General Assembly: 106th Plenary meeting, 80th session

Good afternoon. The 106th Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly is called to order. The Assembly will begin its consideration of sub-item N of agenda item 115, entitled Approval of the Appointment of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The documentation under this item is listed in the Journal of the United Nations. The General Assembly, in its Resolution 4836, 141 decided to create the post of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Assembly also decided that the High Commissioner for Human Rights shall: A, be a person of high moral standing and personal integrity and possess expertise, including in the field of human rights, and the general knowledge and understanding of diverse cultures necessary for impartial, objective, non-selective, and effective performance of the duties of the High Commissioner. B, be appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and approved by the General Assembly with due regard to geographical rotation and have a fixed term of 4 years with the possibility of one renewal for another fixed term of 4 years. C, be of the rank of Under-Secretary-General. On 8 September 2022, the Assembly, in its decision 76/423, approved the appointment by the Secretary-General that Mr. Volker Türk of Austria be appointed the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for a fixed term of 4 years beginning on October 12, 2022. and expiring on October 11th, 2026. In light of the provisions of Resolution 48/141, the Secretary-General recommends the renewal of the appointment of Mr. Türk as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for a period of 4 years beginning on October 12th, 2022.

Thank you.

2026 and expiring on October 11th, 2030. I now give the floor to the representative of the United States on a point of order.

Thank you, Madam President. The United States moves for the Assembly's consideration of the appointment of the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights to be postponed until the end of next week to allow for proper consideration of this item by member states. This item was only noticed for inclusion in today's agenda on Monday, July 20th, and the Secretary-General's note containing the proposed appointment, A/80/797, was not even circulated and loaded into iGov and available for member states to review until this Wednesday, July 22nd. It was subsequently moved from the last to the first item on the agenda.

Thank you.

the first item on today's agenda. We fail to understand the rationale for this rushed approach, which has precluded all member states from completing necessary consultations. I've spoken to a lot of people in this room who have had no chance to speak with capital. So it's precluded all member states from completing necessary consultations with their capitals and with each other and deliberating on the implications of this reappointment, which is without precedent.

Thank you.

Since the position was established by the General Assembly over 30 years ago, only one High Commissioner for Human Rights has been reappointed, and in that case, for only 2 years. The current High Commissioner's term of office does not even conclude until October, which— math isn't my strong suit, but that's not tomorrow. And there is certainly no need for this to be considered with only a few days' notice in late July. The extremely compressed timeline provided to member states has severely limited the opportunity for meaningful consultation, If the expectation in scheduling this meeting was that this reappointment would be uncontroversial and adopted by consensus, it is now clear that that is not the case and that multiple members have questions about both the reappointment and the planned length of its extension. Under the circumstances, there are strong reasons for the Chair to provide a limited postponement to allow member states to discuss further and explore whether a consensus outcome is possible. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. is feasible. We accordingly move for this item to be postponed to a date next week, so the end of next week, and that the President move on to the next item on today's agenda.

Thank you.

I thank the representative of the United States. The representative of the United States has proposed that the consideration of the approval of the appointment be Postponed until the end of next week, if understood correctly. Are there any comments? We see a comment. I give the floor to the representative of Ireland.

Thank you, President. On behalf of the European Union and its member states, we oppose the motion to postpone consideration of this item and believe we should proceed to consideration today. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Ireland. Any further comments? The representative of Ireland has made an objection to the proposal by the United States to postpone the consideration of the item until the end of next week. In light of the objection made, I shall put to a recorded vote the proposal by the representative of the United States, that the decision on the approval of the appointment be postponed until the end of next week. This recorded vote will be decided by a simple majority of members present and voting. I know that we are currently having different rules of procedures here, so just, uh, everybody, we will go slowly through the whole process. Is this a point of order? Okay, I see another point of order. I now give the floor to the representative of Argentina.

Thank you, Madam President. Yes, indeed, this is a point of order. We wish to express our support to the proposal made by the United States to propose the consideration of this item. On the appointment of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. My delegation regrets that this issue was submitted to consideration so soon in a scenario where the regional groups weren't able to— there was a situation where we weren't able to break silence and weren't able to have more dialogue in this, which should prevent such an important decision being made by consensus. In this context, Argentina believes that there's still an opportunity to address this constructively. Briefly postponing this should allow us the extra time to go into dialogue that could possibly allow us to reach a decision by consensus. This is particularly important when we bear in mind the institutional importance of the role of the High Commissioner, whose work is fundamental for the fulfillment of the UN mandate in one of its essential pillars, human rights. For these reasons, Argentina supports the motion to postpone the consideration of this point. Thank you very much, Madam President.

I thank the representative of Argentina, but I would like to add here, I asked, is this a point of order? You said it's a point of order, but the point of order has been already made from the United States. Then we had to read action to the point of order, and then I asked if we go in the voting process. So, if there— a point of order would mean you're not agreeing with the order we're doing. If you're just supporting the proposal, this is not a point of order. We see another light. Do you have a point of order? We are not starting a discussion here on the topic. It's on the point of orders. Russia? Russian Federation?

Thank you, Madam President. I have 2 points. First of all, I would like to request that you comment prior to the vote what the vote in favor would mean and what the vote against would mean. That was my first point. Second point is this: I would like to express my perplexity as to why Ireland is against postponing this decision. Because postponing this decision would mean arriving at a consensus. I don't understand why knowingly we're giving up on consensus. In my view, that would— that is a grave mistake.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. I can clarify again because we had other points of orders in the past where delegations were not sure what we are voting on. To support the membership in clear decisions, because when we start a voting process, it is very hard to stop it or take it even back. Except only if you do a mistake. So this is why in the past, as many other presidents, explain what we are voting on, that everybody is clear. And this is why you asked the question. I explained what we are voting on, that we are voting on, on the point of order of the United States, and their proposal was to postpone the decision by one week.

Thank you.

Then I asked if there are any comments, and I gave the floor to Ireland. You commented on the statement of Ireland, but this is not up to the President of the General Assembly. So we are now in the process that we would vote on the proposal by the United States. There are other proposals, and we would come to that later, also including the proposal by the Russian Federation. I would like to make a comment. But if we postpone the whole agenda point, all these proposals would be postponed obviously as well. Any further need for clarification? I look at the Russian Federation. So no further need for clarification. Therefore, we come again to the point that we shall now begin the voting process on the proposal of Those in favor of the proposal by the representative of the United States that the decision on the approval of the appointment be postponed until the end of next week, please signify. Those against? Abstentions?

The Assembly is now voting on the proposal by the representative of the United States That the decision on the approval of the appointment be postponed until the end of next week. Those who vote yes will be voting in favor of the postponement so that this item will be taken up by the end of next week. Those who vote no will be voting against the postponement. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected The voting has been completed.

And as we said in the beginning, by simple majority—

Please lock the machine. The voting has been completed and the machine has been locked.

Okay.

The result of the vote is as follows: in favor, 27; against, 63; abstentions, 47. The proposal by the representative of the United States is not adopted. The Assembly will therefore proceed to take a decision on the approval of the appointment. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation to introduce draft decision A/80/L100.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam President, distinguished colleagues, today the United Nations is at an important juncture. On December 31st, 2026, the term of office of Secretary-General António Guterres expires. His successor will become the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations with full powers to form the leadership of the Secretariat, which is guaranteed by Article 101 of the UN Charter. At the same time, the General Assembly is considering a proposal to appoint Mr. Volker Türk to the position of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights for a 4-year period until October 11th, 2030. The appointment for such a long period on the eve of the change of the head of the organization has no analogues as was already mentioned today, in more than a 30-year history of this mandate. Thus, the General Assembly today will have to do more than just go through a simple technical formality. Without taking into account the opinion of the future Secretary-General, we are talking about approving his Under-Secretary-General, who will bear the main responsibility for the UN's activities in the area of human rights, thus depriving the future Secretary-General of the opportunity to implement his own vision and to form a team of his choice for years to come. We are convinced that the resolution of such sensitive issues should be governed by concerns for the institutional integrity of the organization. And in this regard, the Russian Federation has submitted a draft decision proposing the extension of the term of office of the current High Commissioner until 31st December 2026, thus synchronizing it with the term of office of the current Secretary-General. This is a pragmatic step. It relieves member states of the need to make politically sensitive decisions in the face of a change in the leadership of the UN and ensures a smooth, seamless transition period. This will allow the new head of the Secretariat to fully begin to perform his functions in accordance with Article 97 and Article 101 of the UN Charter and to form the human rights direction of the UN, taking into account the will of the Member States. Distinguished colleagues, we call upon you to support the draft decision we submitted. I thank you for your attention.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. We shall now proceed to consider draft decision A/80/L100 as just presented by the Russian Federation. For your information, the draft decision is closed for e-sponsorship. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

Thank you, Madam President. I should like to announce that since the submission of the draft decision and in addition to the delegation listed on the L document, the following countries have also become has also become a co-sponsor of A/AD/L100, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. If there is any other country that wishes to co-sponsor A/AD/L100, if you could please signify by pressing the microphone button now. I see none, so I thank you.

I thank the representative of the Secretariat. Delegations wishing to make a statement in the explanation of vote before the vote on any proposal under this item are invited to do so now in one intervention. After action on all of them, there will be an opportunity for explanation explanation of vote after the vote on any or all of them. Before giving the floor for explanation of vote before the vote, as announced in the President's letters dated January 6th and May 20th, 2026, I propose that the time limit for statements in explanation of vote under this item be 5 Is there any objection to this proposal? I hear none. It is so decided. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 72 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, when a representative exceeds her or his allotted time, the President shall call the speaker to order without delay, which will be done by means of automatic microphone cutoff. To assist delegations in managing their time. A countdown clock will be displayed on the screens. Members are also reminded that explanations of vote should be made by delegations from their seats. I give the floor to the representative of Uruguay, followed by Ireland and the United States.

