模联DR模板

Draft ResolutionCommittee: HRCTopic: Responsibility to Protect—humanitarian interventionSponsors: Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, ZambiaCo-sponsors:The Human Rights Committee,Recalling its previous successful actions, including its UNOSOM I mission in Somali in April 1992 and humanitarian intervention in Timor-Leste in September 1999,Deploring its inaction to Rwanda Genocide that killed around 1,000,000 people,Alarmed by Myanmar government’s blocking large-scale international aid to cyclone victims that later developed a humanitarian crisis,Emphasizing the importance of Responsibility to Protect published in December 2001, under the chairmanship of Gareth Evansthat that where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect,Reaffirming the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity,Reaffirming the UN Chapter VII that entitles the Security Council to take actionin cases of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression,Reaffirming the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action and recalling the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and other human rights instruments,Reaffirming the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty (1965), Declaration on Principle of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (1970), and Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States (A/RES/36/103, 1981),Reaffirming that Resolution 60/251 established by UN General Assembly (GA), Human Rights Council (HRC) was endowed with obligations of improving human rights conditions and respecting basic human rights based on The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.Expressing the gravest concern at the claim by the former Secretary-General KofiAnnan at the 54 session of the UN General Assembly in September 1999 that weconfronted a real dilemma of which few would disagree that both the defense ofhumanity and the defense of sovereignty were principles that must be supported andthat didn’t not tell us which principle should prevail when they were in conflic t,Emphasizing the principle that the military intervention can only be justified asthe last resort,Expecting the world in a peaceful state without concern of human rights violationsthat would inevitably put international relationships into chaos,Acting under the Charter of the United Nations and international laws,Prevention1.Condemns that unilateral military intervention is illegal, since it can be easilydisguised under the flag of humanity, which in reality is mixed with politicalinterests, contributing to a high probability of causing even more serioushuman rights infringements in turn;2.Decides that the international community should, as appropriate, support theUnited Nations to inform and require the country, whose populations areconfronting overwhelming atrocities, to avert and halt the massive humanrights violations on its own before it turns essential to intervene in it;3.Calls upon potential countries which may confront HI to encourage theirmassive media including newspapers, Internet and broadcasting network topublicize the concept of “responsibility to protect”, thus consequently leadingto the enhancement of the public’s awareness on this issue;4.Decides that regional nations should unite in advance to set up a coherentt mechanism for united defense of their national sovereignty and interests,since possible interventions in developing countries, especially in Africa, aredue to lack of unity and regional cooperation before HI takes place;5.Further recommends that it is necessary to strengthen the comprehensivenational powers in every aspect, of which infrastructure construction is ofgreat significance, to maximize the basic human rights and benefits of thenational citizens, considering that being lag in economic status within thecountry is the root and major source of HI;6.Recommends a preparatory scheme for countermeasures with non-militaryforces must be adopted by UN, which contains both short-term and long-termaiding actions, specificallya.short-term aiding: UN should gatheri)adequate material aid immediately after the humanitarian crisis breaksout, with contents of food, quilts, medicine etc.ii) financial aid offered by concerned NGOs and the Red Cross, andregional organizations gathered by the UN;b.Long-term aiding: UN should introduce long-term high-tech aids,educational programs, and other infrastructure construction systems.Loans by the World Bank, IMF are also appreciated;c.Such preparatory scheme also attaches importance to the evaluation ofthe crisis. A multilateral investigating team mainly concerningvolunteered persons from none-interested countries or NGOs should besent to the spot to gather information and submit a report on this to UNto help UN make a justified decisions;7.Reaffirms that collective security8.Further recommends that it is necessary to strengthen the comprehensivenational powers in every aspect, of which infrastructure construction is of great significance, to maximize the basic human rights and benefits of the national citizens, considering that being lag in economic status within the country is the root and major source of HI;9.Calls for more assistance from the ICRC so as to