High Level Meeting in Defence of International Law

Your excellencies, we are about to start. Yeah, thank you. We request that we all sit and then we start. Thank you very much your excellencies. I hope you all have the program in front of you. which I will start with the welcome and the opening remarks. We will be followed by our co-sponsor, Malaysia, His Excellency, Mohamed Hassan, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia. I will now do the opening remarks. Excellencies, the co-sponsor, His Excellency, Mohamed Hassan, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Malaysian, all members of the diplomatic corps, experts, observers, and all colleagues who are here. It is my honor to welcome you to this high-level meeting in defense of international law. I thank our co-sponsor, His Excellency Mohamad Hassan, the Foreign Minister of Malaysia, and all states represented here today. We meet under a United Nations Charter drafted under the catastrophe of Second World War, founded on the dignity and the worth of a human being. the sovereign equality of states, and the equality of rights of nations, large and small. South Africa has always advocated for an international system that is predictable and based on international law with the United Nations Charter at its center and as the supreme law. We believe that an international system based on the fundamental legal principles of sovereign equality of states territorial integrity, and political independence inherently benefits all nations, large and small. This system has led to the prohibition of interventions in the internal affairs of other states and the prohibition of the use of force that is not consistent with Article 51 of the UN Charter or duly authorized by the Security Council. It has also put in place obligations for member states of the UN to respect and implement treaties in good faith, cooperation and coordination among states, the peaceful settlement of disputes, as well as respect for human rights and the self-determination of peoples. These normative safeguards establish a vision of a world where all are allowed to thrive in peace, security and just societies. It should be that simple. But if it is not that simple, why are we here? It is for us to ensure that we protect and advocate for an international law to be defended and protected by all member states of the UN. And international law cannot protect people if its judgments are ignored, if its obligations treated as optional? Or is institutions intimidated whenever they act against the interests of the powerful? Again, international law will not protect itself. Member states have a duty and an obligation to protect and defend international law. The Hague Group was established in January 2025 in response to precisely this danger. It began amid the devastation in Gaza that moved South Africa to place Israel before the International Court of Justice under the Genocide Convention, with nine states asking a simple question: What must states actually do to give effect to obligations that already exist? Since then, more than 60 states have engaged with the group. In Bogota, 30 governments came together to develop coordinated measures on arms transfers, ports, shipping, public procurement, accountability, and universal jurisdiction. The work has continued in The Hague and here in New York. The premise is simple. International law must be given practical effect. That task remains urgent in Palestine. There is no shortage of legal clarity. The ICJ has set out obligations arising from the Israeli unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territory. Yet Palestinians in Gaza continue to face airstrikes, displacements, restrictions on humanitarian access, and deprivations of essential goods. In the occupied West Bank, settlement expansions, demolitions, land confiscation, and settler violence continue unabated. And this challenge extends beyond Palestine. In Lebanon, sovereign and territorial integrity remain under assault. UN peacekeepers continue to record Israel's military activity inside Lebanese territory and repeated violations of Lebanese airspace. The sovereignty of Lebanon must be respected. In Sudan, UN investigators have found serious violations by both the Sudanese armed forces and the rapid support forces that may amount to war crimes. While atrocities committed by the RSF around El Shaifa, El Fasher, have been described as bearing the hallmarks of genocide, fighting continues to displace civilians across the country. Hence, this has now been declared the world's most humanitarian disaster. These are different conflicts with different histories and legal circumstances. But each poses the same question: will the rules we have written together be enforced consistently, or only when the powerful permits it to be done? International law must offer protection, not the cold comfort of empty phrases. And it must do so for the entire global community, without exception. At the same moment, The institutions charged with delivering accountability are themselves under attack. Judges and prosecutors of the International Criminal Court have already been subjected to unilateral sanctions. Reports now indicate that sanctions against the court as an institution are being planned. If imposed, such measures could fundamentally disrupt its operations. An independent court remains independent if judges and officials cannot be punished for carrying out their mandates. Our discussions today is therefore organized around three connected tasks. Building a multilateralism that gives real meaning to the sovereign equality of nations. Moving from complicity to compliance by giving practical effect to states existing obligations. Across our courts, ports and factories and moving from the impunity to accountability by defending international courts and ensuring responsibility for grave crimes. South Africa's own history offers us lessons in what this can mean in practice. In 1962, the General Assembly established what became the Special Committee Against Apartheid. It did more than restate the injustice of apartheid. It monitored, reported, and helped organize international actions to bring that system to an end. And in 1963, the Security Council called on states to cease the sale and shipment of arms to apartheid South Africa. It took 14 more years of pressure and struggle before, in 1977, the Council imposed a mandatory arms embargo under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. These measures took time and required persistence, but they mattered and they made a difference. Before I conclude, I would also like to draw your attention to the vision statement that has been placed on every seat in this chamber. The statement reflects a simple conviction that the authority of international law derives not merely from its proclamation, but from its enforcement. It reaffirms our commitment to the Charter of the United Nations, to the equal rights and the self-determination of peoples, and to coordinated action by states to uphold our obligations under international law. We invite all States represented here today to consider supporting and signing the Vision Statement. I encourage you to review the text during the course of this meeting, and our teams will be available to facilitate your endorsement. So I invite every delegation today to put proposals on the table that other States can act upon. Tell us where coordination is missing and how we can do better. Our task today is to turn concern into compliance and law into protection. The alternative is a world in which might alone determines which laws are respected and which may be violated with impunity. We reject that alternative. I look forward to our deliberations and I thank you. It is now my honor to give the floor to our co-sponsor, His Excellency, Mr. Mohamed Hassan, The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia, Minister Hassan, my dear brother, you now have the floor.

Thank you, Excellency Lamola, co-sponsor, chair of the meeting today, distinguished ministers and excellencies. It is a privilege to address the HIG group today. We meet as the international legal order faces one of its most severe tests. In Gaza and across the occupied Palestinian territory, we continue to witness blatant violations of international law, immense human suffering, and the systematic denial of fundamental human rights. Yet, my friend, despite binding court ruling, UN resolution, and clear legal obligation, the Zionist regime continues its atrocities with impunity. We cannot allow these violations and breakdown international norms to be normalised. The credibility of international law depends not only on the existence of rules, but on our collective willingness to uphold and enforce them. Excellencies, the question of Palestine remains a litmus test for the international community's commitment to the rule of law. It tests a fundamental premise whether international law applies universally to all nations, or whether it yields to the whims of those who believe that might make right. The International Court of Justice advisory opinion on July 2024 leaves no doubt regarding states' obligation concerning Israel's illegal presence in the occupied Palestinian territory. The General Assembly has echoed this decision. We do not need to invent a new legal framework, Excellency. We need to enforce the ones we already have. This is where the Hague Group has an important role to play. Our task is to strengthen collective action in defence of international law by improving coordination, sharing tools, backing international enforcement bodies, and identifying steps governments can take within their own domestic legal systems. Crucially, our work must reinforce the UN system, helping states deliver on commitments they have already made. The Hague Group, Excellencies, exists because principles on paper mean nothing without enforcement. Malaysia joined this initiative because of the sense of responsibility that demands collective and consistent action grounded in international law. This group gives us the framework to turn obligations into concrete measures and actions. Mr. Chair, Excellencies, our work should reinforce rather than undermine the multilateral system. The United Nations remain the pillar through which the international community operates. Where the system is weakened by inaction or political paralysis, we must work to strengthen its foundation through principle and lawful action. International law cannot be an option menu where rules apply only when convenient. If the system is to survive, impunity cannot be tolerated and accountability must prevail. Defending international law is not a matter of choosing sides. It is about defending the rule-based order in which no state is above the law and in which the rights of peoples are not subject to political convenience. For the Palestinian people, This means upholding their inalienable rights, including their right to self-determination, and supporting the realization of an independent and sovereign state of Palestine based on the pre-1967 border, with Jerusalem as its capital. Excellencies, let us use this group to move from condemnation to execution, from fragmented statements to joint strategy, And from rhetoric to impactful actions, Malaysia stands ready to work. work with all members of this group in defense of international law. Let us act together, solidly, urgently, and resolutely to uphold justice and the rule of law. I thank you.

Thank you very much, my dear brother, for your statement. We now move to Her Excellency, Eritisian Adam, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Maldives. You now have the floor, my dear sister.

Thank you, distinguished Minister and the Chair. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, we are here because the law has spoken on Palestine. The question is whether states will act. The ICJ has found Israel's continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory illegal. The court has affirmed the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. International law cannot live in declarations alone. It must live in our actions. In response to Israel's continued violations of international law, the Maldives calls for concrete action. We call for a full arms embargo on Israel and a complete boycott of trade with Israel. We must also defend the institutions that give the law meaning. The authority and independence of the ICJ and ICC must be respected. Their decisions cannot become subject to political convenience. International law exists for the benefit and defense of every country. For small states, that protection is especially vital. It turns sovereignty from principle into protection. The international rule of law is our strongest defense against disparity of power, preserving the space in which we must make our own decisions and choose our own future. No country can place itself beyond the reach of the law. An illegal situation does not become legal because it persists. Every country must therefore have the freedom and capacity to shape its own group, a future chosen by its people, a future secured by international law. The Maldives stands ready to work with this group. I thank you.

Thank you very much, my dear sister, for your statement. I now call upon His Excellency Mr. Eivind Barth Eide, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Norway.

Thank you, Your Excellency, Lamolla, my dear brother. I'm glad to see you here, and also thanks to Foreign Minister Hassan for his co-sponsorship on this. Norway is a very proud observer to the Hague Group. We very much appreciate the work that is being done here, and I think this statement is spot on. It's exactly what needs to be said, that The authority of international law derives not merely from its proclamation, but from its enforcement. That's exactly our point as well. That just having a list of principles has no meaning if we don't apply them. This is particularly important in international law because we don't have a superior authority in the same way that we have it in national law. So it's really up to us as states to demonstrate that international law, which is laws between states, but also international humanitarian law and human rights law, must apply consistently to all people, all places, all the time. And as His Excellency Hassan very correctly said, if not, it just becomes a menu that you can choose from when you, for some political reasons, want to criticize someone. As you know, Norway came out early together with Spain and Ireland and others in lifting our voice and speaking out clearly on the Israeli atrocities committed in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Syria, and now, of course, the massive onslaught in the West Bank, which is a clear violation of basically all the rules of the book, very serious. And I have to say that for many For a long time, I was worried, seeing that many of my Western friends might have agreed in principle, but were not ready to say it out loud. That is changing. We're getting there. And for that reason, I've been chairing a number of meetings together with the Palestinian Authority and many other concerned countries, including in the Global Alliance on the Two-State Solution. This is also very much a defense of the inalienable right of defense of the Palestinian people. I also echo what was said about the situation in Sudan, where both warring partners, parties are in practice waging a war on the civilian population with horrendous consequences, and also all the other examples. I think we should also mention one more. We see the Russian completely illegal aggression against Ukraine, a grave violation of international law. The most principal rule in the book is that those shall not attack other countries. And as was said, I think we all need to demonstrate that we do not take political considerations. We stand up for international law in favour of the victim and against the aggressor, whatever we think of them. And the last thing we want is a world divided into some countries speaking loudly and clearly and correctly on Ukraine, but not speaking on Israel's atrocities, and another group of the world speaking correctly, and thankfully so, on Palestine, but we're forgetting the atrocities committed by Russia. We need to be consistent in our defense. I also agree that in that way, we need to stand together to defend the International Criminal Court. Norway resoundly rejects any attempts to weaken the International Criminal Court. We will stand up for its defense. We will work actively on business continuity, because if laws are to be applied, there cannot be any impunity. And this is one of the main constructions internationally to ensure that we get to a world of no impunity. And I will end my dear brother, Lamola, that my first engagement in politics was in the anti-apartheid movement in Norway, which was, you know, among with other Nordics, a quite active partner in developing global policy against apartheid. And at that time, it was important for us that we were totally against apartheid. We were not 50% against apartheid. We did not want, you know, some milder form of apartheid. We wanted no apartheid. And sometimes we have to be very clear. And I hear people in north-south, east, and west sometimes saying there are two sides to the story. Well, there are actually times where there are only one side to the story. One is right and one is wrong. And I think in all the cases I mentioned, these are good examples of that. Thank you very much for the attention.

Thank you very much, my dear brother. And We know your work, and we thank you for the work that you have done, which is now blowing the wind of change in the countries of the West. And we can hear the voices now that are coming, joining you. And we really appreciate that. Thank you. We now move to His Excellency Riad Mansour, the Minister and the Permanent Representative of the State of Palestine to the United Nations. You have the floor, my dear brother.

Dear brother, Minister Lamola, ministers, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, civil society representatives, friends, allow me to begin by extending our gratitude and that of the Palestinian people to South Africa. the chair of the Hague Group and in its leadership in bringing the genocide case against Israel before the ICJ. And to the members of the Hague Group and to the executive secretary of the Hague Group and the team for their historical, legal, and diplomatic mobilization aimed at putting an end to decades of Israeli impunity. We are also pleased to see many States participating today, across regional groups, united in the global call for upholding humanity, morality and legality, and united in their solidarity with the Palestinian people and our just cause. We are also pleased to have this year's ministerial meeting in the halls of the UN. It further consolidates the permanent responsibility of the United Nations toward the question of Palestine in all its aspects, including justice for the Palestinian people. Friends, the Palestinian people are still confronting an existential threat to their presence on their land. In the Gaza Strip, our people continue to endure catastrophic humanitarian conditions, after years of death, destruction, displacement, and deprivation, and 1,400 Palestinians have been killed since the ceasefire. In the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Israel is accelerating settlement expansion, land confiscation, forced displacement, settler violence, and annexation measures. And we must be clear. Annexation is not a future threat. It is already well underway. Israel today controls two-thirds of the Gaza Strip and two-thirds of the West Bank, while 87% of occupied East Jerusalem is off-limits to Palestinians. At the same time, Israel is systematically undermining the Palestinian Authority and our national institutions, including by withholding our revenues to precipitate their collapse with the aim of facilitating forcible displacement and annexation. The E1 plan would deepen this reality by fragmenting the occupied West Bank isolating Jerusalem from its Palestinian surroundings, and delivering a fatal blow to the territorial integrity, continuity, and viability of the State of Palestine. We are also witnessing continued assaults against Muslims and Christians' holy sites, and attempts to dismantle the historic and legal status quo. Excellencies, Israel has heard our condemnations for decades and never heeded them. Condemnation without consequences has not produced deterrence. This is why formation of this group, the Hague Group, represented an inflection point in the struggle for the rights of the Palestinian people. It seeks action. I repeat, it seeks action, not just statements, for accountability, which is the fundamental path for justice in any situation and for any people, and Palestine and the Palestinian people cannot be the exception. The Hague Group is the bridge between statements and measures, between condemnation and accountability, and between solidarity and coordinated action. The Hague Group is paving the way for accountability measures that are being translated into concrete actions by members of the group and also by states that are not part of the group. We are increasingly seeing this, including measures by over 12 states regarding settlement products ban. We are at the initial stages of a new momentum concentrating on action. Let's widen that momentum. Let's deepen it. Let's make it accomplish the objective of putting an end to this illegal occupation. Friends, the 2024 ICJ advisory opinion on the illegality of the Israeli occupation provides a solid basis for third party responsibilities and actions. No state should assist, recognize, or normalize an illegal situation created through occupation, settlement, or annexation. No weapons, no trade, no money should go to the prolongation of the occupation. All states have an obligation to support the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the independence of their state. Our collective objective must be clear: make occupation and annexation costly, make accountability unavoidable, and make Palestinian steadfastness sustainable. To do so, we urge states to do the following: first, to promote economic and trade measures against illegal Israeli settlements and those who support, finance, or benefit from them. Illegal occupation must not be profitable. Second, to impose sanctions, I repeat, to impose sanctions against settlers and officials responsible for settlement expansion, forced displacement, and violence against Palestinian civilians. Third, to stop E1 and make clear that its implementation and further annexation measures will carry tangible consequences, including for businesses and financial institutions involved. Fourth, to intensify action within the United Nations and international institution to ensure compliance with international law, relevant UN resolutions and international judicial decisions. Fifth, to provide international protection to the Palestinian people. I repeat, to provide international protection to the Palestinian people. Sixth, to strengthen Palestinian steadfastness through sustained political and financial support to the State of Palestine, the UN, including UNRWA, and communities under threat. Seventh, to join efforts before international courts and legal institutions, of course, including the ICJ and the ICC. Excellencies, every reassertion of legal principles and every collective measure to challenge Israel's efforts to reshape the law and bend it to condone their criminality is needed. The international community must not allow Israel to normalize a world where genocide, violence, racism, and massacres is tolerated, or a world where sadistic politicians are immune. Finally, the Palestinian people do not ask for statements of solidarity alone, although we appreciate that. We ask that solidarity be translated into protection, political pressure, economic measures, accountability, and sustained support on the ground. The ICJ decision already exists. The UN resolutions already exist. International law is clear. The Hague Group is formed. What is required now is implementation, action, work, measures. We thank you again, and we call on States to join the Hague Group, not as a matter of political discretion, but a clear legal and moral imperative in line with their obligations under international law. And I thank you very much, my dear brother.

Thank you very much, my dear brother. Your message is clear. Action is what will protect the lives of the people of the Palestinian people. We will now hear from two distinguished experts on the challenges facing the international legal order and the practical measures available to states in its defense. I now invite Professor William Schabas, Professor of International Law, to deliver his remarks. Professor Schabas, you now have the floor.

Thank you very much, Minister Lamola. Ministers, Excellencies, dear friends. It's an honor for me to be asked to contribute to this important meeting today. I often hear people saying that international law is being demolished, is being destroyed, and I must say that from my own standpoint, principally as an academic, but also as an advocate before international courts like the ICJ, I see a system of international law that has never been more robust and where states have never been so determined to protect and to implement it. Let me give some examples. At the International Court of Justice, we have now about half the caseload of the court are cases involving fundamental human rights. and where in several of them, the states that have applied before the court are not acting in their own interest. They are not what we call injured states, but they are acting on behalf of the common good on the enforcement of international law. First and foremost among them, South Africa, of course, and reference has been made to the application that it filed against Israel, with which we're all familiar, but I could also mention the application by Nicaragua directed at Germany, and the one that we're waiting for, the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the case filed by the Gambia against Myanmar. Alongside these cases, we have an extraordinary number of interventions. I say extraordinary, I should say unprecedented. We have more than 50 interventions by states, what are they doing in these interventions? They are insisting that international law be applied. They're calling upon the court to address matters that were historically, traditionally left to political bodies, where they feel states feel they have some control. Now they're being handed to a judicial body where we have to entrust the result to 15 independent and impartial judges. This is something that didn't exist half a dozen years ago. It's new. We also see it in the advisory opinions. Again, the most important of them has been referred to already on several occasions, the advisory opinion of the 19th of July, 2024, governing the illegality of the occupation of Palestine. But there are others. I think probably the starting point is the great advisory opinion dealing with the Chagos Islands of 2019, followed by other advisory opinions dealing with Palestine, but also with broader issues like climate change and the right to strike. So something very dramatic is happening, and it's about international law and about its importance. That is not to say that there are are not elements out there trying to destroy international law. There are some states that want nothing to do with international law and who are attacking the institutions of international law. These international outlaws, of course, themselves sometimes invoke international law. I was struck yesterday by the great irony of the prime minister of Israel attacking Turkey for the occupation of Cyprus, of Northern Cyprus. The only thing he didn't do was to refer to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 2024, which states the law authoritatively on the illegality of occupation. And of course, this works in the opposite direction because the president of Turkey condemns Israel for the occupation of Palestine. What can be done? I've been asked to address this point, some of the measures that should be taken to strengthen our institutions, because it's above all the institutions that are under attack, and first and foremost among them, the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. With regard to the International Criminal Court, States need to strengthen the court. Even states that are not parties to the Rome Statute need to respect its role, its existence, and its importance globally. They may have particular reasons for not ratifying the Rome Statute, but the Rome Statute, in effect, has been endorsed by a number of states that is broader than those that are simply states parties to the Rome Statute. We are in a situation where judges are being elected. We need to ensure that only judges of the highest competence are elected to the court. This is a challenging thing in this environment where votes are traded and where the system is not necessarily conducive to ensuring that outcome. But it's absolutely essential that we get judges of the highest quality at the ICC, comparable to the judges, I say this with great respect, at the ICJ, who I think are by and large of the quality that is required. We also need to elect a courageous prosecutor. And I think it's regrettable that in recent developments concerning the prosecutor, that a message has been sent that will not encourage the boldest and most courageous candidates to put their names forward for the position. And then there is the issue of the coercive measures, the unilateral coercive measures, the sanctions imposed by the United States, but also measures imposed by Russia, and measures that are not even, in a technical sense, lawful, by Israel in its attempts to pervert the course of justice at the International Criminal Court. One of the ways to deal with this is through blocking measures, blocking statutes. These are of, I think these are important, although their effectiveness is not necessarily assured. The other thing is that states need to provide proactive measures to assist the people who are victims of these measures, judges, prosecutors, institutionally, help is needed and states that are supportive of the system need to find ways to assist the people who are victims of the sanctions. I want to conclude with a suggestion that has not yet been taken up by the International Criminal Court or by states parties. And this concerns the possibility of prosecuting attempts to pervert justice at the International Criminal Court. Article 70 of the Rome Statute provides for a series of acts that are intended to pervert justice, obvious things like trying to corrupt witnesses to encourage perjury and so on. But there's also a paragraph in Article 70 of the Rome Statute about retaliating against officers of the court for the performance of their functions. And furthermore, there is a paragraph in Article 70 of the Rome Statute calling on states parties, but it need not be states parties that do this, it should be all states, to prosecute those who attempt to retaliate against officials of justice even at the International Criminal Court, in the same way they would do it if it were the case in their own domestic legal system. This is something that might be explored, and it might encourage a little more reflection in the countries, not only the countries that are actually engaging in imposing these types of measures, but in those who collaborate in their enforcement, who cooperate in them. banks, companies, travel agents, and so on, if they were made aware of the fact that there's a very real possibility that they are contributing to the retaliation of officials of the International Criminal Court, it might tip the balance in a favourable direction. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Prof. for your illuminating legal interpretation of international law to guide this engagement. We now invite Ms. Diana Butu, who is a lawyer specializing in international human rights law, to deliver her remarks. You now have the floor, my dear sister.

Thank you, thank you very much. Good morning, everyone. Ministers, Excellencies, colleagues, and friends, I want to begin with a confession. There are times when I wonder whether any of this matters, whether the UN resolutions matter, whether the advisory opinions matter, whether the careful drafting over commas at 3 o'clock in the morning, whether any of that matters. And there are nights when I look at the images from home, from Palestine, and ask myself whether international law is more than just a verbal pacifier, something that we state over and over and over again in order to calm ourselves while we witness our children being burned, being shredded, and being buried, and as we witness genocide. I'm not the only one. International law textbooks in the eyes of many around the world are now viewed as works of fiction. espousing a world that should be, but not recognizing the world as it is and the power dynamic that is there. This is particularly the case for Palestinians who have lived through decades, decades of Israeli attempts to erase us, to remove us, and to pretend that we've never existed in the first place. Those who perpetrated and support the Nakba, which is the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, still roam freely. In fact, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine is part of the policies of many states who endlessly prop up their support for Israel, for the only way that Israel could be created and maintained is through this ethnic cleansing policy. It's through massacres, through land theft, and indeed through the genocide of Palestinians. So let me tell you what the Nakba was and is, because it's often, too often, spoken of as a word and not as an ongoing event. As we all know, between 1947 and 1949, Israel drove out more than 750,000 Palestinians, more than three quarters of my people, from their homes and never allowed them to return. Israel razed hundreds of our villages so that there would be nothing to come back to. These villages had names, Deir Yassin, Where on the 9th of April 1948, more than 100 men, women, and children were killed by Israelis in a single day. Al-Jadil, my own hometown, Tantura, Lyd, where in July 1948, tens of thousands of people were marched out of their towns on foot in the summer heat, and the old and very young died by the side of the road. Now, we don't have to rely on our memories for this. Itzhak Rabin, who would later become Israel's prime minister, was an officer in one of these operations against Lydda and Ramle. In his memoirs, he described the moment that he and his commander asked David Ben-Gurion, first prime minister, what should be done with the Palestinian civilian population. Ben-Gurion-- this is Rabin writing-- waved his hand in a gesture that meant, drive them out. Now, you don't need to be an expert or a scholar to know that this was and is illegal. But instead of holding Israel to account back in 1948, we see instead that Israel was embraced and that Israel's victims, us, the Palestinians, were told to accept Israel's illegal takeover of our country. And we see this being repeated to this very day. As Israel continues to steal our land, we're told that somehow we need to make compromises, to give up our rights in order to accommodate Israel's wrongs. We see that today in Gaza, where eight out of 10 Palestinians is a refugee, and here they are once again being bombed, starved, and killed. And again, we are told that is our fault and that the rules just simply don't apply to Israel. We're instead told that we have to wait for judicial determinations for states to take any action. Now, international law wasn't written by the comfortable. It was written by survivors. The charter of the United Nations was drafted in the shadow of the ruins of cities. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 was written by people who had seen what happens when civilians under occupation have no protection at all. Those who wrote these texts were not naive. They were people who had seen the worst of humanity and decided deliberately and against all cynicism that there must be lines that no state may cross, whatever its greediness, whatever its fear, or whatever its power. Now, these international norms are not complicated. The most vulnerable people are the people who should be the most protected. Children, hospitals, medics, journalists may not be targeted. Starvation may not be used as a method of war. Territory can't be acquired by force. An occupying power may not transfer its own population into the land it occupies. Humanitarian relief must be allowed to reach those who need it. All people, including Palestinians, have a right to freedom and the right to self-determination. If we only apply international law when it is convenient, then we don't have any laws. Instead, we have preference dressed up in legal language. So let's look into some of these specifics. In Gaza, Israel has killed now more than 73,000 Palestinians, including 20,000 children. Now, that is more than one child every hour, every hour of every day for more than two years. And we've all heard the name of one of these children, Hindarajab, six years old. In January of 2024, she was trapped in a car in Gaza City, surrounded by the bodies of her relatives. And for hours, she stayed on the phone with the Palestine Red Crescent. "I'm so scared," she told them. "Please come." They did come. And when the ambulance that was sent to rescue her got near, it was targeted by Israel, and the two paramedics inside, Youssef Zainoun and Ahmed Al-Madoun, were killed. Hind's body was found 12 days later. There were 355 bullets in the car. Again, she was six years old. Medics can't be targeted. On the 23rd of March of 2025, 15 Palestinian paramedics and rescue workers were killed by Israeli forces near Rafah and buried in the sand. together with their crushed ambulances. The army said that the vehicles had approached without lights. Imagine that. Then a video was later found on the phone of one of the paramedics, Rafat Radwan. It shows the ambulances, clearly marked, their lights flashing, and it records his final minutes. He asks his mother to forgive him, and he says that he chose this path to help his people. Hospitals may not be targeted. Dr. Husam Abou-Sofia, a pediatrician, the director of the Kemal Adwan Hospital, stayed with his patients to the very end. In December of 2024, he was taken from his hospital. Nearly two years later, he's still being held, and the UN Commission of Inquiry reports that he's faced continued and severe abuse in detention. Journalists may not be targeted. Almost 200, almost 300 Palestinian journalists and media workers have now been killed by Israeli forces, more than in any war it has ever documented. Hundreds of UN staff members have been killed, more than in any conflict since the UN was founded. Those who came to feed Gaza, to heal it, and to tell its stories were killed for doing so. Starvation may not be used as a weapon of war, In August of 2025, the world's famine experts confirmed famine in Gaza, the first famine ever confirmed in the Middle East. Now, let's be clear about what this means. Gaza sits on the sea, a few kilometers from truckloads of food. This wasn't a drought. It's not a failed harvest. This was famine made by people, and it was done on purpose. Humanitarian relief must be allowed to reach those who need it. In the summer of 2025, desperate people walked for hours towards new food distribution sites and were shot away. Israeli soldiers themselves described it to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, saying, quote, it's a killing field. We fired machine guns from tanks and threw grenades at another. These aren't my words. These are theirs. An Israeli officer who was in Gaza told Haaretz how the dead were counted. Quote, in practice, a terrorist is anyone the IDF has killed in the areas in which its forces operate. Israeli intelligence officers told 972 Magazine how its targets were chosen by artificial intelligence, by AI. Quote, I would invest 20 seconds for each target, one said. Quote, I had zero added value as a human, apart from being a stamp of approval. And another said, quote, the machine did it coldly, and that made it easier. Now, although there's been a ceasefire declared in October of 2025, the killing, as we know, hasn't stopped. Israel's killed more than 1,000 Palestinians since that ceasefire. And UNICEF says that on average, one child has been killed every single day. Now, the world says that it's a ceasefire, but families are still burying their dead. Now, this is the heart of what I have to say today. The greatest threat to international law is not the state that openly defies it. The greatest threat is our selectivity, the quiet decision that's made in capitals and in rooms that the rules don't bind everybody, they only bind some. It's the belief that we can excuse some because they're our allies, our partners, our friends. As we know, the world's highest court has spoken in 2004, in January of 20, in 2004, in January 2024, in the case brought by South Africa, it ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza. In July of 2024, it found that the continued occupation of Palestinian territory was unlawful and set out obligations that follow not only for the occupying power, Israel, but for every one of our states. And that is not to recognize an unlawful situation, not to render aid, not to render assistance in maintaining it. These are not the opinions of activists. These are the findings of the institutions that we built, that we funded, and that we swore to uphold. If we treat them as optional, then we tell every government in every region that the court's word can be weighted out, that a ruling only means as much as the power behind it. Colleagues, the world is watching now how we are behaving on Palestine, and it's drawing its conclusions. People in the global south, in Europe, the Americas, in Asia, young people everywhere are asking whether the rules-based order we speak of is often real or whether it was only ever a story told by the strong. Our answer will not come from our speeches. It's going to come from our consistency. Now, as you know, Israeli elections are going to be held next month, and many are hoping that the prime minister who was speaking here just yesterday will be ousted. But I want to tell you what is not on the ballot in Israel. What's not on the ballot in Israel is the things that many people talk about here, first being the two states solution. That is not on the ballot. Israelis simply don't care. What else is not on the ballot is genocide. They're not at all talking about accountability measures. Instead, what these parties are competing over is who can harm Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Iranians, and others more. They're not talking about looking in the mirror. Now, as I mentioned, those who lived in Israel before October of 2023 were people who either perpetrated the Nakba, supported the Nakba, or were apologists for the Nakba. And today, we see the exact same, but as regards genocide in Israel. People who support the genocide, who are apologists for the genocide, or who have perpetrated it. And this is why we must hold and uphold international law. Without doing so, Israel will continue to see that it has been given the green light, as it was in 1948. I ask that we mean what we sign. I ask that our votes, our trade, our arms policy, our public statements match the obligations that the court has described. I ask that we protect humanitarian workers, journalists, UN staff, and everybody else who's paid with their lives. I ask that we remember Hind and Refaat and the tens of thousands of others whose names I will never have time to read aloud in this hall. And I ask that we stop apologizing for defending the law as if it were some kind of principle of extremism. Now, the law should not be fiction. It must be real. And for this to happen, Israel must be held to account, not coddled. Law requires action. And the law is only ever as strong as the people willing to stand behind it when doing so is hard. Let that be us. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your interpretation of the law and what nations should do. We really appreciate that. Thank you very much. We now go to Antigua and Barbuda. His Excellency, Mr. Chet Greener, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Antigua and Barbuda. You now have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Excellencies, colleagues. As I walked into this room this morning, I was greeted with a document, a non-binding vision statement in defense of international law by the Hague Group. Mr. Chair, I'm pleased to advise that Antigua Barbuda identifies snugly with this very practical and important vision statement. In my brief presentation this morning, Mr. Chair, I opted to focus on the foundational issues, that is, fixing the structural problems in the multilateral system and the rules-based order. That's because, Mr. Chair, for Antigua and small island developing states like mine, multilateralism and the rules-based order are not abstract concepts. They are the very framework through which we secure our sovereignty, protect our interests, and ensure that the voice of small island states like ours carry weight and have value in the international system. We do not have the option of choosing when international rules apply. We depend on them every day. And that is why we very readily identify with this new vision statement from the A Group. That is why at a time when confidence in the multilateral system and institutions have been tested, Our response must not be to walk away from multilateralism. It must be a commitment to repair it, to strengthen it, and to make it work and work better. The very UN Charter we all subscribe to gives us the architecture, sovereign equality, the peaceful settlement of disputes, international cooperation, and the equal rights of nations large and small. The challenge before us is to ensure that these principles are not simply reaffirmed, but that they are consistently implemented. As a concept note from which we draw today's discussion states and rightly observes, international institutions are facing growing political, financial, even economic pressures. making the question of implementation accountability increasingly urgent. For my small nation, Antiguan Barbuda, three things are particularly important to us. First, accountability. International law cannot retain its authority if compliance is selective. We need stronger support for institutions that interpret and uphold international law. And we must emphasize, we must respect the independence and decisions. The credibility of the multilateral system ultimately depends on rules being applied consistently. Secondly, accountability must extend to the institutions themselves. If we are asking our citizens to maintain confidence in multilateral institutions, those institutions must demonstrate transparency, effectiveness, and responsiveness. Reform should therefore not be about weakening the multilateral system but about making it more capable of delivering for the people and the countries that exist to serve. And thirdly, mister chair, we must give all states a meaningful place in shaping that system. We in Antigua and Barbuda for example, we're hosting the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in November. Under the theme, accelerating partnerships and investment for prosperous Commonwealth. This forces an opportunity to demonstrate that institutions can and in fact do bring people and countries together around practical cooperation and shared solutions. Antigua and Barbados commitment is also reflected in our nomination of Maria Fernandez Pinosa for the soon-to-be-vacant post of Secretary-General of the United Nations. We nominated Ms. Fernanda Espinosa in the conviction that her expertise, experience, and diplomatic leadership and commitment to the multilateral system can help to strengthen the United Nations, restore confidence in its institutions, and ensure that the multilateral system delivers to all Member States, large and small. These are not separate initiatives. Do not see me as diverting from the course of our discussions. See it within the context of rebuilding trust, of rebuilding institutions required to ensure that the legal processes, accompanying legal processes, are foolproof and respected. These are not, like I said, separate initiatives. They reflect a common assertion that the answer to the shortcomings of multilateralism is not to withdraw in insularity, but to collaborate to shape the multilateralism that is more accountable, more representative, and more effective, and better able to deliver. For Antigua and Barbuda, there is simply too much at stake to accept a world where power alone determines outcomes. We will continue to use every platform available to us, whether here at the United Nations, at the Commonwealth, or regional international institutions, to help maintain, repair, and strengthen that order. Because for countries like mine, multilateralism and the preservation of a global order, they're not optional. They are just how we ensure that the international system works and works for everyone, if it pleases you. Thank you.

I thank Mr. Green for his remarks.

I now give the floor to His Excellency Eduardo Ramirez, the Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs of Venezuela.

You've got the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Excellencies. We're grateful for the convening of this high-level meeting that provides us with an opportunity to reaffirm a firmly held belief. International law represents common heritage and an essential safeguard for peaceful coexistence among states and the protection of our peoples. Its strength depends not only on the norms that we've agreed on, but also on our willingness and determination to respect and apply them without any double standards. Defending international law, therefore, means ensuring its effective application and reaffirming the primacy of the United Nations Charter, the peaceful solution of disputes and respect for international obligations, particularly those that are binding in nature. The decisions of the Security Council, particularly those relating to the Palestinian question, must be respected. In the same vein, the protection of the civilian population and timely, safe and impartial access to humanitarian assistance should be guaranteed in line with international humanitarian law. For Venezuela, the issue of Palestine precisely shows why this consistency is so vital. We reaffirm against this backdrop our unwavering solidarity with the people of Palestine and our steadfast support for the achievement of their inalienable rights, including their right to self-determination. Excellencies, the protection of the civilian population in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem must remain a priority. The entire civilian population should be protected, and international humanitarian law should be respected under all circumstances. We must stop attacks on civilians and civilian assets. At the same time, we should guarantee humanitarian assistance for those who are desperately in need of it. The credibility of the multilateral system also depends depends on our ability to apply the same principles and obligations consistently across all situations. International law loses its strength when its application is perceived as selective. It restores this when it provides equal protection and provides a common framework to provide just and sustainable solutions. But immediate protection should go along with a clear political horizon. Therefore, we support the two-state solution, which allows the Palestinian people to fully exercise their right to self-determination and to have a sovereign, independent state living in peace and security with the state of Israel in accordance with international law the relevant resolutions of the United Nations. In this context, we also reiterate our support for the incorporation of Palestine as a fully-fledged member of the United Nations. Excellencies, the defence of international law should help us to open the path to peace. We need to preserve spaces for diplomacy, support mediation efforts and establish the conditions to progressively restore trust among all parties. A just and lasting peace in West Asia calls for a just solution. It means working for the norms that lead to protection for civilians, assistance for those in need, and a viable political horizon for all of the peoples of the region. Venezuela will continue to cooperate on the basis of our principles-based position and through dialogue through our Bolivarian diplomacy for peace efforts to achieve a just, comprehensive, lasting peace based on international law and the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Venezuela, for your input. We now go to Qatar. Excellency Dr. Majid Al-Ansari.

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, first, we express our appreciation to South Africa and Malaysia for holding this important meeting. Qatar has repeatedly reiterated its commitment to the UN Charter and the principles of international law, particularly sovereign equality and peaceful settlement of disputes. We believe the credibility of international law relies on its consistent application without double standards or selectivity. We stress the importance of holding accountability for violations of international law, particularly what's taking place in the occupied Palestinian territories, and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and the establishment of its independent state within the borders of June 1967 with Jerusalem as its capital. Trust in international institutions relies on putting a hold on the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinian people who are suffering daily from the expansion of the occupation and the denial of its basic rights in life, either restrictions on the assistance going to the Palestinian people assassinations and targeting daily, assassination and the targeting of aid and healthcare workers as well, and as well as journalists. It suffers from the impunity of the perpetrators. His Royal Highness, the Prince of Qatar, has made that explicitly clear in his statement before the General Assembly last Tuesday, where he called the international community to prove its commitment to international law, stressing that it would be one law for all or it would lose its meaning if it's only applied to the weak and not the strong. Ladies and gentlemen, excellencies. Our principled position in accordance with international law and legitimacy continues in our diplomatic work. In our mediation and the peaceful settlement of disputes are a cornerstone of our diplomatic work. It is a basic tool in our foreign policy. Our efforts are not confined to mediation and the facilitation of dialogue amongst the parties to the conflict. They extend to providing humanitarian assistance to alleviate the suffering from conflict and natural disasters, as well as for humanitarian development in different parts of the world. Ladies and gentlemen, peace is not a mission that can be accomplished by one country or can be the hold of one single country. Peace is a responsibility of the entire world and the result of the United Nations. Therefore, we should promote collective work and lay the basis for international peace in all its elements through the multilateral institutions and the international partnerships working for the common good. We will continue to hold on to these principles and to support multilateral assistance and peaceful solutions based on international law and the aims and objectives of the UN Charter. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Qatar. We now go to Oman. His Excellency, Mr. Mohammed Al-Khatib.

Ladies and gentlemen, excellencies, I would like to extend our thanks to the Republic of South Africa and to Malaysia for convening this important meeting. And I would like to thank the Hague group for its efforts to promote dialogue and the search for means to preserve international law and translate legal action into reality. We meet while the international system is facing challenges to its basic documents and rules, as well as the respect held for these rules and their application. The United Nations was established on clear principles: sovereign equality among states, the non-use or threat of use of force, and the settlement of disputes with peaceful means, as well as the respect for human rights and the right of people to self-determination. These principles, the strength of these principles does not stem only from agreed legal tests, rather our collective commitment to apply them without selectivity or double standards. Excellencies, The Sultanate of Oman believes that defense of international law begins with defense of multilateralism and defense of the institutions established by the international community for the application and the enforcement of laws. When the provisions of law are respected in certain cases and are ignored in other cases, or when they are only applied depending on the power and strength of the parties of a conflict, then the injustice does not befall the victims alone, but rather the entire system. Therefore, we stress the importance of respect for international justice institutions and to face pressures aimed at undermining them or affecting their performance of their responsibilities. We also stress the importance of respect for UN resolutions and international commitments according to international law, as well as international humanitarian law. In this context, the question of Palestine remains one of the most difficult tests for the international system and its ability to uphold justice. Israeli aggression, occupation, and the settlement expansion, the attacks against the Palestinians, their forced displacement, and their denial of basic rights and needs runs counter to international law and the commitments to apply We stress, once again, our principled position on the need to end the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and the achievement of a comprehensive and lasting solution through the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within the borders of June 1967 with Jerusalem with East Jerusalem as its capital in accordance with international law and legitimacy. Ladies and gentlemen, accountability is not an aim in itself. Rather, it is the means to protect the law and prevent its violation. Moving from commitment to action requires the adoption of well-prepared legal principles in accordance with United Nations Charter and the legal system. systems of all states. And we believe that collective work is more effective and more sustainable when it is based on the largest consensus that respects the specific characteristics of legal systems of states and when polarization is not allowed. Therefore, defense of international law cannot be confined to one crisis or one region. The law that we are defending in Palestine is exactly the same law that we should respect elsewhere. And the credibility of our collective stance relies on our ability to apply principles consistently, no matter what the identity of the parties to a conflict. Ladies and gentlemen, the Sultanate of Oman, through its foreign policy, has opted for dialogue, mediation, and diplomatic intervention, basic tools of its foreign policy and the settlement of disputes. Our experience taught us that dialogue does not run counter to accountability. And seeking peaceful settlements does not mean accepting a violation of the law. Peace requires justice, and justice requires rules applied to all without exception. Therefore, our responsibility today is not only within drafting more principles, rather the application of the principles on which we had agreed. and to bridge the gap between the law and its application, between commitment and action. Let's work together for an international system where the power of law supersedes the law of power, and where international institutions are capable of performing their tasks without intimidation or selectivity, and where all peoples, big and small, can find in those institutions the protection they need under international law. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Oman. We now go to Iran. His Excellency, Mr. Kazem Gharib-Abad.

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, it's a pleasure to be here today at this meeting on the defense of international law, convened at the initiative of our two friendly countries, Malaysia and South Africa. The Islamic Republic of Iran firmly believes that international law, if it is truly to serve as a guardian of peace, justice and human dignity, cannot become a collection of selective rules that are rigorously enforced against some states while being disregarded in the case of others due to political considerations and power. The credibility of international law rests on the equality of states before the law, not on equality before power. The Charter of the United Nations has established the prohibition of the use of force, respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states. the peaceful settlement of disputes, and the protection of the fundamental rights of peoples as pillars of the post-World War II international order. Yet today, more than ever, we face a fundamental question. Are the rules of international law truly applied equally to all? If the answer is yes, the international community must demonstrate this principle in practice. Palestine today represents one of the clearest tests of the credibility of the international legal order. Decades of occupation, settlement expansion, the denial of the rights of the Palestinian people, and their deprivation on the right to self-determination, followed by the devastating humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, have demonstrated how wide the gap can become between the rules of international law and their implementation. The Islamic Republic of Iran believes that the Palestinian people, like all peoples, possess rights that cannot be made conditional upon political considerations, alliances, or geopolitical calculations. The right to self-determination, the protection of civilians, and the prohibition of collective punishment are not principles that can be subject to political negotiation. International law is either universal or it becomes in practice an instrument of discrimination. In this context, the decision by the Republic of South Africa to bring proceedings before the International Court of Justice concerning the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in relation to Gaza is of particular significance. In January 2024, at the provisional measures stage, the Court indicated measures aimed at protecting the rights claimed by the Palestinians under the Genocide Convention. The case remains before the Court, and judicial proceedings have continued in 2026. The significance of this process lies not only in the eventual outcome of a judicial case, but also in the fact that a state relying on available multilateral legal mechanisms has sought to place the principles of accountability and responsibility for the suffering of a people before an international judicial institution. This is precisely the path that the international system must strengthen. Less impunity, more accountability. Less political power above the law and more law above power. Ladies and gentlemen, Iran too has in past 16 months face blatant violations of the fundamental principles of the Charter. On 28 February 2026, a new round of military aggression by the United States and the Israeli regime against Iran began, in the context of what became a 40-day war. Only at the first day of the war the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and 168 students and teachers at an elementary school in the city of Minab were martyred. The position of the Islamic Republic of Iran is clear. The sovereignty and territorial integrity of a state cannot be violated or made subject to political bargaining. No state can merely on the basis of political assertions or the unilateral interpretation of a perceived threat set aside the fundamental prohibition on the use of force. If the fundamental principle enshrined in Article 2, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter is weakened, no country, large or small, can have confidence in its security and sovereignty. Iran also maintains that when confronted with an armed attack, The right of self-defense within the framework of the charter and international law is a legitimate and lawful right of the victim state. At the same time, the Islamic Republic of Iran emphasizes the obligation to respect international humanitarian law, protect civilians, and distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects. These principles must be respected without expansion. exception, whether in Palestine, Iran, Lebanon or anywhere else in the world, the fundamental problem today is not the absence of rules of international law. The problem is their selective application. In one crisis, the Charter is invoked. In another, geopolitical interests take precedence over the Charter. In one case, Security Council resolutions are vigorously demanded. In another, years of violations of resolutions remain without effective action. In one situation, investigations and accountability are demanded. In another, political protection stands in the way of accountability. Such an approach not only undermines justice, it also erodes the confidence of peoples in multilateralism and international institutions. If international law is not applied equally to the powerful and the weak, to allies and non-allies, to East and West, and to the global North and global South, its credibility will continue to erode. From this perspective, the role of International Court of Justice assumes even greater importance. The court must be able, as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, to adjudicate disputes between states independently of political pressure and to clarify the legal obligations of the states. South Africa's action in the Palestine case is an important example of the use of the judicial mechanisms available within the international system. It is also important to note that in August 2026, South Africa submitted to the court a dossier concerning non-compliance with the provisional measures indicated by the Court. This process carries an important message. The issuance of a judgment or a judicial order is not the end of the road. Its implementation is an integral part of international justice. If decisions of international judicial institutions are not implemented, it is not only the rights of the victims that suffer, the credibility of the international legal order itself is also undermined. Exorcist, the Islamic Republic of Iran believes that today's meeting must go beyond expressing concerns. We need a set of practical measures. First, unconditional and non-discriminatory respect for the Charter of the United Nations and the prohibition of the use of force. Second, ensuring the effective implementation of the decisions and orders of the International Court of Justice. Third, ending impunity of serious violations of international criminal offenses and international humanitarian law. Fourth, supporting the right of nations to self-determination including the Palestinian people. Fifth, strengthening the role of the countries of the global south in shaping a fairer international order and ensuring more genuine representation in multilateral institutions. And sixth, reforming the structures that enable the selective application of international law. Ladies and gentlemen, the world today stands at a crossroads. We can witness the gradual erosion of the rules that the international community has developed over decades to prevent war, aggression, occupation, and atrocities, or we can choose to restore international law as the common standard governing the conduct of the states. Palestine, Iran, and many other situations have shown us that this is no longer a theoretical choice. It's a choice about human lives. It's a choice about the sovereign of a state. It's a choice about the right of peoples to self-determination. And it's a choice about the future of the multilateral system at the heart of which stands the United Nations. The Islamic Republic of Iran stands ready to work with all the states committed to sovereign equality, multilateralism, the peaceful settlement of disputes and the non-discriminatory implementation of international law in order to strengthen this system. Let us not allow law to become subordinate to power. Let us ensure that power remains subject to law. I thank Malaysia and South Africa for convening this important meeting and for their continued efforts the defense of multilateralism and international law. I thank you.

Thank you, Iran. We'll now go to the Federal Republic of Brazil. His Excellency, Mario Vieira, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Brazil. You now have the floor, my dear brother.

