By Ms Kathryne Bomberger, Director-General of the International Commission on Missing Persons.
The Commissioners of the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) held their annual meeting in Stockholm on 1 June, a year after ICMP formally opened its new headquarters in The Hague, and two and a half years after ICMP was established as an International Organization in its own right under a treaty signed by the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Belgium and Luxembourg. In Stockholm, the Commissioners reviewed ICMP’s remarkable development over the last twelve months and examined key ways in which it can continue to coordinate the international effort to address the issue of missing persons.
On a practical level, ICMP’s headquarters at Koninginnegracht 12 are now fully operational. Our core team in The Hague is being expanded, and in the coming months we will bring remaining administrative functions to The Hague from Sarajevo (where ICMP’s headquarters were located from 1996 until 2015). We will also establish a new DNA laboratory here, working in close cooperation with Dutch agencies such as the Netherlands Forensic Institute and also with leading multinationals such as the Qiagen biotechnology company.
The demanding process of re-location has been made possible through the generous and support of the Dutch authorities, especially the Foreign Ministry and the City of The Hague. At the opening of ICMP’s headquarters on 7 July 2016, Foreign Minister Bert Koenders delivered a valuable and valued vote of confidence when he said that “as long as people go missing in this world, as a result of conflict, government repression, humanitarian crises, or other causes, ICMP will have a role to play. We are ready to work with you.” The Dutch authorities really have been with us all along the way, providing financial, diplomatic and practical support, and we certainly intend to honor our part of the bargain by making a constructive contribution to the diplomatic and scientific life of The Hague. From our headquarters here, we are coordinating programs throughout the world.
ICMP has benefited from long-term Dutch support for its program the Western Balkans, where ICMP spearheaded the effort that made it possible to account for more than 70 percent of those who went missing in the 1990s, including 7,000 of the 8,000 men and boys who went missing at Srebrenica in July 1995. Today, ICMP is helping its partners in the region to maintain the effort to account for 12,000 people who are still missing.
Between 2012 and 2014, ICMP operated a successful pilot program in Libya, before being forced to withdraw from the country because of renewed fighting. It has been active in Iraq since 2003 and is currently expanding its program there, training Iraqi experts in crime-scene management and DNA-led identification techniques throughout the country, including areas recently liberated from Da’esh. ICMP is also supporting associations of families of the missing and working with authorities throughout Iraq to develop a coordinated and law-based approach to the issue of missing persons.
In Colombia, ICMP was invited by the parties to the Peace Agreement to help the authorities establish a Search Unit that will coordinate the effort to account for more than 65,000 people who disappeared during five decades of conflict. ICMP has also conducted consultations with government authorities and civil society in Sri Lanka, now grappling with the challenge of accounting for tens of thousands of missing from the war that ended in 2009.
ICMP is launching a program to assist families from the Syrian conflict in finding their missing relatives. The aim is to establish a future system of locating and identifying those who have gone missing as a result of the conflict.
We are also working with government authorities and other organizations to establish a program that will make it possible to begin identifying the rising numbers of irregular migrants who have been drowned trying to cross the Mediterranean.
New projects will rely heavily on the knowledge base built over the last 20 years through our cross-cutting programs and will require extensive operational planning, thorough induction programs for new staff, and strategic support from donor and other countries in order to set in place office agreements and other legal and political arrangements that are needed.
ICMP is playing its leading role in addressing the global challenge of missing persons in the context of an emerging international consensus that this issue – like the issues of organized crime, people trafficking and drug smuggling – cuts across judicial and national jurisdictions and can only be tackled effectively by applying dedicated techniques as part of a coordinated multinational approach.
ICMP’s work is premised on the fact that missing persons can be found and that the rights of survivors – to truth, to justice, and to reparations – can likewise be met. This is validated through ICMP’s successful deployment of political, social and scientific strategies that have been honed over more than 20 years.
Today, from our headquarters in The Hague, ICMP is leading a global effort to mitigate human suffering and to help governments ensure that the issue of missing persons does not undermine efforts to consolidate peace and global security. We believe that our work will benefit immensely from our proximity to other international organizations and agencies in The Hague and that in turn we can contribute to their efforts through our expertise and experience.
H.E. Dr András Kocsis, Ambassador of Hungary, photography by John Dunkelgrün.By John Dunkelgrün.
When I walked into this exposition, I was awed. Paintings in the avant-garde styles as good as any from France or Germany were all around me.
Why weren’t these artists known as well as the members of the Blaue Reiter, the Brücke or say Cézanne and Gaugin? After I left, I felt intense gratitude for having been able to see this and add another page to my memories of great art.
Béla Czóbel, Boys, 1907. Photo: István Füzi. Janus Pannonius Museum.
Few people today know that in the two decades before World War I Budapest was one of the most vibrant cities in the world, the queen of cities in “Mittel Europa”.
