الجمعية العامة: الجلسة العامة الثامنة والثلاثون، الدورة 81
الجمعية العامة
Date: 5 November 2026
Language: English
Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/ar/ga/81/38?lang=en
Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations.

---

GA · Vice-President [16:34]:

The 38th session, sorry, the 38th plenary meeting of the General Assembly is called to order. The Assembly will resume its consideration of agenda item 72, entitled Report of the International Court of Justice. to hear the remaining speakers on the debate on this item. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Bahrain, on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council.


Bahrain · GCC [17:32]:

In the name of Allah, the most merciful, the most gracious, Mr. President, I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the member states of the Arab countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which are the United Arab Emirates, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Sultanate of Oman, the State of Qatar, the State of Kuwait, and my country, the Kingdom of Bahrain. At the outset, we extend our appreciation to Judge Yuji Iwasawa, President of the ICJ. We thank him for presenting the ICJ's report covering the period from August 1st, 2025, to the 31st of July, 2026. We express our appreciation for the efforts made by the Court's President and its judges in carrying out their judicial responsibilities. The GCC Member States further congratulate the five judges recently elected to the membership of the ICJ. We wish them success in the discharge of their duties. The GCC states take this opportunity to note the 80th anniversary of the establishment of the International Court of Justice, commemorated by the Court at a formal session held on the 17th of April in 2026. The Kingdom of Bahrain participated in that session in its capacity as President of the Security Council at the time and delivered a statement on that historic occasion. The statement highlighted the importance of the relationship between the two organs and their role in promoting the rule of law and the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Mr. President, the GCC member states firmly believe in the important role played by the International Court of Justice and the peaceful settlement of international disputes as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, in accordance with Article 32 of the Charter of the United Nations. We also note Security Council Resolution 2788 of the year 2025. That resolution reaffirmed the important role of the ICJ in the peaceful settlement of international disputes. The GCC states value the contribution of the Court's judgments and advisory opinions in clarifying the rules of international law and strengthening the rule of law at the international level. We further stress the importance of making use of the Court's advisory function pursuant to Article 96 of the Charter, and this supports efforts aimed at preventing the outbreak of conflict. The Member States of the GCC confirm the importance of respecting the rules governing the Court's jurisdiction, particularly the principle of state consent to its jurisdiction in contentious cases, in accordance with Article 36 of the Statute. We stress the right of states to resort to peaceful means to the settlement of disputes in accordance with Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations. The GCC states further note Article 38 of the Court's Statute. which sets out the sources of international law applied by the ICJ when deciding disputes, including international conventions, international custom, and general principles of law. The GCC states reaffirm the central status of the Court's Statute and the Charter of the UN within the international legal order, and re-stress the importance of the Court's role in interpreting and applying their provisions within the framework of its jurisdiction and in accordance with its Statute. Mr. President. The jurisprudence of the ICJ over the past eight decades has established enduring principles, and they've become cornerstones in the international legal order. Foremost among these is the prohibition on the use of force, which constitutes a fundamental principle of the Charter, and the respect for the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of states, which lies at the heart of international relations. These principles have become even more important in light of the challenges facing international peace and security. This requires us to make the roles of the Court and the relevant UN organs complementary with one each other to promote respect for international law and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Guided by this principle, the GCC states condemn and strongly denounce the Iranian attacks against the GCC member states and the sisterly Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Be they carried out directly or through armed groups operating outside state authority and supported by Iran, these attacks targeted civilian facilities, service sites, residential areas, and diplomatic missions in a flagrant violation of state sovereignty and a clear breach of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. The GCC member states reaffirm that Iran bears full responsibility for these attacks and their consequences, and call for full compliance with Security Council Resolution 2817 of the year 2026. The GCC states also stress the importance of holding Iran accountable and requiring full reparation for the damage resulting from these attacks, in accordance with the rules of state responsibility under international law and in line with Human Rights Council Resolution 61/1 of the year 2026. The GCC states recall the ICJ's affirmation that Article 51 of the Charter does not permit the use of force in self-defense as a pretext for using force to protect what the state considers its security interests beyond the limits of the Charter. The GCC states further emphasize that this right may not be invoked to justify the use of force contrary to Article 2, para 4 of the Charter, or to undermine the sovereignty of states that are not party to the conflict. The GCC states also note Article 25 of the Charter of the UN. That article obliges members of the United Nations to accept and implement Security Council resolutions in accordance with the Charter. We underscore the importance of respecting the provisions of the Charter and implementing Security Council resolutions and strengthening the rule of law at the international level. The GCC states further condemn Iranian threats and measures that are aimed at closing the Strait of Hormuz or obstructing international navigation there, as well as actions threatening maritime security in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. We affirm the importance of respecting the freedom of navigation in accordance with international law. UCC states also affirm the right of affected states to take lawful measures available under international law, including diplomatic and legal means for the settlement of disputes and providing reparations. We emphasize the freedom of states to choose the appropriate peaceful means. GCC member states also stress the importance of complementarity among the UN organs, each within its mandate, in promoting respect for international law and strengthening the rule of law in a manner that would enhance confidence in the international legal system. As for the advisory proceedings referred to in Chapter 2B of the report, the GCC states welcome the advisory opinion issued by the ICJ on 22 October 2025 on Israel's obligations in and in relation to the occupied Palestinian territory. The opinion reaffirmed Israel's obligation under international humanitarian law to ensure that the population of the occupied Palestinian territory, including the Gaza Strip, that they have access to the necessities of daily life and to approve feasible relief plans to benefit the population and facilitate their implementation, including enabling the UN agencies, especially the UNRWA, so that they're able to carry out their humanitarian functions and to ensure the protection of humanitarian personnel. GCC member states also welcome the order issued on 26 January 2024 concerning provisional measures for the protection of the Palestinian people. The GCC states reiterate the necessity of taking practical and credible steps towards achieving a just and comprehensive solution to the Palestinian question in accordance with the Arab Peace Initiative and relevant international legitimacy resolutions, and in a manner that would guarantee the Palestinian people their inalienable right to self-determination and the establishment of their independent and sovereign state on the borders of 4 June 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital. In closing, Mr. President, The GCC Member States reaffirm their steadfast commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and to the provisions of international law. They underscore the important role of the ICJ in the peaceful settlement of disputes and the promotion of the rule of law at the international level, in accordance with its Statute and the rules governing its jurisdiction, in a manner that would contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security and the achievement of justice and stability. I thank you for your kind attention.


GA · Vice-President [26:31]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Bahrain. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cuba.


Cuba [26:54]:

Mr. President, we align ourselves with the statement delivered by Uganda on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. On behalf of the Republic of Cuba, we wish to highlight the relevance of the International Court of Justice as an international judicial body that peacefully and in good faith settles the most important disputes of the international community in accordance with international law. At the same time, we would like to underscore the Court’s activities during the reporting period, as reflected in Report A/81/4, and express our appreciation for its presentation. Mr. President, It is essential to support the work carried out by the Court through its judgments and advisory opinions in order to strengthen the rule of law at the international level. We appreciate the publications and online resources made available to Member States, as they are valuable tools for the dissemination and study of public international law, especially for developing countries. In these times marked by arbitrariness, the denial and delay of visas, as well as various restrictions on rights, we wish to emphasize the continued validity and relevance of the advisory opinion issued by the Court on 26 April 1988 concerning the applicability of the obligation to arbitrate under section 21 of the Headquarters Agreement of the United Nations, signed in 1947. In that advisory opinion, the Court concluded that the United States, as a party to the Headquarters Agreement of the Organization, has the obligation to submit to arbitration for the settlement of disputes between that country and the United Nations, and it reaffirmed the fundamental principle that international law prevails over domestic law. Furthermore, Cuba expresses its concern regarding statements and actions by representatives of the Government of the United States directed against judges of the International Court of Justice, which constitute a form of political pressure which is incompatible with the principles of independence and impartiality that must govern the exercise of the international judicial function. The public discrediting of judges and the questioning of their work for political reasons sets a troubling precedent and undermines confidence in multilateral mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of disputes. No State can claim to place itself above international law or seek to condition the actions of international judicial bodies according to its particular interests. Cuba reaffirms the need to preserve the independence, authority and integrity of the International Court of Justice. and rejects all forms of intimidation or interference that undermine the exercise of its functions and universal respect for international law. Mr. President, Cuba also attaches special importance to the allocation of the budgetary resources necessary for the International Court of Justice to carry out its work properly in pursuit of the peaceful resolution of the disputes under its jurisdiction. We call for efforts to ensure that these resources reach the Court in a timely and appropriate manner. Cuba welcomes with interest the ruling of the International Court of Justice on the advisory opinion concerning the obligations of States in respect of climate change, and considers it a contribution to strengthening international law in addressing the challenges arising from climate change. It is not possible to confront the challenges posed by climate change without the cooperation, prioritization and participation of all nations, taking into account their common but differentiated responsibilities and their respective capacities and social and economic circumstances. Cuba will continue to promote, as a matter of the highest priority, policies and actions aimed at sustainability and the protection and preservation of the environment. Mr. President, in December 2023, the Republic of Cuba joined the case initiated by South Africa against Israel concerning the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip, brought before the International Court of Justice. Cuba reiterates that it fulfils its international commitment as a State Party to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which obliges its members to take all actions within their power to prevent any attempt to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Cuba spares no effort in pursuing a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the basis of the creation of two states, enabling the Palestinian people to exercise their right to self-determination and to have an independent and sovereign state within the borders existing prior to 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital, while also guaranteeing the right of return for refugees. It is for this reason that Cuba participated in the contentious proceedings initiated by the Republic of South Africa against the State of Israel before the ICJ. The Government of the Republic of Cuba took this important decision in keeping with its firm and long-standing commitment to support and contribute as much as possible to legitimate international efforts to put an end to this genocide being committed against the Palestinian people. Pursuant to Article 63 of the Statute of the Court and in strict observance of its obligations as a State Party to the Convention, Cuba exercised its right to submit as a third party its interpretation of the provisions of the Convention that Israel has flagrantly violated through its actions in the illegally occupied Palestinian territory of the Gaza Strip. The case brought before the principal judicial organ of the United Nations has as its primary objective the cessation of the atrocities committed against the Palestinian people as a result of Israel's disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force, carried out with complete impunity, protected by the complicity of the Government of the United States, while ignoring its obligations as an occupying power under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Once again, the International Court of Justice will be called upon to contribute through its decisions to international justice and peace. To that end, Cuba maintains, as a matter of law, that both Israel and its accomplices must be held responsible under applicable international law for the genocide that the Palestinian people have suffered for decades and continue to suffer today in an ever more aggravated form. Thank you.


GA · Vice-President [34:45]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Cuba. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Morocco.


Morocco [35:09]:

Mr. President, my delegation would like to thank the President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Iwasawa Yuji, for introducing the Court's annual report. We would like to congratulate Mr. Santiago Villalpando, his election as Registrar and would like to pay tribute to his predecessor, Mr. Philippe Gauthier, for his commitment in the service of the Court over the last seven years. My delegation would also like to congratulate the five new members of the Court elected this week by the Security Council and the General Assembly: Mr. Dapo Akande, Mr. François Alabrun, Mr. Mahmoud Daifallah Ahmed, Ms. Renée Lee, and Ms. Phoebe Okowa. We wish you every success as you discharge your lofty duties. This year is particularly important. On the 17th of April, the court celebrated the 80th anniversary of its inaugural session. For over 8 decades, the principal judicial body of the United Nations, the ICJ, has helped to settle disputes peacefully. between States, it has helped to advance the principles and purposes of the Charter. The Kingdom of Morocco would therefore like to pay tribute to the Court as well as to generations of judges and officials who contributed to buttressing its authority and standing. Mr. President, it is the only universal international jurisdiction which can render decisions in contentious proceedings and issue advisory opinions. The Court covers a swath of diverse issues, including immunities, diplomatic relations, civil aviation, labour law, environmental protection, climate change. This diversity of topics illustrates the universal nature of its mission. And this is encoded in the very composition of the Court, bringing together judges from various legal traditions and cultures and civilizations of the world. This attests to the quality of the Court's deliberations, and it helps to ensure that decisions are impartial. My delegation would therefore like to commend the Court's commitment to bilingualism enshrined in Article 13.9 of its Statute. The use of English and French helps to ensure that jurisprudence is specific and precise, and pays homage to various legal traditions. Mr. President, the role, the relevance of the Court is confirmed by the fact that States are increasingly petitioning it to handle increasingly complex issues. This applies to the settlement of contentious cases, but also to the principles which bolster the Court's competence and jurisdiction on contentious proceedings. The Court's international jurisdiction is key. This jurisdiction is compulsory, as are its judgments. It is this balance struck between respect for the sovereignty of states and the authority of the judgment handed down which is the crux of international justice. The advisory function of the Court makes a useful contribution to the clarification of international law, as well as to the discharge of duties by bodies

permitted to petition the Court.

However, the growing workload makes us think that we need to ensure greater institutional balance as inscribed in the Charter. On this note, while written and oral pleadings do enrich the Court, nevertheless, the focus should be on the issues at hand. Aside from the settlement of disputes submitted to it, the Court helps to ensure the predictability of international law and legal certainty. This implies not just clarity and consistency in the Court's jurisprudence that is vital, but also a common understanding about the scope of its decisions and in good faith implementation thereof by states. The effectiveness of international justice and the trust placed in the Court by the international community are what's at stake.

The Kingdom of Morocco stands convinced that the Court's legitimacy is underpinned by its independence, impartiality, and respect for the Charter, as well as on the Statute.

Maintaining this legitimacy is a shared responsibility that falls to States, but also to the entities petitioning the Court. Recourse to international justice should serve the endeavour of the peaceful settlement of disputes, to ensure that the law helps us to appease conflicts rather than to fuel political conflict. Mr. President, the report before us attests to a very heavy workload. 24 cases are on the dockets, are on the docket. Over 80 states were involved in proceedings. One decision various advisory opinions and orders were handed down. In terms of the developments of the last few years, third party interventions are worth noting, especially under Article 61 of the Statute. This attests to the state's interest in the interpretation of instruments to which they are party. This increases the Court's workload, which means that it has had to adapt its Working methods. On this note, we welcome the efforts undertaken by the Court to tailor its working methods to the growing complexity of the cases before it and the growing number of proceedings. Changes to Article 78 regarding publications on the implementation of provisional measures, as well as changes to 50

and 56, those articles, especially as regards, for instance,

Evidence and management of evidence also demonstrate a constant willingness to modernize.

These efforts are all the more remarkable

given the fact that the Court continues to fulfill its functions in a timely fashion and at relative modest cost. The Kingdom of Morocco believes that the Court and the Registry should be endowed with sufficient means to discharge their duties despite the budgetary constraints our organization is currently facing. By way of conclusion, Mr. President, Eighty years after its establishment, the Court remains just as necessary as ever. The Kingdom of Morocco would like to reiterate its support to the Court. We are committed to the peaceful settlement of disputes. I thank you.


GA · Vice-President [41:57]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Morocco. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Lebanon.


Lebanon [42:18]:

Mr. President, distinguished colleagues, if I may, at the outset, i would like to congratulate the newly elected judges and re-elected judges as well. This election happened two days ago in this very chamber.

I congratulate all candidates who took part in the campaign.

Mr. President, I would also like to seize this opportunity to applaud the new Registrar of the ICJ, Mr. Santiago Villalpando. On behalf of my delegation, I'd like to thank his predecessor. Mr. President, for 80 years now, the International Court of Justice has placed the law in the service of peace. Let's just think, let's just imagine the last eight decades without the Court. Disputed borders, disputes, treaty violations, would have sought settlement without any judge being able to wield the law to resolve them. Let's state this clearly: the court did not stop massacres, and no one claims that it can do so alone.

However, when the argument of arms was put forward, the court opposed the arms of the argument.

Let's look at what the court has achieved. Over 90% of its judgments are respected. This figure reflects trust that was built case in, case out. Borders delimited without a single shot fired.

Disputes settled using the law rather than force. States large and small, which know which rules to abide by.

This is what a jurisdiction which we listen to can result in.

Certainty, stability, and the possibility for the weakest in our community to advocate on an equal footing. The report before us confirms that 88 states took part in the proceedings, as well as a number of international organizations.

24 cases are currently on the court's docket.

75 states recognize its compulsory jurisdiction.

These figures tell a story: growing recourse to the law and greater trust in the court. That is the story.

It is not without significance that this is all happening in troubled times, because it is particularly at such moments

that the court is particularly important. Against the backdrop of this din, the court strives to provide a common benchmark.

Methodically, it considers the elements, the evidence that is submitted to it, it checks it, it establishes the facts. These decisions are underpinned by rationale, publicly, so that no one can claim to ignore them. By revising Article 78 of the Rules of Court, the Court chose to make public reports on the implementation of its provisional measures. This dissemination strengthens its transparency and advances international law by making it more visible, better understood, and ensuring greater respect

for it.

It is not the version advanced by the strongest nor by the loudest that the Court puts forward. It puts forward the law. applied to a case that has been thoroughly debated. Through its decisions, it contributes to building an international order that is more rigorous, predictable, and enlightened.

President.

Such authority implies, in turn, responsibility. Responsibility incumbent upon us, states. We hear all too often that the Court's decisions are violated, that it is speaking out in vain. But we're not looking at the right target. The Court proclaims the law. executing, implementing, enforcing the law, that is up to us. When a decision does not produce any results, it is not the court's failing, it is

that of those who are supposed to apply its decisions or those who must compel others to do so.

Sustaining, supporting the court and respecting its decisions means defending an order in which international law applies to everyone without distinction, without exception. This authority stems also from the court's legitimacy, and this also is embodied in multilingualism. Respecting the multilingualism of the Court's work is tantamount to reflecting the diversity of the world's legal traditions and systems, something the Statute requires for these to be represented in the Court. This plurality imbues the Court's decisions with greater balance. It enriches them and contributes to ensure they enjoy greater acceptance. Mr. President, Lebanon would like to draw your attention to one of the latest advisory opinions, that of 22 October 2025, regarding the obligations of Israel in relation to the presence and activities of the UN, other international organizations, and third states in relation to the occupied Palestinian territory. The Court clearly recalled therein that an occupying power must permit the delivery of relief, protect the personnel providing this relief, and guarantee that people have access to

essential goods and services: water, food, and health care.

It recalls a fundamental ban on using hunger as a method of war. Depriving people of food cannot be used as a means for subjugation. This opinion is part and parcel of, or an extension of that rendered on the 19th of July 2024. Both opinions recall that occupation does not suspend the obligations of the occupying power. Rather, they impose specific responsibilities thereon. These obligations have very concrete implications for a child who is hungry, for an injured person awaiting care for homeless families. The court, when it speaks, also speaks to them. President, when handing down its opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change, it clarified that those feeling the effects thereof without bearing any of the responsibility are what they are owed. This is an important step forward in international law. Regarding the advisory opinion rendered on the 21st of May 2026 on the right to strike, this was done at the request of the ILO. This recalls that It reminds us that international organizations, they too have access to the Court. Every judgment, every opinion sketches a path for states and people to go down. This progress, while it may appear modest, buttresses the foundations of international justice. President, distinguished colleagues, Lebanon knows first-hand about grave violations of international law and the violations of the principle of the protection of civilians. Our country has been subjected to Israeli aggression, which hit hard. It also hit hard those groups which international law is supposed to protect. Entire families were buried under the rubble. Villages were razed from the map, and the most basic rules of humanity were trampled. Faced with such atrocities, Lebanon will not yield. We remain determined to continue down the path of the peaceful settlement of disputes well established in the Charter, of which the Court is the principal judicial body. Subjecting the use of force to the law, this is what the Court has embodied for over 80 years. It's a commitment to bring bear the full force of the law against those who believe might is right. This commitment, the court cannot uphold it alone. It is up to us to

endow international justice with the means to do so and to ensure effective protection for all.

I thank you.


GA · Vice-President [49:42]:

The distinguished representative of Lebanon. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Japan.


Japan [50:06]:

Mr. President, distinguished delegates, I would first like to extend my sincere appreciation to President Uresawa of the International Court of Justice for his dedicated leadership and informative report on Court's activities over the past year. Japan commends members of the Court and Registry for their valuable contributions to the effective and efficient functioning of the Court. Mr. President, this year marks the 80th anniversary of International Court of Justice. The ICJ's role in promoting the rule of law has become increasingly important, and the number of cases brought before the Court clearly reflects the high expectation and strong confidence that states place in its capacity to resolve disputes peacefully based on international law. This is further evidenced by the unprecedented number of states participating in recent ICJ proceedings. Japan is convinced that through its balanced and objective approach, interpreting treaties and identifying customary international law based on robust evidence and authoritative sources, the Court can continue to gain the enduring trust from the international community. Member States on our part should make efforts to understand Court’s opinion as accurately as possible so that Tireless efforts made by the Court contribute to the promotion of mutual understanding among states, rather than deepening political divide. Mr. President, Japan believes that in the past 80 years, the international community has made some progress in strengthening the international order based on the rule of law. However, There have been ups and downs. There has always been tension between the aspiration towards rule of law and temptation to change status quo by force. However, we believe that the majority of states have continued to advocate the rule of law despite all the difficulties they have faced in their relations with other states. The 80th anniversary of the ICJ is a good opportunity for member states to reaffirm their commitment to international law. In this regard, the best way to demonstrate commitment to international law is to accept the Court's jurisdiction through a declaration under Article 36 paragraph 2 of its statute. Eighty years ago, in 1955, there were 33 declarations in force, representing just over 40% of the 80 parties to the statute. By 1979, 45 states had optional clause declaration in force out of 100 55 parties to the statute, which was 29%, down from 40% in 1955. Currently, 75 out of 193 member states are accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the court, which is 39%, and up from 29% in 1979. Japan encourages more member states to take this crucial step to show their commitment to peaceful settlement of dispute based on international law. Mr. President, in conclusion, I reiterate Japan's steadfast support for the role of the Court as a principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Japan remains deeply committed to promoting the rule of law among nations as a fundamental cornerstone of international peace and security. I thank you, Mr. President.


GA · Vice-President [54:59]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Japan, and now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Barbados.


Barbados [55:17]:

Thank you, Mr. President. Barbados aligns itself with the statements delivered by Uganda on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and by Palau on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States, and wishes to deliver these remarks in its national capacity. I begin by firstly thanking the International Court of Justice for its annual report and extending congratulations on the occasion of its 80th anniversary. I also congratulate the five recently elected members of the Court and wish them every success. in carrying out their responsibilities. Mr. President, Barbados is one of only 75 states to have declared its acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. I make this point because it is the clearest possible signal of the importance we attach to the UN's highest judicial organ, but also because it is emblematic of our attachment to and confidence in the international order more broadly. This order is I think we can all agree, far from perfect. Notably, countries like mine have historically had few opportunities to shape it. Nonetheless, the international legal order is vital to our survival and is essential for our people to achieve the peace, security, dignity, and development that they, like all others, strive for. Absent this order and its institutions, we return to a different kind of arrangement. an arrangement characterized by the law of the jungle and not the rule of law. It is for these reasons, Mr. President, that, having participated in the ICJ's climate proceedings in 2024 and 2025, Barbados joined the core group that worked on General Assembly resolution 80/263 on the advisory opinion of the ICJ on the obligations of states in respect of the climate crisis. The resolution affirms critical legal protections for small island developing states, such as the continuity of statehood and maritime zones, as well as recognizes the legal consequences of breaches of climate obligations. Indeed, we were encouraged that the resolution was adopted during the 81st session by an overwhelming majority of UN member states, recording 141 votes in favor. As the Earth will likely exceed the 1.5 degree centigrade limit we set in Paris over a decade ago, the Court's advisory opinion and the implementation of its guidance by member states is for countries like mine, truly an existential matter. Mr. President, in closing, I underscore the message delivered by our Prime Minister in this General Assembly a few weeks ago. The Caribbean must remain a zone of peace. At the heart of this idea is that there should be no unilateral and unjustified use of force in the region. Further, relations among states must be sheltered exclusively under the protective umbrella of the principles and rules of international law. Mr. President, Barbados reaffirms its full confidence in the ICJ and its unwavering commitment to the rule of law. I thank you.


GA · Vice-President [58:39]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Barbados. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Bangladesh.


Bangladesh [59:10]:

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Mr. President, Bangladesh aligns itself with the statement delivered by Uganda on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. We thank the President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Ioasava Wuji, for presenting the report of the Court. This year, the Court marked 80 years since its inaugural sitting in April 1946. The founders made this court the principal judicial organ of the new organization and bound every member to comply with its decisions. At the solemn sitting in The Hague, the Secretary-General recalled that the Organization was founded on one overriding conviction: the force of law must always prevail over the law of force. The Court is where that conviction is tested every day. Mr. President, the Court’s verdicts are binding on all UN Member States and institutions. Especially the judgments and advisory opinions on contemporary global crises are the legal pathways and moral compasses for humanity. And the Court’s crowded docket since inception is a testament to the trust states place in the ICJ with their most difficult questions. Bangladesh accepts the Court’s advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change and welcomes resolution 80/263 adopted by this Assembly in May. For Bangladesh, one of the cases before the Court matters above all. In January this year, the Court heard the merits of the case brought by The Gambia against Myanmar under the Genocide Convention. The Gambia did not bring this case because it was itself injured. It brought it because the obligations of the Genocide Convention are owed to all States parties, as the Court confirmed in 2022. Bangladesh shelters more than 1.2 million Rohingyas who were forcibly displaced from Myanmar. We hope that the Court's judgment will contribute to accountability for the crimes committed against the Rohingya, to their safe and dignified return, as Prime Minister Tariq Rahman said in this Assembly on 24 October. Bangladesh also welcomes the advisory opinion of 22 October 2025 on the obligations of Israel in relation to the presence and activities of the UN other international organizations, and third states in and in relation to the occupied Palestinian territory, in keeping with its long-standing position on the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination. Bangladesh reiterates its call for full compliance with the provisional measures indicated by the ICJ in the case concerning the application of the Genocide Convention in the Gaza Strip. Mr. President, The issue I draw your attention to is compliance. Article 94 of the Charter provides that each member undertakes to comply with the decision of the ICJ in any case to which it is a party. Orders and provisional measures are binding, and advisory opinions carry the authority of the principal judicial organ of the UN. Advisory opinions are not a way around consent. They are the Charter's own means. under Article 96, by which the Assembly asks the Court what the law requires. As the President of the General Assembly reminded us in opening this debate, before the law, the strength of an argument must matter more than the power of its author, and selective compliance corrodes trust. We therefore welcome the amendment to Article 78 of the Rules of the Court, which strengthens the Court's follow-up on compliance. When a judgment is ignored, it is not only the Court that is weakened, but every State, large or small, that may one day need it. Mr. President, 80 years ago, the founders of the United Nations placed the Court in its center because they had seen what happens when a court is not respected. The League of Nations had its Permanent Court of International Justice. Its judges did not fail; the will of the States did. When the powerful turned away from the League and its law, the Court could do nothing to stop the slide into war. That is the warning of history. A Court is only as strong as the respect that states give it. Bangladesh’s message to this Assembly is therefore clear: bring our disputes to the Court, stand by the other international courts and tribunals that states have built, respect their independence, and comply with what they decide. not only when it suits us, but above all, when it does not. Peace without law does not last, and law that is not obeyed protects no one. I thank you, Mr. President.


GA · Vice-President [1:04:27]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Bangladesh. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cambodia.


Cambodia [1:04:48]:

Mr. President, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Judge Yuji Iwasawa, the President of the International Court of Justice, for his presentation on the Court's activities in discharging its judicial responsibilities as one of the principal organs of the United Nations. I consider The Court's updated report to the General Assembly, both timely and important. From the Permanent Court of International Justice, we call PCI, to the ICJ, the Court has consistently played a vital role in the peaceful settlement of disputes, guided by its long-standing commitment to upholding the rules of law and advancing international justice. The unprecedented number of cases brought before the court over the past two decades underscored the growing need for states to turn to this body. The peaceful settlement of disputes, including through judicial settlement, is enshrined in Article 33 of the UN Charter. The court's judgment in contentious cases are final. and legally binding on the parties concerned. Cambodia, therefore, calls for full and effective compliance with the Court's decision. For the record, Cambodia recalls the Court's 1962 judgment and 2013 interpretation in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear. which remains important contributions to the Court's jurisprudence. The Court's obiter dicta in this case have also been cited in subsequent proceedings. President, the Court serves not only as a guardian of international law, but also as a custodian of the values of the international community, peace, justice, and I thank you.


GA · Vice-President [1:07:15]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Cambodia. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran.


Iran (Islamic Republic of) [1:07:45]:

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Mr. President, it is an honor to address the General Assembly on the report of the International Court of Justice for the year 2025. I wish to express my delegation's appreciation to the President of the Court, Judge Iva Sava, for his presentation. Mr. President, the Charter of the United Nations not only establishes International Court of Justice as the principal judicial organ of the UN, but also entrusts it with a pivotal role in advancing the purposes and principles of the organization. Through its jurisdiction to adjudicate legal disputes between states and to render advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it, the Court contributes significantly to the promotion of the rule of law at the international level. The ICJ serves as an indispensable institution for the peaceful settlement of inter-state disputes and the administration of international justice. In discharging its judicial mandate, the Court plays a vital role in safeguarding the integrity of international law and upholding the fundamental principles of the UN Charter, including sovereign equality, non-intervention, and the prohibition of threat or use of force. The significance of this role is illustrated by landmark cases such as military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, in which the Court addressed critical questions concerning the application of international law and the obligations of states under international legal order. Regrettably, the international community has particularly over the past years witnessed an alarming intensification of conduct that undermines the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, Of equal concern are the increasingly explicit challenges to the relevance and legitimacy of the International Court of Justice posed by few and the broader international legal framework. Such developments threaten to erode respect for international law at a time when its consistent application is more essential than ever. In an international environment increasingly characterized by unilateralism, disregard for multilateral institution, and normalization or glorification of aggression and genocide, the role of the International Court of Justice assumes even greater significance. The Court remains a vital institutional safeguard against the erosion of international legal order, and a cornerstone of efforts to ensure that relations among states are governed by law rather than by power. Mr. President, the Islamic Republic of Iran's confidence in the Court's role is reflected in its own practice. Whatever circumstances have warranted, Iran has had recourse to the Court to pursue its rights and interests through judicial proceedings. At present, Islamic Republic of Iran is involved in five contentious proceedings before the International Court of Justice, acting as the applicant in four cases and as the respondent in one. They are as follows: Certain Iranian Assets; alleged violations of 1955 Treaty of Amity, economic relations and consular rights, alleged violations of state immunities, aerial incident of 8 January 2020, and appeal relating to the jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation. The Islamic Republic of Iran has also participated in the advisory proceedings before the International Court of Justice on obligation of Israel in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations, other international organizations, and third states. Submitting its written statement on 27 February 2025, taking into account the very sui generis nature of the Palestinian question, arising from decades of prolonged occupation, systematic violations of international law, and persistent denial of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination, the Court unanimously held The obligation of the occupying regime in relation to essential supplies of daily life, including food, water, shelter, fuel, and medical supplies and services to Palestinian people, to respect and protect all relief and medical personnel and facilities, to respect the prohibition on forcible transfer and deportation of Palestinian people, to respect the privileges and immunities of the United Nations. and to respect the prohibition on the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. The Islamic Republic of Iran believes the findings of the Court is another important step in defining the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, besides its two previous advisory opinions of 9 July 2004 on legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, and that of 19 July 2024 on the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem. Mr. President, while the International Court of Justice plays an indispensable role in administration of international justice and peaceful settlement of disputes, the pursuit of justice cannot be confined to judicial proceedings. The very notion of justice is also a shared responsibility of the international community as a whole, requiring States to uphold international law reject gross violations thereof, and refrain from any conduct that facilitate or perpetrate such violations. Justice demands not merely declaration of commitment, but concrete adherence to international legal obligations, accountability for violations, especially the peremptory norm of prohibition of aggression. It is precisely against this backdrop And in the light of the imperative of ensuring respect for international law, that I wish to recall that my country has itself been subjected to blatant aggression, most recently on 28th February, 2026, when the United States' inclusion with the Israeli regime carried out aggression against my country, in flagrant violation of international law, including international humanitarian law. These attacks resulted in the killing and injury of thousands of Ukrainian civilians, including women and children. and the destruction of civilian infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, and other civilian facilities. The United States and the Israeli regime marked their war of aggression, including by killing innocent children. On 28 February 2026, the very first day of the aggression against my country, the United States ruthlessly attacked Shajarat Tayyibe Elementary School in the city of Minab, south of Iran, killing 168 schoolchildren and teachers. Children between the ages of almost six and 11 were butchered in this horrific attack. And the devastating attack led to the fact that the remains of Maqan Nasiri, a seven-year-old boy, were never found. Another documented instance is the attack on Lahmer Stadium on 28 February 2026, where aggressors killed children attending sports activities. sport facility was hit by missiles capable of dispersing approximately 180,000 high-velocity fragments, which indiscriminately targeted anyone within its radius. Mr. President, we condemn these heinous acts of aggression. Unfortunately, this aggression against my country was facilitated through the use of territories, airspace, and facilities of certain States in the region. Article 3 of the definition of aggression, annexed to the General Assembly Resolution 33/14, expressly identifies as an act of aggression the action of a state in allowing its territory placed at the disposal of another state to be used for perpetrating aggression against a third state. As underlined by International Law Commission in its commentary on state responsibility, the obligation not to use force is breached where a state permits its territory to be used by another state to carry out armed attack against a third state. The underlying principle is straightforward. A state cannot do through another what it is prohibited from doing itself. Accordingly, a state's facilitating such aggression cannot evade international responsibility, not only for aiding and assisting in international wrongful acts, but also in violation of the prohibition of aggression, a peremptory norm of international law. Such responsibility entails the obligation to cease the wrongful conduct, make full reparation for the injury caused, including through compensation and satisfaction, and provide appropriate assurances and guarantees of non-repetition. The gravity of such violations further engages the obligation of all States under international law to refrain from any further aiding and assisting in maintaining the unlawful situation caused by the international wrongful act, and to cooperate in bringing the aggression against my country to an end. In this context, I wish to reiterate that the measures taken by the Islamic Republic of Iran in the exercise of its inherent right of self-defense were all in accordance with international law, including international humanitarian law. Our position regarding the Security Council’s so-called resolution 2817 is clear and has been reflected in earlier documents S/2026/202 and S/2026/389. We have also underlined our position in relation to the Strait of Hormuz, and reaffirmed the obligations of a State to refrain from any form of aid or assistance to aggressors, including through the Strait of Hormuz. We also categorically reject all allegations made against my country today. During the past year, on 23 July 2025, Mr. President, the Court also issued its advisory opinion on obligation of States in respect of climate change. The court, among others, delineated obligation of state parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, as well as the Paris Agreement. The court highlighted the necessity of respect for obligation by states in accordance with common but differentiated responsibilities within their respective capabilities. In our written submission to the court, we underlined our legal positions. In details, and also particularly highlighted that unilateral coercive measures obstruct access to financial resources, technology, and technical assistance. UCMs also undermine international cooperation and impede developing countries' ability to fulfill their climate commitments. Mr. President, on a particular point, as also reflected in the jurisprudence of the Court, provisional measures under Article 41 of the Statute create binding obligations. In this regard, we highlight the provisionals measures indicated by the Court in its order of 3rd October 2018 in the case concerning alleged violation of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, including the obligation of the respondent to refrain from any action that might aggravate or extend the dispute. We emphasize that the non-implementation thereof by the respondent state in the said case and subsequent intensification of unlawful measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran have exacerbated the prejudice to Iran's rights and interests. While we take note of the recent amendment to Article 78 of the Rules of the Court concerning the submission and publication of reports on compliance with provisional measures, we underscore the importance of ensuring full and effective implementation of such measures. To conclude, Mr. President, while we have a full understanding of the Court's heavy workload, the demanding tasks entrusted with the honorable judges involve indispensable delays. At times, this is coupled with drastic changes in the circumstances that surrounded the initial dispute and the respective rights and obligation of parties. We hope that the solution can be sought based on the statute, rules, and precedent of the Court in order to expedite the proceedings and ensure sound administration of justice. Thank you so much.


GA · Vice-President [1:19:59]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Islamic Republic of Iran. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Myanmar.


Myanmar [1:20:24]:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, Myanmar aligns with the statements of NAM. Myanmar extends its profound appreciation to the ICJ for its comprehensive annual report and its steadfast dedication to the peaceful settlement of disputes. I also thank Judge Yuji Iwasawa, President of the ICJ, for the presentations of the report and his able leadership. Amidst numerous challenges involving border and territorial disputes, treaty violations, and state responsibility, the Court serves as the ultimate safeguard for the rule of law and the preservation of human dignity, including by providing advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it. For Myanmar today, the mandate of the Court holds unprecedented significance. As a State party concerned in the ongoing proceeding initiated by The Gambia under the Genocide Conventions, We eagerly anticipate the Court’s forthcoming judgment on the merits, scheduled to be delivered on 19 November 2026. The National Unity Government has consistently demonstrated its unwavering commitment to international justice. We formally accepted the Court’s jurisdiction, withdrew all preliminary objections, and stand ready to implement the Court’s orders. Mr. President, It is of great importance that the international community do not downplay the military junta's flagrant flout of international law. To date, over 16.2 million people require immediate humanitarian assistance, and over 4 million are internally displaced. According to the verifying sources, over 8,600 people were brutally killed by the military junta. Many Rohingya are still taking refuge in Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, and elsewhere. There is also a visible global impact of transnational crimes threatening international peace and security, with Myanmar being the central hub of these criminal networks. Contributing to these distressing figures and crises are the military junta’s atrocities. amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity since the illegal military coup. Mr. President, over the past five years, we have witnessed the increasing use of indiscriminate airstrikes and heavy artillery bombardments deliberately targeting civilian infrastructures, including homes, schools, hospitals, displacement camps, and places of worship. The junta has systematically burned down villages and conducted mass killings. Arbitrary arrests, severe torture in military-run detention facilities, extrajudicial killings, and sexual and gender-based violence have been their deliberate tactic to instill fear and repress people. Youths are under serious threat of forced conscription to be used as human shields and for extortion. Life-saving humanitarian aid has been intentionally obstructed by impeding the delivery of food and medicine to vulnerable populations. As we document these atrocities by the military junta, we count on concrete accountability. We strongly hope that the long-awaited verdict of the ICJ on this case will bring justice to the Rohingya and the people of Myanmar as a whole, and to pave a way for voluntary, safe and dignified returns of all refugees. However, we are acutely aware of the inherent limits of international enforcement. Such enforcement will rely heavily upon the political will of Member States. From Myanmar’s case, a verdict alone cannot stop atrocities. We need the international community’s resolve to enforce it. Here, I wish to stress that justice delayed is justice denied. Therefore, the strict implementation of the ICJ verdict will be a key to bring justice to all victims and prevent any recurrence of such international crimes. Mr. President, the consequences of failing to enforce international law are unfolding in real time across Myanmar. To support the enforcement of future ICJ and ICC rulings, independent evidence preservation is critical. We strongly commend the IIINMM for its continued valuable work. It has diligently compiled evidence from over 1,600 sources, corroborated by more than 700 witness testimony. It is undoubtedly a difficult task, both for the mandated body and the many witnesses providing testimony of their experience. At the same time, it is pertinent that the international community genuinely respects the authority of the ICJ and takes decisive, coordinated action to hold the perpetrators accountable. At the same time, in order to stop the military hunters’ continued international crimes and translate commitment to justice into meaningful actions, We urge you all to cut the junta's access to arms, weapons, jet fuel, dual-use items, and financial assistance. And we call upon the UN Security Council to refer the comprehensive situation in Myanmar to the International Criminal Court. Mr. President, this is not our first time appealing to the international community, and especially those countries providing supplies to these criminals. We have repeatedly done so because while these heinous perpetrators enjoyed blanket impunity for decades, possessing and threatened access to weapons used to kill innocent people. The people of Myanmar, including Rohingya refugees in need of essential services and life-saving assistance, are persistently deprived of them. The cycle of impunity needs to end. Justice and accountability must be ensured. I thank you, Mr. President.


GA · Vice-President [1:27:07]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Myanmar. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Vanuatu.


Vanuatu [1:27:34]:

Mr. President, I want to align with the statement delivered by Palau on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States. I want to warmly thank the President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Iwasawa Yuji, for presenting the Court's report and for his distinguished leadership. We express our deep appreciation to all members of the Court for their dedication, independence, and careful consideration of the complex questions entrusted to them and to the Registry and all Court staff whose professionalism sustains its work. We bear particular tribute to the ongoing Registrar, Mr. Philippe Courtier, for his outstanding service. His effective and efficient stewardship of the registry throughout an exceptionally demanding caseload, including the recent advisory proceedings involving extensive participation by States and international organizations, deserves our sincere gratitude. Vanuatu particularly valued the registry's assistance throughout the climate advisory proceedings, and we warmly welcome his successor, Mr. Santiago Villalpando, and look forward to working closely with him and his team. Vanuatu also joins Singapore in paying tribute to the eminent international jurists who have recently passed. We honour their lasting contributions to international law and international justice, and extend our condolences to their families and colleagues. For States with more limited geopolitical and economic power, including small island developing States, the Court and the rules-based international system it upholds are indispensable. The Court gives particular expression to the sovereign equality of States, ensuring that legal arguments are considered on their merits, irrespective of geography, population, or power. It provides an equal forum for small island developing states to present our distinctive perspectives, advance our legal priorities, and contribute to development of international law. The climate advisory opinion proceedings demonstrated the value of this role, and we deeply appreciate the Court's careful consideration of our contributions. It has been over a year since the Court's 2025 advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change. The Assembly requested that opinion by consensus, and the Court answered every part unanimously. Under this very agenda item, on 20 May 2026, the Assembly welcomed the opinion, affirmed its importance as an authoritative contribution to the clarification of existing international law, and called upon all States to comply with the obligations as identified by the Court. That is the advisory function working as it should. The Assembly asks, the Court answers. The Assembly carries the answer forward. Resolution 82/63 also provides for the process to carry forward the implementation of the advisory opinion. Vanuatu stands ready to engage in consultations with the incoming Secretary General and urge other Member States to do the same, to contribute to the outcome of the report on ways to advance compliance with all obligations in relation to the Court's finding. The opinion now informs Vanuatu's position in international climate negotiations, including at COP31, and across the many fields of international law that the Court address. We call on all states to give effect to the obligations The Court identified in their laws, their policies, and their positions in the international negotiations. The advisory opinion has shown what this means for small island developing states and other developing states on the front lines of climate change. A forum which questions of survival are answered by law. This is central to climate justice. Ensuring that those most affected by climate change can invoke international law to protect their rights and seek accountability. Access to that forum must remain real. We therefore call for continued support for the Secretary General's trust fund to assist states in the settlement of disputes through International Court of Justice, alongside efforts to strengthen developing states' capacity to participate effectively in the court's work. We look forward to welcoming the re-elected and newly elected judges and trust that they will continue to encourage and welcome the participation of small island states in the Court's work, ensuring that our distinctive perspectives and contributions are heard and valued. Vanuatu reaffirms its full support for the Court as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. We renew our thanks to President Iwa Sawa, the members of the Court and the Registry for their service to international justice. I thank you.


GA · Vice-President [1:33:13]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Vanuatu. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.


Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) [1:33:41]:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. We would like to thank the President of the International Court of Justice for presenting the report on the activities of the Court, and we have taken due note. Mr. President, Venezuela addresses this Assembly today at a moment of profound national transformation. Following a period of profound difficulties, our country has embarked on a path of dialogue, reconciliation, and renewed unity among Venezuelans. That same spirit is what now guides our foreign policy, a diplomacy that prioritizes negotiation, understanding, and the search for mutually acceptable solutions. With this conviction in mind, we reaffirm our commitment to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, in particular the peaceful settlement of disputes, the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in their internal affairs, and the obligation to refrain from the threat or the use of force. Mr. President, the International Court of Justice, as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, plays an important role in promoting the peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the Charter and the Statute of the Court. We support the General Assembly and other duly authorized organs and agencies making optimal use of the Court’s advisory function with regard to legal questions arising within the scope of their activities. In this regard, the advisory opinions and decisions of the Court, as expressly provided for in Article 59 of its Statute, do not constitute binding precedents of general application or universal laws. Nevertheless, they do provide valuable legal guidance that contributes significantly to clarity and to the progressive development of international law. At the same time, we emphasize that the advisory function remains essentially advisory in nature and should not be used as an indirect mechanism for submitting strictly bilateral disputes to the decision of the Court without the express consent of the States concerned. Preserving this procedural and substantive distinction is indispensable to safeguarding the integrity of the international judicial system and the confidence of States in that system. Mr. President, for Venezuela, the freedom of States to choose the peaceful means by which they resolve their disputes is not merely a procedural detail; it is the clearest expression of their sovereignty in this area. The Charter establishes no hierarchy at all among peaceful means, nor does it grant judicial settlement primacy over direct negotiation. Experience shows, on the contrary, that the most lasting solutions are those that arise from agreement between the parties and that the parties themselves embrace their own. The contentious jurisdiction of the Court rests on an essential pillar: the consent of States. This is established by its statute, and it has been consistently recognized by the Court's own jurisprudence. No State may be subjected to an international judicial proceeding without having clearly and unequivocally expressed its willingness to accept it. Venezuela has not made the declaration accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court provided for in Article 36, paragraph 2 of its Statute. This is a sovereign decision and a long-standing position of our country, maintained over decades. Territorial and boundary disputes touch upon the very essence of the State, and their resolution should be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties, conducted in good faith with a view to reaching a practical and satisfactory settlement for both sides. Therefore, Venezuela reiterates that it does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. for the settlement of territorial or boundary disputes with respect to which it has not given its consent. This position does not constitute a rejection of international law or of the Court as an institution; much rather, it is a defence of international law in its most fundamental form: the principle that international jurisdiction is voluntary and that the sovereign will of States cannot be presumed or substituted. Mr. President, let me be clear: not recognizing such jurisdiction does not in any way mean abandoning dialogue. Venezuela has been and will continue to be a country committed to peace. We remain fully willing to resolve any differences with our neighbors through negotiation, mutual respect, and good neighborly relations, within the framework of a Latin America and Caribbean region that our peoples have proclaimed a zone of peace. Mr. President, Venezuela renews its commitment to an international order based on the Charter of the United Nations, on multilateralism and on the peaceful settlement of disputes. We believe in an international law that respects the sovereign will of States, that favours dialogue over imposition, and that contributes to building peace rather than deepening divisions. Thank you very much, Mr. President.


GA · Vice-President [1:39:49]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Belize.