Muchísimas gracias, señora presidenta.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Uruguay wishes to extend its firmest support to the renewal of the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr. Volker Türk, for an additional term of 4 years, as suggested in the Secretary-General's Note A/80/797. On this, we wish to emphasize that the Secretary-General's recommendation is in line with Resolution 48/141, that created the post of the High Commissioner, and that establishes in its Article 2B that, and I quote, the High Commissioner for Human Rights shall be appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and approved by the General Assembly with due regard to geographical rotation and have a fixed term of 4 years with a possibility of one renewal for another fixed term of 4 years, end of quotation. So this is the that this recommendation is aligned with the rules and is therefore legitimate. Uruguay cannot accept draft decision L100 that proposes to renew his term to the 31st of December 2026 only. We believe that this term is clearly not sufficient and would imperil the continuity of the work of the High Commissioner and his office in an international context where his role is more important than ever. And this is bearing in mind the ongoing erosion of international human rights law by different actors and the fact that the resources for the human rights pillar of this organization remain structurally insufficient. Madam President, the High Commissioner and his office play an essential role in the international human rights system since they support states to comply with the obligations and commitments that we freely assumed. He does this through dialogue, technical cooperation, capacity building, and extending critical, constructive communications based on international standards, and also recommendations that contribute to identifying challenges, improving our legislation and public policies, and ultimately strengthening the protection of the human rights of all people in our respective countries. We're aware that on occasion the observations and recommendations made by the High Commissioner and his office can be uncomfortable for states. However, it's precisely this ability to point to the challenges that we face and promote improvements with a sense of independence, impartiality, objectivity, and strict alignment with international human rights law— this is an essential part of the mandate entrusted to him and his office by the General Assembly. What's more, Uruguay wishes to underscore that we have a close and positive relationship with the work of High Commissioner Türk and his office, and we appreciate the independence and commitment with which he has engaged in this very important role, as well as his constant vocation to engage in dialogue and technical cooperation with member states. Uruguay reiterates our firm support for the reelection for 4 years as proposed by the Secretary-General, and we reaffirm The commitment to continue to work alongside the Office to strengthen the enjoyment of the human rights of all people, both in our country and region, as well as in the rest of the world. For all of the above reasons, Uruguay requests a registered vote on Draft Decision L100, and we respectfully urge Member States to vote against this document and to support the recommendation of the Secretary-General. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Uruguay. Uruguay, I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ireland on behalf of the European Union.

Thank you, President. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the European Union and its member states. 81 days, 77 not counting holidays, 55 not counting weekends. This is the length of time between the 12th of October and 31st of December 2026. And the length of the term proposed for the reappointment of the High Commissioner for Human Rights under this proposal? Almost no time at all. A term of 81 days is manifestly incompatible with the nature, scope, and importance of the role of High Commissioner. Furthermore, this proposal would distort and subvert the approval process which has been established by this General Assembly. General Assembly Resolution 48/141 is very clear. It decides that the High Commissioner for Human Rights shall be appointed by the Secretary-General of the UN and approved by the General Assembly, with due regard to geographical rotation, and have a fixed term of 4 years with a possibility of one renewal for another fixed term of 4 years. 4 years, not 81 days. The implications of this proposal are clear. It would turn a straightforward appointment by the Secretary-General for approval by the General Assembly into a polarised contest over the independence and effectiveness of the United Nations human rights system. The post of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is far too important to be treated in this way. The EU and its member states will vote no on the draft resolution contained in document A/80/L100, and we call upon all member states to do likewise and to vote no to this proposal. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Ireland. On behalf of the European Union, I now give the floor to the representative of the United States, followed by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Israel.

A vote for Volker Türk's reappointment proves right the UN's fiercest critics that this, this body is dysfunctional. And we urge all of you to join the United States in voting no on the proposal to reappoint Volker Türk as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights for a term of 4 years. Make no mistake: if this Assembly tolerates procedural overreach, backroom deals, and the misuse of UN posts, there will be consequences. The United States will immediately reassess our engagement, Given the gravity of the moment, let's be entirely clear about what is happening here today. This is a major procedural foul. This vote was quietly shoved onto the agenda at the last minute to bypass meaningful review. Unlike real emergencies, there is zero sense of urgency here. High Commissioner Turk's term does not expire for months. There has not been proper consultation.

Mr.

President, It looks like classic UN cronyism— an outgoing Secretary-General cutting a backroom deal to hand his long-term friend a 4-year executive payout, one that could pay him nearly $1 million on his way out the door. Now let's speak plain truth about Volker Türk's record. Under Mr. Türk, the Office of the High Commissioner is nothing more than a political megaphone. He spends his time lecturing free, sovereign democracies like the United States, for enforcing our laws and securing our borders while remaining soft on the world's worst oppressors. It is the height of hypocrisy for a UN bureaucrat to lecture the American people on border security while brutal dictatorships run rampant with impunity. Look at the record. Mr. Türk has condemned free democracies including the United States, UK, France, Australia, Italy, and more than any other country, Israel. But when it comes to the aggressive human rights abuses of the authoritarian regime in Havana, instead of giving hope to the Cuban people, his office has spent its time calling on the United States to lift sanctions on this oppressive communist regime. When the Iranian regime began a new wave of brutalizing and massacring 40,000 of its citizens, Turk remained silent for 12 days. But he quickly condemned U.S. actions to ensure Iran, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, never obtains a nuclear weapon. He has presided over a discriminatory database targeting American companies, enabled the U.N.'s anti-Israel machinery, and refused to confront the lunatic Francesca Albanese wearing the U.N. uniform as she spreads her vile hatred of America, Israel, and the West. Colleagues, I could sit here for hours with similar examples. The UN human rights apparatus has been losing legitimacy for decades. Mr. Türk has guided it to its deathbed. And if you vote to reappoint Volker Türk for a 4-year term, it will kick the bucket. We therefore ask every member state who cares about rebuilding the UN's human rights pillar to vote no.

I thank the representative of the United States. I now give the floor to the representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, followed by Israel, Mexico, and France.

Thank you, Madam President. The DPRK expresses the hope that the High Commissioner will faithfully carry out the mandate and responsibilities entrusted to the position in accordance with UNGA Resolution 48/141. The activities of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights should be based on the fair and objective consideration of human rights situations of all countries and should move away from politically motivated approaches and selective standards targeting specific countries. The DPRK remains concerned by the growing tendency to misuse human rights issues for political purposes and as a means of exerting pressure on certain countries. Such practices will only deepen distrust and confrontation among member states. Human rights should serve as an area of dialogue and cooperation aimed at promoting the dignity and well-being of all peoples. The resolution of human rights issues cannot be achieved through condemnation or pressure, but through mutual respect, constructive dialogue, and cooperation conducted on the basis of equality. In this regard, the DPRK hopes that the High Commissioner will pursue a balanced, objective, and impartial approach that fully takes into account the positions and realities of all member states. We expect the High Commissioner to strengthen confidence in the UN human rights system by engaging with all member states on the basis of objectivity, impartiality, non-selectivity, and non-politicization. The DPRK remains opposed to the politicization of human rights and the application of double standards and supports genuine international cooperation in the field of human rights based on equality, mutual respect, and constructive dialogue. Thank you.

I thank the representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. I now give the floor to the representative of Israel.

Thank you, Madam President. The State of Israel strongly opposes the request of the Secretary-General to renew the appointment of Mr. Türk as Human Rights— as High Commissioner for Human Rights for a second 4-year term. Our concerns range from Commissioner Türk's performance, which Israel views to have been lacking in professionalism and leadership, as well as the procedural implications of this reappointment. We have seen how the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has been, has been straying from the neutrality and impartiality expected of the United Nations institutions. In our view, the OHCHR has adopted an unprofessional, politically motivated approach that falls short of those standards. This has been especially evident during the tenure of Commissioner Türk, who has taken no measures to curb the political fervor plaguing the Office, becoming himself complicit to the problem. The credibility of his Office and the adjacent UN bodies depend on the ability to apply standards universally and consistently. Unfortunately, the flagrant and repeated transgressions of the code of conduct were not only met with silence from Commissioner Turk, but they were platformed by his off— but by the office he runs. Additionally, we view the OHCHR funds as not being effectively or responsibly utilized, whether by publishing unmandated reports by the disproportionate focus on certain areas, or by allocating additional personnel in a time of budgetary constraints throughout the UN system. We have not seen Commissioner Türk take a leadership role on rectifying these matters. Finally, we would like to point to the problematic procedural-based nature of this reappointment. In the few past instances of of extending the term of the High Commissioners, they did not exceed a year or 2 and were not extended for a complete 4-year term. It is in our view that there is no compelling justification to depart from past practices, particularly given that the Secretary-General's own term is nearing its conclusion. This is yet another example of the steps taken by the SG to to leave his footprint well after his tenure expires. For these reasons, Israel opposes the reappointment of Mr. Turk. We urge member states to carefully consider both the substantive concerns regarding the office's performance and the procedural implications of this unprecedented appointment. Thank you, Madam President.

I thank the representative of Israel. I now give the floor to the representative

Thank you very much, Madam President.

Mexico wishes to express its full support to the proposal of the Secretary-General to renew the term of Mr. Volker Türk as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for a further term of 4 years. This proposal is in line with the provisions of Resolution 48/141 of the General Assembly, pursuant to which the High Commissioner is appointed by the Secretary-General and approved by the General Assembly for a 4-year term with the possibility of the term being renewed for a subsequent term of the same length. During his term, High Commissioner Volker Türk has engaged in solid and constructive work at the head of the Office. Mexico particularly appreciates the fact that he is constantly available for frank and positive dialogue, his consultations with member states, civil society organizations, and other stakeholders, and his endeavors to seek solutions through cooperation. Furthermore, we recognize his efforts to more closely align the work of his office with the realities and needs of countries, as well as the importance that he has attached to technical assistance, strengthening national capacities, and supporting states to improve the promotion and protection of human rights. His term has also been characterized by the defense of all human rights for all people, as well as his balanced attention paid to emerging challenges and situations that require a timely response from the international community. Mexico believes that him continuing in this role will contribute to preserving the institutional stability of the office. For these reasons, Mexico invites the member states to support the proposal of the Secretary-General and to approve the renewal of Mr. Volker Türk's term as High Commissioner for Human Rights of the UN for an additional period of 4 years. Thank you very much.

