General Assembly: 29th plenary meeting, 81st session
General Assembly
Date: 29 October 2026
Language: English
Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/en/ga/81/29
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 · PGA [18:53]:

A very good morning to all of you. The 29th plenary meeting of the General Assembly is called to order. The Assembly will begin its consideration of agenda item 72, entitled "Report of the International Court of Justice" to hold a debate on this item. I will now make a statement as the President of the General Assembly. Your Excellency Judge Aya Sawa Yugi, President of the International Court of Justice, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, Let me first welcome President Ayasawa-san to the General Assembly and thank the Court for its report. Eighty years after it began its work, the International Court of Justice remains indispensable to realizing the promise of our Charter that States settle their disputes peacefully in conformity with international law. That promise is not an aspiration for quieter times. It's an obligation for the most difficult ones. Today, as conflicts deepen and trust erodes, the court offers a path from confrontation to adjudication. Through independent and impartial proceedings, it clarifies rights and obligations. strengthens legal certainty and gives practical expression to the sovereign equality of States. Before the law, the strength of an argument must matter more than the power of its author. Excellencies, the report demonstrates both the breadth of the Court's mandate and the confidence placed in it. During the reporting period, 88 States participated. to varying extents in contentious or advisory proceedings. As of 31st July, 2026, the journal list comprised 24 contentious cases spanning territorial disputes, racial discrimination, diplomatic obligations, and allegations of genocide. The court delivered one judgment and two advisory opinions alongside 16 orders issued by the court or its president. These are more than indicators of workload. They reflect the continuing demand for peaceful settlement and authoritative legal guidance. The advisory opinions delivered during this period address the right to strike under ILO Convention No. 87, demonstrating the breadth of its advisory function beyond traditional questions of territory, borders, peace and security. By clarifying that the right to strike is protected under the ILO Convention, the Court has provided critical legal guidance on a fundamental aspect of international labour law. Its opinion offers a valuable foundation for continued dialogue between governments, employees and workers, and for strengthening the interpretation and application of international labour standards. as we saw it in the Court's landmark 2025 advisory opinion on states' obligations in respect of climate change, illustrating the increasingly diverse areas of international law in which the Court is called upon to provide guidance. The opinion provides an important legal foundation for advancing collective climate action, clarifying the responsibilities of states under international law. It offers a pathway toward stronger international cooperation, greater accountability, and more effective protection for those communities most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The Court's work makes it clear that justice is not separate from peace, development, and human rights. It helps sustain all three. Excellencies, the theme of this session of the General Assembly is restoring trust and managing transformation. Restoring trust requires institutions that deliver and Member States that honor their commitments. For international justice, this means three things. First, we need to safeguard the Court's independence. Judicial decisions must rest on law and evidence, free from political pressure. Respect for the court cannot depend on whether a particular outcome suits national interests. Second, we should match the court's responsibilities with resources. The growing complexity of proceedings places substantial demands on judges and the registry. Adequate, predictable funding and appropriate institutional capacity are essential to the sound administration of justice. Supporting the court is not merely financing an institution; it's investing in an alternative to confrontation. There can be scope for member states to consider a budget proposal of a modest increase to improve their working methods of the court and its registry through technology, moving the court to the fore of our changing world. Third, we should translate legal obligations into action. Article 94 of the United Nations Charter requires member states to comply with the court's decisions in cases to which they are parties. Binding judgments and orders indicating provisional measures must be respected and implemented. Advisory opinions are generally not binding as such, but the international legal obligations they clarify must not be treated as optional. Selective compliance corrodes trust. Consistent compliance reinforces it. I also encourage states to consider accepting the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction and making fuller use of judicial settlement. Excellencies, a United Nations that delivers for all must uphold a legal order that protects all, large and small, powerful and vulnerable alike. Our task is not to shield international law from difficult questions; it is to ensure that complex questions are addressed through international law. Let us honor the Court's eight decades of service by safeguarding its independence, strengthen its capacity, and giving effect to its decisions. The measure of our commitment lies not in the praise we offer here, but in the obligations we honor beyond this hall. This is how justice becomes a living force. I thank you. I now have the honor to give the floor to Judge Ayassa Yugi, President of the International Court of Justice.


ICJ · President [26:36]:

