Request by Japan for observer status with the Council of Europe
Doc. 7500
8 March 1996REPORT[1]
Rapporteurs: Mr BAUMEL, France, European Democratic Group and Mr IWINSKI, Poland, Socialist Group
Summary
Following earlier expressions of interest, the Government of Japan made a formal request for observer status with the Council of Europe under the terms of Statutory Resolution (93) 26. On 11 January 1996, the Committee of Ministers asked for the opinion of the Assembly.
The Political Affairs Committee reviews the history of Japan's relations with the Council of Europe and Japan's current contributions to the work in Europe of other international organisations - notably in the former Yugoslavia.
The committee concludes that Japan meets the requirements for observer status, and proposes to examine future relations between the Assembly and the Japanese Diet.
I. Draft opinion
1. The Government of Japan has made a formal request for observer status under the terms of Statutory Resolution (93) 26. By letter of 11 January 1996, from the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers to the President of the Assembly, the opinion of the Assembly has been requested.
2. The Assembly welcomes this request, not least because of its long-standing relations with the Japanese Diet. Since 1974, delegations of the Diet have taken part in the Assembly's annual enlarged debates on the activities of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). They have attended regularly the Assembly's parliamentary and scientific conferences and the Strasbourg conferences on parliamentary democracy. In 1992 a Japan/Council of Europe Parliamentary Association was established.
3. Japan sends observers to many Council of Europe meetings, notably in the field of legal cooperation; to the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE); and to the European Commission for Democracy through Law ("Venice Commission").
4. In 1992 Japan opened a consulate-general in Strasbourg. Since 1993 Japan has been making significant contributions, through finance and the provision of consultants, to specialized meetings within the frame of the Council of Europe's programmes for democracy in central and eastern Europe.
5. Dialogue with the Council of Europe has also been developed through the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE, ex-CSCE), with which Japan has the status of "partner for co-operation".
6. Through the OSCE, the United Nations and the International Conference on the former Yugoslavia (ICFY), Japan has contributed, among other things, funds and personnel to the international search for a solution to this intra-European conflict and for setting up humanitarian relief for refugees and displaced persons.
7. Japan is a capital subscriber of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and contributes to its market economy transition projects and its nuclear safety account.
8. Japan is an active member and contributes to the voluntary funds of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and contributes personnel for its work on prevention of discrimination and protection of minorities. It also plays an active role in the development of the North-South dialogue.
9. In the light of these considerations, the Assembly is of the opinion that Japan meets the requirements for observer status with the Council of Europe as set forth in Statutory Resolution (93) 26; and proposes in due course to examine the question of its relations with the Japanese Diet.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Introduction: parallel approaches by Japan and the United States
B. Intergovernmental cooperation
C. Relations between the Parliamentary Assembly and the Japanese Diet
D. Ideals and values of the Council of Europe
E. Conclusion
ANNEXES
A. Statutory Resolution (93) 26
B. Letter from the Japanese authorities 10 July 1995
C. Letter from the Japanese authorities 21 December 1995
D. Request for the opinion of the Assembly
E. Note on relations with the Japanese Diet in the field of economic affairs and development
F. Paragraphs 19-21 of Bureau memorandum by Mr Schieder
G. Japan's contributions within the frame of OSCE
H. Japan's contributions to the search for a solution to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia
I. Japan's contributions to humanitarian and reconstruction assistance in the former Yugoslavia
J. Japan's contributions to United Nations activities in the field of human rights
K. Japanese contribution to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)
II. Explanatory memorandum
by the Rapporteurs
A. Introduction: parallel approaches by Japan and the United States
1. An approach was made to the Council of Europe by the Japanese authorities in July 1995 to clarify their interest in "observer status" under the terms of Statutory Resolution (93) 26.[2] In a confirmatory letter dated 10 July to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, it was emphasized that Japan would not wish to be the first non-European State to solicit and benefit from this status: there was no wish to give the impression of "usurping a privilege which might rightly be claimed by States having a longer history of relations with the Organisation".[3]
2. On 5 September 1995 a formal request for observer status was received from the United States. The Committee of Ministers reacted favourably and asked for the views of the Assembly. On 30 November 1995, the Political Affairs Committee unanimously adopted a draft recommendation expressing its support. The text was adopted unchanged by the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Assembly, on 10 January 1996. Meeting also on 10 January 1996, the Committee of Ministers immediately informed the Assembly that "following the favourable opinion expressed in (Recommendation 1282)", its Resolution (95) 37 on observer status for the United States had "(entered) into force".
