人権理事会が開幕
人権無視の”病”世界に
国連事務総長ら対策強化訴え
国連のグテレス事務総長は２７日、「人権無視という病が各地に広がっている。国連人権理事会が治療法の一部にならなければならない」と語り、欧米などでみられる移民・難民への差別や蔑視、人権侵害に警戒し、対策を強化するよう訴えました。ジュネーブの国連欧州本部で開幕した人権理事会で演説しました。（島田峰隆）
トランプ米政権が一部のイスラム圏国家からの入国を禁止したり、欧州諸国で極右が伸長したりするなかで、国連幹部が名指しを避けつつも、相次いで懸念や批判を表明する開幕となりました。
グテレス氏は「われわれは人種差別主義、外国人嫌い、反ユダヤ主義や反イスラム主義、不寛容を利用した大衆迎合主義や過激主義をますます目にしている」と強調。「最良の予防策は世界人権宣言とそれを基にした条約だ」と語り、「人権の積極的な促進」を各国に呼び掛けました。
具体的には、紛争や貧困を逃れてきた移民や難民について「国際社会は責任逃れをしてはならない」と受け入れを要請。トランプ米大統領が拷問を認める発言をしたり、記者会見から一部メディアを排除したりしたことを念頭に「拷問復活の要求には断固として抵抗しなければならない」と力を込めました。
ポルトガル出身のグテレス氏は、１９７４年まで４０年以上続いた独裁体制下で生まれました。同氏は「私は２４歳になって初めて民主主義を知った」と述べ、独裁体制下では「市民的、政治的権利だけでなく社会的、文化的、経済的権利が否定され、社会のあらゆる面が後退した」と警鐘を鳴らしました。
ザイド・フセイン国連人権高等弁務官は、国連創設後の７０年余りに人権に関する条約が締結されるなかで「植民地支配や人種隔離が取り除かれ、独裁が撤回され、自由な報道が再び認められた」と指摘。トランプ政権が人権理事会からの脱退を検討していると報じられたことに関し、「普遍的な人権を攻撃したり、それを支える国際機関からの脱退を示唆したりする指導者は、過去７０年の世界の到達点を学んだ方がいい」と述べました。
トランプ氏の言動に抗議して就任翌日の１月２１日に世界で行われたデモ行進について、「私のスタッフが参加したことを誇りに思う。われわれは人権のために立ち上がらなければならない」と呼び掛けました。
しんぶん赤旗2017年3月1日
UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
34th session of the Human Rights Council (27 February to 24 March 2017)
Opening ceremony of the 34th session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva
https://www.facebook.com/unitednationshumanrights/videos/1679652105384923/
https://www.facebook.com/unitednationshumanrights/videos/1679652105384923/
Statement by Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
27 February 2017
Excellencies,
Distinguished Heads of State and Government,
Secretary-General
President of the General Assembly,
President of the Human Rights Council,
Distinguished Ministers, Colleagues and Friends
Distinguished Heads of State and Government,
Secretary-General
President of the General Assembly,
President of the Human Rights Council,
Distinguished Ministers, Colleagues and Friends
Just a few hundred yards from where we are today, the League of Nations was dissolved, finally and formally on 8 April 1946. Aside from some successes, it was stymied by military aggressions, the absence of the United States and the withdrawals of Germany, Italy, Japan and the USSR. Its treatment of colonialism was undermined from the outset by rejection of the principle of non-discrimination.
In reaction, the authors of the United Nations Charter placed this principle of non-discrimination in the second paragraph of the preamble.
We, the peoples of the United Nations vowed “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.” This commitment was made immediately after the determination “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” – before all other language devoted to peace and security; before all language devoted to development.
This is, I believe, an important point for us to grasp. Human rights was placed in the preamble of the UN Charter not as the last or a third pillar or as some literary flourish. It was there, it came first, human rights was viewed as the necessary starting condition, because on 26 June 1945, the day of the Charter's signing, killing on a scale hitherto unknown to humans had only just come to an end, with cities across the world pulverized and still smoking, monuments to immense human malevolence and stupidity.
The delegations understood that only by first accepting fundamental human rights could all else – durable peace, and success in development – become possible. It is a point, which even today – perhaps especially today – needs to be absorbed, by many political actors who only see human rights as tiresome constraints – or indeed, by people who have enjoyed many of their rights since birth, and simply do not realise how much they mean.
When a State accedes to a human rights treaty, enshrines those obligations in constitutional and domestic law, and implements them, then with the passage of time the average citizen – the individual holder of those rights – may take them for granted. It is like breathing air. One does not think several thousand times a day about the need to inhale oxygen – even though one's very existence depends on it happening, each time. Only when the air supply is cut off does its significance become shockingly acute.
Similarly, it is only when rights are no longer upheld, the individual concerned understands with sharp clarity just how critical they were to a meaningful, dignified existence.
For political leaders who today wage campaigns against universal human rights, or threaten withdrawal from international or regional treaties and the institutions which uphold them, it is worth recalling what the world has achieved over seven decades – and what we all stand to lose if their threats succeed in choking off universal human rights.
After the creation of the UN, ground-breaking multilateral rights-based treaties were negotiated and adopted: the fourth Geneva Convention, the Refugee Convention, and the two great international Covenants which, alongside the Universal Declaration, form the universal bill of human rights.
