اللجنة السادسة، الجلسة العامة الحادية والأربعون – الجمعية العامة، الدورة 81
الجمعية العامة
Date: 13 November 2026
Language: English
Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/ar/ga/c6/81/41?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.

---

6th Committee · Chair [29:41]:

Good morning, everyone.

I call to order the 41st meeting of the Sixth Committee for the 81st session of the General Assembly.

Distinguished delegates, in accordance with our programme of work, the Sixth Committee will this morning.

First receive the oral reports of the chairs of the working groups, namely the Working Group on Criminal Accountability of United Nations Officials and Experts on Mission, the Working Group on the Scope and Application of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, and the Working Group on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism. The Sixth Committee will also consider the 12 agenda items relating to the requests for observer status in the General Assembly, deferred to the present session from last year. The Committee will also continue with its consideration of agenda item 178, observer status for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Francophonie in the General Assembly. Finally, the Committee will revert to its consideration of agenda item 124, revitalization of the work of the General Assembly. Distinguished delegates, as announced, let us first revert to agenda item 75, criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission, and receive the report on the work of the Working Group on Criminal Accountability of United Nations Officials and Experts on Mission. I invite the chair of the working group, Mr. Marvin Ikondere of Uganda, to present his oral report on the work of the working group. You have the floor, sir.


Uganda · Chair, Working Group on Criminal Accountability of United Nations Officials and Experts on Mission [31:28]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 80/160 of 15 December 2025, the Sixth Committee decided at its first meeting on 5 October 2026 to establish a working group with the view to continuing the consideration of the report of the Group of Legal Experts A/60/980, in particular its legal aspects, taking into account the views of Member States and also noting the inputs by the Secretariat. The Committee also decided to open the working group to all States, members of the United Nations or members of specialized agencies or of the International Atomic Energy Agency. At its first meeting on 5 October 2026, the Sixth Committee also elected Mr. Mavini Kondeh as chairperson of the working group. The working group had before it the report of the Group of Legal Experts on Ensuring the Accountability of United Nations Staff and Experts on Mission with Respect to Criminal Acts Committed in Peacekeeping Operations, A/60/980, the two reports of the Secretary-General at the present session, A/81/284 and A/81/207, as well as the previous reports of the Secretary-General on the item, A/80/239, A/80/270, A/79/185, and A/79/189, A/63/260 and Addendum 1, A/63/331, A/64/183 and Addendum 1, A/65/185, A/66/174 and Addendum 1, A67-213, A68-173, A69-210, A70-208, A/71-167, A/72-121, A/72-126, and A/72-205, A/73-129, A/73-128, A/73/155, A74-142, A74-145, A75-228, A/75/217, A/76/205, A/76/208, A77-225, A77-237, A/78/248, and A/78/275. together with a web-based update of the information on national provisions, the note by the Secretariat on criminal accountability of UN officials and experts on mission A/62/329, and General Assembly resolution 80/160 of 7 December 2025. Proceedings of the working group. Pursuant to paragraph 16 of resolution 80/160, Representatives of the Disciplinary Accountability Service and the Conduct and Discipline Service, Administrative Law Division, Office of Human Resources of the Department of Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance, the Ethics Office, the Office of Internal Oversight Services, the Office of the Special Coordinator on Improving the United Nations Response to Sexual Exploitation and Abuse. The Victims' Rights Advocate and the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat were present on 15 October 2026 to provide a briefing to delegates. The briefing was followed by a question-and-answer segment. The Working Group held two meetings on 15 October and 2 November 2026. This was against the backdrop of the plenary debate at the 10th and 11th meetings of the Sixth Committee, and on 9 and 12 October 2026. The Working Group adopted its programme of work and agreed to conduct its discussions in the framework of informal consultations. The Working Group focused its consultations on whether the criminal accountability of UN officials and experts on mission should be addressed in the form of a convention and on any matters that could be included in this year's resolution to further enhance the mechanisms of accountability initially developed in resolution 62/63 and 63/119. The following section of the report constitutes a brief, informal summary for reference purposes only, not an official record of the proceedings of the exchange of views in the Working Group. During their briefing, the Secretariat representatives set out the respective roles and responsibilities of their units in addressing the item under examination and provided updates on relevant policies and procedures, as well as information on other developments. At its meetings on 15 October and 2 November, The working group had an exchange of views among delegations regarding the questions mentioned above in paragraph 6. Delegations generally agreed on the importance of ensuring that UN officials and experts on missions who committed crimes are held accountable. Delegations reiterated the need to prevent and respond to such crimes, including both economic crimes and sexual exploitation and abuse. The view was expressed that existing legal framework Some delegations requested more information from the Secretariat concerning the databases it used to screen officials and experts on mission prior to entry on duty. Several delegations considered the potential effectiveness of awareness-raising measures and broadening the scope of information reported by the Secretariat in relation to credible allegations that reveal a crime may have been committed by a UN official or expert on mission. Concern was expressed about the increased number of referrals of such allegations to Member States, reflected in the report of the Secretary-General, and the need to prioritise preventive measures was highlighted. The protection of the rights of victims of sexual exploitation and abuse was also emphasised. Madam Chair, I am most grateful to all delegations for their cooperation and assistance. In my capacity as Chair of the Working Group, I remain available to work with delegations to ensure that there is no impunity for criminal activity committed by United Nations officials and experts on mission. This concludes my oral report on the work of the Working Group on Criminal Accountability of United Nations Officials and Experts on Mission at this year’s session. I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [37:59]:

I thank Mr. Ikondere for his statement, as well as for his efforts as chair of the working group. May I take it that it is the wish of the Committee to take note of the oral report of the chair of the working group on criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission? I see no objection. It is so decided. We shall revert to this agenda item at our meeting on Friday, 20 November 2026, in order to hear the introduction of and take action on the draft resolution issued under this agenda item. Distinguished delegates, let us now revert to agenda item 85, the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, and receive the report on the work of the Working Group on the Scope and Application of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction. I invite the chair of the Working Group, Mr. Luis Arturo Palmieri Núñez of Guatemala, to present his oral report on the work of the Working Group. You have the floor, sir.


Guatemala · Chair, Working Group on the Scope and Application of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction [39:11]:

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Pursuant to resolution 80/168 of 15 December 2025, the Sixth Committee decided at its first meeting.

On October 5, 2026, to establish a working group to continue its consideration of the scope and application of universal jurisdiction, without prejudice to the consideration of this topic and related issues in other fora of the United Nations. Pursuant to the same resolution, the General Assembly decided that the working group should be open to all Member States and that relevant observers to the Assembly would be invited to participate in the work of the working group. At the same meeting, the Sixth Committee elected me to serve as chair of the working group. This working group had before it the various reports of the Secretary-General on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction dating back to 2010. In particular, The Working Group had before it the report of the Secretary-General prepared for the current session, on the basis of information and observations submitted by Member States and relevant observers on the scope and application of universal jurisdiction, and the report of the Secretary-General prepared for the seventy-ninth session, which reviewed all submissions of Member States and relevant observers as well as views expressed in the debates of the Sixth Committee since the 62nd session of the General Assembly, and identified possible convergences and divergences on the definition, scope, and application of universal jurisdiction. Additionally, the Working Group had before it the non-paper previously submitted by Chile in document A/C.6/66/WG.3/DP.1, the informal paper of the working group, A/C.6.6/66/WG.3/1, which contains a roadmap on the methodology and issues for discussion, as well as the 2016 informal working paper prepared by the Chair, which has already been discussed in previous sessions of the Working Group. Two separate informal documents prepared in 2011 by the Secretariat, which contained a compilation of multilateral and other instruments which may be relevant in relation to the work of the Working Group, as well as another on excerpts from decisions of international tribunals, were made available to delegations by e-mail via the SIF Committee distribution list through the e-delegate portal. The Working Group held two meetings, on 23 October and 5 November 2026. It conducted its work in the framework of informal consultations. Pursuant to paragraph 3 of resolution 80/168, the Working Group focused its work on the question how the principle of universal jurisdiction is distinct from other related concepts. It also held a discussion on the way forward. The plenary debate on this item, held at the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth meetings of the Sixth Committee, provided some useful information regarding positions of delegations. The present informal summary is for reference purposes only and does not constitute an official record of the proceedings. At its first meeting, that took place on October 23rd, in my capacity as Chair, I offered an overview of past proceedings, including the discussions that had led to the informal working paper, reiterating that the issues raised in the informal working paper were intended to be illustrative and were without prejudice to future proposals made by delegations or to their positions. The informal working paper did not reflect consensus among delegations and was expected to be subject to further deliberation. I reminded delegations that no modifications to the informal working paper had been introduced to the text since 2016. No further modifications were made at the current session to the informal working paper. The 2016 text remains the working text of the Working Group. In order to facilitate discussions on how the principle of universal jurisdiction is distinct from other related concepts, a set of guiding questions prior to the first and second meetings of the Working Group was circulated to delegations at my request. During the discussion, several delegations emphasized the importance of distinguishing universal jurisdiction from related concepts. in order to clarify its legal basis, its scope, and conditions of exercise. There was broad agreement among the delegations that spoke that universal jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of international criminal courts and tribunals were distinct concepts. Delegations observed that universal jurisdiction constituted a basis for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by States through their national courts. irrespective of where the crime was committed or the nationality of the perpetrator or that of the victim. In that connection, some delegations stated that international criminal courts and tribunals did not themselves exercise universal jurisdiction, as universal jurisdiction was a form of State jurisdiction. A number of delegations stated that the jurisdiction of international criminal courts and tribunals was governed by their respective constitutive instruments and applicable jurisdictional provisions. Nevertheless, a view was expressed that the question on whether international criminal courts and tribunals might exercise universal jurisdiction warranted further examination. Regarding universal jurisdiction and the obligation to extradite or prosecute, aut dedere aut judicare, there was also broad agreement among the delegations that took the floor that the two were distinct concepts. According to some delegations, universal jurisdiction concerns the competence of a State to exercise criminal jurisdiction, whereas the principle of aut dedere aut judicare concerns an obligation of a State to either prosecute an alleged offender or to extradite them. The treaty-based nature of the obligation to extradite or prosecute was emphasized in that regard. I should note that some delegations stressed that treaty provisions establishing such an obligation did not, by themselves, demonstrate general acceptance of universal jurisdiction under customary international law. Moreover, some delegations noted that the obligation to extradite or prosecute did not establish criminal jurisdiction in itself, and that the jurisdiction necessary for extradition or prosecution might be based on universal jurisdiction or other jurisdictional grounds. It was nevertheless acknowledged that the two concepts could interact on occasion. In particular, the close practical connection between the two concepts was underscored, and some delegations observed that universal jurisdiction might provide a jurisdictional basis for implementing the obligation to extradite or prosecute. A view was expressed that the customary status of the obligation to extradite or prosecute remained uncertain. There was also broad agreement in the Working Group that Extraterritorial jurisdiction was a broader concept, encompassing the exercise of jurisdiction or other forms of State authority beyond its territory. A number of delegations noted that extraterritorial jurisdiction might be based on various jurisdictional links, such as nationality or the protection of State interests, whereas universal jurisdiction did not require such links. A view was expressed that universal jurisdiction constituted an exceptional form of criminal jurisdiction, applicable to certain particularly serious crimes, and its exercise should be narrowly circumscribed. Some delegations expressed the view that extraterritorial jurisdiction was not necessarily limited to criminal matters. Delegations also shared their views about complementarity and subsidiarity and their possible relevance to the exercise of universal jurisdiction. Several delegations stated that complementarity primarily governed the relationship between certain international criminal courts and tribunals and national courts, particularly under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, while other delegations considered that universal jurisdiction might serve a subsidiary role where states with closer jurisdictional links were unwilling or unable to prosecute the crimes in question. A view was expressed that international law did not generally require universal jurisdiction to be exercised only as a secondary basis to territorial or nationality-based jurisdiction. and that no general rule established such a hierarchy among jurisdictional grounds. According to another view, the meaning and implications of subsidiarity required further clarification, and any approach should avoid creating an unwarranted hierarchy among national jurisdictions or interfere with the legal systems of other states. In addition to discussing the distinctions between universal jurisdiction and other related concepts, delegations held an exchange of views on possible sub-topics for the Working Group's next session, and also the periodicity of the meetings, how often they should take place. Several delegations supported focusing future discussions on the scope of universal jurisdiction, in particular the crimes subject to its exercise. in line with the order contained in the 2016 informal working paper. In that connection, references were made to genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture and piracy as crimes that might be subject to universal jurisdiction. The Working Group was urged against establishing an exhausted list of crimes and emphasis was placed on the illustrative nature of said list. A view was expressed that the working group should focus instead on safeguards against the misuse and politicisation of universal jurisdiction, including by examining instances of alleged abuse and possible preventive mechanisms. A concern was raised regarding the impact of politicisation and lack of good faith on international cooperation mechanisms, including on extradition and mutual legal assistance. A proposal was made to address questions relating to the immunity of State officials within the Working Group, given the relationship between those questions and universal jurisdiction. In that regard, a view was expressed that rules on the immunity of State officials should not be disregarded in the exercise of universal jurisdiction, and that certain proposed exceptions to immunity remained controversial in light of State practice and in light of customary international law. Delegations held a brief exchange of views regarding the possibility of inviting external experts to brief the Working Group on specific issues related to universal jurisdiction. Delegations, however, expressed differing views on this, with some expressing openness to such an approach, while others expressed concern about it. Some delegations mentioned the possibility of the International Law Commission, including universal jurisdiction in its current programme of work. Delegations reiterated their positions. While some supported discussion by the Commission with a view to a systematic study of State practice, jurisprudence and applicable legal rules, others did not favour encouraging the Commission to take up the topic at this stage, preferring to continue discussions within the Sixth Committee. Madam Chair, the working group also discussed the periodicity of its meetings. Differing views were expressed on this. Some delegations supported meeting every two or three years, while others demonstrated flexibility between an annual or a biennial approach. I find it encouraging, Madam Chair, the commitment and interest delegations showed in this topic during the meetings of the Working Group, and I remain committed to working closely with all delegations, including during the intersessional period. I request the Committee to take note of the present oral report. This concludes my oral report. I thank you all for your patience. Thank you very much.


6th Committee · Chair [54:01]:

I thank Mr. Palmieri Nunes for his statement, as well as for his efforts as chair of the working group. May I take it that it is the wish of the Committee to take note of the oral report of the chair of the working group on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction? I see no objection. It is so decided. We shall revert to this agenda item at our meeting on Friday, 20 November 2026, in order to hear the introduction of and take action on the draft resolution issued under this agenda item. Distinguished delegates, let us now revert to agenda item 112, measures to eliminate international terrorism. and receive the report on the work of the Working Group on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism. I invite the Chair of the Working Group, Ambassador Jayantha Chandrasiri Jayasuriya of Sri Lanka, to present his oral report on the Working Group’s work. You have the floor, Ambassador.


Sri Lanka · Chair, Working Group on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism [55:10]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 80/171 of 15 December 2025, the Sixth Committee, at its first meeting on 5 October 2026, decided to establish a working group to finalize the process on the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism and to discuss the item included in its agenda by General Assembly resolution 54/110 concerning the question of convening a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations. At the same meeting, the Sixth Committee elected me as Chair of the Working Group. Pursuant to paragraph 9 of General Assembly resolution 51/210 and consistent with past practice, the Working Group was open to all States members of the United Nations or members of the specialized agencies or of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Before the first meeting of the Working Group on 6 October 2026, in my capacity as Chair of the Working Group, I sent a communication to the Chairs of the Regional Groups for the month of October, seeking nomination of representatives to serve as Friends of the Chair, pursuant to established practice. The Working Group had before it for discussion the report of the ad hoc committee on its 16th session, A/68/37, which contains as annex one the preamble and articles 1, 2, and 4 to 27 of the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism. prepared by the Bureau, incorporating the various provisions contained in A/C.6/65/L.10, and written proposals relating to the outstanding issues surrounding the draft comprehensive convention contained in the report as Annex II. The working group also had before it relevant letters from the Permanent Representative of Egypt to the United Nations, That is, the letter from the Permanent Representative of Egypt to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General dated 1st September 2005, A/60/329, and the letter dated 30th September 2005 from the Permanent Representative of Egypt to the United Nations addressed to the Chair of the Sixth Committee, A/C.6/60/2. Attention was also drawn to last year's oral report by the Chair of the Working Group, which is available on the website of the Sixth Committee. The Working Group held two meetings on 16 October and 6 November. The Working Group adopted its programme of work and held its discussions in the framework of informal consultations. The informal consultations were chaired by me. The present informal summary is for reference purposes only and is not an official record of the proceedings. Consistent with previous practice and in accordance with Resolution 80/171, The informal consultations were devoted to discussing the outstanding issues on the draft comprehensive convention and the proposal made by Egypt concerning the question of convening a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations. The informal consultations were held against the backdrop of the plenary debate on the item. Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, held at the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth plenary meetings of the Sixth Committee, which took place on 5th, 6th, and 7th October 2026. At the first meeting of the working group, the draft comprehensive convention was discussed. I gave an overview of the work undertaken over the years in the context of the working group and the ad hoc committee established pursuant to resolution 51/210. Background was provided to delegations on the status of the negotiations regarding the outstanding issues surrounding the draft comprehensive convention. It was recalled that the work has proceeded on the general understanding that further consideration would be given to all written amendments and proposals that are on the table, together with all other written and oral proposals, in future discussions, including on outstanding issues. Particular attention was drawn to the 2013 Bureau proposal A/68/37, as well as an informal non-paper of the former Coordinator, Mr. Angel Horner, of PEURH, on a possible way to overcome differences on the outstanding issues relating to the draft comprehensive convention, and comments were invited on the latter, bearing in mind recent efforts to consider other pathways towards reaching agreement. Delegations also held a brief exchange of views on the convening of a high-level conference at the first meeting. In the discussion that ensued, several delegations expressed their support for the conclusion of the draft comprehensive convention, with some emphasizing that a comprehensive convention should be adopted as soon as possible. The view was expressed that the international counterterrorism legal architecture remained incomplete without the adoption of a comprehensive convention. In contrast, according to another view, the existing international framework was already robust and sufficient. It was suggested that the landscape had changed since the initial proposal and the draft comprehensive convention did not address contemporary features of terrorism. Several delegations called for a convention that would identify the root causes of terrorism. It was emphasized that a comprehensive convention must be universal and that it should not contain any politically motivated provisions, legal loopholes, or exceptions that could justify terrorism. A multilateral, cooperative, and non-discriminatory approach to fight terrorism, including through the draft comprehensive convention, was called for. It was also emphasized that the draft comprehensive convention must maintain international humanitarian law as the legal framework governing armed conflict. Some delegations highlighted the importance of distinguishing terrorism from the right of peoples to self-determination. while highlighting that the principle was recognized by the Charter of the United Nations. A concern was raised that counter-terrorism discourse was becoming a justification to commit atrocity crimes. Some delegations emphasized that terrorism could not be justified under any pretext, by any political or ideological considerations. The commitment to counter-terrorism in all its forms and manifestations was reaffirmed. Several delegations expressed their support for convening a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Some delegations suggested that convening a high-level conference would be premature, as there was still no agreement on the text of the draft convention. In that context, it was reiterated that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed. Madam Chair, at the second meeting of the working group held on 6th November, the working group once again convened in the format of informal consultations and turned to the question of convening a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations to formulate a joint organized response of the international community to terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. The continued relevance of this proposal and the importance of the Convention were reiterated by the sponsor delegation of Egypt. Several delegations reiterated their view that holding a conference would be premature without first achieving consensus on the text. The view was expressed that work on the Convention should remain in the Sixth Committee. Madam Chair, At the second meeting, the working group also discussed the recommendation on when it should be convened next. Here, I draw your attention to paragraph 24 of resolution 80/171. Delegations exchanged views on the periodicity of the working group. Delegations agreed that the recommendation should be discussed within the context of the negotiation of the draft resolution as a whole, since some proposals on the periodicity of the agenda item Measures to eliminate international terrorism were directly linked to the periodicity of the Working Group. As such, the Working Group did not adopt a recommendation. At the end of the second meeting, I reiterated my call for the regional groups to consult among themselves and see if there was still a wish to revive the practice of Friends of the Chair. Madam Chair, as Chair of the Working Group, I am most grateful to delegations for their continued interest, cooperation, and constructive engagement on a matter that is complex in many dimensions. I encourage delegations to continue working together inter-sessionally. I recommend that the Committee take note of the present oral report. I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [1:05:08]:

I thank Ambassador Jayantha Chandrasiri Jayasuriya of Sri Lanka for his statement as well as for his efforts as chair of the working group. May I take it that it is the wish of the Committee to take note of the oral report of the chair of the working group on measures to eliminate international terrorism? I see no objection. It is so decided. I encourage delegations to continue working together inter-sessionally. We shall revert to this agenda item at our meeting on Friday, 20 November 2026, in order to hear the introduction of and take action on the draft resolution issued under this agenda item. Distinguished delegates, we will now turn to the consideration of agenda items 166 to 177, concerning ongoing requests for the grant of observer status in the General Assembly. We will also revert to the consideration of agenda item 178, observer status for the Parliamentary Assembly of La Francophonie in the General Assembly, which was debated at the 20th meeting of the committee on 19th October. Let us first consider agenda item 174, observer status for the International Center for Integrated Mountain Development in the General Assembly. I draw your attention to document A/80/141, containing a letter dated 28 May 2025 from the Permanent Representative of Bhutan addressed to the Secretary General, requesting the inclusion of this item in the agenda of the 80th session of the General Assembly. You will recall that last year, the General Assembly decided, on the recommendation of the Sixth Committee, to defer a decision on the request for observer status for the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development in the General Assembly to the present session of the Assembly.

Distinguished delegates.

I have been informed that the delegation of Bhutan no longer wishes to pursue the request for observer status for the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development in the General Assembly, while reserving the right to present it at a future session. As such, since no further action has been requested on agenda item 174, observer status for the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development in the General Assembly, the Committee has thus concluded its consideration of the agenda item. Distinguished delegates, We will now turn to the other recurring requests for the grant of observer status, in particular under agenda items 166 to 173 and 176. As in the past sessions, the Bureau has once again received requests from the respective sponsors under each agenda item for the deferral of the consideration of the respective agenda items to the eighty-second session. Furthermore, I am informed that a communication was also received from the delegation of Djibouti requesting deferral of the consideration of agenda item 178, observer status for the Parliamentary Assembly of La Francophonie in the General Assembly to the 82nd session. Accordingly, and following the procedure first successfully implemented at the Committee's session last year, I wish to propose that the Sixth Committee proceed in an efficient manner by taking a single decision deferring all the respective agenda items to the 82nd session. As such, may I take it that it is the wish of the Sixth Committee to decide to recommend the deferral of the following agenda items to the 82nd session? And I will read out the list. Agenda item 166, observer status for the Cooperation Council of Turkic-speaking States in the General Assembly, as requested by the delegation of Azerbaijan. Agenda item 167, observer status for the Eurasian Economic Union in the General Assembly, as requested by the delegation of Kazakhstan. Agenda item 168, observer status for the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands Secretariat in the General Assembly, as requested by the delegation of Uruguay; agenda item 169, observer status for the Global Environment Facility in the General Assembly, as requested by the delegation of Uruguay; agenda item 170, observer status for the International Organization of Employers in the General Assembly, As requested by the delegation of Germany, agenda item 171, observer status for the International Trade Union Confederation in the General Assembly, as requested by the delegation of Germany. Agenda item 172, observer status for the Boao Forum for Asia in the General Assembly, as requested by the delegation of China. Agenda item 173, observer status for the International Parliamentarians Congress in the General Assembly, as requested by the delegation of Pakistan. Agenda item 176, observer status for the African Export-Import Bank in the General Assembly, as requested by the delegation of Uganda; and agenda item 178, observer status for the Parliamentary Assembly of La Francophonie in the General Assembly, as requested by the delegation of Djibouti. I see no objection. It is so decided. The Committee has thus concluded its consideration of agenda items 166 to 173, 176 and 178 at the present session. Distinguished delegates, let us now consider agenda item 175, Observer status for the Islamic Organization for Food Security in the General Assembly. I draw your attention to document A/80/142, contained in a letter dated 22 May 2025 from the Permanent Representative of Kazakhstan to the United Nations, addressed to the Secretary-General, requesting the inclusion of this item in the agenda of the eightieth session of the General Assembly. You will recall that last year, the General Assembly decided, on the recommendation of the Sixth Committee, to defer a decision on the request for observer status for the Islamic Organization for Food Security in the General Assembly to the present session of the Assembly. I draw your attention to the draft resolution contained in document A/70/12. AC/6/801/L4, which has been reissued at the request of the delegation of Kazakhstan, also on behalf of the sponsor delegations. The draft resolution may be accessed on the Sixth Committee website. I recall that the same draft resolution was introduced and debated at the 17th session of the Sixth Committee at the 80th session of the General Assembly. I will now give the floor to the representative of Kazakhstan to introduce draft resolution A/C/6/81/L.4 at the present session, after which we will hear from delegations on the list of speakers for the present agenda item. You have the floor, Kazakhstan.


