 Mae'n gwybod gweld amser yn bwysig yn ddim yn gweithio ar y cyfyrdd ymlaen, ac efo'r tynnu gwybod i'ch gael i'ch gwybodol. Mae'n gwybod i'ch gwybod i'r ffyrdd o'i arwain, oherwydd mae'n gwybod i'n gweithio, ac ym mwyn gweld i'ch gwybod i'ch gwahau bob eich rhan oedd yn dweud eich cartón i gafoddiadu'r ffotograffol arweithio'r yma, As I walked outside my apartment in front of the Human Rights Palace in Geneva, I thought that, as I saw each one, I thought, mmm, they're quite relevant to what I'm going to say. This is the first one I saw and I thought, well, it does apply in so many places in the world, but at least I'm not the goose in this photograph and it's thanks to the IIA that I'm here with the freedom to speak about human rights. Rwy'n amser i'r ysgolio yma i'r un sgwpeth yn y 70-rhyw anferwyr, a Arland yn ysgolio'r ysgolio cymdeithasol yn 60 ymgyrch. Mae'n nhw'n gweithio, yma, oherwydd, sydd y fyddechau'r 51 ymgyrchu yn ddifrwng i San Francisco o gynnwys hynny o'r wych gweithio ar y gwirthfynu o y Llyfr ar ymgyrch yn y 70 miliwn. Ydyodd yn 193 yn ystafell yn ymddill iawn, yn ymddill iawn, i'n gweithio ddweud ymddill iawn. Mae'r prinsipol yn ymddill iawn yn eu genesus yn ymddill iawn yn ymddill iawn. Yn ystyrdd, roedd y rhan o amlwg o'r lawr ymddill iawn yn ymddill iawn, ydy'r rhaid i'r llwyddoedd yn ymddill iawn yn ymddill iawn, ymddill iawn yn ymddill iawn, mae'r rhaid yn bach i gael ymddill iawn i'r llwyddoedd and are escalating dramatically. Bear with me, as I set the scene, with which I know so many of you are so familiar, but I feel I need to. The last number of years have often involved harrowing bloodshed, from Syria to Libya to Yemen, from Ukraine to Burundi to Nigeria from Israel to Palestine from Ankara in Istanbul to Sharmal Sh Spider and Beirut and, of course, closer to home, from Paris to Brussels. Millions of civilians are caught up in conflict gyda hynny, byddwch i bobl ystod a gweithio'r fawr fawr yn ddysgu'r gwahau a ddechrau a llwyddiad. Rydyn, mae'r gwaith y dyfodol ffyrdd yn gweithio'r fawr, fel Deish, Al Shabaab, Al Nasrha, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram a'r Taliban, bywyddyn am gweithio'r fawr ar yw'r gweithio'r gweithio'r fawr ond o'r bwyddiadau a'r ddweud o'r 30-35 o ddweud. So, mae'r fforddau ar gyfer ystafellol wedi'r argymru, bydd y Ddemocratau o'r Represif. Dyma ei wasbwyll yn y rhan o'r cyfarfod i gael, ac mae'n gael i'r hyn sydd i'r unrhyw i'r hunain, yn gweithio'r byd, ac yn ymhyrchu'r unrhyw sydd rhan o'r ffair yma, a'i ddweud yr urdyn yn iawn i ddweud yn ddiogel iawn. Rwy'n meddwl tygtonicol yn ei ddweud yn llyfr â'r cyfrannu oedd, rwy'n meddwl i'r ddysgwm, yn ddechrau i'r ddechrau, yn yma bwysig o'r cyfrannu o'r cyfrannu, yn ddweud y ysgol i ddweud yn gallu y lleol yn awr i'r llai o'r lleol yn ymloedig. Mae gennym iawn i ddiweddol a'r syniadau o gwahau a'r llai o bwysigol ymlaenol. Mae'n ddod i'r llai o ddod o'r cyfle i ffyrfa a'r llai o bwysigol, yn credu ffyrdd o fxrwydd, ysgrifethu, a'r ffordd o'r awr. Mae'r ddod i'n llai o'r cyfle i'r llai o ddod i'r cyfle i'r cyffredin i'r llai o bwysigol. Mae'r ffordd yn buddol i credu'r bobl o'r d ardurion gweinio ac yn ymddangos hynny. The space for dissent in many countries is shrinking under the weight of either poorly thought out or indeed exploited of counter terrorist strategies. Atrocity crimes continue to be perpetrated in many places around the globe and these realities are worsening day by day. So as John Cary said rather simply last week, the world is a scary place. Mae'r gwmpas ffordd iawn, a'r gwmpas ffordd a'r cyfnodau cyfanol, sy'n bywch chi'n gweithio, gweithio gwyloedd, gweithio cymdeithasol, gwleiddoch, gweithio cyfrifiadau i gwylltu'n gweithio ac yn cael ei gweld gwaith i'r gwneud yw gweld rwynt yn fawr wedi'r amlwg ar gyfer y rhiwm ac oes yn y fwrdd am gweithio a'r gwmpas ffordd i'r gwneud yn gyffredinol. Fy hoffi'r gwneud yn gwneud yn gwneud yn gwneud yn gwneud I can't fail to highlight one of the most pressing and symptomatic issues of our time and of our work in Geneva, that of migration. This issue is inextricably linked to my other themes today, both in terms of root causes and of possible approaches. The number of people affected by humanitarian crisis has grown exponentially in the past decade. 244 million people are now on the move internationally. Over 60 million people are displaced, of which 20 million are estimated to be refugees. This isn't only a question of increase in numbers. The scale and intensity of emergencies is also increasing. The humanitarian system in its current form is struggling to cope. Conflict is quite naturally and obviously the most significant driver of this displacement and movement. But the reality is that people are also moving for many different reasons. They're fleeing political and economic instability, human rights violations and of course poverty in search of a better life. And so it's this toxic combination of conflict, human rights violations, poverty and lack of development that make up the main drivers of migration. But this reality also holds the answer as to how we can address the crisis in short. The best way to reduce the scale of current flows is to address the reasons that people have for fleeing their homelands. In simple, obvious and concrete terms, the surest way to tackle these root causes, both of irregular migration and of refugee movements, is to prevent and resolve conflicts and also to pursue and achieve development, ideally through the sustainable development goals. These are, for those who don't know but I'm sure all of you are aware, agreed actions to end hunger, reduce poverty and to sustain our environment. The need for respect for rule of law, good governance and protection of human rights as the bedrock for functioning democracies and thriving societies lies at the heart of these actions. More generally too, while there is an ever increasing focus in public discourse on the migration crisis as it affects Europe, I feel it's more important than ever to recognise the more positive perspectives of migration and to see it as a process to be managed rather than just a problem to be solved. And it's an unassailable truth that the management of this process must be carried out in a human rights sensitive way. There is no doubt that the challenge of migration is made up of an extraordinarily complex web of issues, political, legal, moral and ethical. I don't, for one moment, underestimate the significance of the distinction between refugees and purely economic migrants and the need to protect the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 protocol. We must also acknowledge that particular rights may attach to refugees which do not equally attach to economic migrants per se. Nevertheless, both need to be addressed and protected under the applicable law, whether human rights, international humanitarian law and refugee law or a combination of all three. So back to the positive. Migration is the story of human development. It is the essential thread running through all our histories. And when it's well managed, it has the potential to bring benefits to both sending and receiving countries. For this reason, I'm proud to echo the words of Peter Sutherland, who's as you know UN Special Representative on Migration, also of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Director General of the IOM, by speaking out with a principled voice in Geneva anywhere, anyway, in defence of the rights of migrants and the facilitation of an orderly and humane management of migration while upholding their human rights. Taking this human rights perspective also reminds us that we have to be vigilant to counter even just one of the most dangerous and disappointing misunderstandings which is circulating. It is not the movement of refugees which has created the recent wave of terrorism, but rather the reverse, that terrorism, tyranny and war have created the refugee movement. I take any opportunity I can to suggest that attainment of security and the protection of human rights are not necessarily antithetical, either as a matter of fact or of principle. Working in and with the UN, we need to constantly remind ourselves of the added responsibility to prevent the complete subordination of human rights to security concerns. Terrorism and the myriad of other challenges faced in the international community today have to be fought but in a rights sensitive way. This may be taken for granted in our society, but it's by no means the natural response of many authorities around the globe. This approach by necessity involves an even greater obligation to understand and to address the current challenges from the perspective and through the prism of human rights and the rule of law. It's clear simply put that the rule of law is fundamental and important for a number of reasons. Prevention of conflict being the first, second achievement of a durable peace in the aftermath of conflict. Thirdly, effective protection of human rights and fourthly, of course, sustainable economic progress and development. Human rights and development remain key elements of our foreign policy today. As mentioned, achieving the implementation of the SDGs is crucial to address the root causes of so many of the world's problems. To just highlight one of the goals, goal 16, the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies with effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels, which it is acknowledged is a key to producing and maintaining the foundations of peace, justice and good governance and which is critical for building sustainable development in all areas. In mentioning the SDGs and migration, I'd like to pay tribute to the work led so ably and skillfully by my New York colleague David Donahue last year. Ireland was honoured with David's leadership to serve as one of the two co-facilitators of the process which led to the successful adoption of the 2030 development agenda. That extraordinary outcome will guide the work by the United Nations and all states over many years to come. This year, we're again playing a significant and leading role on migration and refugees with David at the helm as co-facilitator of the migration negotiations leading up to the high level summit, high level meeting which will take place on the 19th of September in New York. But lest you think that all is happening in New York. Geneva is, as far as we are concerned, the centre of multilateralism. I can't resist any opportunity I have to say this. Just as states are more interconnected, so are the challenges. States certainly can't take on today's conflicts and catastrophes alone. We're witnessing daily the importance of collective, coordinated action. Our work in Geneva at the UN with the High Commissioners for Human Rights and Refugees in the Human Rights Council, with the Red Cross, the World Health Organization, the International Organization for Migration, the World Trade Organization and other international organizations in Geneva shows me how vital it is for states to increase co-operation and co-ordination. Although it may not seem absolutely congruous, I'd also like to refer to the conference and to our work on disarmament where Ireland now plays a significant role. And this is based on Geneva. The activities of all these international organizations are interconnected. While in the public perception, the UN may be associated more with New York, the reality is, as I say I'd like to point out, a full two thirds of the activities of the UN system take place in Geneva. Indeed, long before the UN was founded, Geneva had established itself as a centre of international co-operation and diplomacy. There was an Irish diplomatic representative in Geneva, as far back as 1921, to prepare for Ireland's membership of the League of Nations. Irish people held a number of important posts in the League of Nations, including Eamon de Valera, who served as President of the Council in 1932, and President of the Assembly in 1938. Another Irishman, Sean Lester, was the last Secretary General of the League of Nations, and was he who signed over the League's property to the newly founded UN in April 1946, including the Palais des Nations. So this is more than just history. The tremendous challenges to which I've already referred are increasing. But Ireland's first years of membership of the United Nations were also tumultuous times. In those years, our representatives had to react to a number of crises. Ireland identified clear policy priorities and positions of principle, many of which we have maintained to the present day. As a small country, which had emerged as an independent state not long before, Ireland took an active position from the beginning, in favour of decolonisation and self-determination, promotion of human rights and advancing development. And so, our first years at the UN laid the foundations of policy positions, which have come to define our multilateral engagement. We've continued to demonstrate that successes are possible, even against seemingly impossible odds. I was recently struck by the views expressed by my department's political director on the connectivity between Ireland's interests and our values. It's in our interest to stand for our values. It is not necessarily a question of exporting our values. It's about holding our own and other authorities to account for compliance with established international standards on basic human rights and fostering stability. This involves a comprehensive top-down approach, pressure on government, and bottom-up, supporting the development of institutional capacity. Both approaches are necessary, encompassing in an integrated manner economic development, trade, human rights, conflict prevention and resolution policies. Action on this is necessary at the national, regional and international levels. Now I'd like to turn specifically to our work on the Human Rights Council. Along with peace and security and development, human rights is of course the third great pillar of the United Nations. The UN multilateral human rights architecture is now the bedrock for the principles which need to guide our collective actions in ensuring that basic human rights are understood, enshrined, protected and defended. However, this wasn't always the case. The Human Rights Council will in June of this year celebrate a near ten years of existence. It was established by the UN General Assembly in 2006 to replace and improve upon its predecessor, the Human Rights Commission. It is now the principle body of the UN dealing with human rights. In December 2015, we Ireland completed our three-year term of membership of the council. This was our first term. We secured the seat in a competitive election voted in by our fellow member states of the UN. It was important that the trust which that successful election demonstrated be vindicated through an active and principled membership term. This was no easy task. While we don't necessarily think of ourselves in this way, the simple reality is that we're a small state with considerably fewer resources, human and otherwise, than many of the other members of the council. As usual, we had to compensate for this with extra commitment, creativity, flexibility and constant outreach to find and maintain partners across all regions of the globe. The truth is that the council is a very difficult environment in which to address and to achieve progress on human rights. The increasing global tensions and polarisation of values means that every success is hard fought. It's only through smart targeted action, including building cross regional support