General Assembly: 25th plenary meeting, 80th session
General Assembly
Date: 30 October 2025
Language: English
Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/en/ga/80/25
Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations.

---

GA · Vice-President [0:05]:

Distinguished delegates, the 25th plenary meeting of the General Assembly is called to order. The Assembly will continue its consideration of agenda item 73, entitled "Report of the International Court of Justice." I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Belgium.


Belgium [0:49]:

Thank you, Mr. President. Belgium aligns itself fully with the statement delivered by the European Union. Belgium would first of all like to thank the President of the Court, Mr. Yuji Iwasawa, for presenting the annual report. The report once again illustrates the fundamental role that the Court plays in consolidating the international legal order and in promoting the peaceful settlement of disputes between States. On behalf of Belgium, I would like to pay tribute to the judges of the Court, to its registry and all of the staff for their devotion, their rigour and their impartiality. Their work on a daily basis helps embody the ideals of peace, justice and international cooperation and deserves our most sincere gratitude. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the President of the Court, Mr. Yuji Iwasawa, and also Judge Mahmoud Daifallah Mahmoud on their respective elections this year. Mr. President, since it was created in 1945, the Court, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has embodied the ideal of a world ruled by law and not by force. Its authority rests upon the confidence that States have in it, upon the quality of its decisions, and also the scrupulous respect for the principles of the Charter. The Court's annual report describes its activities, but also the wide range of cases brought before it, coming from all of the regions of the world. Those cases illustrate the contemporary challenges that we face: territorial disputes, environmental questions, violations of international humanitarian law, human rights, and others. It also demonstrates the universal relevance of its mandate and the growing confidence that states have in it. Belgium would also like to underscore the importance of the Court's advisory opinions. Although non-binding, these opinions play a fundamental role in the clarification of international law and in guiding public policy. They allow the organs of the United Nations, as well as States and other international organizations, to better understand the legal implications of their actions. For the Court to be able to fully fulfill its mandate, it must have the active and constant support of States. That support involves the provision of the necessary human and material resources to deal with an ever-growing workload, maintain the quality of its deliberations, and guarantee equitable access to justice for all States. Mr. President, as we approach new elections for vacant seats on the Court, Belgium would like to stress the importance of those elections for the future of international justice. The electoral process is a crucial opportunity for Member States to reaffirm their commitment to the principles of independence, competence and diversity. In that regard, Belgium would like to underscore the importance of guaranteeing more balanced gender representation on the Court. Currently, only four women sit among the 15 judges. That under-representation does not reflect the diversity of our societies, nor the United Nations commitment to gender equality. It is essential for the composition of the Court to reflect not only the plurality of legal systems, but also genuine parity. It is a question of its ability to hand down just, inclusive and universally legitimate decisions. The gender equality of international judicial institutions is not just a question of representation. It is a matter of credibility and equity in the exercise of international justice. In a world faced by major challenges, armed conflicts, climate change, forced migration, impingements upon human rights, the role of international justice is more crucial than ever. Belgium calls upon all Member States to strengthen their commitment to the Court, to recognize its jurisdiction and to respect and implement its decisions, including provisional measures. As a fervent defender of multilateralism, Belgium would like to reaffirm its profound commitment to the Court. We also encourage States to more frequently consider going to the Court to resolve their disputes. Recourse to international justice is an act of responsibility and faith in the law's ability to prevent conflicts and build peace. Thank you.


GA · Vice-President [6:27]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Belgium. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of France.


France [6:51]:

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Mr. Vice President, I would like to, on behalf of France, thank the President of the International Court of Justice for presenting the report of the Court's activities. The report highlights the considerable increase in the contentious and advisory activities of the Court and the importance of that in the peaceful settlement of international disputes. First of all, my country would like to reaffirm its deep commitment to the International Court of Justice and to its mission. By creating the appropriate conditions so that, in accordance with international law, interstate disputes can be resolved, and in doing so, the Court helps ease relations between states and, in doing so, contributes to the maintenance of international peace and security. The increase in the Court's activities gives rise to three comments. Firstly, it attests to the confidence that states have in it. They know that within the Court, they can find a college of independent and impartial judges that are able to resolve their disputes with rigor and also able to hand down the advisory opinions that they are asked for. France would like to thank the Court for the constant attention it has paid to respecting its requirements, which are a guarantee of its credibility and also of the legitimacy of its decisions and its opinions. Secondly, the increase in the Court's activities is marked by an increase in requests for provisional measures in crisis contexts. The Court is very often asked to pronounce urgently to preserve the rights of States parties and the individuals that they protect. The effectiveness of the Court in the exercise of its role as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations also depends on States' respect for the authority of its decisions. If the Court's jurisdiction depends on the consent of States, and the expression of that consent is a sovereign prerogative, once given, it does imply obligations. Article 94, paragraph 1, of the United Nations Charter explicitly states that each member state, each member of the United Nations, commits to comply with the decisions of the International Court of Justice in all disputes to which it is a party. France would then like to recall that states must respect the the judgments and orders for provisional measures that the Court issues in the context of its contentious activities. Third, and this will be my last point, the increase in the number of proceedings necessarily involves a heavier workload for the Court. States must make sure that they give it the means to fulfill its role in accordance with the requirements of the proper administration of justice, without deviating from the excellence that characterizes it. In the context of the current budget crisis in the United Nations, my country stands alongside the Court. France, this year, has paid into the Special Trust Fund of the Secretary-General to assist states in submitting their cases to the Court and it also contributed to the trust fund designed to diversify the geographic origin of interns and to strengthen the role of French-speaking lawyers trained in continental law. It would be regrettable for the rise in the size of the Court's activities to have an impact on the representation of different languages and legal cultures within it because that diversity contributes to the quality of its and also to the authority of its jurisprudence. France calls upon the Registrar to be vigilant as to these issues when recruiting personnel for the Court, and in that regard, I would like to recall the importance of the Court's bilingualism in accordance with Article 39 of its Statute, which states that the official languages of the Court are French and English. The existence of different cultures and legal traditions within the Court is a guarantee of its representativeness and its authority. In that context, my country has the honour to support the candidacy of Mr. Francois Alabrune, the current French ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, a former advisory lawyer to the Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs and my predecessor, as the French candidate for the election of judges to the International Court of Justice, which will take place in November 2026. Mr. Francois Alabrune has notable competency in the area of international law and fulfills all of the qualities of independence, impartiality, and rigor that are required for serving as a judge on the International Court of Justice. In this time of challenges for multilateralism, the International Court of Justice remains an essential institution for peace and for the international legal order. And once again, my country reaffirms its full and entire support for it. I would like to take this opportunity to, on behalf of France, reiterate to the Court, to its President, and to all of its members and all of its staff, our gratitude for all of the work that they have done. Thank you very much for your attention, Mr. Vice-President.


GA · Vice-President [13:07]:

I thank the distinguished representative of France. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Chile.


Chile [13:32]:

Mr.

Vice-President, allow me to begin by extending the greetings of the Government of Chile to the President of the International Court of Justice, His Honour Judge Yuji Iwasawa, and to the distinguished members of the Court. Chile welcomes the report covering the period 2024-2025, which recounts the valuable work done by the International Court of Justice in fulfilment of its mandate as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. In an international context marked by a growing complexity of global challenges, ranging from armed conflicts and geopolitical tensions to humanitarian and environmental crises, the work of the Court is an essential pillar for the preservation of international peace and security, as well as for the strengthening of the rule of law in relations between States. Chile reiterates its full support to the Court and for its mission to resolve disputes through peaceful means. The trust that states have placed in this organ, expressed in the form of the significant increase in the number of contentious cases and requests for advisory opinions, shows that the international community continues to see the Court as an essential pillar of stability and justice. Mr. Vice-President, My delegation would in particular like to stress the relevance of the advisory work of the court during the reporting period. Its contribution goes beyond the settlement of specific disputes. Advisory opinions, even though they are not legally binding, constitute a fundamental tool for guiding the action of international organizations and states, by providing legal clarity on complex challenges affecting the international community as a whole. In particular, my delegation would like to stress the recent advisory opinion issued by the Court regarding the obligations of states in respect of climate change, in which It stated that the customary rules on state responsibility are applicable to violations of the obligations outlined in the advisory opinion, and that consequently, a state that does not act with due diligence in fulfillment of its primary obligation to prevent significant harm to the environment, including the climate system, for example, by not adopting the necessary regulatory and legislative measures to limit the quantity of emissions caused by private agents under its jurisdiction, is committing an internationally wrongful act which entails its responsibility. Our country, moreover, recognizes that the effectiveness of the Court depends on the commitment of States to comply with its decisions and orders in good faith. In that regard, Chile regrets the cases in which provisional measures issued by the Court have not been fully implemented. And we recall that their implementation not only protects the rights of the parties, but also protects the very foundations of the international legal system. Mr. Vice President, respect for international law and for the peaceful settlement of disputes are cornerstones of Chile's foreign policy. These values are deeply rooted in our diplomatic history and they guide our multilateral action. They reflect our conviction that international justice is an essential element for lasting peace. Chile notes with satisfaction the growing role of countries of the global South, and in particular countries from Latin America, in the defense of international law and in the use of judicial mechanisms to resolve their disputes. Our region has made diplomacy, dialogue and cooperation its fundamental tools. And we offer the world an example of commitment to international law as the path for peace. Mr. Vice President, the International Court of Justice not only resolves disputes, it also educates, inspires, and promotes a global culture of respect for the law. Through its fellowship programs, its publications, and the dissemination of its jurisprudence, It contributes to shaping new generations that are committed to the values of multilateralism and justice. And because of all of that, Chile reaffirms its determined support for the International Court of Justice and reiterates its commitment to strengthening an international system based on the primacy of international law and in which all nations, large or small, can find in international justice a path towards peace, dignity and cooperation. Thank you very much, Mr Vice-President.


GA · Vice-President [19:24]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Chile. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Germany.


Germany [19:47]:

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. I would like to begin by expressing Germany's sincere gratitude to you, President Iwasawa. Since taking office in March 2025, you have successfully guided the Court through difficult times with a constantly increasing number of cases on the docket of the Court. The international legal order is under enormous pressure. We see fundamental disrespect for basic principles such as the sovereign equality of states or the prohibition of use of force. Often we hear the question, is the international legal order eroding? Does international law still matter? Certainly, we are noticing a worrying lack of compliance with basic rules of international law. The standards of international law count. The international community measures states' acts against those standards. One major cornerstone for upholding the international legal order is the International Court of Justice, together with other judicial institutions, such as the International Criminal Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and the Permanent Court of Arbitration. As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the ICJ is sought after more than ever. With 23 contentious cases currently pending before the court, we have reached a new record height. Germany welcomes this development as it strengthens the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes between states. The development shows the ICJ's considerable prestige, weight and responsibility. In addition, we continue to see a shift in the cases before the ICJ. Requests for advisory opinions are more frequent. States' interactions with the ICJ is at an all-time high. This underlines the relevance and importance of the international judiciary in general and the ICJ in particular to States and to the multilateral international order. It is up to us as states to ensure that international courts can play their role, that they have our support and the resources they need to preserve an international order based on international law. We stand ready to support and defend international courts, like the International Criminal Court, against increasing pressure. Allow me to briefly address a couple of cases of particular significance to Germany. I would like to start with the case brought by the Gambia against Myanmar under the 1948 Genocide Convention. Germany commends the Gambia for having brought the matter before the Court. Jointly with our partners, we decided to support the ICJ by submitting our interpretation of the Convention in this case. In March 2025, we submitted our written observations together with Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Germany is firmly committed to addressing grave human rights violations wherever they occur. The joint intervention by six states is unique in the history of the ICJ and is a strong signal of our support. Secondly, we are awaiting further developments in the case brought by Ukraine against Russia in relation to the illegal invasion of February 2022. Germany strongly rebuts Russia's attempt to justify its illegal aggression against Ukraine under the false allegations of a genocide. We welcome the fact that the court will decide on the allegations against Ukraine by Russia. Thirdly, Germany participated in the oral proceedings in the ICJ's advisory proceedings on the obligation of states in respect to climate change. The broad participation of more than 100 states and international organizations in the oral proceeding reflects the urgency and shared concern regarding this topic. Germany welcomes the ICJ advisory opinion on climate change, as it clarifies the application of international law as a whole in the context of climate change. The ICJ underlines that all states have to act in their highest ambitions to mitigate climate change and highlights the necessity of international cooperation. All states must take their obligations with regard to climate change very seriously. Germany does so. Fourthly, Germany has decided to submit a written statement in the ICJ's advisory proceedings concerning the right to strike under ILO Convention No. 87 and presented its opinion in the public hearing in October 2025. The question before the ICJ poses an enduring problem for the International Labour Organization. We are firmly convinced that the Court's advisory opinion will contribute to the settlement of this issue and give the necessary guidance to the Organization and its members. Lastly, we continue to find ourselves before the court in the ongoing proceedings brought against us by Nicaragua in relation to the Gaza conflict. Germany will continue to actively engage in these proceedings. In the broader context, Germany continues to support all efforts to work for a political solution that guarantees Israel's security, and gives the Palestinians prospect for the future. It has worked intensively with international partners to contribute to the momentum that has led to the latest peace initiative and will continuously support all efforts to put in place the necessary conditions for lasting peace in the region. Let me, in closing, commend you, Mr. President, and all members of the court for your important contribution to the peaceful settlements of international disputes. The increase in cases before the court is an encouraging development. International law remains the common language in international relations and the normative frame of reference. More than ever, we need an international court capable of ensuring the peaceful settlements of disputes between states. Also, when it comes to resourcing the Court. We acknowledge that the growing workload also poses challenges to the Court. Germany is confident that the Court is capable of meeting those challenges. It is our responsibility as UN members to work together in order to ensure that the Court can continue to play its crucial role for upholding international law. Thank you very much.


