Hi Aaron, can we have the contacts of these lawyers to send some details of Southern Cameroons case to them also?
Regards
Tumasang
Regards
Tumasang
> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 14:15:14 +0100
> Subject: How Some US Lawyers are trying to Help The Sestern Sahara against Morocco
> From: nyangkweagien@gmail.com
> To: ambasbay@googlegroups.com
>
> http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/86404
>
> A lawyer's testimony to the UN
>
> Comments of Katlyn Thomas before the Special Political and
> Decolonization Committee of the United Nations General Assembly,
> October 2012
> 2013-02-27, Issue 618
>
>
> cc AY 'After examining every available legal argument to support
> Morocco's presence in the territory we have come to the conclusion
> that Morocco cannot claim a legal right to the territory on the basis
> of any historic relationship it had with the territory prior to its
> colonization by Spain.'
>
> Mr. Chairman, and Ladies and Gentlemen members of the Committee:
>
> My name is Katlyn Thomas, and I am the former Chair of the United
> Nations Committee of The Association of the Bar of the City of New
> York.
>
> The Association is an independent non-governmental organization with
> more than 23,000 members in over 50 countries. Founded in 1870, the
> Association has a long history of dedication to the advancement of
> principles of international law and the adoption of policies to
> implement the United Nations Charter, notably through its United
> Nations Committee.
>
> For the past two years the United Nations Committee has conducted an
> intensive investigation of legal issues involved in the dispute over
> Western Sahara. Last year we published a report on issues involving
> Morocco's use of the natural resources of the territory pending a
> determination of sovereignty under law.
>
> This past May we published our second report, this one dealing with
> the fundamental issue of Morocco's right to claim and occupy the
> territory of Western Sahara, and the right of the indigenous
> population to self determination under international law.
>
> After examining every available legal argument to support Morocco's
> presence in the territory we have come to the conclusion that Morocco
> cannot claim a legal right to the territory on the basis of any
> historic relationship it had with the territory prior to its
> colonization by Spain. This was clearly established by a decision of
> the International Court of Justice in 1975 in a case brought at the
> request of Morocco. Morocco's action within weeks of that decision to
> avoid the implications of that ruling by sending its army into the
> territory against the wishes of its inhabitants arguably violates
> Article 2, Paragraph 4 and Chapter VII, as well as Artlcle 3(a) of
> General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) to refrain from acts of
> aggression. The agreement Morocco reached in 1975 with Spain under
> which Spain agreed to withdraw from the territory and permit Morocco
> and Mauritania to occupy it does not justify any legal claim to the
> territory. Despite its more than 30 years of occupation of Western
> Sahara, neither the United Nations, nor the African Union, nor any
> individual state has recognized Morocco's claims to the territory as
> legitimate. Even the members of the Security Council who have
> advocated direct talks between Morocco and the Polisario that have
> taken place since 2007, as opposed to the implementation of the
> Settlement Plan that would require a referendum, have maintained their
> support for the right to self-determination of the people of Western
> Sahara.
>
> On the other hand, the right under well established international
> legal principles of the indigenous population of the territory – the
> Sahraouis – to exercise self determination in determining the
> political future of Western Sahara cannot be seriously disputed, and
> has not been diminished under law despite this long period of foreign
> occupation. Morocco has attempted to qualify this right by comparing
> it to the right of self determination of a population which inhabits a
> part of an established state. Under this argument the right to self
> determination of the Sahraouis should be considered subordinate to the
> right of Morocco to maintain its "territorial integrity." The fallacy
> of this argument is easily apparent – Western Sahara is not now and
> has never been recognized under international legal principles to be a
> territory belonging to Morocco.
>
> Our Committee concluded that the right to self-determination under
> international law requires that the Sahraouis have the opportunity to
> freely determine their political status and that this determination
> must include the option of independence. Accordingly, the exercise of
> self-determination, in whatever form it may take, must include the
> possibility that the final status of Western Sahara will be
> independence. Turning to the question of how this right can be
> exercised, the Committee noted that the following three procedures
> would, in principle, be among the options consistent with the
> Sahraouis' right to self-determination under international law:
>
> First, enforcement of the original U.N.-OAU 1991 Settlement Plan.
> Under this alternative, the referendum would be conducted by MINURSO
> in accordance with the provisions of the Settlement Plan agreed to by
> the parties to the conflict, and the list of eligible voters
> established by MINURSO, under the supervision of the Security Council
> and the African Union, and consistent with internationally recognized
> legal norms. We believe that the United Nations would be within its
> rights to demand that Morocco adhere to its agreement in 1991 to
> permit this referendum to take place, if not under its powers under
> Chapter 6 of the United Nations charter, then at least under its
> powers under Chapter 7 of the Charter.