Population growth was spectacular, especially because of the many tens of thousands of Jews fleeing pogroms and violent anti-semitism in Russia, the Ukraine and Poland. Hungary is a very fertile country and the production of wheat, corn and sugar beets etc. was enormous. With advent of the new machinery powered by steam engines, the processing of the produce became very big business.
Hugó Scheiber, In de tram, 1925. Private collection, thanks to mediation by the Kieselbach Gallery – Budapest.
Also after the “Ausgleich” of 1861 (a deal with Austria about Hungary’s position within the Dual Monarchy) business conditions became far less restrictive.
These three trends made for a phenomenal growth in wealth. In Budapest, where the Jewish population grew to almost a quarter, quite a lot of Jews rbecame important in business as well as in government. Parallel with this economic growth came a blossoming of the arts.
Painters, writers, composers and musicians reached world levels. The arts were considered a truly national pride. When Mihály Munkácsy, Hungary’s most famous painter, died in 1900, he was given a state funeral on a par with that of Victor Hugo! A great many of these artists were Jewish. Unfortunately due to a number of circumstances only the composers are widely known today.
The Jewish Historical Museum is trying to rectify this with a magnificent exposition of 85 works by nineteen Jewish painters, who were very famous at the time and deserve to be so today.
The styles vary from fauvist through cubist to surrealist, predominantly on general, i.e. non-Jewish themes. The artists worked in a period of global turmoil, the first World War, the (Hungarian) revolution of 1919 and rapidly growing anti-semitism.
Some of them were even active in The Netherlands. Vilmos Huszár was one of the founders of the art movement “De Stijl”, of which the centennial is celebrated this year.
Armand Schönberger, Cafe de la Paix, ca. 1929. Türr István Museum– Baja.
The exposition, the largest ever of Hungarian art works in The Netherlands, shows that Hungarian art of the period was an important part of the international art scene. Hungarian artists traveled abroad and were influenced by the trends of the moment.
At the opening, the ambassador of Hungary, H.E. Dr András Kocsis, spoke of the important contributions Hungary’s Jews had made to the economy and the arts in his country. He did so in admirable Dutch! Jaap Scholten, a Dutch writer and historian who lives in Budapest, gave a fascinating exposé of the political history and artistic development of Hungary.
Róbert Berény, Lady in an armchair, 1912. Private collection, thanks to mediation by the Virág Judit Gallery – Budapest
There is a magnificent bilingual catalogue written by the Project Director of the exposition, Dr. Joël Cahen, the previous Director of the museum and for those who read Dutch some very good articles in the current JCK magazine.
The exposition runs through September 24.
On the picture is Mr Jan Dop, head of the Embassy Desk, and experienced lawyer and partner at Russell Advocaten.
The Embassy Desk of Russell Advocaten, a corporate full-service law firm in the Netherlands that is well-established within the diplomatic world, is hosting two seminars for Ambassadors and Embassy staff on Monday the 12th of June between 12:00 and 14:00 in Amsterdam. Two parallel sessions will focus on Employment Law (personnel handbook, illness, etc.) and Real Estate (government permits, environment, (sub)lease etc.). During these interactive sessions, practical legal questions and developments will be discussed. The aim of the event is to present relevant information in an easily accessible way.
The Employment Law session will mainly focus on the effect of a personnel handbook in preventing employment related legal issues. The Embassy Desk will discuss the importance of applying rules and instructions and the positive effects thereof. The Real Estate session will provide an introduction to Dutch Real Estate Law, with a focus on government permits and building restrictions for Embassies and their neighbours. The seminar will be preceded by a lunch. To learn more about the activities and services of the Embassy Desk, please click here.
If you are interested in attending the event (free of charge), please register at https://www.embassydesk.nl/seminar-12-june-2017/. See the seminar agenda here.
The South African Embassy in The Hague would like to congratulate Ziyanda Majozi who was nominated as the 2017 recipient of the prestigious Thami Mnyele Foundation Artist-in-Residence programme.
Ziyanda is a very ambitious young woman; mosaicist, artist and human rights activist who would like to make change through Art. She creates personal art that aims ta change how people see things.
Established in 1992, the Thami Mnyele Foundation has been running a unique three month artists- in-residence program for the past 20 years with the Residency being based in Amsterdam. The main objective of the Foundation is to enhance and promote cultural exchange between artists from Africa, the Netherlands with Amsterdam as the host city.
ziyanda Majozi @majozi_ziyanda
The Foundation is named in commemoration of the South African artist and former member of the ANC MEDU group, Thami Mnyele.
Thami Mnyele inspired Dutch artists to set up an artists-in-residence program, after a visit with the CASA cultural project in the Netherlands in the nineties. The first years the focus was only on artists from South Africa, however, since 1997 artists from all African countries could apply.
The Embassy would like to wish Ziyanda well during her stay in the Netherlands and would also like to commend the Thami Mnyele Foundation for its continued commitment to strengthening people to people relations and promoting young artistic talent from South Africa.
Issued by the South African Embassy.
