Upholding International Law in Situations of Armed Conflict - Arria-Formula Meeting of the Security Council

So, dear colleagues, distinguished ambassadors, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. I have the honor to welcome you all to this area formula meeting of the Security Council on upholding international law in situations of armed conflict. At a time when armed conflicts continue to exact an unacceptable toll on civilians, our discussion today is both timely and necessary. International law is not an abstract commitment. In situations of armed conflict, respect for international law can mean the difference between protection and peril, and between humanitarian access and deprivation, and between life and death. The central challenge before us is often not the absence of law, but the persistent gap between obligation and implementation. Today's meeting therefore provides an opportunity to examine how the international community, the Security Council in particular, can strengthen respect for international law, protect civilians and civilian objects, safeguard humanitarian and medical personnel, facilitate humanitarian access, and promote accountability for violations. It is equally important to consider how respect for international law can contribute to preventing the recurrence of conflict and creating conditions conducive to its peaceful resolution. So we will first hear from our four distinguished briefers, and following their presentations, I'll open the floor to members of the Security Council and then to other participating delegates. So turning to our briefers, it is now my pleasure to introduce our first briefer, Mr. Aurelien Bouffler, head of the Humanitarian Policy and Planning Section at the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. OCHA is at the center of all this discussion, and I would like to give you the floor.

President, Excellency, thank you very much for convening this important discussion and for inviting OCHA to contribute. I'll focus my remark really on what we see on the ground as humanitarians, on what we think is behind the trends we see on the ground, and then maybe I'll give a bit of ideas for reflection on what can be done to address these trends. Mr. President, from Lebanon to the DRC, to the occupied Palestinian territories, Sudan, Ukraine, and other major humanitarian crises, we see that civilians are the ones paying the price of armed conflict. Of the 239 million people in need of humanitarian assistance today, most are victims of armed conflict. And the levels of arms and suffering we see on the ground are simply staggering. Civilian casualties, grave violations against children, forced displacement, conflict-driven hunger, attacks on humanitarian personnel and conflict-related sexual violence have all reached record levels in recent years. Ten years after the adoption of resolution 2286 by the Council, attacks on healthcare continue at unacceptable levels. In 2025 alone, the United Nations recorded more than 1,300 conflict-related incidents affecting healthcare. And the source is WHO on this. Attacks on healthcare not only claim lives directly, they weaken entire health systems and deprive communities of essential care when they need it most during conflict. We also see parties to conflict routinely impeding humanitarian access through administrative restrictions and interference with humanitarian operations, depriving millions in crisis of the assistance they need. And of course, we've had several discussions in this building over the past years. Humanitarian workers continue to be killed, injured, detained, and threatened. while carrying out life-saving work, sometimes for carrying that work. More than 1,000 of my colleagues have been killed in recent years, most of them national staff. Mr. President, this is largely the result of choices. I think we need to be very clear about that. It's a choice by parties to conflict to reinterpret, circumvent, or disregard laws developed to protect civilians and facilitate humanitarian access. particularly international humanitarian law. It's a choice to respond to persistent violation of international humanitarian law with only limited legal, diplomatic, and political consequences. It's a choice to tolerate impunity and thereby taking the risk of normalizing unacceptable levels of suffering and recurrent violation of international law. It's a choice by some to withdraw from disarmament treaties and to weaken protections afforded to refugees and the refugee law, putting at risk the right and safety of millions and undermining decades of progress to better protect civilians in armed conflict. It's a choice to use explosive weapons in populated areas, despite the foreseeable and devastating impact on civilians. It's also the choice increasingly by parties to conflict to employ new technologies in ways that increases risks to civilians. And here, let me just explain what I'm talking about. The growing use of armed drones across conflict is now expanding the reach of violence, exposing civilians to harm far beyond the traditional front lines and leaving them with no safe refuge. Artificial intelligence and other digital technologies are also increasing the speed, scale, and reach of military operations, while also increasing risk to civilians and humanitarian personnel. These technologies could instead be harnessed to protect civilians, improve situational awareness, and reduce harm to civilians. Mr. President, as the risk of conflict increases, the protection afforded by international humanitarian law becomes even more essential. A world without rules is a world that endangers us all. So we see four areas that require urgent attention for the membership. First, protecting civilians requires that international humanitarian law be interpreted and applied in good faith and defended consistently. regardless of the conflict, the parties involved, or the reasons for war. There can be no selective applications and no double standards in its defense. And of course, the Security Council has a particularly important role to play in that regard. Second, violation of international law must have consequences. A culture of impunity breeds further violation. The Security Council has tools at its disposal to promote accountability, including fact-finding mission, or the possibility to refer some cases to the international courts. It should use them. Third, states have a responsibility to ensure respect for international humanitarian law, and we encourage them to use their political, diplomatic, economic, and military relationships to promote compliance and prevent violations, including through engagement with allies, partners, and proxies, and through responsible arm transfers. Four, states must ensure that emerging technologies are developed, deployed, and regulated in accordance with international law and harnessed to protect civilians. The Secretary General and the President of the ICRC have been clear about the dangers posed by autonomous weapons systems in particular. They have called on states to urgently adopt a legally binding instrument establishing clear prohibition and restriction. And I would like to repeat this call before you today. There are, of course, also practical examples on which we can build. Some states have taken practical steps to better protect medical missions, to avoid the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, or to strengthen civilians harm mitigation measures, and we can build on this. Security Council Resolution 2730 on the protection of aid workers and the Declaration for the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel also provide strong basis for action. The priority now is implementation. Let me finish, Mr. President, by again saying that for the most part we are not short of legal frameworks. Likewise, the tools and good practices are well known, I believe. So it's really a matter of choice. We can choose to protect civilians of a political expediency. We can choose to preserve international law as a meaningful safeguard for civilians, or we can choose to allow it to become a hollow promise.

That's a choice we need to make in this building.

Thank you so much, Mr. Bouffler, for your important briefing and valuable insights. I would now give the floor to Ms. Elise Moschini, Permanent Observer and Head of Delegation of the ICRC to the UN. You have the floor.

Thank you, Ambassador. I would like to thank the Permanent Mission of Pakistan for organizing today's Aria Formula meeting, for providing this space to affirm the centrality of international law to international peace and security, and to identify practical measures to strengthen respect for the law in armed conflict. Excellencies, esteemed colleagues, the reality is stark and the trajectory is perilous. Civilians are dying in the tens of thousands. Children are losing limbs, family members and education. Patients are attacked in hospital beds where they should be recovering. Millions of people are on the move, leaving behind their homes, livelihoods, and communities. People are held in inadequate places of detention, subjected to ill treatment, with no news of their fate reaching their loved ones. Ecosystems and common cultural heritage are irreparably destroyed. These are just some of the unconscionable consequences of the way wars are being fought today across the globe. More can and must be done to turn the tide. The drafters of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, their additional protocols, and other treaties that make up international humanitarian law had the wisdom to codify rules to ensure that when wars are fought, they do not cause unnecessary damage and suffering. These men and women understood that total war is unacceptable. These rules must be upheld. Excellencies, the rules of war translate into concrete actions on the battlefield with life or death consequences. A military decision maker must consider whether measures are in place to ensure that a target is a lawful military objective. Is the expected incidental harm to civilians proportionate to the anticipated military advantage? How will a strike affect a nearby water pumping station and the availability of clean water for the civilian population? or, for example, a nearby hospital. They must ask, have all feasible precautions been taken to avoid or at least minimize incidental harm? IHL rules carefully balance what is necessary to achieve legitimate military purpose with the imperative to limit death, suffering, injury, and destruction. Today, this careful balance is under strain. As parties to armed conflicts interpret IHL rules with increasing elasticity, they set dangerous precedents with tragic consequences. This careful balance is also being tested by new technologies, as referred to by my colleague from OCHA. The increasing use of drones, autonomous weapons systems, cyber operations, artificial intelligence to achieve military aims raises humanitarian, legal, and ethical issues. When integrating new technologies in the military domain, parties must apply IHL consistently and in good faith, in line with its humanitarian objective and purpose. For some specific technologies, such as autonomous weapons systems, the position of the ICRC is that the adoption of a new legally binding instrument is required to clarify how existing rules apply in practice. Respect for the law starts with political will at all levels. It requires buy-in across military ranks, political leadership, and the international community. The ICRC calls on state leaders to ensure their armed forces are equipped and trained to work through these questions in a charged and dynamic battlefield environment, to set the tone with an expectation of respect for the law, evenly, in all circumstances, and without conditions of reciprocity. and to use the tools at their disposal to influence the behavior of others for better respect for the law. The Security Council, with its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, has a key role to play in this respect. The Security Council has demonstrated its capacity to insist on the robust framework of IHL through an extensive series of resolutions on relevant topics, from the protection of critical infrastructure, education, and the medical mission, to the issue of missing persons. All of these resolutions have been adopted unanimously, further reinforcing both the universal nature of these rules and the shared foundation of humanity they are based upon. The ICRC calls on the Security Council, through its adoption of resolutions on IHL topics, continue reaffirming and reinforcing interpretations of IHL that are consistent with its protective purpose, and to insist on their consistent implementation. Excellencies, the Global Initiative to Galvanize Political Commitment to International Humanitarian Law was launched by Brazil, China, France, Jordan, Kazakhstan, and South Africa together with the ICC as an exceptional response to the suffering witnessed in armed conflicts today. It aims to ensure the impartial, consistent, and universal application of existing IHL obligations. To date, 118 states have joined the initiative. Over the past two years, more than 160 states from all regions have participated in consultations across seven work streams, led by 27 states, including Pakistan, among others present here today. The collected guidance aims at increasing respect for IHL and addressing the challenges posed by contemporary warfare, with one consistent theme, to preserve the protective purpose of IHL. We encourage all states to join this endeavor and all states who have joined to attend the High-Level Conference on Humanity and War to be held in Jordan in December. In conclusion, Your Excellencies, as the ICRC President said in May of this year when she addressed the Security Council, "We can no longer pretend that what we are witnessing across war zones is in accordance with the law. Rigorous good faith compliance with international humanitarian law does not end all suffering in armed conflict. but it dramatically decreases the pain that war causes wherever it occurs. We must work collectively to uphold humanitarian war. Thank you.

Thank you, Lise, for bringing the ICRC's legal and operational perspective to our discussion. Our next briefer is Dr. Jenna Russo, Director of Research and Head of the Brian Urquhart Centre for Peace Operations at the IPI. You have the floor.

Good afternoon, excellencies and colleagues, and thank you so much to the Permanent Mission of Pakistan for the kind invitation to join this important discussion. For the last 10 years, my work as an academic and as a member of the think tank community has been devoted above all to the protection of civilians. And in particular, I'm interested in how actors understand their protection obligations within international legal and normative frameworks. And I've also studied how violence against civilians affects the prospects for peace. I think we've all become a bit desensitized, unfortunately, to the staggering statistics on civilian harm. So I thought I would use my time today to discuss three things. First, some observations on civilian protection from a normative perspective. Second, what an increase in violence against civilians means for those contexts in question. And three, a few recommendations on what can be done. And before I start my remarks, I want to make one overarching point, and I apologize if this doesn't have a clear translation to the translators, but I do not have a political dog in this fight. So while I may reference a handful of ongoing conflict situations, my only objective here is to ensure that all civilians are afforded the right to protection in equal measure under international law. So a few normative reflections. When we consider the legal and normative frameworks that shape protection obligations, we often turn to the Geneva Conventions. However, wars have always had rules, and various iterations of human protection and just war theories have existed across time and cultures. The massive suffering of World War II, of course, created a tipping point. that spurred the advancement of IHL, codified in the Geneva Conventions and its optional protocols. So really, the birth and growth of the entire UN system has happened in parallel with human protection. Since the UN's founding, we've seen a significant growth in what's known as the international human protection regime, including IHL, human rights and refugee laws, the prohibition against torture and ill treatment, and other normative frameworks like the Responsibility to Protect and the Women, Peace and Security agenda. We've also seen the Council prioritize the protection of civilians in mission settings and the Council's willingness to consider humanitarian crises as threats to international peace and security, beginning with the movement of the Kurds out of Iraq in 1991. Shortly thereafter, the peacekeeping failures of the 1990s led, of course, to the first explicit POC mandate for the UN mission in Sierra Leone. And these frameworks have facilitated more than just rhetoric. In the post-World War II period, we witnessed a reduction of violence against civilians, which had become less frequent and generally less violent. In my book, I look at levels of violence against civilians in the post-Cold War period through 2018, and I find that high levels of violence against civilians in armed conflict was in fact the exception and not the rule. Sadly, this trend has reversed in the last 10 years, with both state and non-state actors using violence against civilians at higher rates than at any time in recent decades. According to ACLED conflict data, 2024 and 2025 saw nearly twice as many violent events as 2021, with numbers driven by conflicts in Gaza, Myanmar, Sudan, Ukraine, among others. And while non-state groups were responsible for approximately 59% of civilian fatalities in armed conflict in 2025, state violence has comprised a growing share of violence against civilians, increasing threefold since 2020. Now, from a normative perspective, it's not unusual for violations to occur, even within very strongly institutionalized norms. However, many of us are asking at what point norm violations begin to signify a significant weakening or fracturing of the civilian protection framework, and on this question, a couple of things stand out to me. First, most member states continue to uphold the values of IHL, at least rhetorically. Many, if not most countries, have spoken out against the intentional targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure in places like Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, and elsewhere. So it's not the case that all actors have simply abandoned international legal principles. However, while norm violations are not uncommon in any norm regime, not all violations are created equal when it comes to their effect on those normative frameworks. And in particular, when large or powerful actors become flagrant norm violators, including actors that were previously those norms entrepreneurs, that can be particularly damaging. Relatedly, and what was already referred to, part of what keeps a normative framework strong is the size of the cost that the violator faces for deviating from that framework. And while some countries have spoken out against norm violations, the Council has struggled to find ways, and other member states as well, to raise the cost sufficiently to change the decision-making calculus of the violators. And this not only fails to incentivize a norm violator from changing their behavior, it can also encourage further violation by others who watch and learn that the penalties may not be as high as they once feared. Now, the good news is that norm strength can be rebuilt. I don't think we are on the precipice of civilian protection norms being completely destroyed, but it will take a concerted and consistent commitment to ensure that we reverse that current trend, and I'll speak on a couple of recommendations in a moment. The second point I want to raise are the implications of civilian harm within conflict contexts. While it's obvious that targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure presents immediate harm to populations, the consequences can be long-lasting, leading to cycles of violence and revenge and undermining the prospects for future peace and development. Data show that high levels of violence against civilians can harden identity-based cleavages, for example, ethnic groups, and can increase the resolve of belligerents to continue fighting. Human misery levels measured through death and displacement are negatively correlated with peace-building success, and conflict-related hunger and trauma can diminish labor productivity, further dampening GDP of affected countries. And by the way, I'm happy to share my data on any of these sources. Data also show that individuals who exhibit symptoms consistent with PTSD may be less able or willing to engage in nonviolent forms of conflict resolution. And according to the World Health Organization, more than 22% of individuals living in conflict-affected countries show some level of depression, anxiety, PTSD, or bipolar disorder. The effects of this are often intergenerational, with one recent Yale study showing that even the grandchildren of war-affected individuals had altered epigenetic markings, even if they themselves had no direct exposure to war. While the sanctity of human life should be enough to promote human protection, I bring up this data to illustrate that even if the only goal is to promote the political settlement of disputes and to foster development, you cannot do this without also considering civilian protection. Finally, a few recommendations. First, the Council should continue prioritizing the protection of civilians in the design of mission mandates. I was happy to see that the Secretary-General's review on peace operations emphasizes the importance of protection, though I would argue that it fell short in categorizing this as only relevant for peacekeeping operations. Of course, not every mission will have an explicit POC mandate or a large troop presence, but weighing the protection risks and considering how the UN's presence contributes to civilian safety should be part of all discussions on the Council's agenda. Unfortunately, the recent contingency measures have significantly weakened missions abilities to implement their POC mandates. And it's worth reminding the Council that it made a decision in 2009 that POC should be prioritized among mandated tasks, including in the allocation of resources. Yet the Secretary General has reported that POC is the hardest hit area from the budget cuts. Therefore, I urge the Council to be steadfast in its attention to protection and to the General Assembly to ensure that protection efforts are properly resourced. In the context of the cuts, missions are working to increase their partnerships with local protection networks and civil society organizations that can supplement local monitoring and reporting. And this is a good practice because it can boost local ownership and sustainability. However, we need to further consider how to ensure consistency and quality of the data that is collected and to ensure that local protection actors are not being put in harm's way. Second, and as was mentioned, the Council should continue its focus on technology, both as an enabler and a risk to protection. Since 2020, drone attacks in conflict settings have increased by 4,000%. with many non-state groups also using drones, given the ease with which technology is now available. OMA is currently updating its policy and guidance to counter UAS and ensure missions are equipped, though this is, of course, a political question as much as it is a technical one. Member states can also continue adopting political declarations and national legislation that restrict weapons usage, including autonomous weapons systems. And while these frameworks are not fail proof, data do show that frameworks can act as a restraint on behavior, and they also create an important basis from which to evaluate behavior. Third, the Council can better support other functions that contribute to protection, including the work of sanctions panels, the special representatives of the Secretary General on children in armed conflict and on sexual violence. Last year, more children were affected by grave violations than any year recorded since the establishment of the CAC agenda 30 years ago. Yet the work of these offices is weighed down by member states' efforts to politicize their work, with some actors expressing more outrage over who is accused than the fact that children are being abused to begin with. In quick succession, here are the following recommendations. Council members can ensure that SGBV is included as a standalone criterion within sanctions regimes. They can provide dedicated expertise on protection on panels of experts. They can increase coherence between the listings of the Secretary General and his annual reports and entities and individuals designated on sanctions regimes. Political missions, including envoys offices, could have dedicated protection expertise And member states can invest in casualty tracking and reporting. Also ensuring that peace building and reconstruction efforts address mental health, social cohesion, and transitional justice. There are many things that can be done, yet the biggest impediment, as has been said, is political and the unwillingness of council members to hold perpetrators accountable in an unbiased manner. And this brings me to my final point. And if I haven't already been, I'm going to be quite straightforward, if you don't mind. Everyone in this room has political agency. You are not merely conduits of what your capitals decide, and it is time for every member state and all of us as individuals to decide where the bottom line is. Some of the acts of violence we have seen recently are so depraved and so inhumane that they are debasing our entire civilization. I sat in a briefing with a member of the Independent Commission of Inquiry recently. who described how Palestinian children are being used in games of target practice, where every day the soldiers attempt to hit different body parts. Other children have been forced to take their clothes off in public to humiliate them while they are sexually abused. In Sudan, some women have been raped so repeatedly that they have died from the violence of it. And UNICEF recorded children under the age of five being raped, with some victims as young as one year old. And yet, we can't seem to get a briefing on Sudan organized in the General Assembly because we are told the politics are too complicated. Perhaps none of us in this room have the power to single-handedly end the wars in Gaza, Ukraine, or Sudan, but diplomacy is also about finding ways to work in the margins of political roadblocks. We must be creative and take risks. In the absence of a comprehensive ceasefire in Sudan, find ways to facilitate the reconstruction of communications infrastructure so that people can find their loved ones and evacuate safely. Look for ways for children to be able to attend school, even in the midst of conflict. Empower the work of the Secretary-General's special representatives to ensure that even when countries wage war with one another, innocent people can find safety and security. And finally, speak persistently with your own governments to push for the equal application of international law across all conflicts. If we cannot do this, then why are we here? Is it simply to help the big and powerful get their way, or is it to protect individuals from the scourge of war? I thank you.

I thank Dr. Russo for a forceful presentation and valuable reflections and recommendations. Our final briefer is Dr. Gulam Nabi Fyie, Chairman, World Forum for Peace and Justice. And he will bring to our discussion the perspective of communities affected by protracted and unresolved conflicts.

You have the floor.

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, let me thank Ambassador Asim Iftikhar, sir, for inviting me to say a few words about this very challenging topic, upholding the international law in the situations of armed conflict. I think the subject before us is ultimately a test of the credibility of international legal order. As we know that United Nations Charter, it clearly states that international conflicts must be resolved through peaceful means. Article 33 of UN Charter It says that international conflicts must be resolved through negotiations, mediation, arbitration, or through other peaceful means. The purpose of the United Nations should not only be to adopt a resolution. The purpose should be to create the condition so that the resolution is implemented and the conflicts are resolved. International law cannot be universal in its language and selective in its application. If international law protects civilians in one conflict, then it must protect civilians in all the conflicts. If international law protects freedom of speech in one country, then it must protect freedom of speech in all the countries of all the continents. Forgive me to cite an example of Kashmir. Why the denial of self-determination brought both India and Pakistan to the brink of nuclear catastrophe? I do not need to remind you what happened in April of last year after Pulwama massacre. The credit goes to President Donald Trump and his extraordinary leadership who persuaded both India and Pakistan that they must have the ceasefire and that took place. Article 49 of Fourth Geneva Convention, it does not allow the occupying power to allocate the land it occupies it is inhabitants. Yet that is exactly what is happening in Kashmir. More than 250,000 acres of land, including my own, it has been forcibly taken by the government. There are reports, there are millions of domicile certificates issued to the non-Kashmiris. There are reports there are more than 3,000 mass graves in Kashmir. There are reports that there are more than 10,000 people who have disappeared in Kashmir. The High Commissioner on Human Rights, in her report in 2019, she addressed the concerns of arbitrary detention, the restriction of freedom of expression, detention of political leaders, detention of press and the human rights defenders. These are the findings of United Nations treaty body. We should not dismiss it simply because they are politically inconvenient. Let me also tell you, we should not take it gospel because I am telling you. Then what should we do? Can you believe it? The solution was proposed by the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights. The High Commissioner, who is also the United Nations Secretary General nominee, Ms. Michelle Bachelet, in her report in 2019, she suggested that there be a fact-finding mission sent to both Kashmir under India and under Pakistan. But I would suggest, not the fact-finding mission, Let there be a peace mission sent by the Security Council to Kashmir, and let them decide whether it is true that millions of domicile certificates have been issued to non-Kashmiris. Let them decide whether it is true that more than 3,000 mass graves have been discovered, by the way, not by Kashmiris. They have been discovered by the Indian civil society. and let them decide whether it is true that more than 10,000 people have disappeared. Can you believe it? Who reported it? It is in the report of United States State Department Country Report 2023. They quoted the civil society of India saying that more than 10,000 people have disappeared in Kashmir. In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the great weakness of international system is not the absence of legal principles. The greatest weakness of international system is the absence of its implementation. Thank you very much.

You. I thank Dr. Fye for his contribution and sharing his perspective. And I also thank all four of our distinguished briefers for setting the stage for our discussion. Colleagues, we will now proceed to interventions by Security Council members. Although I have my own name in the first place, but I would like to give the floor to my fellow Council colleagues, and I will speak at the end. So I would like to give the floor to the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom.

Thank you, Excellency, and thank you to Pakistan for convening this meeting and to the briefers for your briefings. You have briefed us on issues that should be in our focus every day. Four things about how the United Kingdom thinks on these issues. First, international humanitarian law imposes clear rules for those engaging in armed conflict. Every member of our United Nations has agreed to the central importance of international humanitarian law and accepted the limits that these laws impose. the IHL and applicable international human rights law are the essential baseline for conduct in conflict, with the protection of civilians at their heart. It is in all our national interests for compliance to be universal, and that needs all of us to do our part. As our last Attorney General said, a world without rules is a world that will pretty soon descend into chaos. These are obligations, but we choose compliance. Second, the legal and normative framework is in place, but ensuring compliance needs sustained global political commitment and practical action to turn law and policy commitments into operational practice. To sustain political commitment, we support and work with the ICRC Global Initiative. We support national international humanitarian law committees. which we see as playing an important role in helping States to ensure that they remain compliant with their obligations. We have a national IHL committee in the UK. We support other States to establish their own national committees, and we are pleased to co-lead the global initiative work on this. We also undertake practical work to turn political commitment and law into operational practice. Our United Kingdom Conflict, Hunger and International Humanitarian Law Handbook is an example. It translates legal obligations into practical guidance to help prevent and respond to conflict-induced hunger. Third, as the means and methods of warfare are evolving, but IHL covers all forms of armed conflict. As technology advances, whether the vector of conflict is a bomb or a drone, a bullet or a laser, it is covered. IHL, and the principles of proportionality and the limits that they impose are the same. As more actors engage in armed conflict, we need to be clear that IHL applies both to states and to non-state armed groups. To help extend compliance beyond states, the UK supports research by the Beyond Compliance consortium to identify what strategies have the most potential to generate compliance with IHL by by non-state armed actors. And IHL protects humanitarian and medical personnel as well as forces and civilians and facilitates humanitarian access. Yet too many humanitarian workers are killed in conflict. We know the numbers and they are unacceptable. So we are working with partners to address this, with Australia and other signatories of the Declaration on the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel and on the global roadmap to help humanitarian organizations mitigate the risks to their operations from the increasing use of drones. Fourth, as we discuss these issues here at the UN, in our courts, in our parliaments, and in our offices, we must always remember the aim at the heart of IHL, to limit the suffering and destruction caused by armed conflict. We've heard terrible numbers and of despicable acts. Protection of civilians means real people's real lives in the hardest situations at the hardest time. They need to stay in our focus and their protection needs to be our aim, not because it's the law, though it is, not because it's an obligation, though it is, but because it's the right thing to do. Thank you.

Thank you, Ambassador. Let me now give the floor to the Ambassador of France.

Thank you, Mr. President, Ambassador of Pakistan, and thank you for organizing this meeting that proves a sad reality. The world is facing a general deterioration of respect for IHL. Every day, and increasingly so, in armed conflicts throughout the world, civilians are experiencing unjustified suffering. If we merely respected IHL, we could avoid this. In Ukraine, the population is living under bombings and will spend another winter in the if the Russian aggressor continues with its merciless campaign against energy infrastructures in Sudan, Yemen and Gaza, humanitarian workers are targeted and humanitarian aid is blocked. The destruction of basic infrastructure and the destruction of cultural heritage affects societies and the atrocities committed in war are often also obstacles for peacebuilding and reconciliation. And in the face of this terrible observation, the Security Council and the international community have the obligation to act, doing something when IHL is gravely violated, regardless of who does it is important. These attacks could even be war crimes, and when they are, the perpetrators must face justice. The fight against impunity is a central tool to put an end to these violations. France recalls the important role of the ICC in this sense. Moreover, it is our responsibility to act so that Security Council resolutions are fully implemented and to ensure that international law, including IHL, are respected, protecting Civilian infrastructures and the population is important. We must ensure humanitarian access. It must not be refused for arbitrary reasons when the needs of a population are not met. Attacks against humanitarian workers need to stop. Hunger cannot be used as a weapon of war against civilians. President, given the scope of the violations and the suffering in different places, states have the duty to strengthen their commitment. France calls for the ratification of the 1994 Convention on the Safety of UN Personnel and Associated Personnel, as well as optional protocol. It calls upon Security Council members to set the example. All states should ratify the 1954 Convention on the Protection of Cultural Sites during Conflict and its additional protocols. When it comes to diplomacy, states should use their influence to prevent and stop violations committed by other parties in conflict. States must also work to ensure full respect for IHL, and this includes emerging challenges of current and contemporary armed conflicts. And with this goal, the representative of the ICRC announced the launching of the initiative with respect of IHL. We call upon all states to join this global initiative and to participate in the high-level conference that will be held on the 7th of December in Jordan. It is our collective responsibility to act with urgency in order to preserve our humanity in times of war. I thank you.

I will now give the floor to the representative of the Russian Federation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, we would like to thank the Permanent Mission of Pakistan for organizing the meeting today. Armed conflict is a very serious test for the international legal order, and compliance with obligations under international humanitarian law has a direct impact on people's lives. Russia, who was the initiator of and made a significant contribution to the development of the rules of the IHL. Already in 1868, at the initiative of the Russian Empire, the St. Petersburg Declaration on the Abolition of the Use of Explosive and Incendiary Bullets in Hostilities was adopted, and that was the first international legal document limiting the means of warfare. The question of the protection of the civilians during the war was first raised by the Russian professor Martens during the Brussels Conference of 1874, which was convened on the initiative of Russia to determine the customs and laws of war. However, this idea did not find support amongst European delegations at that time. In 1907, upon our initiative, the Hague Conference was held, which resulted in the adoption of a number of documents regulating the rules of war. As for the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the additional protocols thereto, they were adopted in reaction to the horrific crimes committed by Nazi Germany and its accomplices, first and foremost on the territory of the Soviet Union. Let's also recall that the application of IHL to anti-colonial wars for self-determination is also a contribution of our country. At present, the Geneva Conventions and additional protocols to them, the Hague Conventions and customary IHL clearly establish a framework for the conduct of parties to an armed conflict, which do not need to be rewritten or new formats for their interpretation sought. The UN Security Council, whose main task is to prevent and resolve conflicts, is also not a suitable place for these purposes. Mr. Chairman, one of the main threats to the IHL regime is a selective application and interpretation of the relevant rules and double standards in condemning their violation. And the United Nations is not exempt from this shortcoming either, not to mention a whole number of mechanisms which were as a judicial mechanism, whereas in actual fact, they are just political instruments used by some countries. Increasingly, we see how the same prescriptions receive different interpretations depending on who is a party to the conflict. And one of the clearest examples of this problem today is the situation in Gaza. where despite the formal entry into force of the cessation of hostilities, civilians continue to die. In total, over the past three years, according to the Gaza Ministry of Health, more than 73,000 people have been killed and 174,000 people were injured. Behind these figures are broken families, children who have lost their parents, parents who have lost their children, people who have lost their homes, and the opportunity to receive basic medical care. At the same time, humanitarian organizations are talking about large-scale population displacement, destruction of infrastructure, lack of food, water, and medical services. However, A number of countries who loudly call for compliance with IHL at the UN continue to pump that conflict with weapons. For example, Germany. which was one of the first countries to support in 2022 the political declaration on strengthening the protection of civilians from the humanitarian consequences of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, Germany is now on trial at the International Court of Justice, where only a week ago hearings were held in the Nicaraguan case on the supply of weapons used in Gaza. And even that does not stop Berlin. In the second quarter of 2026 alone, the German government approved the export of weapons to Israel in the amount of 735.8 million euros. And this is under the conditions where 82% of all structures in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed. Its neighbors are not lagging behind the Central European power either. For example, over the three years of escalation, French companies have supplied more than 525 units of military products. Britain continues to make exceptions for West Jerusalem under the global F-35 program. And Italy, despite the announced suspension of new deliveries, continues to supply Israel on the basis of previously concluded contracts. Mr. Chairman, this problem is not limited to the Middle East. The same issue arises in relation to the EU's policy in Ukraine. And here, the scale of arms supplies and other methods of fueling the conflict is even more obvious. On September 11, the EU approved an additional 6.1 billion euros for the purchase of ammunition, drones, and electronic warfare. Its member states are not far behind. Germany is financing the purchase of 50,000 Shrike attack drones. The UK is developing the production of Ukrainian drones on its territory and plans to supply Ukraine with 150,000 drones. Warsaw announced the transfer of 50 million euros through NATO. And finally, in July, the European Union launched the EU-Ukraine Drone Alliance mechanism, which provides for the creation of joint ventures, the production of components and the joint development of drones. At the same time, as the increase of supplies to Ukraine, the risk of their subsequent entry into illegal circulation outside the country is growing. The EU and Interpol already consider Ukraine as a potential source of transnational arms flow from the zone of armed conflicts and are developing mechanisms to track them. At the same time, the countries supplying weapons are taking all measures to hush up the gross violations of IHL committed by the Armed Forces of Ukraine and to replicate insinuations against Russia. And this information campaign is going not only through the media, but also through the UN. Inter alia, this is being done through voluntary contributions to some entities. So, we suggest thinking about why it takes Russia so much time to achieve the goals of its special military operation. The answer is obvious. It is because Russia complies with the applicable norms of IHL. Centuries of joint history of Russia and Ukraine. testify, show that Ukraine has nothing to fear from Russia, but rather from Europe, because we know the outcome of occupation in Ukraine by Germany, by, of Ukraine by Germany in 1918 and 1941 and 1944, for example, and Europe today is trying to repeat that period of history. Now, let's turn to how the Zelensky regime complies with the norms of IHL. On September 10, several days ago, the Armed Forces of Ukraine attacked the embankment of the resort city of Sochi. There is no doubt that there were no military facilities anywhere near that place. But as a result of this attack, 28 people died, including two children. What is the reaction to this crime from the champions of IHL? We drew the attention that, for example, no one amongst the briefers mentioned that civilians in Russia are dying from IHL violations. And the representative of France, for example, doesn't know that in Ukraine, 10 energy facilities were destroyed by the Ukraine armed forces. During past week alone, 48 civilians were killed by the Armed Forces of Ukraine, including three children. All of them were victims of drone strikes, the very drones which are produced with the participation of European countries declaring their commitment to IHL. On average, during this period, about 1,180 strikes were carried out on civilian targets daily. From September 7 to 13, 384 civilians were injured, including 16 minors. 8,243 rounds of ammunition was fired at civilian targets on the territory of Russia during that period. The Armed Forces of Ukraine attacked residential buildings in Perm, Novorossiysk, and the Belgorod region, a school in Zaporizhzhia. Strikes were carried out on medical institutions and medical workers. In the Oleksandrii district of the Kherson region, two ambulances were damaged by a drone strike. In the neighboring city of Radymshchyna, the Armed Forces of Ukraine hit an obstetrics clinic. On this section of a road in the Volnovakha district of the DPR, Ukrainian drones struck an ambulance. in the Mykhailivka obstetrics clinic was also struck. Against this background, Mr. Zelensky, word about the insecurity of Russian space for civil aviation are being heard. Which of the European countries have reacted to this declared intention to commit a terrorist attack? A special feature of the attacks by the Armed Forces of Ukraine is attacks on cultural monuments. The Zelensky regime, after all, is at war with anything Russian. Since 2022, for example, more than 300 cultural monuments have been damaged or completely destroyed. And this includes the attack on the Museum of the Defense of Sevastopol. Mr. Chairman, we are convinced that any civilian person or civilian object in any conflict must remain under the protection of IHL. If we want to preserve the international legal order, this must be our basic principle. Not double standards, not political expediency, not selective justice, but uniform rules and equal approaches to their observance. I thank you.

I thank the representative of the Russian Federation, and I'll give the floor to the Ambassador of China.

Chair, I thank Pakistan for convening this Area Formula meeting. I've also listened carefully to all the briefings. International law provides an essential institutional foundation for a just and equitable international order and is indispensable to maintaining international peace and security amid growing global turbulence and recurring regional conflicts, the international community must more than ever strengthen solidarity and cooperation, uphold the international rule of law, and safeguard the shared vision of peace and prosperity. I wish to make three points. First, international law must be applied fairly and consistently.

Nothing can be accomplished without rules.

The purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

Form the foundation of international law and must be universally observed as the rules.

All countries, regardless of size or strength, should fulfill their obligations under international law in good faith. They should reject selective application and double standards. and truly apply the same standards in determining what's right and what's wrong.

Second, disputes must be resolved peacefully within the framework of international law.

The peaceful settlement of disputes is a fundamental principle of the UN Charter and the essential path to lasting peace. Countries should uphold the spirit of international law and resolve differences through dialogue and consultation, and.

Seek solutions that address the legitimate concerns of all parties within the framework of the UN Charter and international law.

Security Council members should lead by example in upholding the authority of international law. They should take objective and impartial positions on pressing issues, promote the effective implementation of Council resolutions, and make full use of mediation, conflict prevention, and other tools to achieve political solutions. Third, the protection of civilians must be given greater priority. Civilians often bear the brunt of conflicts.

IHL sets basic standards for their protection.

All parties to the conflict must strictly comply with IHL, protect civilians and civilian facilities such as hospitals and schools, and ensure unhindered access for humanitarian supplies. In 2024, China, together with relevant countries and the ICRC, launched an initiative on international humanitarian law. We look forward to more countries joining and reaffirming the international community's firm commitment to IHL. Chair, China is a firm defender, contributor to and practitioner of international law. It has always faithfully fulfilled its treaty obligations and honored its international commitments. Guided by the global governance initiative, China stands ready to work with all parties to uphold the international order based on international law, safeguard the authority and credibility of international law, and make a greater contribution to international peace and security.

Thank you.

Thank you. And I would now like to give the floor to the representative of Panama.

Thank you, Mr. President. We would like to thank Pakistan for convening this very timely meeting. And we would like to thank the briefers for their valuable contributions. Defending and promoting international law constitutes one of our most fundamental responsibilities as member states, especially in times of armed conflict. As members of the UN, our common good rests upon recognizing that all states are equal before the law. Only by respecting these principles will we be able to ensure the maintenance of international peace and security. President, in recent years, we have witnessed attacks against hospitals, doctors, humanitarian personnel, UN staff, blue helmets. civilian infrastructures, as well as against cultural heritage and religious sites. The commitments that bind us have been violated when there are attacks against these places. And what we see is that impunity and indifference reign supreme. There is no reason for this. President, distinguished colleagues, at the heart of the international legal order is a key principle The rules that others must respect must also guide our own behavior. This is the principle of sovereign equality, which is enshrined in the UN Charter. The belief that international law will be consistently applied by all member states and to all member states. Therefore, Panama deems that Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter is especially important. This article prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or the political independence of any state. When international law is respected and implemented in a timely fashion, multilateral institutions strengthen their legitimacy and create trust. Justice delayed only leaves space for crisis, indifference, and impunity. On the other hand, accountability and timely justice can transform behaviors and incentives, paving the way towards order, reconciliation, and sustainable peace. This is why they are an essential component of conflict prevention and of post-conflict rebuilding. There is a reason why the international community has constantly insisted on accountability. Ensuring that violators of international law are accountable is a positive step towards sustainable peace. This contributes to reestablishing trust in the rule of law, and it disincentivizes future violations. Panama reiterates its support to the International Court of Justice and the ICC. and we call upon all member states to defend and respect these institutions as critical pillars of international law. In this sense, we urge for full compliance with decisions of both courts. When we do this, we reaffirm the principles of accountability and we strengthen the integrity of the international legal order. We have a moral duty and responsibility towards future generations to fully utilize the institutions that we have created to prevent atrocities and ensure that justice prevails. But that responsibility goes beyond reacting to current crises. It consists in ensuring that future generations inherit a multilateral system that is more solid, grounded in respect for international law, and a justice that is equal for all. When we seek order, peace, and stability, we call for full respect for international law, and we urge all actors to ensure that whoever is responsible for violations are accountable in a court of law. We also call for a renewed United Nations, capable of placing themselves at the center of peacebuilding efforts through the commitment of member states to its principles and by fully utilizing its platform for mediation, prevention, and the peaceful settlement of controversies. Let's go back to the principles of understanding, building bridges, and building peace. I thank you.

Thank you. I now give the floor to the representative of the United States.

Thank you to Pakistan for convening today's meeting. The United States supports the goals.

Of improving implementation of international humanitarian law and strengthening protections for civilians and other war victims in armed conflict. We believe one of the best ways to galvanize support for international humanitarian law and ultimately create real-world benefits for those who are affected by armed conflict

would be through the exchange among states of good practices for implementing their respective obligations.

In addition to the

exchange of good practices, the United States has put forward practical measures in a variety of multilateral fora

on strengthening the implementation of the protections of international humanitarian law during armed conflict. Such measures include instituting programs in the armed forces for its implementation, including training, providing legal advisors to support commanders, and issuing regulations, instructions, and other guidance to facilitate the implementation and embed compliance

into the daily practice of the armed forces.

It is important to point out that the bulk of preventable humanitarian suffering in conflicts today

is the result of parties

failing to implement in any way, and in some cases, deliberately violating existing rules of international humanitarian law.

International humanitarian law is a sound, robust body of law that has been well adapted to the circumstances of armed conflict. We do not think that there is a need for new legal rules or interpretations in this context.

New rules and interpretations, especially if they are impractical,

can be counterproductive, conflict with existing law, and undermine the goal of improving protections for civilians and other war victims.

On the topic of accountability mechanisms, we agree that holding those responsible for violations accountable is deeply important.

The United States has a robust justice system to do this. Where such national systems are lacking, there are other models tailored to specific situations that are available

to achieve this accountability.

I would like to take this opportunity, however, to emphasize that the ICC's egregious overreaches

are an affront to state sovereignty.

particularly its purported assertion of jurisdiction over the United States and other non-state parties that have never ratified the Rome Statute nor consented to the ICC's jurisdiction.

In recent years, the ICC has issued arrest warrants for heads of state and leading political figures from non-state parties. These investigations and cases against U.S.

citizens and those who have not consented to the court's jurisdiction

must end.

Thank you.

I thank the representative of the United States. I have now Denmark, to be followed by Greece. Denmark.

Thank you, Chair, and further thanks to the briefers. The necessity to uphold international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, in situations of armed conflict is a key priority for Denmark during our Council term. International law is not optional. It's not a nice to have, and it does not just apply when it is convenient. Yet it is routinely violated, often without consequences for the perpetrator and with devastating effects for civilians in conflicts, including children, marginalized groups, healthcare workers, and humanitarians, and others it was designed to protect. Chair, to ensure compliance and strengthen accountability, more is needed. First, Member States who fail to uphold international law must be loudly and publicly called upon to do so by the international community. Further support for independent investigations, cooperation with international accountability mechanisms, and engagement in new initiatives to move the agenda forward is needed. Second, we must shine a light on failures to protect civilians as mandated under international humanitarian law as well as thematic Security Council resolutions. This is why Denmark organized an area formula meeting to mark the 10-year anniversary of Resolution 2286 on the protection of medical care in armed conflict and to identify issues that remained outstanding. We are firmly committed to further advancing this agenda, including through a renewed commitment to the special protected status of medical missions, reflecting the need for greater recognition of new and emergent threats, as well as better reporting, monitoring, and accountability mechanisms. Furthermore, as informal co-focal point on resolution 2417, we have consistently demonstrated our commitment to stopping conflict-induced hunger, from Sudan to Gaza. This is also why we hosted a ministerial signature event on this issue during our presidency last month. Third, individuals responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide must be held to account. The International Criminal Court plays an essential role in this regard, and to uphold international law, we should strengthen the international criminal justice system. As we have stated many times in this Council, accountability for the gravest crimes is not only a matter of justice for victims, it is, in fact, an essential safeguard against future atrocities. I thank you.

Thank you. And I give the floor to Greece, to be followed by Ambassador of Somalia.

