Outer Space: Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, Legal Subcommittee, 65th session, 1105th meeting

Okay, okay. Buenas tardes, distinguidas delegadas y delegados. Declaro abierta la sesión.

I call— I now declare open the meeting of the Legal Subcommittee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. As I mentioned this morning, this afternoon we will begin and hopefully conclude our consideration of our report under agenda item 15. Also, as I announced before closing our morning meeting, the draft report in its abridged form and the chair's summary have been made available to all the delegations on the webpage of this session. So I would like to propose that we start our consideration of the draft report. Before that, I would like to thank all delegations for their continuous constructive approach and cooperation during the informals this morning. And as the chair, I continue to count on your support to adopt the report this afternoon. And I would also like to remind you that due to the ongoing liquidity crisis Our session must conclude by 6 PM prompt. Having said that, now let us begin our consideration of the draft report. I would like to ask my colleagues from the Secretariat to put it up on your screens. It's the one that is available on the website.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much. And my intention. In order to make good use of our time and to move as quickly as possible, I would like to go to the report section by section. Before we begin, I think Brazil Brazil has requested the floor, so I give the floor to Brazil.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon to all colleagues. Um, first of all, Chair, thank you very much for this renewed effort in refining our texts. We are really grateful for the work you're doing with the Secretariat, to whom we are also very grateful. Is of utmost importance and it constitutes a red line for my delegation to mention developing countries in the report should it not be a purely procedural report. But what we see, Chair, in all sincerity is that the report as it as we see it now, contains a good deal of substance, is not a fully procedural report. We, we could of course live with this report should the expression developing countries be mentioned here. We're still open to this possibility, but as we don't see that this seems to be the case as per the discussions we're having here. What we would like to respectfully request, Chair, is to move some paragraphs of this report which are of a substantial nature to the summary you're going to prepare. And if you allow me, Chair, I'm in your hands. I would like to Read the paragraphs, not not the whole contents of the paragraphs, but the numbers of the paragraphs that would respectfully request that be moved to your summary. Thank you. So the paragraphs are the ones that follow on the on section two general exchange of views. It would be paragraphs. 4, 5, 6, sorry, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and all its sub-items. And that's all for Section 2, Chair. After that, on Section 3, Information on the activities of international, intergovernmental, and non-governmental organizations relating to space law. The paragraphs are five, six, seven. Then on section four, the paragraphs are seven. 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17, which I understand, uh, there had been an arrangement before, but we would like this to be, um, also included in its former entirety in the chair's summary. 18, 19, 20, 21, and 23. On Section 5, there are no paragraphs would request to be moved. On Section 6, paragraph 7, And I think it's the numbering that must be corrected, but it was saying 30— 20 and 30, which is the 2 last paragraphs of this section.

Yes.

And then paragraph 1 that follows, which also is an issue of numbering. I'm talking about the previous version. Then on section 7, There are no paragraphs to be moved. On section 8, paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8. On paragraph 9— sorry, on section 9, paragraph 5. Section 10, paragraphs 5 and 15. On Section 11, paragraph 3. And nothing on Section 12. I hope this proposal would be agreeable to our delegations. We think this is an effort to reach consensus here and a way forward that at least takes stock. And we thank you very much for the proposal of doing a chair summary so that we can take stock of the important work we've been doing here, not this meeting, not the last meeting, but for quite some decades in this committee.

Thank you, Chair.

I thank Brazil. And now I will give the floor to India.

Thank you, Chair, for giving us the floor. We have heard comments from many countries, many developing countries, that term developing countries is important for inclusion in the report, which, as we saw in the current version of the report, we do not find any wording or the term of developing countries, which make reports in terms of utility less relevant from the point of view of many countries, especially developing countries. In that situation, we are also flexible and open to suggestions given by our colleagues including which is given by Egypt at one point that why not to move everything into a chair summary and make it a chair summary full report as a chair. It will not be a report but as a chair summary. We are flexible and we are open but as we are in your hands and as decision is made by all our colleagues and all member states driven by judgment taken by the chair. Thank you.

I thank India. And now I give the floor to Egypt.

Muchas gracias, señor presidente.

Thank you, chair.

I thank you again for convening this meeting, and we're looking forward to reaching something consensual and a report before the end of this session. Mr. Chair, we, we have 2 main comments. The first one is related to an amendment that was introduced earlier in the morning. My delegation was not in the room. We reserve keeping the word annex as you originally suggested for the chair summary. We think that the caveats that you have added in this chair summary precludes any misinterpretation about the use of this attachment. And by no means there is an intention by any delegation to reinterpret the chair's summary. By definition, it should not be used by any delegation under any forum. It's just a summary of the discussions. And we think that trying to go forward without even a record of our discussions with we're limiting even the space of our deliberations. I'm not quite sure at a certain point why are we delivering statements. We can just upload all the statements on the website and we go straight for the— I don't know, for working group discussions or something like this. So I understand that we have divergent views on concepts, on frameworks, on legal matters, but having a chair summary record of our deliberations I would say is a minimum that we can have as an outcome. So with this, please, Mr. Chair, Egypt reserves on removing the word annex from the reference to the chair summary. This is one. Two, on the note of the report, we appreciate that it went along the same lines that we concluded in the Scientific Subcommittee. However, during the Scientific Subcommittee, my delegation made a statement saying that this should be addressed before the upcoming Legal Subcommittee and it should not be repeated. From our point of view, to have the same caveat and the same outcome without even referring to the deliberations that we have as an annex, it's basically we're having the exactly same outcome that we had in the STSC. It's damaging. It's not going forward. We want to accommodate all points of views. However, from our perception at least, we need to consolidate this caveat. Egypt proposed alternative language and we sent it to the Secretariat, so I would highly suggest that we put this on the screen and allow discussions at least to go forward with the understanding that Egypt is ready to go along with a procedure procedural report as suggested by Brazil, strictly procedural, and we support this approach as well, with a bit of a stronger caveat to ensure that the mandate of the committee and the subcommittee and the views expressed during our deliberations are not being narrowed down or excluded from the broader understanding of the outcome of this particular report. Finally, I thank our distinguished colleague from India for referring to One of the proposals that we made about the chair's proposal, I think it's still an option on the table to go forward and to have some saying a report that comes from the chair as objective and professional. You demonstrated throughout the deliberations that we had here. I think it could be a viable option as well to go forward because us as developing countries accepting and as Egypt accepting. Another procedural report focused on particular matters that not necessarily reflect the collective interest, or at least a majority of the interests of the delegations in the room, while at the same time not allowing to refer to the deliberations even as an annex, is something I would say going in a direction that we would not appreciate. That's why we reiterate again the option of having a chair summary for every thing. Everybody would be equally unhappy, I would say. Nobody wants to go out of this room without a report. You tried a lot, all the delegations tried a lot, but again, it could be an option. Thank you so much, Mr.

Chair.

I thank Egypt for their statement. Distinguished colleagues, I'd like to make a proposal on how to move forward given our time constraints. China has requested the floor. I'll give them the floor, and then could you give me the opportunity to suggest a roadmap? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We thank you for the efforts you have made. We also thank 99% of the report except that one country could not agree on one term that was in line with our established practice and the legal norms. Yesterday I already cited one example. This country has defined this use of the term developing countries. It can be defined as racial discrimination. The example about racial discrimination that shows its sensitivity, but anti-racial discrimination is legal. Racial discrimination is sensitive. We respect such sensitivity. That's why we are against using it. But the expression developing countries is legal, in line with established practice. But one particular country thinks it's a taboo term and it's sensitive and cannot appear here. And such idea is unjustified and not in line with established practice and ungrounded. We believe that that's because this country has abused the consensus procedure, which resulted in many other proposals by other countries and the stalemate that we have with the low efficiency. In terms of the financial crisis, we have wasted a lot of time, cost, and energy on this. So we were already very close after resolving 99.9%, and now because of this difference of only 0.1%, we cannot get there. What we are facing is this reality. This country has repeatedly gone against the Vienna spirit and imposed its will on other countries and forced other member states to resort to some other plans, proposals. And some countries have not spoken, but it doesn't really mean that they would like to see such a situation. So I would still like to emphasize that the real challenge facing us is that the real Vienna spirit at such an important forum of COPs has been bullied and trampled upon, and then the General Conference to be followed and what we are preparing for the 4th Space Conference may also face such a challenge. I don't want to waste too much time. I just want to appeal to everyone to seriously consider how to respond to this abuse of the consensus procedure. And so what kind— what form of the outcome will be presented or whether we will have any outcome Before, I'm sure everyone will know that the where the responsibility lies in terms of which country. Thank you.

Agradezco la.

I thank China for their statement.

Clarity and expediency. I will also switch to English, and again, I thank the interpreters in advance for their kindness. Dear colleagues, it is my understanding. That we don't have a consensus in the room in terms of the substance of a draft report. That has been very clear to me in terms of the discussions we've had, both in the format of informal consultations and now as it has been expressed in the room. It is also my understanding that there would still be an intention from the majority of delegations to have a report from the subcommittee adopted today, even if this is a procedural report. Under that basis, I will suggest we move to the revision and adoption of paragraph by paragraph of the draft report that we have, taking note of the paragraphs that have been suggested to remove from this draft report because they are substantive. These will be accommodated in the chair summary.

Thank you.

And then at the end of the day, the intention is to be able to adopt a procedural report, which will still have the Chair's summary in addition to it. And I suggest, for the purposes of expediency of time, that we go through the introduction and onwards first, and at the end we can come back to the revision of the comments made by Egypt to the note on the report and the 2 paragraphs that we have before us, because I would prefer to spend most of the time ensuring that we have the content of the procedural report first, and then we can discuss the caveats. So with this, I also see that Pakistan has asked for the floor. I'll give the floor to Pakistan, and then we would move to Section 1, Introduction of the Report. Pakistan, please.

Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity. This revised version is something with no reference to developing countries, which is something that Pakistan is not comfortable with. Secondly, the deletion of the Chair's Summary as annexures, it is also something that we are not comfortable with. So we all want to have something when we are going out of this room today in the evening, so Ijeet's proposal is also worth consideration that instead of having a procedure report, we could have a chair summary, or if we want to have a procedure report, then Brazil's proposal that all— instead of doing the cherry picking, all the substantive views should go into the chair summary with a caveat, and this chair summary should be annexed in the procedure report.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for those comments. I would like to clarify, as I also mentioned during the informal consultations that if the whole content of the document was moved to a Chair's Report, then technically the subcommittee would have no report, and we could stop the meeting. There would need to be nothing to be adopted because everything would be under my responsibility. So the intention is that if there is an outcome from the subcommittee, that we go for a procedural report, and that then we can accommodate substantive views in a chair summary. So that would be the intention, and I see South Africa asking for the floor. South Africa, please.

Thank you, Chair.

The South African delegation supports the proposals made by the distinguished delegates of Brazil and Egypt respectively.

Thank you.

Thank you, and I also see that Egypt requested for the floor again, so I'll give him the floor before moving to the introduction.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Chair.

Mr. Chair, we're happy to go paragraph by paragraph in the report, but it's— I think it's even more important to understand what are we adopting. The caveats as well as standing of the annex is for us even more important than going for the procedure report paragraph by paragraph. We are in your hands in whatever direction you want to go, and eventually nothing will be agreed until everything is is agreed. I suggest we start with the caveats and where we stand with the attachment. We conclude that the entirety of the report— I'm not quite— I believe that the whole room will be in agreement with, but again, we are in your hands. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I also get that point, and I would stress the last part of your statement of nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. And precisely because of that, my inclination would still be that we should make sure that we have secured what the procedural report could be, and then we can spend the time that we have left to see if we can agree to it all through the revision of the caveat. So thank you for that flexibility, and I give the floor to the delegation of Iran.

Thank you, Chair.

We hope that with the flexibility of a certain delegation, the positions of a large group of delegations regarding the developing countries would be reflected in the report.

Unfortunately, this was not the case. In light of this situation, we support the proposal made by the delegation of Brazil to move some paragraphs from the draft report to the Chair's summary.

My delegation also supports Egypt's proposal as the last alternative. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Thank you. So with that, dear colleagues, I would like to go to Section 1 of the draft report, which is the introduction. And for the brevity of time, I would ask if we could, instead of going paragraph by paragraph, take all of this section, including subsections A, B, C, and D, As agreed at— sorry, E and F as agreed at REF just before getting to general exchange of views. Can I take it that this is the case? Thank you. So Section 1 is agreed at REF. Then we move to Section 2, General Exchange of Views. In General Exchange of Views, there have already been a few paragraphs that have been suggested to be deleted, so here I'll go paragraph by paragraph. Can I take it that we could agree ad ref on paragraph 1?

Yes.

That seems to be the case. Paragraph 2?

Thank you.

Paragraph 3?

Thank you.

And then based on the Brazilian proposal, paragraph 4 would be deleted Paragraph 4 has been removed from this report and moved into the Chair's summary. So I will not be asking for adoption on paragraph 4. And then I move on to paragraph 5. Can I take it that we can retain paragraph 5? That seems to be the case. Thank you. And then proposals have been made to delete all the rest of the paragraphs in this section, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. So again, I would not ask for approval for the retention. These paragraphs would consequently be deleted from the report and moved to the chair summary.

Thank you.

Sorry, I'm skipping paragraph 17. That was not on the list, so I would ask if we can retain 17 and keep it in the procedural paragraph— procedural report, sorry. That seems to be the case. So we'll do that. 17 is retained. And with that, we move on to Section 3. Can I take it that we can adopt and retain paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4?

Yes.

Of section three, that seems to be the case. These paragraphs are retained. The request has been made to remove paragraphs five, six, and seven. Egypt have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Just a question of clarity. Do we have a mention of the CRPs as well under the general exchange of views? You have a paragraph that captured the CRPs and the general exchange of views because we have it here under this section just for the sake of a balanced approach. Thank you.

Yes, they are reflected still in paragraph 2 that has been retained. Thank you. Canada, you have asked for the floor.

Yes, thank you, Chair. I just want to confirm an understanding and then Is it my understanding that we're proposing to get rid of paragraph 7 in Section 3 and move it to the Chair summary? And if so, I question whether that's appropriate because this seems to be a paragraph that talks about a decision that the subcommittee made. And so I would expect that decisions or actions would remain in the procedure.

Yes.

procedural report, but please clarify the situation for me. Thank you.

Thank you. So the proposal was indeed to also move paragraph 7 to the chair summary. Let me, let me first then start by saying that if there were no questions on 5 and 6, 5 and 6 would be deleted and moved to the chair summary. So on paragraph 7, The clarification is also one that, as per the proposal of Brazil, this paragraph would be deleted from this report and moved to the chair summary. And Brazil has asked for the floor, which I'm assuming can also clarify a bit further.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the distinguished delegate of Canada for pointing this out. Actually, we, as our delegation, could go along in this case, this specific case, with leaving this paragraph in the procedural report, as actually reading it better, it seems to be effectively procedural.

Thank you.

Thank you for that clarification. So with that, and I would ask, would it be agreeable To retain then paragraph 7 in the draft report, I see no objection. So then paragraph 7 of section 3 would be retained. So now we move on to section 4. Can I take it that we can agree at ref? On paragraphs 1 through 6 of Section 4, I see no objection, so we'll retain paragraphs 1 through 6. Then the request has been made to delete. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 23. So these paragraphs would then be deleted from the draft, and we have paragraph 22 remaining. France is asking for the floor. France, please.

Thank you very much, Chair. The same comment as Canada just now. It seems to us that paragraph 23 is also proposing what constitutes an action of the subcommittee which invites for the continuation. If I'd understood this paragraph correctly, it allows us to continue to have these elements on the agenda for the— So, for the next session, so a priori allowing states to exchange views on this matter.

Thank you. And I see Kenneth also asking for the floor.

Yes, thank you, Chair. Same comment with respect to paragraph 21. It's embedded, but the second clause is, and agree that the Office should continue to update the directory, is again another decision that the Legal Subcommittee had agreed upon. So I think then we want to retain 21 as written. and 23 as they mark decisions and actions of the subcommittee. Thank you.

Thank you. So with those comments from France and Canada, I would also then ask Brazil and the room if we could retain 21, 22, and 23. And I give the floor to Brazil.

Thank you, Chair. We also see the point in the comment made by the Distinguished delegate of Canada about paragraph 21, so we could go along with retaining it here in the report. As for paragraph 23, we see, and this is our delegation's view, that the part of the paragraph that starts with "in this regard" is procedural, but we see. the form— the beginning of the paragraph until in that regard as a substantive one. So we would prefer to retain what is strictly procedural in this paragraph, which is from the word the subcommittee in 3rd line on. Thank you.

Thank you. So let me break this into pieces to make it a little bit easier. So first, can I take it then that we can retain and include paragraph 21 in the report? I see no objections, so we'll keep 21. Can we take 22? I also see no objections, so 22 would be retained. And then with paragraph 23, there has been a little bit of a divergence of views. I would also clarify that I myself read as part of the chair's notes at some point in the meeting the content of paragraph 23 as a decision. So I would ask Brazil if there's a margin of flexibility to retain 23 as is, or if there would be an insistence to shorten the paragraph. Brazil, please.

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to ask your indulgence for a couple of minutes so that we can analyze it, and we will certainly come back to you very soon.

Thank you.

Thank you. So let's leave 23 in brackets. We'll come back to it in a moment, and then we can continue moving forward. Thank you. So with this, we move to Section 5. And there are no suggestions for any deletions in Section 5. So can I take it that we can agree ad ref to retain all paragraphs, paragraphs 1 through 4 of Section 5? I see no objection, so we'll retain them. We move on then to Section 6. Section 6, there were no suggestions or requests to delete paragraphs 1 through 6. So can I take it that we can agree and retain paragraphs 1 through 6?

Yes.

I see no objections, so we'll keep these paragraphs. And then the request was made to delete paragraphs 7, 20, and 30. including paragraph 1 that appears after 30. So this paragraph then would be deleted from the report. And can I take it that we can— Russian Federation, please.

Thank you, Chair. Perhaps we didn't quite manage to follow the proposal for deletion here. Under Section 6, we have 6 and 7. With regards to deletion, we don't have any question, but as regards paragraph 20, from our point of view, this is a procedural point. Here we're talking about Consensus, which remains a cornerstone of our work in the committee, and that— and it is on the basis of keeping consensus that we're doing what we're doing. Not having a substantive report, we have to agree to what we are doing now.

Thank you.

So, our proposal would be to keep this paragraph in the text, and it would also be rather good here to indicate that the subcommittee did not just simply noted this, but would rather agree— agreed to this, because this is the basis on which we take our decisions. I think that would reflect the nature of our work. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Sorry, thank you to the Russian Federation, and I see that Colombia has asked for the floor.

Thank you, Chair. For Colombia, it's very important to include languages, and therefore it supports multilingualism, and therefore Colombia will be in favor of keeping paragraph

Thank you, and I give the floor to France.

Thank you, Chair. We had the same comments as Colombia. We would also like to keep the principle under paragraph 30.

Thank you, and with those comments, I am certain that Spain is also going to defend multilingualism.

Perfect.

An expression of support for paragraph 30 and the Russian Federation as well.

I give the floor to the Russian Federation.

Oh, I'm sorry, supporting multilingualism. Yes, yes, we would also be in favor of that. Thank you very much.

In this context, ask colleagues if, um, if there would be flexibility to then retain in the procedural report both paragraphs 20 and 30, potentially 20 including the, the amendment by the Russian Federation. Before I ask for that, then I'll give the floor to the US delegation. We'll come back to these paragraphs.

Thank you, Chair. Full support for the Russian proposal for paragraph 20.

Thank you. So Canada asked for the floor and then followed by China.

Thank you, Chair. It's with some hesitation that I say this, but there wasn't actually a formal motion from the Chair to seek the agreement of the subcommittee on the principle of consensus. Definitely, the subcommittee noted the importance of the principle of consensus, absolutely. But if we're going to be consistent, I think it has to be, as subcommittee noted, unless the chair had put the question to the legal subcommittee. I apologize.

No, that's fine. And I'm also happy to retain the language as it was presented in the draft. But I have China followed by Brazil. China, please.

Thank you, Chair. We are of the view that with regard to the numbering, number 20, paragraph number 20, and the term agreed, we support this. In particular, we have mentioned repeatedly that the principle of consensus has been repeatedly abused. This is very important. Important to maintain the language. At the same time, we hold that we need to protect the true consensus principle, and I believe everyone must have a deeper understanding of the importance of this principle and how to truly safeguard the principle of consensus. in practice and object its abuse. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. And so before I turn to— well, no, I'll give the floor to Brazil first. Brazil, please.

Thank you, Chair. Very briefly, in the view of our delegation, we still maintain and we still view that these 2 paragraphs are of a substantive nature, especially paragraph 30. For example, we know it's a very important concept for many delegations here, and it is one for Brazil too. But if you think about the very important concept to our delegation and to many others in this room that has been opposed to in this document, I mean, This was the main objective of the proposal of Brazil of moving paragraphs to not for us to pick and choose what's the substance we want to leave there. That said, it's not in our spirits to block any kind of consensus, so we are in the spirit of paragraph 20, by the way. So we can really, really be flexible on that one.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, and I really thank Brazil for the flexibility and the spirit, the constructive spirit with which we're working. So let me take them in reverse order. Can I take it that we can then retain paragraph 30, the one that addresses multilingualism, as it is now in the text? I see no objection, so we'll retain 30. And then going back to 20, having noted the hesitant remark from the delegation of Canada, noting the expressions of support in the room, can I take it that we could include paragraph 20 as amended by the Russian Federation in the draft? That seems to be the case, so we'll keep it that way. And now we've made it an agreement, so now it makes sense in the report. Thank you very much for that flexibility. And again, paragraph 1, right underneath that, has been proposed to be deleted. There was no proposal on deletion on paragraph 2 that appears underneath that one, so can I take it that we can retain paragraph 2 as it appears in the draft report? I see no objections, so we'll keep paragraph 2. Thank you. And with this, we move on to Section 7. And again, on Section 7, there were no suggestions for deletion of paragraphs, so can I take it that we can include at ref paragraphs 1 through 8, all of Section 7. I see no objections, so we'll keep them. We move on to Section 8. Can I take it that we can retain in our report paragraphs 1 through Russian Federation, please.

Chair, perhaps we could go back to Section 7. Could you show us once again on the screen what you have left in and what you have not?

Yes, I can ask the Secretariat. On paragraph— on Section 7, there were no paragraphs removed. So all of the paragraphs that appeared there in the draft that you saw and that you have before you that was uploaded during lunchtime, they are all retained in the report with no changes and no deletions. I hope this clarifies the question.

Thank you.

Thank you. So then I'll go back to Section 8, and can I take it that we can retain paragraphs 1 to 4? I see no objections, so we'll retain these paragraphs. And the request has been made to delete paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8. So those paragraphs would be deleted from the report. And then I would ask the subcommittee if we can retain in the report paragraph 9. Canada, please.

Thank you, Chair. We're of course pleased with the ability to keep paragraph 9. However, paragraph 9 does refer to contributions to the compendium, but with the removal of paragraph 8, you don't know what that means. So perhaps if there's a desire to delete or remove paragraph 8, paragraph 8, that some portion, yes, of an explanation of what the compendium is should be included in that final paragraph so it isn't an orphan reference. Thank you to the Chair and Secretariat.

Thank you for that comment, which is a technical comment. And if this is agreeable to delegations in the editorial changes to the report, we will make sure that the full reference to the compendium appears in paragraph 9 so that it makes sense to understand which compendium we're talking about. So we will make that editorial adjustment when we produce the final printing version. Thank you for that observation. So can I take it that we can then retain paragraph 9? I see no objection. Paragraph 9 is retained. Then we move on to Section 9. Can I take it that we can retain and agree a draft on paragraphs 1 through 4? I see no objection, so we'll retain these paragraphs. And the request has been made to delete paragraph 5. Canada, please.

Thank you, Chair. This should be getting familiar by now. This does appear to be another instance where the subcommittee has decided to do something. So if that is the common understanding of everyone in the room, then I believe that paragraph should remain because it is a decision point of the subcommittee.

Thank you, and I put it back to the consideration of member states then. I see no objections in retaining it, so can I take it that we could keep and retain paragraph 5 in the draft report? That seems to be the case. We'll retain it. Thank you very much, Canada, for that. And with this, we move to section 2.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Can I take it that we can agree at ref on the retention of paragraphs 1 through 4? I see no objections, so we will keep this. The request has been made to delete Paragraph 5. Can I take it that we can retain and keep in the report paragraphs 6, 7, and 8? Germany, please.

Thank you, Chair. I don't want to get into a confusing situation as previously. I just would like to mention that because 15 is intrinsically linked to this, we would actually like to keep 15. But if this is not the case, and in order to save language from this, we've submitted some language here which would retain the procedural aspects of it in para 8.

Read it out.

I can also read it out. So after policy aspects of space traffic, in para 8, we have policy aspects of space traffic, and then, and possible areas of work, including the compilation, analysis, and sharing of existing national, regional, and international approaches relevant to space traffic coordination and management in order to identify common elements emerging practices and issues requiring further consideration. So that's the procedural part. Again, we would— we're coming to 15. We think it could actually also be retained in this aspect, but in order to avoid confusion, at least we want to save this language here. Thank you so much.

Thank you. And then again, let me go paragraph by paragraph here so that we don't get confusion. What I understand is that there is no objection in retaining paragraphs 6 and 7 as they are. Can I take that 6 and 7 can be retained as they are? That seems to be the case. The proposal has been made by Brazil to delete paragraph 15. So in this context, would it be agreeable to retain paragraph 8 that now appears as 7 because of the track changes on your screen with the suggestions just added by Germany to this paragraph in the understanding that We would delete paragraph 15. I see no objection. That seems to be the case, so we will keep paragraph 8 with the changes suggested by Germany from the floor, and paragraph 15 will be deleted. With this, we move to section.

11.

Can I take it that we can agree ad ref and retain paragraphs 1 and 2? I see no objection. Someone is getting a phone call. Send it. But that is a good sign. If we can hear a nail falling down, it's because people are paying attention, so that's great. And then the request has been made to delete paragraph 3 from this section. Paragraph 3 would therefore be deleted. And with this, we would move to the final section in the report, which is Section 12. There were no suggestions to Delete any of the paragraphs, so can I take it that we can agree and retain paragraphs one through four of section twelve? I see no objection, so we keep this. With that, dear colleagues, we have cleaned up. our draft report, and then we have to go back to the note of the report. Give me one second. Before we do that, I apologize, we had a bracketed paragraph that we wanted to come back to, which is paragraph 23 of Section 4. So here I would go back to the delegation of Brazil to see if there's any flexibility for the retention of the paragraph as a whole as it was presented in the draft. Brazil, do you have—

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for bearing with us. We can go along with retaining the first part of the paragraph.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for your flexibility. Then we would retain the whole language of the paragraph. Can I take it that this is acceptable to all delegations and we would retain paragraph 23 of Section 4 I see no objection. Thank you again, Brazil. And so now with that, I would kindly ask the Secretary to take us back to the note on the report. For context, this was the note that was prepared by the Chair for the draft report It was also the subject of discussions during our informal consultations in the morning session. As the delegation of Egypt has mentioned, we have now received a proposal, so I would also kindly ask the Secretariat if we could project that proposal on the screen.

You have 2 panels.

So before we begin our discussion, I just want to ask Egypt to confirm that we are projecting the correct version of the proposal, just to make sure we're not making any mistakes. Is this the right version of the proposal?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

They are.

Thank you very much. So I'll give the floor to Egypt to introduce this proposal, and then we can discuss it in the room. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor again. And these suggestions here are basically— since our discussions have been focused around a particular concept, we are introducing these caveats as a note to the report with 2 3 main goals, I would say. The first one is that we are reiterating the principle that all of the activities in outer space will be carried out in the benefit and in the interest of all countries. We are not departing from this principle with the fact that many of our countries have— is ready to go along with having a report for the sake of the continuity of the work of the subcommittee. Committee, I think it's important to reflect on this, that we are all still cognizant and supportive of the implementation of Article 1 of the Outer Space Treaty. The second paragraph is more or less the same language and direction of the note that you kindly proposed in the report, which is very much as well Cooperation on the peaceful use of outer space in the 4th committee, including the latest. As far as I understand that we would all agree on. So with this, I humbly ask you and through you the room that I think many of our delegations showed the maximum flexibility that we can show. Obviously, we all need a report. We are not pleased with the outcome in any way. We feel that the discussions should be more comprehensive and inclusive and more representative, and the outcome should actually reflect all of these elements. However, as we embark on the negotiations that we're having through the Working Group of the Whole, and hopefully before COPUS, we will hopefully arrive at something that can bring us back on track, bring us back to inclusivity, and avoid these kinds of lengthy discussions. And I'm happy to engage constructively as well to see how far can we get with these paragraphs.

Thank you.

Thank you, Egypt. And before opening the floor, also for the purposes of clarity, is my understanding correct that these paragraphs would not delete the paragraphs that we have in the report, but they would be added in addition to the ones that we already have in the note on the report?

Thank you, Chair. No, our intention is to have it as an alt to what you are suggesting as a note in the report. We can just use these two paragraphs at the beginning of the report. Thank you.

Thank you. So, dear colleagues, what you have in front of you is an Egyptian proposal—an alternative proposal—to replace the paragraphs of the note on the report that are at the beginning of the report of the report with this language. So, on this basis, I open the floor. for comments on delegations with respect to this proposal and to see if this can be taken up and this can be included in the report. So the floor is open on the Egyptian proposal.

Thank you, Canada, please.

Thank you, Chair. Um, I believe at the outset of this meeting, um, the distinguished representative of Brazil had made proposals to remove a number of paragraphs because they contained substantive content, and therefore to proceed on that basis with a mostly procedural report that reflected decisions or actions. And we've now done that and carefully parsed through all these paragraphs to retain the decisions but yet move the substantive provisions. The 2 suggested additions now, I would say, are substantive. So that would seem to be contrary to the approach we've adopted. and followed with fairly good success up to this point. Therefore, my initial reaction would be not to entertain these because then we reopen the debate and we get back into what we could put into the report and what is substantive and what is not and what language we can agree to. So I think we've made progress under your guidance and we've taken the helpful suggestion from the delegation of Brazil I think that's the course we're on now, and we should see it through to completion and adopt the report along this path. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, and I give the floor to Panama.

Muchas gracias, señor. Thank you, Chair. It was basically the same as what Canada has just said. Perhaps it's worth considering. Making the 2 paragraphs a lot more precise to avoid a discussion about substantive and procedural issues. But basically, that's all I wanted to mention. Thank you.

Thank you, Panama.

Any comment or views on these proposals? Tiene la palabra México.

Mexico has the floor.

Muchas gracias. Thank you, Chair. First of all, I'd like to thank Egypt for their proposal on possible alternatives for the explanatory note of our procedural report. And I'd like to echo the comments of Canada. Taking as a base what we agreed to include in the report, perhaps it would be ideal to keep the paragraphs proposed in the draft as they were initially worded and as agreed at the last Scientific and Technical Subcommittee because the questions covered in the note are a true reflection of the safeguards we wanted to express about the natural nature of the report.

And now I give the floor to Brazil.

Thank you, Chair. With respect to the caveats proposed by the delegation of Egypt, we see value in the mention to the Outer Space Treaty as a foundational instrument, which is something that has near-universal adherence in this room. And we think the caveats we had from the other sections, from the other session for the STSC, although it constituted a compromise at that point, it left us with not a lot of options in terms of how to reflect for the future the work we did in this committee. So We, the Brazilian delegation, can support the idea of strengthening the caveats, but we are happy to discuss ways to streamline it and to— so that we don't leave it as very clearly the distinguished delegate of Canada said, so that it doesn't look like— and it indeed looks like could look like this. At this point, it looks like a substantive chapeau for the procedural report. Thank you.

Thank you, and I give the floor now to China.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We thank Egypt Thank you, Mr. President, for once again displaying the constructive effort to come up with such a text. We have noted that some countries may have different understanding or view of the Egyptian proposal, and there may be areas where we don't have convergence. But what I would like to point out is that the root cause once again is because we were able to reach an agreement, but because of one country, any constructive effort including the Egyptian constructive text may result in new differences or lack of. convergence. For the text itself, we suggest that we may consider in the first paragraph towards the end of the first paragraph. Let me read it out, half a sentence. Rather, towards the end of the last sentence. Bearing in mind UNGA resolution 51/122. I hope it's clear. Otherwise, I can repeat, or I could also ask my colleague to circulate it to the The staff of the Secretary. The Egyptian text may be added with some necessary explanation or clarification, and that is very normal because we should have been able to legally and in accordance with established practice use the expression of developing countries. But now. In such special extraordinary circumstances, we use the adoption of such a text that's highly legitimate and necessary. By the way, the document number is 122/122. So if there are some new views about the proposed new text, that is regrettable. And lamentable as a result. So in this case, the abuse of the consensus procedure, we can see what grave consequences it has. We cannot repeatedly compromise and compromise again, and that is unacceptable. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the Chinese delegation. The floor is still open if there are any other comments or views on the alternative text proposed by Egypt, and now with suggestions also by China. I don't see any delegations asking for the floor. Dear colleagues, what I also noticed is that there is a divergence of views on whether to take this as a basis for the explanatory note. We heard a few delegations that would rather not engage in this language and keep the other, and there is of course a delegation that has engaged in making proposals to the text that has been submitted by Egypt. The way in which we can move forward is if there's agreement in the room on the basis to operate. So can I take it again that there is convergence of views and consensus in the room to take these paragraphs as the proposal for the

Thank you, Chair.

I don't think we can take consensus for these 2 paragraphs.

I thank our distinguished colleague, or the distinguished representative from Egypt, for his efforts on this, but we fully support what Canada and other others have said in the room about using the original text as proposed by the Chair for the start of the report. Thank you.

Thank you very much. New Zealand, Chile, please.

Thank you, Chair. We too would like to say thank you for the proposal made by Egypt. However, we had already made a decision which many of us don't like as much which was to choose for a— to choose a procedural text. Perhaps we could work on the basis of your proposal, which is procedural in nature, and then see how we can incorporate some other elements. But we would prefer to work on your proposal. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chile. Now South Africa has the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

South Africa supports the proposal Made by the distinguished delegate from Egypt for these two to be added. Thank you.

Thank you, and I don't see any other delegations wishing to take the floor. Egypt, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've listened carefully to all of the comments, and I appreciate all of the comments that has been made so far. Mr. Chair, we are trying to. Find a way forward to preserve the mandate of COPUS and the mandate of the subcommittees vis-à-vis the environment that we're having. I think my delegation and several other delegations showed maximum flexibility, reiterating agreed language on Outer Space Treaty or the inclusion of the UN General Assembly Resolution 51/122. I don't think that this is a deviation from the procedural aspects of the report. We can say that we decided at the beginning of this paragraph. This will at least ease a bit of this very prolonged discussions that we had. I think we're heading to the same direction in the committee as well, so I'm a bit puzzled why delegations are opposing to basic principles. Even this is not allowed to be included in the report, be it procedural or be it otherwise. There are some paragraphs that it's not 100% procedural in the report still, because some delegations were attaching more importance to them. So I highly encourage all delegations to show the flexibility that has been shown by many developing countries. This report is being— is going forward now because we need a report, while excluding 130 countries from being mentioned in it. So I really highly encourage more flexibility to accept principles that we are all in agreement with. I don't think that this will add any workload or burden to the committee or its subcommittees, but at least it will show that we still have some convergence on main issues and main principles. On the second paragraph, again, My delegation is more than ready to show the flexibility needed to see what are the elements that might be of an issue for delegations. I'm happy as well to work on the language that you provided and maybe add one or two elements to it that can satisfy at least our point that we need to consolidate this caveat, taking into consideration it is the second time we're presenting the same caveat for the same report. And we are in your hands, of course, on the way forward. Thank you.

Thank you, and thank you for those comments, and in the understanding that there is no agreement on working on the basis of this alternative, but also noticing what Egypt just has mentioned in terms of the flexibility of working on the basis of the draft that has been reported and work with that. I would ask the Secretariat if they can project the note of the report as it appears now, and my invitation to delegations would be to take this text as a basis, see if there's anything else that can be added or revised or strengthened that then could get us to a compromise. And with that, I give the floor to China.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to reiterate our support for the constructive efforts by Egypt by coming up with the 2 paragraphs which shows great flexibility, but due to countries' opposition to the use of the term of developing countries, which is not justified. And against that background, we saw the Egyptian constructive effort as to how these 2 paragraphs should be expressed. Delegations may have different ideas, but I believe that the 2 paragraphs, the core meaning conveyed, we should not have any difference on that. Some countries said that the text might add to the complexity or some other concern or fear. I just— what the ground is for such concern or fear. If we want to— instead, we are to work on Egypt to show more flexibility. More simply, perhaps we could work on the country that opposes the term developing countries because that's already very simple. We already completed 99.9% of the work except for one term and we should have been able to finish our work highly efficiently, finish our work and then take our flights home. All because of the problem triggered off by this country against established practice and the legal and justified UN term, and that resulted in our discussion of the derivative problems, including the discussion of the constructive text proposed by Egypt. So I don't know about the concern of some countries. Instead, we should focus on working on that country. Something that's in line with the UN's usual linguistic expression according to law, the Vienna spirit and the consensus spirit and cooperative spirit and its practice. On that basis, we can completely just use as an integral part the expression developing countries, as simple as that. Should be able to finish our work and take the entire complete report with the closure of the meeting. So I wonder whether our delegates, fellow delegates, should reflect on this. What's the key issue here? What's the crux of the matter rather than finding faults with the proposal by Egypt? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank China for his comments. Again, my understanding is that we don't have an agreement to work on the basis of the Egyptian proposal to move forward, but we're open to working on the basis of the language that is in the draft report. So the floor is open on paragraphs 1 and 2 of the draft report to see if we can make any changes to this paragraph to move forward. I had seen that Canada— no, Greece has asked for the floor. Greece, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like first to thank Egypt for their very constructive proposal. Now, as far as we understand, the note on the report reflects the, let's say, the the procedure which has been followed for the establishment, for the development of the present report. Therefore, we understood also that we will proceed with the current draft, your draft, but we would also like to see again the second paragraph of the Egyptian proposal because we would like to propose the inclusion of a phrase which is inserted in the Egyptian proposal in this paragraph 1. Can we see for once more the Egyptian proposal? Yes. In the second paragraph, we would like to take the phrase that the present report was prepared as an exceptional arrangement and then shall not constitute a precedent, as it is in your draft proposal. Just to add in your draft proposal the phrase The present report was prepared as an exceptional arrangement, and then, and shall not constitute a precedent, and then a precedent for the format, scope, or content of future reports. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Greece, for also that constructive proposal. So there is already a suggestion to take up one of the elements that were included in the Egyptian proposal, which is to add to this paragraph the reference that the report was prepared as an exceptional arrangement. Thank you for that, Greece. Egypt, please.

Thank you so much, Chair. Let me try and work on this paragraph, our distinguished colleagues from Canada and New Zealand are not supportive of having additional elements as suggested by our delegation. Let me suggest that deriving from United Nations General Assembly resolutions, subcommittee— yes, this sentence, United Nations General Assembly resolutions, United Nations General Assembly resolutions on— and if we can write the title of the agenda item, International Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, between quotations, please. I assume that this is the right agenda item, but if the Secretariat can correct me as well, including 1348 and 1472 and other General Assembly resolutions thereafter. I think with this and with our distinguished colleague from Greece's suggestion, we can go along with this very, I would say, minor edits. And I hope that this will be a constructive way forward for all delegations to consider. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Egypt, for those proposals. If I, if I'm allowed to make an editorial comment, just to refer to the agenda item, I would suggest that we say deriving from United Nations General Assembly resolutions under the item. But anyway, in any case, that is grammar that we can fix. But the idea basically that you get is that we're making reference to the item in the General Assembly agenda under which these resolutions were adopted. So colleagues, now we have a revised paragraph for the note that would take up 3 elements. I would say that one is editorial, the one that it makes the full name of United Nations General Assembly, but we have the reference to an exceptional arrangement, the agenda item for the resolutions, and the inclusion of the word thereafter. Any comments on these proposals, or are these proposals under which we could move forward towards agreeing on paragraph 1 of the note? The United States, please.

Thank you, Chair. We would note it seems that we're moving from a procedural note to substantive commentary, which I think several delegations have have flagged as a concern before. This is the formulation that was carefully negotiated at STSC, and it seems appropriate to us to continue to use it. We're also not sure what some of the additions here add, including the language about exceptional arrangement. We'd be curious as to whether it's superfluous given the existing caveats. Thank you.

Thank you for those comments. For the purposes of clarification, Would I understand that all the additions are problematic, or is the problem particularly on the first addition that has been suggested?

Yes, we would propose referring— reverting back to the original language.

Thank you. So we have a request to retain the original language as it was included into the draft report. The floor is still open if there are any other comments or suggestions. Otherwise, can I take it that we can revert back to the original language? Delegation of China followed by Egypt, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are opposed to the proposal of the United States to delete these additional elements. We have spent so much time in discussing— in carrying out the discussion precisely because the United States cannot accept the term of developing countries. But for delegations including Brazil, Egypt, all those delegations have shown enough flexibility and also chair has also made a lot of constructive efforts. In spite of all those efforts or flexibility, the United States is still creating various kinds of confusion. The fundamental reason lies with the United States itself. Because it is creating confusion in asking for the deletion of those expressions. I don't know what is the real intention of the United States for doing that. Why these expressions cannot be allowed to— just like the term is not allowed to exist in the report of this subcommittee because those expressions represent the common knowledge of the United Nations systems, even the common knowledge of the ordinary people outside the United Nations. We believe this is very absurd. We are against, uh, for against the addition of the terms. Thank you. Thank you.

I'll give the floor to Egypt, followed by Canada.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I hope we're not getting again into binary discussions on, um, like no additions or no suggestions or no— we're at that attaching so much importance to an outcome, we need to have a report, and we don't believe that our delegation is presenting something superfluous or something that it's not necessary or something that will derive from the collective intention that we will get an outcome. I will really highly appreciate— these minor edits will help us move forward and help us continue our discussions on how can we tackle this as we move forward before the committee. And going forward to the United Nations General Assembly, I think we showed enough flexibility today. It's our last day in in the legal subcommittee. I'm not quite sure which element is problematic. We know that this is exceptional arrangement. The discussions that we had only is a testament of that. Referring to the agenda item is factual. There is nothing. I mean, there is no. Severe changes to the paragraph. We tried to introduce 2 general paragraphs that did not harness consensus. We are moving forward to try to minimize the discussions as much as possible and allow all of us to end these discussions as soon as possible, constructively at least. So yes, we need this paragraph with these amendments.

Thank you. I give the floor to Canada, followed by Brazil.

Thank you, Chair. Canada would have been perfectly happy to retain the original language you proposed in your paragraph, but understanding the concerns of many delegations here and recognizing that some of those delegations have been willing to show some flexibility on these issues and desiring to demonstrate maximum flexibility from the point of view the Canadian delegation. Our delegation can support the paragraph with these, I would say, modest amendments in order to move forward. And I do mean move forward, so we stop being concerned about why we're here and focus on getting the job done now, getting this report adopted and moving forward. I don't think we need to look backwards anymore. Let's look forwards. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Canada. That's very constructive. Constructive, and I appreciate that. Brazil, please.

Thank you, Chair. My delegation also would like to express its support to the language proposed there. We think we are doing nothing more than referring to principles that guide our work. We are trying with this language to use the opportunity of this caveat to put value and to highlight our mandates and to protect it, because with these discussions we run a serious risk of these mandates being forgotten. When we say exceptional arrangement is that— and we really believe that and we see the value on that— is because we believe it's an exceptional arrangement. If you ask my delegation, I must say we are not happy with this outcome, but this is the possible outcome we can get here. It's our minimum common denominator, so, and we really believe in that in multilateralism. So we fully agree with what has just said by the distinguished delegate of Canada. We have to move forward, and I think reinforcing our own mandates is the only way for us to keep on doing our job. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Brazil. And I give the floor to Pakistan, followed by the Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. Pakistan considers this— the new formulation just introduced are worth considering because it's a reality that this is an exceptional arrangement, and the second edit is pertaining to the UNGA resolution. So I don't think so there should be any kind of a problem so we can consider them.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Russian Federation followed by Italy.

Thank you, Chair. We would say that we start from your proposal which was submitted with the support of the Secretariat and we understand that in essence it Reflects the language which was used in the report of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee. So, from our point of view, it is working language. It has— and we can agree to it. It has been proven. Now, as to whether or not it creates a precedent, well, though we already spoke about that yesterday, we're ready to close our eyes. We were ready to close our eyes to this during the SDSC about the precedent being created there, but once again writing that it doesn't create a precedent, well, we think that is not the best thing that we could adopt under the current conditions, but nevertheless it is a reality. The amendments made with regard to the UNGA resolutions, in our view, are not of a substantive nature. They clarify what these resolutions are about. So what we have before us is a procedural paragraph, and we stand ready to agree to it in order to move forward. And in order to conclude our work with a report, the main part of which we are ready to adopt. Thank you very much.

Thank you to the Russian Federation. Italy followed by China.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Italy can fully listen to all comments in the any distinguished delegation and appreciated both the work made by the Chair and delegation in proposing a viable solution. However, we consider that highlighting the fact that this is an exceptional arrangement and shall not constitute a precedent for the format is very important for the incoming other committee is. So we think that we can go for it. And Mr. Chair, if you really want— because we try to balance, leave everybody equally unhappy— I think that this note should be kept in the report. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. And I'll give the floor to China. We've already recorded that China supports this Thank you, Chair.

I would like to once again stress that what we are having now is a legal subcommittee meeting with regard to whether we should delete the proposal, the edits proposed by Egyptian delegation. We believe we need to consider this issue from the legal point of view. I would also urge other delegations to ask or solicit opinion from your legal experts in your delegations. If we are to delete this, at least what legal consequences would arise? Why the United States insist on deleting Those words and how the US considers this issue from the legal point of view. Egypt has made extremely constructive efforts in coming up with this text. On the issue of using the term of developing countries in the report, constructive efforts have been made. Even despite that the United States is still not satisfied and still insisting on the deletion of this term, we believe all of us need to consider very seriously the consequences of the deletion, especially the legal consequences, and what kind of legal impact this would create for the future meetings of the committee and the legal subcommittee. We need to consider the seriousness of this possible consequence. I hope that all of us here would ask the legal opinion of your legal experts before we make any responsible judgment.

Thank you.

