‘Strong resolve’ shown during talks on anti-terrorism pact: Chairman

United Nations Member States showed “strong resolve” during a just-concluded weeklong session on drafting a comprehensive Convention on Terrorism, the Chairman of the committee convening the meetings said today, as he urged countries to continue with their efforts to reach consensus.

In his speech wrapping up the discussions, the Ad Hoc Committee Chairman, Ambassador Rohan Pereira of Sri Lanka, said that while “complex issues remain to be solved,” he had full faith in the ability of delegations to reach a compromise and that it was “essential” to maintain dialogue.

“I was particularly encouraged by the strong resolve shown by all delegations to continue the negotiation process with a view to finalizing the text of the draft convention,” the Chairman said.

“Certain innovative approaches were suggested during the week and it is clear that further consultations among delegations are necessary to determine the viability of these ideas. In light of these developments, I strongly urge delegations to continue to consult among themselves.”

The draft Convention contains, in its Article 2, a common, overall criminal law definition of terrorist acts and the current discussions have revolved around the main outstanding issue relating to the scope of application of the Convention, contained in draft Article 18.

The Ad Hoc Committee as a negotiating framework has been around for 10 years and is widely perceived as both useful and effective, with its successes including the texts of three global counter-terrorism conventions adopted by the General Assembly, including the 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

However, despite these achievements, Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed his disappointment in December that the General Assembly’s Legal Committee had failed to reach agreement on a treaty against all forms of terrorism.

Finalizing a Convention has been elusive and a major point of difference in the past has been lack of agreement on whether the activities of "armed forces" proper should be exempted from the scope of the treaty since they are governed by international humanitarian law, and whether the exemption should also cover armed resistance groups involved in struggles against colonial domination and foreign occupation.