Kazakhstan [1:13:37]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Distinguished delegates, colleagues, I have the honor to introduce the draft resolution A/C6/81/L4, observer status for the Islamic Organization for Food Security in the General Assembly. To date, 58 member states have joined as main co-sponsors of this document. Republic of Malawi and the Lao People's Democratic Republic have also joined as additional co-sponsors. I thank these delegations for their steadfast support. The Republic of Kazakhstan wishes to emphasize that the organization fully meets the criteria for observer status in the General Assembly as established by decision 49/426 of 9 December 1994. In particular, it is an intergovernmental organization with its objectives in full consistency with the priorities of the United Nations. The organization was established on the basis of its statute, which is an international treaty adopted in 2013 in Conakry, Guinea. Furthermore, the statute of the IOFS has been registered with the United Nations Secretariat in accordance with Article 102 of the UN Charter, further confirming its international legal status. The IOFS possesses all key features of an international organization under international law. It is composed exclusively of states, it has permanent governing bodies, international legal status, and a system of membership contributions, among others. Headquartered in Astana, Kazakhstan, the IOFS has grown to 43 member states. Its mandate is closely aligned with the purposes of the United Nations, such as promoting sustainable food security, strengthening agricultural resilience, facilitating knowledge and technology exchange, and mobilizing assistance for communities affected by food crisis. These objectives directly aimed at ending hunger. Importantly, the value of the IFS is reflected not only in its mandate, but also in its work on the ground. According to its 2025 annual report, the organization carried out approximately 70 activities, reaching around 10,000 individuals and households through humanitarian food assistance, agricultural projects, training, and technical support. Its initiatives included assistance to farming communities in Afghanistan, emergency food relief for the people of Gaza, and agricultural development and capacity building programs in African member states. The organization has also continued to strengthen its institutional capacity. At its seventh General Assembly held in May 2026 under the chairmanship of Kazakhstan, member states adopted 13 resolutions, including decisions concerning an international gene bank in Kazakhstan, a food security and innovation knowledge hub, and the establishment of the first IFS regional office in Morocco. These steps demonstrate a sustained commitment to practical cooperation and longer-term food system resilience. A quality relevant to the President's request is the IFS cooperation with the United Nations system. It has developed partnerships with UN entities and other international organizations, including the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Food Program, and the United Nations Development Program. Such engagement reflects the complementary nature of its activities and offers further opportunities for coordinated action while respecting the mandates of all organizations concerned. Madam Chair, at a time when conflict, climate pressures, and economic shocks continue to undermine access to food, stronger cooperation between the United Nations and relevant regional and intergovernmental organizations is both timely and necessary. The IFS brings together countries across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East and offers practical experience in responding to food insecurity. Observer status would provide an appropriate framework for the organization to contribute their experience to the deliberations of the General Assembly and deepen its cooperation with the United Nations. For these reasons, Kazakhstan believes that the request is well-founded both in law and in substance. We are also grateful for delegations that demonstrated a constructive approach during the consultations. Their engagement made it possible to reach consensus in the Sixth Committee on the request by the Islamic Organization for Food Security for observer status in the General Assembly. I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [1:18:35]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Kazakhstan for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Iraq on behalf of the OIC.


Iraq · OIC [1:18:52]:

Madam Chair. I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the group of member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, OIC. The OIC group welcomes the consideration of the request to grant observer status to the Islamic Organization for Food Security, IOFS, in the United Nations General Assembly. This initiative represents an important opportunity to further strengthen cooperation between the United Nations and the OIC, particularly in addressing global challenges relating to food security, sustainable agriculture, poverty eradication, and socio-economic development. Established in 2016 and headquartered in Astana, Kazakhstan, IOFS is a specialized institution of the OIC, established to promote sustainable and reliable food security across OIC member states. Through its programs and initiatives in agriculture, rural development, scientific research, technological innovation, humanitarian assistance, and food trade, IOFS has increasingly emerged as an important platform for advancing collective action towards food security and sustainable development. The mandate and objectives of IOFS are closely aligned with the principles and priorities of the United Nations, particularly the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, including SDG 2 on zero hunger, SDG 1 on no poverty, and SDG 17 on partnerships for the goals. In this regard, We recall General Assembly resolution A/RES/79/9 of 19 November 2024, which underscores the importance of strengthening cooperation and coordination between the United Nations system and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, including its subsidiary organs, specialized and affiliated institutions. Madam Chair, since its establishment, IOFS has actively contributed to strengthening institutional cooperation between the United Nations and OIC. Its participation in the biennial inter-agency coordination meetings, including the meeting hosted at the United Nations Office in Geneva from July 22-24, 2026, reflects its commitment to advancing practical cooperation and institutional partnerships. Furthermore, IOFS has developed areas of cooperation with relevant United Nations agencies and specialized institutions in agriculture, food security, water management, humanitarian assistance, science, and technology. These partnerships demonstrate the organization's potential to make a meaningful contribution to the work of the United Nations. The OIC Group firmly believes that granting IOFS observer status in the General Assembly would provide an important institutional framework for strengthening these existing partnerships. facilitating the exchange of expertise and promoting coordinated international responses to food insecurity and related development challenges. Such recognition would also enhance international efforts aimed at addressing the growing challenges for hunger, malnutrition, climate-related threats, to food systems and the financing gap affecting the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Madam Chair, at a time when multilateral cooperation and effective partnerships are more crucial to attaining the goals of sustainable development, the OIC group considers the participation of IOFS in the work of the General Assembly and Economic and Social Council as a constructive step towards strengthening cooperation between the United Nations and regional and specialized intergovernmental organizations. We are confident that IOFS, through its specialized mandate, institutional experience, and growing network of partnerships, can contribute positively to the deliberations and activities of the United Nations in areas of mutual interest. In the light of the extant OIC resolution on supporting inter-agency collaboration with the United Nations and its agencies, the OIC Group therefore expresses its strong support for granting an observer status to the Islamic Organization to the Islamic Organization for Food Security in the United Nations General Assembly. I thank you, Madam Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [1:24:52]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Iraq for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Malaysia.


Malaysia [1:25:05]:

Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving Malaysia the floor. Madam Chair, Malaysia recalls the consideration of this agenda item during the 80th session of the General Assembly and the decision to defer its consideration to this session. Malaysia reiterates its support for granting observer status to the Islamic Organization for Food Security, the IOFS, in the General Assembly. Commission notes that the IOFS is a specialized institution of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, OIC, as defined by Article 24 of the OIC Charter, and possesses international legal personality and legal capacity necessary to exercise its function and fulfill its objectives, as defined in the Statute of the IOFS. The Statute entered into force on 19 February 2018 and since then has grown to currently include 41 Member States and one observer country. Malaysia further notes that among the objectives of the establishment of the IOFS is to enhance sustainable food security across OIC Member States by fostering socio-economic development and promoting targeted programmes in agriculture, science and technology, humanitarian aid, In this regard, Malaysia recognizes the IFS active collaboration with United Nations bodies, which aligns with the principle underlying in the UN Charter, that is to maintain international peace and security. develop friendly relations among nations, international cooperation on economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. Malaysia believes that by granting the request for this observer status, IOFS will enhance the collaboration with the Member States and UN bodies, benefiting a wider population. Based on the foregoing, Malaysia considers that the IOFS satisfies the relevant criteria and the General Assembly decision 49/46 as an intergovernmental organization whose activities cover matters of interest to the General Assembly. Malaysia therefore reiterates its support for the participation of the IOFS in the session and the work of the General Assembly in the capacity as an observer. Thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [1:27:32]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Malaysia, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States of America.