Thank you thank you very much uh Minister lamola I commend South Africa and Malaysia for organizing and convening this extraordinary ministerial meeting in defense of international law excellencies we cannot bring back lives lost in Gaza's genocidal aggression we must however do all in our power to ensure accountability for the grave violations that have been committed. We cannot tolerate that two million Palestinians remain confined in dire conditions, subject to repeated displacements, deprived of shelter and essential services, and left to endure persistent insecurity. The recent years have made clear that no Palestinian state can emerge amid illegal occupation and systematic violations of human and humanitarian rights. For too long, the international community has expected Palestinians to build state institutions while failing to address the illegal realities that undermine them. Ending Palestinian suffering requires dismantling the structure of segregation in which they live. Achieving a two-state solution requires ending the occupation that makes it impossible. Thus, the path forward begins not with new demands on Palestinians, but with compliance with international law. Excellencies, Resolution 2803 can only be read and understood within the framework of international law. Reference to reforms, governance, reconstruction, and security-related measures cannot be interpreted as prerequisites for Palestinian self-determination. We cannot be trapped in political formulas whose ambiguity only entrenched occupation and led to gross violation of human rights. Resolution 2803 does not supersede any existing norm, nor does it modify rights and obligations. Without Security Council oversight, resolution 2803 and the structures it endorsed risk betraying their fundamental purposes. Ladies and gentlemen, this is why we must assess what has been achieved since the announcement of the comprehensive plan to end the Gaza conflict. And the results are sobering. Israel has killed more than 1,300 Palestinians since last October, including 300 children, under the watch of those entrusted by the Security Council to ensure that such atrocities effectively ceased. In total, 73,821 people were killed since the beginning of the Israeli military operation. Essential items continue to be denied entry. Illegal demolitions are ongoing, including the removal of debris and the bodies under them, potentially constituting destruction of evidence. At the same time, ladies and gentlemen, the dynamics witnessed in Gaza are being replicated in the West Bank. Israeli settlers groups are terrorizing Palestinians under the watch of the Israeli army. UNRWA remains the target of attacks. and of illegal measures aimed to prevent it from carrying out its mandate. We have become accustomed to measures providing for unequal treatment before the law, such as the death penalty by hanging, applicated to one population only. We have become accustomed to public officials advanced once unthinkable ideas such as detention facilities surrounded by crocodiles, dedicated execution sites, and the mass confinement of populations. These actions are evidence of a systematic effort to make it impossible for the life of Palestinian people. They are also entrenching a one-state reality characterized by annexation and institutionalized discrimination. Ladies and gentlemen, the banalization of atrocities should concern us all. History teaches that grave abuses rarely begin with mass violence alone. They begin with indifference. They begin by slowly treating entire communities as less human, and portraying a whole people as dangerous and unworthy of basic rights. They begin when exceptional measures become normalized. The resurgence of extremist ideologies in many parts of the world has reinforced these dynamics, but their persistence is also a direct consequence of impunity. So, ladies and gentlemen, international law is not conditional. The Palestinian people's right to self-determination is not conditional. The obligations of occupying powers under international humanitarian law are not conditional. The punishment of genocide is not conditional. Occupation, systematic discrimination, and genocide must be brought to an end. We must keep working for this goal. I thank you.

Thank you very much, my dear brother, Minister Mario Vieira, for your input. We now go to Cabo Verde.

Chairperson, At the outset, allow me to thank South Africa, Malaysia, and the Hague Group for convening this very timely meeting. A word of appreciation also towards the experts for their very clear briefings. Cape Verde aligns itself with the fundamental principle that even in times of war, humanity must prevail. International law and humanitarian law is not optional. It's a legal and moral obligation, binding on all parties to armed conflict. Today, civilians continue to bear the heaviest burden of war and aggression. The growing number of attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers, hospitals, schools, and other civilian infrastructure is deeply alarming. Equally concerning are restrictions on humanitarian access, which prevent life-saving assistance from reaching those most in need. International law and international humanitarian law are therefore more essential than ever. They serve not only to facilitate humanitarian access and protect civilians, but also to build trust, promote dialogue, and create conditions conducive to peaceful solutions. Respect for international law and the protection of civilians and humanitarian personnel must remain at the center of our collective efforts. As a small island developing state, Cabo Verde, with an unwavering commitment to multilateralism, We firmly believe that the full observation of human rights and the protection of human dignity must transcend all political differences. Let us therefore renew our collective commitment to ensuring that humanitarian principles are upheld everywhere and by everyone, and that accountability for violations of international humanitarian law remains an indispensable pillar of lasting peace. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Cabo Verde, for your input. We now go to Cuba. His Excellency, Mr. Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and dear friends.

Senor president.

Sir ministers while we are deliberating here 2.2 millions million of human beings in Gaza are condemned to hunger because of the genocide and campaign of extermination and ethnic cleansing of the Zionist regime, which has the financial support and the impunity being guaranteed to it by the government of the United States. On behalf of the government and the people of Cuba, I reiterate our solidarity with the Palestinian people and with its fair and just cause for freedom, independence, and the end of the Zionist occupation. If the Security Council is incapable because of the veto power that the U.S. has or that the U.S. threatens to use and is incapable of adopting effective measures to bring an end to the savagery in this country, the Security Council of the United Nations has the duty to promote concrete measures. And at the very minimum, it must call upon the right of the Palestinian, Palestine become recognized as a nation with its 1967 borders, its capital in East Jerusalem, and the return of refugees. Chair, colleagues, with the executive orders of 29 January and May 1st of 2026, the government of the United States has established an energy barrier against Cuba, which is equivalent to a blockade that, according to international law, is an act of war. They also threat to use secondary sanctions against the entire planet. This interrupts the supply chains to the countries and furthermore is tantamount to a threat against shipping companies. And this has led to a situation where over 7,000 containers with basic goods such as medicine and other supplies are stranded at various ports, even though they have already been paid for. the most of them have been thanks to Cuban private companies. This is costing us lives. The child mortality rate has doubled in our country from four for every 1,000 live births to 9.9. And life expectancy for children with cancer has fallen from 85% to 65%. Humanitarian harm and suffering and anguish, that is the goal of this cruel policy that was deliberately designed to that end. It is a collective punishment against the entire Cuban people. It is a crime against humanity that must be rejected and denounced. The indiscriminate impact of them and the humanitarian cost are incalculable and the suffering for Cuban families is unfathomable. This is what they are trying to do in order to achieve regime change. This is the same logic that justifies the inclusion of Cuba in the fraudulent list of countries that supposedly support terrorism. the US government tries to justify its actions against Cuba, as indicated in both executive orders, under the pretext that the island is an unusual and extraordinary threat to national security, as well as the foreign policy of this military and nuclear and economic superpower. Cuba isn't a threat, the blockade is. All of these actions are violative of the UN Charter and international law, including international humanitarian law, international human rights law, and international rules on trade and navigation. Were the US government allowed to destroy a small nation with the aim of changing its political system? or with any other design in mind, the world would become even more dangerous than it is already. What would happen afterwards? Who would be the next victim? That's what we could ask ourselves. We thank the member states of the Hague group for their statements in favor of lifting the blockade and the energy barrier against Cuba and the numerous expressions of support and solidarity towards our country from the peoples of the world. Cuba is a country of peace. We are not a threat to anyone. We are right. We are on the side of justice. We will continue defending ourselves, cost us what it may. as we have a right to freedom of determination and nothing will take us away from our socialist development project that we are moving forward with, which is what our people freely chose. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Your Excellency, for your input. We now go to take Mr. Musa Kula Kikaya. The Deputy Foreign Minister of Turkey, you now have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. And also, I would like to thank co-organizers of this valuable meeting. Excellencies, esteemed participants, I would like to begin by thanking the HEU Group for organizing this meeting in support of Palestinian rights. Turkiye supports any efforts towards fair and lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel continues to disregard international legal order, which perpetuates chaos and instabilities in regional and global scans. The war against Iran has worsened the stability and economic balance in the entire Middle East and beyond. Palestine faces multiple challenges. As part of Israel's genocidal policies in Gaza, civilian infrastructure was razed. Civilian population was forcefully displaced. International aid organizations, including even a UN agency, UNRWA, was deliberately targeted. Furthermore, settler colonialism continues to entrench in the West Bank. The state-sponsored settler terrorism aims at ethnic cleansing. The current path that the Netanyahu government has chosen requires a collective and concerted international effort to prevent further undermining of international law. It is time to turn our tireless efforts into concrete actions against Israel. Those actions may include arms embargo, isolation of Israel within the international community, recognition of State of Palestine and ensuring its UN membership, awareness in public opinions, making accountable Israel for the crimes committed. Turkiye is in the forefront of the sanctions against Israel. We have entirely stopped bilateral trade with Israel, which amounted to $10 billion in 2022. We have submitted our declaration of intervention before the International Court of Justice for the case brought by South Africa. We closed our ports to Israeli ships. Turkish port authorities require shipping agents to provide letters declaring that vessels are not linked to Israel and not carrying military or hazardous cargo bound for Israel. Dear colleagues, we also face significant challenges in our continued support for the Palestinian cause. It's essential to reflect on how domestic electoral shifts within a nation can lead to a fundamental change of its foreign policy, regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the current global landscape, our primary objective must be to ensure that the Palestinian issue remains a unifying principle rather than a source of domestic or international polarization. In this context, the advisory opinions of the ICJ should guide every country. We reaffirm our unwavering commitment to implementing coordinated diplomatic and legal measures in defense of international law, pursuing comprehensive accountability, and maintaining solidarity with the people of Palestine. Turkey remains committed to the two-state solution as the only viable path toward lasting peace. We will persist on our path for justice and peace. I thank you.