reduce or eliminate doubt,given assistance is from a certain country, about the uncertain intention of the aid offering country, consequently making it more likely for the country in question to accept the assistance,Reaction1.Reaffirms the principles of humanitarian intervention stated in R2P:(a) Just cause: military intervention for human protection purposes must beregarded as an exceptional and extraordinary measure, and for it to be warranted, there must be serious and irreparable harm occurring to human beings, or imminently likely to occur;(b) Right intention: the primary purpose of the intervention must be to haltor avert human suffering;(c) Last resort: every diplomatic and non-military avenue for the preventionor peaceful resolution of the humanitarian crisis must have been explored;(d) Proportional means: the scale, duration and intensity of the plannedmilitary intervention should be the minimum necessary to secure the humanitarian objective in question and it should go without saying that all the rules of international humanitarian law should be strictly observed in these situations;(e) Reasonable prospects: military action can only be justified if it stands areasonable chance of success, that is, halting or averting the atrocities or suffering that triggered the intervention in the first place.2.Decides that the UN member countries should primarily establish propercriteria regarding the definition of humanitarian intervention by developing more multilateral dialogues, so as to decide when and under which circumstances humanitarian intervention is acceded to be generated:3.Calls for the Security Council to:(a) further develop the early warning and analysis mechanism, by establishing a series of transparent and all-nation acceptable criteria of investigating procedures, in order to judge whether the country to be intervened in is really suffering from those atrocities, namely genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and whether the application of a new humanitarian intervention is qualified according to the criteria and is essential to be exercised, including three possible ways to detect:(i) to receive report from certain countries, groups of countries, international organizations and even individuals;(ii) to organize specialized committee to investigate;(iii) to authorize international organizations to investigate;(b) improve the decision-making process of humanitarian intervention so as to reduce the Veto policy’s side-effect by a probable way of strengthening the General Assembly’s influence on the Security Council, according to:(i) Article 10 and 11 of the Charter of the UN, which entitles the GA to discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security,(ii) Article 12 of the Charter of the UN, which affirms that while the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests;(iii) Article 27 of the Charter of the UN, which decides that decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting;(iv) Article 30 of the Charter of the UN, which emphasizes that The Security Council shall adopt its own rules of procedure;4.Emphasizes that the UN should be the only power that can authorizehumanitarian intervention and send peacekeeping troops to the possibly intervened in country;5.Demands that an international institution of supervision organized by globalgovernments and NGOs be highly needed, aiming at extending the scope and improving the efficiency of the regulatory mechanisms and supporting services, supervising elements below:(a) the original purpose of humanitarian intervention shall not be changed thought out its actions;(b) the quantity, category, intensity, geological scope and duration of the force should be within reasonable and legal ranges；(c) the troop withdrawal should be executed within a regulated maximum of time, which constitutes rebuilding, after the intervention reaches its initial purpose;6.Affirms wherever possible, coercive measures short of militaryintervention ought first to be examined, including in particular various types of political, economic and military sanctions;7.Accepts that sanctions target leadership groups and security organizationsresponsible for gross human rights violations have emerged as an increasingly important alternative to general sanctions in recent years, and efforts to make such sanctions more effective have drawn increasing attention;8.Encourages a standard exemption for food and medical supplies beinggenerally recognized by the Security Council and under international law;9.Approves efforts to target sanctions more effectively so as to decrease theimpact on innocent civilians and crease the impact on decision makers have been focused in three different areas including military, economic and political/ diplomatic;10.Requests actions taken in the military area:(a) Arms embargoes are an important tool of the Security Council andthe international community when conflict arises or is threatened. Such embargoes generally include the sale of military equipment as well as spare parts;(b) Ending military cooperation and training programmes are anothercommon, if less strenuous, measure used or threatened by states to bring about compliance with international norms, though results can