I thank the representative of Mexico. I now give As the last speaker in the explanation of vote before the vote, the floor to the representative of France.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, France associates itself with the words of the European Union and its member states and reaffirms its full support for the Secretary General's proposal to appoint Mr. Volker Türk for a new 4-year term at the head of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. During his first term in office, marked by the brutalization of the world, multiplication of attacks on multilateralism, and the questioning of the universality of human rights, Mr. Türk, through his rigor and impartiality, demonstrated that he had all the qualities carry out this function, promoting and protecting human rights in all places and in all circumstances. He has been a voice of conscience confronting states with reality and their responsibilities. As he showed during the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights, Mr. Turk Mr. Türk is attached to the universality of human rights, and he has provided throughout his first term equal importance to economic, social, cultural rights, and civil and political rights. Mr. Türk has also, at the head of the Office of the High Commissioner, been able— encouraged to support the women and men who serve that institution for reforms aimed at strengthening its impact on the ground. And its contribution to efforts to combat impunity. France hopes that Mr. Türk will be able to continue this important work, which is fully in line within the UN reform carried out by the Secretary-General. Our country has every confidence in Mr. Türk's ability to carry out this work. Madam President, we also reiterate our support for the Secretary-General and respect his decision to propose the renewal of Mr. Türk's term of office for another 4 years in accordance with Resolution 48/141, by which this Assembly established the post of High Commissioner for Human Rights. France will oppose the proposal put forward by the Russian Federation and will support the Secretary-General's proposal and calls on all member states to do the same. I thank you.

I thank the representative of France. As we have here different requests, I will ask again, is there another explanation of vote before the votes? Otherwise, we would proceed for the vote. I don't see any. Therefore, we have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote before the vote. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft decision A/3. A/80/L100, entitled Approval of the Appointment of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, submitted by the Russian Federation, to take note of the note by the Secretary-General circulated in document A/80/797, and to decide that Mr. Volker Türk, Austria be appointed the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for a term beginning on October 12th, 2026, and expiring on December 31st, 2026? All set? A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favor of draft decision A/80/L100 as presented by the Russian Federation, please signify. Those against? Abstentions?

The Assembly is now voting on draft decision A/80/L100 The voting is now open on draft resolution L100 submitted by the Russian Federation. A yes vote means you're in favor of the draft decision proposed by the Russian Federation. A no vote means you are against the draft decision proposed by the Russian Federation. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the screen? The voting The vote has been completed and please lock the machine.

The result of the vote is as follows: in favor, 19; against, 71; abstentions, Draft Decision A/80/L100 is not adopted. Since draft decision A/80/L100 was not adopted, we shall proceed to take a decision on the approval of the appointment of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. As set out in the note by the Secretary-General contained in document A/80/797. May I take it that the Assembly approves the renewal of the appointment of Mr. Volker Türk of Austria as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights? for a period of 4 years beginning on October 12th, 2026, and expiring on October 11th, 2030. We have seen a request for the floor. I therefore give the floor to the representative of the Russian Federation on a point of order.

Thank you, Madam President. First of all, I would like to express my regret with the fact that the discussion was improperly organized. Well, first we had to listen to the opinions as regards our draft decision. This is because our document, our proposal, excluded the second one. I do understand that they were under the same agenda item according to the rules, but the discussion became confusing for the international community. Second, I wanted to say that we object against the proposal put forward by the Secretary-General which we are now considering. Thank you.

Thank you. As this was a point of order with a question, and as we are a free chamber with free speech, every delegation can say what they want to say, if they are in line with the rules of procedure in this assembly, and if it's a point of order, they have to be speaking on a point of order. This was an explanation of vote for the vote, as I read out before, the explanation of votes on all documents under this agenda item, and therefore every delegation was free to choose on which agenda item they wanted to speak. I asked at the end again if there are further explanations of vote, and again, as we are a free chamber, everybody could have taken the floor to speak freely. I see another point of order. Nope, there's no other point of order, at least from this side of the room. Is there any other point of order?

No.

A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favor of the approval of the recommendation to renew the appointment of Mr. Volker Türk of Austria as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for a period of 4 years beginning on October 12th, 2026 and expiring on October 11, 2030. Please signify. Those against? Abstentions?

The Assembly is now voting on the approval of the recommendation to renew the appointment of Mr. Volker Türk of Austria as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for a period of 4 years beginning on 12 October 2026 and expiring on 11 October 2030. A yes vote means you are in favor of the approval of the recommendation to renew the appointment. A no vote means you are against the approval of the recommendation to renew the appointment. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are correctly reflected on the screen?

Yes.

The voting has been completed. Please lock the machine.

The result of the vote is as follows: in favor, 144; against, 10; abstentions, 13. The Assembly approves the renewal of the appointment of Mr. Volker Türk of Austria as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for a period of 4 years beginning on October 12th, 2026, and expiring on October 11th, 2030. Before giving the floor for explanations of vote after vote, may I remind delegation that explanations of vote are limited to 5 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. I give the floor to the representative of Paraguay, followed by Peru and Ecuador.

Thank you, President. The Republic of Paraguay wishes to make a few comments on this issue. In the context of the UN Secretary-General, you're right, expressed in a note on the 10th of July last that we believe that it is— would it be appropriate for the incoming Secretary-General to make this appointment, or at least participate in the decision. For this reason, we had proposed extending the mandate of the current High Commissioner— well, not to renew it, rather— for a further 4 years. This position is not an assessment of him in his role, but an— or an objection of him being able to continue, but rather underscores the need to preserve institutional coherence at this organization during the current leadership transition period. In this regard, 2 proposals came: one to postpone the debate for one week, and we regret that the Assembly didn't give us the opportunity to reach a diplomatic understanding on this. And the second approach was to extend the term for 2 months. Neither of these worked. While we recognize the role of the Secretary-General to appoint the High Commissioner, we do think that it is a considerable error to support this appointment to the highest office for human rights of the United Nations without bearing in mind the opinion of a large number of states. Finally, Madam President, we regret that there wasn't enough additional time for more extensive dialogue, and extending the mandate sets a negative precedent. It's important to appoint a role like this with a vote nominated by the Secretary-General, and this could affect the credibility of the mandate and of course that of the organization by extension. Thank you.

I thank the representative of Paraguay. I now give the floor to the representative of Peru, followed by Ecuador and the Russian Federation.

Thank you, Madam President. Peru is committed to the institutionality of the universal system for the promotion and protection of the human rights As for the decision to renew the appointment of the current High Commissioner, we wish to underscore that Peru abstained from the vote based on the following 2 considerations. The first one, in line with our commitment to the institutionality of the universal human rights system, we wish to put it on record that in our judgment, the decision to postpone postpone the appointment for a period of 4 years when we're seeing the current Secretary-General's term coming to an end and the term of the current High Commissioner hasn't yet come to again. This is an institutional question. And secondly, in practice, this decision involves an essential component of the UN human rights architecture where the next Secretary-General must spend a significant part of his work engaging with this, and this could limit his room for maneuver and his ability to act when it comes to the appointment of high-level officials that are responsible for implementing his vision, his strategy, and his or her priorities. Must be engaged in while taking account of the consensus of the membership. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Peru. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ecuador.

Madam President, my delegation didn't have enough space to adequately consult at the various different levels on this decision that we have just adopted, and we regret that. And this is due to the specific circumstances surrounding this and given the importance of this decision for the system. My delegation doesn't find any justification for delegations like mine having been refused the right to have an additional 8 days, just 8 additional days to carry out the consultations we needed to. It's worth underscoring, President, colleagues, Ecuador's unshakeable commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights. As one of the states that helped to drive forward the creation of the It's worth saying this, that we are the country where the first High Commissioner came from. Ecuador has an historic position where we engage in dialogue, and we have a lot of trust and confidence with this office and with the different mandate holders that have headed it up. And this is part of our unshakable commitment to the universal human rights system. and also in line with us being a member of the Human Rights Council. We are playing an active role in the main human rights mechanisms, mechanisms, and this has been recognized by the international community. On the other hand, this decision also gives me an opportunity to recognize the leadership that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has shown since his first term. And we wish to reiterate to him our full support for his role entrusted to him by the UN Charter until the end of 2026. Given this, our vote in abstention by Ecuador should not be interpreted in any way whatsoever as calling into question the quality or the record or the work of the candidate proposed, and certainly not questioning the prerogative of the Secretary-General to submit this appointment to the consideration of the General Assembly. Ecuador's position responds exclusively, like I said at the beginning of my statement, to our regret that we didn't have necessary and sufficient time to duly review the proposal. required by these people that require political confidence and trust in for this assembly. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Ecuador. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation, followed by Ireland and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Thank you, Madam President. What did happen today? Instead of a unifying agenda, the Secretary-General brought into the General Assembly yet another apple of discord. General Assembly Resolution 48/141 states that the High Commissioner for Human Rights should be a person of high moral standing and personal integrity and possess expertise, including in the field of human rights, and the general knowledge and understanding of diverse cultures necessary for impartial, objective, non-selective, and effective performance of his duties. Does Mr. Turk have these qualities? This is a rhetorical question. We note with regret the political bias of both the High Commissioner himself and the office headed by him, who promote Western geopolitical interests under the pretext of concern for human rights. This is also noticeable in the work on thematic issues, but particularly evident when it comes to attempts to assess the human rights situation in individual States. When it comes to my own country, the High Commissioner easily throws around unfounded accusations against Russia without bothering to gather evidence, at a time when the process of verification of violations of international law has completely deteriorated, and as a result, uh, the authority and trust in the impartiality of information received from the UN has sharply decreased, it is quite natural to see that by the 9th decade of its existence, the United Nations has become unable to play any kind of a significant role in the settlement of conflicts. But Mr. Türk does not show zeal when it comes to such politically inconvenient topics as the strike on a college in Starobelsk the tragedy in Bucha, restrictions on the rights of the Russian-speaking populations abroad, persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, oppression of canonical Orthodoxy, restrictions on the freedom of speech of journalists and human rights defenders. As was stated by President Putin, such violations is something that the UN bodies have become blind and deaf to. Accusing Russia of not being open enough to cooperation with the UN, Mr. Türk and his office ignore dozens of appeals sent to them on the issues I just mentioned. Such bias will not change until the UN Secretariat begins to respect the provisions of UN General Assembly Resolution 48/141 in their entirety, including the provision for geographical rotation. Let me recall here the representatives of Africa and Asia managed to get the highest human rights position only once during a period as long as this. We regret that the compromise version proposed by Russia, which made it possible to maintain the status quo until the end of this did not find support. And in this regard, we note that against our decision— the vote against it was recorded on the part of only 71 delegations. So this was a very useful discussion, and I congratulate the Office of the High Commissioner. 71 delegations is exactly the mandate you have. In this regard, we regret the fact that such an event did take place today. This is not useful for the future of the UN. I thank you for your attention.

I thank the representative of the Russian Federation. I now give the floor to the representative of Ireland.

Thank you, President. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its member states. We welcome the outcome of today's vote and the strong mandate received. We also welcome this opportunity to reaffirm our wholehearted support for this mandate. At a time when human rights are under pressure in every region, the choice before us is clear. General Assembly Resolution 48/141, which created the post, sets out what is expected of the High Commissioner. It is a very high bar to meet, and previous incumbents have set a high standard. The European Union believes that Mr. Turk has demonstrably fulfilled responsibilities entrusted to him effectively and with integrity, in an objective and non-selective manner, over the past 4 years. We wish to take this opportunity to thank him for his work and strong commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights during his first mandate, and we wish him well for his second mandate. As the latest reporting from the Office of the High Commissioner makes clear, the multiplication of obstacles and challenges and rights violations is relentless, and the promotion and protection of all human rights becomes ever more contested. It is in precisely such circumstances that the UN needs an independent, impartial, and effective High Commissioner with adequate and predictable funding. It is in the interest of all Member States to keep human rights as an equal and sustainable pillar of the United Nations. Mr. Türk has shown unwavering commitment in listening to partners, respecting diversity, and ensuring that all voices inform collective decisions. That is why the Secretary-General has again nominated him for approval. We respect the Secretary-General's prerogative in submitting this nomination, as well as the General Assembly's responsibility to approve it. We believe that the High Commissioner deserves, and has earned the right, to take forward important processes mandated by this General Assembly: UN80, OHCHR 2.0, the new UN Human Rights Group, as well as work with the Global Alliance for Human Rights to the 80th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the 10th of December 2028. The European Union and its member states would have liked this reappointment to have been achieved by consensus. As it is, we offer full support our full support to Mr. Turk as a highly experienced expert who is exceptionally, exceptionally well qualified to continue serving this role in the current international context. The European Union and its member states therefore have given our full support to the approval of Mr. Turk's full reappointment, and we wish him well in his term. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Ireland. I now give the floor to the

Thank you, Mr.

Vice President. In the name of God, the most compassionate, the most merciful. The Islamic Republic of Iran has maintained constructive engagement with the High Commissioner for Human Rights and remains committed to technical cooperation with his office. Constructive engagement and principled criticism are not mutually exclusive. Thank you, Mr. President. Our concern in the present instance is primarily procedural and institutional, not personal. The effectiveness and credibility of the Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner depend on their ability to engage all member states and to avoid politicization, polarization, and fragmentation. A decision of such significance should have, to the greatest extent, possible been reached through broad consultations and on the basis of consensus. The selection of high— the selection of the High Commissioner should unite member states rather than deepen existing divisions. We support an institutional approach intended to preserve continuity, respect the prerogatives of the incoming Secretary-General, and create conditions for future decision enjoying the broadest possible support. Our position should not be interpreted as a repudiation of our engagement with the High Commissioner or of our technical cooperation with his office. The Islamic Republic of Iran categorically rejects the latest human rights accusations by the representative of the United States. They constitute yet another cynical attempt to weaponize human rights against an independent nation that refuses to submit to Washington's coercion. The United States possesses neither the moral authority nor the legal credibility to sit in judgment over the Iranian people. A government steeped in unlawful wars, systematic racial discrimination, police brutality, mass incarceration, extrajudicial killings, and the horrific massacre of schoolchildren is absolutely unqualified to lecture anyone on human rights. Iran will neither accept politically motivated accusations nor permit human rights to be used as a pretext to interfere in its internal affairs.

Thank you.

I thank the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote after the vote. The exercise of the right of reply has been requested. As announced in the President's letter dated 6th January 20— 6th January and 28th May 2026, I propose that the time limits for the statements in exercise of the right of reply under this item be limited to 5 minutes for the first intervention and to 3 minutes for the second intervention. Is there any objection to this proposal? I hear none.

So decided.

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 72 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, when a representative exceeds her or his allotted time, the President shall call the Speaker to order without delay, which will be done by means of automatic micro— microphone cutoff. To assist delegations in managing their time, a countdown clock will be displayed on the screens. Members are also reminded that statements in the exercise of right of reply should be made from the delegation from their seats. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cuba.

Señor President, President, thank you very much. My delegation was shocked when we heard the hypocritical and shameful statement by the representative of the United States. States that sought to, um, turn the appointment of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights into a platform to attack sovereign states. The delegation of the United States is not in any position to give human rights lessons to anybody. The representative of the United States today practiced 2 of their favorite sports, um, lying and threats. We all know that the United States engaged in blackmail and threats as a Thank you. This is a core part of their foreign policy. However, what the United States announced today in this room is an affront to this institution, and we reiterate to the United States that this is the United Nations. This is not the United States organization. They are doing this against Cuba to try and divert the attention of the international community away from the grave challenges that they face on their own territory. In the field of human rights. They don't have any international mandate or any type of moral authority to judge Cuba or anyone else, especially not in human rights. Before, they should deal with the many challenges that they have in their own country in this regard, in human rights, which are inexplicable for such a well-developed country with so many resources. The country that claims to be a paradigm of human rights and gives lessons to Cuba is responsible for so many of the abusive and most, um, brutal, um, abuse violations of these rights that have ever been documented in history. This is a country that engages in military, um, adventurism to achieve their geostrategic and economic roles in flagrant violation of the principles and purposes of the UN Charter and of international law. The United States is the country that finances agendas of subversion and changes to legitimately established constitutional orders in countries whose examples they're scared of. This is a country that destabilizes and imposes unilateral coercive measures that have a grave impact on human rights. They are the perpetrator, as we all know, of the, um, oil siege against Cuba, which is a collective punishment against all of our people. This is a country that shows double standards, that manipulates human rights against countries of the Global South and engages in campaigns of, um, discrediting them while they remain silent and complicit, um, in violations committed by their allies. Cuba will continue to defend the truth, sovereignty, and the rights of all people to live in peace without sanctions, without embargoes, and without interference. Thank you very much.

Cuba is the only country that has requested for right of reply. May I take that it is the wish of the Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-item N of Agenda Item 115? It's so decided. The Assembly will resume its consideration of Agenda Item 13 entitled Integrated and Coordinated Implementation of and Follow-up to the Outcome of the Major United Nations Conferences and Summits in the Economic, Social, and Related Fields, and Agenda Item 117 entitled Follow-up to the Outcome of the Millennium Summit. The documentation under this item is listed in journal— in the Journal of the United Nations. We shall now proceed to consider draft resolution A/80/L.97 and A/80/L.98. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

Thank you, Mr. President. I will read out an oral statement in connection with A/80/L.97 entitled review of the implementation of General Assembly Resolution 75/290A on the strengthening of the Economic and Social Council. The present oral statement is made in the context of Rule 153 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly. The present statement has also been distributed to member states. The text of operative paragraph 37 of the draft resolution requests the Secretary-General to consider ways to strengthen support for the work of the President and Bureau of ECOSOC. In this regard, in consultation with the Bureau, the Department of Economic and Social Affairs would conduct a detailed assessment to determine the substantive areas in need of strengthening and to qualify— and to quantify any related financial implications, which would be presented in the proposed program budget for 2028. Accordingly, should the General Assembly adopt Draft Resolution A/80/L97, there would be no program budget implications for 2026 as approved and 2027 as proposed by the Secretariat. The requirements for 2028 and subsequent years relating to operative paragraph 37 would be reflected in the proposed program budget of the relevant year for the consideration of the General Assembly. Thank you.

I thank the representative of the Secretariat. Delegations wishing to make statements in the explanation of vote before the vote on any proposal under these items are invited to do so. in one intervention. After action on all of them, there will be an opportunity for explanation of vote after the vote on any or all of them. Before giving the floor for an explanation of vote before the vote, as announced in the President's letter dated 6th January and 28th May 2026, I propose that the time limits for statements in explanation of vote under this item be 5 minutes. Is there any objection to this proposal? I hear none. So decided. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 72 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, when, when a representative exceeds her or his allotted time, the President shall call the Speaker to order without delay. which will be done by means of automatic microphone cutoff. To assist delegations in managing the time, a countdown clock will be displayed on the screens. Members are also reminded that explanation of vote should be made by delegations from their seats. I give the floor to the representative of Malta.

Thank you, Mr. President. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, I would like to deliver a brief statement on behalf of Ambassador François Jackman of Barbados and myself as co-facilitators of this year's General Assembly review of the Economic and Social Council and the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development. Firstly, we express our sincere appreciation to the President of the General Assembly for having entrusted us with this review process. We also convey our deep gratitude to all delegations for their active and constructive engagement throughout the process. Over the past 6 months, we have worked to ensure an open and transparent negotiation process. We convened 2 deep dives, 9 informal consultations, 7 informal-informal consultations, and numerous ad hoc meetings with interested delegations. We circulated an elements paper on the 2nd of March, a zero draft on 9 April and the first revision on 12 May, and conducted 3 full line-by-line readings with Member States. After silence was broken twice in late June and early July, we conducted further consultations and made targeted revisions to address Member States' concerns in a balanced manner. Draft Resolutions A/80/N97 on ECOSOC and A/80/N98 L98 on the HLPF are before the General Assembly today. They represent a balanced outcome that reflects the views expressed by all delegations that have engaged in the negotiations and consultations. This review has taken place at a particularly important moment for the Economic and Social Council, which commemorated its 80th anniversary this year. Against this backdrop, we were encouraged by the strong support by Member States to strengthen the impact, relevance, and added value of ECOSOC and the HLPF on sustainable development, to advance sustainable development and accelerate achievement of the SDGs through this review. To this end, Draft Resolution A/80/N97 on ECOSOC reinforces ECOSOC's role as the central platform for coordination, policy guidance, and accountability on sustainable development, with a focus on outcomes, efficiency, and coherence. B, it streamlines ECOSOC's programme of work, including shortening the coordination segment to one day and aligning the Partnership Forum with the HLPF. C, it introduces more efficient working methods, including for the management segment. And Draft Resolution A/80/N98 on the HLPF Strengthens the HLPF as the central platform for reviewing SDG progress and advancing integrated evidence-based policy action. It sets the SDGs for review in 2028 and 2029 and establishes the ECOSOC and HLPF teams for those years. And it recognizes the important role of the voluntary national reviews and calls for strengthening support and follow-up to the reviews. It is our hope that the implementation of these resolutions will help deliver a more impactful and effective Economic and Social Council and HLPF. We hope that member states can support these resolutions. I thank you.

I thank the Permanent Representative of Malta who was speaking on behalf of the 2 co-facilitators. I now give the floor to the representative of the United States.

