• 抽出方法については関連エントリ 2018-07-05 参照。

  • 日本が L.17/Rev.1 市民社会空間、L.7 ベラルーシ人権状況、L.20 シリア人権状況の共同スポンサーとなっている( L.17/Rev.1 はチリ、アイルランド、日本、シエラレオネチュニジアの提出 *1 )。

  • なお(死刑を廃止していない)日本が共同スポンサーとなっている上記 L.7 で、草案提出国として EU 代表のオーストリア*と、共同スポンサーのオーストラリアが死刑廃止を訴えているが、決議の文言は「正当なプロセスの保証なしでのその使用に深い懸念を表明」しているようである(本文パラグラフ6)。L.20 にはヨーロッパ各国に加えヨルダン* 、クウェート* 、カタール、サウジ*、トルコ*などもスポンサーに加わっていた( * は非理事国、以下同)。

  • 修正案以外で採決に持ち込まれたのは計51か国がスポンサーに加わった L.17/Rev.1 、同42か国による L.7 および同44か国による L.20(以上前述)。いずれも採択され、ヨーロッパ各国や日本、韓国は支持。中国は L.7 に反対を投じ、L.17/Rev.1 では中国、パキスタン、ロシア*による修正案 L.37L.38 、L.39L.36 取り下げ)、L.20 では中国、ロシア*による修正案 L.28L.29L.30  、L.31 が提出されたが否決され(修正案の各国投票先不明)、中国は L.17/Rev.1 、L.20 の投票を棄権した(リンク先は国連公式文書システム(英語)、以下同)。

  • L.17/Rev.1 での中国発言:「2017年までに中国は[…]70万の市民社会組織を登録していた」そうであるが、「国家、主権および領土保全に責任を負わなければならなかった」。下記 "GONGO" についても参照。

  • コンセンサスで採択された、L.16 平和的抗議でもロシア*と中国による修正案 L.26 が提出されたが否決され、中国は L.16 のコンセンサスから離脱した。

  • 関連エントリ



Requests Two-Day Global Consultation on Business and Human Rights

6 July 2018

The Human Rights Council this morning adopted six resolutions, including on Syria. It extended for one year the mandates of the Special Rapporteurs on Belarus and on Eritrea. It also requested the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises to convene a two-day global consultation on the role of national human rights institutions in facilitating access to remedy for business-related human rights abuses.


Action on Resolutions under the Agenda Item on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including the Right to Development

Action on Resolution on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Context of Peaceful Protests

In a resolution (A/HRC/38/L.16) on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council[…]


Switzerland, introducing draft resolution L.16 as orally revised, said that the draft resolution benefited from trans-regional support. It concerned a very topical issue in view of the increasing number of peaceful protests, which perhaps reflected a global crisis of representative democracy. Everything had to be done to protect human rights during peaceful protests. The main goal was to review the obligations of States in that respect. The draft text contributed to the better understanding of the obligations of States to protect human rights in the context of peaceful protests. In its operative parts, the draft resolution requested a report from the High Commissioner for Human Rights on new technologies and their impact on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of assemblies and protests. The draft text also included operative parts on the use of force and non-lethal weapons during peaceful demonstrations.

Russia, introducing amendment L.26, said that peaceful protests were seen as a realization of the constitutional right of freedom of expression. Individual and collective labour disputes were recognized by the Russian Constitution. While agreeing with the spirit of the resolution, the right to freedom of assembly was not an absolute right. The State had to provide limits, as did international conventions which envisaged possible derogations from the right to protest. Peaceful protests should not be followed by attempts to violate the law. For that reason, Russia was introducing amendment L.26.

Switzerland, expressing the position of sponsor States, said they were against the amendment so they would ask for a vote on amendment L.26.


Pakistan, in a general comment, joined the consensus in favour of the draft resolution. As a functioning democracy with a vibrant civil society, Pakistan deeply valued the freedom of opinion, expression and assembly. In the same spirit, Pakistan had constructively and positively participated in the negotiations leading up to the draft resolution. Disability caused by the use of force during peaceful protests was an important element of the draft text, and Pakistan referred to injuries incurred in occupied Jammu and Kashmir, where the security forces had not given any warning before firing pellets. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had made clear recommendations with respect to Jammu and Kashmir, namely an immediate end to the use of pellet firing. The passing of the draft resolution by consensus would send a message of hope to all victims.