of teams where possible, that any advances are possible. The underlying current which appears to be driving the politicisation and division, if unsurprising, is the differing perspectives on the precise contour of what constitutes universal human rights norms. This is especially so against a backdrop of heightened sensitivity to sovereignty and security concerns, which I mentioned earlier, as well as of different belief systems, traditions, religions and moral codes. A simple example of the worrying trend of the council over the recent years has been the increased polarisation and politicisation of women's rights, including sexual and reproductive rights issues. While women's rights issues are not the principal focus of these intensified differences or divisions, they have increasingly been caught up in this politicisation. But this phenomenon is deeper and even more insidious. Indeed Ireland's key initiative at the council, the protection of civil society space, is one of the toughest battlegrounds of this polarisation. I often wondered during my term on the council why we had identified such a difficult issue to process and to move forward with. However, I'm very proud now of the fact that we have achieved the two resolutions, which I will describe to you in a little bit more detail. We were aware of all these challenges before we went into our term of membership. And we were clear from the start that there was no point in, for example, criticising others for the sake of criticism itself, or of introducing abstract initiatives without a practical real world impact. Instead, we sought to introduce and to lead new initiatives with potential for real and practical change on the ground. We sought also to fully engage and in a principled way across the existing mandates of the council, both thematic and country specific. So before I go into details on our initiatives, I'd like to give you a sense of why and how the council matters. So I'm going to identify a particular issue that I've focused on in the past, which is the issue of accountability. At the heart of rule of law is the pursuit of justice and accountability. So in this, and indeed previous positions in my career, I've spoken extensively about this topic, and in particular the efforts to bring an end to impunity for so-called atrocity crimes, and in particular for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, which sadly are continuing to be perpetrated around the globe. My view in grief is as follows, even if it sounds far too optimistic. The old era of impunity is over. In its place, slowly but surely, we're witnessing the birth of a new age of accountability. We are hearing clarion calls for accountability and justice on a daily basis. Secondly, in this new age of accountability, nobody is above the law, including in particular heads of state. Thirdly, sovereignty as a barricade against international justice is gone. Finally, there's no peace without justice. Peace and justice must go hand in hand, and elements of justice must be factored into every post-conflict strategy in order for peace to be sustainable. Justice, peace and democracy are not mutually exclusive objectives, but rather mutually reinforcing imperatives. There should be no amnesty for those most responsible for atrocity crimes. But there are undoubtedly many challenges to this new age of accountability, and particularly to the international accountability mechanism, and in particular, of course, the international criminal court. Some of these seem overwhelming. It's true that we have to improve the efficiency and overall performance of the ICC, which is still struggling to establish itself as a part of the architecture of international relations, and there are many who question its role and its credibility and deny its legitimacy. But even apart from those specific challenges, the reality is that the ICC and other international judicial accountability mechanisms cannot and are not intended to function alone. Ensuring accountability in any particular case, whether at an international or a national level, requires a combination of many different factors, including political will and political pressure, institutional capacity and resources, and of course, appropriate and reliable evidence. This doesn't happen magically or quickly, but requires detailed and often unseen work at all levels, and this is where the Human Rights Council comes to play a particularly significant role. Take the case of Syria. We have to believe that someday, somehow, there will be accountability for what's been happening. As early as 2011, the Human Rights Council, sitting in a specially convened session by resolution, established the Commission of Inquiry on Syria. Since that time, the Commission has made a total of 23 reports to the Council on the subject. We might reasonably ask, but what difference has this made, given that the terrible conflict in Syria continues and given that the Security Council hasn't referred the situation to the ICC or indeed hasn't addressed the question of accountability in any real way? But this is too narrow of view. Bringing the conflict to an end is an immense challenge and you're all aware of the broad range