Mr. President, Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates, It is an honour to address you today for the final time during my presidency as the General Assembly considered the annual report of the International Court of Justice. I wish to express my sincere thanks to the Assembly for its continued interest in the work of the Court. I recall that this important tradition of giving the President of the Court the opportunity to provide a yearly overview of the Court’s judicial activities began in 1968 and has since proved to be a very useful way for these two sister organs of the United Nations to maintain direct contact. At the outset, I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate His Excellency Dr. Halilur Rahman on his election as President of the 81st session of this eminent assembly and to wish him every success in his distinguished role. On behalf of the Court, I would like to express my deep appreciation for your kind words about the work of the Court. Before turning to the crux of my speech, let me first highlight the fact that this year, the International Court of Justice has marked its 80th anniversary, an important milestone in the life of our institution and one that has inspired the Court to engage in self-reflection, to renew its commitment to progress and to redouble its outreach efforts aimed at disseminating information about its work and mandate. In this spirit, the Court held a solemn sitting on the 17th of April, 2026, to commemorate the 80th anniversary of its inaugural session in the presence of His Majesty, the King of the Netherlands, the Secretary General of the United Nations, the former President of the General Assembly, and other eminent guests. On the same day, the Court launched the Judicial Fellows Alumni Association to further consolidate the sense of community and shared experience among current and past participants in the Judicial Fellowship Program. Let me recall that the purpose of this yearly program is to give 15 to 16 talented young law graduates from various universities around the world the chance to hone their knowledge and skills at the seat of the Court. In addition, in honor of the Court's 80th anniversary, a special illustrated book entitled "The International Court of Justice: 80 Years in the Service of Peace and Justice" was published. I recall that later today, at the Trusteeship Council, a publication entitled "The International Court of Justice at 80: An Inside View" will also be officially launched. This publication provides insights from current and former members of the Court, judges ad hoc, and registry officials into the challenges faced by the Court and its enduring relevance as a forum of choice for the international community to seek peaceful dispute resolution through law. Finally, I should mention that a dedicated photo exhibition has been installed in the visitors' lobby of the General Assembly building. This exhibition offers illustrative snapshots of the Court's jurisprudence over the years. Indeed, it has always been important to the Court, as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, to organize outreach activities, both at the Peace Palace in The Hague and at the organization's headquarters in New York. I will now, as is traditional, present a succinct review of the judicial activities of the Court over the past year. States from all four corners of the globe continue to bring a wide variety of legal disputes to the Court. As of 1 August 2025, the starting date of the period covered by the Court’s annual report, there were 25 cases on the Court’s docket. Over the course of the year, the number of cases has remained at a record high, with 24 contentious cases currently pending. Their interstate disputes cover a wide range of legal issues, such as land and maritime boundaries delimitation, human rights, economic relations, immunities, as well as the interpretation and application of the treaties dealing with a variety of subjects. Since my address to you last October, one new contentious case has been brought before the Court. On the 26th of June 2026, the Democratic Republic of the Congo instituted proceedings against Rwanda with regard to a dispute concerning alleged violation of human rights by Rwanda on the territory of the DRC over a period extending from 1996 to the present day. Mr. President, Since the 1st of August, 2025, the Court has held hearings in five cases and has rendered one judgment on intervention and two advisory opinions. In addition, it has issued one order on a request for indication of provisional measures and one order on the admissibility of counterclaims. It has also rendered a number of orders on time limits, as well as an order on discontinuance. The Court is currently deliberating on the merits of two cases, namely, the case concerning application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, The Gambia v. Myanmar, 11 States intervening, and the case concerning the arbitral award of 3 October 1899, Guyana v. Venezuela, and on the preliminary objections raised in the case concerning alleged breaches of certain international obligations in respect of the occupied Palestinian territory, Nicaragua v. Germany. As is customary, I will now give a brief account of the judgments and advisory opinions delivered, as well as the substantive orders made during the period under review. I would recall that during my address to the Assembly last October, I previously gave a summary of the advisory opinion dated 22nd of 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 relation to the occupied Palestinian territory. I will therefore begin with the judgment on intervention rendered on the 19th of March 2026 in the case concerning sovereignty over the Sapodilla Keys, Cayos Zapotillos, Belize versus Honduras. This case concerns a small group of maritime features in the Caribbean, known as the Sapodilla Keys or Cayos Zapotillos. Belize and Honduras are the parties to the case, and each has claimed sovereignty over the keys. Guatemala, which has a separate case pending against Belize concerning territorial issues, including sovereignty over those keys, asked the court for permission to intervene. In practical terms, Guatemala wished to make sure that its own claimed interest in the keys would not be prejudiced by a judgment in the case between Belize and Honduras. In its judgment on Guatemala's application for permission to intervene, the Court examined Guatemala's request under Article 62 of the Statute and Article 81 of the Court's Rules. Article 62 allows a State, which is not a party to a case, to request permission to intervene if it considers that it has an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the decision in the case. Moreover, as the Court explained, under Article 81 of the Rules, it falls to the State seeking to intervene to set out, first, the interest of a legal nature which it considers might be affected by the decision; second, the precise object of its intervention; and third, any basis of jurisdiction set to exist as between it and the parties to the case. On the first point, the Court found that Guatemala had identified a sufficiently concrete legal interest. In particular, it noted that the central issue in the proceedings between Belize and Honduras was sovereignty over the Sapodilla Keys, Cayos Zapotillos, and that Guatemala also claimed an interest in that same territory in its separate case with Belize. The Court therefore considered that the future judgment on sovereignty and on related fishing rights in the surrounding waters could affect Guatemala's legal position, even though Guatemala was not a party to the case. The Court also addressed the argument that Article 59 of the Statute already protects the interest of third states because a judgment is binding only on the parties to the case. The Court clarified that Article 59 does not render intervention meaningless and deprive Article 62 of the Statute of any useful effect. A judgment may be binding only between the parties, but it can still have practical or legal consequences for a third state's interest. Article 62 exists precisely to give such a state an opportunity to protect those interests before the Court gives its decision. On the second point, regarding the precise object of the intervention, the Court emphasized that intervention is not a way of bringing a new case through the back door. A State that intervenes may not transform the original dispute or introduce a separate dispute between different parties. In this case, however, the Guatemala stated object was limited. It wished to inform the Court of the nature and extent of its claimed legal interest in the Zapotilla Keys, Cayos Zapotillos, and to protect that interest. The Court found that this object was sufficiently connected to the subject of the main dispute and did not amount to a new claim against Belize or Honduras. Turning to the third point, the Court considered whether Guatemala needed to establish a separate jurisdictional link with the parties to the case. In this regard, it distinguished between intervention as a party and intervention as a non-party. A state that intervenes as a party must establish an autonomous basis of jurisdiction. By contrast, a state that intervenes as a non-party is not required to establish such a jurisdictional link. The Court concluded that Guatemala should be considered as seeking to intervene only as a non-party. The absence of jurisdiction link between Guatemala and Honduras, therefore, did not prevent the intervention. Finally, the Court did not accept Honduras' argument that Guatemala's application should be rejected since it constituted an abuse of process. In particular, Honduras emphasized the existence of two parallel sets of proceedings, and contended that Guatemala's application was contrary to the general principles of procedural law. The Court explained that the authority entrusted to it under Article 62 of its statute was one of objective assessment. Having found that the conditions laid down in the Statute and Rules of Court have been met, the Court concluded that it had no discretion to reject Guatemala’s application. The Court accordingly permitted Guatemala to intervene as a non-party pursuant to Article 62 of the Statute. The intervention was limited to the issue of sovereignty over the Sapodilla Keys Cayos Zapotillos, including fishing rights in the waters surrounding these maritime features. As a result, Guatemala may present its views to the Court on those matters, where the case itself remains one between Belize and Honduras. I shall now turn to the advisory opinion rendered on the 21st of May, 2026, in the proceedings on the question of the right to strike under ILO Convention No. 87. By a resolution adopted by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office, on 10 November 2023, the Court was asked to determine whether the right to strike of workers and their organization is protected under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948, No. 87. The international community expressed much interest in this question, with over 30 participants taking part in the written proceedings, as well as 18 States and five international organizations presenting oral statements. With reference to the rules of interpretation and Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a provision understood to reflect customary international law, the Court began by addressing the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of Convention No. 87. It first observed that Convention No. 87 does not contain an explicit reference to the right to strike. However, in the Court's view, the absence of an express treaty provision governing a certain issue did not necessarily mean that the issue was excluded from the treaty. The Court then recalled That Article 2 of Convention No. 87 provides that, I quote, "Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish, and subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, to join organizations of their own choosing," end of quote. Article 3, paragraph 1, further provides that, I quote, "Workers and employers' organizations shall have the right to draw up their constitution and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organize their administration and activities, and to formulate their programs." End of quote. The Court considered that the wording of this provision indicates ways in which the rights accorded to workers' and employers' organizations are exercised. This includes not only internal negotiation and adoption of constitutional rules, and election of representatives, but also broader powers enabling workers' and employers' organizations to decide on matters relating to their administration, as well as to activities to be performed and programs to be formulated and implemented in both internal and external context. The Court further notes that Article 10 of Convention 87 defines the term “organization” as, I quote, “any organization of workers or of employers for furthering and defending the interest of workers or of employers." End of quote. In the Court's opinion, a reading of these three provisions together, in good faith, and in accordance with their ordinary meaning, suggest that under Convention No. 87, workers and employers have the right to create and join organizations for the purpose of furthering and defending their respective interests, including to organize their activities and programs to pursue that purpose. The Court noted that Convention No. 87 does not include definitions of the terms "activities" and "programs," both of which are referred to in Article 3, paragraph 1. The ordinary meaning of the term "activities", which generally encompasses any action taken to pursue an objective, and of the term "programs", which generally means a set of planned actions pursued to achieve a result, is broad and encompasses the various dimensions of the activities and programs of workers' organizations. The term strike generally means an activity consisting of a temporary work stoppage or slowdown willfully effected by one or more groups of workers with a view to enforcing or resisting demands or expressing or supporting grievances. Consequently, the Court considered that when Article 3, paragraph 1 is read in conjunction with Articles 2 and 10 of the Convention, it suggests that strike action is capable of falling within the ordinary meaning of the term "activities" and thus within the scope of Convention No. 87. The Court next considered whether the object and purpose of the Convention No. 87 reinforced that reading. Observing that the stated aim of the Convention was to guarantee freedom of association as a means of improving labour conditions and achieving sustained progress, the Court noted: The strike action was one of the main activities engaged in and tools used by workers and their organizations to that end. The Court concluded from the foregoing analysis that the ordinary meaning of the relevant terms of the Convention, read in good faith, in their context, and in light of the object and purpose of the Treaty, indicates that protection of the right to strike is encompassed in the protection of the freedom of association provided for in Convention No. 87. The Court then considered whether there was any subsequent practice establishing the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation. In this context, the Court noted that the ILO supervisory bodies namely, the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations and the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, had progressively recognized the right to strike as being protected under Convention No. 87. The Court sought to determine whether the interpretation adopted by the ILO supervisory bodies had elicited any relevant reaction from the State Parties to Convention No. 87, and whether such reactions established the agreement of the Parties. In the Court's view, the fact that a number of States Parties had expressed clear opposition to the interpretation according to which Convention No. 87 protects the right to strike, precluded the conclusion that there exists subsequent practice which establishes the agreement of the parties on this point. The next step in the Court’s interpretative process was to take into account any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties to Convention No. 87. The Court clarified that such rules do not necessarily have to be binding on all parties to the treaty under interpretation in order to be taken into account. It would suffice for a rule to express the common understanding of the parties regarding certain provision of that treaty. In this connection, the Court focused on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which include provisions covering the right to strike, observing that there was a high degree of overlap between the State parties to Convention No. 87 and the State parties to both 1966 covenants. With regard to the handful of non-parties to either covenant, the Court noted that the conduct of the States concerned appeared to align with the position under these instruments regarding the right to strike. The Court further noted that, with respect to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in particular, no relevant reservations or objections have been made by the parties to the Covenant concerning its provision on the right to strike. The Court concluded that an interpretation taking into account the relevant rules of international law contained in the two 1966 Covenants indicated that the protection of the right to strike is encompassed in the protection of the freedom of association guaranteed by Convention No. 87. Finally, the Court took into account the supplementary means of interpretation provided for in Article 32 of the Vienna Convention in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of Article 31. It examined the trouble perpétuel of Convention No. 87, the subsequent practice of the parties, the pronouncement of the ILO supervisory bodies, and the relevant regional instruments and related jurisprudence of regional courts, as well as pronouncement of other regional bodies. The Court considered that With the exception of the trouble of convention number 87, whose examination led to an inconclusive result, the supplementary means of interpretation taken into consideration by the court in accordance with article 32 of the Vienna Convention, confirmed the conclusion reached by it through its interpretation based on article 31, namely, that the right to strike is protected under Convention No. 87. In conclusion, the Court answered the question put to it by the International Labour Office in the affirmative: the right to strike is protected under Convention No. 87. It added the caveat that this finding does not entail any determination on the precise content scope, or conditions for the exercise of that right. As I mentioned earlier, in addition to these rulings, the Court rendered two substantive orders. During my speech to you last autumn, I had the opportunity to provide a summary of the first of these orders, namely, the order dated 12 September 2025 in the case concerning request relating to the return of property confiscated in criminal proceedings, Equatorial Guinea v. France, in which the applicant’s request for the indication of provisional measures was rejected. Second decision relates to the case concerning allegations of genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Ukraine v. Russian Federation. In particular, by an order dated 5 December 2025, the Court considered the admissibility of the counterclaims made by the Russian Federation in the case. The Court began by noting that under Article 80, paragraph one of its rules, it may entertain a counterclaim only if two requirements are met, namely, that the counterclaim comes within the jurisdiction of the Court and that it is strictly connected with the subject matter of the claim of the other party. With regard to the With regard to jurisdiction, the Court recalled that its jurisdiction in the case was founded on Article 9 of the Genocide Convention. It observed that in order to establish whether counterclaims came within its jurisdiction, it needed to examine whether the conditions set out in that provision had been satisfied. The Court further recalled that in its judgment of 2 February 2024, on the preliminary objections raised by the Respondent, it concluded that it had jurisdiction on the basis of Article 9 of the Genocide Convention to entertain one of Ukraine’s submissions, namely the request that the Court adjudge and declare that there is no credible evidence that Ukraine is responsible for committing genocide in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine. In its order of 5 December 2025, the Court noted that the Russian Federation also relied on Article 9 of the Genocide Convention to found the Court’s jurisdiction in respect of its counterclaims, in which it alleged that Ukraine had violated its obligations under Article 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Convention. Ukraine denied these allegations. The Court considered that there exists a dispute between the parties as to which Ukraine had violated its obligations under the said provisions. This dispute concerns the interpretation, application, or fulfilment of the Genocide Convention. The Court thus concluded that the Russian Federation’s counterclaims came within its jurisdiction under Article 9 of the Convention. Regarding the requirement of a direct connection between the counterclaim and the principal claim, the Court recalled that in its previous decisions, It had taken into consideration a range of factors that could establish a direct connection, in fact and in law, between a counterclaim and the principal claim. With respect to the question of connection in fact, the court considered that the parties' respective claims related to the same factual complex and that there was a direct connection, in fact, between them. The Court noted that the Russian Federation intended to rely, for the most part, on the same evidence in order both to refute Ukraine's claim and to substantiate its own counterclaims. With respect to the question of connection in law, the Court noted that both parties relied in their respective claims on the same instrument, the Genocide Convention. The Court recalled that the specific provisions or legal principles invoked by each party need not be identical in order for the requirement of a direct connection law to be satisfied. Further, the Court considered that the applicant and the respondent pursued the same legal aim, namely to establish whether Ukraine is responsible for violating its obligations under the Genocide Convention. The fact that the applicant sought primarily a declaratory judgment, while the respondent invoked Ukraine's international responsibility for the violation of various provisions of the Genocide Convention, did not alter this conclusion. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Russian Federation's counterclaims were admissible as such. Ukraine argued that, even if the Russian Federation's counterclaims could satisfy the requirement for admissibility, the Court should nevertheless refuse to entertain them in what it described as the exceptional circumstances of the case before the Court. The Russian Federation, for its part, contended that the Court did not have discretion to decline to entertain a counterclaim that was admissible as such. The Court considered that in the circumstances of the case, the sound administration of justice and the interest of procedural economy called for the simultaneous consideration of the counterclaims and the principal claim. Mr. President, I would also like to inform the General Assembly that the Court has recently adopted amendments to Articles 50 and 56 of its Rules and to several of its Practice Directions concerning the submission of documents in proceedings before the Court. The Court takes every care to periodically review its existing rules and practices, and the present amendments aim at clarifying the framework governing the treatment of evidence. In particular, the widespread availability of documents online had made it increasingly difficult to apply the existing distinction between documents produced as annexes and publications considered readily available, to which parties could refer in the oral proceedings, even though they had not been annexed to their written pleadings or otherwise produced. This raised questions as to which documents actually form part of the case file and could properly be relied upon by the parties. At the same time, the Court has sought to address the increasing volume of annexes submitted with written pleadings. The category of readily available publications have been removed, so that under the new version of these provisions, it is made clear that documents relied upon as evidence must be annexed to the written pleadings or otherwise produced in accordance with the Rules. The revised Practice Directions also clarify that the 750-page limit on annexes applies to the total number of pages of annexes submitted by a party in a particular phase of the proceedings. Finally, the Court has modernized the arrangement for making written statements and documents submitted by international non-government organizations in advisory proceedings accessible to participating states and international organizations by creating an electronic portal for that purpose. The amendments will enter into force on the 1st of February, 2027. For pending contentious cases, transitional provisions will apply. Before concluding my report, I like to update the General Assembly on a few additional matters. The first topic I'd like to touch upon is the Trust Fund for the Court's Judicial Fellowship Programme. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, every year, the Court welcomes a cohort of Judicial Fellows to the Peace Palace in The Hague. This highly competitive programme aims to give promising young jurists the opportunity to spend the best part of a year working alongside members of the Court, with a view to providing professional training to the next generation of experts in international law. I further recall that the Trust Fund was established in 2021 by the Secretary-General at the request of the General Assembly in an effort to ensure that the programme is accessible to participants from as diverse a range of backgrounds as possible. As you are aware, the purpose of the Fund is to grant fellowship awards to selected candidates who are nationals of developing countries and are studying at universities in those countries. On average, the Fund has sponsored three to four judicial fellows each year since its inception. Thanks to this initiative and to the generosity of donors, the Trust Fund has enabled the participation of a total of 19 fellows to date, nominated by universities in the following countries: Brazil, Chile, Congo, Eritrea, Georgia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Kenya, Mexico, Mongolia, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Africa, Tanzania, Tunisia, and Turkey. We have every confidence that this valuable scheme will continue to go from strength to strength. Next, I would like to share with you the latest developments concerning the asbestos-related situation at the Peace Palace, the iconic building that houses the Court. As noted in my speech last autumn, following the discovery of asbestos in 2016, the Dutch authorities have sought to identify an appropriate and effective way to address this potential health hazard. In particular, in 2022, the host country proposed a two-phase plan. The first phase would consist of Project A, the removal of asbestos from areas where it is known to be present, and Project B, the conduct of a thorough survey to locate any other areas where asbestos might be found. The second phase will entail the implementation of an action plan to be determined in light of the survey's findings. In February 2025, a supplemental implementation agreement was concluded between the Court, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Carnegie Foundation, and the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Following the conclusion of this agreement, the court approved the first phase of the asbestos removal and remediation plan. Project B, the survey of the areas where asbestos may be present, was completed in the last quarter of 2025. while Project A, the removal of asbestos from the attic, remains underway and is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2027. In September 2025, the Dutch authorities announced the start of the preparatory phase of the Peace Palace renovation project. According to the provisional timeline, communicated by the host state. This phase is scheduled to run from 2026 to 2029, followed by the implementation phase beginning in 2030. Consultations are currently underway between the host state, the Carnegie Foundation, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and the court. regarding the governance structure and organizational arrangement for the renovation project. Above all, the Court's priority is to ensure that judges and staff members are able to work in a safe environment and to minimize any disruption to the Court's judicial activities. The Court has also taken the opportunity to emphasize the need for additional office space to accommodate registry staff, as well as the need to modernize the interior of the historic Peace Palace premises. Mr. President, I would also like to briefly mention the budgetary situation of the Court, to which you, Mr. President, referred to. referred in your opening statement. Let me start by reiterating the Court’s deep appreciation to the General Assembly for approving an increase in our resources in recent years, which has allowed for the creation of vital posts in the Registry. In its budget request for 2027, however, the Court has placed emphasis on improving its efficiency through technology. In particular, the budget proposal provides for the implementation of a case management system, which is essential for the Court to manage its growing volume of case-related documentation in a secure, efficient, and systematic manner. This system will provide a single integrated platform allowing for the electronic filing, distribution, and retrieval of case-related materials. The Court trusts that Member States will support this forward-looking budget proposal aimed at harnessing the advantages of new technologies with a view to streamlining the Court judicial procedures. Mr. President, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, this concludes my remarks. I thank you for your attention and wish this 81st session of the General Assembly every success.

