Amidst ever-more-frequent wildfires, drought, cyclones, flooding, hurricanes and other hazards, the Sixth Committee (Legal) today deliberated over the International Law Commission’s draft articles on the protection of persons in the event of disasters as delegates discussed States’ obligations to their citizens and to each other in the wake of the devastation caused by these events.
“As old and emerging challenges become ever more transnational and complex, it is likely that the world will face events that are increasingly more common, as well as more severe in scale and effects,” said the representative of Portugal. These will result in “widespread loss of life, great human suffering and distress” and cause “serious disruption of the functioning of society”, he said, quoting the Commission’s draft articles. In addressing this, the texts strike a “sensible and delicate balance” between the need to protect human rights and facilitate international cooperation on the one hand, and the fundamental principle of State sovereignty and the affected State’s primary role in providing disaster relief on the other, he observed.
Agreeing on the need for such a balance was Canada’s representative, speaking also for Australia and New Zealand. Welcoming the emphasis on international human-rights law included in the draft articles, he added that “sharing best practices and initiatives under way at the local, national and regional levels can usefully advance reflection and enable swift action”. Building on that was Germany’s representative, who underlined the need — especially in events of disaster — “to have an agreement on all actors’ rights and obligations laid out in a concise and clear framework in order to act fast and effectively”.
Yet, “despite the urgency on the ground”, Hungary’s representative pointed out that the field of disaster law remains fragmented. Many current international instruments suffer from limited ratification or focus narrowly on specific aspects of disasters. Thus, the value of the Commission’s approach “seeks to bring coherence and systematization to this fragmented legal landscape”. While stating that the draft articles are a “good basis for future negotiations”, she noted “several opportunities for improvement” — including further consideration of the impact of disasters on cultural heritage.
The draft articles can serve as a “useful guide for States and others engaged in disaster relief”, said the representative of Singapore, stating that a “laudable aspect” is that they reflect the diversity of State practice. “States, being familiar with their own national contexts, are best placed to determine the necessary measures to reduce the risk of disasters,” she emphasized. Similarly, the representative of the Netherlands said that the draft articles — in their current form — “are useful as non-binding guidelines that may assist in better protection of persons affected by disasters”.
Other speakers were more critical. The Russian Federation’s representative said that the draft articles, as they stand, are not a good basis on which to elaborate a convention and proposed that they be sent back to the Commission to be “reworked”. The articles do not consider the obligation of assisting actors — including when assistance is denied for political reasons — nor do they oblige assisting States to obey the law of the affected State throughout the period of assistance. “The affected State is considered as an object, rather than an equal subject here,” she observed. Further, she said that it should be a “criminal act” when “the assisting State and its subjects profit from the assistance they extend”.
Egypt’s representative, stating that the draft articles “require significant revision and redrafting”, expressed concern that they could be misconstrued or misapplied in a manner that infringes on States’ sovereignty or territorial integrity. He also pointed out that they do not provide practical mechanisms to “galvanize international support for developing States in the processes of disaster response and reconstruction”. As well, he stressed, “The principal impediment to the ability of affected States to address disasters is the lack of capacity in this field.”
“We cannot do it alone,” said the representative of Grenada, speaking for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), noting that a significant portion of disaster relief and recovery in many small island developing States is supported by external assistance. For many such States, he added, climate change is not a “hypothetical”, but an “undisputable reality”. Echoing that, Indonesia’s representative also declared that “no nation — regardless of its preparedness — can confront such challenges alone”. The draft articles provide “critical legal underpinnings to foster cooperation”. Further, they ensure that affected individuals receive the necessary assistance, aligned with their dignity and needs.
Similarly, Guatemala’s representative recalled the devastating effects of hurricanes Eta and Iota and the 2018 eruption of Volcán de Fuego, emphasizing that the consequences of natural disasters often exceed affected States’ resources and overwhelm their capacities to respond. Adding to that, Iraq’s representative, detailing national efforts to concurrently “tackle environmental climate challenges while implementing our development plans”, said that his country is acutely exposed to natural disaster. This, in turn, prevents efforts to reduce poverty and presents difficulties regarding the use of natural resources.
Underscoring the importance of ensuring a human-rights approach and a gender perspective as a “central pillar”, Mexico’s representative joined others in expressing support for the elaboration of an international convention based on the draft articles. While Mexico is party to several bilateral agreements, he observed that — in a world where disasters are becoming more frequent — an international convention is not only necessary, but also the best tool with which to address current challenges. He also said that the most-efficient way to respond to disaster is to prevent it, stressing the need to transition from a reactive approach to a proactive one.
“We must take action to reduce vulnerability and exposure to hazards in advance,” stressed Nepal’s representative, stating that efforts to mitigate climate change and improve disaster preparedness are “crucial to reducing the impact of these events”. For its part, the Nepalese Government regularly issues early warnings of major hazards, has created a dedicated data portal to provide real-time updates on disaster events and response measures and prioritizes the reconstruction of disaster-affected infrastructure. While emphasizing that the affected State’s sovereignty must be respected while providing assistance — “even during difficult times” — he said that “utmost priority” must be given to protecting human lives.
El Salvador’s representative, also underlining the need to protect the rights of human beings, quoted Brazilian jurist Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade: “As international law evolves, it is moving away from the paradigm of State-centrism in favour of human-centrism, managing to place human beings at the centre and always bearing in mind the problems that affect humanity as a whole.”
The representative of Nigeria, also speaking for the Bahamas, Colombia, Croatia, Italy, Jamaica and Thailand, said that launching the process of negotiating a convention on this topic would be instrumental, and in line with the political commitments made during the midterm review of the Sendai Framework. While recognizing that there will be different views on the draft articles, she nevertheless stressed that this should not prevent States from establishing an open and inclusive process. “The draft articles may constitute a foundation, but we should not lose sight that it is for us – States – to build a solid house and to make it comfortable for everyone,” she said.
South Africa’s representative concurred: “While we appreciate that there are concerns that State practices is not fully settled, States should not shy away from playing a more constructive role in establishing a framework for cooperation.” She cautioned, however, “that we should not get caught in the trap of perpetual discussions about discussions”, underscoring: “It is crucial that discussions move forward.”
At the outset of the meeting, the Committee concluded its debate on measures to eliminate international terrorism. During that discussion, Haiti’s representative noted that 19 universal and 36 regional legal instruments exist on this topic. “However, the very fact that we are here today discussing these issues shows us that the challenge remains when it comes to implementing these instruments — and doing so effectively,” he observed. Ethiopia’s delegate concurred, emphasizing: “We have come to realize that the absence of peace and stability in our sub-region created a safe haven for international terrorism.” This reality underscores the need for international cooperation to “defeat both brands of international and domestic terrorism,” he added.
https://press.un.org/en/2024/gal3717.doc.htm
