In the case of the latest UNGA resolution pertaining to acts of violence or acts directed against religious symbols, including holy books, the expected effect of the text will likely be limited. Will the UNGA and HRC resolutions change anything? They carry a political weight – which in many cases is not to be overlooked – but do not constitute a legal basis for any action against states that would not abide by them. In practice, this means that the texts of the UNGA (or of the UNHRC) cannot be considered authoritative sources of international law. It also adopts resolutions, but the main difference between resolutions of the Security Council and those of the General Assembly (and as a matter of fact also those of the Human Rights Council) is that while those of the Security Council are legally binding, those of the Generally Assembly are not. The main prerogative of the UNSC is the maintenance of international peace and security. At the UN, power lies within the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), that is composed of 15 members, 5 of which (United States, China, France, United Kingdom and Russia) being permanent (or non-elected), and 10 being non-permanent (or elected). The UNGA is, as such, the most representative UN body yet it is not the most powerful. It is the most comprehensive diplomatic and political body of the United Nations (UN) its role is to provide a forum for multilateral diplomacy, and while doing so it adopts texts – called resolutions – that define principles and standards of states’ international behavior.
This being said, the two texts are quite strong on the necessity for states to address the situations created by the above-mentioned acts of violence. The European reading is therefore that while the burning of a holy book is to be deplored and indeed constitutes an act of hatred, it is not a violation of any international legal instrument nor of international human rights law. In fact, most Western countries do not have blasphemy laws. They clearly condemn those acts of violence and hatred, which nonetheless are not criminalized in Europe. While Muslim states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) contend that acts such as the burning of the Quran should be criminalized, European states invoke the right to freedom of opinion and expression. At the core of the dissension is the interpretation of some acts of violence. Although the UNGA resolution was adopted by consensus (without a vote), the one at the UNHRC was adopted with all European states voting against the text. The mention of holy books in both texts refers to the recent burning of the Quran in some European states which triggered protests in Muslim countries. This follows a similar text adopted earlier in July by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) that “call upon States to examine their national laws, policies and law enforcement frameworks with a view to identifying gaps that may impede the prevention and prosecution of acts and advocacy of religious hatred.” In particular, the text “Strongly deplor all acts of violence against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, as well as any such acts directed against their religious symbols, holy books, homes, businesses, properties, schools, cultural centers or places of worship, as well as all attacks on and in religious places, sites and shrines in violation of international law.” On July 25, 2023, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution titled “Promoting interreligious and intercultural dialogue and tolerance in countering hate speech” which lists and condemns a number of religion-related acts of violence and hatred. The author is visiting professor at the College of Europe.
0 kommentar(er)