3. Meanwhile, by letter to the Secretary-General dated 21 December 1995, the Japanese authorities had re-affirmed their interest and further clarified their position.[4] On 11 January 1996, the Committee of Ministers decided to request the Assembly's opinion.[5]
B. Intergovernmental cooperation (Draft Opinion paragraphs 3 and 4)
4. In parallel to the position of the United States, Japan expresses great interest in strengthening its contributions to the Council of Europe's programmes for democracy in Central and Eastern Europe. A list of the ten meetings to which Japan has contributed either financially or in terms of personnel - or both - in the period 1993-96 is in Annex "C". Four of these meetings have been in Strasbourg. The others have been in Belarus, Bulgaria, Estonia, Romania and Ukraine. The subjects have covered "the rule of law in the transition to a market economy"; "the role of a constitutional court"; "ethnic and cultural crossroads in the Balkans"; "regulation and management of the mass media"; and "transformation of law enforcement systems".
5. Japan also has longstanding cooperation with the Council of Europe at the level of intergovernmental committees, some "partial agreement" committees and the Congress of Regional and Local Authorities. The list of all these bodies is in Annex "C".
6. Among the advantages of observer status is that a country having already a long tradition of attending and contributing to Council of Europe meetings would no longer need formally to request an invitation to - and the relevant papers for - every future meeting in which it was interested. Participation by the country concerned in meetings and programmes of the Council of Europe could thereby be more systematically planned and economically arranged. As shown by the letter in Annex "B", this is a highly significant consideration for Japan.
C. Relations between the Japanese Diet and the Parliamentary Assembly (Draft Opinion paragraph 2)
7. The Japanese Diet has shown a sustained interest over 20 years in building up its relations with the Assembly. These relations were initially developed with our committee on economic affairs and development and our committee on science and technology. They were extended in the 1980's to the Strasbourg conferences on parliamentary democracy. Their most spectacular manifestation was the holding of the sixth parliamentary & scientific conference June 1985 in Tokyo and Tsukuba, with the participation of the Presidents of the House of Councillors and the House of Representatives of the Japanese Diet, of the Prime Minister of Japan and of several Members of his Government, and with some of the most distinguished members of Japan's scientific and technological communities.
8. One of the rapporteurs of the sixth parliamentary and scientific conference was former Foreign Minister Taro Nakayama. To improve continuity in relations with the Assembly, he took the initiative of setting up the Japan/Council of Europe Parliamentary Association.[6] This structure is henceforth available to facilitate all contacts and visits, such as the invitation extended for October 1996 to our sub-committee on international economic relations.[7]
9. There seems no reason to doubt that if the Political Affairs Committee deems it desirable, the Japanese Diet will come forward with an explicit statement of its interest in having some formal status conferred on its relations with the Parliamentary Assembly. This would be in accordance with the considerations set forth in paragraphs 19 to 21 of Mr Schieder's memorandum to the Bureau of 6 November 1995.[8] The question should be examined in due course with the authorities of the Japanese Diet. On the assumption that "observer status" is granted, it remains distinct from the question of Japan's relations with the Committee of Ministers.
D. Ideals and values of the Council of Europe
Draft Opinion paragraphs 5 to 8
10. Statutory Resolution (93) 26 provides for the opportunity of "increased cooperation between the Council of Europe and non-member states sharing the Organisation's ideals and values". The question of how Japan measures up to this requirement may be briefly addressed in terms of Japan's relations with other Organisations with which the Council of Europe cooperates closely. Let us take in sequence the OSCE, the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD).