United States of America [1:27:43]:

Thank you very much, Chair, for giving me the floor. Thank you to the distinguished delegation of Kazakhstan for their work under this agenda item. Good morning, colleagues. As we’ve noted on multiple occasions, including during the Sixth Committee’s consideration of a new request for observer status several weeks ago, the United States believes that it is time for the United Nations to get back to basics, to renew its founding mission to maintain international peace and security, and to rebuild trust across the world that the UN can be a responsible steward of the precious resources that Member States entrust to it. In that context, we believe getting back to basics includes taking a more disciplined approach to considering organizations' requests for observer status in the General Assembly. Before turning to the specific requests at issue under this agenda item, we'd like to make some comments about the process through which observer requests are considered by this committee, because we believe the two issues are connected. Colleagues, we see an urgent need for improved efficiency and rationality in this process. At one point during this session, over 40% of the items on the six committees' agenda this year were requests for observer status. That's 13 out of 32 agenda items. Nine of these 13 requests were placed on the Committee's agenda long ago and have been deferred year after year without any indication that the likelihood of their approval has increased. Accordingly, the United States proposed, in the context of Sixth Committee revitalization, that observer requests that have been deferred for three consecutive years due to a lack of consensus support would not continue to be automatically deferred to the following year without prejudice to any member state's prerogative to resubmit a new request for the same organization at a future time. In this way, together, we could significantly reduce the number of items on the Sixth Committee's agenda and focus our collective efforts on matters that are more likely to advance. The United States also proposed that requests for observer status be considered not annually, but every other year, as was already proposed by another Member State at the 80th session. We have been gratified to hear from our discussions with other delegations during the present session that there appears to be a growing recognition that this is an area where further efficiency gains are possible and that the specific reforms we have proposed could be achievable. We will continue to pursue these reforms in the appropriate fora, And we welcome other Member States' support in that regard. Madam Chair, turning to the specific request up for consideration under this item, we note that General Assembly decision 49/426 limits the types of organizations that can be granted observer status in the General Assembly to, quote, "intergovernmental organizations whose activities cover matters of interest to the Assembly," end quote. In that regard, the United States is prepared to join other Member States to support the request relating to the Islamic Organization for Food Security. It is our view that this organization, as a specialized agency of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, is an intergovernmental organization. We also share the view that its focus on food security and humanitarian assistance operation in states of emergency is of paramount interest to the Assembly. We take this step today in the spirit of flexibility and with the expectation that this body will be prepared to institute the specific reforms we have described in the context of the revitalization of the Sixth Committee. Thank you, Chair, thank you, colleagues, and we look forward to working with you.


6th Committee · Chair [1:32:07]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the United States, who was the last speaker on this item.

We have thus concluded our debate on agenda item 175, observer status for the Islamic Organization for Food Security in the General Assembly. Distinguished delegates, I understand that there has been no opposition expressed to the proposal of the sponsor delegations that draft resolution A/C/6/81/L.4 be adopted. The Sixth Committee will accordingly now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C/6/81/L.4, entitled “Observer status for the Islamic Organization for Food Security in the General Assembly.” Is there any delegation wishing to explain its position before action on the draft resolution? I see none. May I take it that it is the wish of the Sixth Committee to adopt draft resolution A/C/6/81/L.4 without a vote? I see no objection. It is so decided. Draft resolution A/C6/801/L4 has been adopted. Is there any delegation wishing to explain its position after the adoption of the draft resolution? I see none. We have thus concluded our consideration of agenda item 175, Observer status for the Islamic Organization for Food Security in the General Assembly. Distinguished delegates, let us consider now agenda item 177, observer status for the Climate Vulnerable Forum in the General Assembly. I draw your attention to document A/80/193, containing a letter dated 5 June 2025 from the Permanent Representative of Barbados to the United Nations, addressed to the Secretary-General, requesting the inclusion of this item in the agenda of the 80th session of the General Assembly. You will recall that last year, the General Assembly decided on the recommendation of the Sixth Committee to defer a decision on the request for observer status for the Climate Vulnerable Forum in the General Assembly to the present session of the Assembly. I draw your attention to the draft resolution contained in document A/C/6/801/L.3, which has been reissued at the request of the delegation of Barbados, also on behalf of Nepal. The draft resolution may be accessed on the Sixth Committee website. I recall that the same draft resolution was introduced and debated at the seventeenth meeting of the Sixth Committee at the eightieth session of the General Assembly. I will now give the floor to the Permanent Representative of Barbados to introduce draft resolution A/C6/81/L.3 at the present session, after which we will hear from delegations on the list of speakers for the present agenda item. You have the floor, Ambassador.


Barbados · CVF V20 · Permanent Representative [1:35:43]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. As this is my first intervention in this Committee during this session, allow me to congratulate you on having assumed the chairmanship of the Sixth Committee. It gives Barbados special pleasure to see you, Madam Chair, a distinguished daughter of the Caribbean, carry out these important responsibilities. Madam Chair, it is my honour to introduce draft resolution A/C. 6/81 L3 entitled Observer Status for the Climate Vulnerable Forum in the General Assembly. I thank the several countries that have co-sponsored this resolution: Nepal, Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Ghana, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Saint Lucia, and my own country, Barbados. Vanuatu and my own country, Barbados. As Chair of the CVF V20, Barbados humbly submits this resolution again for the consideration of Member States in the name of the 77 member countries of the CVF V20, the populations of which number 1.8 billion people. In our view, the importance of this request is underlined by the fact that, even as we speak, our delegations gather at COP31 in Türkiye, even as we speak, our countries are all increasingly facing the consequences of the climate crisis, whether through a super El Niño or other extreme weather phenomena striking countries north and south, big and small. Chair, the CVF was established in November 2009 via the Malé Declaration, the outcome document of a meeting of heads of state and government of CVF member countries. Since 2009, the CVF has convened several high-level meetings in Member States, such as Kiribati and Bangladesh, and since 2022 has met at the level of leaders in the margins of every high-level week of the United Nations General Assembly, including two months ago in New York. The CVF is currently composed of countries from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Latin America, the Middle East, and the Pacific. Barbados had the honour to assume the presidency in 2024, Bangladesh and Ghana had held the presidencies from 2020 to 2022 and 2022 to 2024, respectively. In 2023, the heads of state and government of the CVF decided that the forum should become an intergovernmental organization, adopting the organization's charter through a leaders' declaration. A secretariat was established and headquartered in Accra, Ghana. Four main bodies form the framework of the CVF V20. the Leaders’ Forum, the Forum of Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Ministers of Environment, the Vulnerable 20 Group of Finance Ministers, and the Global Parliamentary Group. Chair, these constituent bodies allow CVF countries to coordinate and pursue South-South cooperation on shared solutions. Madam Chair, it is our view that the Climate Vulnerable Forum meets the requirements to be granted observer status in the General Assembly. which, in its resolution 46/426 of 19 December 1994, stated that observer status would be confined to States and intergovernmental organizations whose activities cover matters of interest to the Assembly. The CVF's establishment as an intergovernmental organization falls under the rubric of "other instrument governed by international law", a rubric under which a number of other organizations have already been granted observer status. In closing, Madam Chair, I invite the Committee to adopt draft resolution A/C.6/81/L.3, entitled “Observer status for the Climate Vulnerable Forum”, without a vote. I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [1:39:43]:

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Barbados for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Nepal.


Nepal [1:39:56]:

