Plenary Session : August 5, 2003
Small arms misuse, terrorism, slavery, women and human rights

The World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting began the plenary session today, advocating civilian firearm ownership. The representative stated that civilian firearm ownership was a way to prevent genocide, and that disarming civilians only deprives them of a means to self-defense. Most countries with governments that have committed genocide have also forbidden civilian arms ownership. The representative quoted the Greek historian, Thucydides: "The strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must." This quote is in reference to his claim that small firearms help defending weaker civilians against empowered civilians in society.

Next, the Human Rights Watch (HRW) took the floor, speaking on small arms misuse. The representative spoke about irresponsible transfers and illegal black markets. Both the transfers and the illegal markets provide known and unknown firearms abusers with weapons. HRW argued that governments should be responsible for these transfers. Furthermore, governments and must verify that such weapons do not fall into the wrong hands. Time and again, known abusers are not reprimanded for their misuse of firearms. HRW therefore emphasized that government action should be implemented within societies. They suggested the following options: 1) developing and implementing adequate laws against misuse; 2) ending legal transfers to known abusers; 3) strengthening lax controls; and 4) organizing police and/or armed forces to uphold human rights.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) spoke next during the meeting. The representative addressed the issue of counter-terrorist measures as having "adverse impacts" on human rights. Arbitrary detention, various forms of discrimination, and torture were a few examples noted as used as anti- terrorist measures. Another example is the prisoners of Guantanimo Bay who are "stripped of all legal personality" while being held captive by the U.S. under its war against terrorism. The ICJ believes that any measure to combat terrorism must concord with international laws and human rights. According to ICJ, fundamental freedoms should not be sacrificed in order to preserve security.

Subsequently, the World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ) articulated its concern over FGM, advising that religious leaders remove any religious association from FGM. The WUPJ discussed its concerns, which primarily concerned Islamic countries. People, argued the WUPJ representative, would be more willing to listen to fatwa than "vague" laws. The representative then talked about slavery within Northern Sudan. He claimed that the supposed "abductees" are actually slaves. The rep then quoted James Auger of the CEAWC: "'These people are slaves, not just abductees; abduction is only the beginning of slavery.'" The WUPJ suggested the inclusion of anti- slavery laws and the setup of an anti- slavery commission in peace treaties.

The Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru continued the discussion on anti-terrorism actions. The representative stated that terrorism has causes, which usually lie in economic factors and/or geopolitical and strategic interests. He advised that Western countries do some "soul searching" and look at their policies which cause disruption. He then offered some examples of anti- terrorism counters frequently used post September 11th, such as selective murders, military tribunals, ignoring the right of the accused to choose defensive lawyers, presumption of guilt, and the use of transparent proof to qualify arrest. The representative then announced that there is a difference between rebellion and terrorism, and rhetorically asked if "indigenous people have the right to self- determination."

The Voluntary Action Network of India (VANI) followed, saying that defining terrorism is not as important as understanding terrorism. The VANI representative stated that sayings such as "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" should not be sanctioned, as everyone has the right to security of persons, liberty, and life. He advised nation-states to refrain from supporting terrorism. Furthermore, he argued that all nations should respect human rights and international and national laws while countering terrorism.

The International League for Rights and Liberties of Peoples declared the generic and ambiguous language used in defining terrorism allowed nations to criminalize rebellion, human rights defenders, asylum seekers, etc. Such language also allowed States to re-interpret the definition for different circumstances. Without a precise and clear definition, many basic human rights can be ignored. The League representative raised a "voice of alarm" to this trend, asserting that states are obliged to protect human rights while combating terrorism.

The International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations (ISMUN) stated that some governments were using the September 11th incident as a "pretext" for countering opposition. The ISMUN representative expressed his alarm about the violation of human and civil rights. He encouraged the Sub-Commission to adopt a position and announce itself clearly on the right to peace and non-violence.

Amnesty International shifted the discussion back to small arms, as it welcomed Madame Frey's work. The representative then went on to say that states are not acting with "sufficient urgency" to combat small arms violations. Reference was made to the Democratic Republic of Congo with its illegal killings and torture through the use of small arms. Many countries such as Italy, the U.S., France, Belgium, and China continue to supply arms to the DRC despite its abuse. Amnesty International declared that controls are insufficient without legitimate security forces.