The two Covenants, together with other core international human rights treaties and their treaty bodies, were constructed to protect a broad range of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. To strengthen prohibitions against torture, enforced disappearance, racial discrimination, discrimination against women. They upheld child rights, the rights of migrant workers, and persons with disabilities.
Today they are reinforced by this Council, with its independent experts and Universal Periodic Review.
My Office, working with regional and national institutions and civil society at all levels, ties it together as one system – a singular point of reference, which we commonly refer to as the normative framework of international human rights law, for the promotion and protection of human rights for all people, everywhere.
But what has this actually meant to people around the world? How consequential will it be? After all, even before World War II notable progress had been achieved in a number of countries: ending slavery; expanding universal suffrage and worker’s rights; ending use of the death penalty, and placing limits on the cruelty of war.
And yet World War II destroyed all – almost. Because the flicker of progress could not be extinguished, and in the seven decades after the War it grew again, and its momentum was even stronger. Colonialism was ended, segregation and apartheid were removed. Pervasive dictatorial rule was rolled back, and the rights of an independent and free press re-asserted. Social protections were strengthened. Women’s rights came to the fore, and so too children’s rights, the rights of indigenous people and the LGBTi community, and many others – all of them determined to be free from discrimination and injustice.
As transportation compressed distances and travel, and people moved and mixed on a scale never seen before, it also became clear: humanity is indivisible.
Without a commitment to fundamental human rights, to the dignity and worth of the human person and to the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, our world will become chaos, misery and warfare.
Of all the great post-war achievements, it is this assertion of the universality of rights in human rights law that may be the most noteworthy.
Ever-growing numbers of people now know that torture is prohibited in all circumstances. That arbitrary arrest and detention, the denial of due process, repression of peaceful protests and free speech – including the role of the press – are violations of rights. They know they have a right to development, to decent food, water, health, housing, education and more.
The people know. They know the “dignity and worth of every human being.”
The unprecedented marches of 21 January this year were not, I believe, about a particular individual or government – although many saw them as such. I believe the marches were for the rights of women, the human rights of women, for all of us, for a fair and inclusive humanity. I was proud members of my staff took part. We must stand up for human rights. When humans understand fully they have rights, it is next to impossible to make them un-know it.
To those political actors who, as in the days of the League, threaten the multilateral system or intend to withdraw from parts of it, the sirens of historical experience ought to ring clear. We will not sit idly by. For we have much to lose, so much to protect. And our rights, the rights of others, the very future of our planet cannot, must not be thrown aside by these reckless political profiteers.
I ask you to uphold the rights of all, and to stand with us.
Watch the webcast of this speech:
- See more at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21229&LangID=E#sthash.2jG4ppkV.dpuf
米新政権や金正恩政権下で、後退しかねない人権への取り組み
2017-02-27 10:30
トランプ新政権や金正恩政権の動きが、２７日からスイスのジュネーブで開催されている国連の人権理事会で注目を浴びている。国際的な人権問題に対する取り組みが後退するとの懸念があるからだ。それと同時に、改めて人権理事会の仕組みの弱点が浮き彫りとなっている。
米国、 人権理事会を離脱か？
２７日から始まった人権理事会に出席する米国。即時に同理事会から脱退する様子はないものの、米国の政治報道機関ポリティコ（Politico）は２５日、「トランプ政権は国連人権理事会からの離脱を検討している」と伝えていた。人権理事会の存在に対し「懐疑的」だからだ。中国やサウジアラビアといった人権を侵害する国が人権理事国となっていることや、理事会での議論がイスラエル非難に偏向したりしていることをその理由として挙げている。
このことに関して 、ジュネーブの国際機関スイス代表部で人権担当のヴァレンティン・ツェルヴェガー大使は、「結論を出すには時期尚早だが、この政権は今のところ予測不可能。しかし、注意すべきだ。移行の一環初期には、まず不確定があるものだ」とスイスインフォに語る。
そうした背景の下、ゼイド・ラアド・アル・フセイン人権高等弁務官は２７日、人権理事会初日の冒頭演説で、「国際連盟の時代のように、多国間システムを脅かすか、あるいはそこから脱退しようとする政治指導者には、歴史が警鐘を鳴らすはずだ」「私たちの権利、他の人の権利、地球の未来は、これらの無謀な政治家の脇に投げ捨てられてはならない」と主張した。
法的拘束力のない勧告
一方、今会期の人権理事会で他にも注目されているのが、北朝鮮の人権問題。韓国の尹炳世（ユン・ビョンセ）外相が、ジュネーブの人権理事会に急きょ出席し、２週間前に起きたマレーシア空港での金正男（キムジョンナム）氏殺害事件も引き合いに出し、北朝鮮を非難した。演説で尹外相は、「これらすべての行為は、北朝鮮が当事者となっている様々な国際人権法規の重大な違反に当たる。これはルールに基づいた国際秩序への挑戦でもある」と発言した。同外相は、北朝鮮での人権侵害に対する責任訴追を国際社会に求め、「国際刑事裁判所（ICC）に持ち込むべきだ」とも理事会で訴えた。
日本や欧州連合が共同で、北朝鮮の人権侵害を厳しく非難する決議案を提出する予定だが、人権理事会の勧告や決議案は法的拘束力がないため、国際刑事裁判所で訴追する動きが見られる。