Madam Chair, since I am taking this floor for the first time, allow me to congratulate you and other members of the Bureau on your election, and assure you of Nepal's full support. Nepal welcomes the consideration of this agenda item. As a founding member of the Climate Vulnerable Forum, Nepal strongly supports granting observer status to the Forum and call upon all member states to support this important initiative. Madam Chair, for the old most vulnerable countries like Nepal, the climate crisis is not merely an environmental challenges. It is a question of survival, resilience, prosperity, and justice. Established through the Malé Declaration in 2009, The CVF has emerged as an important platform for the collective advocacy, South-South cooperation, and coordinated action among countries disproportionately affected by climate change. Today, it brings together 77 climate-vulnerable countries, representing approximately 1.74 billion people across diverse geographical region. Despite contributing the least to global greenhouse gas emissions, these countries are bearing the gravest consequences of a crisis they did little to create. Their vulnerability must not become a reason for marginalization; rather, it must strengthen their claim to meaningful representation in global decision-making. The CBF has consistently advanced climate justice, adaptation, resilience, and sustainable development, including through its Climate Prosperity Plan, which seeks to transform climate vulnerability into opportunity for resilient, low-carbon, and inclusive economic growth. Its objectives closely complement the purposes and work of the United Nations, particularly the 2030 Agenda, the Paris Agreement, and internationally agreed commitments. commitments on sustainable development. Madam Chair, for Nepal, the urgency of this initiative is painfully real. Although Nepal contributes less than 0.1% of global greenhouse gas emissions, we remain on the front line of the climate crisis. Our glaciers are retreating, mountain slopes are destabilizing, and extreme weather events are becoming increasingly destructive and unpredictable. On 26 August this year, Nepal suffered an unprecedented climate catastrophe that claimed over 400 lives, left over 5,000 still missing, and devastated entire mountain communities. Homes, schools, hospitals, bridges, highways, hydropower plants, and critical infrastructure were swept away within a minute. The disaster inflicted enormous human suffering and economic losses, with recovery and reconstruction needs estimated at nearly 5 billion US dollars. This tragedy reminds us how climate vulnerability can rapidly become a development, humanitarian, and human security crisis, with consequences extending far beyond national borders. Madam Chair, let me share a few points why granting observer status to the CBF is both timely and consequential. First, it would strengthen inclusive multilateralism by providing an institutional channel for the collective perspective of climate-vulnerable countries to be heard in the General Assembly. Second, it would enrich the Assembly’s deliberations with practical experiences locally grounded solutions and policy innovation from countries confronting the climate crisis firsthand. Third, it would enhance coherence and complementarity between climate action and sustainable development, particularly in adaptation, disaster risk reduction, climate finance, loss and damage, and resilient development. Fourth, it would facilitate stronger international partnership for climate prosperity, enabling vulnerable countries to move beyond managing disaster toward building resilient economies and safeguarding future generations. Finally, it would reinforce the principle that effective multilateralism must be informed not only by the voices of the most powerful, but equally by the experiences and aspirations of the most vulnerable. We believe that the CBR’s intergovernmental character, objectives, and contribution provide a sound basis for its consideration under the established framework of General Assembly decision 49/426. Observer status would complement existing United Nations mechanisms without duplicating their mandates or altering the intergovernmental character of the General Assembly. Madam Chair, at a time when climate disasters are intensifying and international development financing is increasingly constrained, we cannot afford to leave the most vulnerable countries at the margin of global decision-making. Those of the frontline of the climate crisis must also have a meaningful voice at the forefront of global solutions. Granting observer status to the CBF would be a practical affirmation of inclusive multilateralism, climate solidarity, and our shared responsibility to protect people and planet. Nepal therefore call upon all member states to support this initiative and stand ready to engage constructively toward the adoption of the resolution by consensus. I thank you, madam Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [1:45:33]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Nepal for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States of America.


United States of America [1:45:43]:

Thank you, Chair. We also thank His Excellency, the distinguished Permanent Representative of the Mission of Barbados for his presentation, and to the distinguished delegations of Barbados, Nepal, and others for their work under this agenda item. As previously noted, General Assembly decision 49/426 limits the types of organizations that can be granted observer status in the General Assembly to, quote, "intergovernmental organizations whose activities cover matters of interest to the Assembly," end quote. Unfortunately, the United States is unable at this time to support the request to grant observer status to the Climate Vulnerable Forum, or CVF. We have outstanding questions regarding whether the CVF is an intergovernmental organization under international law, as required by Decision 49/426. We note that the sponsorship letter submitted in support of the CVF's request states that the forum has, quote, "juridical personality," end quote, in light of a headquarters agreement between the forum itself and the government of the Republic of Ghana. However, we see no claim made that the CVF has international legal personality, a core attribute of intergovernmental organizations. Further, We note that the sponsorship letter states that, quote, "Additional legal details of the mandate, constitution, composition, responsibilities, and funding, et cetera, of the Secretariat will be as set out in the charter, hosting agreement, and any separate funding agreement taking into account thorough discussions and considerations of options by the membership," end quote. We have seen no documentation, however, that such legal details have, in fact, been established. Moreover, in light of the US view that the United Nations must take a back-to-basics approach to its work, we remain unconvinced that the substantive focus and work of the CVF relate sufficiently to matters of interest to the Assembly. Of course, we appreciate the strong interest of many Member States in this matter, and we remain open to further engagement intercessionally. I thank you, Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [1:48:19]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the United States of America, the last speaker on this item.

We have thus concluded our debate on agenda item 177, observer status for the Climate Vulnerable Forum in the General Assembly. Distinguished delegates, I understand from the debate that there still seems to be opposition to the Sixth Committee proceeding to adopt the draft resolution at this juncture. In light of such opposition, could I request the delegation of Barbados to indicate how it proposes the Committee proceed? You have the floor, Ambassador.


Barbados · Permanent Representative [1:49:00]:

Thank you, Madam Chair, and let me thank colleagues for having spoken after me. Your interest is noted and very much appreciated. Madam Chair, Barbados would wish to defer this matter until the next session. Thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [1:49:14]:

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Barbados.

Distinguished delegates, the representative of Barbados has requested that the Committee decide to defer the consideration of agenda item 177, observer status for the Climate Vulnerable Forum in the General Assembly, to the 82nd session. May I take it that it is the wish of the Sixth Committee to do so? I see no objection. It is so decided. The Committee has thus concluded its consideration of agenda item 177 at the present session. Distinguished delegates, we will now continue our consideration of agenda item 124, revitalization of the work of the General Assembly. I recall that the Sixth Committee held a debate on the agenda item at its first meeting on 5th October 2026. At that same meeting, I announced that the Bureau had appointed Mr. Abdul Aziz Al-Sulaiti of Qatar as the Bureau's focal point for revitalization. I would now like to invite Mr. Al-Sulaiti to inform the Committee of the outcome of his consultations on this agenda item. You have the floor, sir.


Qatar · Sixth Committee Bureau · Focal point for revitalization [1:50:39]:

Thank you, madam Chair, distinguished colleagues. Allow me at outset to thank you, madam Chair, and members of the Bureau for assigning me and appointing me to be the focal point for revitalization during the current session. I thank all delegations for their positive inputs and contributions during the plenaries, as well as the informal consultations and the different proposals submitted by you. I'm pleased, on behalf of the Bureau, to present the draft decision regarding the revitalization of the General Assembly, which was not possible to send last night as a result of the interruptions to the Outlook problems and was posted alternatively to the website of the Committee. The decision is procedural, and it talks about continuation of discussion of the work methods of the Sixth Committee during two informal consultations during the next session that will be held during the next year, 2027. The consultations will be built on the views expressed and the proposals made by Member States in the Sixth Committee at the 81st session. The draft decision decides further that the Committee shall consider the periodicity with which each draft resolution before it will continue to be considered, where applicable, with due regard for the merits in each case. We look forward to your support for this draft decision that will allow us to enhance our work methods and revitalize the works of this Committee and fulfill the aspirations and the proposals of the Member States. I hope that it will be approved. Thank you, madam Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [1:52:30]:

I thank the representative of Qatar, our focal point on this issue.

Colleagues, at this juncture, I open the floor for any comments on the proposals of the focal point. I recognize the representative of El Salvador. You have the floor.


El Salvador · Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Guatemala, Italy, Lebanon, Mexico, Portugal, and El Salvador [1:52:50]:

Thank you, madam Chair. I take the floor very briefly to inform the committee that the delegations of Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Guatemala, Italy, Lebanon, Mexico, Portugal, and my own country, El Salvador, have jointly submitted a written contribution. It sets out proposals on the following issues: the relationship with the International Law Commission, the procedure for reviewing the evolution of the agenda of the Sixth Committee, multilingualism, accessibility, and time limits. We invite all delegations to consider our contribution, and we look forward to further exchanges on these matters.


El Salvador [1:53:30]:

Madam Chair, I am now speaking in our national capacity. El Salvador wishes to express its sincere thanks for the valuable work by Mr. Abdulaziz Al-Sulaiti, who is the focal point designated by the Bureau of this Sixth Committee. We wish to express our firm support to the draft decision. to facilitate future dialogue on this issue, and I'm also grateful to the valuable contributions made by the delegations of this Committee. And we hope that we'll be able to reach a beneficial.

Understanding that will enable us to strengthen our working methods.

Thank you very much.


6th Committee · Chair [1:54:09]:

I thank the distinguished representative of El Salvador for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.