Belgium, speaking in a general comment, strongly supported the resolution. The right to freedom of peaceful assembly allowed for the ability to participate in political democratic processes and signalized active citizenship. Belgium joined the consensus in adopting this resolution.
ベルギーは、一般コメントにおいて、決議草案を強く支持した。 平和的集会の自由に対する権利は、政治的民主的プロセスにおける参加を可能にし、能動的な市民権を明示した。ベルギーはこの決議採択におけるコンセンサスに加わった。

China, in a general comment, said that vandalism and violence were increasingly seen during protests. Peaceful protests should take place within States’ legal frameworks, and protesters should not destroy public property and endanger other citizens’ rights. Freedom of opinion and expression could not take precedence over other rights. The draft resolution was still not balanced as it failed to explain that peaceful protests should take place within legal frameworks, and because it failed to strike a balance between the rights and responsibilities of protesters. Accordingly, China would disassociate itself from the draft resolution.

Action on Amendment L.26

Australia, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that it could not support the inclusion of the proposed amendment. States had responsibilities to manage protests and any shift to the responsibility of organizers should be rejected. Such a development had to be rejected so that peaceful protests could continue to play a critical role in the development of just societies. Organizers were key stakeholders with which States should engage to ensure the proper management of assemblies. Australia called on all Member States to vote against the amendment.

Georgia, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that amendment L.26 aimed to shift the responsibility from the State to the organizers of protests and it went against the principle of individual liability. Organizers could not be held accountable for other people and it would justify practices that were against international law. Georgia strongly opposed amendment L.26 as it would serve to restrict the right to peaceful assembly.


The Council then rejected amendment L.26, by a vote of 14 in favour, 23 against and eight abstentions.

The Council then adopted draft resolution L.16, as orally revised, without a vote.

Action on Resolution on Civil Society Space: Engagement with International and Regional Organizations

In a resolution (A/HRC/38/L.17/Rev.1) on civil society space: engagement with international and regional organizations, adopted by a vote of 35 in favour, none against and 11 abstentions as orally revised, the Council[…]

The results of the vote were as follows:

In favour (35): Afghanistan, Angola, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Iraq, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

Against (0)

Abstentions (11): Burundi, China, Cuba, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.

Ireland, introducing draft resolution L.17/Rev.1 as orally revised, stated that globally the space for civil society was challenged and was shrinking. Civil society actors continued to face threats, attacks, reprisals and acts of intimidation. The issue of civil society space was vital in the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and it was clear that it must be addressed as a human rights concern. The draft text was a carefully balanced one. It took a practical and constructive approach to the operative outcomes. It captured the challenges faced by civil society and the value and importance of their contribution, with a particular focus on regional and international organizations.


China, introducing amendments L.37, L.38, L.39, on behalf of a group of countries, including Russia and Pakistan, said it believed that civil society organizations had to fulfil their responsibilities and facilitate their participation. Orally revised L.17/Rev.1 resolution shill had shortcomings. Seeing how the concerns of the group of countries were not incorporated, these States were submitting amendments. The group of States had withdrawn L.36, which suggested including social and economic rights as well as the right to development in the paragraph that concerned political rights. Concerning amendment L.37, civil society had to ensure that the channelling of their financing was transparent. Amendment L.38 said that civil society organizations had to avoid political motives when participating in regional or international organizations and they had to abide by the United Nations Charter. The main consideration of L.39 was concerning a controversial report on civil society participation and it was suggested to delete reference to it.


Action on Amendment L.37

Germany, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, strongly supported the draft text as orally revised and opposed amendment L.37. The draft resolution addressed some of the key challenges that civil society faced in its work with regional and international organizations. Germany reminded that the draft resolution proposed non-discriminatory measures to assist and support a pluralistic civil society. The proposed amendment, on the other hand, suggested that funding for civil society could be illegal, which was unacceptable. What was criteria for “transparent” funding of civil society? That language was unnecessary and dangerous. Germany would, therefore, vote against amendment L.37 and urged all others to do likewise.