11. Just as with the United States, the OSCE provides a forum for dialogue with Japan. The OSCE Helsinki Summit of 1992 established Japan's status as a "partner for cooperation". This has enabled Japan to contribute to various OSCE missions, financially and in terms of personnel. There have also been highly significant material contributions in the form of satellite communication equipment for the OSCE Long-Duration Mission in the Former Yugoslavia and the OSCE Monitoring Mission in Skopje (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia).[9]
12. The full extent of Japan's contribution since 1992 to the search for a solution to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia is set forth in Annex "H". In addition to OSCE and the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia (ICFY), there have been nine other frames of international cooperation - mainly within the UN system (they are listed in Annex "I") - through which Japan's contribution to humanitarian and reconstruction assistance is assessed to date as US $ 179 million.
13. In the field of international human rights protection, Japan has been a continuous member of the UN Human Rights Commission since 1982. Substantial sums have been committed to the two main voluntary funds of the Commission, as also to its field operations in Rwanda.[10]
14. Finally, reverting to Europe, one must note Japan's very welcome subscription to the capital (8.5%) of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). As shown in Annex "K", Japan makes very substantial contributions to the technical cooperation projects of the Bank, which aim essentially at facilitating the transition to a market economy in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and of the Commonwealth of Independent States (ex-USSR). These projects are complementary to those of the Council of Europe and the European Union for democracy, the rule of law and human rights. The Assembly holds an annual debate on the activities of the Bank. Japanese parliamentarians are in a position to make a most valuable contribution - not only because of the market transition projects, but also because of Japan's outstanding contribution to the Bank's nuclear safety account (US $ 16 million in 1995).
E. Conclusion
15. Both Mr Schieder's memorandum and the actual terms of Statutory Resolution (93) 26 show there are no grounds for linking the Council of Europe's position on any particular request for observer status with its position on any other request. Both texts clearly indicate sets of criteria which must be met, at least partially and in varying degrees, for this status to be granted.
16. This observation should be enough to dispel the concern about whether we are setting precedents through our responses to the first two requests for "observer status" (United States and Japan) under the terms of the Statutory Resolution: are we tending to give the impression of an "open door" policy, which will make it difficult to set appropriate limits ?
17. The answer is that for every country the question will be different - as much in terms of the combinations of criteria to be met, as in terms of varying degrees of compliance. Although there may be other requests which the Assembly may consider should be granted, they have no bearing on what we consider should be the grounds for saying "yes" to Japan.
Annex A
Annex B
Letter from the Consul General of Japan
to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers
dated 10 July 1995
Dear Ambassador and Chairman of the Committee of Ministers,
Following our conversation during my farewell visit to your office on Monday 3 July 1995, I should like to further clarify Japan's position on observer status with the Council of Europe.
As its relations with the Council of Europe are quite recent, Japan would not wish to be the first country to apply for this status because it would have the impression of usurping a privilege which might rightly be claimed by states having a longer history of relations with the Organisation. However, I should like to reiterate our interest in observer status. Under paragraph II of Statutory Resolution (93) 26 on observer status, states enjoying this status "shall be entitled to send observers to those of the Council of Europe committees of experts which were set up under Article 17 of the Statute and to which all member states are entitled to designate participants". In view of our great interest in the Council of Europe's work, enjoyment of this status would mean that we would no longer need to complete prior formalities in order to attend each meeting of committees in which we were interested, which would guarantee systematic participation by Japan as well as saving a great deal of time.
To give you a clearer idea of the importance of observer status to Japan, I should like to emphasise once again that Japan, which shares the Council of Europe's respect for democratic values, is very keen to co-operate with the Council and take part in the democratisation process in the central and east European countries, including Russia.
However, despite our wish for increasingly close involvement in the Council of Europe's work, we often have difficulty in obtaining information on the assistance projects set up by the Council in this area sufficiently in advance to allow us to co-operate in them, and this is precisely because we cannot lay claim to any status with the organisation. If we were to be granted observer status, we would no longer have to deal with such problems, which would be most appreciable.