Thank you, Tekir. We now go to Mexico. You now have the floor.

Mr. Chair. Mexico takes note with appreciation of the convening of this timely meeting on the defense of international law by Malaysia and South Africa. Mexico reaffirms its commitment to the defense of international law, multilateralism, and the principles of the Charter of the UN, enshrined in our national constitution as a guiding principles or foreign policy and as a compass of our national international projects. The Chairman, the challenge before us is to preserve the continued relevance of the purposes and principles of the Charter as the best possible international legal framework for the maintenance of international peace and security, the promotion of sustainable development, and the protection of human rights. while ensuring that our international legal system remains capable of responding to contemporary realities and challenges. We must ensure and enhance compliance with an implementation of international law that has been mentioned before by the previous persons that spoke before me, in particularly on the question of Palestine, Mexico supports the two-state solution. In this context, Mexico reiterates its continued support for the institutions entrusted with giving effect to these principles, in particular the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, the latter today under strain. Both played a fundamental role in strengthening the rule of law at the international level in the interpretation and application of international law and in the fight against impunity for the most heinous crimes. and the contents of international law to whether with implementation we should continue the progressive development of international law and to continue to clarify the interpretation of an application of the charter, in particular of Article 51 of that instrument. We call to the attention and support for the proposal made by my delegation in the Charter Committee on the important issue to the maintenance of international peace and security and whose work is relevant to this Hague group. The strength and legitimacy of international order would be measured by its ability to protect people, respond to the challenges, and ensure the law is an effective means of peace, justice, and human dignity. Mexico will continue to follow closely the initiative, particularly as it enters this new phase. Thank you very much for your attention.

Thank you very much, Mexico. We now go to Indonesia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Excellencies. On behalf of Foreign Minister Sugiono, I would like to thank South Africa and Malaysia for convening this important meeting. We meet at a time when international law is increasingly challenged and when opposition to its applications is sometimes expressed openly. For Indonesia, this is precisely why the work of this group matters. Indonesia supports the implementation of the ICJ advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from Israel's policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territory. The law is clear. Our challenge now is to give it practical consequence. Indonesia has taken concrete steps in this direction, as reflected in the UN Secretary-General's report on the implementation of Resolution ES-10/24. Excellencies, Indonesia has long held this principled position. We do not maintain diplomatic relations with Israel for as long as Palestine remains under occupation. We remain committed to ensuring that Indonesian nationals, companies, and entities under our jurisdictions do not contribute to recognition of or support for Israel's illegal presence in occupied Palestinian territory. We have also joined calls to halt arms transfers where there is a risk of contributing to violation of international law. At the same time, we continue to support Palestinian economic self-determination, including through preferential market access for Palestinian products. Since 2018, imports of Palestinian dates have increased by more than 130 percent, and we are working to expand the scheme to additional Palestinian products. Excellencies, the broader question before us is: how do we expand the work of this group beyond its membership? We must be able to turn legal clarity into broader state practice. Therefore, group must offer a practical pathway for state to act for instance could we consider a simple voluntary mechanism for state to share what steps they have taken to implement the ICJ advisory opinion and the solution es10/24 this would allow us to identify not only progress but also practical obstacles and help overcome them perhaps this is where the groups could contribute by helping states translate international law into consistent national practice. In this regard, Indonesia stands ready to work toward this objective. I thank you.

Thank you, Indonesia, for your input. We will now have Varsha Kandikoda, the Executive Secretary of the Hague Group, to give us a summary of our discussions and the next steps.

Thank you, Minister Lamulla. Greetings to the co-chairs, South Africa, our co-sponsor, Malaysia, our distinguished experts today, William Schabas and Deanna Buttu, and with gratitude to special remarks from Palestine, Norway, Maldives, and Brazil. I thank all the countries present here today, especially the foreign ministers and ministers of justice who have traveled to this meeting. Today's meeting of 40 states began with a very clear conviction that is on each of your tables in front of you, that the authority of international law derives not merely from its proclamation, but from its enforcement. We reaffirm the Charter of the United Nations, as declared by every delegate on this floor, to ensure that the rights it affirms for all peoples are not merely declared but defended. Again, as every delegate on this floor has warned, the alternative is a world in which might alone determines which laws are respected and which may be violated with impunity. Today's meeting represents the largest meeting convened by the Hague Group so far, with over 40 member states participating in this extraordinary gathering in defense of international law. Growing from a fledgling platform of nine member states a little over a year ago to 31 states in Bogota in Colombia, 35 states meeting in New York on the sidelines of last year's UN General Assembly, to nearly 40 states inside today's historic trusteeship council chamber. through every speech on this floor, I'd like to identify three key levers of shifts, desires that have been demanded by member states present here today. The first is from complicity to compliance. Today, states commit to cooperation and exchange across national and international mechanisms to give practical effect to states' obligations under international law and the determinations made by international judicial bodies. This includes The continuation of efforts aimed at obtaining a United Nations Security Council arms embargo as put forth by Maldives, Turkey, Indonesia, to target settlement products as proposed by the delegate from Indonesia. And here I'd like to acknowledge the work and the recent legislations by our member states who are present in the room today who are observer states, Spain and the United Kingdom. Accountability in business practices, as proposed by the delegate from Norway, to ensure that our industry, our territorial waters, ships, vessels, and ports do not serve as conduits for activities that enable or facilitate genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity. The second shift that we heard from speeches across the floor today is a shift from impunity to accountability. Today, states have committed once again to strengthening the defense and independence of the international legal order. Accountability for settlers, officials promoting settlements, mass confinement, and violence against Palestinians, as put forth by the Minister from Brazil. Coordinated measures to support the implementation and enforcement of the decisions of the international courts and tribunals, as proposed by Oman, Qatar, Cabo Verde. to oppose the efforts to obstruct, undermine, and retaliate against their work, against officials of the courts of UN special rapporteurs, through measures such as blocking statutes, as proposed by the co-sponsors of today's meeting, and through sustained financial support to organizations like UNDRR, as proposed by Palestine. Through both of these two key levers and shifts, we see a desire for a much larger, broader, paradigmatic shift towards a new, multilateralism, to reaffirm the sovereign equality of nations large and small, and strengthening international cooperation in the maintenance of international peace and security. We have once again heard a call for a renewed United Nations body modeled after the historic 1962 UN Special Committee Against Apartheid, as proposed by several member states today on this floor. As declared by delegates from Iran to Indonesia, Mexico to Brazil, and in the words of the foreign minister of Antigua and Barbuda, we know that the preservation of multilateralism is not optional. Your Excellencies, I thank you all again for your continued engagement with the Hague Group, with your national policies, and for the defense of international law. From Palestine to Lebanon, Cuba to Sudan, the defense of humanity is our common cause. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for the summary that you have provided to us. We are very thankful and it does give us a clear way forward for all the participants. I will now read the closing remarks for our meeting. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, I thank you for the richness of this discussion, and in particular for the concrete proposals that have been placed before us. As we have heard in the summary of our discussions, there is considerable scope for States to work together to defend international legal order and to translate our existing obligations into practical actions. What we have heard today will inform the core sponsor statements to be issued by South Africa and Malaysia following this meeting, reflecting the interventions of the participating States and the concrete proposal advanced during our discussions. The central message of today's meeting is clear: international law cannot defend itself. Its authority ultimately depends upon States being prepared to uphold it consistently, to implement the obligations they have accepted and to defend the institutions entrusted with applying it. The authority of international law derives not merely from its proclamation, but from its enforcement. The alternative is a world in which might alone determines which laws are respected and which may be violated with impunity. The defense of international law is therefore not the responsibility of one member state, one region, or one institution. It's a common and a shared responsibility. The defense of humanity is our common cause. States must work together to ensure that the obligations we have collectively established are implemented consistently and effectively. I thank Malaysia for co-sponsoring today's meeting. And I thank all participating States, international organizations, United Nations representatives, and our experts who graced us with their occasions and made meaningful inputs for all our engagements. I also thank the United Nations Secretariat and all those who have worked to make this meeting possible. This concludes the formal proceedings of the High-Level Meeting in Defense of International Law. I thank all of you. Our meeting is now adjourned. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. You too. But.