Thank you.


GA · PGA [1:13:42]:

I thank Judge Ioasou Ioouji, President of the International Court of Justice, for his statement. Before proceeding further, I propose that the time limits for statements in this debate be five minutes for individual delegations speaking in their national capacity and seven minutes for statements made on behalf of a group of states. Any objection to this proposal? I see that there is an objection from the Russian Federation. So, accordingly, pursuant to rule 72 of the rules of procedure, I, and in light of the objection made, there will be no speaking time limit to the debate on this item. It is so decided. I now invite His Excellency Alex Norris, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice of the United Kingdom, to make a statement. You have the floor, sir.


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland · Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice [1:15:16]:

Thank you, President. I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the United Kingdom in response to the presentation of the annual report of the International Court of Justice. I thank President Iwasawa for his address and for his leadership of the Court, and the judges and registry for their dedicated service to international justice. This year, we mark the 80th anniversary of the Court's inaugural sitting. Established in the aftermath of devastating conflict, the Court embodies the conviction that the law must provide states with an alternative to coercion and to force. Eighty years later, that conviction remains an urgent necessity. At a time of conflict, instability, and growing pressure on the international legal order, the Court's contribution to the peaceful settlement of disputes has rarely been more important. It enables states to mutually place their disagreements before an independent judicial body, to be heard on an equal footing, and to receive a determination founded in law rather than power. The sustained demands on the Court demonstrate its impact and its importance. And over a number of years, more states have turned to the Court and participation in its proceedings has grown. It is crucial, therefore, that it has the resources and capacity to manage that workload effectively. while maintaining the quality and rigour on which its authority depends. That is why the United Kingdom’s support is practical as well as principled. We supported additional resources to meet the Court’s staffing needs, and have contributed to the Trust Fund for its Judicial Fellowship Programme, helping young jurists from developing countries to gain professional experience and contribute to the Court’s wider mission. Investing in the Court's future also means ensuring that it continues to benefit from the judges of the highest calibre, drawn from different legal traditions and equipped to address the complex questions before it. The United Kingdom is therefore proud to support Professor Dapo Akande for election to the Court on 3 November. The high number of national group nominations, with strong support across every United Nations region, is a reflection of the respect he commands across the international legal community. At a moment when international law is under pressure, Professor Akande brings the independence, legal rigour, judgment and breadth of perspective that the Court needs. He would make a formidable contribution to its work. As colleagues will know, the United Kingdom has been a steadfast supporter of the Court. We have accepted its compulsory jurisdiction, and we again encourage states that have not yet done so to consider accepting the Court's jurisdiction in accordance with its statute. But our support for international justice does not end with this Court. I am here today to talk about the ICJ, but I do want to confirm that international institutions must be able to act independently, impartially, and with integrity. And that is why the UK does not support sanctions against the International Criminal Court. Attempts to impede its work weaken the wider international legal order on which all states rely. Mr. President, back to the ICJ. For 80 years, the International Court of Justice has helped turn the Charter's commitment to peaceful settlement into legal reality. Its enduring significance lies not simply in the disputes it has resolved, but in the fundamental proposition it embodies: that relations between states must be governed by law, not merely by power. the United Kingdom will continue to defend that proposition and to support the Court in carrying out its vital mandate. Thank you, President.


GA · Chair [1:19:31]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom. I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Edwin Tong, Minister of Justice of Singapore.


Singapore · Minister of Justice [1:19:56]:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank His Excellency Judge Yuji Iwasawa, President of the International Court of Justice, ICJ, for his comprehensive presentation on the Court's activities. I also express Singapore's deep sadness at the passing of Judge Stephen Schwebel and Judge Kenneth Keith, whose distinguished service and judicial contributions were invaluable. In April 2026, the Court marked 80 years since its inauguration. In this span of time since 1946, the United Nations membership has grown from 51 to 193. As a result, today, the ICJ, which is well-suited to settle disputes between States from all regions and on a wide range of topics they choose to submit to the Court, more fully embodies its identity as the World Court. All States, big or small, old or young, are treated as sovereign equals before the Court. The Court must reflect the contemporary membership of the UN. Its judges must be eminently qualified and collectively represent the world’s principal legal traditions. The Court’s task is to interpret and apply international law in a principled and impartial manner. However, the law does not operate in a vacuum. Such diversity in the judges' legal traditions, backgrounds, and perspectives sharpen judicial reasoning and strengthens the legitimacy of the Court's decisions. In an increasingly contested world, upholding international law and the UN Charter is critical to ensuring that might does not make right, especially for small states. As the UN's principal judicial organ, the ICJ anchors the rules-based order by peacefully resolving disputes, clarifying the law, and safeguarding States’ rights. Turning specifically to the report of the Court, Singapore is heartened to note that the ICJ will be implementing a case management system to manage its growing volume of case-related documentation, which has been included in its budget proposal. We strongly welcome the Court’s move to a single integrated platform that will allow for electronic filing, distribution, and retrieval of case-related material. These digitalisation efforts would contribute to better access for States as users of the Court and should be commended. I also wish to congratulate the Registrar of the Court, Mr. Santiago Villapaldo, on his election in May this year, and encourage him and his team to continue with these efforts to improve the procedures and working methods of the Court. Mr. President, Singapore will continue to be a staunch supporter of the Court, whose work is fundamental to the international legal order. For small states, governance by international law is not a matter of choice, but one of survival. It is in this spirit that the Singapore National Group has for the first time nominated a Singaporean, Ambassador for International Law, Rina Lee, for election to be a judge of the Court. Ambassador Lee is an eminently qualified international law practitioner, government legal advisor, and diplomat, with experience spanning the law of the sea, climate and environmental law, international humanitarian law, and human rights law, amongst other areas of law. As President of the Intergovernmental Conference on Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, or BBNJ, She led negotiations to the consensus adoption of the BBNJ Agreement. If elected, she would bring valuable practical experience and diversity of perspectives alongside legal rigour, including as the first female ICJ judge from Southeast Asia and from small states. In closing, I reiterate that an effective and strong multilateral rules-based international order is an imperative for all states. I call on all member states to support this critical institution that serves as the bedrock of the international rule of law and is fundamental to the peaceful settlement of disputes. I thank you very much.


GA · Chair [1:24:21]:

The Minister from Singapore, I now give the floor to His Excellency Mohamed Ramon Suarawee, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Sierra Leone.


Sierra Leone · Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation [1:24:51]:

President, Sierra Leone warmly welcomes His Excellency George Iwasawa Juhi, President of the International Court of Justice, and thank him for introducing the report of the Court. We also thank the Secretary-General for his report on the Trust Fund to assist States in the settlement of disputes. This year, the ICJ marked 80 years since its inaugural session. It remains what the Charter intended: the place where disputes are settled by law and not by force. Between August 2025 and July 2026, 88 States were involved in proceedings before the Court. The Court delivered one judgment, two advisory opinions, and 16 orders, and held hearings in four cases, including on the merits in The Gambia versus Myanmar, with 11 states intervening. Two new contentious cases were filed, amongst them Democratic Republic of the Congo versus Rwanda. These figures speak of a Court that stays every region's trust with their most serious disputes. The advisory opinions of 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 relation to the occupied Palestinian territory, and of 21st May 2026 on the right to strike under ILO Convention number 87, confirm the value of the advisory function to the organization and its specialized agencies. President, The Court's authority rests on consent and on compliance. On consent, we welcome Iceland's declaration under Article 36, paragraph 2, which brings to 75 the number of states accepting the Court's compulsory jurisdiction. The report also records an application that could not proceed for want of consent, a reminder of how much depends on states choosing the Court before disputes arise. On compliance, Article 94 of the Charter is clear. We welcome the amendment to Article 78 of the Rules of Court, which provides for reports on compliance with provisional measures to be made public. Transparency on compliance strengthens the Court, and selective compliance weakens the order on which States, particularly small States, must depend. A Court that delivers its decisions on average within six months of the close of hearings is a cost-effective means of settling disputes, but must be resourced to match its caseload. And Sierra Leone supports the President's call to that end. Access to the court must also not depend on a state's means. We are concerned that Secretary General's trust fund received no new applications during the period, and that apart from France's contributions, it has received no contribution since 2018. We urge states in a position to do so to contribute regularly and generously. We also commend the trust fund for the judicial fellowship program. which has sponsored 19 young lawyers from developing countries and hope to see more from Africa amongst them. President, Sierra Leone's journey from conflict to peace has taught us that durable peace rests on law. In that spirit, I'm honored to reaffirm Sierra Leone's candidature of Professor Charles Jalloh for election to the Court for the 2027 to 2036, in the elections to be held concurrently in this Assembly and the Security Council on 3rd November, 2026. Professor Jallow is nominated by the national groups of 13 states from all regions of the United Nations. His candidature has been endorsed unanimously by the ECOWAS Authority of Heads of State and Government, and by the African Union and the OIC, Organization of Islamic Cooperation. A member of the International Law Commission since 2017, and a Special Rapporteur on Subsidiary Means for the Determination of Rules of International Law, He has also represented African states before international courts and tribunals, trained in both the common law and civil law traditions, and coming from West Africa, a sub-region not currently represented on the bench, who will help realize the balance that Article 9 of the Statute requires. We thank all delegations for their favorable consideration and support. In closing, President, Sierra Leone will continue to support the Court, to promote respect for its judgments and opinions, and to champion a bench that reflects the universality of our United Nations.

I thank you.


GA · Chair [1:29:23]:

I thank the representative of Sierra Leone. I now give the floor to Her Excellency Éléonore Carreau, Minister of France for Francophonie. International Partnerships and French Citizens Abroad. Welcome.


France · Minister for Francophonie, International Partnerships and French Citizens Abroad [1:29:43]:

Thank you, Mr. President.

I'd like to thank you on behalf of France, the President of the International Court of Justice, thank you for introducing the report on the Court's activities. Given the current context when the authority and universality of international law are being put to the test, the Court's report is a cause for celebration. It demonstrates, using objective data, that the law can prevail over the use of force and that the ICJ remains, for many states, the best possible way to settle disputes. This report also demonstrates, at a time when multilateralism is being called into question, it demonstrates the vitality of the ICJ. The 20-odd cases on the Court's docket as well as the many decisions that were handed down by the Court this year, demonstrate the continued trust States place in the Court, which is fulfilling its dual role, effectively so. The allocation by the General Assembly of resources that are commensurate with the growing activities of the Court is absolutely vital. In keeping with international law, disputes between States are resolved by the Court, helping to ensure peaceful relations between states and therefore helping to maintain international peace and security. Advisory opinions are requested by various bodies and institutions, for instance on climate change. In considering and issuing these advisory opinions, the Court helps develop and effectively implement international law. The advisory opinions handed down this year illustrate this well. In October of 2025, the Court, for example, recalled the need to ensure the security of United Nations officials and experts on mission. In 2026, it also handed out another opinion in which the Court highlighted that the right to strike, as France had asserted, is protected by ILO Convention 87. The Court is engaged in dialogue with various international jurisdictions and other UN bodies. This also helps to strengthen its primary role as the principal judicial organ of the UN. The Court's success story is also driven by the growing number of cases it's considering, the growing number of cases of its docket, its growing case law. I'd like to refer to two points. The Court's strength lies in its universality. As we celebrate the Court's anniversary, 80th anniversary, we'd like to speak to the diversity of cases, advisory cases and contentious cases on the Court's docket. They represent States from all continents. We hope that this trend continues. France made a voluntary contribution this year to the Secretary-General's Trust Fund so as to help States to be able to submit their proceedings to the Court. We also wish to see greater representation of various languages and cultures at the Court. We call on the Registry and States to factor in this requirement when recruiting ICJ personnel and when electing judges. On this note, I'd like to recall just how important it is to maintain the Court's bilingualism in keeping with Article 39 of its Statute, which states that the Court's official languages are English and French. It is vital to recall from this rostrum France's commitment to this universality, which is also visible through concrete steps we've taken. France last year contributed to the Special Trust Fund aimed at broadening the geographical representation of fellowships and to promote francophone jurists, specialists in continental law. We also wish to express our support for the candidature of François Lebrun, the current French Ambassador to the Netherlands. He's a foreign, he's an eminent candidate for the election of judges to the ICJ to be held in November of this year. Mr. François Alabrin has a wealth of experience in international law and fills all the requirements. He ticks all of the boxes: rigor, experience. He is very well positioned to serve as a judge on the ICJ. This brings me to my second point regarding the Court's success. It draws its strength from the excellence and independence with which its judges and personnel exercise their duties. Article 2 of the Court's Statute reminds us that they are independent magistrates. At a time when international justice and its personnel are being subject to unacceptable attacks and pressure, we believe that it is absolutely vital that we uphold their independence. Last but not least, as the mandates, the terms of five judges on the Court draw to a close, including that of the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar, we'd like to extend to them our gratitude and recognition for all of their hard work. We welcome Mr. Villapando, taking up his duties as Registrar of the Court, we wish him every success in this role. At a time of many challenges cropping up for multilateralism, the ICJ is more than ever necessary if we are to maintain peace and the international legal order. My country would like to reiterate its support for the ICJ. It is unswerving. Mr. President, thank you for your kind attention.


GA · Chair [1:35:20]:

I thank the distinguished delegate of France for that statement. I now give the floor to Gatona Toladze, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Georgia.


Georgia · Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs [1:35:46]:

Mr. President, at the outset, let me thank the President of International Court of Justice, His Excellency Judge Ioasava Yugi, for the report. This year, as the Court marks the 80th anniversary of its inaugural sitting, Georgia joins in celebrating the Court's enduring legacy and its vital contribution to the peaceful settlement of disputes, the development of international law, and respect for the rule of law in relations among states. In November this year, the General Assembly and the Security Council will elect five judges for a nine-year term. These elections will be important not only for the Court's future composition, but also for the continuous of its legacy. Mr. President, the role of International Court of Justice is significant for maintenance of international peace and security. Its unique stance in international relations is indispensable. This is well demonstrated by the cases on wide range of issues before the Court. Having this in mind, Georgia remains to be a firm supporter of the Court. As a testament to this, Georgia has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court through a declaration made without reservations. We also welcome the submission of one such declaration in 2026. Excellencies, my country's engagement with international courts underscores Georgia's commitment to protect its sovereignty by all available legal and other peaceful means. In this regard, it may recall that the European Court of Human Rights has established in several of its judgments that the Russian Federation has been exercising effective control over Georgia's Abkhazia and Tskhinvali regions, both before and after the 2008 August war. These judgments affirm Russia's international legal responsibility as the occupying power for grave human rights violations in the occupying territories of Georgia. These violations include, but are not limited to, the violations of the right to life and the right to education in one's own native language, torture and ill-treatment, arbitrary detentions, and ethnic discrimination. Excellencies, blatant violations of international law bring us to the need for the effective functioning of international legal mechanisms, such as the International Court of Justice. Compliance with its decisions by the member states remains of critical importance. Having said that, let me use this opportunity to reiterate our call on the Russian Federation to fully comply with the provisional measures of the ICJ of 16 March 2022, which binds Russia to immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine. Mr. President, today, more than ever, there is need to stay united in defending the fundamentals of international law while ensuring that any undermining of international justice is addressed. In this regard, all available international legal instruments, including the ICJ, should be at the forefront of our efforts. To conclude, the Court's work remains vital to resolving disputes peacefully, ensuring compliance with international legal obligations, and fostering dialogue and cooperation among states. Thank you.


GA · Chair [1:39:13]:

I thank the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia. I now give the floor to the representative of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the Baltic States.


Lithuania · Baltic States [1:39:44]:

Your Excellency Judge Iwasawa, President of International Court of Justice, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, I have the privilege of speaking today on behalf of the three Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, and my own country, Lithuania. The Baltic states fully align with the statement to be delivered on behalf of the European Union and its member states. Mr. President, at the outset, allow us to convey our warm congratulations on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the ICJ. It is noteworthy that eight decades after its establishment, the Court continues to face a substantial and sustained caseload, reflecting the international community's continued recourse to judicial settlement. The cases and proceedings before the Court address questions ranging from territorial sovereignty and state responsibility to the interpretation of international treaties, the protection of human rights, and the prevention of punishment of genocide. This diversity reflects the Court's central role in addressing disputes across the full spectrum of public international law. At a time when respect for international law is increasingly challenged and efforts to erode the meaning of established rules and principles persist, the Court's role remains indispensable. Through its judgments, orders, and advisory opinions, it reaffirms that international law rests on a common body of rules, principles, and legal concepts through which states can articulate their rights and obligations, address their differences, and seek solutions within a common legal framework. The continued work of the Court underscores that this common framework exists, retains its meaning, and must be upheld. Mr. President, the Court’s significance is accompanied by the challenge of managing its growing workload. It is commendable that, as noted in the report, the average time between the conclusion of oral proceedings and the delivery of a judgment or advisory opinion does not exceed six months. Maintaining this pace while continuing to explore ways to improve case management and ensure the expeditious administration of justice is important. In this regard, the Baltic States welcome the Court's ongoing review of its working methods and the use of new technologies, as well as the proposed implementation of a case management system in 2027 to address the growing volume of case-related documentation. Mr. President, while my statement has so far focused on the Court's caseload, the pronouncement of a judgment, often marking the culmination of the proceedings in a case, cannot itself constitute the full measure of international justice. The implementation of the Court's judgments and orders is equally essential to safeguarding its authority and ensuring respect for the legal obligations they establish. The Baltic States, therefore, welcome the amendment to Article 78 of the Rules of the Court, which provides for the submission of reports when requested by the Court on measures taken to give effect to orders indicating provisional measures. Such reporting can help the Court monitor compliance with these orders and assess whether the protection they afford is effective. We hope that this provision will prove useful in the Court's work and urge States to comply with the reporting requests made by the Court. The Baltic States believe that similar attention should be given to the implementation of the Court's judgments, including compliance with obligations they establish and any remedies they require. More systematic information in this regard could contribute to a clearer understanding of implementation of the Court's decisions and further strengthen their authority. We also welcome Iceland's declaration recognizing the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. We take this opportunity to reiterate our call on states that have not yet done so to consider accepting the Court's compulsory jurisdiction, thereby broadening the basis for its jurisdiction and strengthening the role of judicial settlement in international relations. To conclude, the Baltic States reaffirm their steadfast support for International Court of Justice as the United Nations principal judicial organ and remain committed to upholding its vital role in promoting international peace, justice, and accountability. I thank you.


GA · Chair [1:44:21]:

I thank the representative of Lithuania. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the European Union, speaking on behalf of the EU and its member states.


EU · EU [1:44:38]:

Mr. President, I have the honor to take the floor on behalf of the European Union and its member states, the candidate countries, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Monaco and San Marino, align themselves with this statement. At the outset, allow me to thank His Excellency President Iwasawa for presenting his report to the General Assembly, that is, the report on the activities of the International Court of Justice between August 1, 2025, and July 31, 2026. At the solemn sitting commemorating the Court's 80th anniversary, which was held on 17 April 2026, His Excellency Mr. António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, recalled that the establishment of the Court was guided by one crucial conviction, that is, that the force of law must always prevail over the law of force. This conviction also lies at the very core of the European Union's commitment to the rule of law, as well as to respect for international law and the peaceful settlement of disputes. It is through this commitment that the Union seeks to ensure that international relations remain governed by law and not by the exercise of power. In this context, the awarding of the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize to Navi Pillay for her efforts to promote peace and international law is particularly timely. Ms. Pillay has devoted her life to justice. and her unwavering commitment, dedication, and bravery serve as a precious compass for all of us in these challenging times. Allow me, on behalf of the EU and its Member States, to convey our heartiest congratulations to Professor Phoebe Okoh on her election as Judge of the International Court of Justice. We also congratulate Mr. Santiago Villalpando on his election as Court Registrar. We wish them both every success in their new offices. and we look forward to seeing their contributions to the work of the Court. Mr. President, as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the Court has a preeminent role to play in the peaceful settlement of international disputes. By settling interstate disputes and by rendering advisory opinions, the International Court of Justice makes a colossal contribution, alongside the organs of the United Nations, to the maintenance of international peace and security, as well as to the development of friendly relations and cooperation among States. Of course, the Court's contribution can only be fully effective if States implement its decisions. We recall that the Court's orders and judgments are binding on the parties to the dispute. The significant increase in the court's caseload involving a wide variety of cases demonstrates the crucial role that the court plays in the peaceful settlement of disputes. This development has only been possible through the dedication of judges, as well as their high professional standards and ethical standards. It also bears witness to the high degree of trust which States and UN organs place in the Court. Moreover, the European Union welcomes Iceland's decision to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to Article 36(2) of its Statute. We thank the President of the Court, its judges, the registrar, and all of the Court's staff for their unwavering commitment to serving and delivering international justice.

Takes note of the Court's latest advisory opinions. They provide important and authoritative clarifications on questions of international law submitted by authorized UN organs and agencies, and encourage the continued pursuit by the international community of constructive dialogue. Advisory proceedings may also provide a distinct avenue for international organizations to participate in the proceedings before the Court. The European Union takes note of the advisory opinion delivered on 22 October 2025 on obligations of Israel in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations, other international organizations, and third states in relation to the occupied Palestinian territory. The European Union considers that the role of the UN, international human rights law, and international humanitarian law must be respected in all situations of armed conflict. The protection of civilians, medical personnel, and facilities, as well as the facilitation of rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief, are fundamental obligations under international law. UN personnel, entities, premises, and operations must be protected and respected, also in the context of armed conflict. These safeguards are indispensable to the UN's ability to carry out its purpose. The European Union has taken further note of clarifications provided by the opinion on the application of the general principle of cooperation with the UN under Article 2, paragraph 5 of the Charter, and good faith performance of Charter obligations provided for in Article 2, paragraph 2 of the Charter. The European Union has also taken note of the advisory opinion delivered on 21st of May 2026 concerning the right to strike under International Labour Convention number 87, in which the Court concluded that the right to strike is protected under the ILO Convention as an essential component of workers' freedom of association. European Union fully respects the right to freedom of association and recognizes its fundamental importance to a democratic society. The protection of the right to strike is encompassed in the protection of the right to collective action. The European Union also welcomes the comparative analysis of the various regional legal frameworks, including the European legal framework, which the Court has provided for in this opinion. In May 2025, Lithuania, an EU member state, initiated proceedings against the Republic of Belarus for alleged breaches of obligations under the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. As a party to the Protocol and the Convention, the European Union submitted on 20 July this year its observations on the construction of several provisions of the Protocol on the basis of Article 43, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court. Let me stress that this is the first time that the European Union used this possibility provided for in the Rules of Court. Monsieur le Président.

President.

Refer repeatedly to the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice to interpret and supply and apply international law within the Union's legal order. Recently, the Court of Justice of the European Union referred to the Nottebohm judgment, Liechtenstein versus Guatemala, when interpreting the requirement of a prior genuine link between an applicant and a state before nationality can be granted. A reference to the judgment delivered by the Court in the Barcelona Traction case appears in the opinion delivered by the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to the exercise of diplomatic protection by a State. As mentioned before, in the context of the advisory opinion concerning the right to strike, the International Court of Justice also refers to regional case law, including that of the Court of Justice of the European Union, when needed. These reciprocal references to each other's case law illustrate the mutual interaction between international and regional courts in the interpretation and development of international law.

President, allow me to conclude. As the Court celebrates 80 years at the service of the international community, there is no better occasion for the European Union to reaffirm the importance that it attaches to the Court's work and its deep appreciation for the Court's contribution to the peaceful settlement of disputes and to clarifying and developing international law. In view of increasing and diverse threats to international peace and security, as well as widespread violations of the UN Charter and international law, the role of the International Court of Justice, as well as its independence and its authority, have never been more important. I thank you, Mr. President.


GA · Chair [1:54:50]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the European Union. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Slovakia, speaking on behalf of the Visegrad Group.


Slovakia · Visegrad Group [1:55:11]:

Mr. President, on behalf of the Visegrad Group, namely the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and my own country, Slovakia, I thank the President of the International Court of Justice Judge Yuji Iwasawa for presenting the report on the Court's work during the period from 1 August 2025 to 31 July 2026, and have the honour to present the Visegrad countries' views and observations with regard to the report. We also fully align ourselves with the statement delivered by the EU. At the outset, we wish to comment on Mr. Philippe Gauthier, whose leadership of the Registry enabled the institution to handle proceedings with a high number of participating States, as well as surmounting challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. We also congratulate Mr. Santiago Avila Pando on his election as the Registrar and wish him all the success in the discharging of the duties. Mr. President, As we commemorate the 80th anniversary of the inaugural session of the ICJ, I wish to highlight the key and irreplaceable role of the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, in peaceful settlement of disputes between states, thus significantly contributing to global peace and security. The countries of the Visegrad Group are strong supporters of the Court. and appreciate the Court's long-term contribution to upholding and strengthening the rule of law at the international level, as well as the central role in interpreting international law through its case law. The increasing number of states submitting their differences to the Court's adjudication, as well as the high number of states participating in advisory proceedings or intervening in contentious cases, reflects their confidence in the Court. During the period under consideration, two new contentious proceedings were instituted before the Court, while one judgment and two advisory opinions were handed down by the Court. They demonstrate both the trust that states have in the Court, as well as the efficiency of the Court in rendering international justice. We also underlined the important role of advisory opinions in clarifying international law, providing authoritative legal guidance, and strengthening the international rule of law. The trust vested in the Court must also have a tangible expression in the form of adequate funding. Without sufficient resources, the Court would not be in a position to deliver its mandate properly and in a timely manner. Against this backdrop, we welcome the fact that the proposed program budget for 2027 doesn't envisage any cuts to the Court's budget and maintains its staffing level. We also commend the Court's efforts to modernize its working methods and welcome the inclusion of a new case management system in the proposed 2027 budget to enhance efficiency in managing its growing workload. In this context, we would like to stress the need to introduce electronic submission of materials to the Court as the primary or exclusive means of transmission. We believe a secure digital filing system could ensure the authenticity, confidentiality, and integrity of documents while allowing more efficient case handling. Mr. President, I would now like to address two issues that are mutually inseparable. The first one concerns the broadening acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction. We welcome that in the period under review, one state accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, while another submitted an amended declaration, bringing the overall number of states which accept the Court's compulsory jurisdiction under Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Statute to 75. Jurisdictional clauses offer another way for acceptance of Court's jurisdiction. With regard to provisions on the peaceful settlement of dispute, conferring jurisdiction on the Court, we discourage states from making reservations to such clauses, or, if they have already made such reservations, we encourage to reconsider them. The willingness of states to subject their disputes to the Court must be accompanied by their commitment to implement the Court's judgments. and orders in good faith. All States, as responsible members of the international community, must comply in accordance with Article 94, paragraph 1, of the UN Charter, with decisions of the International Court of Justice, including the decisions indicating provisional measures, in any case to which they are a party. Against this background, we welcome the amendment of Article 78 of the Rules of Court addressing publication of reports of the parties on compliance with provisional measures indicated by the Court. This amendment represents an important step towards greater transparency and accountability in the implementation of the Court's orders. We welcome the activities commemorating the Court's 80th anniversary, as well as the Court's continued outreach and engagement with member states and the wider legal community, including during International Law Week, that contributes to raising awareness of its workload and strengthening confidence in international justice. To conclude, the countries of the Visegrad Group reiterate their support to the Court and express their utmost appreciation for the Court's achievement in interpreting, clarifying, and reinforcing international law. We wish the Court effective implementation of its mandate.


GA · Chair [2:01:26]:

Thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of Slovakia, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Finland, speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries. Distinguished representative, madam, you have the floor.


Finland · Nordic Group [2:01:59]:

Mr. President, I have the honour to speak on behalf of the five Nordic countries, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and my own country, Finland. I wish to thank President Yuji Iwasawa for his presentation and for the Court's continued service to the international community. This year holds particular significance. In April 2026, the International Court of Justice celebrated the 80th anniversary of its inaugural sitting at the Peace Palace in The Hague. For eight decades, the Court has served as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and as a guardian of the international rule of law. As countries firmly committed to the rule of law and to the international law, the Nordic countries remain steadfast supporters of the Court and of the broader system of the international justice. The Court's 80th anniversary offers an important opportunity to reflect on its enduring contribution to the peaceful settlement of disputes and to the development of international law. Mr. President, the Court's increasing caseload and the growing complexity of its proceedings underscore the confidence that the international community places in its work. During the reporting period, 88 states participated to varying extents in contentious advisory proceedings before the Court. This demonstrates the central place that the Court continues to occupy within the contemporary international legal order. These developments also highlight the importance of ensuring that the Court is provided with the resources necessary to fulfill its mandate effectively, efficiently, and independently. Mr. President, today the Court's role is more important than ever. At a time marked by armed conflict, geopolitical tensions, and growing challenges to the multilateral system, the International Court of Justice serves as a cornerstone of the international legal order. By providing a judicial forum for the peaceful settlement of disputes between States and by assisting the United Nations through its advisory function, the Court contributes to international peace and security and to the orderly settlement of disputes in accordance with international law. During the reporting period, the Court continued to address a wide range of important questions arising under international law. These included matters relating to territorial and maritime disputes, diplomatic and consular relations, the interpretation and application of human rights and humanitarian law treaties, and the implementation of Genocide Convention. The breadth of issues before the Court highlights its central role in addressing legal questions of global significance. The reporting period also witnessed continued and unprecedented levels of participation by States in proceedings before the Court, including through interventions. This trend reflects the strong interest of States in the Court's work and in the development and application of international law. It further underlines the Court's continuing relevance as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Mr. President, The Nordic countries would also like to highlight the Court's important contributions to the law of state responsibility. Through its jurisprudence, the Court has reinforced the principle that breaches of international law entail legal consequences and obligations of reparation. Its judgments provide authoritative determinations of legal rights and obligations, while also contributing to accountability, legal certainty, and the effectiveness of the international legal system. The Nordic countries reaffirm the importance of full compliance with the judgment and orders of the Court, including orders indicating provisional measures. Respect for judicial decisions is fundamental to the credibility and effectiveness of the international legal order. Mr. President, in view of the elections to be held later this year, the Nordic countries wish to highlight the importance of striving for improved gender balance in the composition of the Court. We encourage all States, both in presenting candidates and in casting their votes, to give due consideration to this objective. A court that better reflects the diversity of the international community strengthens the legitimacy and authority of international judicial institutions. As the Court enters in its ninth decade, the Nordic countries remain convinced that its mission is as vital today as it was in 1946: to ensure that disputes between states are resolved through law rather than force, Currently, 75 states have filed declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court over certain international disputes. All Nordic countries have filed such declarations, with Iceland having done so in February of this year. We encourage states that have not yet done so to consider accepting the Court's compulsory jurisdiction, thereby enabling the Court to fulfill its role more effectively. Finally, the Nordic countries reaffirm their strong support for the International Court of Justice, its independence and integrity, and its central role as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. At a time of global challenges, our collective commitment to international law and to the institutions that uphold it is more important than ever. The Nordic countries will continue to support the Court and to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes through international law.

Thank you.


GA · Chair [2:07:52]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Finland. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cabo Verde, speaking on behalf of the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries.


Cabo Verde · CPLP [2:08:17]:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the Member States of the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries, CPLP. The area of the globe occupied by the CPLP is vast and significant. It consists of more than 7% of our planet, encompassing a territory that spans four continents: Europe, America, Africa, and Asia. Together, our community brings together more than 300 million people who share the Portuguese language. The CPLP is guided, among others, by the principles that uphold the primacy of peace, democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and social justice. Mr. President, we are grateful to the President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Iwasawa for the presentation of the Court's annual report and for his pertinent observations. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the Court's inaugural sitting, held in April 1946. The CPLP countries recognize and commend the fundamental role played by the Court over these eight decades in ensuring the peaceful settlement of disputes and in clarifying the rules of international law on which its decisions are based. Its work has been characterized by integrity, impartiality and independence, as well as by its readiness to respond to emerging challenges. As Secretary-General António Guterres recalled, during the general debate of this Assembly last September, peace is much more than the absence of conflict; it is the presence of restraint of power by law. This is precisely the role of the International Court of Justice. By providing States with a peaceful and legally grounded avenue for the settlement of their disputes, the Court makes a decisive contribution to conflict prevention and to building sustainable peace founded on the strength of law rather than the law of force. Mr. President, the CPLP countries value the fact that the Court is called upon to adjudicate disputes submitted voluntarily by States in the exercise of their sovereign rights. The Court's workload has grown considerably both in terms of the number of cases and their factual and legal complexity, attesting to its relevance and vitality. These cases span the entire spectrum of international relations, from territorial and maritime disputes to questions related to human rights and diplomatic relations. This continued recourse to the Court constitutes both a challenge and a sign of confidence in the universality and adaptability of international law. Mr. President, The dialogue among the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the Court in the interpretation of the Charter of the UN is of the utmost importance. In this regard, the judgments and advisory opinions rendered by the Court make a significant contribution to strengthening and clarifying the rules of international law. The high level of engagement of the international community in these proceedings is evidence of the importance that States attach to the International Court of Justice, to international law more generally, as instruments for resolving their differences in a peaceful and cooperative manner. Mr. President, the high rate of compliance with the Court’s judgments throughout its history is highly encouraging, as it demonstrates the respect for and confidence of States in the independence, credibility, and impartiality of the World Court. The CPLP countries welcome the broadening of the scope and cooperation in international law resulting from the Court's judgment and advisory opinions, which have inspired other international decision-making bodies. It is also commendable that the Court is paying due attention to the work of other international tribunals. We also welcome the Court’s efforts to ensure that its decisions are disseminated as widely as possible. Mr. President, The CPLP countries reiterate their commitment to maintaining their strong support for the Court so that it may continue to play a fundamental role in the settlement of disputes between States, as well as in strengthening the international rule of law in the pursuit of justice and peace, taking into consideration the situation of peoples and individuals. We remain confident that the Court as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, will continue its essential work in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and its Statute, making a tangible contribution to the rule of law globally. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to convey, on behalf of the CPLP countries, to you, to the other judges and to all the staff of the International Court of Justice, our sincere gratitude and best wishes for your demanding and important work during the current reporting period. Thank you.


GA · Chair [2:13:42]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Cabo Verde. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Australia on behalf of CANS.


Australia · CANZ [2:14:03]:

Thank you, President. I have the honour to speak on behalf of Canada, New Zealand, and my own country, Australia. We thank the President of the Court, Judge Iwasawa, for his report on the Court's work over the past year. We would also like to acknowledge the recent election of Judge Okoa and the contribution of Judge Youssef to international law throughout his term, including as President of the Court. We thank the members of the Court and its staff for their dedicated work and commitment to the institution. I'll make four key points. First, the Court helps states resolve disputes peacefully. Australia, Canada, and New Zealand believe that a safer world is governed by rules, not by power or force alone. The Court is essential to that system. We affirm the Court's status as the only international court of a universal character and with general jurisdiction. Our three countries strongly support the Court and its independence. Second, the Court's authority depends on the support of states. Australia, Canada and New Zealand have accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction because we recognise its central role in resolving disputes peacefully and upholding the rule of law. We encourage states that have not yet done so to consider accepting the Court's jurisdiction in accordance with its statute. Broad support of the Court's jurisdiction by member states contributes to the effective fulfilment of the Court's primary role, the consideration of the substance of disputes. Peaceful and timely dispute settlement benefits every state. Third, states must respect and abide by the Court's binding decisions, including orders for provisional measures. Member states have undertaken to comply with the Court's decisions in every case to which they are a party. Compliance brings disputes to a final resolution and strengthens a judicial system that benefits all member states. Finally, the Court needs adequate resources. The Court is being asked to consider more disputes across an immense range of issues, as this year's report outlines. The continued willingness of many states to entrust the Court with their disputes reflects confidence in its independence and in its judges. But the Court's resources have not kept pace with its unprecedented caseload. Collectively, we must ensure that the Court is allocated the funds it needs within the United Nations system to resolve disputes promptly and effectively. Supporting the Court means supporting a system in which rules, not force alone, protect us all. I thank you.


GA · Chair [2:17:09]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Australia. I now give the floor to Uganda, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. You have the floor, the distinguished representative of Uganda.


Uganda · NAM [2:17:34]:

Mr. President, I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement in connection with the consideration of agenda item 73, report of the International Court of Justice, to which we attach great importance. At the outset, we thank Judge Yuji Iwasawa, 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 of Justice between 1 August 2025 and 31 July 2026, as requested by this body and contained in document A/81/4, of which we have taken due note. Mr. President, the Non-Aligned Movement reaffirms and underscores its principled positions concerning the peaceful settlement of disputes and non-use or threats 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 Charter, 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 non-aligned movement held in January 2024 in Kampala, Uganda, the heads of state and government of the non-aligned movement agreed to endeavor to generate further progress to achieve full respect of international law and in this regard, commend the role of the International Court of Justice in promoting peaceful settlement of international disputes in accordance with relevant provisions of the Charter, and in particular, Articles 33 and 94. Noting that the Security Council has not sought any advisory opinion from the International Court since 1970, NAM 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, 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 encourage those in a position to do so to make greater use of International Court of Justice, to consider conducting consultations amongst its members of the movement as and when appropriate, with a view to requesting advisory opinions from the court, including in cases in which unilateral coercive measures that are not authorized by relevant organs of the U.N. and are inconsistent with the principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations that may undermine international peace and security. Mr. President, NAM takes this opportunity to invite the General Assembly and other organs of the UN and specialized agencies that are authorized by the General Assembly to request advisory opinions in the ICJ on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities. Moreover, states of the movement reaffirm the importance of the Court's advisory opinion on 8th July 1996 of the illegality of the threat or use or use of nuclear weapons, that is S/51/218 in the annex. In this matter, the ICJ concluded unanimously that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and conclude negotiations leading to the control of nuclear disarmament in all its 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 of Israel of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of 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 ICJ on 19th July 2024 pursuant to the request made by the General Assembly in its resolution 77/247 of 30th December 2022. The Court clearly determined inter alia that Israel’s presence in the 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 self-determination and independence, and the realization of long-delayed justice. In this regard, the movement welcomes General Assembly resolution ES10/24 in follow-up to the advisory opinion of 19 July 2024, adopted on 18 September 2024, which called for an end of Israel’s illegal occupation within 12 months or for actionable measures to hold Israel accountable for its violations in the 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. NAM also urges the undertaking of serious efforts, collectively and individually, to ensure respect of the legal obligations defined by the ICJ advisory opinion and affirmed by the relevant UN resolutions, including enhanced efforts by the General Assembly by the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention. Nam recalls that member states are under an obligation not to recognize any changes in the physical character of or demographic composition, institutional structure, or status of the territory occupied by Israel on 5th June, 1967, including East Jerusalem, except as agreed by the parties through negotiations to distinguish in their dealings with Israel between the territory of the State of Israel and the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. This obligation of distinction encompasses the obligation to abstain from treaty relations with Israel in all cases in which it purports to act on behalf of the occupied Palestinian territory or any part thereof, to abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings with Israel concerning the occupied Palestinian territory or parts thereof, which may entrench its unlawful presence in the territory, to abstain in the recognition of its illegal presence of the occupied Palestinian territory, and to take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory. The Court also underlined that all States that are are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory, not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel's illegal presence in the occupied Palestinian territory, to ensure that any impediment resulting from illegal presence of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory to the exercise of the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination is brought to an end and to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in the Fourth Geneva Convention. Likewise, NAM underscores the importance of and welcomes advisory opinion recently rendered 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 relation to the occupied Palestinian territory, and echoes its conclusions. We call for the 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 particular regard, we 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. To conclude, we reiterate our call upon all states to respect and ensure respect for the Court's authoritative determinations for the realization of the end of Israel's occupation that began in 1967, and the 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. I thank you.


GA · Chair [2:29:19]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Uganda. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Libya, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group.


