2007-11-09 報道されないね

[]国連で近々、「死刑モラトリアム」決議案が採択かも 国連で近々、「死刑モラトリアム」決議案が採択かもを含むブックマーク 国連で近々、「死刑モラトリアム」決議案が採択かものブックマークコメント

Inter Press Service | News and Views from the Global South

UNITED NATIONS, Nov 7 (IPS) - When the United Nations votes next week on a draft resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty, there will be more than a dozen non-committal member states who will neither vote for such a resolution nor against it.

They will either abstain or take the easy way out: absent themselves at voting time. Both "abstain" and "absent" are reflected on the U.N.'s vote counts.

"These may be the decisive votes on whether or not the resolution will be adopted by the majority of the 192 member states," predicts one Third World diplomat.

But Yvonne Terlingen, head of Amnesty International's U.N. Office, told IPS that, as of now, there are 75 member states which are co-sponsoring the draft resolution -- and all of which are expected to vote for it.

But the opponents of the resolution are likely to undermine it by proposing several amendments -- described by some as "wrecking amendments" -- that will dilute its core content.

Fully conscious of this, Terlingen said: "We are urging all member states to support the text and resist any amendments that would seek to alter the purpose of this important resolution."

Initially, the vote next week will be in the U.N.'s Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee (also called the Third Committee), which comprises all 192 member states.


Ambassador Vanu Gopala Menon of Singapore told IPS last week that the resolution will only "sour the atmosphere" at the United Nations and "cause unnecessary divisiveness in the house."

"It is not clear to me what the EU hopes to gain with this resolution. It may give them a sense of moral satisfaction but it is not going to change the positions of countries that maintain that the death penalty serves to deter serious crimes," he added. Menon also told the Third Committee last week that some in the EU have "disingenuously" suggested that a moratorium on executions is a "compromise".

"It is not," he said. "It is clear that the ultimate objective of a moratorium is abolition."

"Whether the draft resolution is on a moratorium or the abolition of the death penalty, its goal is to impose the views and values of the sponsors on those who hold a different view," he added.

Menon said the issue before is not really about the merits or demerits of the death penalty. In the absence of an international consensus, countries on either side of the argument have no right to impose their opinions, he argued.

"Every state has the sovereign right to choose its own political, economic, social and legal systems based on what is in their own best interests," he declared.




Connection: close