Thank you in advance for your response to my request.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed)
Kazuyoshi URABE
Consul General
Annex C
Letter from the Consul General of Japan
to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe
dated 21 December 1995
Dear Secretary General,
I am writing to give you some additional information concerning Japan's interest in Statutory Resolution (93) 26 on observer status, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 14 May 1993 (at its 92nd Session).
Since its inception the Council of Europe has striven to uphold three principles to which it has remained faithful and which, to its credit, are now shared by the entire European continent: pluralist democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law. The collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 presented the Council of Europe with a tremendous challenge, as well as an unexpected opportunity for enlargement to the whole of Europe. The Organisation has met this challenge and has succeeded once again in fulfilling the expectations of all these countries seeking to establish democracy.
Although Japan is not part of Europe, it cannot but welcome this success. There is no need to further underscore Japan's respect for the Council of Europe's activities, or the consequences for peace and stability at both European and international level.
Japan, which fully shares the Council of Europe's values, is also making sustained efforts through OECD, the EBRD and G24 to help the emerging democracies in central and eastern Europe persevere in this process and introduce a market economy. Japan therefore considers it essential to pool efforts and exchange views with the Council of Europe, especially in the area of democratic security, through political dialogue. This dialogue would also allow Japan to convey to the other Asian countries the ideas and achievements of the Council of Europe, which it regards as a model, so that they may draw on its experience.
For several years now Japan has joined forces with the Council of Europe in organising and conducting seminars designed to help central and east European countries aspiring to democracy and a market economy to carry out their plans. It has taken an active part in the holding of various seminars, either by sending experts or by making a financial contribution (Appendix 1).
In addition, as part of governmental relations between Japan and the Council of Europe, which became more effective with the opening of our Consulate in Strasbourg in 1992, a Japanese observer has been sent to the meetings of numerous intergovernmental committees of experts (Appendix 2).
Parliamentary relations between the Council of Europe and Japan were initiated in 1974, when a delegation of Japanese parliamentarians took part for the first time in the Parliamentary Assembly's enlarged debate on the activities of OECD. A few years later, in 1992, Mr Taro NAKAYAMA, Japan's former Minister for Foreign Affairs, set up the Japan/Council of Europe Parliamentary Association. The Japanese Parliament has also taken part in the various Strasbourg conferences on parliamentary democracy.
Japan wishes to become more and more closely involved in the Council of Europe's work, and is therefore extremely interested in observer status, especially because this will enable it to send its permanent observer to subsidiary meetings of the Deputies, including those dealing with the planning and programming of the Council of Europe's activities on strengthening democratic institutions, establishing the rule of law and reinforcing human rights.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention to the above.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed)
Seiro KAWASAKI
Consul General
Annex 1
Annex 2
Annex D
Letter from the Chairman of the Ministers' Deputies
to the President of the Assembly
dated 11 January 1996
Dear President,
The Deputies, having this week discussed Japan's application for observer status with the Council of Europe decided to request the Assembly's opinion on this matter.
Last December, the Deputies expressed the wish to arrive at a suitable arrangement with Japan. In this connection, I have the honour to enclose for your information, a letter dated 10 July 1995, addressed by the former Consul General to my predecessor as well as a letter dated 21 December 1995 and containing supplementary information, addressed to the Secretary General.
Yours sincerely,
(signed)
Marie-Louise Overvad
Chairman of the Ministers' Deputies
Annex E
Extract of document "Economic relations between Europe and Japan"
[AS/Ec/IER (1994)] 1 prepared by the Sub-Committee
on International Economic Relations
of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development
...
2 The Assembly has for long taken a strong interest in the relations between Europe and Japan. For example, in Resolution 784 (1982) on Relations between Europe and Japan (Rapporteur: Mr Unland), it expressed its belief that "greater understanding between Europe and Japan on the cultural level may contribute most positively to the resolution of current political and economic difficulties" and stressed the "need for greater cooperation in a mutually beneficial way between Europe and Japan in the political, economic and cultural fields, as well as in the field of science and technology".
