|
Wednesday, 27 June 2012 12:29 |
|
The statement made in Parliament by the Leader of the House and the Minister of Irrigation and Water Resources Management, Hon. Nimal Siripala de Silva in response to the question posed by the Hon. Anura Dissanayake, MP., Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) on the position of the ‘Action Plan” for the implementation of LLRC recommendations. Hon. Speaker, At the outset, I wish to observe that the question submitted by the Hon. Anura Disssanayake, Member of Parliament, under Standing Order No. 23/2 has resulted from being completely misinformed. I would like to emphasize that the Government has consistently sought to ensure non-internationalization of domestic issues. It is our steadfast position in this regard which provided the basis for Sri Lanka to categorically oppose any international initiatives which impinge on our national issues. There were a number of overtures made in seeking Sri Lanka’s cooperation with regard to the US initiated Resolution at the 19th Session of the Human Rights Council. However, it was decided that in the interest of keeping the self-respect of the people of Sri Lanka, it was prudent even to lose by opposing rather than accepting punitive measure from a part of the international community on solely domestic matters. Considering the might of the opposition, Sri Lanka was faced with in Geneva, it must be acknowledged that the final result demonstrated a complete division of the UNHRC and that too in a favourable manner to Sri Lanka, as it was by a mere one vote and thereby upheld the self-esteem of the Sri Lankan people. The Hon. Dissanayake may note that the communication to visit Washington was delivered to the Hon. Minister of External Affairs at the end of January, 2012 and not as he said, following the adoption of the Human Rights Council Resolution which was in the 3rd week of March, 2012. We do not understand that basis of the Hon. MP’s observation that it was more an order than an invitation to visit Washington that was communicated to the Hon. Minister. In this context, quote from the letter of the US Secretary of State where she says. “to help guide our thoughts on further action, I would like to invite you to Washington in March to discuss your plans to move ahead on reconciliation, accountability and Provincial Council elections in the North. The visit also would provide a favourable opportunity for you to meet with think tanks and our Congress to brief them…” |
|
Read more...
|
|
Monday, 25 June 2012 17:48 |
|
Statement by Ambassador H.E. Palitha T.B. Kohona Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations UN Security Council Open Debate Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict 25th June, 2012 “Ad-hoc approaches, that we have seen far too frequently, will not achieve the noble underlying goals of these principles. Global principles, if they are to be respected, must be applied consistently and non-selectively. Furthermore the protection task cannot be the hostage of solely theoretical analyses”. Mr. President,
Let me join the previous speakers in thanking the Permanent Mission of China for convening this open debate. I would also like to thank the Secretary-General, the Under Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, the Assistant Secretary -General for Human Rights and the ICRC representative for their presentation. We are thankful to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala for his presence here and his presentation.
Mr. President,
The Secretary- General’s ninth report on civilians in armed conflict in 2012 states that the five core challenges for the protection of civilians continue to “remain urgent.” It states that despite some progress, the ground reality has not qualitatively improved. Particularly worrying is that gender based violence, including sexual violence, attacks against children, schools, health facilities, humanitarian access to affected populations etc., continue unabated.
