vote | World Information Transfer

The Eighteenth Meeting of State Parties to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women was held this morning. The main purpose of the meeting is to elect 12 members to replace those whose terms are due to expire on 31 December 2014.

Ms. Curry mentioned the State of Palestine has become a party to the Covenant since the last election in June 2012. Currently, there are a total of 188 States parties. In addition, the Committee has continued to adopt recommendations in conflict prevention, conflict and post-conflict situations. At present, the Committee is working on several general recommendations concerning women asylum seekers, refugee and stateless women, rural women, access to justice, girls’ and women’s right to education, climate change and natural disasters. The Committee also adopted statements on thematic issues such as treaty body strengthening; strengthened cooperation with UN Women; the role of women in the process of political transition in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia; sexual and reproductive health and rights; and women’s rights in the post-2015 development agenda.

Moreover, the Committee has continued to streamline and harmonize its working methods in order to improve the management of time and resources. They will incorporate the guidelines on independence and impartiality of members of the human rights treaty bodies.

On 9 April 2014, the General Assembly adopted resolution 68/268 on strengthening and enhancing the effective functioning of the human rights treaty body system. At the outset, the Meeting elected Ambassador Juan Manuel González de Linares Palou, Deputy Ambassador of Spain as its Chair upon his nomination from the Western European and other States. Ambassador Jeanne d’Arc Byaje, Deputy Permanent Representative of Rwanda and Dragana Anđelić, Ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina were elected as Vice-Chairs and twelve experts were being elected in a single round of voting.

Meeting Title: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women: 1st Meeting
Speakers: Ms. Gaynel Curry, Acting Chief of the Global Issues Section within the New York Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Representative of the Secretary‑General; Ambassador Juan Manuel González de Linares Palou, Deputy Ambassador of Spain
Location: Conference Room 1, United Nations HQ, New York
Date: 26 June 2014
Written By WIT representative: Samantha Kong
Edited by WIT representative: Sophia Griffiths-Mark

Recent events in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine have raised an array of challenging issues related to self-determination, secession, international intervention, and annexation. The panel aims to explore the legal and policy implications of these issues.

Note: It was recorded that no representative were present from the Russian Federation or from the 11 nation states that were against UN General Assembly Resolution 68/262 that was adopted on 27 March 2014, entitled “Territorial integrity of Ukraine”

In the pursuit of conducting a balanced debate on the issue of Crimea, participants were shown a video of the Republic of Nicaragua delegation providing the UN General Assembly their reasoning for voting against resolution 68/262. The main point highlighted related to the issue of self-determination. This Managua believed validated both – the referendum itself hosted in Crimea on March 16, 2014 and its outcome to join the Russian Federation.

H.E. Yuriy Sergeyev strongly posited that the referendum was illegitimate as it was inspired by Russia and the plebiscite took place while Russian soldiers occupied the peninsula. A similar view is shared by the 100 nations states that were in favour of resolution 68/262 on respecting the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Christopher Borgen, acting as a legal advisor on the panel, stated that Moscow’s rationale of categorizing the events, as humanitarian intervention too did not have any legal biases, as matters of intervention do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Crimean Constitution [Article 1] as granted by the parent state; Ukraine. Furthermore, he argued that even if the idea of self-determination is condoned in this scenario, it by no means gives any right to entirely dismember the state.

H.E. Ambassador Yuriy further denounced Moscow for violating the 1994 Budapest Agreement and for acting in a manner inconsistent with international law and thus “creating an imbalance in the international security environment”. As part of the agreement of ‘94, Ukraine had given up its nuclear weapons “on the basis of an explicit Russian guarantee of its territorial integrity”. However by breaching this guarantee, President Putin has undermined the foundational framework of the international order by disrespecting historical obligations that take expression in the form of treaties, pacts and agreements.

Meeting Title: International Law and Crisis in Ukraine: A Roundtable Discussion
Speakers: Bettina B. Plevan Proskauer Rose LLP, Chair, Council on International Affairs; Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev, Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the United Nations; Christopher J. Borgen, Associate Dean for International Studies and Professor of Law, St. John’s University School of Law; Mark A. Meyer, Honorary Consul of the Republic of Moldova in New York, Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C.
Location: The Council on International Affairs of the New York City Bar Association
Date: 4 June 2014
Summary by WIT representative: Apurv Gupta
Edited by WIT representative: Sophia Griffiths-Mark

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: