In early October, Israel’s foreign secretary, Israel Katz, announced on X he had declared the United Nations secretary-general, António Guterres, persona non grata. In other words, he had banned Guterres from setting foot in Israel.
Katz said Guterres ‘ failing to “unequivocally condemn” Iran’s new assault on Israel was the cause he was no more pleasant. Additionally, the UN commander was accused of failing to “denounce” Hamas ‘ murder in southern Israel on October 7, 2023 in a clearly worded speech. He added:
A secretary-general who gives backing to extremists, rapists and killers from Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and presently Iran — the mothership of international terror — will be remembered as a blot on the background of the UN.
Security Council members expressed their help for Guterres after Katz’s charter. And Guterres ‘ spokesperson called it” a political statement” and” just one more attack ]… ] on UN staff” by the Israeli government.
What is the value of Israel’s charter? And what kind of effect might it include?
The Latin word “persona non grata” means” an unexpected man.” It refers to the right of state to oust a minister or judicial officer from their own place in global laws. A minister may be expelling them or denying them access in one way.
Under international norms, governments are not required to provide a rationale for for a declaration.
Under international laws, diplomats and diplomatic employees have a wide range of privileges and immunities. They are prohibited from entering any kind of custody or imprisonment, as well as from entering any legal proceedings in a criminal or civil jury.
The diplomat’s country of residence may grant immunity in order for this kind of action to be taken.
Hence, the idea of persona non grata was created as a counterweight to these privileges and immunities. A country can essentially bar them from their place if they are upset by the actions of a envoy or consular officer, without even giving a justification.
The UN and its member states have a long-standing discussion about the propriety of such statements.
The UN claims that its officers are not officials who have been granted diplomatic ties to those nations and cannot be barred from joining member states. Instead, they are foreign civil servants who are responsible to a worldwide organization.
The UN even notes that declaring its officials , image no grata , really interferes with the organization’s features, as well as the power of the UN secretary-general under the UN Charter.
Many countries, however, do not agree with the UN’s position. In recent years, Ethiopia, Mali, Sudan and Armenia have all declared UN officials to be persona non grata, just to name a few.
Israel’s declaration is only the second time a nation has specifically banned the UN secretary-general. The first time was in the 1950s when both the Soviet Union and the Republic of China declared the first secretary-general, Trygve Lie, persona non grata.
In 1961, the Soviet Union also said it would not recognize Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold as an “official of the United Nations”.
I am researching this issue, which has not yet been widely explored. In my study, the two main issues that are posed are whether states have the authority to ban UN officials and the consequences of doing so.
On the first question, I believe there are strong legal reasons to support the rights of states to kick out – or keep out – , UN officials.
For one, each country has a set of distinct sovereign rights that they can use to decide who enters and exits their territory. This is a cardinal principle of sovereignty.
It also has a right to defend and protect itself if UN officials are suspected of engaging in behavior that threatens a nation’s national security and interests. Expeling the suspected UN official is one way to go about doing this. Finally, international law does not specifically prohibit this kind of behavior.
Beyond these legal rights, the crucial question of what such a move means for the UN’s credibility and efficacy over the long term is still unsolved. Because nations are not required to provide a justification for banning a foreign diplomat, using it as a weapon against a UN official is a powerful political tool.
And specifically outlawing UN officials could seriously undermine the organization’s work and put innocent lives in danger. This is especially true when there are armed conflicts in which the UN is requested to provide humanitarian aid.
For example, in 2021, Ethiopia expelled five UN humanitarian officials who were providing food, medicine, water and other life-saving items to more than 5 , million people in a region that was engaged in armed conflict with the federal government. The action slowed the coordination and assistance delivery because the expelled officials were high-ranking employees.
And banning the secretary-general, in particular, is perhaps the strongest indicator of the breakdown of the relationship between a state and the UN.
The secretary-general is the chief international civil servant and the embodiment of the organization. Their assistance is also crucial for bringing about emergency relief, negotiating ceasefires, and promoting peace.
Declaring the secretary-general persona non grata, therefore, seriously damages his or her standing, especially in the context of an armed conflict. Additionally, it makes a strong political statement in favor of the UN in general, which could make its humanitarian work more difficult.
Countries must exercise restraint in how they use this power, even though they do have the sovereign power to declare UN officials persona non grata. What such restraint should appear to be is a subject that needs to be resolved urgently.
Samuel Berhanu Woldemariam is lecturer in law, University of Newcastle
This article was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.