The Council then rejected amendment L.37 by a vote of 14 in favour, 22 against, and 10 abstentions.

Action on Amendment L.38

Chile, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the group of countries submitting resolution L.17 was against L.38. Surprise was voiced at the insistence of keeping this amendment because the introductory part already mentioned the United Nations Charter and relevant international legislation. Introducing additional language of sovereignty was counterproductive. The amendment sought to undermine the universality of human rights with continuous references to territorial integrity.


The Council then rejected amendment L.38, by a vote of 15 in favour, 21 against and 10 abstentions.

Action on Amendment L.39

Tunisia, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, opposed the proposed amendment. First, the draft text was carefully crafted and balanced. It did not make demands on States, but encouraged and noted. The core group had held extensive negotiations, had taken on board many concerns, and had undertaken many revisions. The reference to the High Commissioner’s reports was a standard practice in the Council’s resolutions, Tunisia noted and called on everyone to vote against amendment L.39.


The Council then rejected amendment L.39 by a vote of 12 in favour, 24 against, and 10 abstentions.

Action on Draft Resolution L.17/Rev.1

China, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that civil society was important in all countries to promote socio-economic development. By 2017 China had registered 700,000 civil society organizations working in different sectors. However, civil society organizations also had to be responsible to the State, sovereignty and territorial integrity. China had actively participated in consultations on the draft resolution and together with many other countries had made constructive proposals. The Core Group was commended for their inclusive process. Regrettably, the draft resolution left much room for improvement. It did not mention that civil society organizations had to work under the legal framework. It did not mention that channels for financing of the civil society organizations had to be transparent. It referred to an inappropriate report. Regrettably, the co-sponsors had not taken China’s suggestions on board, so it was now not a balanced text. China could not support such text and requested for vote on the resolution. China would abstain.

United Kingdom, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the draft resolution deserved the support of all members of the Council. It was a benefit to all. Civil society worked on a whole range of issues important for all. Human rights defenders made great personal sacrifices to advance the human rights of others. The resolution addressed many important points. Providing space to civil society was not optional. All main sponsors were thanked for their open approach. Some delegations had sought to frustrate this important resolution and it was pleasing that the amendments were defeated.


Iraq, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, thanked all countries working on the resolution. Iraq supported most of what was stated in the text, recognizing the importance of civil society efforts, and Iraq would be voting in favour of the resolution. However, some parts of text were not acceptable. Funding had to be transparent. Iraq was also against some of the practical recommendations on a conducive environment. Given the exceptional conditions facing some countries and given the decision of the United Nations Economic and Social Council on non-governmental organizations, reservations were made on some operative paragraphs.

The Council then adopted the draft resolution L.17/Rev.1, by a vote of 35 in favour, none against, and 11 abstentions.

Action on Resolution on Business and Human Rights: Improving Accountability and Access to Remedy

In a resolution (A/HRC/38/L.18) on business and human rights: improving accountability and access to remedy, adopted without a vote, the Council[…]


Explanations of the Vote after the Vote after the Council Concluded Taking Action on Resolutions under Item 3


Action on Resolutions under the Agenda Item on Human Rights Situations that Require the Council’s Attention

Action on Resolution on the Situation of Human Rights in Belarus

In a resolution (A/HRC/38/L.7) on the situation of human rights in Belarus, adopted by a vote of 19 in favour, six against and 21 abstained, the Council decides to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus for a period of one year, and requests the Special Rapporteur to submit a report on the situation of human rights in Belarus to the Human Rights Council at its forty first session and to the General Assembly at its seventy-fourth session; urges the Government of Belarus to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur, including by providing him access to visit the country in his official capacity in order to assist the Government in fulfilling its international human rights obligations and by considering implementation of his recommendations, and also urges the Government to extend full cooperation to thematic special procedures; and requests the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide the Special Rapporteur with the assistance and resources necessary to allow the fulfilment of his mandate, and requests the latter to continue to monitor developments and make recommendations.

The results of the vote were as follows:

In favour (19): Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

Against (6): Burundi, China, Cuba, Egypt, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.

Abstentions (21): Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Georgia, Iraq, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Togo and Tunisia.