vary;11.Appeals in the economic area:(a) Financial sanctions may target the foreign assets of a country, or arebel movement or terrorist organization, or the foreign assets of particular leaders;(b) Restrictions on income generating activities such as oil, diamondsand logging and drugs, have more and more come to be regarded as one ofthe most important types of targeted sanctions;(c) Restrictions on access to petroleum products can be an importantway of restricting military operations, though such restrictions may alsohave a broad and possibly devastating impact on civilians and the localeconomy;(d) Aviation bans have been used in a number of cases and generallyprohibit international air traffic to or from a particular destination;12.Endorses in the political and diplomatic area:(a) Restrictions on diplomatic representation, including expulsion ofstaff, should also be seen as a relevant and useful measure in efforts to limitillicit transactions - whether for the sale of illicit commodities such asillegally mined diamonds or drugs or for the purchase of arms and othermilitary related materiel, or with respect to the movement of funds;(b) Restrictions on travel, not least to major international shoppingdestinations, should have some utility when against specific leaders orindividuals and their families;(c) Suspension of membership or expulsion from international orregional bodies, and the loss this may entail not only of national prestige,but also of technical cooperation or financial assistance countries mayreceive from such bodies, is another increasingly used tool;(d) Refusal to admit a country to membership of a body is a corollaryof the foregoing which has sometimes been employed to good effect thusshould be advocated;(e) Declares the Commission found in its consultations that even instates where there was the strongest opposition to infringements onsovereignty, there was general acceptance that there must be limitedexceptions to the non-intervention rule for certain kinds of emergencies;13.Emphasizes the Commission has resisted any temptation to identify as aground for military intervention human rights violations falling short ofoutright killing or ethnic cleansing, for example systematic racialdiscrimination, or the systematic imprisonment or other repression ofpolitical opponents;14.Further proclaims the Commission has taken a similar view in relation tocases where a population, having clearly expressed its desire for ademocratic regime, is denied its democratic rights by a military take-over;15.Reminds obtaining fair and accurate information is difficult but essential;16.Notes ideally there would be a report as to the gravity of the situation, andthe inability or unwillingness of the state in question to manage it satisfactorily, from a universally respected and impartial non-government source;17.Reaffirms where existence of the conditions that might warrant anintervention for human protection purposes is in question, and time allows, an independent special fact-finding mission could be sent by the Security Council or the Secretary-General for the purpose of obtaining accurate information and a fair assessment of a particular situation;18.Encourages an efficient, transparent and equal working system to beestablished to carry out quick actions toward conflicts;19.Supports an inter-governmental consultation platform or a regionalcourthouse to promote regional cooperation and dialogues as a sort of complement of the work of the UN and the Security Council;20.Welcomes regional representatives and observers on an equal basis to be incharge of regional human rights issues;21.Recommends a world summit yearly or every few years to accelerate theprocess of HI settlement;22.Urges a worldwide foundation to collect special fund for infrastructureconstruction in developing countries, thus to eliminate the major source of HI and bridge the gap between the East and the West;23.Solemnly affirms the need for clear, explicit and unambiguous statementson national responsibility and rights so as to avoid possible disputes in times of final arbitration;Rebuilding1.Decides that the UN should take up the power and responsibility to urge all hemobilization nations to fulfill post-intervention obligations, including:(a)peace and security rebuilding,;(b)long term economic development plan；(c)of domestic and international political will to address the humaninfringements;2.Further recommends that later training programs for the people of the countrybeing intervened should be established for the sake of a faster recovery, including infrastructure reconstruction instructions, technical skills learning and encouraging public faith in a brighter future;3.Affirms that the basic principle of rebuilding is to consolidate peace andprevent a recurrence of armed confrontation at the end of a conflict;[without reference to a Main Committee (A/60/L.50 and Add.1)]60/252. World Summit on the Information SocietyThe General Assembly,Recalling its resolutions 56/183 of 21 December 2001, 57/238 of 20 December 2002, 57/270 B of 23 June 2003 and 59/220 of 22 December 2004, Recalling also the Declaration of Principles and the Plan of Action adopted by the World Summit on the Information Society at its first phase, held