Belize [1:40:15]:

Mr. President, Belize thanks His Excellency Judge Iwasawa Yuji, President of the International Court of Justice, for his presentation of the Court's annual report. The report reflects the Court's centrality to the peace architecture of the United Nations. Eight years on, the Court has grown from strength to strength. In its first year, it received a single case. On 31 July this year, its general list stood at 24. And over the reporting period, 88 states took part in its proceedings. These numbers represent cases, not conflict. Relations between states must rest on friendship, sovereign equality, and mutual respect. Where dialogue alone cannot settle a disagreement, its peaceful resolution must rest on law. This 80-year-old institution was born knowing the alternative. Humanity is better for the Court and the United Nations that houses it. Belize reaffirms its steadfast commitment to the Court. We commend its judges and its registry for guarding the integrity, independence, and impartiality on which everything else depends. It is a trusted institution. Mr. President, Belize is a small state with modest means. We have nonetheless chosen to defend principles we consider essential to our own existence through the Court. We first appeared before the Court in 2004 in the advisory proceedings on the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory to defend the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. We have since taken part in four more advisory proceedings. In 2018, in Chagos, we argued that the right of peoples' self-determination was already customary international law by 1965, that it is owed erga omnes, and that it protects the territorial integrity of a non-self-governing territory until its people have freely expressed their wishes. The Court agreed on each point. In 2023 and 2024, the international community had to return to the question of Palestine, and so did Belize. The Court's opinion of 19 July 2024 confirmed that in a situation of foreign occupation, the right to self-determination is a peremptory norm, that the obligation to respect it is owed erga omnes, and that Israel's presence in the occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful and must end. These are not causes unique to a small state alone. They are the causes of the charter. Most recently, Belize took part in the advisory proceedings on the obligations of states in respect of climate change. We submitted that the customary duty to prevent significant transboundary harm applies to greenhouse gas emissions, that this duty demands due diligence, that the climate treaties sit alongside it and do not displace it, and that a state's failure to meet it is an internationally wrongful act with ordinary consequences in reparation. The court's opinion upheld each of these propositions. And why does this matter? Because clarity in the law is essential to sovereign equality and in the Charter. Put differently, when the court tells us what the law is, a small state can negotiate on equal footing with a much bigger state based on the same understanding of the law. Mr. President, Belize is also before the court as a party. By the special agreement of 8 December 2008, confirmed by the peoples of Guatemala and Belize, we requested the Court to decide on Guatemala's territorial, insular, and maritime claim, and to fix our boundaries. The written phase is closed. The oral hearings are now fixed for February next year. So after more than a century and a half, the end of this matter is in sight. In November 2022, Belize instituted a second case, asking the court to declare that as between Belize and Honduras, Belize is sovereign over the Soperdilla Keys. The court's judgment of 19 March of this year permits Guatemala to intervene as a non-party on the question of sovereignty over the keys. Belize did not object. The case will now be heard in March of next year. Through the court, we expect finally to settle our differences with our neighbors. to secure our borders and to realize lasting peace and friendship that our three peoples deserve. Mr. President, because of the Court's importance to the peaceful settlement of disputes, it must be accessible. The Secretary-General's Trust Fund is intended to assist States for this purpose. However, its funds are limited, and the procedures to access it are onerous. We urge for simplified access and for a substantial increase in the funds that can be accessed by individual States. We thank France for its recent contribution, and we urge every state in a position to do so to contribute substantially and regularly so that the choice to go to the Court never turns on the size of a treasury. Access also lives in the Court's rules and practice directions. We welcome recent amendments which will enable more effective participation of states and transparency about compliance with provisional measures. We also support the Court's proposed budget for 2027, including the case management system it has asked for. Access, finally, is a matter of people. The Trust Fund for the Judicial Fellowship Program has so far enabled 19 young lawyers from universities in 17 developing countries to spend a year at the Peace Palace, five of them in the cohort that begins this year. We congratulate them. We also note that for 2026 and 2027, the Court received 164 eligible applications from 108 universities, 71 of which could not fund their own nominee. Demand outstrips the fund, and no university from the Caribbean community has yet appeared on the list of sponsoring institutions. We encourage the Court to reach further into the Global South and appeal to States to help the fund grow to meet demand. In closing, Mr. President, Belize congratulates the five newly elected judges of the Court. We thank each of them for what they have already given to international law, and Belize wishes them well as they rise to the bench. We endeavor that the Court will maintain the trust of the international community well beyond these first 80 years. I thank you.


GA · Vice-President [1:46:42]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Belize. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Timor-Leste.


Timor-Leste [1:47:04]:

Mr. Vice President, Timor-Leste thanks the President, Yosua Yúci, for presenting the Court's Annual Report. As we commemorate the 80th anniversary of the International Court of Justice, we express our appreciation to its members, Registrar, and staff for their dedication to international justice. We align ourselves with the statements delivered on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Alliance of Small Island Developing States, and the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries. For small states like us, the Court embodies the fundamental promise of the international legal order: that disputes between sovereign equals can be resolved through law, irrespective of disparities in political, economic, or military power. With us, welcome Iceland's recent acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction and encourage other States to do so or to do likewise. However, the availability of judicial settlement must be accompanied by the means to pursue it. We thank France for its contribution to the Secretary-General's Trust Fund and encourage continued support from others. Mr. Vice President, the authority and credibility of the Court rest upon its independence and impartiality. Judges must be free to discharge their functions without intimidation, political interference, or personal attacks. Judicial decisions may legitimately be scrutinized and criticized, but disagreement with judicial pronouncements must never become a pretext for undermining the integrity or independence of those entrusted with administering justice, including judges ad hoc. Judicial independence is not a privilege afforded to judges, but a safeguard for states and for the international legal order itself. Timor-Leste congratulates Dapo Akande, François Alabrun, Mahmoud Dayfallah Hamoud, Renée Lee, and Phoebe Okowa on their election to the International Court of Justice. We particularly welcome the election of two women, Renée Lee and Phoebe Okowa, and reaffirm the importance of gender balance and equitable geographical representation in the Court’s composition. Mr. Vice President, the authority of the Court must also be reflected in respect for its judicial pronouncements. Respect for the Court’s judicial authority requires consistency, including when its findings challenge the positions of the States concerned. Judgments and orders indicating provisional measures are binding upon the parties concerned. and compliance with them is a fundamental obligation under international law. Timor-Leste attaches particular importance to the Court's advisory function. When the General Assembly requests an advisory opinion, it seeks not a political recommendation, but an authoritative clarification of international law from the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Although advisory opinions are generally not binding, they clarify the applicable international law and the obligations of states thereunder. The Court's recent advisory opinion, including those concerning the occupied Palestinian territory, the right to strike, and the obligations of states in respect of climate change, demonstrate the breadth and significance of this function. The responsibility of the General Assembly and Member States does not end when an opinion is delivered. The legal findings of the Court deserve serious consideration and must inform the exercise of our respective responsibilities under the Charter and international law. Mr. President, 80 years after its establishment, the Court’s effectiveness depends on the commitment of Member States to uphold its independence and judicial authority. We must ensure that the Court has the resources necessary to fulfill its mandate and that its decisions are duly respected. The responsibility for sustaining an effective and independent Court ultimately rests with all of us. Thank you, Mr. Vice President.


GA · Vice-President [1:51:25]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Timor-Leste. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Senegal.


Senegal [1:51:52]:

Mr. President, I'd like to express my warm congratulations to Santiago Villalpando on his election as Registrar of the ICJ and to thank Mr. Philippe Gauthier, the outgoing Registrar, for his service to the Court. My delegation also extends its heartfelt congratulations and best wishes for success to the five new judges elected to the ICJ during the elections held on 3 November 2026. My delegation thanks President Yuji Iwasawa for his presentation summarizing the Court’s judicial and administrative activities, and also takes note of the Secretary-General’s report on the trust fund established to assist States in settling disputes through the Court. Mr. President, Senegal welcomes the holding on 17 April 2026 of a formal meeting to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Court. Indeed, Beyond its symbolic commemorative significance, this event highlights the International Court of Justice, now more than ever, as an essential institution for the maintenance of international peace and security. The publication presented on that occasion, entitled "The International Court of Justice: 80 years in the service of peace and justice", constitutes a valuable reference document for Member States and an invaluable legacy for future generations. In this regard, my country encourages the strengthening of outreach and awareness-raising activities aimed at promoting a better understanding of the Court, particularly its organisation, jurisdiction and procedures. My delegation would like to highlight and welcome the diversity and complexity of the cases brought before the Court, as well as the broad geographical representation of the participating States. This demonstrates in many respects the universal nature of the Court's jurisdiction, its vitality, and the fundamental role that the institution is called upon to play. Moreover, This situation once again reflects the choice of States Parties to resort to the Court for the peaceful settlement of their disputes, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the United Nations Charter. Recourse to the Court, in itself, constitutes an advantageous solution, as it promotes cordial cooperation and friendly, if not peaceful, relations among States. Furthermore, Senegal commends the Court's efforts to continuously improve its procedures and working methods, including the amendment to Article 78 of its Rules, which entered into force on 2 February 2026. Mr. President, My country welcomes Iceland's submission of a declaration recognizing the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, bringing to 75 the number of States parties that have made such a declaration. However, it must be acknowledged that a very large number of United Nations Member States have not yet submitted a declaration recognizing the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. In this regard, Senegal solemnly calls on all Member States that have not yet done so to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, a necessary condition for the Court to fully exercise its powers and carry out its mission of strengthening and safeguarding international law. Mr. President, Senegal remains convinced of the preeminent role of the International Court of Justice as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations in the settlement of various disputes between States and in the promotion and development of international law. In this regard, my country encourages Member States to make substantial and regular voluntary contributions in order to facilitate the decision of the parties concerned to submit their disputes to judicial settlement before the Court. However, the effectiveness of the Court in the achievement of its objectives unquestionably depends on the willingness of Member States to recognize its jurisdiction and accept its authority. Mr. President, Senegal reiterates the great importance it attaches to the Judicial Fellows Programme, whose objective is, on the one hand, to enable young people to gain a better understanding of international law and the procedures applied by the Court, and, on the other hand, it allows universities to sponsor law graduates who will have the opportunity to pursue professional training at the Court. It is noteworthy that out of the 164 applications received for the 2026-2027 programme, only 16 candidates were selected by the Court. The growing number and diversity of applications from different regions of the world, together with the intercultural exchanges fostered by this programme, undoubtedly demonstrate the continuing interest generated by this initiative and its Trust Fund. Accordingly, given its usefulness, Senegal advocates strengthening the resources of the Trust Fund and invites Member States and financial partners to contribute to it in order to ensure broader participation by candidates, particularly those from developing countries. Mr. President, In conclusion, Senegal reiterates its steadfast commitment to international law. as well as its deep attachment to the rule of law, the supremacy of law, and the obligation to comply with decisions rendered by the International Court of Justice. My country solemnly appeals to the responsibility of Member States, the General Assembly, and the Security Council to ensure respect for and implementation of the Court's decisions. The law of force and impunity constitute a serious threat to international peace and security. Therefore, we have an individual and collective responsibility to ensure that the force of law always prevails over the law of force. I thank you for your attention.