GA · Vice-President [27:19]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Germany. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Japan.


Japan [27:40]:

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Mr. Vice President, President of the International Court of Justice, distinguished delegates, I would like to begin by paying special tribute to the late Judge Oda Shigeru from Japan, who passed away earlier this year. Judge Oda served with great distinction as a member of the Court from 1976 to 2003, making invaluable contributions to the development of international law. Mr. Vice President, I would like to express my appreciation to President Iwasawa Yuji for the informative report he has presented on the activities of the Court during the reporting period. Japan also commends the members of the Court and the Registry for their dedicated efforts in ensuring the effective and efficient functioning of the Court. Japan attaches the highest importance to the role played by the ICJ as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations established by the UN Charter. While various mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of disputes exist in the international community today, the ICJ undoubtedly occupies a special and central place with no alternative. The growing number of cases brought before the Court demonstrates ever-growing respect and backing to the Court's legal wisdom and its indispensable function in the peaceful settlement of disputes. Mr. Vice President, among the activities of the Court during the reporting period, the most notable was the advisory opinion on obligations of states in respect of climate change. In the advisory opinion, the ICJ clarified that the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities has been formulated differently in the Paris Agreement through the addition of the phrase, "in the light of different national circumstances." In the view of the court, the additional phrase adds nuance to the principle by recognizing that the status of a state as developed or developing is not static and depends on an assessment of the current circumstances of the state concern. Japan fully agrees with this view. Japan also welcomes the ICJ's recognition in the advisory opinion that states are under no obligation to update baselines or the outer limits of maritime zones established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to account for changes as a result of climate change-related sea level rise. This is the very position that Japan has officially endorsed. Japan reaffirms its commitment to continue taking proactive measures to address climate change as an urgent and shared challenge for all humankind. Japan acknowledges the ICJ's advisory opinion issued last week which recognized Israel's obligations as an occupying power under international humanitarian law to agree to and facilitate relief schemes, including relief provided by the UN and its entities, in particular UNRWA, and not to impede such relief. Taking this advisory opinion into account, Japan strongly hopes that Israel will take appropriate action And Japan will continue to play an active role in order to improve the devastating humanitarian situation in Gaza. Mr. Vice President, Japan became a state party to the Statute of the ICJ in 1954 and soon accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the court. Today, 74 states have made declaration under Article 36 of the Statute, and about 300 bilateral and multilateral treaties recognize the ICJ's jurisdiction over disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the treaty. The acceptance of the court's compulsory jurisdiction by more states will enable the court to discharge its mandate in the most effective manner and strengthen the rule of law. Japan therefore once again urges all member states that have not yet accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction to give serious consideration to doing so. Mr. Vice President, in conclusion, I reiterate Japan's unwavering support for the ICJ and its essential duty in maintaining and strengthening the rule of law. We are confident that the court will continue to play a vital position in dispute settlement as well as giving advisory opinions on international law. Japan is fully committed to promoting the rule of law as a foundation of international peace and security. I thank you, Mr. Vice President.


GA · Vice-President [33:15]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Japan. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Greece.


Greece [33:36]:

Mr. Vice President, Greece wishes to thank His Excellency Judge Iosua, President of the International Court of Justice, for the presentation of the report of the ICJ. Greece aligns

with the statement made by the European Union and its member states and would like to make the following remarks

in its national capacity.

The report contains a detailed presentation of the cases pending or already concluded before the Court in the past year. This period is among the busiest in the history of the Court, involving in its contentious or advisory proceedings 122 out of 193 members of the United Nations and a considerable number of international organizations.

Furthermore, the judgments and advisory opinions rendered by the ICJ relate inter

alia to territorial disputes, maritime delimitation, human rights, treaty law, environmental law, the law of the sea, international humanitarian law,

the prevention of genocide, diplomatic and consular relations, the safety of civil aviation, the responsibility for internationally wrongful acts.

In light of the above, the report rightly

concludes that the broad geographical representation of member states participating in the proceedings, contentious and advisory, before the court, and the wide range of international law issues which they involve, are evidence of the universal and general character of its jurisdiction.

Notwithstanding the heavy caseload of the court, we equally underline that the sound administration of justice, fairness in procedure, and the respect to the principle of the rule of law are safeguarded by the prompt conduct of proceedings so that, as noted in the report, the period between the conclusion of the oral proceedings and the delivery of judgments does not exceed six months.

Mr. Vice President, Greece is a staunch supporter of international law.

It is also a strong supporter of judicial resolution of international disputes in which the

institutional role of the International Court of Justice is preeminent, as provided for in Article 92 of the UN Charter. This provision explicitly states that the ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the UN.

Henceforth, the ICJ is the world court, as this is also evidenced by the aforementioned wide use of its general jurisdiction by states.

The judgments and advisory opinions of the court provide clarity and certainty on international law. Its jurisprudence on contentious or advisory cases is also critical for overcoming instances of fragmentation and is key

on maintaining unity and uniformity in the interpretation and application of international law. In this regard, Greece wishes to underscore the content of Article 94 of the UN Charter, which provides that each member of the UN undertakes to comply with a decision of the International Court of Justice.

In this respect, we note that the orders of the court

on interim measures, pursuant to its jurisprudence, have binding effects for the parties to a dispute before the court. The increasing number of

cases, as well as of participants in recent ad- advisory proceedings, but also in contentious proceedings, such as

those regarding requests related to participation in proceedings as parties or non-parties, sets logistical and financial challenges to the Court. Costs and expenses incurred should be addressed adequately and swiftly by the UN and its Member States in light of the content of Article 92 of the United Nations Charter. Greece is of the opinion that the members of the Organization should take appropriate measures that will safeguard its functioning. In concluding, Greece strongly

believes that the preeminence of international law is safeguarded by the judicial work of the International Court of Justice.

The challenges, however, which the heavy caseload of the court presents should be appropriately addressed in line with its functions as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Thank you, Mr. Vice President.


GA · Vice-President [38:09]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Greece. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States.


United States of America [38:38]:

Thank you, Mr. Vice President, and thank you, President Iwasawa, for your briefing today. The United States is pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the Court's work. I would like to start by recognizing the recent passing of former Judge Higeru Oda of Japan. He had an extraordinary tenure on the court with many important contributions. One of these contributions is his opinion in the nuclear weapons case nearly 30 years ago in 1996. Judge Oda warned about requests for advisory opinions with, quote, highly political motives. when he raised concerns about how such opinions threaten the credibility of the court and distract from the court's, quote, "real function as a judicial institution." Judge Ota had remarkable foresight. Recent advisory opinions by the court have proven his predictions true, and today it must be asked, will the court ever decline a request for an advisory opinion? The court's docket has grown in recent years. Many of these are contentious cases in which the court can contribute to the peaceful settlement of disputes. The increase of these cases brought under state consent shows how the court can offer states a means of addressing their conflicts. But another cause of the increased caseload raises concerns, and that is the increase in request, primarily from the General Assembly, for the court to issue advisory opinions. These requests are becoming more and more political, and it is past time for the Court to exercise its discretion to decline such requests and show more restraint. The Court's predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice, had broader power to give advisory opinions on, quote, "any dispute or question" that was properly referred to it. From the beginning, there were concerns about the risks of such broad authority. In 1922, over 100 years ago, John Bassett Moore, an American judge on the Permanent Court of International Justice, warned that, quote, "opinions having no binding force would tend not only to obscure, but also to change the character of the court." Today, we are seeing that prediction, like Judge Oda's, come true. While the ICJ's statute retained advisory jurisdiction, the drafters of the statute deliberately narrowed it. Article 65 of the statute provides that the court may give an advisory opinion on any legal question. This limitation to legal questions was distinct from the PCIJ's broader authority, and for good reason. Advisory opinions are not binding, and they can be misused. As a further backstop, the statute clearly gave the court discretion. It may decline to give its advice. Yet, in nearly 80 years, the court has not once exercised this discretion. Advisory opinions can be of value when judiciously issued. Early in the court's history, the court's advisory opinions clarified legal uncertainties about the UN including matters central to the functioning of the UN, as in the Certain Expenses opinion. But in recent years, the General Assembly has pursued advisory opinions less to clarify legal questions than to advance political and policy objectives of certain member states. Rather than respond to this trend by exercising a more judicious and restrained approach, the Court has allowed this process to be used for political rather than legal ends. In doing so, the court has undermined its own legitimacy and made it more difficult for states to resolve highly politicized disputes. This trend has been evident in opinions that circumvent the court's consent-based jurisdiction to resolve bilateral disputes, as in the Chagos opinion, that delve unnecessarily into fact-intensive circumstances, also at issue in contentious proceedings, as in the obligations of Israel opinion, that respond to selective questions to just one side of a dispute, as in the wall opinion, and that address highly political subjects under a thin legal veneer, as in this year's climate change opinion. These advisory opinions are counterproductive in two key respects. First, They stray from the Court's core mandate to provide legal decisions in contentious disputes. And second, they jeopardize ongoing political negotiations. The climate change opinion is an example. States may now be reluctant to negotiate potential agreements because they are on notice that the Court may treat their political arrangements as legally binding. Misconstruing these instruments as legal rather than political undermines the court's own recognition that international law has a, quote, "limited role" to play in addressing political challenges. Now, we should question here in this hall whether the General Assembly should be presenting such questions to the court. States should not ask the court to opine on political issues simply because there has not been an easy political solution. But that is a separate question from the responsibility of the court to exercise its own authority and its obligation to comply with the court's statute and serve as the UN's judicial organ, not as yet another political organ. It is not surprising that states would seek to use the court as another weapon in their political disputes. It is more surprising that the court has allowed such weaponization. By repeatedly and unnecessarily addressing political matters, without declining a single request, the Court has effectively revised its own statute to remove the limitation of advisory opinions to legal questions. To stop this troubling trend, the Court should revisit what it means to have a compelling reason not to accept a request for an advisory opinion. The past jurisprudence need not be prologue. In today's world, the referral of a highly political question is a compelling reason for the court to draw the line and decline the request. Of course, as many lawyers know, a matter that involves political differences can be characterized in a way that seems to present a legal question. But that does not mean that the court should abdicate its responsibility to look behind the purported legal question. There will be a case maybe three years from now, maybe sooner, when the court needs to look harder at the question presented to it. The political issue will no doubt be masquerading as a legal question. Multiple factors could be relevant to seeing through this disguise, but here are five factors the court should consider to determine whether a request for an advisory opinion is fundamentally one of law or one of politics. First, Consider whether the question seeks to circumvent the court's contentious jurisdiction, which requires consent, and particularly when questions repeatedly relate to the same state which has not consented, such as Israel. Second, consider whether the question was referred by a political alignment of states in the General Assembly, with many votes against it or abstentions. Third, Consider whether the question wades into the exclusive powers of the Security Council by seeking to compel a state's action, particularly in matters of peace and security. Fourth, does the question interfere with or even seek to displace ongoing negotiations, particularly on matters of intense international attention, such as climate? Fifth and finally, Consider whether the question requires extensive factual development and analysis, especially when the facts are within the sovereign control of states implicated by the question. The Court's most recent advisory opinion related to the conflict in Gaza demonstrates the risk of such factual analysis. The Court made factual assertions about the local population in Gaza and about UNRWA's lack of neutrality. These are not legal questions. They are fact intensive and they are highly contested. And the court is ill suited to make such factual findings in the context of an advisory opinion. The resulting one sided conclusions of fact had no place in that advisory opinion. The court failed to exercise judicial restraint, going even beyond the question posed. and the opinion should not distract from the remarkable peace plan now underway thanks to the President of the United States. Let me conclude where I began, with Judge Oda. He summarized two reasons why the Court should have declined the nuclear weapons case 30 years ago: judicial economy and judicial propriety. Those same reasons, focusing on the court's judicial purpose have even greater importance today. Judge Oda warned about the court undermining its own credibility and acting like a legislature. The court should heed Judge Oda's warning and show far more judicial restraint with advisory opinions. The credibility of the court depends on it. Thank you, Mr. Vice President.


GA · Vice-President [49:07]:

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


Russian Federation [49:32]:

Distinguished Mr. President, the Russian Federation thanks the President of the International Court of Justice, Yuji Iwasawa, for presenting the report. The 80th anniversary session of the UN General Assembly is not only a milestone, it's also an opportunity for us together to reflect on the main trends affecting the work of the world organization and its principal organs. The world order based on international law, including first and foremost the UN Charter, its principles and norms in their inseparable interconnection, is today facing unprecedented challenges. These include the expansive or openly disingenuous interpretations of its provisions, their selective application based on double standards and political preferences, and a tendency towards the supposed progressive development of international law, which in essence amounts to arbitrary rule-making that is detached from state practice and opinio juris. And lastly, there is a growing departure from the culture of consensus in international treaty-making. This jeopardizes the prospects for those treaties becoming universal in the future. This is the result of a group of Western states considering that their own approaches are a source of international law. This is a neocolonial invention that should have been consigned to history long ago. We are confident that time will put everything in its proper place and expose the groundlessness of Western pretensions of hegemony or dominance. Responsible members of the international community must join forces to restore the lost balance in international relations, guided by a genuine spirit of multilateralism, a culture of consensus and cooperation. To this end, it's useful to return to the foundations, not only to the UN Charter, but also another very important document that is marking its 55th anniversary, the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the UN Charter. Its development took decades, but no one was hasty, there was no pressure exerted, and the result was a document that was adopted by consensus, which the International Court of Justice, in its decisions and advisory opinions, has repeatedly determined to reflect customary international law. The declaration emphasizes that in their interpretation and application, the principles enshrined in it are interrelated and each principle should be construed in the context of the other principles. Mr. President, in the UN's 80th anniversary year, it is gratifying to note that the ICJ remains the central element in the universal system for the peaceful settlement of interstate legal disputes and a key reference point for law enforcement practice. Unlike some other international judicial bodies, it has resisted attempts by certain unscrupulous actors to politicize its work. Its authority rests on a strictly legal approach, respect for the sovereign equality of states, and the voluntary nature of jurisdiction. We expect the Court to continue to adhere to these high standards in its future work. We stress the fundamental importance of strictly observing the Statute's requirements for the representation of the main forms of civilisation and the principal legal systems of the world on the Court. This criteria is not a formality, it is a guarantee of the Court's comprehensive legal analysis in each case and a guarantee of balanced decisions. We call upon Member States to respect this imperative when electing judges. The Court's General List includes over 200 cases, with 23 cases and one request for an advisory opinion under consideration. This is an unprecedented workload that is the best confirmation of the Court's relevance. At the same time, the proceedings themselves are becoming increasingly complex and the parties' submissions are becoming more voluminous. This underscores the need to provide the world organization's principal judicial organ with adequate resources, and not just staff, but also technological infrastructure, which will ensure the efficiency and quality of services provided to trials and to parties. We welcome the court's efforts to develop its publications, including the publication of statistical data, and also to increase the transparency of its organizational structure. Mr. President, During the reporting period, the Court issued an advisory opinion on States' obligations regarding climate change. This comprehensive document could be called something of a milestone in the development of international environmental law. While the opinion is extensive and requires careful analysis, some preliminary observations can already be made. The request for the advisory opinion initiated by the Government of Vanuatu was undoubtedly timely and relevant. The adverse impacts of climate change are felt by all States, including the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as storms, hurricanes and droughts, as well as rising sea levels that threaten the very existence of a number of island States. Global challenges require the efforts of the entire international community, and Russia will not stay on the sidelines. However, it must be underscored that the advisory opinion must not and cannot create new international legal obligations for states or revise treaty norms and approaches that were agreed upon in specialized intergovernmental negotiations. We are of the opinion that the primary source of climate norms is the specialized treaty architecture, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement. We oppose pressure on negotiations under the UNFCCC and an expansive interpretation of states' obligations beyond existing treaties. We support the court's emphasis on states' obligations to cooperate in good faith on these matters. We note the clear contradiction to this obligation posed by the unilateral coercive measures introduced by a number of countries that hinder effective climate cooperation and undermine the goals of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. In this regard, we underscore the importance of addressing the international legal responsibility of states imposing such measures. We agree with the court's conclusions on the primacy of the treaty-based climate regime and the need to take into account the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. At the same time, regarding the existence of some right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, we underscore that it does not feature in any universal international treaty. We also do not agree with claims made on the basis of this opinion that fossil fuel extraction and use could supposedly be deemed unlawful acts. The Court merely indicated the need for due diligence in these activities, rather than the abandonment of those activities. The choice of energy policy remains a sovereign right of states, considering a broad range of factors, including security considerations. The advisory opinion is, on the whole, an important and authoritative document, but advisory opinions cannot, as we understand it, replace political, legal and treaty mechanisms or create fundamentally new international legal obligations without states' explicit consent. We were also interested by the third advisory opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian question on the 22nd of October. We took into consideration the court's views concerning compliance with the Fourth Geneva Convention and the provision of food and medical supplies to the population. It's important that the court confirmed Israel's obligations as the occupying power to provide assistance to the population of the occupied Palestinian territory and to use all available means to facilitate these activities. Israel's actions in respect of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees, UNRWA, must be brought into line with its international obligations, including those under the 1946 Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, as well as international humanitarian law. We expect Israel and other interested parties to pay due heed to the court's opinions in the interest of finding a sustainable settlement to the current crisis. This would also facilitate the relaunch of a peace process based on the universally recognized international legal basis, a central element of which must continue to be the two-state solution and guaranteeing the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people. Mr. President, Russia consistently objects to attempts by certain countries to draw the Court into their geopolitical games. We consider that artificially repackaging unrelated issues in the context of specialized international treaties that do not govern those issues to be a blatant abuse of the right to judicial proceedings and we welcome the Court's continued adherence to higher procedural and judicial standards and its refusal to refuse to entertain such manipulations in its 2nd of February 2024 decision on preliminary objections in Ukraine versus Russia the court declined to consider the substance of Kiev's claims Ukraine's attempt to use the convention on the prevention and punishment of the of genocide to question the legality of the special military operation initiated by Russia under Article 51 of the UN Charter failed. The Court found a lack of jurisdiction over the special military operation. The only question that it is continuing to consider in this case is whether Ukraine itself committed genocide in Donbas. Thus, Kiev, with the support of its Western backers, has put itself in the dock. Several speakers have referred to the Court's indication of provisional measures in this case. These statements were categorically incorrect on three grounds. Firstly, for the indication of provisional measures, the Court's jurisdiction is required, if only prima facie. However, as I've already said, the court recognized it entirely lacked jurisdiction in respect of all allegations against the Russian Federation under the Genocide Convention, including relating to the special military operation. This means that the court did not have jurisdiction to indicate provisional measures against Russia and that the measures do not have effect. Secondly, provisional measures are not a legally binding decision that must be implemented under the UN Charter. In any case, the Court indicated provisional measures against Ukraine as well. It required Kyiv to refrain from worsening the dispute or complicating its settlement. At the same time, the Court has recognized its jurisdiction over the matter of the commission of genocide by Ukraine. However, despite this, Kyiv continued its massive attacks against the civilian population and even introduced a legislative ban on negotiations with Russia. As you can see, even this example shows the blatant lies and manipulation our opponents are deploying. The thoughtful and meticulous work of the ICJ in this case, as well as on Ukraine's claims against Russia on the basis of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, has set the record straight. It refuted years of lies and false accusations against us by the Kyiv regime. The Court's decision showed that for years Kyiv had unreasonably accused the residents of Donbass of being terrorists. This discrimination was used by, description, excuse me, was used by Kyiv as the pretext for unleashing Many of the fakes that the court debunked, such as the alleged discrimination against the Crimean Tatars in Crimea, have been included in politicized UN General Assembly resolutions, which in the past were pushed by Kiev and its Western support group. These documents, naturally, are totally detached from reality. The court has rejected around 40 submissions by Ukraine. The only consolation prize for Kiev was the court noting Russia's omissions in the execution of two requests for legal assistance and the sharp drop in the number of Ukrainian language schools in Crimea after it came under the jurisdiction of Russia. Russia indeed did not deem it possible to force teachers to go to schools with instruction in Ukrainian. That judgment was a total fiasco for Ukraine. is also noted in authoritative commentaries by legal experts in the West. The Court ruled that, contrary to Ukraine's assertions, no terrorism or financing of terrorism came from Russia, Donetsk and Luhansk, and that the Donbas republics are not terrorist organizations. In general, we note with regret the continued attempts by countries from the Western camp to exert unacceptable pressure on the court. We see this in particular in the harmful practice of so-called mass interventions, where dozens of states join cases allegedly as neutral third countries, but in reality, they are in support of one side against another. We witnessed this phenomenon in the aforementioned Russia-Ukraine case under the Genocide Convention, with 32 states echoing identical false arguments in support of Kiev in the court room. And that's even though some of those states had previously stated the exact opposite when they themselves were in the dock at the ICJ for bombing Yugoslavia. The court justifiably did not attach any weight to these statements and issued a decision against Kiev, clearing Russia of the allegations of violating the Genocide Convention. If the practice of mass interventions becomes the new norm, this would politicize the court and complicate its work. Mr. President, in conclusion, Russia remains committed to supporting the International Court of Justice as the UN's principal judicial organ, upholding international law and justice. In the reporting period, the Court has once again demonstrated its ability to provide clear legal guidance on the most sensitive and complex issues. We will continue constructive and substantial engagement with the Court based on international law to strengthen predictability and stability in international relations. Thank you for your attention.


GA · Vice-President [1:04:22]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of South Africa.


South Africa [1:04:41]:

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. South Africa expresses its sincere gratitude to the President of the International Court of Justice for his comprehensive report on the activities of the Court. We welcome and appreciate the important work that the members of the Court and the Registry continues to carry out in accordance with the Court's judicial mandate under the UN Charter and the Court's Statute. As the Court approaches its 80th operational year in 2026, we reflect on a principal organ of the United Nations that remains central to the judicial settlement of disputes in accordance with international law. The Court continues to provide a sound and reliable forum in which states appear on an equal footing and disputes are resolved through the rule of law. Mr. Vice President, South Africa's engagement with the Court extends from the South West Africa matter to the present. The Court's 1971 advisory opinion on that matter was a defining moment in international law. The court clarified the legal consequences of apartheid South Africa's continued presence in the then territory of South West Africa and affirmed the principles of self-determination and non-discrimination that lie at the heart of the charter and the international legal order. The court found that the implementation of apartheid constituted a flagrant violation of the purposes and principles of the charter and a denial of fundamental human rights. Further, the court recognized that South Africa's occupation was illegal and that UN member states were obligated not to recognize South Africa's presence as legal and to refrain from any actions that would support its administration or undermine the self-determination of the Namibian people. That advisory opinion and the measures that followed in the General Assembly and Security Council became part of the broader international legal process that contributed to the dismantling of apartheid in South Africa, which constituted a crime against humanity. We recall the work of the Court on that matter today to illustrate its important role in upholding international law and also, importantly, the necessity for the support of the Court's decisions by the General Assembly and the Security Council. In the present, the ICJ remains seized with violations of peremptory norms, as reaffirmed in its advisory opinions on the Wall, on the Chagos Islands, and on the legal consequences arising from Israel's policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem. Instead of bringing their conduct into compliance with international law, the Charter and the Court's orders and opinions, we note with concern attempts by some States to cast doubt on the Court's authority. The Court performs its judicial function under the Charter and its Statute, and its independence must be respected. Member States have an obligation to uphold the authority of the Court and to defend it against efforts to undermine its legitimacy. Mr. Vice President, the Court's report records a sustained level of activity with a record number of contentious and advisory proceedings in parallel. Its ability to manage such a demanding docket while maintaining the quality, timeliness, and procedural integrity of its work is crucial to the continued confidence that states place in it as a neutral and authoritative forum for the peaceful settlement of their disputes. This reliance on the Court, even in periods of political strain, affirms its position as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and where states seek clarity through legal reasoning rather than confrontation. The Court rendered two significant advisory opinions this year. The first concerning the obligations of states in respect of climate change, and the second, just a week ago, on the obligations of Israel in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations, other international organizations, and third states in and relation to the occupied Palestinian territory. These proceedings, which saw record participation by states and international organizations, underscore the court's critical role in clarifying, when called upon to do so, states' obligations under binding international law. In relation to Israel's obligations as an occupying power, as well as being a UN member state, the Court's advisory opinion unequivocally underscores the fundamental and customary obligations pertaining under international humanitarian law, which must be respected in all circumstances. Let us be clear, hostilities can never take place outside of the IHL framework, and this applies in Gaza, Sudan, and other parts of the world. We strongly reject any attempts by Israel or any other UN member state to ignore their legal obligations. International humanitarian law is clear. Civilians must be protected in times of war on the basis of distinction, proportionality, and precaution. Starvation as a method of warfare is expressly prohibited and is simply unconscionable. It strikes at the very heart of our humanity. An occupying power cannot usurp rights while ignoring its obligations. It is for this reason that South Africa, together with other States and the International Committee of the Red Cross, recommitted themselves to the protection of civilians through the Global Initiative to Galvanize Political Commitment to International Humanitarian Law. The initiative seeks to develop a set of concrete and actionable recommendations to ensure that IHL is not only better respected, but adapted for the future. Mr. Vice President, the Court's report also recalls that recourse to the Court is a cost-effective means of dispute settlement. This is an important consideration for all regions, but especially developing countries, for whom neutral judicial mechanisms are essential. South Africa recognises that a sustained caseload places additional demands on the Court's resources. The report makes clear that the number and complexity of proceedings continue to grow, requiring sufficient staff and administrative support to maintain the Court's efficiency and standards. The Court's allocated budget must reflect its workload and operational needs. South Africa has supported efforts to increase the Court's funding, consistent with the Court's statute, which places its expenses on the United Nations. In this regard, we welcome the decision taken by the General Assembly to approve all the resources requested by the Court in its proposed programme budget for 2025. A well-resourced Court is better placed to fulfil its judicial responsibilities and to maintain the confidence of States that turn to it. South Africa also wishes to stress that the court's composition must reflect gender, geographic, and linguistic balance, including in the registry's professional departments and technical divisions. Mr. Vice President, South Africa notes with appreciation the arrangements governing the Judicial Fellowships Program and its trust fund, which have enabled the participation of young professionals from a broad range of developing countries. These practical arrangements strengthen the reach of the court's work and contribute to developing expertise in international law. Looking ahead to the court's 80th anniversary and beyond, South Africa reaffirms its support for the court and its indispensable judicial role as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, including the resources required for it to function effectively. At a time when the authority of international institutions are being tested and overtly attacked, the court remains a steady expression of the rule of law over the use of force and breaches of international law. South Africa will continue to support the court in carrying out its mandate and in strengthening a multilateral order governed by international law and justice. I thank you.