Libya · Arab Group [2:29:41]:

In the name of God, most gracious, most merciful, President of the General Assembly, President of the ICJ, Excellency, it's my honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the Arab Group. At the outset, please allow me to welcome the President of the ICJ and other Court members present today, including Judge Mahmoud Hammoud. We welcome the Court's new Registrar, wishing him every success. We thank them for their efforts to serve international justice and to entrench the Court as the bulwark of justice and a beacon guiding the international community towards law and dialogue. We underscore the vital role of the ICJ in its capacity as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations in the peaceful settlement of disputes and upholding the UN Charter. For us, The Court is an essential tool in order to preserve and protect the legitimate rights of countries and people. Supporting the Court and its independence is tantamount to supporting the rule of law and the international order grounded in equality and legitimacy. The different cases before the Court reflect the the importance we attach to the Court and the trust we entrust to this Court in resolving all these issues that are of paramount importance to the international community. Arab has long been represented and been actively engaged in the work of the Court because we believe that law is essential to achieving international peace and security. Mr. President, The question of Palestine is a litmus test for the credibility of the international community and its commitment to the primacy of international law and justice. The question of Palestine is not only a political issue, but it is at the core a legal and humanitarian question. It marks the inalienable rights of the Palestinians to self-determination and to the end of the unlawful Israeli occupation. The International Court of Justice has upheld this right in its advisory opinion of 2004 on the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory. The court determined that the wall is unlawful and was a flagrant violation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. In its July 2024 advisory opinion, the court stated that the unlawful Israeli presence in the occupied Palestinian territory must come to an immediate And that all settlement activities and new settlement activities must come to an end, that all settlers must be evacuated, and that the Israeli occupation must make a reparation for the damage caused to all natural or legal persons. The court also called on all countries. not to recognize the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel, and not to render any aid or assistance in maintaining the situation, and to make a distinction in their dealings between the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, and the Israeli occupation. All state countries must take all measures in order to end the unlawful situation. All barriers must be lifted in order to ensure that the Palestinian people can exercise their right to self-determination, international humanitarian law must be respected in its advisory opinion of 22 October 2025 on the obligations of the Israeli entity in relation to the presence and activities of the UN and other international organizations and third states, and in relation to the occupied Palestinian territory. The ICJ reiterated that Israel must facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance and must respect the privileges and immunities of the UN, its and staff members. The Arab group reiterates that UNRWA plays an indispensable role in providing basic services to Palestine refugees, including education, health, and humanitarian relief. We reject any attempt to undermine the UNRWA's capacity to fulfill its mandate. We reiterate that all binding orders of the ICJ indicating provisional measures must be fully implemented in the case filed by South Africa against Israel under the Genocide Convention. We commend South Africa and all countries that joined this case. We call on all countries that uphold international law to support accountability and to advance efforts to protect the Palestinian people. We condemn the systematic destruction, the deliberate starvation, and the forced displacement of the Palestinian people. We call once again for the immediate cessation of the genocidal war against the Gaza Strip. We call for the protection of civilians and for the urgent delivery of humanitarian assistance. We call for the end of the unlawful occupation of the State of Palestine. We reiterate that the advisory opinions and orders of the ICJ require a serious response so that we translate these commitments into practical measures. The continued violations and impunity undermine trust and international trust and international justice. This is why it's our collective responsibility to uphold international law. This must not be further deferred or politicized. In conclusion, Mr. President, we reiterate that Israeli attacks on Lebanon must come to an end. Lebanon's security and territorial integrity and sovereignty must be respected. The Israeli must withdraw from all territories it occupies in Lebanon. We also condemn the repeated attacks against the Syrian Arab Republic. We condemn the incursions into Syrian territory. We condemn airstrikes and arrests of civilians. We call for the end of these violations, and we call for the full withdrawal for the territories into which Israel has incurred. has made incursions since 8 December 2024. We call for the full respect of the 1974 Disengagement of Forces Agreement. We call for the implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions, mainly Resolution 497 of 1981. We call for the full withdrawal from the occupied Syrian Golan. The Arab Group condemns the Iranian attacks against Arab countries using missiles and drones. These attacks are a violation of the sovereignty of Arab states. They violate international law and the Charter of the United Nations. We hold Iran responsible for these attacks. We also condemn threats and action to close off the Strait of Hormuz and to threaten maritime security in Bab el-Mandeb. Freedom of navigation must be respected, as must the right to transit an international waterway. We support the right of Arab-affected countries to resort to competent international and regional institutions and to take all available legal and diplomatic means to seek accountability and redress. Accountability and respect of international obligations are pillars of international law and are essential to maintain sovereignty of states. This responsibility cannot be selective. We call on all member states to support the reelection of Judge Mahmoud Al Hammoud. in order to ensure representation of all legal, principal legal systems and forms of civilization in accordance with Article 9 of the Statute. Arab representation reflects this diversity and recognizes the Arab civilization's contribution to the enrichment of international law, especially with many cases before the Court pertaining to the Arab region. In conclusion, we reiterate that justice is indivisible. International law must be applied to all without exception. Supporting the ICJ and its independence is a collective responsibility. There can be no lasting peace without justice. There can be no justice without law, and no primacy of law without respect of the ICJ, which embodies international law. Thank you.


GA · Chair [2:38:32]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Libya. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Palau, speaking on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States.


Palau · AOSIS [2:39:01]:

Mr. President, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the 39 members of the Alliance of Small Island States. We thank the Court for its report and commend it for its work over the past year. Last summer, the Court delivered its advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change. The Assembly requested that opinion by consensus, and the Court answered unanimously. Earlier this year, the Assembly welcomed the opinion as an authoritative contribution to the clarification of existing international law and called upon all States to comply with their respective obligations as identified by the Court. This is the advisory function working as it should. The Assembly asks, the Court answers, and States, through this Assembly, respond. The Court is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. In the Advisory Opinion on Climate Change, it was not making new law. It identified the obligations States already hold under treaty, customary international law, and general principles. That identification carries the authority of the Court. For our members, this matters in concrete terms. The Court confirmed the duty of states to cooperate and to act with due diligence to prevent significant harm to the climate system. It confirmed that a breach of these obligations is an internationally wrongful act that entails the responsibility of the state concerned. The ordinary rules of of state responsibility apply, and legal consequences may include secession, assurances and guarantees of non-repetition, and full reparation. It confirmed that UNCLOS does not require States Parties, in the context of physical changes resulting from climate change-related sea level rise, to update their charts or list of geographical coordinates that show the baselines and outer limit lines of their maritime zones established in conformity with UNCLOS. The Court recognized the continuity of statehood. These findings reflect the state practice of a broad range of the international community, and they provide legal certainty to all states. AUC sees the advisory function as an essential part of the Charter system. It allows the Assembly to seek guidance on questions of law that affect the whole membership. That function depends on States treating the Court's answers with the seriousness the Assembly itself gave them when it asked the question. AOSIS will continue to support the Court and its work, and we call on all States to respect the Court's role as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and to give due weight to its advisory opinions. We further call on States to engage with the upcoming Secretary-General's report containing ways to advance compliance with all obligations in relation to the Court's findings in the climate change advisory opinion. I thank you.


GA · Chair [2:42:06]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Palau. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Switzerland.


Switzerland [2:42:21]:

Mr. President, we would like to thank the International Court of Justice for its report. Once again, The ICJ is tackling a particularly heavy caseload, reflecting both the trust placed in it by States as well as the international community's ongoing need for judicial institutions in order to resolve their disputes. Switzerland would like to reaffirm its unswerving support for the Court as an independent and impartial judicial institution. We reject any form of threat against the Court or against its judges. Switzerland recognized the Court's jurisdiction through a general declaration, a declaration that has remained unchanged ever since 1948. This support is part and parcel of our foreign policy, which aims to encourage the peaceful settlement of disputes, as well as to promote the rule of law and international law. Switzerland is convinced that the Court plays a crucial role on the international stage. Therefore, Switzerland has not only participated in the advisory proceedings before the Court in recent years, but we have also conducted internal follow-up activities by analysing these advisory opinions and publishing the results. The high calibre of the work of the Court and its integrity are well established. Mr. President, my delegation wishes to address the three following aspects: the role of the Court’s advisory opinions, the binding nature of its decisions, as well as the need to recognize the Court’s jurisdiction. First, Switzerland would like to underscore the importance of advisory opinions. provides for the General Assembly requesting an advisory opinion from the Court on any legal matter. Switzerland notes that the fact that an issue also has political implications does not affect its character as a legal matter. Advisory opinions can constitute a significant portion of the Court's work, particularly in recent years. The increase in court activities related to advisory opinions reflects a growing need on the part of the international community, a need for clarification of the law and for that clarification to come from an impartial judicial body. Occasional challenges to the judicial settlement of disputes should not mean we miss the forest for the trees. The vast majority of states trust this institution and are increasingly turning to it for assistance. Although advisory opinions are not legally binding per se, they do carry great legal authority, and, in principle, do reflect international law, which is binding upon states. Second, judgments and orders for provisional measures are indeed legally binding. Thus, the States parties, including some intervening States, are required to implement the Court's decisions. In both instances, disregarding the decision is not an option. The binding nature of these decisions is not affected by the passage of time. Unless a decision on the merits has been rendered, Provisional measures ordered by the Court two, four or even more years ago do remain in force. The parties to the dispute must comply with them. Switzerland therefore calls on the States concerned to do so. If a State disagrees with the measures, that does not mean the State is relieved of its obligation to comply with them. Third, Switzerland reiterates its firm preference for the peaceful settlement of international disputes via judicial channels. We recognize the important contribution international courts and tribunals make to the maintenance of international peace as well as to the rule of law. Thus, Switzerland welcomes the recourse by States judicial settlement, we emphasize that such proceedings require proper respect for the jurisdiction and the authority of relevant courts, in particular the International Court of Justice. With this in mind, Switzerland applauds all States which choose to seek judicial settlement of their disputes in accordance with international law, as well as States which recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ. By way of conclusion, I would like to In his novel, Petit Pays, he says, "War always takes upon itself to find us an enemy, whether we ask for one or not." It is our role, the role of all of us here today, it is our role to ensure that tensions between states lead to something other than war. This is what the Charter requires of us, as does our conscience. For this reason, let us have recourse to the courts rather than to arms. Let us use the courts rather than arms. I thank you.


GA · Chair [2:48:09]:

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


South Africa [2:48:26]:

Mr. President, At the outset, South Africa wishes to align itself with the statement delivered by Uganda on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. We are grateful to be afforded this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation to the International Court of Justice, its members, and all those that dedicate themselves to ensuring the effective operation of the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. This report once again demonstrates the extensive work carried out by the Court annually. Despite the continued growth of its workload, it is the commitment and professionalism of those who serve the Court that enable it to respond to increasing demands as promptly as possible. This dedication is admirable. Mr. President, the Court is busier than it has ever been. Against this backdrop, it is particularly noteworthy that during the period under review, the Court delivered one judgment and two advisory opinions. This achievement is especially significant, given the increased participation of states and international organizations in advisory proceedings. The Court has also several pending cases on its general list, as well as a number of cases currently being heard or under deliberation. At the same time, it also underscores the value of international law and the indispensable role of the Court in the resolution of international disputes. The high number of interventions by states in contentious proceedings further reflects the interest of states in the rule of law at the international level, their recognition of the importance of decisions of the court, and their desire to be active participants in shaping the international legal order. For South Africa, like many other countries, particularly developing countries and emerging middle power countries, adherence to international law is paramount. It is therefore regrettable that South Africa must express its concern in relation to the blatant disregard of decisions of the Court in certain cases. This is ultimately a failing of States. Each member of the international community has a responsibility to uphold international law and to demand compliance with the legally binding orders of the Court. There is an urgent need for a renewed collective commitment from States to respect and faithfully implement the orders of the Court. Mr. President, at a time when the rule of law is increasingly coming under attack, it is nevertheless encouraging that more States are turning to the Court for the peaceful settlement of international disputes. As we reflect upon the 80th anniversary of the establishment of the Court, We are reminded of the profound contribution the Court has made, and continues to make, to the development, strengthening, and preservation of international law. The considerable progress achieved since the establishment of the United Nations and the Court serves as a testament to the enduring value of multilateral institutions grounded in law and justice. My delegation fully supports the Court’s continued efforts to review and improve its working methods. including the consideration of adopting new technologies, we further encourage the progress in the electronic filing, distribution, and retrieval of case-related information. South Africa is particularly appreciative of the efforts to enhance transparency, including through the amendment of Article 78 of the Rules of Court concerning the publication of reports submitted by parties on their compliance with provisional measures indicated by the Court. Activities of the Court beyond its judicial functions, including outreach activities, presentations, and publications, remain of great importance. These efforts contribute significantly to improving the understanding of the Court's work, expanding its reach, and enhancing the wider appreciation of international law. The Judicial Fellowship Program plays an instrumental role in exposing young professionals to international law and the work of the Court. South Africa is grateful for the support afforded to developing countries. In this regard, South Africa itself has benefited. Such support is essential in addressing the longstanding structural barriers and inequalities that continue to affect the participation of developing countries in international legal institutions and processes. Mr. President, The aspiration for the rule of law is a defining characteristic of humanity. Laws serve to counter injustice, protect the vulnerable, and facilitate the peaceful resolution of disputes through reason rather than through force. Respect for international law and the peaceful settlement of disputes are indispensable to building a more just, stable, and secure world. It is therefore imperative that we strengthen legitimate, credible, and independent institutions that are capable of upholding the law and constraining the exercise of power. In doing so, we help lay the foundation for a more equitable and durable international order. I thank you.