Thank you, Mr. President. President Trump has made the position of the United States crystal clear: the U.N. must serve its member states, not dictate to them. We will no longer tolerate an international bureaucracy that treats national sovereignty as an obstacle to be managed. These texts exist to institutionalize Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals. Let us be frank. Agenda 2030 is a program of soft global governance that directly threatens national sovereignty. The United States rejects the 2030 Agenda and will not reaffirm it here or anywhere else. The UN has trapped itself in an absurd cycle using the SDGs to justify new forums, to produce more reports, to call even more meetings. These resolutions build bigger bureaucracies, create endless reviews, and waste resources. True prosperity is created by free enterprise, deregulation, and hard work, not by UN declarations or multi-year monitoring segments. These texts attempt to force restrictive climate mandates and top-down down social agendas into global economic policy. The United States has enacted an overdue course correction on these ideological distractions. We will not allow international development mechanisms to be weaponized against economic growth. Real reform means cutting fat, eliminating duplicative mandates, and respecting national sovereignty. These resolutions do the exact opposite. They entrench globalism and expand administrative bloat. The United States will vote no, and we call on every member state to value— that values its own sovereignty to do the same. Thank you.

I thank the representative of the United States. We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/AD/L.97 entitled Review of the Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 75/290A on Strengthening of the Economic and Social Council. A vote is requested.

Aye.

A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin voting process. Those in favor of the draft resolution A/80/L.97, please signify. Those against?

Abstentions?

The Assembly is now voting on draft resolution A/80/L.97. The vote is closed.

The resolution is adopted.

The next item on the agenda is the resolution entitled Review of the Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 75/290A on the Strengthening of the Economic and Social Council. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the screen? The voting has been completed. Please lock the machine.

The result of the vote is as follows: in favor, 165; against, 2; abstentions, 1. Draft Resolution A/80/L.97 is The Assembly will now take a decision on draft Resolution A/80/L.98 entitled Review of the Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 75/290B on the Format and Organizational Aspect of the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development and the follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the global level. A record vote— a recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favor of draft resolution A/80/L.98, please signify. Those against? Abstentions?

The Assembly is now voting on draft resolution A/80/L98 entitled Review of the Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 75/290B on the Format and Organizational Aspects of the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development and the Follow-up and Review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the Global Level. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the screen. The voting has been completed. Please lock the machine.

The result of the vote is as follows: in favor, 165; 164 against 3, abstentions 0. Draft Resolution A/AD/L.98 is adopted. Before giving the floor for explanation of vote, after the vote. May I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 5 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. I now give the floor to the delegation of Uruguay on behalf of the Group of 77 and China.

Mr. President, I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the Group of 77 and China. At the outset, the group would like to thank the co-facilitators, Ambassador Jackman of Barbados and Ambassador Meli of Malta, for their hard work and dedication throughout this process, and in particular for their efforts in ensuring line-by-line negotiations on the text. This exercise has demonstrated that reform, when pursued through a member-state-driven and inclusive modality, both possible and results in outcomes which command the support of all delegations. Mr. President, the group attaches great importance to the work of the Economic and Social Council as well as the role of the High-Level Political Forum as the central platform for the follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In this regard, we are largely supportive of the provisions contained in the resolution for us today. The Group emphasizes the importance of strengthening coordination between ECOSOC and the Bretton Woods institutions as provided for in the 1947 agreements and Article 63 of the UN Charter. We deeply regret that the Group's longstanding and consistent proposals on this issue were not accommodated in the final text. Consequently, the text does not sufficiently reflect the imperative of enhancing coordination between ECOSOC and Bretton Woods institutions, nor does it adequately capture the charter-based institutional relationship that underpins such cooperation. We therefore continue to believe that more robust dialogue and consultation mechanisms are necessary to enable the Council to fully exercise its charter-mandated role. On UNAT, the Group wishes to express its disappointment that at the very last stages of the negotiations, some delegations changed positions on flexibilities that they had previously expressed throughout the process. We stress that the practice of tabling entirely new language on this matter for adoption without consulting delegations in advance should not be allowed to set a precedent for future intergovernmental processes. With respect to the application of the UNAT mandate review provisions, Specifically, the Group reiterates its principal position that any review must be conducted on a case-by-case basis. Decisions on the creation, implementation, and review of mandates remain the exclusive prerogative of member states. The Group underscores that diverse nature of mandates and of the membership governance structures and financial and administrative arrangements underpinning them across the United Nations system must be given due recognition and respected accordingly. The group further reiterates that any assessment of duplication or overlap must be based on accurate data and evidence and should not weaken mandates of particular importance to developing countries, particularly relating to the development pillar. In conclusion, The group reiterates its appreciation to the co-facilitators for the inclusive and transparent manner in which they conducted this process throughout. We also thank our thematic coordinators from Brazil and Pakistan. I thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the representative of Uruguay. I now give the floor to the representative of the Russian Federation.

Mr. President, Russia also welcomes the adoption of the 2 resolutions on the strengthening and review of the Economic and Social Council and the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development. We express our appreciation to colleagues from negotiating delegations and groups for their flexibility and constructive approach they demonstrated, and this enables us to arrive at an outcome document. We cannot fail to note the contribution of the Secretariat, especially the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and other interested entities, as well as representatives of specialized agencies who participated in the informal dialogues in February and March. We extend special gratitude to the team of co-facilitators, the distinguished representatives of Malta and Barbados, who ensured to the extent possible a transparent and balanced negotiating format, line-by-line discussions, and enough time to reach a compromise on the majority of paragraphs. What also proved useful is the practice of educational seminars and dialogues which preceded informal consultations. Against the backdrop of a general trend towards the adoption of hasty, often imposed decisions developed in narrow closed-doors formats, the completed review of ECOSOC and the HLPF represent a rare example of an overall inclusive and well-organized intergovernmental process. We are convinced that all delegations who participated in the negotiations feel their participation and ownership of the outcomes and responsibility for the subsequent implementation of its provisions. We invite all delegations, and in particular the newly elected Bureau of the Council, to carefully study both texts. We would like to draw your attention to the updated language in Section A of the chapter on the Council's interaction with the international financial institutions on the basis of the Charter mandate and the applicable agreements. That's in paragraph 12. This concerns in particular Articles 63, 64, 66, and 70 of the UN Charter, as well as the bilateral agreements between the UN and the IMF and between the UN and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development of 1947. Unfortunately, these international legal instruments have been insufficiently utilized or not utilized at all in recent The resolutions adopted today contain a direct instruction to the President and the Bureau to proceed with their application and to provide a corresponding report at the conclusion of the Council sessions, which we will await with great interest. It should also be noted that the coordination segment has been strengthened. That's in paragraph 17. In accordance with Article 63 of the Charter, it will undertake the coordination of the activities of the specialized agencies with the assistance of the Secretariat. We think it's advisable to ensure closer interaction between the Bureau and specialized agencies ahead of the coordination segment in February 2027 in order to fulfill all of the tasks we have assigned to the segment. The mandate of the high-level segment has also been confirmed and expanded in paragraph 30. It is The Council is now also tasked with comprehensively assess the Council's contribution over the course of its work cycle to progress on all issues within its competence, including the promotion of the achievement of the SDGs. We expect that the Council will be able to respond more promptly and effectively to global emergencies, including through the decisions reflected in paragraphs 6 and 7. Mr. President, Message? The recent Sustainable Development Forum demonstrated the commitment of all countries of the world to multilateral solutions for mitigating the negative effects of the shocks which we are compelled to confront and for accelerating balanced, equitable, and nationally sovereign-based global development. We are convinced that the resolutions adopted today will make it possible to better use the potential of ECOSOC and the political forum that was established by our predecessors. An essential condition for this is the political will of all member states to strengthen and enhance the effectiveness of ECOSOC and the UN as a whole as the center for such multilateral solutions in the interest of present and future generations. I thank you for your attention.

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

Thank you, President.

Excellencies, I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the European Union and its member states. We welcome the resolution adopted today and would like to congratulate the co-facilitators Malta and Barbados and all delegations for this outcome. It is a genuine step forward towards tangible progress. It is also a more efficient handling of the work and resources of the ECOSOC and HLPF to deliver concrete results for all 3 dimensions of sustainable development around more clearly defined priorities. We look forward to its implementation, and you can count on the European Union and its member states to build further on this important work. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Ireland. I now give the floor to the representative of the United Kingdom.

Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you to the co-facilitators, the PRs of Malta and Barbados, as well as colleagues here for all of their hard work on this GA review of ECOSOC and HLPF. We welcome the adoption of the review recommendations and are pleased to have agreed a set of concrete changes to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of ECOSOC and HLPF. We welcome the reflection of the need to implement UNAT recommendations and other reform and revitalization measures to also strengthen ECOSOC's oversight of the UN development system and its coordination with other UN principal organs, committees, UN boards, and international financial institutions, as well as streamlining and strengthening segments prioritizing voluntary national and ensuring UN country teams better support VNR preparation and follow-up. We regret that we could not agree on reviewing a more targeted number of Sustainable Development Goals which are furthest behind. We also regret that we could not agree on further prioritizing VNRs for developing countries, and that we could not agree to removal of the double adoption of the ministerial declaration. As such, we will need to ensure that ECOSOC considers the declaration adopted by HLPF and that we take a thematic approach to reviewing the larger number of SDGs under review in 2028 and 2029 to ensure adequate depth as well as breadth. The ECOSOC President and Bureau who have just been appointed will have the UK's full support to implement the review recommendations, and we are open to discussing any potential further improvements. We also look forward to the ECOSOC review of its functional commissions and subsidiary bodies next year, and to starting discussions on the post-2030 agenda through HLPF as critical next stages. I thank you.

I thank the representative of the United Kingdom. I now give the floor to the representative of Argentina.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Argentina is in favor of a multilateralism that works, a multilateralism that respects the sovereignty of states, that manages its resources responsibly, that's accountable and that focuses its energy on concrete mandates. Rhetoric without impact erodes trust. The United Nations must refocus. We must review overlapping mandates, redundant structures, and reevaluate goals that are reprogrammed without results, as well as agendas that are disconnected from reality. We believe in a more austere United Nations that's more effective and more youthful, that useful, rather, that recovers its ability to become— go back to becoming a benchmark for peace, a benchmark for the law, and for concrete action in response to the challenges of our time. We believe that many of the proposals contained in documents L97 and L98 are not a step in this direction. President, Argentina recalls that the 20 Agenda for Sustainable The Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development is a framework of non-binding aspirations. Its implementation must respect the sovereign right of each state to interpret and to pursue these goals in line with their national legislation, as well as their national priorities and development strategies. This is why we reserve our national position on this. We also believe that that international cooperation should not be turned into an obstacle to economic growth or the creation of opportunities. International cooperation must respect the different national realities, priorities, and national sovereignty. Finally, Mr. President, we believe that the work of the United Nations must empower the capacities of states to free up their productive forces to attract investment and encourage trade and the free market, which is the most successful way of reducing poverty. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Argentina. I now give the floor to the representative of Mexico.