Thank you. Those views and expressions of support have already been recorded, so the delegates, The objective here, and just to remind the exercise rather than the discussions on the depth of the debate and the divergence of views, is, at least the way I see it, is that we would need to try to use— I see you, I see you, give me a moment. We'll need to try to use our time the best we can to get to an agreement to see if we can then move forward to the adoption of the full report. This is the one thing that is pending in terms of how we caveat it. I think there is indeed, and my assessment is that there is a feeling of delegations wanting to be constructive and flexible to try to get to an agreement, and so I encourage delegations as they ask for the floor in the next round, and I see several flags of delegations that are asking for the floor, to bear this in mind and also to keep in mind the time. It's 4:40 and by 6:00 we will have to leave the room with a report adopted, so I'm also cognizant of the time. And the reason why I'm mentioning this is because if this conversation continues without an agreement, we will have to take different types of decisions in this room, so it will be important to know as soon as possible if we do have enough flexibility to get to a compromise. So with that, I'll give the floor to the US delegation, followed by Germany and then Iran. US, please.

Thank you, Chair. I think everyone has heard our preference for adhering to the previous language which was used in STSC and was carefully negotiated at that time, and we think is still suitable. That said, we hear the room, and in the spirit of consensus and truly trying to adhere to the Vienna spirit, which we've all talked about so much this week, the United States would be prepared to accept the draft text as currently screened for the subcommittee. Thank you.

Thank you very much to the US delegation. So before I give the floor to other delegations, and having heard that in the assessment of the Chair, There seems to be agreement to keeping paragraph one of the note of the report as amended. Can I take it that we can include and adopt paragraph one of the note of the report as amended by Egypt? Is that agreeable to all delegations? I see no objections. It is so decided. Thank you very much. And we have paragraph. 2 remaining. I remember that Egypt had made the request to retain the chair's summary as part of an annex. There was a discussion where the view was expressed and the preference was expressed to make it available on the website. In this draft, you will see that the link to the website is already inserted in the report itself in a footnote. There is a note that will take you straight to the chair summary. So I would ask, in the same spirit of compromise, if with the arrangements that we have made to paragraph 1, if we could retain and agree on paragraph 2 as is. And the floor is open. Do I have any objections to that? Is that an objection? No, sorry, it's a legacy flag. Thank you.

Egypt.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for giving me the floor again. Again, one more time, to have multilateralism go forward in this spirit and taking into consideration the complications of the discussions that we had, I don't want to open these discussions again, with understanding that we all hope that we will have the ample time from now until the committee to see how can the committee will reflect its views that should be submitted to the UN General Assembly. So my delegation is ready to accept paragraph 2 as it stands to show the flexibility needed to go forward, but again appeal that we will have the same discussion during the committee and we really hope that this will not be the same outcome as well. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Egypt. And so with that expression of flexibility, can I take it then that the committee agrees to the retention of paragraph 2 of the note of the report as it is drafted and projected on the screen? I see no objections. It is so decided. So with this Colleagues, we have finished all of the sections of the draft report, and we would now proceed to the adoption of the full report. I'm going to go back to my notes, and they're in Spanish, so I'll also return to Spanish. Hemos acordado ya todas.

We have now agreed on all the sections of the draft report. In its abridged version. The reports of the 2 working groups of the subcommittee, the legal subcommittee, namely the Working Group on the Status and Application of the 5 United Nations Treaties on Outer Space and the Working Group on the Legal Aspects The 2nd report, on aspects of space resource activities, as well as the report of ATLAC, have already been endorsed by the subcommittee and will be included as Annexes 1, 2, and 3 of the report respectively. Distinguished delegates, having said this, can I take it I suggest that the subcommittee adopts the report as a whole in the revised— in the version as revised this afternoon. I see no objections. It is so decided. The report has been adopted as a whole, and I would like to inform delegations That the Chair's Summary will be updated accordingly. We have to move a lot of the paragraphs which were in the report, the previous version of the report, into the Chair's Summary. So the link in the report to the Chair's Summary will be included when the report is available. And it will appear on the webpage. I will be working with the Secretariat over the coming days to finalise the updated version of my Chair's Summary as soon as possible, and we will also make it available to delegations on the website as soon as possible. With that, distinguished delegates, we have concluded our consideration Report to the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. The delegation of China, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. As you announced the adoption of the report, the Chinese delegation did not express objection, but I would like to add and would like to put on record that with regard to the measure that the OSC has taken, that because of certain countries, certain countries' unjustified reason, and we are not happy with the measure that we— that the LSE deals with the situation. We do not support and we even oppose to it. In order to demonstrate the cooperative spirit in Vienna, we did not oppose this. However, However, we reserve our position. With regard to the current abuse of the consensus procedure, we remain highly vigilant and we call upon all parties to remain vigilant because this directly concerns with the COPUS and its 2 subcommittees working methods, and it concerns the future direction of outer space governance and concerns the maintenance and safeguard of the outer space order. So based on constructive spirit and feasibility, we are not opposed to the adoption of the report, but we have our reservations. Thank you. And we reserve our right in later occasions or in higher-level conferences to raise this issue. Thank you. I hope that fellow delegates will give a serious thought about this issue and work together to. I hope that we can continue to reflect on this issue and work to safeguard the spirit of Vienna and the true spirit of cooperation and principle of consensus procedure, constructive efforts, and maintain multilateral platform in outer space. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. China, and your views have been recorded, and we'll make sure that they're reflected as such in the records of the meeting.

Distinguished delegates, we only need to now proceed to closing this meeting. And before that, and in my personal capacity, I would like to deeply thank each and every one of the delegations for the trust that they have placed in me, for the support that they have provided to the Chair, and for the assistance that I have received from all of you when it comes to conducting the work of this session. I would also like to sincerely express my gratitude to the Secretariat for their work. Who, given the liquidity crisis, have worked very hard in order to ensure that we have all the documents ready in due time so that we can address our agenda. And I would like to thank them for all their hard work. I thank the interpreters for their patience and for the time that they have dedicated to the work of this subcommittee. It has been a very enriching experience, and I have without a doubt learned a great deal, not just from this forum, but also on space issues which are not the future, but rather our present. And given that we have divided the chairmanship over 2 years, I would also like to take this opportunity to wish our colleague Nathanael Pineda Rodriguez from Panama the very greatest of success in the next session of the LSC where he will be chairing. Before finally closing this meeting and concluding the 65th session of the Legal Subcommittee. I would like to inform delegations on the schedule of informal consultations that will be held this week as follows. On Friday the 24th of April, the Working Group on Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activities will hold its informal consultations from 10 till 11:30 in Conference Room 7 on the 7th floor, with a virtual connection made available to Working Group members. This same day, there will be informal consultations held on Space for Development from 12 till a quarter past 1 In Conference Room 5 on the 7th floor. And this will also have a virtual connection made available on the webpage of this session. I must conclude our work by also thanking UNOSA and its director for all the support provided to this subcommittee and for having supported us in this session as well as at the opening session. And if there are no further comments or requests to take the floor, I would now declare this meeting closed along with the 65th session of the Legal Subcommittee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses Thank you very much. Thank you.