GA · Vice-President [1:58:29]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Senegal. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Arab Emirates.


United Arab Emirates [1:58:58]:

Thank you, Mr. President. The United Arab Emirates thanks the President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Yuji Iwasawa.

For presenting the Court’s annual report and expresses its appreciation to the members.

Of the Court and its Registry for their efforts in the service of international justice. We also congratulate the five members elected to the membership of the Court on the 3rd of November. And we congratulate Mr. Santiago Vila Pando on assuming the office as Registrar, and we wish them every.

Success in discharging their duties.

My country expresses its sincere condolences on the passing of former judges with appreciation for their contributions to the Court and to international law. On the 80th anniversary of the Court's inaugural sitting, the UAE renews its support for the work of the Court as a principal judicial organ of the United Nations. And this stems from our country's commitment to the Charter of the United Nations, the respect for sovereignty of states, and the peaceful resolution of disputes. We believe in the importance of international law and enhancing stability and cooperation among states. Our consideration of the Court's report provides an opportunity to highlight how we can support its work in practical terms, as the number of cases before it grows and the legal questions it considers becomes more diverse.

In this regard, my delegation wishes to focus on three points.

First, the Court's independence and impartiality and its adherence to the United Nations Charter and the Court's Statute. considered fundamental to the confidence states place in it. In contentious cases, the consent of states remains the basis of the Court's jurisdiction. Therefore, supporting the Court requires respect for its jurisdictional rules and decisions on jurisdiction, and the protection of the rights of the parties and the procedural safeguards afforded to them. The Court's advisory function also plays an important role in clarifying legal questions before the United Nations organs and specialized agencies authorized to request advisory opinions. My country attaches importance to the careful preparation of such requests through clear and specific legal questions and the orderly provision of relevant documentation, enabling the Court to perform its functions efficiently and assisting requesting bodies in discharging their responsibilities. Respecting the unique nature of all of these functions is important to make the best use of them. Second, the United Arab Emirates emphasizes the importance of states complying with the Court's binding orders on provisional measures in cases to which they are party, in accordance with the Charter and the Court's Statute, and in a manner that strengthens trust among states and gives practical effect to judicial settlement. Here we note the important role of national legal authorities in clarifying what judgments require and in coordinating implementation among the relevant authorities, as well as in following up on and meeting the obligations arising from them. The effective engagement with international adjudication does not end with the delivery of judgment, rather it extends to giving that judgment the necessary legal and practical effect. On here, we take note of the amendment. introduced by the Court this year to Article 78 of its rules concerning public access to reports on the implementation of provisional measures, after reviewing the views of the parties and subject to applicable safeguards. Third, the Court's efficiency must be supported by developing its tools and ensuring the effective participation of states in its proceedings. The report notes that 24 contentious cases remain on the court's docket by the end of the reporting period. This workload underscores the need to continue improving case management while maintaining the quality of judicial work and giving parties enough time to present their arguments. The responsibility for this efficiency does not rest upon the Court alone. States can contribute by following procedural directions properly, by submitting clear and focused pleadings and documents that.

Are relevant to the questions under consideration, and by limiting unnecessary repetition. Clear procedural guidance and effective communication with the Registry also help States better prepare for proceedings and make effective use of time and resources without prejudice to the rights of the parties or the independence of their legal positions. We'd like to highlight the proposal in the report to develop a secure.

And integrated case management system that would allow for electronic filing, distribution, and retrieval. The United Arab Emirates recognizes the potential of technology to facilitate these proceedings while giving due attention to verifying that documents originate from the authorized entities and ensuring their integrity and preservation in a reliable manner and protecting any confidential information there. My country regards these safeguards as an essential component of judicial modernization. The development of digital tools should strengthen confidence in the proceedings and improve their efficiency. And this is in line with the United Arab Emirates' interest in developing its own legal and judicial system and making responsible use of the digital transformation and facilitating access to justice. In closing, the UAE renews its firm commitment to supporting the work of the ICJ. and upholding the rule of law in international relations through the Court's jurisdiction and complying with its binding decisions, and participating responsibly in its proceedings to strengthen its role, including in the peaceful settlement of disputes. I thank you, Mr. President.


GA · Vice-President [2:04:50]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Arab Emirates. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ukraine.


Ukraine [2:05:18]:

Mr. President, first of all, I wish to thank President of the ICJ, Iwasawa Yuji, for presenting the report and every judge and every member of the Registry for their hard and dedicated work. I would also like to congratulate the newly elected judges: Dacou Akande of the United Kingdom, François Alabrun of France, Mahmoud Khmour of Jordan, Rina Lee of Singapore, and Phoebe Okobo of Kenya, and wish them every success in their historic mission. Mr. President, 80 years ago, the Court was born from the ashes of the Second World War. Its promise was simple: when states disagree, they go to court, not to war. Eighty years on, that promise matters more than ever. Just look at the numbers. 24 contentious cases are pending today. That is a record. In just one year, the Court held hearings in five cases, delivered a judgment on intervention, and gave two advisory opinions. Two more cases are now being deliberated on the merits. Behind every one of these numbers, there is a state that chose the rule of law over the law of force. That is the best vote of confidence any court could ask for. Mr. President, Ukraine has made the same choice. When our sovereign rights are violated, we know exactly where to go. We seek recourse to the Court. Our pending cases go far beyond Ukraine. They also constitute important milestones in advancing international law. Let us take our case on the financing of terrorism and racial discrimination. In January 24, for the first time in history of the Court, Russia was found to have acted in flagrant violation of international law. Russia has blatantly violated its legal obligations under the two instruments at once, the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of racial discrimination. The Court made it clear when a state receives credible information about the financing of terrorism, it must investigate and cooperate. Russia failed to do so, and therefore, it was held responsible. The Court also found Russia responsible for acts of discrimination against Ukrainians in the temporarily occupied Crimea. Mr. President, Let me also remind another pending case regarding the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Russia invented a genocide to cynically justify its barbaric war of aggression and its military invasion. Therefore, Ukraine brought a new case before the Court to expose that lie. 32 states joined us at the preliminary stage, something that the Court had never seen before. In February 24, the Court confirmed its jurisdiction and rejected most of Russia’s objections. We have full trust that the ICJ will restore justice. Mr. President, Ukraine is also seeking justice for the victims of flight PS752, shot down over Tehran in January 2020. All 176 passengers on board were killed. Among them, Ukrainian nationals, including the entire crew. Together with Canada, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, we have brought this case to the court, hoping for justice for the victims and their families. Iran must be held responsible. Mr. President, regrettably, Russia continues to shamelessly disregard the court's order. In 2017, The Court ordered Russia to lift the ban on the Mejlis of Crimean Tatar people in the temporarily occupied Crimea. Russia ignored it, and the Court found that this was a violation in itself. In March 2022, the Court ordered Russia to stop its military operations in Ukraine. Russia continues to spit in the face of the Court, openly defying this order. and the international community is still silent. Hundreds of missiles and drones are the only answer we hear every single day. Mr. President, let me be clear: The Court’s decisions are binding and must be implemented. I therefore call upon the Security Council and the General Assembly to address the grave matter of Russia’s non-compliance with the ICJ order. I thank you.


GA · Vice-President [2:10:16]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Ukraine. We have heard the last speaker in the debate on this item. May I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to take note of the report of the International Court of Justice? It is so decided. The exercise of the right of reply has been requested. I propose that the time limits for statements in the exercise of the right of reply under this item be limited to five minutes for the first intervention and to three minutes for the second intervention. Is there an objection to this proposal? I hear none. It is so decided. Accordingly, pursuant to rule 72 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, when a representative exceeds her or his allotted time, the President shall call the speaker to order without delay, which will be done by means of automatic microphone cut-off. To assist the delegation, in managing their times. A countdown clock will be displayed on the screen. Members are also reminded that statements in the exercise of the right of reply should be made by delegations from their seats. I call on the representative of Bahrain, on behalf of the Group of Gulf Cooperation Council. to make it, to take.

The floor.


Bahrain · GCC [2:12:30]:

Thank you, Mr. President, on behalf of the member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which are Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, and my country, Bahrain. And in response to what was stated in the statement delivered by Iran, Security Council Resolution 2817, which was co-sponsored by 136 states, condemned the Iranian attacks on the region, including my country, Bahrain. The resolution demanded an immediate stop to them as a violation of international law and a grave threat to international peace and security. And I would like to quote the resolution, paragraph 5 of the resolution, which states that the Security Council demands that Iran immediately stop and with no condition, any provocation or any threat to neighboring states, including the use of proxies. And we also note the HRC's resolution 61/1, which was issued on the 25th of March 2026, which condemned the Iranian attacks. And I quote paragraph 7, which states, The HRC demands the Islamic Republic of Iran to fully comply to Security Council Resolution 2817 and to fulfill its obligations towards international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law, and to put an immediate and unconditional stop to all attacks and threats and provocations that are unjustified against the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain and Oman and Qatar and Kuwait, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Jordan. including the use of proxies, and it calls for the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure. And we stress that there is no way to flip the facts or to alter them. I thank you.


GA · Vice-President [2:14:20]:

I call on the representative of the Russian Federation.


