply sequence; delegations and addressees follow the transcript's attribution.