Kelssek wrote:To reiterate our position, this proposal does not have a compelling, international purpose that justifies the severe complications it imposes on legislative and judicial processes. It offers no increase in civil rights protection, puts an international judiciary in the position of judging whether a government's action to suppress civil disorder is legitimate, and the one slightly sensible idea it has to offer is hamfisted, micromanaging, and one that can safely be left to national governments.
Might I point out also, that the argumentto obey they must know what to obey, this is what this resolution seeks to accomplish
actually tells us why this is proposal is unnecessary: if states want people to follow laws, they need to be made public anyway.
Gérard Poullet
Ambassador to the WA
“You’ve convinced me, ambassador, and I have therefore changed my vote to be against this proposal. I think that this piece of legislation weighs two interests against each other: the interests of governments in seeing laws passed in a certain fashion, and the interests of citizens in being aware of laws. On balance, since governments also want their citizens to be aware of laws, this just ends up restricting governments for no reason.”