Mr Chair,

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its Member States.

The Candidate Countries North Macedonia*, Montenegro*, Serbia*, Albania*, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina* and Georgia, as well as, Andorra and San Marino align themselves with this statement.

We deeply regret that Singapore and others have once again introduced an amendment in this resolution, in an attempt to distract from the main focus of this resolution – which is to call upon states to establish a moratorium, with a view to abolish the death penalty.

The vast majority of Member States represented in this room – with different legal systems, traditions, cultures and religious backgrounds – have chosen to do so. Others have not.

The resolution presented for adoption today is a call on States to consider applying a moratorium on executions. The implication of amendment L.54 is that States can use sovereignty as an excuse to disregard the universality of human rights and to consider this call to action as null and void. 

Proponents of this so-called “sovereignty amendment” argue that this only reflects the rights of States as enshrined the UN Charter. However, the Charter does not refer to any ‘sovereign right’ of States. The Charter recognizes the “principle of sovereign equality” (Art. 2(1)), which means that all Member States are formally equal participants in the UN system, regardless of size or status.

The principle of non-intervention of the UN Charter (Art 2(7)) is another argument used by the supporters of this amendment. However, this has limited scope in the context of international human rights law.

The principles of sovereign equality and non-interference in internal affairs in the UN Charter do not free states from their obligations under international human rights law. Human rights are a legitimate concern of the international community.

We recognize that the amendment put forward by Singapore has received significant support. To reflect this, the co-facilitators together, with the IRTF, have this year made a genuine effort to find common ground with countries who believe that some elements of the amendment are important in this context. We therefore offered an alternative formulation, which addresses these concerns, but in a way that is aligned with the UN Charter, international law and the universality of human rights. We regret that this effort was never even considered by Singapore and others, when the members of the IRTF have tried in good faith to bridge the gap.

We should not allow the reinterpretation and misuse of the most fundamental principles of the international order. We are very concerned when the concept of “sovereignty” is used outside the strict confines of the UN Charter – particularly as it is increasingly used by States who claim to defend the UN Charter – as a “carte blanche” to shield states from international scrutiny.

The Member States of the European Union will vote No to amendment L54 and respectfully invite others to do the same.

Thank you.

* North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina continue to be part of the Stabilisation and Association Process.