GA · Vice-President [1:13:11]:

I thank the distinguished representative of South Africa. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Argentina.


Argentina [1:13:29]:

Mr Vice-President, at the outset, my delegation wishes to thank the International Court of Justice, through President Judge Iwasawa, for the presentation of the report which details the wealth of work done between August 2024 and July 2025. I would also like to recognize the presence here among us of Judge Noyte and of Registrar Gautier in the room. I also recognize the presence of Judge Mahmoud during International Law Week. Since its creation, the International Court of Justice has played a key role in promoting the rule of law, in protecting international law, and in preserving global peace and security, this through the peaceful resolution of disputes. The ICJ is the only universal judicial organ with general jurisdiction for the resolution of interstate disputes. Its decisions, which are binding for parties to each dispute, provide a significant contribution to the international peace and security architecture. The report clearly points to a sustained increase in the Court's workload relative to the previous reporting period. Consequently, between August 2024 and July this year, there were 25 pending cases, 23 contentious cases and two advisory procedures before the Court placed on its docket. During the reporting period, four new contentious cases were brought before the Court, as well as a request for an advisory opinion. 109 States, as well as various international organizations, presented written pleadings. written observations or oral arguments as part of three series of advisory procedures before the Court during the period in question. These states included 22 states from the Latin American and Caribbean group and in total 122 states participated in contentious or advisory proceedings before the Court. This growing workload and level of participation of states attest to the fact that the International Court of Justice remains as reliable and necessary an institution as ever before. Regarding the cases presented before the court, according to the report, these covered a wide range of issues. These issues included territorial and maritime delimitation, reparation for internationally wrongful acts, jurisdictional immunities of the state, diplomatic and consular relations, and the interpretation and application of international treaties and conventions. As can be gleaned from the document, the geographical diversity of cases and the wide variety of issues they covered point to the universal and broad nature of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. The International Court of Justice holds pride of place among the UN system's organs. It is the primary judicial organ of the organization. The Court has not only successfully addressed complex issues, it has also produced an invaluable body of jurisprudence that has contributed to the progressive development of norms and principles in several areas. We wish to underscore the importance of its Judicial Fellowship Program. The goal of that program is to ensure young people better understand the Court's procedures and international law. The increase in opportunities for future international law professionals to learn about the Court and learn from its judges will serve to buttress the rule of law and will contribute to raising awareness regarding the valuable role that the Court can play in promoting international peace and security. We also wish to emphasize the importance of the Court's outreach activities. These include conferences held by the President, other members of the Court, the Registrar and other Registry personnel. All of these events allow diplomats, academics, representatives of judicial authorities, students, media representatives and the public in general to better understand the role of and activities of the Court. Also incredibly useful to states are the publications issued by the court. To conclude, the Argentine delegation reiterates its commitment to and support for the invaluable work done by the ICJ. Thank you.


GA · Vice-President [1:18:27]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Argentina. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of India.


India [1:18:48]:

Madam President, At the outset, I express my sincere appreciation of Judge Isharagi of Japan, President of the International Court of Justice, for his thorough and insightful presentation of the Court's report as outlined in documents A/80/4. We warmly congratulate him on his election to the presidency and extend our best wishes for a successful and impactful tenure. The International Court of Justice, as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, possesses a unique and unparalleled capacity to address the complexities involved in international legal disputes. Entrusted with the vital mandate of adjudicating legal conflicts between sovereign states and upholding the rule of law in global affairs. The Court has constantly demonstrated its commitment to delivering fair and equitable outcomes. Over the years, there has been a marked increase in the number of cases brought before it, reflecting the growing confidence to the international community in its impartiality and expertise. In other way, evolution in the court's functioning is its expanding engagement with substantive legal issues. Unlike earlier periods when judicial matters dominated its docket, the court is now increasingly tasked with resolving intricate legal questions arising from diverse regions across the world. It was not clear that 74 parties to the ICJ statute have issued declarations, some with reasons, accepting the court's compulsory jurisdiction, as outlined in Article 36, paragraphs 2 and 5 of the statute. Furthermore, over 300 bilateral and multilateral treaties and conventions confer jurisdiction upon the ICJ to adjudicate a wide range of interstate disputes. These provisions highlighted the Court's role as the principal judicial organism of the United Nations in promoting the peaceful settlement of disputes and reinforcing of international law. Over the past 76 years, the International Court of Justice has adjudicated an extensive array of legal issues, encompassing disputes related to sovereignty over territories, navigation rights, nationality, asylum, exploitation of the law, the law of the sea and land of Martin boundaries. It has also addressed cases currently before the court reflects both breadth and complexity with its jurisdiction counting to play a pivotal role in serving and conveying international law. The court remains as an indispensable forum for interpretation of international law as a framework for managing inter-state relations. The issues presently before it are equally wide-ranging, and its judgments have played an important role in the progressive development and consolidation of international law. Madam President, during the report period, the International Court of Justice issued several landmark rulings addressing the prevention of genocide. We note that present the ICJ is actively engaged the adjudicating a wide spectrum of cases, including the land and maritime delimitation, sovereignty over islands, territorial description, judicial immunities of states, restitution of property seized in criminal proceedings, enforcement of the Convention against Torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, fulfilment of international obligations, prosecution of genocide, and smuggling of migrants. Among these, the Court's advisory opinion on climate change stands out as particularly consequential. In this opinion, the court affirmed that states bear legal obligations under international law to safeguard the climate system from the adverse effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. India has engaged constructively in the advisory proceedings on climate change, underpinning the centrality of the principle of the common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, CBDR-RC. While strongly supporting ambitious climate action, India emphasized that the exciting United Nations Framework Convention on climate change. It's Kyoto Protocol and its Paris Agreement constitute the existing legal framework and that developed countries must first fulfill their commitments regarding climate finance and technology transfer. This development reaffirms the indisputable role of the court and international law in addressing complex challenges of the insecurity in the world where economic, social and development concerns are of critical importance. Madam President, the foregoing underscores the extreme and pivotal role accorded to the International Court of Justice within the framework of the United Nations, the distinguished status is exclusive to the ICJ and has not been conferred upon the other judicial body established since 1945. As highlighted in the report, the International Court of Justice is undertaking a series of measures to enhance the efficiency of its registry, particularly emphasis was placed on enhancing coordination among the various departments and divisions of the registry. To this end, the court adopt review in 2025 and a set guidelines governing the organizations of work between the register and the deputy register, aimed at improving efficiency in the management and coordination of registry operation. Additionally, we note that participants are underway to update the courts exhibition in anticipation of the its 11th anniversary. To the commonerated in April 2026, the report further notes that the courts docked increasingly comprise contentious matters presenting novel procedural challenges. In this context, the Court's request for dedicated legal support for each of its members is both justified and urgent. Is it essential for enabling the Court to effectively discharge its responsibilities as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Madam President, in the Constitution, India reiterates its continued support for the International Court of Justice and recognize the vital significance that the international community accords to its work in unloading the rule of law. I thank you, Madam President.


GA · Vice-President [1:28:31]:

I thank the distinguished representative of India. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Palau to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States.


Palau · AOSIS [1:28:56]:

Mr. President, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the members of the Alliance of Small Island States, AOSIS, the 39 small island developing states that are especially affected by the climate crisis. AOSIS welcomes the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of states in respect of climate change. For SIDS, this opinion is both historic and deeply affirming. It confirms what we have long maintained, that climate change is not only a moral and political challenge, but a matter of binding international law. This advisory opinion is not revolutionary, it's revelatory. The court has illuminated the obligations that already exist in international law, continue a clear line of jurisprudence from multiple cases, including pulp mills, certain activities, and the Itlos advisory opinion on climate change. It represents a maturation, not a rupture, clarifying and consolidating existing rules in the context of the climate crisis. First, the court confirmed that obligations to ensure the protection of the environment from greenhouse gas emissions arise under both treaty and customary international law. It emphasized that the most directly relevant applicable law consists of the UN Charter, multiple multilateral environmental agreements, international human rights law, and multiple customary obligations and principles. The climate change treaties are not the only relevant law. In other words, there is no lex specialis whereby the climate change treaties insulate states from their broader legal responsibilities. Second, the court identified a stringent standard of due diligence, reaffirming that states are required to use all the means at its disposal in the context of climate change. This requires not only adopting appropriate domestic rules and measures, but also vigilance in their enforcement. Further, these rules and measures must regulate the conduct of public and private operators within the state's jurisdiction or control. Third, the court recognized that 1.5 degrees Celsius has become the scientifically based consensus target under the Paris Agreement. It found that states' effort must reflect its highest possible ambition. Despite the nationally determined nature of efforts, these are not left entirely to the discretion of the parties and must be capable of making an adequate contribution to the achievement of the 1.5 degree temperature goal. Fourth, the court stated that, amongst other things, the failure of a state to regulate emissions of GHGs under its duty to exercise due diligence to prevent significant harm constitutes an internationally wrongful act, which may give rise to a variety of legal consequences, including reparation, restitution, and compensation. Fifth, the court affirmed that states can maintain maritime zones in perpetuity once they've been duly established in conformity with UNCLOS. The court also concluded that once a state is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood. It is important to note that these confirmed the wide state practice and opinio juris reflected in the recently unanimously adopted ILC final report on sea level rise in relation to international law. Finally, the court found that international cooperation, including finance, technology transfer, and capacity building, is a legal obligation. It recalled that cooperation in addressing sea level rise is not a matter of choice for states, but a legal obligation. Mr. President, while AASIS welcomes the clarity and coherence of the Court's reasoning, we must also note areas of concern. The opinion, for the most part, did not consider the specific obligations owed to those states most specially affected by climate change, those already bearing the brunt of its impacts on their economies, ecosystems, and communities. Nor did it clarify how responsibility and reparations should operate where harm has already occurred or is unavoidable. For SIDS, these are not theoretical questions, but urgent matters of equity, fairness, and the integrity of international law. We encourage continued reflection and dialogue, including within this assembly, on how international law can give fuller effect to these responsibilities. The court's opinion nevertheless provides the legal clarity our collective response has long required. The law is clear, the science is urgent, the consequences are severe and irreversible. AESIS calls for a strong and robust General Assembly resolution to adopt and advance this decision, translating its principles into concrete international action grounded in justice, cooperation, and the shared prosperity of all nations, large and small. I thank you.


