American United Nations official
Alfred Maurice de Zayas (born May 31, 1947, Havana, Cuba) is an American lawyer, writer, historian, an expert in the field of human rights and international law, a peace activist, President of PEN International Centre Suisse romand (2006-09 and 2013-17), United Nations Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order (also known as Special Rapporteur 2012-2018), appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council. Professor of International Law.
From: Wikiquote (CC BY-SA 4.0)
A democratic and equitable international order is inherent in the fundamental human rights that humanity shares. It is achievable, step-by-step, when every country and people act at the local, regional and international levels, aware that such an international order must be based on the United Nations Charter and the human rights treaties, which together make up what we can safely call the Constitution of the modern world.
Limited Time Offer
Premium members can get their quote collection automatically imported into their Quotewise collections.
The root causes of armed conflict, among them the race for natural resources, economic imbalances, and ethnic and religious tensions must be resolved, respecting the obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means under Article 2 (3) of the Charter. The obligation to negotiate is jus cogens, “negotiation” meaning dialogue and compromise, not the dictates of the stronger over the weaker.
The Ukraine end-game becomes more dangerous by the day, and many experts in the US realize that Ukraine cannot win. Nevertheless, NATO and EU escalate further at the expense of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives, sacrificed on the altar of US and NATO expansion. The Western indifference to death reminds me of Madeleine Albright’s cynical assessment that toppling Saddam Hussein was worth the lives of 500,000 Iraqi children (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tihL1lMLL0). Some in the Biden administration pretend that they can still snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat. At best we can hope for a frozen conflict, which, alas, can break out into renewed hostilities. At worst, we face nuclear Apocalypse. The long-term consequences of the conflict are not limited to Ukraine. The question arises about the viability of existing international institutions like the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, which have allowed themselves to be hijacked by the US for its geopolitical agenda. NATO’s policies have seriously damaged our faith in the system of international law, diplomatic law and international criminal law, which functioned – albeit with difficulties -- before the orgy of treaty-violations, sanctions regimes and blockades that have upended Rechtssicherheit, international trade, supply chains and rendered the sustainable development goals unattainable. The use of indiscriminate weapons including drones, cluster bombs and depleted uranium have done long-term damage to international humanitarian law. Another US fantasy: the piecemeal absorption of Ukraine into NATO, which Russia will counter, because it cannot allow the use of Ukrainian territory as a springboard for renewed proxy wars. It seems that the US, not Russia, has deliberately thrown the Westphalian system of law and diplomacy out of the window.
Although founded on majority rule, a democratic society must recognize and apply individual, minority and group rights. In other words, majority rule must be understood within the context of the rule of law and human dignity… This resolves the tension between populism and human rights, since democracy must not be abused to diminish human rights, e.g. by legitimizing torture or capital punishment, even if public opinion could be invoked or manipulated to demand it. Thus, it is necessary to strengthen the enforcement of national and regional bills of rights to provide a process and atmosphere for democracy to flourish, ensured by an independent judiciary that provides the necessary protection of both majority and minority interests.
I am especially worried about the impact that investor-state-arbitrations (ISDS) have already had and foreseeably will have on human rights, in particular the provision which allows investors to challenge domestic legislation and administrative decisions if these can potentially reduce their profits.