Russian Federation [1:54:20]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. We also wish to begin by expressing our appreciation to the distinguished rapporteur, Mr. Abdulaziz Al-Sulaiti. Indeed, this is important work, and it's very difficult work. Doing this work was made easier by the fact that we were working on the basis informal methods and decisions, ones that weren't being formalized. For instance, let's look at the working paper which was updated. If you tried to formalize that, if you were to do this, clearly we won't be able to garner consensus on it, because someone is going to support some approaches and categorically oppose others, and someone else will have the opposite view. And non-paper allows us to discuss everything as a whole without losing sight of the full picture. We would like to continue working in this particular vein. That is why my delegation does not support the adoption of a formalized formal decision. However, this doesn't mean that we oppose discussion and further work on these matters. And these issues do genuinely deserve discussion, and we're very grateful to the group of delegations, which just sketched out their vision of the issues which we could work on. Moreover, given that speaking time remains on our agenda, that matter. We'd also like to make sure that we're going to get another issue inscribed on the agenda as well, an issue which, in our view, is directly linked to the issue of speaking time. We remember full well the argument according to which during International Law Week, when there are so many events scheduled, some legal practitioners might not have time to intervene. It's a good argument. Nevertheless, cutting States' speaking time, specifically, is, in our view, a suboptimal way of resolving this problem. So I wanted to draw your attention to the fact that we spent quite a lot of time for the meeting of legal practitioners, legal advisors meeting. So two days after lunch are spent on this. The way we see it, that's a lot of time. Whereas the level of interactivity of the discussions leaves much to be desired, if I'm perfectly frank. Therefore, if we have gotten to a point when we're going to seriously discuss cutting states' speaking time, perhaps we should begin with the informal events. They're a serious candidate for optimization, these events. Because the only argument against doing this, the only one we've heard, is that we have established practice. But I'd like to remind you that the absence of limits on delegation speaking time, in light of the very singular mandate of our Committee, is also established practice. It's not just established practice. It's the way in which we've been working over all of these years. Therefore, I'd like to revert back to the starting point of my intervention. Let's try to work in such a way so as to not lose sight of the full picture. Because indeed, in terms of committee dynamics, there are some issues which are not to our liking. For instance, the fact that ILC products, different products, are not treated the same. And it would be in the interest of the Committee, in fact, to look at products, the products which have been on the agenda for decades. Unfortunately, here again, we see that this is not happening. That's another candidate for optimization. Perhaps some small steps, a step-by-step gradual approach, but we have to do something on this. Therefore, despite the fact that we will not be lending our support to the formal decision, we are interested in and support the discussion itself. a comprehensive discussion across all of the issues related to how we can make our work more efficient. As for specific issues, for instance, the discussion of the biennialization or triennialization of specific issues, which is part of the proposed decision, from our vantage point, this could be done by the Bureau. the Bureau could instruct the coordinators, the informal consultations coordinators on specific resolutions, to conduct the requisite consultations in a timely manner, to do this not on the substance of the items under consideration, but solely on the issue of whether these matters could be biennialized, triennialized, or perhaps these items, well, we could close our discussions on these items altogether. So this is what happened on the sidelines of some of the issues we're working on now. This could be done in advance in a more orderly fashion, once again, without any formal decisions. So I hope that our proposals will be considered as for the decision. We don't have one yet. Let's think about it. Let's wait and see. I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [2:01:42]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the European Union.


EU · EU and its member states, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Monaco, and San Marino [2:01:52]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm taking the floor on behalf of the European Union and its member states, as well as of North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Monaco, and San Marino. We would like to thank you, the Bureau, and the focal point for taking this agenda item forward, and all delegations for their engagement, including the ongoing informal exchanges. In the interest of brevity, we will not reiterate our position in detail. That is set in our statement at the beginning of this session, as well as in our statements and the written submission made in 2025. We share that contribution again this year to help focus our exchanges alongside the working methods paper, which already reflects many of the ideas put forward during our discussion this year and last year. Madam Chair, our message remains the same. Revitalization is a continuous collective effort. It is not a judgment on how the Sixth Committee works. It is about finding together, in the spirit of consensus, ways to make our work more efficient and effective, as resolution 79/327 asks of all main committees, and as indicated also in the draft decision. This session is an important moment for that effort. During this session, the General Committee is to present concrete proposals on how to seek synergies and avoid duplication in the work of the main committees, on the basis of proposals from each of them. In his address to this Committee on 15 October, the President of the General Assembly also announced that he will invite each main committee to identify up to three achievable improvements suited to its work. We believe the Sixth Committee should be in a position to contribute concretely to both exercises. We therefore encourage the Committee to continue this discussion and to agree on a concrete and actionable outcome. Changes currently being discussed in relation to specific agenda items are without prejudice to this broader reflection, and they can also serve as useful trials to be reviewed in light of experience, as the General Assembly itself has done with several measures under resolution 79/327. European Union and its Member States will continue to engage constructively with you, the Bureau and the focal point, and all delegations to that end, including as regards to the draft decision which was submitted today. Thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [2:04:24]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the European Union, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran.


Iran (Islamic Republic of) [2:04:33]:

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to also express my gratitude to the esteemed rapporteur of the Committee for his report. This agenda item, revitalization, is important for my country. We have submitted our views under this agenda item on the first day of the Committee, and also we have recently submitted our preliminary written comments on this topic to the Secretariat, and we kindly ask that this be circulated for the kind consideration of the Committee. Obviously, I'm not going to repeat what we have mentioned already, but the main message we wish to convey now is that, in our view, it's important to preserve the traditions and practices of the Sixth Committee, and the revitalization process should be seen as a conduit to strengthen these traditions and customs and practices. And I believe this has been the reason for the successful work of the Sixth Committee throughout the years. As for the working methods paper, as we also mentioned last year and also this year in our view, this is a food for thought paper for consideration of the Committee, not as a basis, and this is the general understanding of my delegation, and it seems that this understanding has also been reflected by the esteemed rapporteur under this agenda item in the Committee. As for the draft decision, we reserve our position on that, on points of substance and procedure, including on the question of whether the Bureau has the competence to provide a draft decision or not. We reserve our position on these matters and the substance. Of course, we are very open to have a comprehensive and meaningful conversation and consultation within the Sixth Committee on this topic, but we believe maybe time is not ripe to formalize the process. We should first try to seek points of convergence and common ground, and then move forward. And in our view, the G8 resolution on revitalization requires committees to come up with proposals for their working methods, not necessarily the Bureau. Of course, we appreciate all the kind efforts of the Bureau in facilitating this process, but at the end of the day, any decision on the revitalization needs to be made by consensus within the committee. And that said, we reserve our position to submit further comments and observations either in the Committee or through written submissions. Thank you so much.


6th Committee · Chair [2:07:27]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Iran for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom.


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [2:07:36]:

Thank you very much, Chair. I'd like to make just three short points. Firstly, to express our sincere thanks to the rapporteur and focal point for revitalization for building on the discussions that we started last year. We think it's been an extremely positive development to have such detailed discussions on revitalization, and we thank all of the member states who have made proposals and expressed their views in this regard. Secondly, I want to express support for the draft decision. We note that it's actually very limited in scope, perhaps because of the difficulty of reaching consensus on some of these issues and the range of views that will exist. But it does indicate the Committee's commitment to this topic, to the topic of revitalization. And so we look forward to discussing the draft decision, if necessary, including its terms, and look forward to continuing to discuss the way that we seek to revitalize our Committee's work in the future. Finally, we look forward to considering the kind of paper mentioned by El Salvador on behalf of a group of States and the other proposals and views that have been mentioned here today. Thank you very much.


6th Committee · Chair [2:08:43]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Lebanon.


Lebanon [2:08:53]:

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and a very good morning, everyone. First of all, I would like to thank the focal point. our colleague from Qatar, Mr. Abdulaziz Al-Sulaiti, for his efforts during this session to organize some great discussions over the last three weeks, which I think were particularly productive for the draft decision submitted. by the Bureau, which we take note of, and thank you also to our colleague from El Salvador for referring to the proposal submitted on behalf of a group of States that includes Lebanon. I'll be very brief. And a bit lighter last year, speaking on behalf of a group of States, we recalled how privileged and honoured we were, Madam Chair, to be the only one of the six committees of the General Assembly working on the second floor with the light outside, just behind the curtain. So I just wonder if we could invite you on the last meeting, November 20th, to open the curtains. It's great to have the light here. And, well, we didn't have the light during our meetings this week. If we invite the light in next week to support the end of our work and inspire.