Thank you, Ambassador, and thanks to the briefers and to the mission of Pakistan for inviting us and organizing this area formula. Mr. President, the four Geneva Conventions, as well as the additional protocols, are to provide a comprehensive framework for the protection of the most vulnerable in times of armed conflict. Other provisions relating to the methods and means of warfare, such as those containing in the convention prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons and its protocols, further regulate the conduct of hostilities. Despite this comprehensive legal framework, implementation of and compliance with international humanitarian law and human rights law remain far from being fully achieved. Figures provided in the annual reports of the Secretary-General tell in this regard. The findings are deeply alarming and reflect an ongoing erosion of respect of international law, including IHL and human rights law. 37,000 civilians deaths were recorded in 2025. More importantly, over the past year, violations of IHL against children and conflict reached unprecedented levels. The United Nations verified that such violations affected 24,174 children, the highest number ever recorded. Moreover, the widespread looting and destruction of cultural and religious heritage in occupied areas is another matter of serious concern, as such acts violate international law and contribute to efforts to alter and erase the character of occupied areas in disregard of relevant Security Council resolutions. Mr. President, ending impunity is essential to preventing future violations. To this end, States must support independent, thorough, transparent, and effective investigations, as well as accountability mechanisms at the national level and, where necessary, at the regional and international levels. Greece considers fact-finding to be an essential first step towards ensuring compliance with IHL. The good offices of the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission established under Article 90 of the first additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions are an important tool in this regard. Equally, Greece is very much supportive of the international independent and impartial mechanisms for Syria and the independent investigative mechanism for Myanmar, both of which contribute to the collection and preservation of evidence with a view to future prosecutions of war crimes, the latter in the context also of the case The Gambia versus Myanmar before the ICJ. Moreover, as a longstanding supporter of international criminal justice and of the International Criminal Court's establishment, Greece believes that universal acceptance of the court's jurisdiction would strengthen both accountability and the implementation of international humanitarian law. I would like to conclude by highlighting two points concerning the implementation of IHL. First, with regard to grave violations against children and conflict, Greece strongly condemns all such violations. Greece underlines that all feasible measures shall be undertaken to ensure that children receive the special protection to which they are entitled under the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols. Equally, we underscore that parties to armed conflicts shall take concrete measures to protect education from attacks, refrain from the military use of schools, and support continued access to safe education. Second, in relation to conflict-related sexual violence, CRSV, Greece strongly condemns these heinous crimes in the strongest possible terms. All parties to a conflict must immediately cease such acts and adopt time-bound and effective measures to prevent and address such crimes. The critical importance of documenting and substantiating such crimes underlines the need to ensure unhindered access for relevant UN monitoring mechanisms. Sexual violence should be a stand-alone designation criterion in every UN sanctions regime, not folded into other categories, but named for what it is. This matters most in addressing repeat offenders. To conclude, Mr. President, we wish to underline that the most important issues regarding IHL are its implementation and accountability for violations of its provisions. Only accountability can ensure non-repetition, and only accountability can deliver to victims and survivors what they are rightfully entitled to: justice.

Thank you.

Thank you, Greece. Permanent representative of Somalia, you have the floor.

Mr. Chair, thank you very much. Somalia thanks the Permanent Mission of Pakistan for convening this important area of formal meeting on upholding international law in armed conflict. We thank the briefers for their valuable contributions. Mr. Chair, armed conflict tests both the resilience of societies and the strength of international legal order. Across contemporary conflicts, civilians continue to suffer death, injury, forced displacement, deprivation of essential services, and the destruction of homes and critical infrastructures. Upholding international law is both a legal obligation and an essential condition for international peace and security. In this vein, allow me to highlight the following points: First, The protection of civilians must remain at the center of our efforts.

The

United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the Hague Regulations, customary international humanitarian law, and applicable international human rights law provide a clear legal framework. Parties to armed conflict must respect the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attacks. They must protect humanitarian and medical personnel, and facilitate safe, rapid, and unimpeded humanitarian access consistent with international humanitarian law. The starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited. Food, water, and other objects indispensable to the survival of civilian populations must be protected. Second, international law must be fully respected in the protracted conflict and situations of foreign occupation. Occupation cannot become a permanent political arrangement. International humanitarian law regulates occupation. It does not permit annexation or grant title to occupied territories. The prohibition of acquisition of territory by force remains fundamental to the charter order. No security rationale can legalize indefinite occupation, and no military objective can serve sever a people's political, legal, and historical connection to their land. This must be stated unequivocally in the relation to the occupied Palestinian territory and including Gaza. The Palestinian people cannot be required to endure occupation without end while the international community merely manages its consequences.

International law demands more than temporary relief.

It requires an end to the unlawful occupation and realization of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. Third, civilian infrastructure and cultural and religious heritage requires stronger protection and accountability. The destruction of hospitals, schools, homes, water systems, and energy facilities can deprive civilians of the basic conditions needed for survival. Cultural and religious heritage carries the history, identity, and memory of communities. Its destruction can deepen division and obstruct reconciliation long after the hostilities have ended. The protection of this establishment by international humanitarian law, including 1954 Hague Convention and its protocols, must be upheld. To conclude, Mr. Chair, consistency is not an abstract concern. Selective enforcement weakens international law. Everywhere, emboldens violators and erodes trust in this Council. For Somalia, a country whose sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity are inviolable, and respect for these principles of extension, occupation cannot create sovereignty, and political power cannot determine whose rights international law protects. Those principles must apply equally to all people, including the Palestinian people. The test before us is clear. Will international law constrain power when doing so is challenging, or will it be invoked only when convenient? Somalia's position is equally clear. We choose the law, one charter, one standard, and equal protection for all people. We call upon this Council to do the same. I thank you. Thank you, Ambassador. I would now like to give the floor to Bahrain and then Colombia, in that order.

Thank you, Mr. President. At the outset, I would like to express my gratitude to the Republic of Pakistan for convening this Area Formula meeting, which addresses an important issue directly related to the foundations of international peace and security, namely, ensuring respect for international law in situations of armed conflict. I also thank the briefers for their valuable interventions.

The rule of law at both

the national and international levels assumes exceptional importance 81 years after the establishment of the United Nations. The Kingdom of Bahrain reaffirms that respect for the Charter of the UN and international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, constitutes an indispensable foundation for maintaining international peace and security and protecting civilians from the grave humanitarian consequences of armed conflicts. In this context, the Kingdom of Bahrain emphasizes the necessity of full compliance with international law, including international humanitarian law, in the occupied Palestinian territories, as well as ensuring the protection of civilians, rejecting forced displacement, and guaranteeing the full, safe, and unhindered delivery of humanitarian assistance. We must also work towards the achievement of a just, comprehensive, and lasting peace based on the two-state solution and the relevant resolutions that enjoy international legitimacy. Given that our region has witnessed unlawful Iranian attacks using ballistic missiles and drones, the Kingdom of Bahrain affirms that respect for the rules of international law cannot be selective. These attacks have targeted civilians, civilian objects, critical infrastructure, and energy facilities, placing civilian lives at serious risk. One of the most prominent examples was the targeting of the Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company facility in the Kingdom of Bahrain by an Iranian drone. The attack struck an ammonia storage tank located in a populated area, which could have resulted in a large-scale humanitarian and environmental disaster were it not for the preventative and proactive measures taken by the competent authorities. The Kingdom of Bahrain believes that strengthening respect for international law requires a combination of prevention, compliance, and accountability. The Security Council possesses important tools in this regard, including preventative diplomacy, the peaceful settlement of disputes, monitoring and fact-finding mechanisms, and ensuring the consistent implementation of its relevant resolutions. In conclusion, the Kingdom of Bahrain affirms that respect for international law must not be contingent upon the nature of a conflict or the identity of its parties. Rather, it must be a constant principle applied to all without exception, thereby contributing to the protection of civilians, preventing the recurrence of violations, and creating the conditions necessary for sustainable peace. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you. And now, to give the floor to Colombia, to be followed by the DRC.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colombia thanks the Permanent Mission of Pakistan for convening this very timely discussion, and we welcome the possibility of reflecting more on the basis of the very appropriate briefings that we heard today and jointly, together, about how we can strengthen respect for international law in situations of armed conflict. Colombia addresses this issue not just as a matter of principle, but unfortunately, on the basis of our own experience, decades of internal armed conflict have taught us that international humanitarian law is not an abstract legal framework. It is what stands between the civilian population and the worst consequences of war. Our own experience of victimization, displacement, and the long road towards truth, justice, reparation and non-repetition has solidified our firm conviction that respect for international law and accountability for violations are the indispensable basis for a sustainable peace. We agree with the concern expressed in the conceptual note on the magnitude of the civilian suffering registered in 2025. What we have seen so far in 2026, behind each number, there are human lives, families, and communities that are affected. And for all of these, recovering from the conflict can take several generations. Fortunately, IHL was created with the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution. They are the answer to these concerns. All actors in all conflicts must remember that these principles are not optional. They are binding obligations on the basis of IHL, customary IHL, and for member states of the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols. Three points, Chairman. For my delegation, these three are specifically important. First, Protecting the civilian population should be translated into specific actions and not merely be a reaffirmation of principles, as Madame Elise so eloquently explained in her statement. This implies ensuring humanitarian access, protecting medical and humanitarian personnel on the basis of 2286 and 2730 of the Security Council, and safeguarding civilian infrastructure which is indispensable for survival on the basis of resolution 2573. Colombia's experience in demining, as well as protecting rural communities and supporting victims, underlines that protection demands sustained and practical measures on the ground, not just declarations or commitments. Accountability is something that is mutually reinforcing. We believe that credible accountability mechanisms dissuade repetition and they transform opprobrium into reconciliation instead of new violence. We urge for investigation, monitoring and accountability mechanisms to be applied consistently without exception wherever there may be grave violations. There's a basis for the credibility of international laws. The selective application of legal norms does not just erode trust in this council or trust within this council, but also trust in the legal international order itself. Colombia calls for the non-selective application of IHL and human rights in all situations of armed conflict, regardless of the identity of the parties in conflict. Chairman, Colombia reaffirms its support to the call for action in support of human rights made by the Secretary-General and for the full respect of the UN Charter, IHL, and international human rights law, we reiterate our willingness to contribute with our experiences to the efforts of this Council to close the gap between legal obligations and compliance. I thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Ambassador. I would like to give the floor now to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to be followed by the PR of Latvia.

Thank you, Chairman. Democratic Republic of the Congo would like to thank Pakistan for organizing the RIA meeting today. We also thank the briefers for the high quality of their briefings. This meeting on upholding international law in situations of armed conflict shows how much the conflicts are multiplying throughout the the world and they test the legal order. The 2026 report by the Secretary-General shows that more 37,000 civilians were killed during this period, recall for us the urgency of strengthening the respect for IHL. Mr. Chairman, in several regions of the world, conflicts are taking root and become fragmented. and they transform into chronic situations where the violations of IHL and human rights law become systematic. From the Middle East to the Sahel, Sudan to Haiti, Great Lakes region, everywhere there, civilians pay the highest price. We are witnessing massive loss of life, forced displacement, and the destruction of essential infrastructure, food insecurity, and the cultural heritage. And we have not been spared that. For more than 30 years, the eastern part of our country was the theater of severe armed conflict. More than 200 armed groups are there in the mining areas, and they constantly violate the international humanitarian law and the relevant resolutions passed by this Council. torture, inhuman treatment, suffering for the civilians, destruction of goods, hostage taking, deportations, demographic change, arbitrary detentions, attacking essential infrastructure, sexual violence, show a growing gap between the legal obligations and their application on the ground. Mr. Chairman, given this reality, we must recall that upholding the international law not just a legal obligation. It is an essential pillar of international peace and security and a necessary precondition for the protection of civilians and prevention of the resumption of conflicts. We in the GRC call for strengthened judiciary cooperation between states and articles of the Geneva Convention, which asks for fighting and prosecuting all of the violators. And this must be a tool for prevention and deterrence. The international norms, in particular, the UN Charter and the international compacts on civilians' rights, the European Conventions on Human Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, stipulate the obligations, protect life and protect human dignity. The Security Council has essential tools for all of this: preventive diplomacy, monitoring mechanisms, sanctions regimes, protection of civilians mandate, and the relevant thematic resolutions. Their consistent implementation is needed to prevent violations, protect the civilians, and ensure that the perpetrators of crimes are brought to account. Mr. President. The Democratic Republic of the Congo recalls that upholding the international law requires non-selective and consistent application. When violations result in different punishments, then double standards comes in, and it weakens trust in multilateral institutions and undermines the effectiveness of mechanisms. My delegation therefore calls for strict adherence to the international law by all parties, ensuring that there is unimpeded humanitarian access and protection of civilians, as well as humanitarians and medical workers. These requirements must go hand in hand with fighting impunity and looking at the root causes for the conflict. International law is not just in the principles underpinning it, but in our collective capacity to uphold them consistently everywhere they arise. Our credibility cannot abide the double standards because the authority of law remains everywhere, regardless of the conflict, territory, or circumstances. It is guided by the spirit that we in the DRC reaffirm our availability to work with members of the Council and the entire international community to ensure that the rights also show us the way towards peace. I thank you.

Thank you. And I'll give the floor to Latvia, to be followed by Liberia.

Thank you, Mr. President. And I would like to thank Pakistan for convening this Area Formula meeting on the very crucial theme of upholding international law in armed conflict. I'd also like to thank the briefers for their insights. Mr. President, as we are now in the 81st year of the UN Charter, we're nearing the anniversary of a historic decision, the commitment and resolve of all states to choose humanity over cruelty, to choose the rule of law against use of brutal force. And in order to ensure peace and swift resolution of conflict, for the past decades, we have developed an intricate and extensive legal framework. The issue and the problem is not the absence of legal obligations, nor the lack of international law, but the absence of political will to enforce them. Violations of state sovereignty and territorial integrity cannot be met with impunity. The humanitarian need is dire in an age of abundance. Attacks against civilians are increasingly attributable to states who place military advantage above protection of civilians, military logic above human life. It is impossible to fully capture the immense suffering inflicted on civilians in a single intervention.

But I would like to focus on where we can make the difference.

First and foremost, we can and must strengthen adherence to international law by empowering the mechanisms we already have in place. We must ensure independent investigations through our various mandates, focused on fact-finding and evidence gathering of violations. We also must support the International Court of Justice and the implementation of its orders. And we must make use of the Security Council sanctions regimes to force adherence to legal norms. The leadership of the next Secretary-General, with principled stance and defending the UN Charter and respect for international law, will.

Also be decisive.

UN member states can continue to do more. Latvia welcomes the global initiative to galvanize political commitment to international humanitarian law and calls on all states to join. We must engage in peaceful dispute settlement, be it through diplomatic or legal means. We also should not forget that conditional donor policies can also foster compliance with international norms. Latvia strongly supports the International Criminal Court in order to ensure justice for the victims of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression. Mr. President, to conclude, for Latvia, three principles are essential. Legal obligations must be implemented in good faith. Council mandates must be consistently followed up to combat impunity. And the Council's deadlock on the sanctions committees must be resolved urgently for the Council to be able to use its tool box in full uphold respect for international law in conflict and by conflicting parties, and to implement the mandate to maintain international peace and security.

And thank you.

Thank you, Ambassador. Let me now give the floor to the representative of Liberia.

Thank you. Liberia thanks Pakistan for convening this Area Formula. meeting on upholding international law in situations of armed conflict. We also thank the distinguished briefers for their rather sobering and insightful briefings. President, Liberia does not come to this debate with theories. We come with memory. Two decades ago, our country survived state collapse. We learned through the grief of loss and the tragedy of destruction that when the laws of war are absent from battlefields anywhere, our humanity is imperiled everywhere. Today, conflicts are fought in dense towns and villages where heavy explosive weapons yield a 90% civilian casualty rate. Even more alarming is the drift toward automated warfare. Liberia's civil war witnessed catastrophic human cruelty, but we shudder at the prospect of autonomous algorithms making lethal choices across the same fractured communities. The truth is that the court cannot be, cannot weigh mercy. The choice of life and of death must forever remain within the bound of human conscience and human accountability. Let us be clear, the crisis of international law is operational, defined by the distance between the law to govern war and the trigger that ends a life. Liberia proposes three actions to bridge that distance. First, uphold human control in technology. while safeguarding frontline humanitarian dialogue. These are two distinct legal imperatives. On new technologies, the Council must support a legally binding prohibition on fully autonomous weapons systems. On existing sanctions, Member States must strictly implement Resolution 2676 64. Ensuring counterterrorism measures. Never criminalize humanitarian actors engaging non state armed groups to secure civilian restraint. Second. Fun African led protection through assessed contributions. Resolution 2719. Rightly requires. African due diligence standards, but we cannot mandate compliance while starving missions of resources. The Council must unlock predictable UN assessed contributions to fund embedded legal advisors, conduct architectures, and independent civilian harm tracking sales. Protectors cannot defend hospitals and food systems if compliance remains an underfunded mandate. Third, reject selective accountability. International law applied selectively is not law. It is leverage. Under the Kampala Convention and the Fourth Geneva Convention, forced displacement and engineered demographics are unlawful. and their prohibition must be applied unconditionally. Universal standards demand national integrity. We do not ask for the world what we refuse to confront at home. This is why the Liberian government is determined to establish our war and economic crimes court. Excellencies, The law cannot merely exist in treaties. It must exist on the ground. The rules of war reach the fighter and the algorithm, the peacekeeper, and the courtroom. If the law reaches the battlefield, peace will follow, perhaps not easily, but more reliably. I thank you.

Thank the representative of Liberia. Allow me, colleagues, to make a statement in my national capacity. I think what we have heard till now allows me to say that the first casualty of war must never be international law itself. Yet, too often and unfortunately, when conflict begins, the rules designed to restrain violence are the first to be disregarded. So Pakistan convened this meeting around a straightforward proposition: international law must matter most and be upheld in situations of armed conflict. The true measure of an international legal order is not how many treaties we negotiate or resolutions we adopt or principles we proclaim. It is whether these rules protect people when war begins, whether they constrain the powerful, and whether they are applied consistently. The critical protections provided by international law, including IHL, are tested every day when civilians come under attack. No situation of armed conflict is identical, but all reveal a common failure. Obligations accepted in peace are too often abandoned in war. The problem is not an absence of law, it is the absence of compliance. And nowhere has the credibility of the international legal order been tested more painfully than in Gaza, where immense destruction, displacement, and deprivation have devastated an entire society. And Gaza is a test of whether the fundamental principles of IHL apply equally and without exception. Ultimately, occupation must end and the Palestinian people must be able to live in freedom and dignity and exercise their right to self-determination and statehood. Likewise, the appalling situation in the Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir remains an enduring test of the authority of the international law and the credibility of the Security Council. Nearly eight decades ago, the Security Council, through its numerous resolutions, established a pathway towards a peaceful settlement through a free and impartial plebiscite to be held under the auspices of the United Nations to ascertain the will of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. That promise remains unfulfilled while atrocities by the Indian occupation forces have intensified. The 2018 and 2019 OHCHR reports, together with several communications by UN special procedures, have raised serious concerns over excessive use of force, arbitrary detentions, widespread torture, enforced disappearances, sexual violence, impunity, and restrictions on fundamental freedoms. For instance, in one of the joint communications of UN special procedures of 16th October 2025, they have expressed serious concern at arrest and detention of around 2,800 individuals in the occupied territory, including journalists and human rights defenders, demolition of homes, blocking of around 8,000 social media accounts, and 64 recorded incidents of hate speech, intimidation, and dehumanization targeting Kashmiris and Muslims just between a short period from 22nd April to 2nd May 2025. In addition, India's illegal and unilateral measures of 5th August 2019 affecting domicile, land ownership, and political representation have enabled illegal demographic changes alongside restrictions on political activity, expression, and religious freedom. We must remember that unresolved disputes do not disappear with time. They become more dangerous when left unaddressed. The Indian aggression against Pakistan and Pakistan's response in self-defense and the resultant four-day conflict in May last year demonstrated the grave risks of allowing a dispute between two nuclear-armed states to fester. The international community, particularly the Security Council, must translate its own resolutions into meaningful action and concrete steps towards a just and peaceful settlement of Jammu and Kashmir dispute in accordance with the UN Charter, the relevant Security Council resolutions, and aspirations of the Kashmiri people. Excellencies, colleagues, allow me to offer a few propositions for translating our legal commitments into action. First, international law must be upheld consistently and without selectivity. The authority of international law rests upon its universal application. The same rules and same standards for everyone. Second, respect for international humanitarian law must be translated into verifiable compliance. The Security Council and the UN system must use existing monitoring, reporting, and investigative tools to identify serious IHL violations early and demand corrective action, ensure humanitarian access, and pursue accountability for violations. Third, monitoring must become an instrument of prevention, not merely a record of tragedy. The UN should identify emerging patterns of forced displacement, demographic engineering, attacks on civilian infrastructure, impediments to humanitarian access, and destruction of cultural and religious heritage. And on that basis, generate early international attention. Fourth, the Security Council must uphold and implement its own resolutions consistently. Council should periodically review implementation of outstanding conflict-specific resolutions, particularly those concerning protracted disputes and situations of foreign occupation. Finally, we must move from managing conflicts to resolving their underlying causes. The Charter already gives us the tools, for example, Chapter VI and the Secretary-General's good offices, and the Security Council Resolution 2788, reaffirmed this imperative and called for more effective use of mechanisms for peaceful settlement. So, Excellencies, colleagues, the credibility of international law will not be determined by how eloquently we defend it when doing so is politically convenient, because there can be no hierarchy of victims, no geography of compassion, and no selective legality. The law will be judged not by the promises written in its text, but by the lives it protects, the injustices it prevents, and the peace it makes possible. I thank you. I would now like to move on with our discussion and open the floor to non-council members and would request, contrary to my long statement, to request if we can limit the statements to three minutes because we have a long list of speakers and I would like to go through that list. I would like to give the floor to the representative of the European Union.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I have the honor to speak on behalf of the EU and its member states and the candidate countries, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Georgia, as well as San Marino, align themselves with this statement. Chair, thank you to you personally and to Pakistan for convening this meeting, and to all our briefers. Colleagues, at a time of serious violations of the UN Charter, international humanitarian law, and international human rights law, the international legal order, with the United Nations at its core, remains the essential framework to ensure peace and security. The EU and its member states remain committed to advancing this framework and stand firm in their commitment to uphold international humanitarian law, to protect humanitarian personnel, and to advance humanitarian diplomacy. The EU is engaged on this front in multiple contexts. In 2025, we funded projects to close gaps in monitoring violations of IHL. Across current conflicts, we consistently call for the protection of civilians, respect for prisoners of war, protection of civilian infrastructure, and the strict application of IHL, regardless of context. Since 2025, the EU guidelines on promoting compliance with IHL have provided operational tools to pursue this work.

In a visible and consistent manner.

All EU member states are members of the Global Initiative to Galvanize Political Commitment to IHL, and we call on all states to join this initiative and attend the high-level meeting later in the year. Chair, international law must be applied consistently and without exception. So many people have mentioned it. It is so important. No context or conflict can justify departure from it. The Security Council, entrusted with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, bears particular responsibility for upholding international law. We note with grave concern violations of international law, including repeatedly by one permanent member. We are also concerned about the persistent failures to implement this Council's decisions. The Council retains, nonetheless, a broad set of tools to advance compliance. Peace operations remain indispensable instruments to find political solutions to conflicts, while upholding national law, protecting human rights, and helping reduce the risk of renewed violence. So decisions on withdrawal must account for their immediate and adverse impact on the most vulnerable. Chair, we will simultaneously protect the institutions that uphold international law and ensure accountability for violations. We underlined the essential role of the ICJ in the peaceful settlement of disputes and in the application and clarification of international law, and we urge all states that submitted their disputes to the Court to comply with its judgments and orders. We also emphasize, cannot emphasize this enough, the crucial contribution of the International Criminal Court to ending impunity for the most serious crimes, and the need to preserve and protect its independence, impartiality, and effective functioning. The Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine within the Council of Europe framework enjoys a strong support in line with a consistent commitment to international law and accountability mechanisms. And to close, colleagues, impartial, independent investigations remain crucial for deterrence and justice for victims. Another point raised by many in this room. The EU and its member states will continue to support these mechanisms with all our ability. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. I will now give the floor to Portugal, to be followed by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Portugal thanks Pakistan for convening this timely and important meeting, and also the briefers. Armed conflict is a test to the international legal order that we have collectively built, and the rules are clear. It is precisely when conflict erupts and when political solutions appear most difficult that enforcing international law matters most. Allow me to highlight three points. First, international law must apply consistently. The UN Charter, international humanitarian law, and international human rights law already provide a framework that protects states and individuals alike. The challenge is to ensure its consistent implementation and to translate this legal framework into the real protection on the ground. As the Secretary-General has stressed recently, These obligations must be upheld consistently, without selectivity, nor double standards. All states, large and small, must be equal before the law. Respect for international law also requires effective monitoring, reliable fact-finding, and consequent accountability. In this regard, Portugal strongly supports the essential role of the international courts. Accountability is essential both to deter recurrence and deliver justice. Second, the protection of civilians must remain at the center of our action. The Secretary-General's report on protection of civilians recorded more than 37,000 deaths in 2025 alone. This means that by the end of this meeting, another 12 civilians will have lost their lives. proportionality, humanitarian access, protection of medical and humanitarian personnel, and civilian infrastructure. These are legal obligations. These protections are equally essential in situations of use of force against territorial integrity, on occupied territories, and in protracted conflicts. Forced displacement and damage to historical heritage can leave consequences that endure long after hostilities cease. Third, the Security Council bears a particular responsibility. The Council should make full use of preventive tools at its disposal to foster the peaceful settlements of disputes before the breach of any international obligations or conflicts escalate. The Council's credibility also depends on the consistent implementation of its own decisions. Mr. Chair, to conclude, as Portugal prepares to serve on the Security Council in 27 and 28, respect for international law and the protection of civilians will remain guiding principles of our action. There can be no sustainable peace without the rule of law, and there can be no genuine global multilateral system unless the law protects everyone everywhere. I thank you.

Thank you, Ambassador of Portugal. Next, I have the PRs of Saudi Arabia and Turkey, in that order.

In the name of God, the Merciful and the Compassionate. First of all, I would like to thank the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for organizing this meeting, and we thank the briefers for their statements. We affirm that adherence to international law, first and foremost, the Charter of the United Nations and IHL, is a basis for the maintenance of international peace and security and the protection of civilians in situations of armed conflict. In light of the increasing armed conflicts and the accompanying humanitarian suffering, the Kingdom stresses the need to respect the rules of international humanitarian law, foremost of which is the protection of civilians and civilian objects, protection of humanitarian and medical personnel, the guarantee of safe and unhindered humanitarian access, upholding the principle of distinction, proportionality and precaution to protect civilians. We need to implement the provisions of the right without being selective about this. We need to stress the importance of holding the account of perpetrators of violations of law. And we think that dealing with conflicts is not just dealing with humanitarian consequences, but also preventing them, promoting dialogue and peaceful means, and supporting the efforts of mediation, good officers, so to create the conditions needed for the lasting political settlements. And we are ready to implement these commitments through specific action, in particular our chairmanship of the third track on international humanitarian law and peace within the global initiative to renew political commitment to international humanitarian law. In addition to that, the protection of civilians in Sudan at the national level. Through the Standing Committee on IHL, we continue our efforts to promote respect for IHL, to disseminate its principles and provisions, and enhance cooperation with the relevant authorities. In conclusion, we affirm that promoting respect for international law is a collective responsibility that requires adherence to its provisions and their application to all, and the promotion of multilateral action to prevent and settle conflict by peaceful means. in a manner that contributes to the protection of civilians and the maintenance of international peace and security. I thank you.

I thank you, Ambassador. I will now give the floor to the Ambassador of Turkey, followed by Austria and Kuwait.

Mr. Chairman, we thank Pakistan for convening this meeting and the briefers for their contributions. As armed conflicts grow in number, intensity, and complexity, Respect for international humanitarian law remains severely insufficient. Protection of civilians in armed conflicts is a common concern and should constitute top priority for all international community. Selective approaches to the implementation of international law undermine credibility of the international legal system and erode confidence in multilateralism. Ensuring accountability and combating impunity are essential not only for the administration of justice, but also for preventing the recurrence of serious violations. As part of this endeavor, we should continue our efforts to strengthen compliance with international military law on relevant fora and enhance cooperation among international organizations, national governments, and civil society. As a staunch supporter of peace and stability in its region and beyond, Turkey strongly supports international efforts aimed at ensuring accountability and deterring violations of international humanitarian law. Mr. Chairman, today in Gaza, the international rule of law is facing one of its most serious tests since the establishment of this organization. The scale of civilian suffering widespread destruction of civilian objects, obstruction of humanitarian assistance, constitute grave violations of international humanitarian law. Attacks against UN personnel, facilities, and humanitarian actors further undermine foundations of the multilateral system. We call for an immediate end to the destruction in Gaza, for full, safe, and unhindered humanitarian access, as well as genuine accountability for violations of international law. Mr. Chairman, respect for international law must likewise remain central to our efforts to resolve other ongoing conflicts. The Russia-Ukraine war constitutes one of the most challenging crises confronting international law and multilateralism. Turkey will continue its efforts for reaching a just and lasting peace in Ukraine based on the fundamental principles of international law and the UN Charter. We remain firmly committed to upholding the norms of international law. I thank you again.

I thank you. I now like to give the floor to Austria, to be followed by Kuwait and Qatar.

Mr. Chair, let me commend you for organizing today's meeting.

And as others have rightly mentioned, it's indeed very timely. The norms of international humanitarian law, as embodied in the Geneva Conventions and its protocols, are universally recognized. The central challenge in implementing IHL does not lie in the normative gaps, but in failures of good faith compliance.

Problems arise in the practical application once we face a situation of armed conflict.

As part of Austria's strong commitment to IHL, we have taken an active role in the global initiative to galvanize political commitment to international humanitarian law, an initiative that has been mentioned already previously today.