———
On the image: Converse takkies (2013) by Ziyanda Majozi.
By Barend ter Haar.
Until seven years ago, Dutch governments used to consist of 26 to 29 ministers: 14 to 16 full ministers and 10 to 14 state secretaries, that carry the title of minister when they are abroad.
Since 2010 this number has come down to 20. At first sight that might seem a welcome sign of frugality in times of austerity, but in reality it has harmed Dutch interests.
What national politicians tend to forget is that major decisions concerning the future of the Netherlands are at present usually taken outside the Netherlands and that ministers are needed as national representatives to influence these decisions as much as possible.
In former times the most important issues on the national agenda were domestic affairs. International conferences were a sideshow that could be left to the minister of Foreign Affairs, but this has changed dramatically. Domestic matters, such as public health, tensions in inner cities and the state of local nature and environment are nowadays strongly influenced by what happens abroad. Climate change, cyber security and migration are among a growing number of matters that cannot be effectively handled at the national level, but require intensive international cooperation, often in the form of ministerial conferences.
What every diplomat that has attended international conferences knows, is that the influence a country can exert depends on the formal level of its participation. In theory all heads of delegation are considered to be equal, but in practice a distinction is made between ministers and professional diplomats.
Take for example a UN conference that is attended by 120 of the 193 member states of the United Nations and let us assume that two states are represented by their president, seventy by a minister and the rest by professional diplomats. The two presidents will have the opportunity to speak at the beginning of the conference and will therefore be able to get their message across to all delegations. Most ministers will have the courtesy to listen to at least some of their colleagues, but when, at the end of the plenary meeting, it is the turn of the other high officials, most seats will be filled by young trainees.
What is even more important are the opportunities that ministers have for informal consultations during coffee breaks, lunches and dinners. Foreign ministers might be willing to listen to Dutch diplomats, but they will interpret the absence of a Dutch minister as a sign that the Netherlands takes the subject of a conference less seriously and will therefore tend to ignore the Dutch position.
By being absent at many conferences, Dutch ministers have left many opportunities to influence the international agenda unused. In order to safeguard Dutch values and interests a new Dutch government should make sure that it has sufficient ministers available to participate in international conferences at the appropriate level.
S.E. M. Philippe Couvreur est arrivé à La Haye en avril 1982, où il a d’abord occupé le poste d’assistant spécial aux bureaux du greffier et du greffier adjoint de la Cour internationale de Justice.
Il a ensuite exercé les fonctions de Secrétaire, Premier Secrétaire et Secrétaire juridique principal, avant d’être élu Greffier de la Cour en 2000, et réélu en 2007 et 2014.
Pour marquer l’anniversaire de ses débuts à la Cour, il y a 35 ans, Diplomat Magazine l’a invité à témoigner de son expérience unique au service de cette institution, des évolutions qu’il a pu y observer, et à partager le regard qu’il porte sur les changements qui ont marqué la Cour et La Haye au cours des trois dernières décennies.
Philippe Couvreur avec le Pape Jean-Paul II prise le 13 mai 1985.
Je suis arrivé à La Haye en avril 1982 — de façon aussi inattendue que j’avais entamé des études de droit treize ans auparavant (mais c’est là une autre histoire…) — pour occuper un poste temporaire à la Cour internationale de Justice. La Cour était alors la seule institution judiciaire internationale existante au plan universel.
Son activité, particulièrement faible à la fin des années 1970, ne pouvait en ce temps-là guère laisser présager du succès que rencontrerait la Cour dans les décennies à venir. Mon bienveillant maître de Louvain, le professeur Paul de Visscher, fils du célèbre internationaliste Charles de Visscher, unique juge belge à la Cour, m’avait prédit des jours aussi sereins qu’heureux, écoulés à lire et à écrire des ouvrages dans la solitude des imposants murs de la bibliothèque du Palais de la Paix…
Les mémoires ont été dûment déposés dans l’affaire El Salvador c. Honduras dans la salle Bol le 1 juin 1988, l’affaire du Différend frontalier terrestre, insulaire et maritime.
En rejoignant la Cour, un frais matin d’avril, dont je garde un souvenir très précis, le jeune juriste que j’étais découvrit, non sans étonnement, une organisation de taille très modeste, le Greffe, qui en est l’organe administratif, alors composé de moins d’une quarantaine de fonctionnaires. Le fonctionnement de la Cour reposait entièrement sur cette équipe restreinte de personnel permanent, auquel s’ajoutait, selon que de besoin, un personnel temporaire pour faire face au surcroît de travaux linguistiques et de sténodactylographie lors des sessions (publiques et privées) de la Cour.