Austria, introducing draft resolution L.7 on behalf of the European Union, noted that the resolution offered a balanced text, reflecting both positive steps taken by the Government of Belarus, but also pointing to persisting and serious shortcomings in the human rights record of the country concerned. The resolution was based on the latest report of the Special Rapporteur, which described a “purposefully repressive legal framework” which was combined with cyclical crackdowns on the political opposition, civil society and trade unions. The European Union firmly advocated for the abolition of the death penalty and strongly condemned its continuous application in Belarus. It welcomed the engagement of the Government of Belarus in the discussion on the possible abolition of the death penalty, and it urged Belarus to join the global moratorium on the death penalty. For those reasons, the European Union presented the draft resolution to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, and urged the Government of Belarus to start full cooperation with the mandate holder.


Australia, in a general comment, was particularly concerned by the refusal by the Government of Belarus to abolish the death penalty. It reiterated the Special Rapporteur’s call for a moratorium to the death penalty. It encouraged action on the part of Belarus to cooperate with the Human Rights Council and asked Belarus to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur on Belarus.

Belarus, speaking as the concerned country, noted that the draft resolution was a politically motivated document that distorted the reality. It rendered pressure on the leadership of a sovereign State. Belarus maintained law and order, and stability, and in that endeavour it used legal means not different from those in other countries which claimed to be champions of human rights. The continuation of the monitoring of human rights in Belarus was a clear example of political manipulation by the Council and by the United Nations. The result of such policies would be most likely the collapse of the Council. The selective punishment of governments by using the tools of the Council had shown itself to be ineffective. There was no added value in the adoption of the draft resolution. Belarus called on everyone to vote against the draft resolution.

China, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the international community should respect the sovereignty of Belarus and the rights set by the people themselves. The Human Rights Council should do away with the practice of pressuring, polarization, and deconstructive dialogue on human rights. Draft resolution L.7 did not recognize the efforts of Belarus. It did not respect the principles of impartiality, non-selectivity and objectivity. It was not conducive to human rights. China did not agree with this special mechanism in the Human Rights Council, which was too costly and did not help the country. Therefore, it called on the Human Rights Council to vote against this draft resolution.


The Council then adopted draft resolution L.7 by a vote of 19 in favour, six against, and 21 abstentions.

Action on Resolution on the Situation of Human Rights in Eritrea

In a resolution (A/HRC/38/L.15/Rev.1) on the situation of human rights in Eritrea, adopted without a vote, the Council[…]

Djibouti, introducing draft resolution L.15/Rev.1, on behalf of Somalia and other co-sponsors, said that the main purpose of the resolution was the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for one year. The goal was also to carry out an update of resolution 35/35 to reflect the latest developments. The Special Rapporteur had noted that she was not in a position to announce any improvements, and major violations of human rights were identified, including those mentioned by the Commission on Inquiry. The resolution would give the Council an opportunity of engagement with the Special Rapporteur. Somalia and Djibouti had led negotiations in a transparent manner and all delegations were thanked for their contributions to reach a streamlined, balanced and objective text.


Eritrea, speaking as the concerned country, said the Human Rights Council had once again considered a politically motivated resolution against the people of Eritrea. In the past six years, similar resolutions had failed to create any dividend in the promotion of human rights; and this was another unwarranted act that recapped this Council’s failed experience. This year’s resolution came at a time when Eritrea and Ethiopia were engaged in advancing durable peace with an apparent positive implication for the Horn of Africa region. The Council, instead of acting in tune with this positive regional development, had chosen to embolden Djibouti and Somalia to perpetuate their messenger duties for those who had no interest in the peace and security of the region. The adoption of this resolution sent a clear message to the people of Eritrea that the Human Rights Council condoned the vilification of their history and their struggle for regional peace, justice and development. Eritrea rejected the resolution and called on all members of the Council to reject L.15.


China, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, reminded that it consistently advocated that differences should be resolved through dialogue and cooperation. The international community should acknowledge the progress and achievements of Eritrea in the field of human rights. The draft resolution was not in conformity with that. China called on the international community to address the situation in Eritrea in an objective and transparent manner.

The Council then adopted draft resolution L.15/Rev.1 without a vote.