GA · Vice-President [1:34:15]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Palau. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Oman to speak on behalf of the Arab Group.


Oman · Arab Group · Permanent Representative [1:34:39]:

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. It is my honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the Arab Group. Allow me at the outset To welcome the President of the International Court of Justice and the members of the Court present in the General Assembly, including the distinguished Arab judge, Mahmoud Daifallah Hammoud, as well as the Registrar of the Court, I extend to all of them the Arab Group's thanks for their presence today and for their efforts. and the valued role in the court, which stands as a fortress of justice and a beacon guiding the international community towards the path of law, not force, and dialogue, not conflict. I speak before your esteemed assembly in this session, which embodies our collective commitment to the supremacy of international law and highlights the pivotal role played by the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, in upholding justice, resolving disputes through peaceful means, and safeguarding the principles upon which the Charter is founded. Since its establishment, the Court has proven that it is not merely a judicial body, but rather the conscience of international law and the voice of justice in a world torn by power and interests. Accordingly, the Arab states view the International Court of Justice as a fundamental tool for achieving international justice and protecting the legitimate rights of states and peoples. The Arab world has had an active presence before the Court in a number of critical cases and pivotal advisory opinions, which affirms our firm belief that law is the optimal path to achieving international peace and security. The Arab states and the Arab Group affirm that supporting the Court and strengthening its independence is, in its essence, a support for the rule of law and for an international system based on equality and legitimacy. As evident from the report of the International Court of Justice, presented to the General Assembly and contained in document A/80/4, the Court currently plays an important influential role through the large number of cases and proceedings before it, which reached 18 cases during the past year, in addition to its consideration of three requests for advisory opinions submitted by the General Assembly and the ILO. This activity, if it indicates anything, it ensures and affirms the trust placed in the Court by Member States and various bodies within the UN system, and in its ability to contribute to the resolution of international disputes and to provide legal opinions and advice to clarify and define the responsibilities and legal obligations of States in many pressing issues on the international agenda. The Palestinian cause today represents the clearest test of the international community's sincerity in its commitment to the supremacy of international law and justice. It is not merely a political issue, but fundamentally a legal and humanitarian one that is related to the core of the United Nations Charter and concerns the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. the end of the illegal Israeli occupation and enabling the Palestinian people to live freely and with dignity in their independent and sovereign state. The International Court of Justice has played a historic role in defending this right. In its advisory opinion in 2024 regarding the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, the Court affirmed the illegality of the construction of the wall and considered it a clear violation of international law and of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. determination. Then, in July 2024, the Court issued a new advisory opinion in which it unequivocally and without room for doubt, interpretation, or debate, affirmed that the Israeli presence in the occupied Palestinian territories is illegal under international law, that Israel must immediately end this presence, halt its settlement activities, dismantle existing settlements, and provide compensation for the damages inflicted upon the Palestinian people. The opinion also affirmed that the Palestinian people's right to self-determination has been seriously violated. It further confirmed that the occupying power is legally obligated to pay compensation for the damages suffered by all affected individuals, natural or legal persons, and that all states and international organizations are obligated to work toward enabling the Palestinian people to exercise the right to self-determination and to refrain from granting any form of recognition or legitimacy to the situation resulting from the continued and illegal Israeli occupation of the occupied Palestinian territory, and to refrain from providing aid or assistance in maintaining this situation or engaging in discriminatory practices in their dealings, all of which should lead to the full Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territory. Finally, the Court issued an advisory opinion on October 25, 2025, regarding Israel's obligations as the occupying power and as a member of the United Nations in connection with the presence and activities of United Nations bodies and other international organizations and third States in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This opinion concluded that Israel is legally obligated to facilitate the work of the United Nations and its humanitarian organization, foremost among them is UNRWA. Moreover, the opinion refuted the false allegations propagated by the occupying power against UNRWA, which is an indispensable backbone for providing essential humanitarian relief services and all means of life, such as education and health, to Palestinian refugees. It also affirmed the obligation of Israel to respect the privileges and the immunities of the UN and its personnel in the occupied territories and to refrain from compromising their safety or property. In addition to these advisory opinions, the ICJ issued a series of decisions to adopt provisional measures in the case brought against Israel by South Africa in connection with the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. These legally binding decisions must be implemented by Israel to protect the Palestinian people and defenseless civilians from the Israeli killing machine that has claimed tens of thousands of innocent lives in the Gaza Strip. The Arab Group strongly condemns the ongoing violations by the Israeli occupation authorities of international law and the decisions of the ICJ, and the systemic destruction, deliberate starvation, and forced displacement inflicted upon the Palestinian people. The Arab Group renews its call for the immediate cessation of genocide war on the Gaza Strip, the end of the illegal occupation of the State of Palestine, and the cessation of Israeli aggression against Lebanon and the repeated violations against Syria, including violations of its sovereignty and the recent incursions into its territory. It also affirms the necessity of protecting civilians, delivering urgent humanitarian aid, and preventing the worsening of the humanitarian catastrophe. In conclusion, the ICJ has demonstrated through its advisory opinions and decisions that justice is indivisible, and that international law must be applied to all without exception. The International Court of Justice is the shield of justice and conscience of law in a troubled world. Supporting it is not a legal duty, but a defense of the very idea of humanity itself. For there can be no lasting peace without justice, no justice without law, and no without respect for the court that embodies it. Thank you.


GA · Vice-President [1:42:48]:

I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Uganda to speak on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.


Uganda · NAM [1:43:03]:

Mr. President, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement in connection with the consideration of agenda item 73, entitled "Report of the International Court of Justice which we attach great importance. At the onset, allow us to thank the President of the International Court of Justice for his presentation of the report to the General Assembly on the activities of the International Court between 1 August 2024 and 31 August 2025, as requested by this body last year, and contained in document A/80/4. of which we have taken due note. The Non-Aligned Movement, Mr. President, reaffirms and underscores its principled position concerning the peaceful settlement of disputes and the non-use, or threat of use, of force. In that context, the International Court of Justice has a significant role in promoting and encouraging the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means, as reflected in the chart of the United Nations and in such a manner that international peace and security as well as justice are not endangered. At the 19th summit meeting of the heads of state of the Non-Aligned Movement held in January 2024 in Kampala, Uganda, the heads of state and government of the Non-Aligned Movement agreed to endeavor generating further progress to achieve full respect for international law and in this regard, commend the role of the International Court of Justice in promoting the peaceful settlement of international disputes in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the Court, in particular, Articles 33 and 94 of the Charter, noting the fact that the Security Council has not sought and advisory opinion from the International Court since 1970, the Non-Aligned Movement urges the Security Council to make greater use of the Court, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, as a source of advisory opinions and interpretation of international law. In this regard, at the ministerial meeting of the Coordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement held in July 2019 in Caracas, Venezuela, the ministers of the movement decided to encourage those in a position to do so to make greater use of the International Court of Justice and to consider conducting consultations among the states members of the movement as and when appropriate with a view to requesting advisory opinions of the court including in cases in which unilateral coercive measures that are not authorized by relevant organs of the United Nations and are inconsistent with the principles of international law or the Charter of the United Nations, may undermine international peace and security. President, the Non-Aligned Movement takes this opportunity to invite the General Assembly and other organs of the United Nations and specialized agencies that are duly authorized by the General Assembly to request advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities. Moreover, the states members of the movement, they affirmed the importance of the Court's advisory opinion issued on 8th July, 1996, on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, in brackets A, stroke 51, stroke 218, in annex. In this matter, the International Court Justice concluded unanimously that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all aspects under strict and effective international control. NAM welcomes the 29th December 2023 application filed by a member state of the Movement, South Africa, instituting proceedings against Israel before the International Court of Justice concerning alleged violations by Israel of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in relation to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, and call on Israel to implement the provisional measures ordered by the Court in this regard. NAM welcomes the advisory opinion that was rendered by the International Court of Justice on 19th July 2024. as wanted to the request made by the General Assembly in its resolution 77/247 of 30 December 2022. The Court has clearly determined inter alia that Israel's presence in occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, is unlawful and must be ended as rapidly as possible. It is now time to translate the Court's authoritative determinations into action for accountability towards ending this illegal occupation in all its manifestations and ensuring the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including to self-determination and independence, and the realization of long-laid justice. In this regard, the movement welcomes General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, in the follow-up of the advisory opinion of 19 July 2024, adopted on 18 September 2024, which called for an end to Israel's illegal occupation within 12 months and for actionable measures to hold Israel accountable for its violations in occupied Palestinian territory. The movement recalls the responsibilities of states not to support, facilitate or cooperate directly or indirectly with such unlawful policies and to undertake practical measures to bring them to a halt. to also urge the undertaking of serious efforts collectively and individually to ensure respect of the legal obligations defined in the ICJ advisory opinion and affirmed in the related United Nations resolutions, including enhanced efforts by the General Assembly and by the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention. Likewise, NAM underscored the importance and welcomed the advisory opinion recently delivered by the International Court of Justice on 22nd October 2025, on the obligations of Israel in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations, other international organizations and third states in and relation to the occupied Palestinian territory, and echoes its conclusions. We call for a full respect of the authoritative determinations made by the Court in accordance with international law as an urgent matter to bring a halt to the countless violations and grave breaches in this regard. In this regard, we also continue to call on Israel, the occupying power, to fully respect the 9th July 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in occupied Palestinian territory, brackets A/ES/10/273. To conclude, we reiterate our calls upon all states to respect and ensure respect for the Court's authoritative determinations for the realization of the end of the Israel occupation that began in 1967 and independence of the State of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital. and the achievement of a just, lasting, and peaceful solution to the question of Palestine in order to bring an end to this historic injustice and prolonged conflict in all its aspects. Thank you.


GA · Vice-President [1:51:34]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Uganda. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Portugal.


Portugal [1:51:55]:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Portugal aligns itself with the statement delivered earlier by the European Union, as well as with the statement that will be delivered by Guinea-Bissau on behalf of the member states of the community of the Portuguese-speaking countries. It is an honor to address the General Assembly on the report of the International Court of Justice and to pay homage to the Court and its contribution to fostering peace, justice, and the rule of law among states. Allow me to begin by thanking President Yasawa for introducing the International Court of Justice annual report. At a time when the international community faces complex challenges, the court stands as a beacon of reason and legality, a reminder that the peaceful settlement of disputes through law remains not only possible, but imperative. The Court continues to embody the conviction enshrined in the UN Charter that justice and peace are inseparable. By bringing disputes to the Peace Palace in The Hague rather than to the battlefield, we strengthen the fabric of an international order grounded in law rather than power. The Court's docket today bears testimony to its relevance and vitality. Never before has the Court been seized with such diverse and high number of cases. reflecting the trust that states continue to place in its authority and impartiality. These cases span the full spectrum of international relations, from territorial and maritime disputes to questions of human rights, environmental protection, diplomatic relations, or the use of force. This growing recourse to the Court is both a challenge and a sign of confidence in the universality and adaptability of international law. However, for the court to perform fully its mission, its jurisdiction must be accepted more broadly. Portugal wishes to underscore the importance of states making the declaration, recognizing the court's compulsory jurisdiction. It is both an expression of confidence in the international legal system and a commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes. Each new declaration lodged is one more step, one more block to reinforce the international legal order. Mr. President, beyond its contentious cases, the Court's advisory function has proven essential in clarifying the interpretation and application of international law. Advisory opinions provide authoritative guidance to the United Nations and its specialized agencies, as well as to states, and they illuminate the path forward in areas where the law needs to evolve and adapt. This role has never been more crucial, and as the world faces new frontiers of legal and moral responsibility, including more recently the global challenge of climate change. The recent advisory opinion on the obligations of states with respect of climate change stands as a landmark in the progressive development of international law. Of the principles underpinning the legal principles, and the pinning states duties to protect our planet, the court has deepened our collective understanding of justice across generations, justice not only just as among states, but also between humankind and the environment that sustain us all, justice grounded in cooperation and multilateralism. The effective functioning of the International Court of Justice also depends on the interaction with the other principal organs of the United Nations, especially the Security Council. Strengthening the relationship between the Court and the Council, in full respect of their distinct mandates, is essential to ensure that judicial decisions are implemented and that legality remains at the heart of collective peace and security. At a moment when geopolitical tensions and unprecedented global challenges test international law, Portugal wishes to reaffirm its confidence and its unwavering support for the International Court of Justice. Its work commands our respect and our commitment to upholding the principles inscribed in the Charter 80 years ago. Law, not force, cooperation, not discord, is the foundation of lasting peace. Let us therefore renew our collective pledge to reinforce the Court as a cornerstone of an international order based on the rule of law. And I thank you.