Us a little bit for.

The sessions to come in the future, I think this is the type of proposal that could be met with consensus. At least I hope so in any case. Thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [2:10:30]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Lebanon, and we took note of your request on the curtains, maybe an invitation.

To see the light. We will give consideration. Next on the list is the distinguished representative of Mexico, to be followed by the United States.


Mexico [2:10:52]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr. Abdul Aziz. Thank you. We'd also like to express the fact that we can support the draft decision. Now, joining the proposal made by a group of states headed up by El Salvador and as part of the revitalization process, Mexico submitted a proposal to consider the role of consensus as a working method of the Sixth Committee. While consensus constitutes a valuable practice that promotes broad agreement and cooperation for the adoption of relevant decisions, its application must also contribute to the efficiency and efficacy of the work of this Committee. It's important to recall that consensus is not an established requirement in the United Nations Charter. Consensus has been developed as a practice in order to facilitate agreements between states and not as a legal requirement for the adoption of decisions. It's for this reason that its value must be understood in light of the proposals, the purposes of the Charter, to promote cooperation and facilitate the work of the Committee, and not to provide individual delegations with a right, an informal right of veto over collective decisions that are in the interests of the international community as a whole. We are hoping that delegations will be open to having an open and constructive discussion on this. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [2:12:44]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Mexico, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States of America.


United States of America [2:12:52]:

Thank you very much. I just wanted to take the floor briefly to join others in thanking the focal point for your work, and also to thank all delegations for incorporating the revitalization lens into many of our negotiations this year. We felt that there were some real tangible steps forward and that we should capitalize on that momentum as a committee. Wanted to express our support for the committee taking a concrete decision in the revitalization space. We see that as an appropriate way for us to fulfill the tasking that the General Assembly has given the committee to make recommendations for efficiencies and to take concrete steps forward. We would like to see the decision include some other elements. We think there are other uncontroversial, common sense ideas that have already come out of our discussions that we think could garner consensus. So we would welcome the opportunity for there to be further contribution to the decision and discussion of it. And we hope that we can use next week in a productive way, when I think we may still have access and the ability to have discussions in this room and delegates have preserved their time for thinking about the sixth committee, but want to express our support for there being a decision and ask other states to keep an open mind and be assured that their approval would be required for the content of that decision. We appreciate all of the work that's been done thus far and look forward to continuing to engage in the revitalization space through the end of the committee and intercessionally. Thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [2:14:34]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the United States, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cuba.


Cuba [2:14:45]:

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. First of all, I'd like to thank the distinguished rapporteur and the focal point for revitalization for all of your efforts made. For us, this is an important issue above all because we cannot decouple it from what the resolution itself mandates. We believe that it's necessary to engage, regardless of the groups of states that spoke extensively on the mandate of the resolution. This is a resolution whose most important thing at the time was its adoption by consensus. We cannot understand resolution of this Assembly if it's not subject to consensus, which has applied to revitalisation mutatis mutandis at this committee. Now in terms of the efficacy and efficiency of the working methods, we'd have to take a look at whether it's really necessary to talk about efficiency and effectiveness when we have had a productive session without any delays thus far. It has been efficient and effective. We need to look at this under a real interpretation in line with the most recent resolution on revitalization that in no area of this resolution mandates or obliges any committee to stick to time limits, it suggests time limits, it doesn't mandate them, though. Nor does it mandate any committee or the General Assembly to talk about biennialization, triennialization, or quadriennialization of any resolution. We believe that in order to facilitate the work of the Sixth Committee, it is good for us to first have a debate and then make decisions, but decisions need to be made based on consensus, and that’s what characterizes the adoption of the resolution and the work of this committee. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [2:16:52]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Cuba for his statement.

I have no further speakers requesting the floor on this item. We have taken careful note of the comments made in reaction to the proposals of the focal point, and the Sixth Committee will revert to those at its final meeting to be held next Friday morning. In the interim, the focal point will continue to engage with all delegations on the draft decision. I would want to point out that the draft decision is deliberately very brief and very simple in the hope of garnering your support. I don't think there is any intention of moving away from the consensus tradition of this Committee, but we think it offers good food for discussion, which we hope can happen in the coming days before we take final decision next Friday. We do have a mandate to advance revitalization, and this is our very simple effort towards that end, and we hope that all delegations would engage constructively towards finding an agreement on something tangible that we can take forward from this session. Distinguished delegates, as you are aware, the General Assembly also allocated this agenda item to all the main committees in order to take action on their respective tentative programmes of work for the following session. I draw your attention to a draft provisional programme of work for the Sixth Committee during its 82nd session, prepared by the Bureau in tabular format, In lieu of yesterday’s e-mail outage, the proposal was posted on the Committee’s website yesterday. The proposal contains a draft programme following the established pattern of the meetings of the Sixth Committee, with items which traditionally entail lengthy debates or which usually require lengthy negotiations in informal consultations being scheduled early in the session. Indeed, the programme was drawn up with the experience of this year’s Length of debates in mind, you will notice that there are some adjustments in the times allocated to reflect the time we took this time, realistically. As per the usual practice, the proposed programme is provisional in nature and intended to help delegations and the Secretariat to better plan, prepare for and organise the next session. The programme would be applied flexibly, taking into account the rhythm of the debate in the Committee. and any needs that may arise. The Bureau has also sought, with the assistance of the Secretariat, to fix the dates on which the reports of the various international courts and tribunals will be presented in the General Assembly. No meetings of the Sixth Committee would be scheduled for those dates and times in order to allow delegations the opportunity to attend those other meetings in the General Assembly Hall. I wish to thank the various Presidencies for their flexibility and understanding. Please note that the programme reflects the expected meetings in light of the draft resolutions presently under consideration, and will be adjusted to the extent necessary once the work on the preparation of the draft resolutions draws to a close. I will now open the floor for any comments on the proposed programme of work. Such comments will be taken into account in preparation of the final version of the proposed programme, if necessary, which will be presented to the Sixth Committee for action at our final meeting next Friday, 20 November 2026. Are there any delegations wishing to take the floor on the question of the proposed programme for next year's session? I see the distinguished representative of Iran. You have the floor, sir.


Iran (Islamic Republic of) [2:20:48]:

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. We have no objection to the programme of work, and we thank the Secretariat for providing the provisional programme of work for next year. But our Ambassador made a point in the statement under the host country. agenda item that this item, I mean, report on committee and relations with host country, should not be the last agenda item, given its importance and the impediments that several delegations are facing, including my delegation, for which no visa was issued for any of our delegation for any of the committees within the UN. We expect that due consideration be given so that the agenda item on Host Country Committee would not be the last item. We understand that there is a process for the report to be prepared and the chair of the committee, I mean, the HCC committee, be able to provide that report. We understand that fully, but we just wanted to raise this point for kind consideration of the matter. Thank you so much.


6th Committee · Chair [2:21:53]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Iran for his statement. Are there any other delegations wishing to take the floor on the issue of the proposed programme? I see the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.


Russian Federation [2:22:11]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. We're also grateful for the provisional programme of work. Now, I won't repeat what I already said, because, in principle, I've covered most of it. The candidate for optimization, which I mentioned. If I understand correctly, we're going to continue considering this issue because the way we see it, it's logical to turn it into a side event and to hold this at a time which has not been allotted for plenary interventions by legal advisers from capitals. That speaks to this very idea of freeing up time to ensure that everyone can speak. In our view, that's a rather logical approach. I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [2:23:05]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation for his statement.

He was the last speaker on my list. The Bureau will finalize the proposal for a draft decision on the programme of work for next year's session of the Sixth Committee, which will be presented for action at our final meeting next Friday, at which time we will continue and conclude the consideration of agenda item 124. Distinguished delegates, we have reached the end of the programme scheduled for today's meeting. As already announced, the next and last plenary meeting during the main part of the Sixth Committee this year will be held next Friday, 20 November, at 10:00 AM. The Committee will, at that meeting, revert to all remaining agenda items allocated to it this year, proceeding item by item and hearing respective introductions of draft resolutions. and other proposals for action, where appropriate, and then proceed to take action. The Sixth Committee will also revert to agenda item 124, revitalization of the work of the General Assembly, and turn to agenda item 5, election of the officers of the main committees. I wish to remind delegations that those draft resolutions still undergoing negotiations need to be finalized by the close of business today in order to be processed in time for the adoption at our final meeting.

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.