Muchas gracias, señor.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mexico thanks the permanent representative representatives of Barbados and Malta in their capacity of co-facilitators of this process, as well as all of the other delegations for their commitment, flexibility, and the constructive spirit shown during this review, whose purpose was to strengthen the role of the ECOSOC and of the High-Level Political Forum as pillars to follow up and implement the 2030 Agenda. My delegation decided to vote in favor because we believe that both resolutions constitute significant progress to strengthen the coordination of the development pillar, to modernize the working methods of ECOSOC, and to adapt the way the High-Level Political Forum works to the challenges that the implementation of the 2030 Agenda faces during the period remaining until 2030. We particularly recognize efforts made to streamline their working methods to improve coordination between the different intergovernmental organs and to promote a more strategic use of resources and of the spaces for discussions. While the result reached is a significant step forward, Mexico would have preferred that this would more clearly reflect the need to continue to consolidate and deliver a more efficient, coherent, and results focused organization. First, we reiterate our firm support for the implementation of the results from the process to review the mandates in line with what was agreed by member states, as well as in line with the UN80 initiative, and all efforts geared towards strengthening the efficacy, efficiency, and coherence of the UN system. We believe that these processes offer up an opportunity to rationalize mandates, to eliminate duplication and to ensure that the resources of the organization are focused on those activities that bring about the most significant added value for member states. Secondly, Mexico recognizes that the decision to expand from 5 to 8, the number of SDGs subject to review during the cycles of the High-Level Political Forum of 2028 and 2029, responded to the objective of ensuring that all 17 SDGs be reviewed before 2030. Nevertheless, we believe that it's essential to carefully evaluate the practical implications of this decision because an increase to the workload of the forum could lead to operational challenges as well as budgetary and management challenges that must be assessed during this implementation. The rationalization of the review cycles must not inadvertently become something that would overburden the forum and that could compromise the depth of discussions, the quality of the review of each SDG, or the meaningful participation of civil society and other relevant stakeholders. Among other consequences, it could lead to an excessively dense agenda, it could reduce the time available for a substantive analysis of each goal, and increase the organizational and budgetary needs of the forum. For Mexico, institutional efficiency should not be measured only by reducing the number of review cycles. It must be evaluated also based on the quality of the discussions, the responsible use of the resources available, and the ability of the forum to provide a space for inclusive strategic dialogue focused on implementation. President, the resolutions we adopted today are an important step in the right direction to strengthen the institutional architecture for sustainable development, and their implementation must serve to assess the impacts of measures agreed and to identify opportunities for improvement. Mexico trusts that future review exercises will continue to be guided by the principles of efficiency, efficacy, transparency, and accountability, with a view to delivering a more coherent development system that's able to respond to current challenges and accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Thank you very much.

I thank the representative of Mexico. We have heard the last speaker in explanations of the vote after the vote. I would like to express my sincere appreciation and the President's sincere appreciation to His Excellency François Jackman, Permanent Representative of Barbados to the United Nations, and Her Excellency Natasha Meli, Permanent Representative of Malta to the United Nations, who ably and patiently conducted the discussions and complex negotiations in the informal consultations in the draft resolutions. I am sure members of the Assembly join me in extending to them our sincere appreciation. The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of Agenda Items 13 and 117. The Assembly will resume its consideration of Agenda Item 14, entitled Culture of Peace. The documentation under this item is listed in the Journal of the United Nations. Before proceeding further, I should like to inform members that the Assembly will hold a debate on this item at a later date to be announced. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Bangladesh to introduce the draft resolution A/80/L.77, revision 1.

Mr. President, I have the honor to introduce the draft resolution entitled Follow-up to the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace contained in document A/80/L77 for the consideration of the General Assembly today. Mr. President, we live in a world that faces deep fractures, rising conflicts, and systemic intolerances. Nurturing a culture of peace in our everyday life is more important than ever. If we are to do better, we must cultivate peace and empathy in our hearts and reconcile differences with compassion and mutual respect. The Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace continues to provide an important normative framework to advance these shared objectives. Mr. President, for the sake of brevity, this year we have introduced only technical updates to the draft resolution. In doing so, we were mindful of preserving both the substance and structure of the resolution. Allow me to highlight the major updates contained in this year's draft. First, in Preambular Paragraph 10, the draft resolution welcomes 2019 January as the International Day of Peaceful Coexistence. Second, to streamline the text, the draft resolution deletes operative paragraphs 18 and 19. Finally, the draft resolution reiterates the requests to the President of the General Assembly to consider convening high-level forum devoted to the implementation of the Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace Peace during its 80th session. Mr. President, for the past 25 years, Bangladesh has had the privilege of facilitating this flagship resolution under the agenda item Culture of Peace. During this period, the resolution has served as an important platform for reaffirming our collective commitment to dialogue, tolerance, solidarity, and respect for human dignity. This august Assembly has adopted this landmark resolution by consensus every year since its inception, except last year. Mr. President, peace is not merely the absence of war. It is a positive, dynamic and participatory process that demands active cultivation. Therefore, investing in a culture of peace is an investment in our survival. If a vote is called this year, we call upon delegations to vote in favor of the resolution in order to reflect the unity and collective resolve of Member States in advancing the Culture of Peace agenda. We express our sincere appreciation to all delegations that have already joined as co-sponsors of the draft resolution, and we also invite the delegations who have not yet done so to become co-sponsors from the floor before the adoption of the resolution. In closing, Mr. President, I wish to express Bangladesh's sincere appreciation to all delegations for their continued support in advancing the culture of peace agenda. Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Bangladesh. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Turkmenistan to introduce draft resolution A/80/L.88.

Mr. President, distinguished delegates, I have the honor to introduce on behalf of the sponsors the draft resolution entitled Year of International Law 2028, contained in document A/18/L88. At the outset, allow me to express my sincere appreciation to all delegations for their constructive engagement throughout our consultations. I also wish to express our appreciation to the Office of Legal Affairs for its valuable guidance during the preparation of this initiative. Excellencies, the initiative before us originates from the proposal put forward by the President of Turkmenistan, His Excellency Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov, during the general debate of the 18th Session of the General Assembly. On that occasion, His Excellency called for proclaiming 2028 as the Year of International Law. Thank you. Recognizing that, at a time of profound global transformation, strengthening respect for international law remains indispensable for maintaining international peace and security, advancing sustainable development, and reinforcing effective multilateral cooperation. Today, perhaps more than ever, the international community needs confidence in these principles that unite us: Charter of the United Nations and the body of international law developed over the past 8 decades represents one of humanity's greatest collective achievements. They embody our shared conviction that justice should prevail over force, dialogue over confrontation, cooperation over division, and the rule of law over the rule of might. Mr. President, the draft resolution before us rests on 4 mutually reinforcing pillars. First, it proclaims 2028 as the Year of International Law, creating a global platform to promote greater respect for international law through education, public awareness, and capacity building. Every generation must discover anew why international law matters. As famously stated a long time ago, Respect for international law does not begin in courtrooms. It begins in classrooms. It begins when students learn the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Future diplomats, lawyers, judges, and public servants understand that international law is not an abstract academic discipline, but a practical instrument for preventing conflicts, protecting human dignity, promoting development, building trust among nations. This is precisely why the draft places particular emphasis on education, dissemination, and wide appreciation of international law. Second, the draft builds upon and reinforces the valuable work already carried out by the United Nations. It encourages continued support for the UN Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination, and Wide Appreciation of International Law, the International Law Seminar, the Audiovisual Library of International Law, and the legal publications of the Office of Legal Affairs. Third, the resolution promotes broad and inclusive participation throughout the year. It encourages member states, organizations of the UN system, academic institutions, legal professionals, civil society, women and youth to. Contribute through conferences, educational programs, research initiatives, and public outreach activities. International law belongs to all nations and all peoples. Its future depends on the active engagement of future generations. Fourth, the draft welcomes the intention of Turkmenistan to host a Global Forum on International Law in December 2028. We envisage this forum as a global platform forum bringing together governments, international organizations, legal scholars, judges, practitioners, and young professionals to exchange experiences, discuss emerging challenges, and reaffirm our shared commitment to strengthening international law and multilateral cooperation. It's also important to underline that this draft resolution creates no new institutional mechanisms and entails no program budget implications. Excellencies, allow me further to emphasize one essential point. This initiative is not merely a declaration, nor is it simply another commemorative International Year. International Years should not only commemorate important values, they should mobilize the international community around them. This has been the philosophy guiding Turkmenistan's initiatives throughout the years. When the General Assembly proclaimed the International Year of Peace and Trust first in 2021 and again in 2025, our country did not regard those resolutions as symbolic achievements. We viewed them as practical mandates for action. We intend to approach the Year of International Law in exactly the same spirit. Preparations have already begun. A National Organizing Committee has been established in 2026. Institutional arrangements are being put in place. Resources are being identified. Preparations have commenced for the Global Forum on International Law, which Turkmenistan intends to convene in December 2028 as the culminating global event of the International Year. Distinguished delegates, by proclaiming 2028 state as the Year of International Law, the General Assembly will send a powerful message that our collective faith in the Charter of the United Nations, in multilateralism, and in the rule of international law remains unwavering. In closing, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to all delegations that have joined as co-sponsors of this important initiative. We warmly invite those who have not done so to become part of this common endeavor.

Let's—

let us together make 2028 not simply another international year. Let us make it a year of learning, a year of dialogue, a year of renewed confidence in international law, and a lasting investment in a more peaceful, just, and cooperative world. I thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Turkmenistan. We shall now proceed to consider draft resolutions A/80/L.77/revision 1 and A/80/L.88. For your information, draft resolutions have closed for e-sponsorship. I give the floor to the representative of the

Thank you, Mr.