GA · Vice-President [1:56:45]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Portugal. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Guinea-Bissau to speak on behalf of the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries.


Guinea-Bissau · CPLP [1:57:11]:

Mr Vice-President, I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the Member States of the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries, CPLP. Angola, Brazil, Cabo Verde, Equatorial Guinea, Mozambique, Portugal, Sao Tome and Principe, Timor-Leste, and my own country, Guinea-Bissau. The CPLP was created as a forum for deepening mutual cooperation and friendship between countries that share the Portuguese language. The cooperation of our community with the United Nations began in 1996 and is periodically reviewed. The CPLP is governed, among others, by the principles that enshrine the primacy of peace, democracy, rule of law, human rights, and social justice. Indeed, the rule of law plays an important role in the constitution and progress of the CPLP and the community, as well as the Member States, remain committed to the promotion and defense of these principles. We are grateful to the Honorable Judge Iwasawa, President of the International Court of Justice, for presenting the Court's annual report and for his relevant observations. The CPLP fully acknowledges the fundamental role played by the court over the past 79 years since its inaugural sitting in ensuring the peaceful settlement of disputes and in clarifying the rules of international law upon which its decisions are based with integrity, impartiality and independence as well as its readiness to face any emerging challenges. We praise the work of the ICJ as the main judicial body of the United Nations in adjudicating disputes among states and in maintaining and promoting the rule of law in the international system. In the last two decades, the workload of the Court has increased significantly, both in the number of cases and in their factual and legal complexity. The flow of new and settled cases reflects the great vitality of the institution. The CPLP countries value the fact that the Court is called upon to decide on disputes voluntarily submitted by states under their sovereign rights. As such, from August 1, 2024 to July 31, 2025, the period under review, the court registered a high level of activity, being seized with a variety of issues related to territorial and maritime delimitation, diplomatic missions, human rights, reparation for international wrongful acts, interpretation and application of international treaties and conventions, and environmental protection. During this period, the court rendered three judgments, 16 rulings, and issued an advisory opinion, in addition to holding multiple public hearings. Mr. Vice President, contentious cases involved states from all continents, while the variety of international issues brought before the court illustrates the universality of its nature and competence. All United Nations member states are parties to the statute of the court and approximately 300 bilateral and multilateral treaties grant jurisdiction to the court to settle disputes that may arise from their interpretation and application. Moreover, the existing dialogue between the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the Court in interpreting the United Nations Charter is of the utmost importance. In this regard, the rulings and advisory opinions issued by the Court have made a significant contribution to strengthening and clarifying the rules of international law. In this vein, the CPLP welcomes the advisory processes of the International Court of Justice, especially the advisory opinion on the obligation of states regarding climate change. The high level of involvement of international community in these processes is proof of the importance that states attach to the International Court of Justice and international law in general as instruments for resolving their differences in a peaceful and cooperative manner. Likewise, we welcome the Court's endeavors to ensure that its decisions are publicized as widely as possible, both through its publications, the development of multimedia platforms, the use of social media networks, and its own internet website containing its entire jurisprudence, which contributes to a better knowledge and to raise awareness concerning its activities. The high rate of compliance with the court's rulings throughout its history is very encouraging, as it demonstrates the respect and trust of states in the independence, credibility, and impartiality of the World Court. Mr. Vice President, the member states of the CPLP welcome with satisfaction the widening of the scope and cooperation for international law prompted by the judgments and advisory opinions of the court, which have inspired other international decision-making bodies. It is also commendable that the court is paying due regard to the work of other international courts. We reiterate our commitment to giving strong support to the court so that it continues to play a key role in the resolution of disputes between States, as well as in strengthening the international rule of law towards justice and peace, taking into consideration the situation of peoples and individuals. The Member States of the CPLP remain confident that the Court, as the principal judicial body of the United Nations, will continue its vital work in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Charter and its statute, making a tangible contribution to the rule of law around the world. Lastly, Mr. Vice President, I would like to convey, on behalf of the nine member states of the CPLP, our sincere gratitude for the work of the International Court of Justice. Thank you very much.


GA · Vice-President [2:05:10]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Guinea-Bissau. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.


Netherlands (Kingdom of the) [2:05:30]:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, allow me to first thank His Excellency, Mr. Iva Sava Yui, President of the International Court of Justice, for his presentation of the court's report. The importance of the Court as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security cannot be overstated. Through the peaceful settlement of disputes and through advisory proceedings, the work of the Court is an indispensable contribution to the international legal order in the interest of the international community as a whole. The Kingdom of the Netherlands remains honoured to be the host country of the Court and remains fully committed to supporting the Court in the fulfilment of its role as the true world court. The report of the Court shows that the past year has again been an exceptionally busy year for the Court, with the Court having handed down three judgments, two advisory opinions and having rendered no less than 16 orders. States continue find their way to the Court for the peaceful settlement of their disputes, and international organizations continue to request advisory opinions. The fact that the Court is seized of cases emanating from every region of the world, and that these cases concern a wide array of legal issues, attests to the global relevance of the Court. While the Kingdom of the Netherlands welcomes the universal confidence placed in the Court's expertise and authority, it is mindful of the implications of this increased participation may have for the Court's budgets. In this regard, it may be necessary to evaluate the Court's funding to assess whether an increase is desirable. The Kingdom of the Netherlands would not oppose an increase should this be deemed necessary. My government notes that a timely publication of the Court's report would allow states to assess the Court's needs even more effectively. In addition to the increased number of disputes brought before the Court, states more and more use the full array of mechanisms available in proceedings, such as requests for provisional measures and preliminary objections. There is also an increase visible in intervening states and participating organizations in proceedings. We recognize that a single case requires more of the court's time. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is also mindful of the procedural challenges these developments may pose for the court. and would call upon states to solely use these mechanisms to aid the court in its assessment of the substance of a case and not for political motives. The court is also in a position to design its procedures in such a way as to limit the delays due to, for example, interventions by limiting intervening states to participate in certain phases of the procedures. The Kingdom of the Netherlands would note that this may be an effective manner to limit the duration of a case and thus reduce the burden on the Court. However, decisions of the Court regarding the conduct of proceedings should always respect due process as guaranteed in the Statute and the Rules of Court. My government commands the modernization of certain administrative practices that the Court has incorporated over the past few years. It is important that the internal digital system of the Court is safe so as to ensure the impartial and effective settlement of disputes by the Court. Mr. President, as the international community is increasingly challenged by a disregard for international rules, the role of the Court as a guardian of the international legal order is more vital than ever. In this regard, my government wishes to reiterate that it is of pivotal importance that all Member States of the United Nations accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court so as to allow the peaceful settlement of disputes. The Kingdom of the Netherlands regrets that no additional state has deposited its declaration recognizing the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court since last year. In addition, several declarations deposited since 2019 have been accompanied by reservations severely limiting the acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court. My government calls upon states that have not yet done so to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the court by making a declaration under Article 36, paragraph 2 of the statute, and to do so with as few reservations as possible. My government has eliminated limitations to the jurisdiction of the court in contentious cases involving the Kingdom of the Netherlands as far as possible. It will accept all disputes arising out of situations or facts that took place no earlier than 100 years before the dispute is brought before the Court. Mr. President, let me conclude by once more emphasizing my government's full support to the Court. We have a collective responsibility to safeguard the Court as the impartial, principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Any state effort to the contrary is not conducive to strengthening the international legal order in these challenging times. I thank you, Mr. President.


GA · Vice-President [2:11:26]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Kuwait to speak on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council.


Kuwait · GCC [2:11:57]:

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. At the outset, I am honored to deliver this statement on behalf of the states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, namely the UAE, the Kingdom of Bahrain, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Sultanate of Oman, the State of Qatar, and my state, Kuwait. We would also like to join the statement of the Arab Group delivered by the Permanent Representative of the Fraternal Sultanate of Oman. Mr. Vice-President, the ICJ is not merely a UN body, and its role is not limited to being an arbitral body that considers international disputes. rather it carries the Heritage of the pci in the field of the peaceful settlement of international disputes since its Inception in 1945 additionally the constitution of this court through signing the UN Charter has been a qualitative leap and marked a new era in the dispute settlement among states and the maintenance of international peace and security in accordance with Article 92 of the UN Charter. And on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the ICJ, we, the GCC, would like to seize this opportunity to emphasize the important role of the court and to commend its work on providing peaceful resolutions in accordance with Article 33 of the Charter. We note the Court's report in document A/80/4, which covers the period from 1 August 2024 to 31 July 2025. There has been a notable increase in the number of cases considered by the Court. This increase is a clear proof that the member states resort to this institution as a peaceful means of dispute resolution. We also commend the court's adherence to the principles of objectivity, transparency, and impartiality. And we emphasize that the court is exercising its jurisdiction in accordance with the articles of its statute. Given the importance of the advisory opinions and court orders issued by the ICJ, we emphasize that it plays a key role in clarifying international law, and we emphasize that the court has the jurisdiction to look into international disputes in cases presented before the court, especially in terms of the implementation of international humanitarian law. The GCC states have provided a number of written and oral statements before the court, and our participation has come in solidarity with efforts aiming to implement the rules and principles of international law, as we believe in the role of international institutions aiming to achieve the purposes of the UN, namely the maintenance of international peace and security, growing amicable relations among states, and achieving international coordination to settle international issues. and we commend the role of the ICJ in its advisory opinion issued last Wednesday on the obligations of Israel in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations, other international organizations, and third states, which came in accordance with Resolution 79/232, which was adopted in this room on the 19th of December 2024. We emphasize the importance of the implementation of the court's opinions, especially the latest advisory opinion on the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination. And we emphasize the importance of applying the provisions of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, in addition to respecting the mandate and legitimate activities of the UN's agencies operating in the occupied Palestinian territory, including the UNRWA in implementation of the and legal obligations of states in accordance with the UN Charter. In conclusion, we emphasize the key role of the court in the peaceful settlement of international disputes. And the objection to the implementation of the court's orders might undermine the rule of law and enhance double standards and selectivity. Justice and fairness before the law are the nucleus of international peace and security. Thank you.


GA · Vice-President [2:16:41]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Kuwait. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Indonesia.


Indonesia [2:17:06]:

Mr. President, we align ourselves with the statements by Uganda on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. Indonesia commends the President and members of the ICJ for their tireless work in discharging the Court's mandate. The latest report reflects not only the Court's record caseload and geographic reach, but also the growing faith of states in the power of law to resolve disputes peacefully. Allow me, therefore, to share three pertinent points First, upholding the rule of law as the foundation of peace. Indonesia reaffirms that the rule of law remains the bedrock of just and peaceful order. A strong and credible ICJ is indispensable to the maintenance of international law. We therefore join the call for all Member States to strengthen their commitment to the rule of law by faithfully implementing the judgments and advisory opinions of the Court. Law cannot lead if States don't follow. Second advisory opinion matters. This year marks a milestone in the Court's history. the issuance of its first advisory opinion on obligation of states in respect of climate change. It reminds us that the duty to protect our planet is not charity. It is an obligation under international law. Equally significant are the court's advisory proceeding related to the occupied Palestinian territory, reaffirming that Even amid the darkest crisis, the law must remain our collective North Star. The Court's voice lends hope that justice, not impunity, shall prevail. We welcome the Fort Fisher opinion as a moral and legal compass for the global community. Third, strengthening the Court, broadening access to justice. Indonesia supports efforts to ensure that the Court is adequately resourced, both financially and institutionally. We welcome the full approval of its 2025 budget and the proposed increase for 2026, a well-deserved investment in the world's highest judicial body. We also commend the Judicial Fellowship Program and its trust fund for young jurists from developing countries. By nurturing future generations of international lawyers, the Court invests in a more inclusive global justice system. In this spirit, Indonesia calls for more opportunities for international lawyers coming from non-English and non-French speaking countries to experience working at the Court. Indonesia firmly believes that multilingualism is the core value of the UN that should be fully respected. Our task is clear, to renew faith in the ICJ as the impartial guardian of the rule of law, a court accessible to all states, respected by all, and a resource to serve all. The scale of justice must balance the world, not deal with power. Mr. President, at this pivotal moment, as we memorialize eight decades of the UN, we must renew our collective vow to make the law as the first resort, not the last refuge of nations. It also reminds us that the pursuit of justice is not burdened, but a beacon lighting the path from conflict to cooperation. Indonesia stands ready to continue working with all member states to hold the authority of the court. to reinforce respect of each decision and to ensure that the rule of law remains at the heart of a reformed and revitalized multilateral system. I thank you, Mr. President.


GA · Vice-President [2:22:48]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Indonesia. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Costa Rica.


Costa Rica · Permanent Representative [2:23:05]:

Mr. President.