Je me rappelle avoir été frappé par la personnalité haute en couleur de certains de ces traducteurs indépendants, dont la grande culture littéraire m’émerveillait. Cette structure très économique du Greffe impliquait une grande polyvalence de ses membres, et les Secrétaires de la Cour — ses fonctionnaires supérieurs — étaient appelés, en sus de leurs travaux de recherches juridiques, de préparation des documents de la Cour, et de rédaction de la correspondance diplomatique, à assumer eux-mêmes l’essentiel des tâches linguistiques (traduction et interprétation) et d’information, ainsi que la supervision de nombreuses activités administratives et logistiques.
La Grande salle de Justice, l’affaire Relative au Timor Oriental (Portugal c. Australie) Arrêt du 30 juin 1995.
Il n’était nullement rare qu’un nouveau venu comme moi ait à passer week-ends et nuits blanches au Palais de la Paix à effectuer les travaux les plus divers… allant jusqu’à imprimer et polycopier, sur de vieilles machines à stencils ronéotype, des décisions dont la Cour devait donner la lecture en séance publique le lendemain !
Dès mon arrivée au Greffe, j’ai eu le bonheur et le privilège d’être initié et associé à l’ensemble des fonctions de l’institution sous la patiente supervision de personnalités d’exception, tels que MM. Torres Bernárdez et Pillepich, alors respectivement Greffier et Greffier adjoint. J’en ai retiré le plus grand bénéfice, puisque cette immersion sans préparation dans toutes les facettes de l’activité du Greffe m’a permis d’acquérir de ce dernier une connaissance unique — de l’intérieur — et sous tous ses aspects —, un acquis particulièrement précieux au moment où j’ai été amené, bien des années plus tard, à assumer la délicate responsabilité d’en assurer la gestion au plus haut niveau.
Devenir un fonctionnaire du Greffe au début des années 1980 signifiait accepter de se couler sans discussion dans un moule à tous égards exigeant, et se donner corps et âme, avec humilité et discrétion, à l’institution, sans penser à soi ni parler de soi.
Depuis ces années d’initiation, j’ai été le témoin de profondes transformations de la Cour, rendues inévitables à la fois pour répondre à l’accroissement considérable de ses activités, avec la disparition du monde bipolaire qui avait relégué le règlement judiciaire à un rôle quelque peu marginal, et pour saisir les opportunités nouvelles offertes, notamment, par le progrès des technologies et de la communication. Entre 1982 et aujourd’hui, le nombre de fonctionnaires a ainsi presque triplé (il a quasiment doublé depuis l’an 2000, année de ma première élection en tant que Greffier). L’organisation du travail a été progressivement spécialisée entre les divers départements, juridique, linguistique et chargé de l’information, qui furent créés en 1997, et les services techniques. Par ailleurs, les Membres de la Cour ne disposèrent pas, pendant longtemps, de « référendaires » — ils s’y sont d’ailleurs longtemps refusés—, et l’assistance apportée aux juges en matière judiciaire était principalement répartie entre les fonctionnaires du Département des affaires juridiques.
H.E. Philippe Couvreur avec la Reine Beatrix photo prise pendant le 50 eme anniversaire de la Cour (18-04-1996).
Les cinq premiers postes de juristes référendaires ne furent obtenus de l’Assemblée générale et créés qu’en 2002, à l’issue de difficiles négociations que je me souviens avoir menées avec beaucoup de plaisir et d’intérêt ; le nombre de ces postes s’est progressivement accru, pour s’élever à quinze aujourd’hui.
Les divers développements qui ont marqué le monde au cours des dernières décennies n’ont pas manqué de soulever pour la Cour de nouveaux défis. Comme c’est le cas pour toute institution, elle n’a pu les relever en faisant table rase des enseignements de son histoire ni, à l’inverse, en ne saisissant pas toutes les opportunités offertes par le temps présent. A ces différents égards, la Cour est certainement parvenue, au fil des ans, à assurer un équilibre, toujours délicat, entre changements et continuité.
La continuité de la Cour est bien sûr inscrite dans son Statut, qui fait partie intégrante de la Charte des Nations Unies, et reflétée dans ses méthodes judiciaires, qui ont été très largement élaborées par sa devancière, la Cour permanente de Justice internationale, et héritées d’elle. Cette continuité historique était particulièrement présente lorsque j’ai rejoint le Greffe.
Ainsi, en manière d’anecdote, divers hauts fonctionnaires alors en poste avaient eux-mêmes côtoyé, au début de leur carrière, d’anciens fonctionnaires de la Cour permanente. Tous nourrissaient à l’égard de cette dernière le plus grand respect. Il régnait d’ailleurs dans les couloirs du Palais de la Paix une atmosphère feutrée et délicieusement surannée, évocatrice de la défunte Société des Nations. Je me souviens en avoir encore utilisé maintes fournitures de bureau !
La continuité jurisprudentielle et procédurale entre les deux Cours constitue pour les Etats une garantie importante de sécurité et de prévisibilité juridiques. Cette continuité, juridique et historique, de même que l’expérience accumulée en plus de quatre-vingt-dix ans d’exercice de la fonction judiciaire, sont pour la Cour un facteur crucial de légitimité.