3 Contacts have remained close, in particular through the Assembly's annual Enlarged Debates on OECD activities, to which the Japanese Parliament always makes a most valuable contribution. And these contacts are very much facilitated through the recent opening of a Japanese General Consulate in Strasbourg which handles a wide range of contacts with the Council of Europe.
...
28 The interest in Japan shown by the Parliamentary Assembly, and in particular by its Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, is based on the same belief as that expressed in the previously quoted Assembly Resolution 784 (1982). We believe that it is in both Japan's and Europe's interest to achieve more open trade and better overall economic, political and cultural relations. We want to contribute to a future where economic and trade friction, which often spills over into the political arena, will be a thing of the past. We wish to examine how cooperation between Japan and the member States of the Council of Europe can be furthered, in particular within the framework of the Council of Europe, of which Russia may soon be a member. Your Rapporteur sees the invitation extended to the Sub-Committee to visit Japan by Mr Taro Nakayama, President of the Japan-Council of Europe Parliamentary League of Friendship, as a very valuable step in this process, and as a token that this wish is reciprocated in Japan.
Annex F
Extract of the Memorandum
on observer status with the Council of Europe
presented by Mr Schieder (Austria, SOC) [Doc. AS/Bur (1995) 130]
......
19 As already stated above, a separate specific decision on the right to be represented either on the Committee of Ministers or on the Parliamentary Assembly has to be taken by these organs on their own behalf.
20 The question arises whether the Assembly would already need to know the position of the parliament of the requesting state on observer status with the Assembly when preparing its opinion. It would seem that such information would be helpful, since it would enable the Assembly to know whether, when preparing an opinion, it should also have to take a decision on participation of the requesting state's parliament in its own activities.
21 In case the parliament of the interested state would itself not be interested in observer status with the Assembly, the latter would have to decide whether it would nonetheless be in a position to give a favourable opinion to the Committee of Ministers. There would appear to be no pressing reasons why the Assembly should oppose a state's wish only to be admitted as observer at intergovernmental level.
Annex G
Japanese Contribution to the activities of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)
1. Status
Partner for co-operation
(relationship between Japan and OSCE was established at Helsinki Summit in 1992)
2. Personnel contribution
(1) OSCE mission
a. Mission of Long Duration in the former Yugoslavia
December 1992 - June 1993 : total of 2 personnel
b. Spillover Monitor Mission to Skopje
April 1994 - November 1994 : total of 2 personnel
April 1995 - October 1995 : 1 personnel
(2) Seminar (Sending the Rapporteur)
a. Promoting the Creation of Small and Medium-sized Business
(Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan: 23-25 February 1994)
Michio TSUDA : Management Consultant Bureaux Generaux Co. Ltd.
b. Business and Environment (Tallinn, Estonia: 7-9 September 1994)
Senro IMAI : Development Specialist, Institute for International Co-operation
Agency, Japan
c. A Common and Comprehensive Security Model for the 21st Century
(Vienna, Austria: 18-19 September 1995)
Masamori SASE : Professor, National Defense Academy
d. Rehabilitating the Environment (Tashkent, Uzbekistan: 10-14 October 1995)
Hayao TESHIMA : Consultant, OSTRAND Corp.
3. Financial Contribution
(1) Seminar
a. Promoting the Creation of Small and Medium-sized Business
(Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan: 23-25 February 1994)
$ 25,000
b. Inter-Ethnic Relations and Regional Co-operation
(Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan: 17-18 May 1995)
� 2,000,000 (Approx. $ 23,000)
c. The Rule of Law (Warsaw, Poland : 28 November - 1 December 1995)
� 2,000,000 (Approx. $ 23,000)
(2) Voluntary Contribution to Secretariat (1995)
� 3,000,000 (Approx. $ 33,000)
4. Material contribution
(1) Satelite Communication Equipment
(Mission of Long Duration in the former Yugoslavia)
ATS 800,000
(2) Satelite Communication Equipment (Spillover Monitor Mission to Skopje)
$ 60,000
Annex H
Japan's Co-operation with regards to achieving a solution to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia
Japan is deeply concerned about the tragic situation in the former Yugoslavia. While it is of the utmost importance that a political solution be found for the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, efforts must be made as well to reduce the suffering of the victims and refugees whose lives have been torn apart by this terrible situation. Japan has been taking the following concrete steps to contribute to that end.