This initiative is mainly Geneva and capital led.

But its concrete work deserves more attention here in New York as well. Together with our co-chairs Australia, Kenya and the United Arab Emirates, Austria co-chairs the work stream on prevention and good practices. Why are we doing this? Because we regard preventing violations of international humanitarian law as the best form of compliance. Civilians who have not been killed, hospitals, schools, places of worship which have not been destroyed, wounded persons who have not been left dying. The recommendations of the workstream will be presented in November, and we look forward to the high-level conference on humanity in war in Jordan this December. But when prevention and compliance fail, when violations occur, there must be accountability. The International Criminal Court plays an important role in this regard and deserves our full support.

In closing, the rule of law is an Austrian foreign policy priority.

This is why Austria has been coordinating the Group of Friends of the Rule of Law.

For more than 20 years.

We will try our best as incoming Security Council members to serve the UN membership in this regard as well.

And I thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Austria, for a short and sweet statement. And I will now give the floor to the Ambassador of Kuwait.

In the name of God, most gracious, most merciful. Please allow me to thank the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for convening this important meeting today. I also thank all briefers. The state of Kuwait believes that upholding international law in situations of armed conflict is not a political option, nor is it an imperative that can be applied selectively. On the contrary, this is a legal and moral obligation, and it also underpins our international order. The challenge we face today does not lie in the lack of laws and regulations, but it lies in the widening gap between the implementation of these laws and their elaboration. As a matter of fact, the international community cannot call for upholding law in one conflict, but overlook its violation in another conflict. Double standards undermine the credibility of international law and weakens trust in multilateralism. in this context. When we address international law and the protection of civilians, we cannot overlook the repeated violations perpetrated by the Islamic Republic of Iran. These violations have been ongoing since 28 February, targeting our civilian infrastructure and our civilian facilities and infrastructure. These attacks have also jeopardized the lives of citizens and residents. The State of Kuwait has been documenting these violations and has informed the Security Council of these violations through letters considered as official Security Council documents. We strongly condemn these violations and attacks. We reiterate that attacks on civilian infrastructure and the use of force against state sovereignty and territorial integrity are a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, the protection of civilians, the respect of state sovereignty are indivisible principles that must be upheld without selectivity. These principles must also be upheld when it comes to our sovereignty and the protection of our people. Similarly, these principles must be upheld and applied in all contexts without exception. This issue is of paramount importance in cases of foreign alien occupation, mainly in cases affecting the occupied Palestinian territory. The State of Kuwait reiterates that the protection of civilians, the rejection of forced displacement, and the attempt at demographic change, and the delivery of humanitarian assistance are obligations under international law and IHL. These obligations must not be politicized, nor must they be upheld on a selective basis. Mr. President, the State of Kuwait, as a member of the Security Council, has tried to translate these principles into practical measures. We put forward a resolution on missing persons and on situations of armed conflict. For us, this was not a theoretical issue. Our people has suffered from the case of missing persons in times of invasion. We believe that you must identify the fate of the missing person. This is a right for families. This issue must be addressed in order to achieve reconciliation and to achieve lasting peace. In addition, we were a penholder of Resolution 24. 17, which highlighted the link between armed conflict and lack of food security. This resolution also condemned the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and the denial of humanitarian assistance. These two resolutions reflect our firm conviction that the protection of civilians must not be mere principle, but must be implemented on the ground, bolstered by accountability. In our opinion, the Security Council must focus on three priorities: prevention before violations occur, ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance without hindrance, and the delivery of humanitarian assistance must not be linked to any political consideration. The Council must also promote accountability for violations of international law. The strength of international law cannot be measured by the text we adopt, but it must be measured by our compliance with international law to ensure that international law is applicable to all without selectivity and without exception. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Ambassador. I would now like to give the floor to Qatar, followed by Spain and Oman.

Mr. President, at the outset, please allow me to thank the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for convening this important meeting. Upholding the Charter of the United Nations and IHL and international human rights law is not an option, but it underpins international peace and security. The Charter prohibits the use of force and upholds the peaceful settlement of disputes. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the two additional protocols, and the Hague Regulation and customary IHL are one integrated framework that must be upheld in good faith. According to the SG's report, more than 37,000 civilians were killed in 2025. This highlights the widening gap between commitment and compliance. Protracted conflicts. and cases of foreign occupation witness forced displacement, demographic change through colonial settlement activity prohibited under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and targeting of cultural and religious heritage. These violations foment divisions and erode the prospects for lasting peace. Today, I would like to reiterate the following three points. First, the consistent and fair application of international law is key to preserving its credibility. Consistency in addressing similar violations enhances trust in the Security Council and in multilateralism, and strengthens the conviction that international law applies to all without discrimination. There are stark violations of international law, including the principles of freedom of navigation. We reiterate that navigational freedom and security in international waterways is an inherent principle of international law. This is also enshrined in UNCLOS. Meanwhile, Security Council Resolution 2817 underscores the need to respect navigational rights and freedoms for commercial and merchant vessels. Any attempt to obstruct lawful passage, transit, and freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb poses a threat to international peace and security. Second, prevention, compliance, and accountability are mutually reinforcing. We support monitoring, fact-finding, and accountability mechanisms to deter violations. We call for the full implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions. Third, upholding international law must be an integral part of conflict prevention, mediation, and peaceful settlement of disputes. Our experience shows that comprehensive political solution grounded in international law and bolstered by effective mediation is the best means to achieve lasting peace. As proof, we mediated in Gaza and Afghanistan. We also pursue our efforts to resolve the conflict in Eastern Congo. Mr. President, We translate this commitment at home. In fact, we ratified the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the two additional protocols. We also ratified the Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property, integrating their provisions into our legislation. Qatar's National Committee for IHL disseminates this law, trains military and civilian personnel on its application as well, and follows up on how the state upholds its commitment in accordance in cooperation with the ICRC. We believe that compliance starts at home. Recently, The chair of the National Committee for IHL was elected as president of the Permanent Arab Committee on IHL. This embodies Arab trust and our role to disseminate and promote compliance with IHL in the region. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you. I will now give the floor to Ms..

Spain thanks you for this debate that helps us reaffirm fundamental principle respect for international law in situations of conflict, including IHL and international human rights law. It is indispensable for the maintenance of international peace and security. We are going through a phase where we are increasingly questioning the UN system as well as its foundational charter and the norms that underpin the international order. In this context, it is more important than ever to recall that the multilateral system and its rules are our best defense against arbitrariness, the law of might is right, and impunity. For Spain, defending the international rules-based order with the UN as its center is a priority. And I would like to explain how this conviction rests upon three pillars, respecting international law, in particular IHL and accountability in the fight against impunity. That's the first pillar. First, we should strengthen preventative diplomacy to ensure that differences do not become our conflicts. We must reinforce early warning systems, mechanisms for measurement and cooperation between UN and regional and local actors. The Security Council has a critical responsibility and it should fully use the instruments that are foreseen in chapter 6 of the Charter in order to reduce the risk of escalation. Second, Spain actively promotes compliance with international law in conflict situations. We condemn its violations wherever they may occur, be that in Ukraine, Palestine, Sudan, or other regions. And we for urgent action on behalf of the international community, respecting international laws, a legal and moral obligation, and it is critical to mitigate human suffering and build a lasting peace. We urge the Security Council to strengthen its role in order to demand respect for IHL. Moreover, we support its work when it comes to consolidating the norms of IHL through its resolutions, such as Resolution 2286, which reinforces the protection of medical staff, or Resolution 1325, which urges warring parties to adopt special measures to protect women and girls from violence due to their gender. We reiterate that These resolutions are mandatory and binding in nature and in their totality. Third, accountability and the fight against impunity are critical in order to ensure compliance with international law. We must reinforce verification mechanisms and support international justice institutions, specifically the ICJ and the ICC. Spain will continue upholding their independence and integrity. To conclude, Spain would like to reaffirm its conviction that respecting international law, and specifically IHL, in situations of armed conflict is an indispensable pillar in order to achieve international peace and security. You can count on Spain, on us, in order to promote respect for this and strengthen its protection. I thank you.

Thank you. I beg the indulgence of colleagues if we can limit our statements to two to three minutes. And I'm sure My brother, Ambassador Omar, is going to help me with that. My best, Excellency.

Thank you for convening this meeting at this critical juncture. I would like to thank all briefers. In this context, I would like to reiterate our support for the constructive role of Pakistan as member of the Security Council. We thank you for your interest in upholding the Charter of the United Nations and international law. Thank you for promoting multilateralism and the peaceful settlement of disputes at this critical juncture where diplomacy and prevention must prevail. These priorities intersect with our foreign policy. We believe that dialogue and the peaceful settlement of disputes are essential in order to strengthen international law and in order to prevent conflict and maintain international peace and security. Today, there are protracted conflicts which lead to civilian casualty. The effects of these conflicts affect the global world and our global security. We believe that the current challenges require serious action. There has been a widening gap between our agreement on laws and principles and the reality on the ground. As a matter of fact, we have a clear international legal framework that is underpinned by the Charter of the United Nations and international humanitarian law. At this stage, we must strengthen the full compliance with this framework in order to ensure the protection of civilians, civilian infrastructure, and humanitarian personnel. This must also ensure the delivery of humanitarian and respect the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity. Mr. President, in your concept note, you have raised several questions. You have questioned -- you have asked about a lack of accountability. As a matter of fact, these issues are of paramount importance when we do not achieve accountability. Complex protract, forced displacement, occupation, demographic change, and settlement have enduring consequences. and foment instability. We reiterate that the Palestinian question is a central question. In light of current realities, all parties must step up their efforts to end the Israeli occupation and to protect the legitimate right of the Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination, to end to their independent state in accordance with international law. Mr. President, Our experiences teach us that the root causes of conflict must be addressed through dialogue and preventive diplomacy. These efforts can achieve and can make a difference. We commend your initiative, Mr. President, and we take the opportunity in order to underscore the importance of these principles provided for in the Security Council. The Security Council must use all tools at its disposal to support international law and prevention. Thank you.

Thank the translators for keeping. You and the translators did their best. Thank you. And I have the honor to give the floor to the PR of Timor-Leste to be followed by Cyprus, Malaysia, Thailand.

Mr. Chair, excellencies, distinguished briefers. Timor-Leste thank Pakistan for convening this meeting and debrief us for their contributions. Civilians suffering in armed conflicts reflects a gap between legal obligations and their implementation. Upholding international law requires compliance with the United Nations Charter, international humanitarian law, and applicable international human rights law. For Timor-Leste, this commitment is rooted in our journey. The hardships preceding the restoration of independence and our transition to peace demonstrated the contribution of international solidarity and the United Nations to peacebuilding. They showed that reconciliation, dialogue, and cooperation can help transform difficulties or difficult histories into constructive relations. Mr. Chair, the Charter's principles, including sovereignty, territorial integrity, self-determination, and the peaceful settlement of disputes, must be upheld consistently. International humanitarian law binds all parties to armed conflict, and violations by one party can never justify violations by another. Persons affected by conflict, including civilians living under occupation, remain entitled to the protection of international law. These obligations are universal and should be applied without selectivity. Against this backdrop, Timor-Leste wishes to emphasize the following points: First, Parties should respect distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attack, and protect civilians, medical and humanitarian personnel, civilian infrastructure, and cultural and religious heritage, consistent with Resolutions 2286 and 2730. Second, parties must allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief for civilians in need, in accordance with international humanitarian law. Unlawful obstacles should be removed and safe medical evacuations facilitated. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited, as reaffirmed in Resolution 2417. Third, allegations of serious violations should be investigated promptly and impartially, evidence preserved, and victims and witnesses protected with respect for due process. National authorities bear primary responsibility, complemented by international mechanisms acting within their mandate and jurisdiction. The Security Council should employ monitoring, fact-finding, preventive diplomacy, and cooperation with regional organizations consistently, while promoting implementation of its resolutions. Attention should be given to forced displacement and measures altering the demographic composition of occupied territories. more or less this journey demonstrate that lasting peace requires political courage, trust institutions, reconciliation, and dialogue. Let us translate legal commitments into civilian protection, safe humanitarian access, and credible accountability. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Cyprus.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank Pakistan for convening this timely meeting and also the briefers for their insightful, for their useful insights. Cyprus aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the European Union and its member states and would like to add some more remarks in its national capacity. International relations are inevitably shaped by interests and power. International law does not deny this reality. It establishes the framework within which power must be exercised interest pursued and disputes resolved without placing international peace and security at constant risk. This is the practical wisdom of the United Nations Charter. The prohibition on the threat or use of force under Article 2, the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the obligation to settle international disputes by peaceful means under Articles 2, 3, and 33 are not expressions of abstract idealism. They are essential safeguards against an anarchical international order. These principles cannot be applied selectively or conditionally. Where armed conflict nevertheless occurs, international humanitarian law regulates the conduct of hostilities and protects persons who are not taking part in those. International human rights law also continues to apply during armed conflict. Yet the principal challenge today as it was repeatedly said, is not the absence of legal rules, but the persistent gap between legal obligation and compliance. Civilians continue to suffer the consequences of violations of international humanitarian law, impediments to humanitarian relief, forced displacement, and violations of their fundamental rights. The protection of civilians must therefore remain at the center of our efforts to uphold international law in armed conflict. These efforts require more effective multilateralism firmly centered on the United Nations. They require a non-selective approach. In this regard, the Security Council, entrusted with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, has a key role to play in promoting prevention, compliance, and accountability, including through the consistent implementation of its own resolutions. The passage of time cannot negate the legal force of Security Council resolutions, nor normalize situations created through gross violations of international law. Mr. Chair, for Cyprus, this is not an abstract discussion. Regrettably, we speak from our own experience. More than five decades after the 1974 Turkish invasion, part of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus remains under military occupation and under the effective control of Turkey. International judicial findings have established the occupying power's responsibility for acts and policies in the occupied areas, including those of its armed forces and its subordinated local administration. Yet serious and continuing violations concerning missing persons, displaced persons, property rights, and enclave communities remain unremedied. Binding judicial judgments have not been implemented, while the relevant resolutions of the Security Council have yet to be respected. The experience of Cyprus demonstrates that protracted conflicts do not cancel legal obligations. Time cannot confer legality on violations, nor can it diminish the obligations arising under international law. Achieving peace requires international law to be applied consistently and without selectivity. The challenge confronting us today is not the absence, as we said, of legal rules. The challenge is complying with them. And this is clearly our responsibility, the responsibility of all of us in this room. Implementation of international law rests on our national governments. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Malaysia and Thailand.