Action on Resolution on the Human Rights Situation in the Syrian Arab Republic

In a resolution (A/HRC/38/L.20) on the human rights situation in the Syrian Arab Republic, adopted by a vote of 26 in favour, five against and 15 abstentions, the Council deplores the fact that the conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic continues in its eighth year with its devastating impact on the civilian population, and urges all parties to the conflict to abstain immediately from any actions that may contribute to the further deterioration of the human rights, security and humanitarian situations; urges all parties to the conflict to comply with their respective obligations under international human rights law and international humanitarian law, and demands that all parties, particularly the Syrian authorities and their allies, refrain from carrying out attacks against the civilian population and civilian objects; demands that all parties desist immediately from any use of chemical weapons; reaffirms the importance of establishing appropriate processes and mechanisms to achieve justice, reconciliation, truth and accountability for gross violations and abuses of international law, and reparations and effective remedies for victims; reaffirms that there can only be a political solution to the conflict … and demands that all parties work towards a genuine political transition based on the Geneva communiqué and Security Council resolution 2254 (2015), within the framework of the United Nations-led intra-Syrian talks in Geneva.

The results of the vote were as follows:

In favour (26): Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Ecuador, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Togo, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates and United Kingdom.

Against (5): Burundi, China, Cuba, Iraq and Venezuela.

Abstentions (15): Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Senegal, South Africa and Tunisia.

United Kingdom, introducing draft resolution L.20, on behalf of a group of States, said they took no pleasure in presenting this resolution once again. It was done not in anger but sorrow. A violent offensive was underway, carried out by the regime and its allies, including Russia, in the south of Syria. Over 330,000 people had fled their homes and all parties were urged to cease the hostilities. The conflict had to end and efforts of Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura were supported in making it happen. The objective of the resolution was to emphasise the need for accountability and to strengthen prospects for peace. The text contained stronger language on core issues such as arbitrary detention, sexual and gender-based violence, internally displaced persons, illicit arms transfers, as well as housing and property laws. The resolution reflected the findings of the Commission of Inquiry. Hope was expressed that the text would be adopted without the calling of a vote and enjoy the consensual support of all in the Council. If a vote was called, all delegations were urged to support the text as drafted.

Russian Federation, introducing amendments L.28, L.29, L.30 and L.31, said it had repeatedly said that the initiative of the so-called Group of Friends of Syria was politicized and had nothing to do with the protection of civilians. The armed groups in Syria were supported by some of the co-sponsors of the draft resolution. The proposed amendments did not aim to make the draft resolution more balanced because that was impossible. The Russian Federation called on all States not to support terrorists and not to sympathize with them. Terrorists in Syria had used chemical weapons: where had they found components to produce those chemical weapons? It was clear that the sponsors of the draft resolution did not want an independent and impartial investigation of the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Terrorists in Syria were financed from various parties, including private ones. Some regional countries provided them with weapons, equipment and information technology. It was not surprising that the sponsors of the draft resolution were opposed to Russia’s amendments. The last amendment, L.31, addressed the draconian unilateral coercive measures against Syria, which had a heavy impact on civilians. Russia called on all counties to vote in favour of its amendments.

United Kingdom, in a general comment, requested a vote on the amendments.


Venezuela, speaking in a general comment, expressed its support to amendments presented by Russia, calling on members of the Council to vote for these amendments.


Switzerland, speaking in a general comment, was extremely concerned about all the violations committed by all sides. Switzerland had co-sponsored the resolution and could not support the amendments. However, there were paragraphs weakening the applicability of the resolution. The report of the Commission of Inquiry had documented all violations. Justice had to be provided to all the victims, so it was essential for the Commission of Inquiry, civil society and the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism to cooperate. The situation in Syria had to be referred to the International Criminal Court. All parties to the conflict were called to re-establish the ceasefire.