Diplomatic efforts
On the occasion of the visit by Foreign Minister Kono to Croatia and Hungary from 29 April through 1 May of this year, he met with representatives of the parties concerned in the conflicts and strictly urged that they endeavour to seek a peaceful solution.
In addition to that, Japan has taken every opportunity to urge that a solution should be found not through arms but through negotiations. Furthermore, Japan has participated in the International Conference on Former Yugoslavia (ICFY) and the peace process. Since March 1994, Japan has dispatched one official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to serve as a political officer to assist the activities of Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for the Former Yugoslavia Yasushi Akashi.
Humanitarian and Reconstruction Assistance
Beginning with measures to help refugees, approximately US$ 179 million (including US$ 15 million for UNHCR and US$ 2 million for ICRC which were newly pledged in August 1995) in the form of humanitarian and reconstruction assistance has been disbursed to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other international organisations. In order to implement clearly visible assistance and carefully respond to the needs of the local situation, Japan promotes assistance to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the construction of facilities to accommodate refugees in Croatia as a joint project with the UNHCR. (For a breakdown of Japanese humanitarian and reconstruction assistance according to the recipient organisations, see page 3).
Financial Co-operation for Conflict Resolution
During the visit by Foreign Minister Kono, Japan announced a contribution of up to
US $ 280,000 through the United Nations Volunteers (UNV) to cover the costs of hiring United Nations personnel for twelve projects included in the economic agreements between the Government of Croatia and the Serbian forces.
Co-operation for the ICFY
During the same visit, Japan announced a contribution of US $ 256,000 for the ICFY mission to monitor the border between Yugoslavia (FRY) and Bosnia-Herzegovina. In addition, Japan has contributed US $ 717,000 for the Conference budget for the period of September 1992 to May 1995.
Assistance for United Nations Peace-Keeping Operations
In accordance with its assessed contribution to the United Nations Peace-Keeping Operations, by the end of March 1995, Japan has disbursed US $ 479,03 million to the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in the former Yugoslavia. Furthermore, approximately US $ 3 million has been disbursed for mine-sweeping activities.
Assistance to Neighbouring Countries
In order to prevent a spillover of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia to neighbouring countries, as one facet of Japan's preventive diplomacy in the Balkan Peninsula, non-project-type grant assistance (in the amount of � 500 million) was extended to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Japan is also implementing measures to support Albania by means of its yen loans and other forms of assistance.
Personnel Contributions to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)
So far, Japan has dispatched two individuals to participate in the OSCE Spillover Monitoring Mission to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. In April 1995, Japan again dispatched experts on human rights. In addition, Japan in the past dispatched officials from the Japanese Embassy in Yugoslavia to the CSCE long-term missions to Kosovo, Vojvodina and Sandzak.
Abiding by United Nations Sanctions
In light of the relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions, Japan has implemented sanctions against Yugoslavia (FRY).