Mr. Chair, Malaysia thanks Pakistan for convening this timely meeting and also the briefers. Armed conflict places the international legal order to its gravest test. Yet in such situations, respect for international law is most critical. Malaysia, as a state party to the Geneva Conventions, has consistently emphasized that there are laws even in armed conflict. Compliance with those laws is not optional. It is a legal and moral obligation. allow me to highlight the following points. First, all parties to an armed conflict must fully comply with their obligations under international law, including IHL and applicable international human rights law. Civilians, humanitarian and medical personnel and civilian infrastructure must be protected at all times and safe, rapid and unimpeded humanitarian access must be ensured. Second, accountability is indispensable. Persistent violations are too often enabled impunity. Effective monitoring, fact-finding and accountability mechanisms can help deter further violations and provide justice to victims. These mechanisms, however, must operate impartially and consistently. Third, time does not diminish legal obligations. In protracted conflicts, including situations of foreign occupation, prolonged displacement, changes to demographic composition, and damage to civilians, cultural, and religious property can leave consequences lasting far beyond the cessation of hostilities. International law must therefore be upheld consistently in all situations and for all peoples. For Malaysia, the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory remains a stark reminder of the consequences when international law is disregarded and impunity persists. Forced displacement and attempts to alter the demographic character of the occupied Palestinian territory must be rejected. Israel must comply with its obligations under international law and IHL, including the protection of Palestinian civilians and civilian infrastructure. The illegal occupation must end, and the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people must be upheld, including their right to self-determination and to an independent and sovereign state of Palestine. The Security Council has a particular responsibility in this regard to uphold the authority and integrity of the UN Charter. The rule of law must prevail and be applied equally without double standards and without exception. Selective application, we can trust in the UN and the Council and erodes confidence in international law. In conclusion, upholding international law is not merely about regulating the conduct of armed conflict. It is about protecting human dignity, preserving the credibility of the multilateral system and creating the conditions necessary for a just and lasting peace. Thank you.

Thank you, Ambassador. We have Thailand, followed by Lebanon and Bulgaria.

Mr. President, Thailand would like to express our thanks to Pakistan for organizing this very important meeting. International law is of course essential to peace and security, especially in times of conflict. Today I would like to make three very simple points. First, we must continue to respect international humanitarian law. And at its heart, IHL is about protecting people, especially civilians during conflict. Thailand has joined the Global Initiative to Governize Political Commitment to International Humanitarian Law. And we do believe this is an important effort to strengthen respect for IHL around the world. The High Level Conference on Humanity in War to be held in Jordan this coming December will give us a good opportunity to renew our commitment, that commitment, and to keep IHL high on the international agenda. Second, when weapons are used in conflict, international law must be respected. Thailand remains deeply concerned about the use of indiscriminate weapons, particularly anti-personal mines. We also need to look at how new technologies are changing warfare. This includes lethal autonomous weapon systems and the growing use of AI in the military. Thailand supports open and constructive discussions on these issues. As technology develops, we must make sure that civilians are protected and that IHL is always respected. My third and final point is about preventing conflict in the first place. The UN Charter and international law give us the basic principles for resolving disputes peacefully. Dialogue and diplomacy should always be our first choice. Thailand, therefore, encourages all parties to conflict to talk to each other, in good faith and find peaceful ways to resolve their differences. The United Nations also has an important role to play in supporting these efforts. At the same time, we must respect the principles of non-interference, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Mr. President, in the end, the message is quite simple: international law matters. It protects people during conflict. And it helps us prevent conflict and resolve disputes peacefully. Thank you.

Thank you. Lebanon.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, this meeting invites us to assess the consequences of violations of international law in armed conflict. So here, allow me to speak about those consequences in Lebanon. In Lebanon, a child born in 2023 has not known one day of peace. A child born in southern Lebanon may already have been displaced more than once. Their education has been interrupted. Their family has had to leave without knowing when or whether they would return. And if they did return, they may have found their home, their school, or their village obliterated. These are the real-life consequences of the disregard of international law. Since October 2023, Israeli attacks have killed and injured tens of thousands. Entire villages and towns have been wiped out. Humanitarian personnel, like the Lebanese Red Cross, working to preserve life and dignity, has faced danger and obstruction. The catastrophic consequences extend to the land as well. Olive trees cultivated over generations have been burned, agricultural land contaminated, and livelihoods destroyed. As we know, damage to the environment outlives the hostilities and deprives present and future generations of land to which they belong. Mr. President, these are not isolated effects of a conflict that has ended. They form part of a continuing pattern of grave breaches. And Lebanon continues to face attacks against its territory, breaches of its sovereignty, and the occupation of parts of its land. These are severe violations of the UN Charter, Security Council Resolution 1701, international humanitarian law, and human rights law. Mr. President, everyone in this room has said that the challenge is not the absence of law, it is the presence of impunity. Rules invoked, but not enforced. Resolutions adopted, but not respected. Violations left unanswered and inviting repetition. So, yes, we do agree, Mr. President, that there can be no moral hemiplegia in the application of the law, and consistency instead of selectivity is required, as echoed by many here. We want to add that the Council should continue to hear directly from those present on the ground, humanitarian actors, civil society, local communities, whose testimonies anchor under our discussions in reality. And must also be reminded, as alluded by other colleagues as well, that the cost of prevention remains much lower than the cost of conflict. And we must do more to address root causes of conflict through mediation, preventive diplomacy, and other peaceful tools to settle disputes. Ultimately, Mr. President, and in conclusion, obligations, and I repeat, obligations under international law exist precisely to prevent such consequences. and upholding it remains the surest way to protect civilians. And ultimately, perhaps for some prevention, humanitarian assistance, protection of civilians can sound like obstructions. But behind those obstructions, there is this three-year-old child who might finally know a day of peace. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Bulgaria, followed by Liechtenstein.

Thank you, Mr. President, dear colleagues.

Let me start by thanking Pakistan for organizing this meeting on a topic of specific importance for my country. Bulgaria aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union. Bulgaria reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the UN Charter and international law. The Geneva Conventions and the international humanitarian law must be respected by all parties at all times and without exception. We firmly believe that civilians must remain at the center of our efforts. Respect for distinction, proportionality and precaution is essential.

Particular protection must be ensured for civilians, children and other.

Persons in vulnerable situations, medical and humanitarian personnel, civilian and critical infrastructure. Humanitarian access must be safe, rapid and unhindered. The war against Ukraine demonstrates the consequences of failing to uphold the fundamental principles of the UN Charter. Bulgaria firmly supports Ukraine's sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders. Attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure, forced displacement and other violations must be addressed through accountability mechanisms. In that sense, serious violations of international humanitarian law, including international human rights law, cannot remain without consequences. Monitoring, fact-finding and the preservation of evidence must be strengthened. Accountability is not an obstacle to peace. It is necessary for sustainable peace and prevention of recurrence. Bulgaria supports international efforts to ensure accountability for violations committed in Ukraine and elsewhere. The same principles must apply consistently in all conflicts. Bulgaria reiterates the imperative of full respect of international humanitarian law in the Middle East, including the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure, safe and unhindered humanitarian access and respect for international law. We remain committed to a negotiated two-state solution with Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security. Chair, international law must be at the center of conflict prevention, mediation, and peace processes. We call for stronger prevention, protection, and accountability, and for a renewed commitment to the international rules that safeguard.

Peace and human dignity.

In that sense, the Security Council holds a special responsibility in upholding international law and maintaining international peace and security. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Liechtenstein.

Thank you, Chair. The discussion on upholding international law in situations of armed conflict naturally has a focus on IHL, but as you have pointed out in your very good concept note, other bodies of law continue.

To apply as well.

That is the case, first and foremost, for the UN Charter itself and its Article 2.4, and in particular, as it relates to the principles of territorial integrity and political independence of states. That is also the case for Article 51, providing for collective and individual self-defense that, under all circumstances, has to be proportionate and necessary. Human rights law equally continues to apply. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides essential protections of the right to life and the prohibition of torture, among others. Derogations are permissible only under narrowly defined circumstances and have to be communicated. The principle of non-refoulement under the Refugee Convention, whose 75th anniversary we will celebrate next week, also continues to apply as it is part of customary international law. As others have pointed out in the discussion, accountability is key. That is the case not only for war crimes, but also for genocide, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression, the crime of committing beginning wars itself, the four crimes that the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over, and we continue to support its central.

Role in providing for accountability. Finally, with respect to IHL itself.

We are witnessing two alarming.

Trends with massive impacts, in particular, on civilians that enjoy broad protection under the Fourth Geneva Convention. We're witnessing the trend of IHL violations being used as a tactic.

Of war, rather than being a byproduct of armed conflict.

That manifests itself, in particular, through attacks on civilian targets, civilian infrastructure, use of weapons with indiscriminate effect.

Use of starvation as a weapon of war.

And mass forced displacement, including from occupied territories. Second, we are also seeing.

An alarming trend to ignore and dismiss IHL provisions altogether and thus to challenge their relevance.

The Geneva Conventions are among the most universally ratified body of law and have to be a central part of our response. We welcome the initiative of the ICRC and are thankful to the government of Jordan for hosting the conference in Amman on the 7th of December. I thank you.

I thank you, and I have the permanent observer of the State of Palestine.

Thank you, Mr. President, for convening this important meeting. And also, we want to thank the briefers for their presentations. Mr. President, advancing international law in all situations is the backbone of the multilateral system. Upholding international law during armed conflict is the defining character of multilateralism. Protecting civilians during armed conflict is the moral, legal, and political imperative and essential condition for maintaining international peace and security. This is why humanity collectively elaborated an entire system of law and principles after the horrors of World War II with the charter of the United Nation as its cornerstone and its purposes and principles. Similarly, an entire edifice was built to regulate the conduct of hostilities and to ensure the protection of civilians, including the 14th of a convention of 1949, their additional protocols, the Hague regulations, and customary international humanitarian law, complemented by international human rights law and international criminal law. These are the moral, legal, and political norms that have guided our international community that no one is above the constraints of the law and no one is below its protection. This is the civilizations we choose for the sake of all, not for one against the other, including the most vulnerable among us. In Palestine, we have the most protracted, the longest, and the most sustained violations of nearly every provision of the law of armed conflict. These violations are result of Israel's illegal occupation its aggression and annexation, its settlement regime and colonial enterprise, its wall, its blockade, its apartheid regime, its systematic policy of abuse of prisoners, its targeting of civilians and civilian objects, and mass killing of children. These violations also stem from Israel's continued intransigence and unilateral denial of the applicability of these laws vis-a-vis the protected Palestinian population under its occupation. Palestine has, for decades, represented and materially manifested the unfulfilled promise of these laws. For years now, we have called for international protection in accordance with the resolutions of this very Council, for deterrence, for real accountability, for practical measures to counter these policies on the ground, not only condemn them in international fora. The ICJ spelled out clearly the obligations of states.

As they pertain to non-recognition, distinction, non-assistance, and.

Accountability, as well as to supporting the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. These include, but are not limited to, abstaining from treaty relations concerning the Palestinian territory, abstaining from economic or trade dealings concerning the Palestinian territory, abstaining from establishing and maintaining diplomatic missions in Jerusalem, seizing the importation of settlement products, seizing the provisions or transfer of arms, munitions, or related equipment that may be used in the Palestinian territory, and implementing sanctions, including travel bans and asset freeze. States also have an obligation to act with diligence, take steps and measures through financial, judicial, administrative, legislative, or other means against personnel, financial institutions, businesses, companies, and entities in their territory or subject to their jurisdiction involved in or provide support to the construction or maintenance of the settlement enterprise. The ICJ also clearly stated that it is for all states while respecting the Charter of the United Nations and international law, to ensure that any impediment resulting from the illegal presence of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory to the exercise of the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination is brought to an end. And it further said to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in the Fourth Geneva Convention. We welcomed the measures announced by 12 states to ban settlement products and impose wider sanctions on the settlement enterprise entities and individuals who finance, facilitate, and contribute to this war crime. Of course, many others should be joining them. Joined, of course, by other states, these measures mark a significant and essential steps towards translating states obligations under the UN Charter, UN resolutions and ICJ rulings into concrete actions against Israel's settlement enterprise. Israel's illegal occupation and Israel's crimes, which undermine the two state solution. The ICJ ruling, Security Council, General Assembly resolutions have given us mechanisms to ensure accountability for Israel's violations. We need to implement them. These necessary measures are just the beginning. States must lay the ground for comprehensive measures to prevent trade, investment, and other economic activities that sustain or benefit Israel's illegal occupation and settlement enterprise and contribute to Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign. We expect the Security Council and wider international community to shoulder their responsibility and build on these measures, expand them and reinforce them. Actions and measures, not statements and condemnations, will ensure the primacy of international law and the protection of civilians.

Unchecked.

Undeterred Israeli impunity is threatening a century of sustained efforts of formulating and implementing the most extraordinary legal machinery to protect civilians. It must be brought to an end. And I am sorry for taking a few more minutes, but I think that our subject is huge and we are the elephant in the room. And I beg your indulgence, Mr. President, and I thank you.

Thank you, Ambassador. I must say that we are drawing close to our allocated time, and we might have time only for a couple of statements, depending on how concise we can have. I give the floor to the Ambassador of Nepal.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Excellencies, additional colleagues. At the outset, Nepal thanks Pakistan for convening this timely debate and expresses our sincere appreciation to the distinguished briefers for their valuable insights. Upholding international law during armed conflict is indispensable to restraining violence, protecting civilians, safeguarding global peace and security, and preserving a rule-based international order. International law, with the UN Charter at its core, forms the foundation of interstate relations and notions, peaceful coexistence among nations. It remains a legal and moral compass to defend sovereign equality, peaceful settlement of disputes, non-aggression, and non-interference. These are not abstract ideals. They are practical safeguards against conflict, against coercion, and against instability. International treaties embody solemn promises between sovereign nations, translating political intent into mutual trust and legal obligations. Amid rising civilian casualties in armed conflicts, the principles of international and human rights law are essential to prevent human suffering, guarantee law and order, and ensure accountability. Mr. Chair, allow me to highlight a few points. First, we must reaffirm the primacy of UN Charter and international law as the shared foundations of international peace, security, and collective well-being of humanity. Consistent adherence to the international law strengthens mutual trust, restores confidence in international institutions, and reinforces a rule-based order grounded in fairness, justice, and predictability. Second, international obligations must be upheld in good faith and without exceptions. The strength of international law lies not only in treaty text itself, but in the commitment and in the conduct of the states. For the smaller and for more vulnerable nations, equal protections under international law is indispensable. Third, protection of civilians must remain central. The Security Council must deliver on its mandates with consistency and with impartiality, avoiding selectivity and ensuring implementations of its resolutions. Fourth, peaceful dispute settlement mechanisms should be used early and effectively. Preventive diplomacy, mediations, and the Secretary General's good offices must be anchored in respect for international law. Fifth, prevention must guide our collective response. Early warning, collective confidence building measures, and honest dialogue can deter unilateral actions and reduce misunderstanding. In conclusion, Excellencies, at a time of strain in multilateralism, let us ensure that the force of law prevails over the law of force, and that a just, inclusive, and rule-based international order becomes a reality for all. Thank you.