President. I should like to announce that since the submission of the draft resolution, and in addition to the delegations listed on the document, the following countries have also become co-sponsors of A/80/L77 Revision 1: Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, China, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Eritrea, Gambia, Guatemala, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, State of Palestine, Sudan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, and Yemen. If any other countries wish to co-sponsor A/80/L77 Revision 1, please signify by pressing the microphone button now. Philippines. Suriname, Djibouti, Iraq, South Sudan, Mali, Cameroon, Ecuador, Togo, Colombia, Kenya, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea, Marshall Islands, and Eswatini. Coming now to A/80/L88. I should like to announce that since the submission of the draft resolution, in addition to the delegations listed on the L document, the following countries have also become co-sponsors of L88: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, China, Colombia, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. If any other countries wish to co-sponsor A/80/L88, please signify by pressing the microphone button now. Niger, South Sudan, Kenya, Islamic Republic of Iran, Sudan, Togo, Georgia, Suriname, Guinea-Bissau, Djibouti, Chad, Nigeria, Palau, Côte d'Ivoire, and Guinea. And that concludes the list. Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the representative of the Secretariat. Delegations wishing to make statement in the explanation of vote before the vote on any proposal under this item are invited to do so now in one intervention. After action on all of them, there will be an opportunity for explanation of vote after the vote on any or all of them. Before giving the floor for explanation of vote before the vote As announced in the President's letter dated 6 January and 20 May 2026, I propose that the time limits for statements in explanation of vote under this item be 5 minutes. Is there any objection to this proposal? I hear none. So decided. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 72 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, When a representative exceeds her or his allotted time, the President shall call the Speaker to order without delay, which will be done by means of automatic microphone cutoff. To assist delegations in managing their time, a countdown clock will be displayed on the screen. Members are also reminded that explanations of vote should be made by delegations from their seats. I give the floor to the delegation of the United States.

Thank you, Mr. President. Regarding the Culture of Peace resolution, under President Trump's leadership, the United States is returning the United Nations to its core purposes. Resolutions must be concise, actionable, and outcome-oriented. Furthermore, this resolution contains new numerous politicized, controversial, and distracting references. We have— as we have expressed previously, the United States will no longer reaffirm the 2030 Agenda as a matter of course. Second, the resolution uses the term gender rather than recognizing the sexes. It is U.S. policy to recognize 2 sexes, male and female. And not promote gender ideology. Third, the resolution records the Paris Agreement, with respect to which the United States has notified its withdrawal, consistent with Executive Order 14162 on putting America first in international environmental agreements. Finally, while we support the noble goal of fostering a culture of peace and nonviolence, firmly believe such a goal can never be achieved by placing limits on free speech, including speech that is unpopular or even odious. Indeed, we believe the best antidote to violence and hate is not censorship but more speech, specifically open and honest dialogue between all individuals. For this reason, we reject the inclusion of the term hate Hate speech. The definition of this term is vague and nebulous at best, and in practice it's simply defined as any speech that the individual or institution with the ability to censor dislikes. This term is diametrically opposed to free expression and has no place in UN resolutions. For these reasons, the United States cannot support this resolution. Colleagues, regarding the Year of International Law 2028, we have previously noted our concerns about the continuing practice of proclaiming new international days, weeks, months, and years. We recall the importance of the decision in General Assembly Resolution 79/327 to place such proposals on hold during the 81st and 82nd sessions and to request the President of the General Assembly, effective from the 81st session, to group all such proclamation requests for consideration. We note this resolution does not address substantive issues related to international law, nor does it create any rights or obligations. International law is rooted in exclusive state sovereignty over territory, the legal equality of states, and the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other Nations. We also note that state sovereignty over matters of jurisdiction is among the most important aspects of international law, and that international institutions such as the ICC that seek to violate this basic tenet do not reinforce international law. We therefore reiterate that UN General Assembly resolutions are non-binding documents that do not create rights or obligations under international law, nor do they change the current state of conventional and customary international law.

Thank you.

I thank the representative of the United States. The United States was the last speaker in explanation of vote before the vote. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/80/2011. L.77/Revision 1, entitled Follow-up to the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace. A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favour of draft Resolution A/80/L.77/Revision 1, please signify. Those against?

Abstentions?

The Assembly is now voting on Draft Resolution A/AT/L77 Revision 1 entitled Follow-up to the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the screen? The voting has been completed. Please lock the machine.

The result of the vote is as follows: in favor, 169; against, 2; abstentions, 0. Draft resolution A/80/L.77/Revision 1 is adopted. The Assembly will now take a decision on Draft Resolution A/80/L.88 entitled Year of International Law 2028. May I take that the Assembly decides to adopt Draft Resolution A/80/L.88?

Yes.

It's so decided. Before giving the floor for explanation of vote after the vote, may I remind delegations that explanation of vote are limited to 5 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seat. I'll give the floor to the representative of El Salvador.

Thank you, President. El Salvador thanks the delegation of Bangladesh for presenting this draft resolution, and we reaffirm our commitment to the culture of peace, peaceful coexistence, dialogue, and mutual respect between nations in line with the principles of the UN Charter. Our delegation wishes to express that the interpretation of some concepts contained in the text seem to be contrary to the constitutional order and law of El Salvador, and they recognize the right of countries to establish their own policies in line with their domestic legislation. Thank you.

I thank the representative of El Salvador. I now give the floor to the representative of Australia on behalf of CANZ.

Thank you, President. I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of Canada, New Zealand, and my own country, Australia. We thank the facilitators of Resolution A/80/L.88 on the Year of International Law for their work and acknowledge the importance that many states attach to this this subject. While CAN supports efforts to raise awareness and promote engagement on important global issues such as the respect for and promotion of international law, we reiterate our longstanding and consistent position regarding the continued proliferation of international days, weeks, years, and decades. This position is not specific to any one topic. In the spirit of transparency, we raise these concerns with facilitators during the negotiation process. Our concern centers on the cumulative resource and operational burden that these resolutions place on the UN system and on member states, particularly at a time when the organization is facing a financial crisis and already limited resources are under increasing strain. While this burden is felt by all member states, it's especially pronounced for small and medium-sized delegations. We do, however, note and appreciate the efforts of the facilitators to streamline this resolution and to ensure it does not contain any program budget implications. We also bring attention to the inconsistency between this continued proliferation and our collective commitments under the UN80 Initiative, in particular Resolution 80/251 on mandate creation, implementation, and review, and our commitments under Resolution 79/327 on General Assembly revitalization. We recall in particular operative paragraphs 31 and 32 of Resolution 79/327 and encourage full implementation of agreed efforts to pause and to rationalize new observances from the 81st session. CANZ remains committed to working constructively with all delegations to ensure our collective efforts are impactful, sustainable, and aligned with our shared commitments. Thank you, President.

I thank the representative of Australia. I now give the floor to the representative of Cuba.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Cuba voted in favor of the draft resolution on the Declaration and Program of Action for a Culture peace because it reaffirms values and principles that are essential for coexistence between nations and for the fulfillment of the purposes and aspirations of the U.N. Charter. We thank Bangladesh for their briefing and we regret that the United States requested a vote and opposed to a culture of peace. What do you expect from a country that profits from a culture of war. We underscore the importance of a renewed and firm commitment to peace in light of an international context that is against it, characterized by the proliferation of tension and conflict and the exponential increase of military expenditure globally. The currently military doctrine of domination that's supposed to sees a proliferation of the arms race, increase in wars, conflicts, and drawing attention away from global challenges such as hunger, poverty, and development and sustainable development. This is a threat to an elementary issue for all states represented here, our peaceful coexistence. And with this, we are imperiling any possibility of sustainable development and well-being for the peoples that at the end of the day are the ones that are paying the main price of wars. The credibility of the multilateral system depends above all on the political will of all states to act in full compliance with international law. Respect for the sovereign equality of states, the prohibition of the threat to use or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country, the non-interference in the internal affairs, free determination of peoples, and the fulfillment in good faith of international obligations are not mere political aspirations. They are essential to avoid new disputes and to create a climate of mutual trust above hegemonic interests. It is impossible to talk about a true culture of peace while we still, still see policies of aggression, economic coercion, and hostility against sovereign states in flagrant violation of the UN Charter and of international law. We call out the multi-dimensional war of the United States government against Cuba that has become more crude and reckless over the last 7 months. In addition to the energy siege, there are other measures that have been imposed over this year to the same end, to propose— to cause a humanitarian crisis and to totally destabilize our country. That— and we strongly reject the report published on the 20th of July by the United States State Department. That refers to the supposed, um, subversive influence, um, and interference by Cuba against this country. This is mere propaganda, and it seeks, um, to promote the malign message that Cuba is a threat to the United States. This is the pretext that the government is using to collectively punish, um, and, um, seek to commit genocide against the Cuban people. They are seeking to fabricate consensus for an eventual military aggression. The measures adopted on the 23rd of July by the Secretary of State use the wrongful argument that Cuba doesn't exist and show the goal of their extremely hostile policy against Cuba. The attack against Cuban medical cooperation is equivalent to violation of the human right to access health services for hundreds of thousands of people in many parts of the world. They are punishing Cuba for providing a humane service with solidarity. They will be able to engage in punishment, but they will never be able to break the solidarity between people. We will never renounce our vocation of peace. We believe in the force of reason, cooperation, multilateralism, and solidarity. Let us advance together and fulfill our moral duty to save future generations from the scourge of war. Thank you very much.

I thank the representative of Cuba. I now give the floor to the representative of Ukraine.

Thank you, Mr. President. Ukraine joined the consensus and supported the proclamation of 2028 at the Year of International Law. We are convinced that international law, and above all the Charter of the United Nations, remains the foundation of peace, security, and friendly relations among states. Although we welcome Turkmenistan's readiness to host the Global Forum on International Law in December 2028, however, this resolution carries a bitter irony that we cannot pass over in silence. Among the co-sponsors of a document that calls upon member to strengthen respect for international law is a state that today is the most systematic violator of the UN Charter. It is deeply cynical that Russia has co-sponsored this resolution. Its aggression against Ukraine constitutes one of the gravest attacks on the international legal order. It is also accompanied by systematic violations of international humanitarian law, including torture and ill-treatment of prisoners of war, unlawful detention of Ukrainian civilians, including children, denial of access to independent monitoring mechanisms. I want to remind us all here that the Secretary-General has for the 4th time listed Russia on his list of shame for grave violations against children in situations of armed conflict, and for the first time for committing conflict-related sexual violence. Russia's record of violating international law is a matter of established legal fact confirmed by international judicial bodies. In its judgment of 31 January 2024, the International Court of Justice found that Russia had breached its obligations under both the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Likewise, in its final award of 22 April 2026, the arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII to UNCLOS found that Russia had violated its obligations under the Convention. Russia also shows disrespect for international courts, including the International Court of Justice. And allow me to recall that the Court found that Russia was in breach of the Provisional Order of 19 April 2017. In addition, Russia continues to violate the Court's Order of 16 March 2022. The orders of the International Court of Justice are binding. for everyone, it would seem, except the Russian Federation. Mr. President, speaking of the co-sponsors of this resolution, we cannot pass over in silence the role played by Belarus that allowed the Russian Federation to use its territory for the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Belarus thereby facilitated the aggression against Ukraine and bears full responsibility for it too. Ukraine believes in the power of international law. and in the necessity of unwavering observance by all states without exception. That is precisely why we support this resolution, not despite but in spite of it, the cynicism of some of its co-sponsors. Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the representative of Ukraine. I now give the floor to the representative of Mexico.