H.E. Philippe Couvreur vec le Roi Willem-Alexander photo prise pendant le 70 eme anniversaire de la Cour (20-04-2016).
En même temps, la Cour a eu, à l’évidence, à s’adapter aux changements du monde réel dans lequel elle opère, comme aux nécessités et opportunités nouvelles de chaque époque traversée.
L’une des transformations notoires auxquelles j’ai assisté fut l’ouverture croissante de la Cour sur l’extérieur : longtemps à l’écart, à dessein, des organes politiques des Nations Unies, la Cour a souhaité se faire plus et mieux entendre de ces organes et des Etats membres. Elle a ainsi rompu avec ce qui était parfois perçu comme un « splendide isolement » au sein des Nations Unies, même si elle défend toujours jalousement son autonomie. La Cour doit en outre désormais également tenir compte des nombreuses autres juridictions, internationales ou régionales, qui ont été créées ces dernières années, et veiller, autant que possible, à assurer l’harmonie du « concert judiciaire » que permet ce foisonnement de cours et tribunaux sur la scène internationale.
Davantage ouverte sur la communauté internationale et ses réalités, la Cour s’est montrée de plus en plus attentive, non seulement à sa place dans l’Organisation des Nations Unies, mais aussi à la poursuite des objectifs de celle-ci et à sa mission propre au service du règlement pacifique des différends internationaux. Des différends de plus en plus complexes, tant juridiquement que factuellement, en même temps que politiquement plus denses, lui ont été soumis. En révisant constamment, selon que de besoin, ses méthodes de travail, elle a su les résoudre rapidement et efficacement, à un coût particulièrement modeste pour la communauté internationale, tout en assurant le développement du droit.
Enfin, pour conclure sur une note plus prosaïque, mais qui est loin d’être négligeable, je ne peux taire la chance que j’ai eue de connaître l’extraordinaire développement de la ville de La Haye au cours des 35 dernières années. Celle-ci offre aujourd’hui à la Cour, comme aux nombreuses institutions internationales qui s’y sont installées à sa suite, une qualité de vie et un cadre de travail uniques, qui sont très loin de ressembler à ce que j’ai trouvé en y arrivant.
A l’image de l’imposante stature du Palais de la Paix où elle siège, symbole mondialement connu de la justice internationale, la Cour est une institution solidement établie. En dépit des périodes de doute ou de désaffection qu’elle a traversées par le passé, son rôle est unanimement salué au sein de la communauté internationale et le recours à ses services par les Etats n’a jamais été aussi soutenu. 35 ans après, je continue de mesurer chaque jour le privilège qui est le mien de servir au mieux de mes capacités l’organe judiciaire principal des Nations Unies.
—–
Les photos dans l’article sont une courtoisie de la Cour International de Justice.
By H.E. Mr Wu Ken, Chinese Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
In May, the most beautiful season of the Netherlands, we will celebrate the 45th anniversary of diplomatic relations at ambassadorial level between China and the Netherlands, which is a historic moment for both our countries.
China and the Netherlands are located at the two ends of the Eurasian continent respectively, but the two peoples share a long history of enduring exchanges, despite the geographical distance. Over 400 years ago, the “Maritime Silk Road” stretching from Guangzhou of China to the Netherlands had already linked the two peoples together. Tea, silk, porcelain and other Chinese products were introduced into Europe through the merchant vessels of the “Sea Coachmen”. The Netherlands was one of the first Western countries to recognize the People’s Republic of China and the two countries established diplomatic relations at chargé d’affaires level in 1954. On 18 May 1972, the leaders of the two countries, with a far-sighted strategic vision and political wisdom, upgraded the diplomatic relations to the ambassadorial level, thus ushering in a new era of development of friendly bilateral relations.
The past 45 years have witnessed the increasingly mature political relations between our two countries. During this period, the China-Netherlands relations have kept moving forward despite the volatile international situation and twists and turns of the bilateral ties. Especially since 2014, with the historic mutual state visits by President XI Jinping and King Willem-Alexander, both sides together enhanced the China-Netherlands relationship to a new position of “Open and Pragmatic Partnership for Comprehensive Cooperation”, which laid a solid foundation for its future development, and promoted bilateral relationship into its best period of development in history. Recently on 12 April, two Giant Pandas, Wu Wen and Xing Ya have just arrived in the Netherlands from China and will make their public debut very soon. This is an important fruit of the mutual visits of our two Heads of State, and the most convincing example of the China-Netherlands friendship and cooperation as well.
The past 45 years have also witnessed the substantial development of our pragmatic cooperation. The bilateral trade volume grew from a mere US$69 million in 1972 to US$67.2 billion in 2016, an increase of almost 1,000 times in 45 years. The Netherlands is now China’s second largest trading partner in the EU and China is the Netherlands’ second largest trading partner outside the EU. Meanwhile, the Netherlands has nearly 3,200 investment projects in China and China has almost 600 in the Netherlands. Our bilateral cooperation in agriculture, water management, chemical industry and logistics is among the best in the cooperation between China and European countries and there are more and more similar amazing achievements. With the continuous transformation and development of China’s economy and society, and with the deepening and implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative, I firmly believe that the potential of our pragmatic cooperation in various fields will be tremendous.