in Geneva from 10 to 12 December 2003,1 as endorsed by the General Assembly,2Recalling further the 2005 World Summit Outcome,3Recognizing that the implementation and follow-up of the World Summit should be an integral part of the integrated follow-up of the major United Nations conferences and summits in the economic, social and related fields and should contribute to the achievement of the internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals, and should not require the creation of any new operational bodies,Acknowledging the urgent need to bridge the digital divide and to assist developing countries, including least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States, and countries with economies in transition to benefit fully from the potential of information and communicationtechnologies,Reaffirming the potential of information and communication technologies as powerful tools to foster socio-economic development and contribute to the realization of the internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals,Stressing the importance of the contribution of the Summit to the building of a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented information society so as to enhance digital opportunities for all people in order to help to bridge the digital divide,Acknowledging with appreciation the role played by the International Telecommunication Union in the organization of the two phases of the Summit,1.Expresses its gratitude to the Government of Tunisia for havinghosted the second phase of the World Summit on the InformationSociety in Tunis from16 to 18 November 2005;2.Takes note of the note by the Secretary-General transmitting thereport of the Secretary-General of the InternationalTelecommunication Union on the second phase of the Summit;43.Endorses the Tunis Commitment and the Tunis Agenda for theInformation Society adopted by the Summit at its second phase;44.Welcomes the contribution of Member States, relevant United Nationsbodies and other intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, civil society and the private sector to the success ofthe Tunis phase of the Summit;5.Also welcomes the strong development orientation of the outcomesof both the Geneva and the Tunis phases of the Summit, and urgestheir fullimplementation;6.Further welcomes progress achieved by the Summit towards amultistakeholder approach in building a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented information society, and acknowledges thatGovernments could play an important role in that process;7.Welcomes the Digital Solidarity Fund, established in Geneva as aninnovative financial mechanism of a voluntary nature, open tointerested stakeholders, with the objective of transforming thedigital divide into digital opportunities for the developing world byfocusing mainly on specific and urgent needs at the local level andseeking new voluntary sources of “solidarity” financing;8.Reiterates that the process towards enhanced cooperation to bestarted by the Secretary-General will involve all relevantorganizations and all stakeholders in their respective roles, asmentioned in paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda;9.Invites the Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, toconvene a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue called the InternetGovernance Forum, in accordance with the decisions made at theTunis phase of the Summit;10.W elcomes the importance attached by the Summit, as reflected inthe Tunis Agenda, to multi-stakeholder implementation at theinternational level, which should be organized taking into accountthe themes and action lines in the Geneva Plan of Action1 andmoderated or facilitated by United Nations agencies, whereappropriate;11.U rges Member States, relevant United Nations bodies and otherintergovernmental organizations, as well as non-governmentalorganizations, civilsociety and the private sector, to contribute actively, inter alia byinitiating actions, where appropriate, to the implementation andfollow-up of the outcomes of the Geneva and Tunis phases of theSummit;12.R equests the Economic and Social Council to oversee the system-widefollow-up of the Geneva and Tunis outcomes of the Summit, and tothat endrequests the Council, at its substantive session of 2006, to review the mandate, agenda and composition of the Commission on Science andTechnology for Development, including considering strengthening the Commission, taking into account the multi-stakeholder approach;13.D ecides to proclaim 17 May annual World Information Society Day tohelp to raise awareness of the possibilities that the use of theInternet and otherinformation and communication technologies can bring to societiesand economies, as well as of ways to bridge the digital divide;14.A lso decides to conduct an overall review of the implementation ofthe Summit outcomes in 2015;15.R equests the Secretary-General to submit to the General Assemblythrough the Economic and Social Council, by June 2006, a report onthe modalitiesof the inter-agency coordination of the implementation of theSummit outcomes, including recommendations on the follow-upprocess, for consideration at the substantive session of the Council.74th plenary meeting碳关税。