>
> Second, enforcement of a version of the Peace Plan advanced by former
> United States Secretary of State James Baker III when he was the
> Personal Envoy of the United Nations Secretary General to Western
> Sahara, or an alternative plan, which provides for an act of
> self-determination with an option for independence, and which ensures
> that the electorate will be those entitled to the right to
> self-determination under international law. Under this alternative, a
> referendum would ultimately be held which includes – among other
> options – a ballot option for independence.
>
> Third, UN-ordered negotiations on a "political solution" with
> preconditions, which include (1) the requirement that all options for
> self-determination be included, including independence, and (2) a
> timetable for such negotiations, after which, if no agreement is
> reached, a referendum will be held with all options available. We note
> that the Comprehensive Peace Agreement for Sudan included such a
> provision, so there is some recent precedent for such a procedure.
>
> Each of these three options may require a mandatory order by the
> Security Council under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter.
> Whether to invoke the powers of Chapter 7 to resolve this dispute is a
> political issue and we are mindful of the political problems such a
> decision may entail. However, this would be a means – perhaps the only
> means – of enforcing the self-determination principles that apply to
> this dispute under international law. Thus far, in the face of the
> parties' entrenched and irreconcilable positions on sovereignty over
> the territory, there has been inconsistency between the principle of
> self-determination under international law, which has been repeatedly
> confirmed through General Assembly Resolutions on the matter to
> include an independence option, and the actions of the Security
> Council, in merely asking the parties to proceed with discussions on a
> political solution with no preconditions.
>
> The international community needs to take steps to see that this
> dispute is resolved in the near future. The longer it takes to resolve
> the sovereignty issue, the more complicated will be the task of
> implementing any solution reached. On behalf of the United Nations
> Committee of The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, I
> call upon this Committee to adopt a position with regard to the
> settlement of the dispute over Western Sahara that is consistent with
> principles of international law.
>
> EDITOR'S NOTE
> The New York City Bar report on the Western Sahara is available here.
>
> * BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS
>
> * Please do not take Pambazuka for granted!
> --
> Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
> Journalist-OutCome Mapper
> P.O.Box 5213
> Douala-Cameroon
> Telephone +237 73 42 71 27
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ambasbay" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> Subject: How Some US Lawyers are trying to Help The Sestern Sahara against Morocco
> From: nyangkweagien@gmail.com
> To: ambasbay@googlegroups.com
>
> http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/86404
>
> A lawyer's testimony to the UN
>
> Comments of Katlyn Thomas before the Special Political and
> Decolonization Committee of the United Nations General Assembly,
> October 2012
> 2013-02-27, Issue 618
>
>
> cc AY 'After examining every available legal argument to support
> Morocco's presence in the territory we have come to the conclusion
> that Morocco cannot claim a legal right to the territory on the basis
> of any historic relationship it had with the territory prior to its
> colonization by Spain.'
>
> Mr. Chairman, and Ladies and Gentlemen members of the Committee:
>
> My name is Katlyn Thomas, and I am the former Chair of the United
> Nations Committee of The Association of the Bar of the City of New
> York.
>
> The Association is an independent non-governmental organization with
> more than 23,000 members in over 50 countries. Founded in 1870, the
> Association has a long history of dedication to the advancement of
> principles of international law and the adoption of policies to
> implement the United Nations Charter, notably through its United
> Nations Committee.
>
> For the past two years the United Nations Committee has conducted an
> intensive investigation of legal issues involved in the dispute over
> Western Sahara. Last year we published a report on issues involving
> Morocco's use of the natural resources of the territory pending a
> determination of sovereignty under law.
>
> This past May we published our second report, this one dealing with
> the fundamental issue of Morocco's right to claim and occupy the
> territory of Western Sahara, and the right of the indigenous
> population to self determination under international law.
>
> After examining every available legal argument to support Morocco's
> presence in the territory we have come to the conclusion that Morocco
> cannot claim a legal right to the territory on the basis of any
> historic relationship it had with the territory prior to its
> colonization by Spain. This was clearly established by a decision of
> the International Court of Justice in 1975 in a case brought at the
> request of Morocco. Morocco's action within weeks of that decision to
> avoid the implications of that ruling by sending its army into the
> territory against the wishes of its inhabitants arguably violates
> Article 2, Paragraph 4 and Chapter VII, as well as Artlcle 3(a) of
> General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) to refrain from acts of
> aggression. The agreement Morocco reached in 1975 with Spain under
> which Spain agreed to withdraw from the territory and permit Morocco
> and Mauritania to occupy it does not justify any legal claim to the
> territory. Despite its more than 30 years of occupation of Western
> Sahara, neither the United Nations, nor the African Union, nor any
> individual state has recognized Morocco's claims to the territory as
> legitimate. Even the members of the Security Council who have
> advocated direct talks between Morocco and the Polisario that have
> taken place since 2007, as opposed to the implementation of the
> Settlement Plan that would require a referendum, have maintained their
> support for the right to self-determination of the people of Western
> Sahara.