The past 45 years have moreover witnessed the steady deepening of the friendship between our two peoples. The Dutch famous philosopher Baruch Spinoza once said, “The heart is not conquered by force, but by love and tolerance”. In China there is also an old saying, “Amity between the people holds the key to relations between countries”. In recent years, the two countries have often mutually sent high-level art troupes and held performances and exhibitions of various kinds. For example, the “Happy Chinese New Year” performances have been held in the Netherlands for 11 consecutive years and have become widely participated highlights among local people. The China Cultural Center in the Haguethe new important fruit of bilateral cultural exchanges, was officially inaugurated last year.
As more and more Dutch people begin to learn Chinese, following Leiden Confucius Institute and Groningen Confucius Institute, the third Confucius Institute will be unveiled within this year. At present, 10 Dutch middle schools have already set up Confucius Classroom and the number will reach 13 this year. The Netherlands saw more tourists coming from China than from any other Asian country and China has become the second largest origin of overseas students of the Netherlands. The cultural and people-to-people exchanges have enhanced the understanding of the two peoples, further consolidated the public and social foundation for the development of bilateral relations and become one of the “three locomotives” for the steady and sound development of bilateral relations along with political and economic exchanges.
The achievements in the past 45 years are really hard-won. As the incumbent Chinese Ambassador to the Netherlands, I have great confidence in the future development of the China-Netherlands relations. Yesterday, one of my Dutch friends asked for my opinion on the following development of bilateral relations. I told him to have a look at the spring flower field in the Netherlands and there lies my answer. Yes, indeed, just like the vast beautiful sea of flowers, the prospect of the China-Netherlands cooperation will surely be broad and the China-Netherlands friendship will definitely enjoy a brighter tomorrow!
By Judge Theodor Meron, President of the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals.
The Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals is an institution that finds itself, in many ways, at a critical juncture in the evolution of international criminal justice.
As the successor to the first international criminal courts of the modern era—the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and for the former Yugoslavia—the Mechanism is responsible for carrying out key residual functions inherited from its predecessors, such as the protection of vulnerable witnesses and the enforcement of sentences of those convicted by the ICTR or the ICTY. It is, in many ways, the guardian of the important legacies of these two pioneering Tribunals in Arusha and The Hague, and the embodiment of the international community’s abiding commitment to accountability and the rule of law, a commitment reflected in the establishment of the ICTR and the ICTY nearly a quarter century ago.
At the same time, the Mechanism is an active court in its own right, with two major appeal cases currently pending, a trial about to commence, and on-going proceedings related to requests for review and other relief. It must find a harmonized, one-institution approach to its operations spanning two continents, an approach that draws in an equitable manner on the traditions and practices of its predecessors while remaining capable of addressing the variable operational needs and constraints at its branches in Africa and Europe.
And it is very much at the vanguard of a new generation of institutions and initiatives aimed at harnessing innovations and identifying best practices with the goal of making international criminal justice more efficient, more cost-effective, and thereby more sustainable in the long-term. Indeed, thanks to the direction given to it by the UN Security Council to be small and efficient, the Mechanism is, in many ways, bound to question existing orthodoxies as to how international criminal courts can and should carry out their work and to seek out new, improved ways of accomplishing its work—so long as it does so without jeopardizing respect for the principle of normative continuity or the rights of those individuals for whom and to whom it is responsible.
The Mechanism’s Statute, for instance, provides for Judges to serve on a roster, to work only when needed and to carry out their functions remotely from their homes and offices in countries around the world unless they are called to one of the seats of the Mechanism’s branches. The Statute also provides for Judges to be paid by days of work (as is the case for the Judges ad hoc of the International Court of Justice), expands the competence of single Judges, and provides for certain matters to be addressed by three-Judge appeal panels. All of this reflects a new approach as compared to the ICTR and the ICTY—and is but one of myriad ways in which the Mechanism, as a matter of institutional design and through evolving practice, exemplifies an effort to address a chorus of criticisms of international criminal justice that has grown in recent years.
The rising tide of these criticisms—criticisms of the cost of international criminal courts’ operations and of the duration and selective nature of their proceedings—raises serious concerns with which all of us who care about this still developing field must grapple. Indeed, if such criticisms are left unaddressed, we risk seeing the important advances made in the fight to end impunity over the past twenty-five years fall away. As a result, it is imperative that our approach to ensuring accountability for violations of international law continue to evolve, that we encourage creative thinking and learn from past mistakes, and that we share these lessons broadly so as to maximize their benefit.
