The second thing that I learned from the Yugoslav peace process is that there comes a time when the United Nations must take a stance of principle. I think that the treatment of the people in the safe areas is a case in point. In retrospect, I have come to think that the United Nations should have taken a firmer stance of principle. The UN Security Council declared a safe area, but let us say the general public did not understand or accept that the United Nations could not fully protect the people stationed there.

The third thing that I have learned is that the United Nations and the Secretary General must explain to the general public what it is that he can and cannot deliver. If the public has such high expectations that the United Nations cannot possibly live up to them, then it is bound to lead to disillusionment. The United Nations has strength in contributing to the prevention of conflicts, but there are other things the United Nations just simply cannot do. And I think that in the Yugoslav process, we the Secretariat may have given the impression that we could do things we could not.

What, specifically, is the Secretariat unable to do?

I think it is important to strive for more effective protection in safe areas. So, limitations must not prevent us from striving, but at the same time, we must explain to the public the means we have at our disposal so that the public is not misled.

Today, international law is confronted with changing circumstances including the perpetually imminent threat of terrorism. What tradeoffs do contemporary nations face between stopping terrorism and upholding human rights?

The international human rights movement and national human rights organizations are complaining that the war on terrorism has been abused by some to violate human rights. Additionally, both the Secretary General of the United Nations and I, as the Acting High Commissioner on Human Rights, have insisted that all nations, regardless of what threats they face, must respect the law. During my time with the United Nations, I was a member of the Secretary General’s policy working group on terrorism and I chaired an additional subcommittee on terrorism. The subcommittee produced a digest of jurisprudence on international and regional human rights protection. What came out of this work is that both international and domestic courts insist that respect for the law is not only possible but is vital in the fight against terrorism. There is significant jurisprudence that provides guidance in this regard. An emergency must be officially proclaimed and the measures taken must follow the principle of proportionality.

If you look at this issue more closely, you find cases going back to the 1970s in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and in regional courts like the European court of human rights that articulate that one must be wary of this route to the largest extent possible. One must maintain use of civilian tribunals. In other words, international human rights law and the recent resolutions of the UN Security Council all emphasize that the fight against terrorism must be based on respect for human rights.