Distinguished President Iwasawa, Excellencies, Costa Rica thanks you for the presentation of the report of the International Court of Justice. We extend our recognition to President Iwasawa and to the judges for their solid, rigorous, and independent work at a time when the primacy of law faces growing tensions and challenges. As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the Court continues to demonstrate that it is a fundamental pillar for the peaceful settlement of disputes and the consolidation of the rule of law at the international level. Its legitimacy rests on its independence, its universal vocation, and its sustained contribution to the authoritative interpretation of international law. In that spirit, we would like to make four observations. First, despite limitations, the Court remains an impartial, effective and reliable forum for the peaceful settlement of disputes. The report shows a broad and diverse workload. from territorial and maritime delimitation to human rights, international responsibility, and the interpretation of treaties on genocide, torture, and diplomatic relations. This reflects the growing confidence that States place in its role. Costa Rica invites States that have not yet done so to consider accepting the Court's compulsory jurisdiction under Article 36 of its Statute, and encourages the inclusion of clauses in future treaties that prioritize the Court as a mechanism for dispute settlement. We also recall that full and timely compliance with the Court's decisions and provisional measures is an obligation derived from the Charter. Selective or conditional non-compliance undermines the authority of law and trust in the multilateral system. Second, Costa Rica welcomes the advisory opinion issued on the 23rd of July 2025 on the obligations of states regarding climate change. The court has provided legal clarity by confirming international obligations to protect the climate system from anthropogenic emissions, as well as developing the standard of due diligence and clarifying duties of cooperation and prevention of transboundary harm. Of particular importance The court reaffirms the recognition of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right, with implications for present and future generations. That clarity must now translate into financing, ambition and effective cooperation, especially for the most vulnerable countries, and above all, into action. The Court's advisory function, particularly on issues of global concern, demonstrates its role as the authoritative interpreter of international law and contributes to the coherence of the international legal system. Third, we must strengthen universal access to international justice. Not all States have the resources to litigate before the Court. Therefore, we value the Secretary-General's Trust Fund and invite its revitalization through new voluntary contributions. We also highlight the importance of expanding the Judicial Fellowship Program. which provides experience to young jurists from developing countries and enhances geographic and legal diversity. Investing in this program means investing in the future of international law. Fourthly, we highlight the Court's work in conflict prevention, dispute resolution, and the promotion of human dignity. To honour the Court means complying with its decisions, ensuring universal access, strengthening cooperation, and providing it with the resources necessary to carry out its mandate with independence and excellence. Ensuring these means is an investment in international justice, peace and security. In this regard, the increasing demand for the essential services that the Court provides also calls for modernizing procedures, using resources efficiently, and strengthening capacities, whilst also maintaining the quality of its work. Mr. President, on the 80th anniversary of the United Nations, The International Court of Justice reminds us that international law is not an abstract ideal, but rather a concrete guide to protect peoples, states and the planet. Costa Rica reaffirms its full confidence in the Court and in the primacy of law over force. The future of peace and sustainability will depend on our collective will to listen, comply and cooperate. The Court embodies the possibility that reason may prevail over force. Each judgment turns conflict into legal dialogue. Before it, States, both large and small, stand on an equal footing, subject only to the authority of law. This sovereign equality before the law constitutes the highest expression of our shared humanity. In a fragmented world, the Court remains the guardian of a promise that has endured through time. Law orders chaos and justice restrains arbitrariness. Thank you.


GA · Vice-President [2:30:22]:

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Costa Rica. And I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Switzerland.


Switzerland [2:30:40]:

Vice President, we thank you for the presentation of the International Court of Justice painting a picture of the activities completed this year. Once again, the Court was requested to perform a record amount of work that underscores states' trust in the Court, but also the international community's need to have a legal institution which is impartial and independent to resolve their disputes. Switzerland has long supported the Court's work. That support is in line with our foreign policy that aims to encourage the peaceful resolution of disputes and to promote the rule of law as well as international law. Bolstered by that conviction, Switzerland participated in the advisory procedure, which the Court dealt with this year. My delegation wishes to broach two aspects: the importance of advisory opinions and the need to recognize the Court's jurisdiction. Firstly, the possibility of issuing advisory opinions has allowed the Court over the last decade to be seized of legal matters that are crucial to the international community. The Charter states that the General Assembly can ask the Court to produce an advisory opinion on any legal matter. The fact that a question is also political in nature does not undermine the fact it is a legal matter. Turning now to the reason advisory opinion regarding Israel's obligations, we commend the clarification provided by the Court on the legal questions posed by the General Assembly. The procedure pertaining to states' obligations when it comes to climate change is also among crucial legal issues the Court examines. This meets global concerns regarding global public goods. In this regard, Switzerland is delighted to note the legal clarification provided by the Court that confirms the position that Switzerland has held during the procedure, primarily it is a question of the court's identification of law that is applicable alongside framework conventions on climate change, and namely customary ones. The court also recognizes that the Paris Accord is not entirely fixed in terms of developed and developing countries and their obligations, and that's based on work that the court has done, Switzerland is delighted to note that the court's observations were issued stating that the specific determination of states' responsibilities is beyond the scope of the advisory opinion and is not entirely fixed. That means that it's now complex to establish if a what a state has done or failed to do has actually caused and to what extent significant damage to climate systems. Secondly, in order to increase the support afforded to the court, Switzerland encourages states that haven't yet done so to recognize the court's jurisdiction through a declaration or to restrict the reservations it may have. We regret that the international community as a whole does not yet recognize the court's jurisdiction because that paves the way to undermine its universal jurisdiction. The recognition of the court's jurisdiction is a simple act which benefits the states that do so. It allows these states to base their work on declarations of the court if a dispute arises. that might prompt it to bring a case before the court, allow me to invoke the ideal of the first president of the permanent International Court of Justice in 1921. He spoke of a future in which states would realize that their well-being arise from the court's their recognition of the court's compulsory jurisdiction. The International Court of Justice needs to uphold these ideals that are more than a century old. Cooperation must take place in order to ensure that justice can thrive. The court's jurisdiction must be accepted. Thank.

You.


GA · Vice-President [2:35:50]:

Thank the distinguished representative of Switzerland. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Sierra Leone.


Sierra Leone · Permanent Representative [2:36:07]:

President, Sierra Leone warmly welcomes His Excellency, Judge Yuji Iwasawa, President of the International Court of Justice, and congratulates him on his election following the resignation of Judge Nawaf Salam, to whom we pay tribute for his distinguished service. We thank President Iwasawa for introducing the Court's report A/80/4. Sierra Leone Alliance's statement will be the statement delivered on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement by the distinguished representative of Uganda. At 80, United Nations and its Member States continue to rely on the International Court of Justice not only to settle disputes but to act as the organization's judicial conscience, clarifying the law, reinforcing the Charter's purposes and principles, and guiding the actions of organs and agencies across the system. As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the Court gives practical meaning to the Charter's promise that disputes will be settled by law and not by force. The ICJ's contribution to the UN is both foundational and forward-looking. Foundational because the court uncalls the charters architecture for the Pacific settlement of dispute. Through its contentious jurisdiction, states have a lawful pathway to resolve disagreement over territory, treaty interpretation, immunities, responsibility, and reparation. Forward-looking because the Court's advisory function equips the General Assembly, the Security Council, and competent specialized agencies with authoritative guidance on complex legal questions that cut across peace and security, human rights, development, climate, and humanitarian action. In a fragmented landscape, this combination Binding adjudication, where states consent and persuasive advisory opinions for institutional decision-making, promotes coherence in the UN's work and strengthens confidence that law can organize our common life. The Court's jurisprudence has become a shared reference for member states and for the UN family. Advisory opinions requested by the Assembly and other competent bodies have clarified legal parameters for state and for UN operations on humanitarian access, environmental protection, and the application of preemptive norms. When understood and internalized, this guidance improves state cooperation, the quality of an engagement and deliberations, informs secretariat reporting, and aligns programmatic work from peace operations to development programming. with the Charter and international law. In this way, the Court acts as a quiet architect of institutional integrity, helping to convert our values into workable standards for policy and practice. Three pillars enable the Court to play this systematic role: independence, diversity, and compliance. Judicial independence, supported by adequate and predictable resources, is a wellspring of legitimacy a bench that reflects the principal legal systems and the geographical breadth of our membership enriches deliberations and strengthen confidence in outcomes article 94 of the Charter imposes a clear Duty on member states to comply in good faith with the court's judgment however Selective compliance erodes the international law-based order to which we have all sworn fidelity. Sierra Leone urges all members to respect the Court's authority, engage with its processes in good faith, and give full effect to its decisions. The General Assembly can reinforce the Court's system-wide contribution in three practical ways. First, by encouraging broader acceptance of jurisdiction through Article 36 to declarations, compulsory clauses and special agreements so that lawful avenues for settlement are readily available when disputes ripen. Second, by making strategic targeted use of the advisory function where legal uncertainty impedes cooperation or implementation. Third, by investing in legal capacity, including support for the Judicial Fellowship Program and the Secretary-General's Trust Fund that assist states, particularly those with limited resources, to access the Court. Such investments yield more inclusive participation in international adjudication and deepen a culture of respect for the rule of law across the UN's work. As an elected member of the Security Council, Sierra Leone has consistently underscored the complementarity between the Council's responsibilities and the Court's functions, in line with the UN Charter. The Council's preventive mandate under Chapter VI gains strength when parties resort to judicial settlement, or when the Council encourages them to do so under Article 36 of the UN Charter. The Court's advisory opinion, in turn, illuminates the legal dimensions of the Council's agenda and helps shape principle, workable outcomes. This complementarity extends beyond the Council. ECOSOC's development aims, the Assembly's standard-setting role, and the work of specialized agencies all benefit when the ICJ clarifies obligations and sets legal baselines that the system can be operationalized. We therefore welcome the Court's continued high level of activity during the reporting period It delivered multiple orders, held public hearings, received new contentious cases, and registered a request for advisory opinion. As of September 2025, the general list has surpassed 200 matters. Ongoing proceedings, including South Africa versus Israel on the Genocide Convention, Mexico versus Ecuador on embassy premises, and Nicaragua versus Germany genocide prevention, weapons supply, and UNRWA funding, illustrate both the breadth of issues before the Court and states' confidence in judicial settlement as a pillar of peaceful settlement of dispute. We particularly note the delivery of several judgments and two advisory opinions in this period, including the 23rd July 2025 advisory opinion on states' obligations regarding climate change, a landmark for climate justice, and the 22nd October 2025 advisory opinion concerning obligations related to the presence and activities of the United Nations, other international organizations, and third states in relation to occupied Palestinian territory, reaffirming core duties of an occupying power, including to facilitate humanitarian relief. Disregard for the Court's pronouncements undermines the international legal order. And the human stakes of compliance are evident in the devastations wrought by extreme weather events in our own era, including Hurricane Melissa and the devastation in Cuba, Haiti, and Jamaica. President Salieu's journey from conflict to peace and from peace to nation building has strengthened our conviction that durable peace rests on law. We therefore attach the highest importance to a strong, independent, and representative International Court of Justice. In that spirit, Sierra Leone has nominated Professor Charles Cherno Jalloh for election to the Court, to be held concurrently in the General Assembly and the Security Council on 12 November 2025. Sierra Leone is grateful to Burkina Faso, Canada, Czechia, Ecuador, Liechtenstein, and South Africa, as well as the national groups for co-nominating Professor Jalloh. A jurist of recognized competence with distinguished scholarship and practical experience across criminal, public, and institutional international law, Professor Jalloh's record of service to international law and multilateralism, including during his nine years of excellent service in the International Law Commission will enrich court deliberations and advance its geographic and legal diversity. Sustained confidence in the court depends on the quality and universality of its bench. The statute requires judges of high moral character with qualifications for the highest judicial offices or recognized competence in international law. and direct Member States to ensure in the Court as a body representative of the main forms of civilizations and the principal legal systems of the world. Trained in both common law and civil law traditions and hailing from West Africa, a subregion currently unrepresented on the bench, Professor Jalloh embodies these standards and will help realize the balance envisaged in Article 9. We pay tribute to Judge Abdul Karim Ahmed Yusuf for his stellar service, including as President of the Court, and we thank Member States for their favourable consideration of Professor Jaloh's candidature in support of a bench that truly reflects the universality of our United Nations. In closing, President, and looking ahead, our collective task now is to keep faith with the Charter, by ensuring that the ICJ remains accessible, authoritative, and central to relations among states and to the UN's work by broadening consent to jurisdiction, using advisory opinions to clarify cross-cutting questions, resourcing the court responsibly, and strengthening pathways for developing countries' participation, as well as complying in good faith with its decisions. Sierra Leone will continue to support the court promote universal respect for its judgments and opinions, and champion candidates who safeguard its independence and excellence. So the Charter's promise, and I quote, "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," end of quote, becomes a lived reality for all. I thank you.