Annex I
Japan's humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to the former Yugoslavia
Approximately US $ 179 million
International
Organisation
Date of decision
Amount
(thousand US $)
UNHCR
March 1992
July 1992
September 1992
December 1992
June 1993
July 1993
November 1993
October 1994
December 1994
April 1995
August 1995
437
1,000
17,000
4,000
10,000
10,000
18,000
20,000
7,000
500
15,000
WFP
February 1992
June 1993
March 1994
August 1994
March 1995
April 1995
7,530
8,550
6,500
14,560
6,000
12,500
IOM
July 1992
July 1993
September 1993
March 1994
50
200
250
250
UNV
December 1992
August 1995
100
165
ICRC
June 1992
September 1992
June 1993
November 1993
March 1994
November 1994
August 1995
423
1,500
700
2,000
2,000
1,000
2,000
UNIDO
March 1994
April 1995
May 1995
700
200
100
WHO
March 1994
March 1995
3,000
1,000
UNICEF
March 1994
January 1995
2,500
1,000
UNPROFOR
May 1994
1,020
Annex J
Japanese contribution to the United Nations activities in the field of Human Rights
1. U.N Commission on Human Rights
Consecutive member of the Commission since 1982
Vice-Chairman in 1994
2. Financial Contribution
(1) Voluntary Fund for the Activities in the field of the Human Rights
US $ 980,000 (committed)
(2) Voluntary Fund for Technical Co-operation in the field of Human Rights
US $ 600,000 (committed)
(3) Human Rights Field Operation by Centre for Human Rights in Rwanda
US $ 500,000
3. Personnel contribution
(1) Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities
Ribot HATANO : Professor, Gakusyuin University
Yozo YOKOTA : Professor, Tokyo University
(2) Human Rights Committee
Nisuke ANDO : Professor, Kyoto University
(3) Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Tikako TAYA : Prosecutor, Tokyo District Public Prosecutor's Office
Annex K
Japanese Contribution to the EBRD
1. Capital subscription
ECU 851,750,000 (8.5175 % of Authorized Capital Stock)
2. Technical Co-operation
1991 : � 915,000,000
1992 : � 1,609,000,000
1993 : � 1,639,000,000
1994 : � 1,765,000,000
1995 : � 1,835,000,000
3. Nuclear Safety Account
1993 : $ 4,000,000
1994 : $ 4,000,000
1995 : $ 16,000,000
1996 : $ 2,000,000 (committed)
Reporting committee: Political Affairs Committee.
Budgetary implications for the Assembly: none.
Reference to committee: Doc. 7461 and Reference No. 2056 of 22 January 1996.
Draft opinion adopted by the committee on 4 March 1996 by 31 votes to nil with 2 abstentions.
Members of the committee: Mr. B�rsony (Chairman), Lord Finsberg (Vice-Chairman), MM. van der Linden (Vice-Chairman), Alvarez Cascos, Antretter, Baumel, Mrs. Belohorska, MM. Bergqvist, Bernardini, Bj�rck, Bloetzer, Bokov, B�chel, B�hler (Alternate: Hornhues), Cerqueda Pascuet, Chornovil, Deasy, Diacov (Alternate: Jeleapov), E�rsi, Fassino, Galanos (Alternate: Christodoulides), Gjellerod, Gotzev, Gricius, Hardy, Irmer, Iwi_ski, Kalus, Kaspereit, La Loggia, Mrs. Lentz-Cornette, MM. Mart�nez, Masseret (Alternate: Seitlinger), Muehlemann (Alternate: Gross), Nothomb, Mrs. Ojuland, MM. Oliynik, Paasilinna, Pahor, Mrs. Papandreou, MM. Pavlidis, Popovski, Pozzo, Radulescu Botica, Mrs. Ragnarsd�ttir (Alternate: Mr. Grimsson), MM. Schieder, Schwimmer (Alternate: Mr. Mautner-Markhof), MM. Severin, Sinka (Alternate: Mr. Pantelejevs), Sir Dudley Smith, MM. �pa_ek, Spahia, Mrs. Suchocka, MM. Thoresen, Urbain, Vella, Woltjer.
N.B. The names of those members who took part in the meeting are printed in italics.
Secretaries to the committee: MM. Hartland, Kleijssen and Mrs. Ruotanen.
[1]. by the Political Affairs Committee
[2]. The text of the Resolution is in Annex "A"
[3]. See Annex "B"
[4]. See Annex "C"
[5]. See Annex "D"
[6]. See Annex "C"
[7]. See Annex "E"
[8]. Document AS/Bur (1995) 130: see Annex "F"
[9]. Precise details are in Annex "G"
[10]. See Annex "J"