But there is only so much that international courts like the Mechanism can achieve on their own. Our success—as an institution and as a model for a new kind of international court—depends to a great extent on the support of States. Such support can take many forms: sharing ideas and suggestions for innovation; collaborating on and supporting information-sharing activities; providing vital services as a Host State; ensuring the protection of witnesses; enforcing sentences of convicted individuals; cooperating with court orders; facilitating the relocation of individuals who were acquitted or released following service of sentence; and contributing to the on-going efforts to arrest the eight remaining fugitives indicted by the ICTR, three of whom are expected to be tried by the Mechanism.
The support and cooperation of States are all the more vital given the unique structure of the Mechanism, with its operations spanning two continents and its Judges working from countries around the world, as demonstrated by the deeply troubling situation involving Mechanism Judge Aydin Sefa Akay of Turkey. The arrest of Judge Akay in Turkey in September 2016, and his continued detention there notwithstanding the formal assertion of his diplomatic immunity by the United Nations and a judicial order directing his release, has serious implications not just for the Judge himself and for the Mechanism case to which he was assigned at the time of his arrest, but also for the Mechanism’s ability to carry out its core judicial functions in accordance with the remote-judging model established by the Security Council.
Moreover, for all that the Mechanism can and will achieve as it moves forward, it inevitably will remain just one small piece of a much larger puzzle. Alone, it can never address the deeply destructive problem of the selective application of the law. The only way for the fight to end impunity for international crimes to succeed in the long term, and for the problem of selectivity—which is anathema to the rule of law—to be addressed, is for States to take action: to strengthen their own capacity to try cases involving international crimes; to contribute to the strengthening of that capacity in other States; to resist political manoeuvring aimed at shielding selected individuals from accountability; and to explore all possible avenues to ensure accountability, such as through regional courts. By taking such steps now, at this critical moment in the evolution of international justice, States will benefit from the momentum developed in the past twenty-five years in The Hague and elsewhere—and, together with the Mechanism, they will help to ensure that the ground-breaking advances made in accountability over the course of the last quarter century will benefit generations to come.
———-
The author: Judge and past President of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia; former Judge of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; Charles L. Denison Professor Emeritus and Judicial Fellow, New York University School of Law; Visiting Professor, University of Oxford, since 2014.
By Jhr. Alexander W. Beelaerts van Blokland LL.M.
The Hague is well known as the international city that hosts not only about one hundred embassies but also very many international tribunals and Intergovernmental Organisations (IGO’s) like the International Court of Justice (ICJ), The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), the International Criminal Court (ICC), OPCW, Yougoslavia Tribunal, Iran-US Claims Tribunal, the Lebanon Tribunal, the Kosovo Tribunal etcetera.
Less well known is that over a hundred (!) of Non Governmental Organisations (NGO’s) are settled in The Hague as well. They are the results of private initiatives and act independently from governments. The NGO’s are active in many fields. They are very divers, in their aim as well as in their size. Most NGO’s in The Hague are active in one of the fields The Hagues is well known for: law, peace, security but also water and sustainability. Especially for the very many small NGO’s the city of The Hague opened some years ago two buildings where these organisations can open their office (at Laan van Meerdervoort 70 and at Zeestraat 100).
One of the new NGO’s that The Hague welcomes is Mediators Beyond Borders International (MBBI). The headquaters of MBBI are nearby Washington D.C. in the USA, but MBBI decided to open an office in The Hague as well. MBBI will settle at Laan van Meerdervoort 70.
MBBI’s device is: people building peace. The only lasting peace is the one built by the disputants themselves. MBBI works to bring mediation and peace skills to communities around the globe so they can, in turn, build a more peace ‘able’ world. To this end, MBBI organizes initiatives to address three essential objectives: capacity building, promoting mediation through advocacy and delivering consultancy services.
MBBI builds local capacities of peace and promotes mediation worldwide. MBBI does that by enhancing local capacity upon invitation, advocating for mediation in all arenas and providing consultancy services that promote peaceful conflict solution. MBBI is member of and connected to many international institutions and organisations (ECOSOC, UNFCCC etc.).
MBBI is hosting its 8th Conference in The Hague in the Peace Palace 4 – 6 October 2017, also celebrating its 10th anniversary. You are welcome.
See www.mediatorsbeyondborders.org.
About the author:Jhr. Alexander W. Beelaerts van Blokland LL.M. is Justice (Judge) in the (Dutch) Court of Appeal and Special Advisor International Affairs, appointed by the Mayor and Aldermen of The Hague. a.beelaerts@planet.nl
Dr. Chen Shih-chung, Minister of Health and Welfare, Republic of China (Taiwan).
Disease knows no borders. Only by working together, leaving no one out, can we adequately address the challenges of emerging infectious diseases, which have been made all the more complex by the effects of globalization on our health environment. As influenza viruses are constantly evolving and circulating in humans, as well as a number of animal species, the specter of a potential influenza pandemic haunts us constantly.