The International Human Rights Association of American Minorities ended the NGO participation within the plenary session. It announced that the progression towards defining terrorism has been blocked by countries who want to loosely interpret the crime. He then proposed that the roots of terrorism (i.e. tyranny, occupation, and abuse) be addressed. He urged the Sub-Commission to not allow "occupiers" to commit genocide as a form of countering terrorism.

Afterwards, the UNHCR representative took the floor, changing the topic to refugees. Refugee flow, he said, is augmented with human rights violations. He acknowledged the important role of the Sub-Commission in reviewing and clarifying human rights laws in regards to non-citizens. He then expressed concern for the often restricting and negative environment towards refugees in terms of anti- terrorism measures.

Chairperson Ms. Warzazi then gave the floor to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The delegate asked for offenders' punishment in order to restore honor to the women and girls who were victims of systematic rape and sexual slavery during armed conflicts.

A representative from Sri Lanka spoke next, stating his concern about the transfer of small arms, telling that the states are responsible when misuse occurs. He called for the strengthening of regimes to prevent illegal transfer and misuse of firearms, without diminishing States' legal rights to manufacture and legitimately transfer arms. He then suggested that Professor Frey should take note of the specific type of arms misused for statistical purposes.

India's representative expressed his disappointment in Special Rapporteur Koufa's report, in that it mainly discussed the impact of anti-terrorist actions rather than the impact of terrorism. He reminded that States are not the only beings that violate human rights. Furthermore, he stated that terrorists' human rights should not be prioritized over the human rights of their victims.

After a rep from Bahrain spoke briefly about the healthy progression of women's rights in his country, Special Rapporteur Hampson gave the following introductory report on the reservations to human rights treaties:

States could formulate a reservation on the condition that the reservation was "compatible with the objects and purposes of the treaty." If the treaty created a reservation that was "incompatible with the objects and purposes of the treaty, it [is] unacceptable." Ninety-nine percent of objections to reservations to human rights treaties refer to the incompatibility with the objects and purpose to the treaty. She then said that "silence by a State party does not mean that a reservation is acceptable." States are free to reject a reservation on any ground. This silence could denote that the State who created the reservation that was incompatible was either not a party to the treaty, or that it was a party without the allowance of the incompatible reservation. Madame Hampson went on to report that human rights bodies can neither apply nor give effect to an incompatible reservation.

Expert Guisse then responded, encouraging the Special Rapporteur to continue her research. However, he then reminded that some people criticize the religious basis of reservations. Religion, he said, is sometimes the framework and purpose of the entire social life of a country. These types of reservations should not be excluded. He then heeded that thought must be given towards a thorough analysis of reservations with respect to the States' sovereignty. Reservations that were in agreement with the principle of the international conventions should be accepted.

Expert Decaux argued that States' should try to limit the amount of reservations. Expert Miguel Alfonso Martinez then spoke, claiming that States cannot rank treaties, as "all human rights instruments are equal." He then stated that reservations cannot oppose the main objectives of a treaty. Kalliopi Koufa, another Sub-Commission expert, asked which authority determines the incompatibility of reservations. Another expert, Pinheiro, stated that it was impossible to debate this particular subject if it was divided in terms of the North and the South, as both were represented at the Vienna Convention.

Expert Eide then shifted back to an earlier subject, stating that treaties in fact did have a hierarchy. He then asked of the consequences of a reservation incompatible with the rule of the "universality of human rights." Martinez replied later, say that a hierarchy of treaties does exist with some specific treaties, however beyond them, no hierarchy should exist.

Expert Yokota then stated that the Sub-Commission should encourage States to by party to human rights treaties. He said that Madame Hampson "contradicted" herself when she said that treaty bodies had no States' backing while at the same time saying it should have the duty of monitoring the objective purpose of treaties.

Special Rapporteur Hampson ended the discussion. In response to Mr. Guisse, she stated that there is no objection of reservation based on religion. However, she claimed, there is an objection to how these reservations are presented. She said that States' have the authority to ratify a treaty or not, but they may not create an incompatible reservation.

By: Ashley Faulkner

BACK