Russian Federation [2:14:25]:

Thank you, Mr. President. I am exercising the right of reply in order to clarify a number of issues referred to by the representative of Ukraine before the General Assembly, as is habit for him, he is lying and pulling the wool over the eyes of the General Assembly. We cannot leave this unanswered. To begin with, the Russian Federation respects the ICJ, and every time there is a case against Russia, Russia goes to the court and answers the allegations. This happened in the case against Ukraine. Ukraine instituted proceedings under two conventions. First of all, the suppression of terrorist financing, that convention, and also the Convention against Racial Discrimination. Ukraine leveled countless accusations. It sent busloads of information to supposedly back up its allegations. Now, what was the result? All of the allegations against Russia were struck down. They were refuted. Specifically, ukraine asserted that in the Donbass, in the southeast of Ukraine, there is supposedly a terrorist organization, two of them, the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic. They tried to portray them as terrorists. The court refuted this. Then Ukraine tried to prove that Russia is financing terrorism in the Donbass. The court rejected this once again. At the end of the day, the court pointed out that In fact, it requested Russia, on formal grounds, to be more careful in investigating information provided to it by other states. Second, on discrimination. How many years have we been listening to Ukraine's allegations here at the General Assembly about the fact that Russia is supposedly discriminating against Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians? All of these allegations were refuted by the Court in full, comprehensively. They refuted the allegations about discriminating against Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians. The only thing the court did do is state that Russia, although it is fully upholding Ukrainians rights in full, that Russia could improve its educational system in order to broaden opportunities for the use of the Ukrainian language in education. There are opportunities already, but these opportunities could be broadened if Ukraine respects this standard, we would like to see it do the same vis-à-vis the Russian language and the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine. Ukraine is not only flouting this standard, it is flouting the convention in principle. In fact, Ukraine cannot even give an opportunity for the majority of its population, which is Russian-speaking, it cannot give them the opportunity to get an education in Russian. That's on those two specific conventions. We invite Ukraine to uphold the Court's decision. We also want for Ukraine to inform the international community about the fact that their allegations were refuted. We also call on Ukraine to never repeat these allegations. This is in accordance with the Court's decision. Moving on, allegations regarding violations of the Genocide Convention. Ukraine attempted to shoehorn into the Court's jurisdiction the special military operation being conducted by Russia. Ukraine failed. The Court rejected these allegations. The Court ruled that this has nothing to do with this Convention, that the special military operation has nothing to do with the Convention. Furthermore, the Court, as we already told the General Assembly, the Court is currently considering Russia's allegations against Ukraine. regarding the genocide Ukraine is committing in the Donbas. Ukraine is the respondent in this case. We are submitting all of the evidence, and this case will be considered this specific issue. This brings me to my last point, regarding the provisional measures. The indication of provisional measures implies that the Court has jurisdiction, at least prima facie jurisdiction. On 16 March 2024, the Court clearly stated that it's.

Preliminary assessment of the situation did not prejudge any subsequent decisions on jurisdiction.

We'd like to remind you once again.

That the Court recognized that regarding the special military operation of the Russian Federation, that it.

Does not have jurisdiction over it. Therefore, there is no rationale for the Court to indicate any measures against Russia on this issue. Hence, we invite Ukraine to stop spreading.

Disinformation in the international community and to respect the decisions of the ICJ. I thank you, Mr. President.


GA · Vice-President [2:19:28]:

On the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran.


Iran (Islamic Republic of) [2:19:35]:

Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim. Mr. President, in response to the delegation of Bahrain, Iran's position is grounded in the UN Charter and international law, and well documented and based on facts, not political narratives. designed to conceal responsibility. Repeating allegations does not turn them into facts. Those making accusations must substantiate them with credible evidence. Certain countries in the Persian Gulf region have knowingly facilitated U.S.-Israeli aggressions by placing their territory, airspace, military facilities, and other logistical and operational capabilities at the disposal of the aggressors. for the planning, perpetration, and execution of attacks that clearly amount to war crimes. Such illegal action in itself constitutes a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and fundamental principles and norms of international law. Furthermore, such actions constitute participation in and assistance to an act of aggression within the meaning of the General Assembly resolution 33/14 entitled “Definition of Aggression.” Accordingly, the State The States concerned bear international responsibility for their internationally wrongful acts, including their participation in and assistance to act of aggression, and remain under an obligation to make full reparation for all injury, including material and moral damage caused by the Islamic Republic of Iran, its national, and its civilian and public infrastructure as a consequence of those wrongful acts. In response to the delegation of Ukraine, we regret that the Ukrainian delegation decided to politicize this meeting. We categorically reject the unsubstantiated allegations by the representative of Ukraine made against my country earlier today. Mr. President, following the accident of Ukrainian international airline flight PS752, the relevant authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran publicly announced the main cause of the accident, which was an unintentional chain of errors. Since then, Iran has made every effort and taken all feasible measures to fulfill its national and international obligation in good faith, and has endeavored to act swiftly, accurately, transparently, and constructively in that regard. In this respect, we would like to draw attention to the official statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran dated 10 October 2023, regarding Ukraine International Airline flight PS752. I thank you, Mr. President.


GA · Vice-President [2:22:27]:

I call on the representative of Ukraine.


Ukraine [2:22:40]:

President, I would like to react to the statement of the Russian Federation that we just heard. I think there is no other champion in lying than Russia, and it is shameless that we have to hear those lies, not just in the Security Council, where we meet regularly, next time on Monday, November 9th, but now also in the hall of the General Assembly. discussing the report of the International Court of Justice. I think it's enough to read the judgments that were mentioned, and then you will understand who is saying the truth and who is lying. I would just like to quote the order of the International Court of Justice. that was proclaimed in March 2022. Let me quote: "The Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on February 24, 2022, in the territory of Ukraine." Full stop. Thirteen judges have supported this decision. I would also like to remind you that this war has been raging now for almost five years, with the brutality that is unprecedented in human history, unprecedented, especially against women and children, against the civilian population. The world has never seen such crimes on the European soil since 1945, since the Second World War. So what we have now, we have the facts on the table, we have a decision of the Court that we respect all the Member States of the United Nations from March 2022, and this order of the Court was not implemented by Russia until this very day. The Security Council and the General Assembly must take action to force Russia to implement that decision of the Court and stop telling lies in this hall. Thank you.


GA · Vice-President [2:25:27]:

I now call on the representative of Bahrain for a second intervention.


Bahrain · GCC [2:25:38]:

Thank you, Mr. President. On behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Kuwait, Sultanate of Oman, State of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as my own country, Bahrain, I'd like to react to what was said by the representative of Iran. And also with regard to resolution of the Security Council 2817 that was supported by 136 countries, that resolution condemned the attacks against our region, and that resolution called for an end to this aggression. Thank you.


GA · Vice-President [2:26:17]:

I now call on the representative of the Russian Federation for a second intervention.


Russian Federation [2:26:26]:

Thank you, Mr. President. It's necessary to clarify. The representative of Ukraine quoted the 2022 decision, but he doesn't want you to know that on the 2nd of February 2024, the Court recognized that it does not have jurisdiction over Ukraine's demands regarding the conduct of Russia's special military operation. The Court ruled that the actions contested by Ukraine do not fall within the scope of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Therefore, they fall outside the scope of the compulsory means for contentious proceedings. Ambassador, did you read that decision? I invite you to do so. Did you read that you are the respondent in the case regarding the genocide in the Donbass? You are the accused, and you will have to answer for the fact that you persecuted the Russian and Russian-speaking population in the Donbas, you'll have to answer before the Court. We hope to see you in court. Moving on, I think you agreed with me that you lost the case regarding the Suppression of Terrorist Financing Convention and the Convention on the Eradication of Discrimination against the Crimean Tatars. You agreed with me that all of your allegations regarding the Crimean Tatars were struck down by the Court, they were refuted. against Ukrainians. Once again, they were rejected by the court, and the only issue that was flagged, the language. I hope that Ukraine will abide by its obligations as regards this standard, the language. As for the special military operation, it is being conducted in full compliance with international humanitarian law. The Russian Federation is conducting a special military operation, and We are restricting ourselves in the means we're using, the methods we're using to conduct this operation, but this has nothing to do with what Kyiv is currently doing, the way it's bombing residential areas, beaches, women, children. It's killing them. Perhaps you're talking about yourself when you refer to violations of international humanitarian law, crimes under IHL. You have to look to your own actions, talk about your own actions, and I hope that That is what you will tell us about on 9 November in the Security Council. I thank you, Mr. President.


GA · Vice-President [2:28:56]:

I call on the representative of Ukraine for a second intervention.


Ukraine [2:29:06]:

Mr. President, I must react upon the new portion of allegations that we have just heard from the representative of Russia. Let me be clear: The order of the Court from March 2022 remains valid and must be implemented. And Ukraine will continue to insist upon the implementation of this decision, forcing Russia to stop its military invasion in Ukraine. I respect the time of the Member States gathered in this hall, and I do not think it appropriate to continue at length this discussion. The Court has made a decision. You can read this decision, and it is clear that Ukraine has never, ever admitted anything that is implied by the Russian representative. The only thing that she is referring to is the decision of the Court on the admissibility from December 5, 2025. I would like to remind the distinguished delegates that the finding of admissibility does not constitute a determination on the merits. In its decision, the Court made clear that the admissibility of the counterclaims depends on their connection to the principal claim, namely Ukraine's claim concerning the absence of genocide. This case has only been recently proceeded to merit stage, and the Court has not made any finding supporting all those Russian lies and allegations. And today, I would like to underline the Russian Federation has failed to produce any credible evidence in support of its allegations of genocide. And to conclude, Mr. President, let me underscore once again that the threats that we have just heard from the Russian representative, that the Ukrainian diplomat shall be brought to court and face criminal allegations and persecution is unacceptable in this hall. I would like to remind you that all those threats expressed in this hall cannot be admissible. It is a shame. It is spitting in the face of the General Assembly and the Member States.


GA · Vice-President [2:32:12]:

May I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 72? It is so decided. The meeting is adjourned.