>
> On the other hand, the right under well established international
> legal principles of the indigenous population of the territory – the
> Sahraouis – to exercise self determination in determining the
> political future of Western Sahara cannot be seriously disputed, and
> has not been diminished under law despite this long period of foreign
> occupation. Morocco has attempted to qualify this right by comparing
> it to the right of self determination of a population which inhabits a
> part of an established state. Under this argument the right to self
> determination of the Sahraouis should be considered subordinate to the
> right of Morocco to maintain its "territorial integrity." The fallacy
> of this argument is easily apparent – Western Sahara is not now and
> has never been recognized under international legal principles to be a
> territory belonging to Morocco.
>
> Our Committee concluded that the right to self-determination under
> international law requires that the Sahraouis have the opportunity to
> freely determine their political status and that this determination
> must include the option of independence. Accordingly, the exercise of
> self-determination, in whatever form it may take, must include the
> possibility that the final status of Western Sahara will be
> independence. Turning to the question of how this right can be
> exercised, the Committee noted that the following three procedures
> would, in principle, be among the options consistent with the
> Sahraouis' right to self-determination under international law:
>
> First, enforcement of the original U.N.-OAU 1991 Settlement Plan.
> Under this alternative, the referendum would be conducted by MINURSO
> in accordance with the provisions of the Settlement Plan agreed to by
> the parties to the conflict, and the list of eligible voters
> established by MINURSO, under the supervision of the Security Council
> and the African Union, and consistent with internationally recognized
> legal norms. We believe that the United Nations would be within its
> rights to demand that Morocco adhere to its agreement in 1991 to
> permit this referendum to take place, if not under its powers under
> Chapter 6 of the United Nations charter, then at least under its
> powers under Chapter 7 of the Charter.
>
> Second, enforcement of a version of the Peace Plan advanced by former
> United States Secretary of State James Baker III when he was the
> Personal Envoy of the United Nations Secretary General to Western
> Sahara, or an alternative plan, which provides for an act of
> self-determination with an option for independence, and which ensures
> that the electorate will be those entitled to the right to
> self-determination under international law. Under this alternative, a
> referendum would ultimately be held which includes – among other
> options – a ballot option for independence.
>
> Third, UN-ordered negotiations on a "political solution" with
> preconditions, which include (1) the requirement that all options for
> self-determination be included, including independence, and (2) a
> timetable for such negotiations, after which, if no agreement is
> reached, a referendum will be held with all options available. We note
> that the Comprehensive Peace Agreement for Sudan included such a
> provision, so there is some recent precedent for such a procedure.
>
> Each of these three options may require a mandatory order by the
> Security Council under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter.
> Whether to invoke the powers of Chapter 7 to resolve this dispute is a
> political issue and we are mindful of the political problems such a
> decision may entail. However, this would be a means – perhaps the only
> means – of enforcing the self-determination principles that apply to
> this dispute under international law. Thus far, in the face of the
> parties' entrenched and irreconcilable positions on sovereignty over
> the territory, there has been inconsistency between the principle of
> self-determination under international law, which has been repeatedly
> confirmed through General Assembly Resolutions on the matter to
> include an independence option, and the actions of the Security
> Council, in merely asking the parties to proceed with discussions on a
> political solution with no preconditions.
>
> The international community needs to take steps to see that this
> dispute is resolved in the near future. The longer it takes to resolve
> the sovereignty issue, the more complicated will be the task of
> implementing any solution reached. On behalf of the United Nations
> Committee of The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, I
> call upon this Committee to adopt a position with regard to the
> settlement of the dispute over Western Sahara that is consistent with
> principles of international law.
>
> EDITOR'S NOTE
> The New York City Bar report on the Western Sahara is available here.
>
> * BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS
>
> * Please do not take Pambazuka for granted!
> --
> Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
> Journalist-OutCome Mapper
> P.O.Box 5213
> Douala-Cameroon
> Telephone +237 73 42 71 27
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ambasbay" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
0 comments:
Post a Comment