Syria, speaking as the concerned country, stated that unrealistic resolutions submitted to the Council every session only aimed to dedicate the Council to serve political interests disconnected from human rights values. The aim was to spread fabricated narratives to hide terrorism supported by sponsor countries. The co-sponsors of the draft resolution continued to level accusations against the Syrian Government and to blackout its cooperation with human rights agencies. Contrary to the allegations in the draft resolution, the Government of Syria had spared no efforts to engage in appeasement initiatives. Syria reaffirmed its commitment to international humanitarian law, and emphasised that persons who committed war crimes and crimes against humanity required accountability. However, those crimes were committed by the coalition led by the United States. It was not surprising that terrorism-sponsoring States had violated the United Nations Charter and international law. The Council was being compelled to consider issues for which it was technically not equipped. The British draft resolution and the language used did not promote the aims of achieving peace in Syria.

Action on Amendment L.28

Germany, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said amendment L.28 proposed by the Russian Federation was redundant. Furthermore, it gave rise to ambiguity as to what was meant by a terrorist. Germany therefore opposed the amendment and called for all others to do the same.


The Human Rights Council then rejected the amendment, with 10 votes in favour, 21 against, and 15 abstentions.

Action on Amendment L.29

United Kingdom, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that amendment L.29 was a distraction. The resolution already contained strong language, condemning the use of chemical weapons and condemning terrorist acts and violence. It was unconceivable that Russia was truly interested in the impartial investigation of chemical weapons. Russia had used its veto in the Security Council six times to block investigations by the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism. The amendment introduced broad reference to terrorist groups, as part of the Russian narrative to see whoever was not supportive of the Syrian regime as terrorists. Russia’s amendment was clearly seeking to undermine the resolution.


The Council then rejected amendment L.29, by a vote of seven in favour, 22 against and 16 abstentions.

Action on Amendment L.30


Qatar, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, concurred with Belgium and opposed the amendment because the draft resolution contained paragraphs which were exhaustive with respect to treating terrorist acts and groups. The proposed amendment opened the possibility to the Syrian regime to target legitimate opposition groups, and did not mention groups that profited from the Syrian regime. Qatar called on everyone to vote against amendment L.30.

The Council then rejected amendment L.30 by a vote of 10 in favour, 21 against, and 15 abstentions.

Action on Amendment L.31


Georgia, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, believed that this amendment was factually incorrect. The European Union sanctions were targeted and not indiscriminate. The resolution sought to withdraw the responsibility of the Syrian regime for violations of human rights law and humanitarian law. Georgia would vote against this amendment, and for the draft resolution, and called on all others to do the same.

The Council then rejected the amendment, with nine votes in favour, 21 against and 16 abstentions. 

Action on Draft Resolution L.20


China, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, supported the request for a vote on the draft resolution. It had always maintained that a political solution to the Syrian conflict was the only way to promote human rights there. Stressing the need to preserve the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria, China noted that the draft resolution was not conducive to a political solution and that it would vote against the draft resolution.


Iraq, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it had expressed its view against the practice of selectivity in the Human Rights Council, which was a deviation from achieving its work and its objectives. The draft resolution in question had contained ideas that preceded the results of the Commission of Inquiry. In addition, some parties had been described as terrorist parties, contrary to Security Council resolutions. Furthermore, the draft resolution did not take into account recent developments on the ground. It did not refer to international solidarity in terms of the reconstruction of Syria and the provision of a necessary environment for the return of the refugees. Neither did it refer to the financial resources necessitated by the United Nations in order to provide relief for Syria. Furthermore, it did not cover the besieged areas by terrorist groups. The draft resolution was unbalanced and did not aim to reach an objective solution to the crisis. In fact, it only served armed and terrorist groups which would perpetuate the situation. It did not serve the people of Syria. Therefore, Iraq would vote against it, and called on all others to do the same.

Egypt, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it had a principled position regarding item 4 resolutions that did not receive the consent of the country in question. In light of the humanitarian disaster that had entered its seventh year, and in view of the size of the crisis and the numbers involved, Egypt had decided to abstain from voting. The resolution lacked balance and objectivity. Sources for the resolution were unofficial sources, not the official United Nations sources. The draft resolution welcomed investigation mechanisms which were set up by the General Assembly resolution to which Egypt abstained. On those basis, Egypt would abstain.

The Council then adopted the draft resolution L.20, by a vote of 26 in favour, five against and 15 abstentions.

Explanations of the Vote after the Vote after the Council Concluded Taking Action on Resolutions under Agenda Item 4



*1:下記 UN Web TV 説明文参照。