Thank you. Can we aim for two minutes each, starting with Brazil?

Thank you. Thank you, Ambassador. I will do my best. Excellency, Brazil thanks Pakistan for convening this timely meeting. At a moment when armed conflicts are multiplying and civilians bear their most devastating consequences, our message should remain unequivocal. International law must be respected in all circumstances by all parties and in a non-selective manner. Violations of fundamental norms are becoming more flagrant and frequent everywhere. The very authority of international law is being recklessly challenged. The targeting of civilians, the use of force in contravention of the UN Charter, and the illegal imposition of unilateral coercive measures, including against international courts, all contribute to eroding confidence in the international legal order. Unilateralism is on the rise, and fundamental legal principles are being tested to their limits. This dangerous trend reinforces the urgent need to strengthen and nurture international law, with the UN Charter at its core. The international community bears a crucial responsibility to safeguard the foundations of international law and to ensure that norms continue to respond effectively to evolving realities and emerging global challenges. Excellencies, international law constitutes the foundation of the international order built to preserve peace, protect human dignity, and to enable sustainable development for all nations. International law falters when applied inconsistently, when violations go unaddressed, and when political calculations determine whether or not it is observed at all. In situations of armed conflict, the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution must be strictly observed. Humanitarian and medical personnel must be able to perform their work safely, and humanitarian assistance must reach populations in need. Compliance must be accompanied by accountability. Serious violations of international law and IHL must be investigated and those responsible held accountable. For that, national jurisdictions must be empowered to act. International courts and tribunals, including the ICC, must be able to carry out their mandates and deliver justice free from threats, intimidation, or interference. The same applies to the UN and other international organizations mandated to act in situations of armed conflict as acknowledged by the ICJ. The Security Council likewise bears a particular responsibility. When the organ entrusted with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security is unwilling or unable to act, it sends a message of indifference to civilians affected by armed conflict. Such paralysis not only deepens suffering on the ground, but also undermines confidence in multilateral institutions and in international law itself. In conclusion, Your Excellency, international law is most important precisely when it's most difficult to uphold. Brazil remains committed to working with all member states to uphold international law and IHL to promote accountability and ensure that the principles enshrined in the UN Charter continue to guide our national and collective action. Thank you very much.

Thank you. The interpreters have kindly agreed to stay with us for a few more minutes. So I would like to give the floor now to Azerbaijan, followed by Indonesia.

Mr. Chair, at the outset, I would like to thank the Permanent Mission of Pakistan for convening this important discussion. Armed conflicts continue to be characterized by serious violations of international law and high level of civilian death, injury, and deliberate and or indiscriminate targeting of civilian objects and essential civilian infrastructure, including in situations of occupation. Azerbaijan's experience underscores the limitations of the international system, as the United Nations and other international organizations were unable to prevent the aggression and other serious violations of international law committed against our country or to bring an end to the nearly three decades long occupation of our territories. Mr. Chair, what is needed first and foremost is a political will to uphold international law and ensure accountability. Certain conduct in armed conflict constitutes serious crimes on the international law and is prohibited by preemptory norms while also involving serious violations of obligations owed to the international community as a whole. All states have obligations under the international law. to investigate such offenses, prosecute those responsible, and ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice. These obligations arise from a range of legally binding instruments, as well as customary international law. Accordingly, blanket amnesties, de facto impunity, or other forms of immunity, and early release for persons responsible for the most serious international crimes are incompatible with states' obligation under international law. The international community should remain steadfast in opposing impunity, standing with victims, survivors, and their families, supporting national accountability efforts, and countering disinformation campaigns, seeking the release of those responsible for the most serious crimes. Experience demonstrates that atrocities left unpunished or unacknowledged can impede peace, obstruct reconciliation, and create conditions conducive to renewed conflict. allowing genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, or international terrorism to go unpunished risk undermining the very foundation upon which lasting peace must rest. Peace and accountability are not competing objectives. The pursuit of peace must not come at the expense of justice. There can be no genuine reconciliation without accountability, no lasting peace without justice. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I give the floor to Indonesia.

Mr. Chair, Indonesia thanks Pakistan for convening this Area Formula meeting. In navigating complex global conflicts, international law provides not only legal clarity, but a moral compass to protect civilians and uphold human dignity. Across many conflicts, civilians continue to bear the gravest consequences, including loss of life, displacement, destruction of homes, and denial of basic services. These realities are lived daily by millions across the world, including those who have endured decades of occupation. Yet the very body of international law created to protect them has too often failed in practice, as its implementation remains selective and inconsistent. Allow me to highlight three points in this regard. First, international law must be enforced without double standards. A la carte implementation of international law will never work. Selective enforcement and double standards will instead erode confidence in multilateral institutions, weaken respect for international legal norms, and create conditions for impunity. Therefore, international law must apply universally and consistently across all situations of conflict, ensuring accountability on all violations without exception. Second, foreign occupation is a clear violation of international law and driver of instability. Nowhere is this more visible than in the occupied Palestinian territory. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits forcible transfers, deportations and demographic alteration of occupied land. The principle of distinction, proportionality and precaution of the international humanitarian law must always be upheld. And third, the Security Council must be at the forefront in enforcing compliance of its own resolutions. Serious violations persist because of a widening gap between legal obligations and actual compliance. The Security Council must utilize its tools to overcome political paralysis, ensure accountability, and enforce implementation of its own decisions. Any meaningful peace process must be comprehensive, inclusive, and firmly grounded in international law. Mr. Chair, we must act with unity, resolve, and moral clarity to ensure that justice, dignity, and humanity prevail for all. I thank you.

Thank you. I think I have now only time maybe for one or two interventions. I'll give the floor to the DPR of Japan. And then in terms of level of representation in the room, I see the permanent representative of Cuba. So I beg your intelligence. I'll give the floor to the permanent representative of Cuba after that. Japan, followed by Cuba.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. Japan emphasizes that the international community must not give up its effort to prevent armed conflict and in cases it happens, achieve its early end. Therefore, conflict prevention, mediation, and peaceful settlement of disputes are to be regarded as priorities. Having said that, unfortunately, armed conflicts continue to occur, and some of them persist for long. Even in times of hostility, compliance with international humanitarian law is essential to maintain the minimum standard of rule of law. Among the rules of IHL, the principle of distinction is particularly important. In this regard, it is worrisome that in today's armed conflicts, the distinction between military and civilian objects is becoming increasingly blurred. It should be stressed that civilian populations and civilian objects must not be targeted. Furthermore, ensuring that humanitarian personnel can carry out their work unhindered is of the utmost importance for protecting civilian populations. Last year, Japan, together with eight like-minded countries, issued a declaration for protection of humanitarian personnel during the High-Level Week. Japan also supported the adoption of Security Council Resolution 2730 during our term on the Council. While we should not spare our efforts to prevent and stop armed conflicts, to ensure the minimum standard of rule of law, it is important to secure compliance with IHL. Japan is committed to upholding the rule of law, including in times of conflict. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Cuba.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we are facing an international scenario characterized by multiple crises. proliferation and prolongation of armed conflicts, geopolitical tensions, and a dangerous tendency when it comes to an arms race that is taking away indispensable resources for sustainable development. This contest asks, like never before, strict respect for international law. The Charter of the UN is completely clear on the duty to resolve controversies via peaceful means, as well as the obligation of abstaining from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Its first article places preventing threats to international peace and security and solving conflicts via peaceful means Among the main goals of this organization in armed conflict, strict compliance with IHL and with all applicable norms is not an option, it is an obligation. respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, as well as the prohibition of the threat or use of force, should be demanded with firmness in all scenarios. There can be no peace if we allow for atrocious violations of IHL, as the ones committed by Israel, the occupying power, against Palestine. The Council should uphold its responsibility without any kind of selectivity. It should comprehensively defend the Charter and ensure that its decisions are respected and applied. To foster peace and prevent conflicts, we must address their root conflicts and their historic precedents, as well as fostering dialogue, solidarity, and international cooperation on the basis of priorities identified by concerned states. We will only build a world of peace on the basis of justice if we assume that multilateralism is the only road to solve conflicts and if we are able to sort out our differences by respecting the Charter and international law. Chairman, the most powerful military superpower that has ever been seen by humanity consistently undermines the Security Council when it comes to upholding international peace and security. It has a broad trajectory of aggressions threats of use of force, interfering in the internal affairs of states, and imposing unilateral coercive measures in a flagrant violation of international law. At the same time, it exacerbates conflicts and divisions, it undermines multilateralism, as well as the credibility and legitimacy of the United Nations. Against Cuba, the government of the United States is heightening its multidimensional war to unprecedented levels. It is reinforcing its regime change strategy, and it is imposing a genocidal collective punishment against the Cubans with an extreme reinforcing of the blockade via an energy siege that is the equivalent of a naval blockade and includes secondary sanctions, which has a very serious extraterritorial impact. To all of this, we add the very dangerous public threats of an open military aggression against Cuba with ridiculous excuses. We reiterate that any military adventure against Cuba would have terrible consequences, not just for my country and the United States, but for international peace and security and stability in the hemisphere and the world. The Council should implement its mandate faithfully in the face of this aggression. Despite the danger of military aggression, Cuba continues to bank on peace and dialogue, respecting international law, sovereign equality and mutual respect. I thank you.

I have only four or five minutes left. I have request for floor for further statements by two of the members of the Council. I also recognize there is another permanent representative, Mexico. I would like to give him the floor for a one-minute statement. Thank you. Ambassador of Mexico.

Mr. President.

I was told that I had to speak English. I usually speak Spanish on these occasions, but I was told it was in English.

So let me read my text.

Mexico celebrates Pakistan's initiative for convening this meeting. The Charter of the United Nations cannot be invoked selectively. Its credibility, as well as that of the multilateral system, depends on its consistent and universal application. Double standards weaken the authority of the Charter, fuel distrust, and undermine our collective capacity to respond to contemporary challenges. Mexico considers it essential to make a more systematic and consistent use of the mechanisms of the peaceful settlement of disputes. Dialogue, negotiation, mediation, and good offices should not be understood as exceptional measures, but as the primary means of addressing disputes and situations that may endanger international peace and security. My country maintains that Article 51 of the Charter cannot be interpreted broadly or invoked as an open-ended justification for the unilateral use of force in the territory of another state. Acts committed by non-state actors can only give rise to self-defense when they are legally attributable to a State in accordance with international law. Any invocation of self-defence must also comply with the requirements of necessity and proportionality, as well as with the obligation to report immediately to the Security Council. When armed conflict nevertheless occurs, All parties must respect international humanitarian law, including the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attack. Civilians, humanitarian and medical personnel, civilian infrastructure must be protected. Respect for international law requires accountability. We reiterate the importance of reform at the Security Council, which should include the strengthening of the Council's capacity to act in the gravest situations. In this regard, we urge States that have not yet done so to join the French-Mexican initiative on the voluntary restriction of the use of the veto in cases of mass atrocities. Compliance with international law cannot be reduced to an aspiration. It is a shared responsibility of states. In the face of armed conflict, states must continue to comply with the UN Charter. I thank you. Thank you. I would now like to give the floor in this succession, one minute each, to France, UK, and the.

US.

Thank you, Chair. I will be very brief. I take the floor to regret the fact that the topic of this area meeting has been diverted by the Russian Federation. with the obvious aim of launching accusations of an individual member states. This is a new disinformation attempt. Do we need to recall yet once again what was Russia's responsibility, including vis-a-vis the international law and the respect for UN resolutions, when it came to the illegal occupation of Crimea in 2014 and then in 2022? What was it responsibility given this major violation of international law and the destruction of infrastructure. And what is today the share of the G7? GDP of Russia spent on the war in Ukraine? And does Russia and the Russians do know that themselves? In this context, the successive reports of the UN are clear on the role Russia plays in Ukraine and the fact that the crimes committed by Russia had to be brought to account. And that's accountability. The attempts by Russia to divert responsibility are exercises in rhetoric and should not happen. Thank you.

It is a meeting about the central importance of international law in the context of armed conflict. As our French colleague.

Said, we regret that Russia has used today's meeting to deflect attention from its own aggression against Ukraine. In response to that aggression, Ukraine has exercised its right to self-defence in accordance with article 51 of the charter.

And the UK supports Ukraine's right to self-defence.

Self-defence in international law, and we will continue to do so.

We also note that, during the course of the conflict, Russia has acted in violation of international humanitarian law.

Its actions have included relentless bombardments, including of.

Civilian infrastructure, as well as repeated attacks on civilians, with over 17,000 killed.

We have also witnessed the deportation and the forcible transfer of Ukrainian children.

We note that the International Criminal Court has issued a response in relation to that matter.

Thank you. Thank you. The U.S. Thank you, Ambassador. I hope you will leave me with one minute to conclude.

Yes, I'll be very efficient.

Thank you.

We also regret the politicized accusations that were made during this meeting, including the.

Representative of Cuba's outrageous accusations against the United States, which are an attempt to deflect responsibility for decades of.

Corruption and economic mismanagement. While the Cuban people face shortages, regime elites live opulent.

Lifestyles, and the government continues to squander resources on high-end tourist resorts and hotels that sit empty.

Press reports indicate the military-owned conglomerate, GESA, and its subsidiaries have accumulated more than $18 billion in overseas bank accounts.

Meanwhile, the United States remains one of Cuba's principal.

Suppliers of food and medicine, including roughly half a billion dollars in agricultural exports last year.

And is currently working to deliver $100 million in humanitarian assistance directly to the Cuban.

People through the Catholic Church and independent organizations.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. I have no time actually to conclude. And by the way, it would be unfair. Cuba? We don't have time for further statements. Sorry. I have to conclude this session. Although it would be very unfair to try to summarize such a rich discussion that we had, but I would say that this meeting served its purpose. I would thank the briefers. Some points that came out very clearly, full compliance and consistent implementation of international law, accountability. And secondly, the fundamental point that international law is only as effective as our collective commitment to uphold it. And we were also reminded of the imperative of prevention and peaceful settlement of disputes. And finally, because this is Security Council, the Security Council has a particular responsibility in this regard. So with those remarks, I would just like to thank all briefers and participants. And I would also like to inform that we will, as Pakistan delegation, we will also summarize this discussion and share with member states. Thank you so much.