▾

External sources (not reviewed)

The forthcoming independently commissioned study by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs regarding protection of civilians would provide a much needed body of evidence; and the Secretary-General’s assessment, relying on lessons learned in the field, of the adequacy of the resources, training, and operational concepts for protection mandates would also be useful.

As indicated in one of the Special Rapporteur’s recent country reports,38 there is a risk that domestic laws prohibiting hate speech may be interpreted loosely and applied selectively by the authorities, which underlines the importance of having unambiguous language and of devising effective safeguards against abuses of the law.

Moreover, in a letter made public, the Governor articulated that the most general and generous reading of the draft constitution showed it to be inconsistent with basic tenets of equal protection and fairness.

It (the paper) clearly forces management members of the group to follow the broad lines set out in the proposal and consequently, erodes the trust staff have in their ability to have their views taken into account.

A broader formulation would also more accurately serve as counterpart to draft article 13 since the right to self-defence was not limited to responses to acts of aggression.

And despite some sweeping allegations by [...] [...]

[...] Committee in general terms but had not made specific proposals at that time.

[...] [...] reservations it may have made upon signature or ratification [...] [...]

As the recommendation is very general, it is difficult to give a specific response, and so it cannot be accepted in its current form, as a package.

Some argued more generally that UNESCO [...]

The Working Group therefore does not see the present case as an isolated one and urges the Government of Myanmar to seriously investigate the practice and reconsider its vague, overly general and broad charges for arrest and detention.

For railways and air transport, data availability is even more sketchy and no positive trend can be observed.

[...] escapes from the cage, it would be difficult to re-trap and release.

Unlike other very specific topics that we have discussed in the past and that give rise to more or less definite reactions, on this occasion the United Kingdom has proposed to us a more general topic that runs the risk of diluting any message that we would wish to convey.

Consequently, it was pointed out that the Special Rapporteur had failed to address the possibility that the procedural issue at hand was not one of invocation of immunity or waiver thereof but rather the absence of immunity in respect of situations in which grave international crimes were committed, although it was also countered by other members that the assertion that there was no immunity for such “core crimes” was abstract and general, and [...] [...]

Difficulties were experienced in obtaining a comprehensive picture [...] [...]

After discussion, the Working Group agreed that the questions for further consideration on that matter would include (A/CN.9/717, para. 143): (i) whether a provision on protection of the integrity of the arbitral process should be in the form of a general formulation or should contain specific instances that were meant to be specifically addressed; (ii) the interplay between the protection of the integrity of the arbitral process and the provisions in the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules already dealing with that issue; and (iii) how to determine the threshold for a limitation to transparency based on the ground of the need to protect integrity of the arbitral process.