Outbreaks of avian influenza and novel influenza have repeatedly threatened global health security in the past few years. As a result, the World Health Organization (WHO) has continuously urged nations to invest more in the development and implementation of various pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions against pandemic influenza.
Taiwan was devastated by the 2003 SARS outbreak. Many of our frontline healthcare workers became infected while caring for patients, and unfortunately, some perished, including a nurse, then in her third trimester of pregnancy. Several hospitals were closed, more than 151,000 people were quarantined at home, a travel advisory was issued, and schools closed. We paid a heavy price to learn that disease indeed respects no national borders and to recognize the importance of international collaboration in tackling the threat posed by infectious disease.
At that time, Taiwan not being a WHO member, we did not receive timely information on the SARS virus and related disease control information. We were dependent on the expertise generously shared by the US CDC on how to control the outbreak. It was not until the SARS outbreak spread to Heping Hospital that the WHO finally dispatched experts to Taiwan. This was the first such assistance the organization had provided us in 31 years. SARS was a reminder to the WHO and the international community that they could not afford to leave Taiwan out in the cold, and led them to ponder ways of bridging this gap in the global health network.
In the post-SARS period, our public health officials and experts were invited to participate in WHO SARS conferences. Following the issuance of the WHO Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and Response guidance document, Taiwan established a national stockpile of influenza antiviral drugs in 2003, formulated a national influenza pandemic preparedness and response plan in 2005, and created a prepandemic stockpile of A/H5N1 vaccine for human use in 2007. In addition, we set up a three-tier preparedness plan that includes efforts by the central government, local governments, and healthcare institutions to maintain a 30-day stockpile of personal protective equipment. We also established a communicable disease control network, designating six pandemic response hospitals across Taiwan.
Since 2005, we have been invited to attend certain WHO technical meetings on influenza, where we are able to exchange experiences with experts from around the world. Also, Taiwan was included in the framework of the WHO’s International Health Regulations (2005) in 2009, establishing a direct liaison with WHO headquarters so we could report major public health events directly to the WHO. Thanks to having these direct communication channels, Taiwan was able to effectively implement various control measures during the H1N1 influenza pandemic of 2009.
We practiced real-time surveillance, promptly notified the WHO, and shared genetic information on the H1N1 influenza virus with the international community. Further, we were able to obtain the vaccine strain to domestically produce a vaccine and reached a national vaccination coverage rate of over 70 percent, effectively reducing H1N1-associated mortality and preventing the further spread of the virus domestically and abroad.
Taiwan confirmed the world’s first human case of H6N1 avian influenza in 2013 and promptly shared genetic information on the virus with the international community. Earlier this year, we identified a human H7N9 case imported from China. Genetic data showed that the virus was highly pathogenic for poultry and had a mutation associated with resistance to commonly used antivirals. Besides reporting the case information and the test results to the WHO through the National IHR focal point, we submitted sequencing data to GISAID within three days of identifying the case and voluntarily shared the virus strain with WHO-collaborating influenza centers in the United States and Japan within a month. The sequencing data can serve as reference for the WHO Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System to select seasonal influenza vaccine strains. As a responsible member of the international community, Taiwan was glad to be able to share its experience, provide recommendations on the clinical management of H7N9, and offer other information that can serve as important reference for WHO antiviral stockpile guidelines.
Beside the continued occurrence of H5N2 avian influenza outbreaks in Taiwan, the highly pathogenic H5N6 avian influenza virus, with a mortality rate of 70 percent, and which has infected 17 people in mainland China, was found among poultry in Taiwan earlier this year. Although no human case of H5N6 has been found in Taiwan, due to our proximity to China and relevant migratory bird routes, we will continue to closely monitor avian influenza virus activity in an effort to prevent poultry-to-human transmission of the virus.
It is regrettable that political obstruction has resulted in Taiwan’s often being refused attendance at technical meetings of the WHO. This situation has created grave difficulties in Taiwan’s efforts to collaborate with the international community on disease prevention. We are profoundly disappointed that the WHO has failed to abide by its Constitution and has ignored widespread support in the international community for Taiwan’s participation in the WHA, instead bowing to political pressure from a certain member by excluding Taiwan from that body. The WHO is a professional, international health organization. It is obliged to abide by the principles espoused in its Constitution, particularly the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health for all people, regardless of race, religion, political belief, or economic or social condition. This right to health is the foundation underpinning the WHO’s previous invitations to Taiwan to participate in the WHA and, on an equal basis, in WHO activities and technical meetings.
We urge the WHO and related parties to acknowledge Taiwan’s longstanding contributions to the international community in the areas of public health, disease prevention, and the human right to health, as well as the healthcare partnerships it has forged with WHO member states. Taiwan is capable of and willing to fulfill its responsibilities and to collaborate with the WHO to deal with the challenges of disease control. The WHO should recognize the legitimacy and importance of Taiwan’s participation in the WHO and its Assembly. To bridge the gap in the global disease prevention network, Taiwan needs the WHO, but the WHO also needs Taiwan.