of moving parts in this situation. But the Human Rights Council and the Commission of Inquiry are playing their part. Since its creation, the Commission, not the Council, the Commission of Inquiry, has shed an intense light on the horrific violations of human rights and abuses occurring in Syria. It has documented in a painstaking way the events, the victims and the alleged perpetrators of the most barbaric actions by all sides. No one can any longer claim lack of awareness of the situation on the ground. This does increase the political pressure on all concerned. The world is very aware of what's happening. And crucially, when the conflict comes to an end, which it will, I've no doubt that the professionally documented and methodical evidence of the Commission will be a linchpin in the accountability process which must follow, at either or both the national and international levels. This evidence and the prospect of accountability hangs like a sword of Damocles over the heads of perpetrators, even if the perception is that they don't care, they will. This isn't an isolated case. The Council has established valuable commissions of inquiry in a number of cases now, including the DPRK, Libya, Eritrea, Côte d'Ivoire, Lebanon, and indeed into the conflicts in Gaza in 2014, each of which has or continues to play a valuable role, not least in the ultimate quest for justice and accountability. Prevention of human rights violations is also part of the Council's work. For reasons of time, I'm going to focus just on one example. This is the story of South Sudan. So the short history of South Sudan as the last member state of the United Nations at 193, since its emergence as a state in 2011, is a very difficult one. It's fraught with conflict and human rights violations. In response to the deteriorating situation in June 2015, the Council mandated an urgent mission to South Sudan. There has been continuous follow-up on foot of that urgent mission, and as a result, at the last Council session in March of this year, a remarkable development occurred. South Sudan itself, and indeed the entire African Union, agreed to the consensus adoption of a strong resolution on the situation which established a commission on human rights in South Sudan. This has full access to the territory and with a mandate to investigate, to report and advise, and a commitment of cooperation from the government, which is the most extraordinary aspect. This isn't an end in itself, but it is an encouraging sign in what is a very difficult context. It's a new lever of pressure on the government of South Sudan, and it's having an effect on the ground. There are many other examples of country-specific work at the Human Rights Council. It's important to remember that all states are at a different place on the spectrum of human rights protection in their territories, and there's a need for different methods and approaches to tackle each case. Now, with regard to the Universal Periodic Review, the Council established this unique mechanism of the UPR, which is created precisely to ensure that all states, big and small, face a regular review in Geneva on the protection of human rights in their territories. It's a multilateral forum for open discussion on the human rights situation in all states, with criticism and recommendations for improvement as the very purpose of its existence. Just two weeks ago, Ireland underwent its review in the UPR process. Our delegation, headed by Tawnishta and Minister for Justice and Equality, Francis Fitzgerald, faced very tough questions and recommendations with a total of 93 states intervening to express their concerns on the human rights record of Ireland. The issues raised ranged from abortion to prison overcrowding and the practice of slopping out, non-denominational schools, gender equality, domestic violence, racism, homelessness, the age of criminal responsibility, the criminal offence of blasphemy, recognition of travellers as an ethnic minority, protection of refugees, the special criminal court, and so on. As you can see from that daunting list, the UPR is a necessarily difficult process to go through, but it's an essential one. If we are to ensure that there is an opportunity to raise human rights concerns on all states in a fair, regular and structured way. The process is now nearing the end of its second cycle with universal participation of all states having been assured throughout. This is actually a phenomenal achievement. And again, it's one which I think unfortunately hasn't received the attention that it deserves. At the most fundamental level, the UPR puts an end to the old argument of whether human rights are issues only of domestic or bilateral concern and makes abundantly clear that all states have now, by virtue of their participation in the UPR, accepted that human rights protection is an issue of international concern appropriate to a multilateral fora. States in the context of the UPR criticise each other constructively and recommend changes with an inbuilt follow-up mechanism and effects are being felt on the ground. So, before I finish, I want to provide, if I may, a little detail of our Civil Society Space Initiative, which I mentioned