We welcome the clarification of the principles and the misconceptions and misinterpretations relating to the protection of civilians and the responsibility to protect. “The protection of civilians is a legal concept based on international humanitarian, human rights and refugee law, while the responsibility to protect is a political concept, set out in the 2005 World Summit outcome…” “There are important differences in their scope. The protection of civilians refers to violations of international humanitarian and human rights law in situations of armed conflict. The responsibility to protect is limited to violations that constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity or that could be considered genocide or ethnic cleansing.” Further, the Report states that “sparing civilians from the effects of hostilities requires compliance by parties to conflict with international humanitarian law and, in particular, the principles of distinction and proportionality. It requires parties to take all feasible precautions both in attacking and in defending. The law is also clear that under no circumstances do violations of these rules by one party justify violations by any other party.” We hope that the clarifications provided in the Secretary-General’s report will contribute to the application of those principles in a considered and non-political manner without the ever too present overlay of emotion and propaganda. We also welcome the recommendations in the report, especially the focus on displacements and increased attacks against health facilities. |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Monday, 25 June 2012 12:39 |
|
Opening remarks by H.E. Dr. Palitha Kohona as the moderator of the event organized by the Government of Sri Lanka
United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), 21st June 2012
RioCentro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil “Strengthening national apex bodies for achieving Agenda 21 and Rio+20 outcomes in Asia-Pacific countries through the accelerated implementation of national sustainable development strategies”
Hon. Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, Minister of Environment of Sri Lanka,
Distinguished Panelists,
Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, Good evening! It is a great pleasure for me to welcome the Ministers and the experts of Bangladesh, the Philippines, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, Fiji and Sri Lanka, the UN and other international agencies, academia and the civil society organizations to this evening's event at the Rio+20 conference. I am happy to moderate the discussion along with Dr. Surendra Sreshthra, from UNDESA. Today we are assembled in our thousands in this city where the Rio process began twenty years ago to define the future we all want. With its own successes in achieving many of the millennium development goals, Sri Lanka is honoured to be the principle partner of this event during the historic Rio+20 conference. We believe that the periodic review of sustainable development strategies is highly important considering the unprecedented developments that we have witnessed, locally, regionally and globally. We are also confronted with the challenges of managing exponential population growth, ever changing demands of citizens, surfacing resource constraints (including land and energy), and finance and technologies. The world we knew in 1992 has undergone tremendous change, in particular, in the remarkable shift of economic might from the North to the South. This requires substantive changes to our own assessments and thinking. The solutions to our development problems today have to address contemporary realities. |
|
Read more...
|
|
Friday, 20 April 2012 19:40 |
|
The Contribution of Law to the RIO + 20 AGENDA 
Please Click here to see Pannel Agenda
Remarks by Ambassador Dr. Palitha Kohona Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations . Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,It gives me great pleasure to chair this workshop on the contributions of international treaties and of tribunals to sustainable development governance. As the Rio+20 Conference draws closer we would all naturally look to the legal framework that would guide us post Rio+20 . At the end of the day it will not be fine words and deleted brackets that will determine implementation of commitments undertaken at Rio, but the frameworks that we agree upon. 20 years ago at Rio, a similar process took place. The Rio principles were adopted. Many believe that a substantial part of them have now become part of customary international law. The Agenda 21 was adopted and continues to guide our actions. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity were opened for signature and both instruments are now in force. Both instruments also have protocols attached to them. In addition to these high profile instruments, the international community has over the years adopted a range of other treaties which regulate our actions on various matters affecting the environment. These cover the ozone layer, climate change, biological diversity, desertification, the seas, hazardous wastes, chemicals, fauna and flora, trade in endangered species, fisheries - the list is extensive. Many of these treaties were negotiated under the auspices of the UN or at conferences mandated by the General Assembly. The UN has played a vital role in expanding the global regulatory framework relating to human actions that affect the environment and, of course, sustainable development. Indeed we have to be thankful to the UN for this. We are now entering an era of green development. In this context, the role played by international tribunals in advancing international rules of conduct is significant. Going far back as the Trail Smelter Case, international tribunals have contributed to the development of rules relating to the responsibility of states, including for environmental issues. Moe recently we have the judgments in the Nuclear Weapons Case and the Paper Mills Case. We have decisions of the International Court of Justice, the Law of the Sea Tribunal and arbitral awards which have played a critical role in advancing the law relating to environmental protection. As you may be aware, a large number of Permanent Representatives who call themselves the ARCC, Ambassadors for Responsibility in the case of Climate Change, are developing a draft GA Resolution seeking an advisory opinion from the ICJ on the responsibility of states to mitigate human generated GHG emissions in view of the likely consequences of climate change and global warming. I look forward to the Panelists elaborating on some of these aspects this afternoon. I shall now hand over the floor to our moderator, Ms. Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger, Head of Economic Growth &Trade, IDLO
Please click here to see General Overview |
|
