The Department of Justice has some reservations about several provisions in the proposed United Nations declaration creating the right to international solidarity, saying that it “imposes negative obligations” on signatories.
In a three-page legal opinion, Justice Secretary Emmanuel Caparas cited Articles 6, 7 and 12 of the Draft Declaration on the Right of Peoples and Individuals to International Solidarity.
The Justice department cited for instance Articles 7 and 12 of the draft that requires signatory-nations not to adopt free trade agreements or investment treaties.
Such negative obligation “has been subjected to several complaints and accountabilities under different UN mechanisms despite efforts on the part of the government,” the DoJ opinion said.
“In this regard, it is suggested that the DFA [Department of Foreign Affairs] conduct further consultations with relevant government agencies involved in the formulation and implementation of policies involving sustainable development, social development, poverty alleviation, food sustainability, public health, international cooperation, trade, finance, environmental protection, natural disaster prevention, and climate justice,” the DoJ added.
“In the negative obligation for States not to adopt free trade agreements or investment treaties that would undermine peoples’ livelihoods or other rights, the DFA may wish to also seek the view of the Department of Trade and Industry—Bureau of International Trade and Relations and the Board of Investments, the country’s lead negotiators of bilateral and regional free trade agreements and bilateral and regional investment treaties, respectivey,” it observed.
The DoJ opinion also considered as vague Section 6 of the draft declaration insofar as it defines holders of right to international solidarity those “who are either self-identified and/or identified as such by others, including states” and also those in “virtual communities of individuals.”
“The identity and personality of the actor is primordial and his role as a right-holder is crucial because annexed to these rights is the obligation of the state to deliver – making it vulnerable and accountable if the right/holder is not clearly identified,” it pointed out.
On this issue, the DoJ suggested that such provisions be revised and refined.
The DoJ issued the opinion upon request of DFA Asst. Sec. Jesus Domingo.