GA · Vice-President [2:47:31]:

I thank the distinguished permanent representative of Sierra Leone. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Israel.


Israel [2:47:52]:

Thank you, Mr. President. We acknowledge the presentation by President Iwasawa of the report of the General Assembly on the activities of International Court of Justice between August 1st, 2024 and July 31st, 2025. The State of Israel is honored to present a statement regarding the Court's annual report. Mr. President, The State of Israel attaches great importance to the peaceful settlement of disputes, and our commitment to upholding the rule of law is unwavering. We recognize the significant role designated to the Court in advancing these goals. We also respect the Court's advisory function when exercised in a manner consistent with its Statute. However, When the court's contentious and advisory mechanisms are exploited by irresponsible actors seeking to advance narrow political agendas that are completely removed from the purposes for which the court was established, the peaceful resolution of dispute is not advanced and the rule of law is not strengthened. Moreover, when the court fails to enforce the fundamental principles upon which its jurisdiction was founded, and when it does not utilize the safeguards that could prevent or at the very least minimize exploitation by bad faith actors, the continued abuse of the court's legal mechanisms is incentivized. As a result, international law is weakened and the role and integrity of the court are compromised. Mr. President, Over the course of recent years, and particularly in the past two years, we have witnessed with grave concern the continued and increasing misuse of the Court's legal mechanisms by actors intent not on advancing the rule of law, but rather on pursuing political anti-Israel agendas. In this regard, We know the shameful manipulations of false and distorted narratives in order to cynically exploit the state of Israel's unreserved concern to the court's jurisdiction under the convention of the prevention and punishment of the crimes of genocide. In addition, we recall the increasing use of the court's provisional measures in an attempt to exploit its fast track mechanism to sidestep due process. This is especially problematic given the extremely low evidentiary threshold in provisional measures proceedings. As has been repeatedly emphasized by presidents of the Court, such requests, which are given priority over the cases, should not be used as a litigation tactic to advance arguments on the merits of pending proceedings. We also note with dismay the responsible attempt by certain actors to distort and expand fundamental principles of international law with no legal basis. These actors seek to reinvent the law concerning situations which are still unfolding in order to gain an unjust advantage and maximize political capital rather than promote legal clarity. Mr. President, It is in this context that Israel and others have expressed grave reservations regarding the advisory opinion issued by the Court last week. As Israel has repeatedly stated, these proceedings went far beyond the purview of the Court in advisory proceedings. They sidestepped Israel's lack of consent and delved into contentious factual matters, some of which are sub judice in contentious cases pending before the court without any appropriate fact-finding or evidentiary processes. This advisory proceeding, flawed and biased from the outset, represented yet another political attempt to impose measures against Israel in the guise of international law. Mr. President, the fact that the advisory opinion ignores October 7th massacre almost entirely and only chose to address it in one brief paragraph over the course of more than 70 pages speaks volume. Israel categorically rejects the advisory opinion, particularly its conclusions concerning UNRWA. We must not forget that UNRWA employees directly took part in the October 7th massacre. We should remember that Hamas' central server farm, serving its intelligence command center, was uncovered directly beneath UNRWA headquarters in Gaza and connected to UNRWA electricity supply. UNRWA continues to employ hundreds of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists, all under the auspices of the United Nations. Hamas terror activity within UNRWA took place before, during, and after the October 7th massacre, a heinous act of mass terrorism consisting of wide-scale international crimes. And yet, the United Nations failed to address this fiasco. The majority opinion of the court, unfortunately, completely ignored the outrageous revelations present by Israel in this regard. Mr. President, we will never forget Hamas atrocities on October 7th. We are here to remind us all that the children, women, and men killed on that day and the 251 people taken into Gaza as hostages, tortured and held in inhuman conditions. We will not allow the world to forget the 11 fallen hostages who are yet to be returned to Israel. We call for their immediate and unconditional return in accordance with the ceasefire agreement and international law. Mr. President, if the Court is to preserve its legitimacy, it must not become yet another political forum. If it is to maintain its credibility as an impartial, unbiased and neutral justice body, It must not be cynically exploited, and it must not allow the subversion of its legal mechanisms for political purposes and political aims. This is, first and foremost, a challenge for the Court to address, but it's also our responsibility as UN member states and parties to the Court's statute to continue to insist that the appropriate safeguards are in place and utilized. In this connection, We look forward to the next month's judicial elections. We recognize the crucial function which judges of the Court may fill and wish to re-emphasize the importance of electing judges of the highest moral character and professional standards, committed to fulfilling their role impartially and with integrity. Mr. President, the international legal system is currently facing almost unprecedented challenges threatening its most fundamental principles. Only if we act together with the clear aim of pursuing justice and protecting the law, its institutions, can we hope to ensure that this critical system endures. We must not lose sight of this all-important goal. I thank you, Mr. President.


GA · Vice-President [2:55:33]:

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


China [2:55:57]:

Thank you, Mr. President. The Chinese delegation expresses its appreciation to President Iwasawa for his report on the work of the ICJ and pays tribute to all the judges and the staff of the Registry for their diligence in the performance of their duties over the past year. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the founding of the UN and the 80th anniversary of the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War. The establishment of the UN was a significant outcome of that victory, setting forth a historical process of nations building the post-war international order and pursuing peaceful development. Over the past 80 years, the international system with the UN at its core and the international order based on international law have made historic contributions to maintaining world peace and development. As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and the most authoritative international judicial institution, the ICJ has exerted significant influence and made remarkable contributions throughout this process. This is due to the collective efforts of the entire international community, and it represents a triumph of genuine multilateralism. In recent years, the number of cases before the Court has remained at a historically high level, covering areas such as international peace and security, diplomatic relations, territorial and maritime demarcations, and the interpretation and application of international treaties, all of which are vital issues of international law and matters of common concern to all humanity. Under the reporting period of the report, the court received four new contentious cases and one case seeking advisory opinion, delivered three judgments, one advisory opinion, and 16 orders while continuing to work on 24 other cases. Never before has the court's judicial activity been accorded such high regard and received such active participation by states nor has its task in the peaceful settlement of disputes been as arduous and demanding as it is today. The Court's handling of each case not only directly affects the interests of the parties involved, but also has a bearing on the authority and the seriousness of the international law. This is an honor, but above all, it is a weighty responsibility to reckon with. Mr. President, this year, the International Court of Justice has twice issued advisory opinions on significant issues of international law. Last week, the Court issued its advisory opinion relating to Palestinian humanitarian access, explicitly confirming Israel's obligation to cooperate with the UN and its agencies to ensure humanitarian access. for the people in the occupied Palestinian territory. This is in addition to the court's advisory opinion relating to the occupied Palestinian territory issued last year. It has once again demonstrated the court's proactive response to global concerns and expectations through upholding fairness and justice. This opinion has been welcomed and affirmed by the overwhelming majority of states. China participated extensively in the written oral proceedings of the case. of this process where we comprehensively articulated our position on key issues of international law. We expect the international community to be guided by the Court's advisory opinion to effectively alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Palestine and make unremitting efforts to promote a comprehensive, just, and lasting solution to the Palestinian question at an early date. In July this year, the Court issued an advisory opinion on climate change, stating that the system of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the primary legal instrument for the international community to address climate change at the global level. It affirmed that the principle of common but differentiated responsibility to sustainable development and equity are guiding principles for integrating and applying relevant international law. The court emphasized that developed countries must take the lead in addressing climate change and stressed that all countries have an obligation to strengthen international cooperation. We have China commends these pronouncements. Meanwhile, we have also noted that there remain different views among the parties and the court on certain legal aspects of climate change. China's position has been fully articulated through written and oral submission in the case. We will continue to work with all parties to resolutely uphold the objectives, principles, and institutional arrangements of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, continuously strengthen international cooperation and practical actions on climate change, and to advance global climate governance in a manner that is steady and sustainable. Mr. President, 80 years after the founding of the United Nations, today, unilateralism is rearing its ugly head, and the world is facing a succession of global challenges. How to reform and improve global governance has become a major issue that the international community has to grapple with. Against this backdrop, China's President Xi Jinping solemnly put forward the global governance initiative, laying special emphasis on adhering to the rule of law in international relations. China expects the court to continue its judicial activities in steadfastly upholding the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and other universally recognized basic norms of international relations, ensuring equal and uniform application of international law and rules, and safeguarding the authority and seriousness of international law. permanent member of the Security Council and a responsible major country, China will continue to support the Court in performing its duties in accordance with the law, support the Court in obtaining commensurate resources and assistance, and support the Court in playing an important role in upholding multilateralism, defending the rule of law, and improving global governance. Thank you, Mr. President.


GA · Vice-President [3:02:09]:

I thank the distinguished representative of China. I now give the floor to the last speaker of this segment, the distinguished representative of Brazil.


Brazil [3:02:36]:

Mr. President, Brazil thanks the President of the International Court of Justice for his comprehensive report on the activities of the Court. We also express our appreciation for the work of the judges of the court, who continue to play a central role in promoting the peaceful settlement of disputes and providing authoritative interpretations of international law. As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice is the embodiment of a noble ideal, the attainment of peace through justice. It represents the commitment undertaken by all member states to forsake the use of force as a means to settle their disputes. This year's report on the court's activities is a testament to this fact. 122 states took part in activities during the period in review, ranging from bilateral disputes to advisory proceedings. These figures illustrate the continued confidence placed by the international community in the work of the Court. They attest the fundamental importance of international law as a normative framework of international relations, ensuring peace, stability, and security through the imperative of justice. They also show how States remain engaged in the collective development of international law, including by collaborating with the legal reasoning of the Court. Judicial decisions remain a subsidiary means for the determination of the rules of law. At the same time, the enlarged participation of States in contentious and advisory proceedings further increases the legitimacy, credibility and authority of the Court's rulings. It also underscores the states-led nature of the development of international law. The Court also plays a key role in spelling out the law in a cohesive and comprehensive manner, especially where fragmentation is likely. As the primary international court, the ICJ bears a special duty to provide states with authoritative guidance. including on emerging issues, contributing to a consolidated and harmonious international legal order. Mr. President, promoting respect for international law also involves training qualified legal professionals. This is why Brazil commends the Court for its Judicial Fellowship Program, which offers young graduates an invaluable opportunity to develop their expertise in international law at the Court. Established in 2021, the Trust Fund to foster the participation of candidates from developing countries in the Fellowship Program was a welcome step. It ensures the participation of a wider range of professionals from different nationalities. Brazil hopes that the number of nationals from developing countries in the program's cohorts will be increased in the coming years. Mr. President, the intense activity of the Court depicted in the report is regrettably in contrast with the countless violations of international law taking place around the world. Today, we witness multiplying breaches of international humanitarian law, the unlawful threat and use of force, and the use of illegal and illegitimate unilateral coercive measures in violation of the sovereignty of states, amongst other unlawful acts. This alarming trend is rooted in the reckless belief that self-interests can be served by trampling international law and disregarding the UN Charter. But this could not be farther from the truth. Unilateralism serves no one. By breeding instability, aggressiveness, and mistrust, it can only give rise to injustice. We must recommit to the principles and purposes that enabled the creation of this organization and the establishment of the International Court of Justice. As we discuss the Court's annual report, let us remind ourselves of our obligations under the UN Charter to settle our disputes through peaceful means, as well as our duty to comply with the Court's binding orders. including those that determine provisional measures. A commitment to justice is a commitment to peace. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


GA · Vice-President [3:07:33]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil. Distinguished delegates, we have heard the last speaker in the debate in this item for this meeting. We shall hear the remaining speakers tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. in this hall after the consideration of the other items listed in the Journal of the United Nations. The exercise of the right of reply has been requested. May I remind the members that the statements in exercise of the right of reply are limited to 10 minutes for the first intervention and to five minutes for the second intervention, and should be made by delegations from their seats. Now I call upon the representative of Iran to make his statement.


Iran (Islamic Republic of) [3:08:39]:

Thank you, Mr. President. We regret that the Ukrainian delegation decided to politicize this meeting. We categorically reject unsubstantiated allegations by the representative of Ukraine made against my country earlier today. Mr. President, following the accident of the Ukraine International Airline Flight PS752, the relevant authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran publicly announced the main cause of the accident, which was an unintentional chain of errors. Since then, Iran has made every effort and taken all feasible measures to fulfill its national and international obligations in good faith, and has endeavored to act safely, accurately, transparently, and constructively in that regard.

In this respect, we would like to draw attention to the official.

Statements of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran in this regard.

I thank you.


GA · Vice-President [3:09:33]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Iran. There is no request for any further floors. The Assembly has thus concluded at this stage of its consideration of the agenda item 73. The meeting is adjourned.