Thank you very much, President. Mexico wishes to make the following comments in an explanation of vote on document A80/L88. We take note of the initiative of Turkmenistan to declare 2028 as International Law Year. We express our commitment to the promotion and respect for international law, as we have supported in facts and through initiatives that we have been supporting to strengthen the international legal order by progressively developing and codifying international law in— without any distinction. From our perspective, every year should be declared Year of International Law. Mr. President, those who seek to build peace and strengthen international law will find an ally in Mexico. Having said this, we recall the work on revitalization of the General Assembly in Resolution 79/327, and we observe with concern the notable increase in proposals to proclaim different Days, weeks, months, years, or even international decades, and we reiterate the call of the General Assembly to suspend reviewing these proposals. However, we do reiterate the need to seek synergies and avoid duplications in order to simplify the program of the General Assembly and make it more efficient and effective. Thank you very much. Thank you.

I thank the, uh, representative of Mexico. We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote after the vote. The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of Agenda Item 14. The Assembly will resume its consideration of Agenda Item 18, entitled Sustainable Development to take action on a proposal announced in the journal. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Uzbekistan to introduce draft resolution A/80/L.94.

Dear Vice President, distinguished colleagues, I have the honor to introduce the draft resolution entitled Enhancing the Role of Parliaments in Accelerating Social Development. At the outset, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to all delegations for their constructive engagement and valuable contributions throughout the consultations on this initiative. Your active participation has strengthened the text of the document and reflects our shared commitment to advancing social development through effective multilateral cooperation. I also extend my gratitude to the UN and its relevant agencies, in particular UNDESA, as well as to the Inter-Parliamentary Union for their valuable support, technical expertise, and continued collaboration throughout the process. The initiative was proposed by His Excellency Mr. Shavkat Mirziyoyev, the President of Uzbekistan, reflecting our countries' strong commitment to strengthening parliamentary institutions and advancing parliamentary diplomacy. The initiative also reflects the growing partnerships between the UN and the IPU. In this regard, I would like to recall the historic 105th Assembly of the Interparliamentary Union held in Tashkent in April 2025, which adopted the Tashkent Declaration on Parliamentary Action for Social Development and Justice. The landmark declaration reaffirmed the essential role of parliaments in addressing today's social challenges and served as an important source of inspiration for many of the principles reflected in this draft resolution. Mr. Vice President, as we move closer to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, The international community faces an urgent need to accelerate progress towards the SDGs. While important achievements have been made, significant challenges still remain, including poverty, inequalities, employment gaps, social inclusion, and the growth digital divide. The serious delegates, the draft resolution underscores the vital role of parliaments in advancing social development through effective legislation. Democratization, oversight, and inclusive policymaking. It encourages Parliament to strengthen national legislative frameworks, enhance their role in national review processes, and promote transparency and accountability. The resolution promotes the meaningful participation of women and young people in parliamentary decision-making while highlighting the importance of digital inclusion, strong stronger social protection, decent work, quality education, and inclusive societies. Mr. Vice President, in conclusion, allow me to reiterate that strengthening the role of parliaments is not merely an institutional objective. It is an investment in more inclusive governance, stronger public trust, and the more effective implementation of our shared development commitments. We are confident that this resolution will reinforce the role of national parliaments in promoting social development, advancing the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and building more equitable, inclusive, and resilient societies. In this spirit, I respectfully call upon all Member States to vote in favor of this draft resolution and to support our shared commitment to strengthening the role of national parliaments in accelerating

I thank the distinguished representative of Uzbekistan.

We shall now proceed to consider draft resolution A/80/L.94. For your information, the draft resolution has closed for e-sponsorship. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. I should like to announce that since the submission of the draft resolution, and in addition to the delegations listed on the L document, the following countries have also become co-sponsors of A/80/L94: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, China, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Eswatini, Finland, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mongolia, Morocco, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Samoa, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Republic United Republic of Tanzania. Uruguay and Vietnam. If any other countries wish to co-sponsor A/AT/L94, please signify by pressing the microphone button now. Mauritania, Tunisia, Djibouti, Albania, Bahamas, Kenya, Austria, South Sudan, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Luxembourg, Armenia, Madagascar, Senegal, and Sudan. and Gambia.

Thank you.

I thank the representative of the Secretariat. Before giving the floor for explanation of vote, before the vote, as announced in the President's letter dated 6th January and 28th May 2026, I propose that the time limit for statements in Explanation of vote under this item be 5 minutes. Is there any objection to this proposal? I hear none. It is so decided. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 72 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, when a representative exceeds her or his allotted time, the President shall call the Speaker to order without delay. Which will be done by means of automatic microphone cutoff. To assist delegations in managing their time, a countdown clock will be displayed on the screens. Members are also reminded that explanation of vote should be made by delegations from their seats. I give the floor to the representative of the United States.

Thank you, Mr. President. The United States will vote against this resolution. Instead of respecting the independence of sovereign legislative bodies, this text seeks to subordinate national governments to UN-centered agendas, global oversight mechanisms, and top-down central planning. This text repeatedly encourages national governments to draft domestic legal frameworks, conduct legislative reviews, and align national laws with UN mandates like the 2030 Agenda and the Doha Political Declaration. In the United States, Congress is an independent, co-equal branch of a sovereign constitutional republic. It answers solely to the American people, not to the United Nations or international forums. We flatly reject such attempts to direct, guide, or monitor the legislative duties of elected national representatives. By encouraging the systematic inclusion of legislatures— legislators in UN delegations and linking their work to UN review processes like voluntary national reviews, this resolution seeks to integrate national lawmakers directly into the UN's sprawling reporting apparatus. Our elected officials should be spending their time serving their local constituents at home, not being co-opted into endless UN political summits, global dialogues, and bureaucratic monitoring exercises. The United Nations— the United States will continue to champion representative democracy, constitutional liberty and sovereign legislative bodies around the world. But we will not sign off on a text that attempts to turn sovereign national governments into administrative instruments for UN global agendas. We underscore that UN General Assembly resolutions are non-binding, that— and that they do not create rights or obligations under international law.

I thank the representative of the United States. We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote before the vote. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/80/L.94, Draft Resolution A/80/L.94, entitled Enhancing the Role of Parliaments in Accelerating Social Development. A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favor of Draft Resolution A/80/L.94, please signify. Those against? Abstentions?

The Assembly is now voting on Draft Resolution A/80/L94 entitled Enhancing the Role of Parliaments in Accelerating Social Development. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the screen? The voting has been completed. Please lock the machine.

The result of the vote is as follows: in favor, 167; against, 1; abstentions, 0. Draft Resolution A/AD/L.94 is adopted. Before giving the floor for explanation of vote after the vote, may I remind delegations that explanation of vote are limited to 5 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seat. I give the floor to the representative of Paraguay.

Thank you very much. Mr. President, my delegation wishes to make a general statement on the draft resolution AAT/L98 and 94 adopted in this session. In terms of mentions to the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, we underscored that paragraph 74 of Resolution 71 of the General Assembly adopted on the 25th of December adopted in 2015 that establishes the, um, SDGs and the 2030 Agenda underscores the voluntary nature of this process and the reviews of the 2030 Agenda, saying that this can be adjusted to national legal frameworks and priorities. Nevertheless, in paragraph 55, it recognizes the aspirational partner of it also. That means that the SDGs are not legally binding and also reiterates the sovereign equality of states and their prerogative to include them in their national public policies. As a result, the national government implements development plans related to the SDGs in full exercise of the sovereignty of the Paraguayan state with absolute respect for the constitutional principles of our country. What's more, my delegation wishes to recall that in Paraguay, pursuant to the provisions of our national constitution, all mention of gender Um, refers to the difference between men and women. What's more, Paraguay interprets this draft resolution in line with the principles of the separation, independence, balance, coordination, and reciprocal control between the different powers of the state. And this is enshrined in our national constitution as an essential, um, guarantee of the rule of law and democratic order. Thank you very much.

I think the delegation of Thank you, Mr. President of Paraguay. I now give the floor to the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. The Islamic Republic of Iran voted in favor of Resolution EA/80/L.94 entitled Enhancing the Role of Parliaments in Accelerating Social Development in the spirit of supporting international cooperation on social development. At the same time, my delegation wishes to place on record its clear understanding regarding the references contained in this resolution to the role of national parliaments. In the constitutional and legal system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Parliament, Islamic Consultative Assembly, or Majlis-e Shura-i Islami, is an independent constitutional institution whose powers and responsibilities are determined exclusively by the Constitution and the domestic legal order.

It operates independently from the executive branch and the government.

Accordingly, our support for this resolution neither creates nor implies any legal or political obligation for national parliaments, nor, nor can it be construed as affecting, expanding, or limiting their constitutional mandates or prerogatives. The Islamic Republic of Iran considers any parliamentary deliberation or decision on national matters including social development policies and legislation, to fall exclusively within the constitutional competence of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, or Majlis-e-Shura-i-Islami. Therefore, our affirmative votes on this resolution shall not be interpreted as implying any modification of the fundamental policies, constitutional arrangements, or national laws and regulations of the Islamic Republic of Iran, all of which remain fully applicable and unchanged.

Thank you. I thank the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote after the vote. The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of Agenda Item 18. Due to the lateness of the hour, the Assembly will consider the remaining items for this meeting at its next plenary meeting on 28 July at 10 AM. Please note that the— please note the next plenary meeting will be held in Trusteeship Council Chamber as General Assembly will be under renovation. The full program of the meeting will be announced in the Journal of the United Nations. The meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.