earlier. The threats which civil society is facing worldwide are extreme. Civil society activists are suffering repression and suppression in all regions of the world today, including crackdowns on demonstrations, unjustified restrictions on expression, including sometimes brutal punishment for speaking out, prohibitions on fundraising for civil society organisations and so on. This repression and suppression is carried out so often in the name of security. In fighting for their vision for a brighter future, human rights defenders are facing grave risks. From strangling regulation and defamation to arbitrary detention, torture or even death, the work of human rights defenders brings them into conflict with powerful and often brutal interests. It is the importance of defenders' work and the gravity of threats they face that makes our initiative so vital. I'm reminded of the words of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who put it inspiringly when he said, When powerful leaders feel threatened by a tweet, a blog or a high school student's speech, this speaks of profound underlying weakness. And when writers are abducted, jailed, whipped or put to death, when journalists are assaulted, subjected to sexual violence, tortured and killed, when peaceful protesters are gunned down by thugs, when human rights lawyers, human rights defenders and land activists are kidnapped, arrested and jailed on spurious charges of sedition, when newspapers are attacked or shut down, such cases attack and undermine the very foundations of stable governance. This is undoubtedly true and indeed it's also the case that there are many states which may be generally well disposed towards civil society, but which are ill-equipped to establish or maintain the kind of enabling environment which allows civil society to thrive and to contribute to better outcomes for us all. There are many states, possibly including Ireland, which are committed to civil society and doing a number of positive things, but there's still room for improvement, as was evident at our UPR. The scale of the opposition that we met in driving this initiative for civil society protection perhaps tells its own story. An alliance of some of the strongest voices in the council, many with very difficult human rights records at home, for example Cuba, China, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and many others challenged us daily head on. They challenged not only the substantive content of the draft resolutions that we put forward, but even the very principle of having an initiative on the topic. We faced wave after wave of challenges. What it takes to succeed in these cases isn't glamorous. It's a combination of expertise and hard work. We secured a resolution establishing the normative basis for civil society space, as well as a mandate for a full report to the council on best practice for creation and maintenance of a safe and enabling environment for civil society space. These resolutions we expected to go to a vote, but we were very fortunate in that we achieved the successes by consensus. These resolutions are now being used by activists around the world to bolster their positions and to push for improved civil society space in many states. The operational language of the resolutions is also increasingly being built into recommendations to states in the UPR process about which I spoke earlier. And in June of this year we'll see a major OHCHR, that's the High Commissioner for Human Rights Office report to the council on our resolution. It's going to set out best practices on civil society space which we and others will then be in a position to drive forward in practice. We're proud of these successes and we're going to continue to fight for further progress in the years to come. So in summary, my view is that it's essential to manage the accelerating crisis through the prism of human rights and the rule of law. How we do so will define our future. An awareness of the centrality of the rule of law and of adhering to our values and respect for human rights is crucial. In our work at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, we make every effort to uphold the rule of law and to address the violations which trample upon the dignity of human beings. While our term of membership of the council is now complete, our work nevertheless continues. The council is quite unlike any other limited membership UN body, in that observers have in the vast majority of cases the same rights as members. And so we'll be still be leading and negotiating resolutions and basically doing everything that members do other than vote. We will continue our active principled engagement and we hope to continue to have a positive impact at the council as an observer, as well as in all our activities in other fora and organisations including the IOM, WHO, ILO, ICRC etc. We're going to continue to drive home the message that respect for human rights and the rule of law is essential for peace and security to take root and to flourish, for development to bring benefits to all members of society and for it to be sustainable and for the adequate legal protection of basic rights and freedoms. Thank you very much.