GA · Vice-President [2:53:57]:

I thank. Mr. Vice President, I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States.


United States of America [2:54:16]:

Thank you, Mr. Vice President, and I would like to thank President Iwasawa for his briefing earlier today. We must revisit from time to time the core principles that underline confidence in our judicial institutions, principles that are the animating spirit of United States views on the framework of international justice. Of course, we find in that framework competing goods and risks, and I want to address those risks and the hierarchy of goods we think needs to inform our ongoing discussion about the health of our international judicial bodies. I want to emphasize two particular themes that currently drive our focus on the credible administration of justice in international fora. The increasing abuse by both state and non-state actors of our institutions. abuses that, if unchecked, can erode the credibility of adjudicative bodies; and second, the proper conduct of judicial bodies and their personnel, in particular, the human instinct towards bureaucratic expansion and policy intervention that similarly endangers impartiality and independence. With respect to institutional abuse by state and non-state actors, we want to highlight several areas of concern. We repeat our prior observations in this forum regarding the rise in requests for advisory opinions that are increasingly about political objectives rather than legal questions, and that are used to circumvent the Court's consent-based, contentious jurisdiction. In addition, we have concerns about the expanding practice of state interventions. Interventions should express legal views, not advocate policy preferences. We draw a distinction, for example, between our intervention in the South Africa v. Israel matter, focused on the legal standard for a genocidal intent, and an array of filings that instead make loosely veiled arguments as to a party's culpability through lists of legal duties. We also urge the Court to exercise caution and consider the effects on its own legitimacy when adjudicating cases initiated by uninjured states. such as in Nicaragua v. Germany and South Africa v. Israel. Generally, there are risks looming in the erga omnes partes doctrine that can tempt the court to act inappropriately as an arbiter of purely political disputes between states. Second, we also remain vigilant over the conduct of the courts themselves, as largely exercised through the reasoning of judges. I speak now not of the ICJ in particular, the administration of justice at an international level more generally. We are particularly sensitive to indications of potential abuse, to exceeding jurisdiction, or to redefining concepts in ways the applicable law cannot justify. Similarly concerning are risks of fact-finding without the involvement or consent of an implicated state, a particular risk in cases brought by third states not directly party to a dispute or conflict. More generally, we remain ever focused on the core attributes of judicial restraint. Individual judges must apply the law as it is, not pursuing progressive developments based on what they or influential interest groups think the law should be. Judges are also frequently a last line of defense against political abuse in declining to adjudicate what are fundamentally policy questions. More profoundly, perhaps, we have at the core of any institution the questions of the consent of those over whom it attempts to exercise jurisdiction. We have seen potentially concerning developments in certain arguments recently put forward, which approach calling into question the fundamental principles of state consent. We, of course, share these concerns out of a focus on ensuring the international administration of justice remains credible and defensible. I emphasize that the need to maintain constant vigilance should not be conflated, as it has been by some in the public, as an attack on institutions of justice or the rule of law. We must make a vital distinction between two ways in which justice manifests. There is justice in the particular sense, the fair outcome in a specific case applied to a distinct dispute. And there is justice in the general sense, the preservation of structural, institutional integrity. To recall our attention to these bedrock principles of general justice, structural controls, judicial integrity, and restraint is not an attack on the delivery of justice. Rather, it is essential to ensuring that true justice endures and can be protected. Thank you, Mr. Vice President.


GA · Vice-President [2:59:20]:

I thank the representative of the United States. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ireland, who will speak on behalf of a group of countries.


Ireland [2:59:42]:

Mr. Vice President, to begin with, I would like to thank President Iwasawa for presenting this year's annual report on the activity of the International Court of Justice. I would like to congratulate Mr. Santiago Villalpando on his election as Registrar of the Court last May. I also acknowledge the Court's members and staff for their continuing commitment to the Court's unique and integral role to the peaceful settlement of international disputes. 2026 marks the 80th anniversary of the Court's inaugural sitting, which took place in The Hague in April 1946. In his address last spring at the solemn sitting held to mark this important anniversary, President Iwasawa noted that the Court was founded at a point in history when, emerging from the chaos and destruction of two world wars, there was an unshakable conviction that relations between states should be governed by law and not by force. While we continue to hold that conviction, this year’s report adds nuance to the picture. It illustrates how over the last year, almost half of all UN member states from across all geographic groupings and on a diverse range of legal matters have had recourse to the Court in either contentious or advisory proceedings on important matters, including those with with implications for international peace and security. In this regard, we encourage all states that have not already done so to accept the Court's compulsory jurisdiction. Ireland made such a declaration to that effect a number of years ago. To invoke the rule of law without fully entrusting the Court with the judicial settlement of legal disputes may undermine such invocations. Mr. Vice President, for several years now, we have noted during this debate how the Court's workload has continued to grow. This year's report is no different. Although there has not been a significant increase overall on last year's activity, the Court nonetheless remains busier than ever before in its four-decade history. decade history. This, of course, poses certain operational challenges for the Court, which runs on a relatively modest budget. However, the high level of activity stems from a consistent demand from states that international life be regulated by law and that international disputes be resolved justly, in accordance with relevant legal principles. This is the international legal order in action, and order built not just on selective rules convenient to the moment, but on the body of international law that states have recognized and developed, and to which they have consented. On the matter of the Court's budget, Ireland would like to confirm support for the modest budgetary increase that the Court has sought this year. It is imperative that the Court receive the funding that it needs to respond to the demands that we, the states that use it, place upon it. In this connection, I would also like to briefly mention the Judicial Fellowship Trust Fund, which allows young jurists from developing countries to participate in the Judicial Fellowship Programme. This ensures that early career lawyers from across all UN States can gain exposure to international law in practice at the highest level. Ireland supported the fund again this year and urges others with the means to do so to contribute also. I turn now briefly to the Court's output this year. In addition to its judgment in one contentious case, the Court handed down two advisory opinions. Ireland participated in one of these. I have said this before, but it bears repeating: although advisory opinions may not be legally binding per se, they are authoritative statements of international law, which is binding on all states. with their authority resting not just on the Court’s role as the principal judicial organ of this Organization, but also on the quality of the Court’s reasoning. Where the Court provides reasoned, authoritative clarification of international law, it is incumbent on States to reflect on their own conduct and to consider whether it requires any adjustment. We will continue to examine the Court’s opinions in this manner, and urge others to do so also. In conclusion, I want to return to the address of President Iwasawa last April. He noted that the strength of the international legal system does not rest primarily on the Court, but instead reminded us that it is all of us that uphold the system, which depends on a shared commitment by states to respect agreements and to turn to the law when differences arise. invited States to use the 80th anniversary of the Court to renew our commitment to international law. We in Ireland join the President in this vital appeal. I thank you, Mr. Vice President.


GA · Vice-President [3:05:10]:

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


Romania [3:05:30]:

Thank you very much, Vice President. Romania wishes to thank President Ivasava for presenting the report covering the period from 1 August 2025 to 31 July 2026. We assure His Excellency, as well as all the members of the Court, of Romania's utmost appreciation for the Court's unwavering commitment to promoting the rule of law in international relations. And we take this opportunity also to congratulate the Court for its 80th anniversary. As in previous years, we are impressed by the volume of work carried out by the Court in the period under review and by its ability to address such a great variety of subjects. We are pleased to note that States actively turn to the Court to settle their disputes peacefully while remaining conscious of the demands that this increased workload places upon it. We therefore strongly support the Court's request for the financial resources it needs to meet these challenges. Regarding the Court's judicial activity, we highlight its continued performance of both judicial and advisory functions. These are essential for clarifying and applying States' international legal obligations, which is quintessential for maintaining global peace and security. The Court managed a variety docket, ranging from full merit hearings in Gambia versus Myanmar, featuring 11 interventions from states, to new interventions in cases like Lithuania, Belarus, and Belize versus Honduras. We are greatly encouraged by this increased participation, which underscores states' growing readiness to engage with the Court and invest in capacity building related to such participation. From this perspective, Romania itself has intervened in the case concerning allegations of genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Ukraine v. Russian Federation. We have taken note of the order issued by the Court on 5 December 2025 on the continuation of the proceedings on the merits and look forward to participating further in these proceedings. Mr. Vice President, at a time when the edifice of international law is under increasing strain, we urge all States to comply with the Court’s judgments and orders in the cases to which they are parties, and to take due account of the legal matters clarified in its advisory opinions. In closing, Romania reaffirms its steadfast support for the Court and its full trust that it will continue its unblemished record of professionalism and fairness. I thank you very much.


GA · Vice-President [3:08:22]:

I thank the representative of Romania. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mexico.


Mexico [3:08:44]:

Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Vice President. We wish first of all to thank Judge Iwasawa for his report. We congratulate the Registrar Villalpando for his commendable appointment, and we wish to extend our appreciation to all the judges that are here with us this afternoon in this debate. Vice President, this year, as we mark eight decades of the operations of the ICJ, Mexico reaffirms its unstinting support for the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. In an international context marked by growing disputes, resorting to the Court continues always to remain one of the most tangible expressions of trust in the system that we together have built. It also remains the best and the clearest choice in terms of backing peace. Mexico participated in the two advisory proceedings which took place under the reporting period. They led to the issuance of an opinion by the Court, on the one hand, on Israel's obligations as regards the presence and activities of international organizations and third states in the occupied Palestinian territory, and elsewhere, on the right of strike pursuant to Convention 87 of the Mexico hails the fact that the Court agreed with the arguments put forward by my country in those advisory opinions. Vice President, it is a source of joy to note that Iceland, during the reporting period, recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ in accordance with Article 36(2) of the Court’s Statute. That brings the total number of States that have done so to 75. there is an urgent need to extend the recognition of the court's compulsory jurisdiction and to foster the inclusion of compromissory clauses which attribute authority to the Court in terms of dispute settlements when it comes to the interpretation or application of international treaties, it is inconceivable for my delegation to note that after eight decades of proven results and when the Statute continues to be a constitutive component of the UN Charter, not even half of UN membership accept its compulsory jurisdiction. Recognizing the Court's jurisdiction means, in practice, complying with the principle of the peaceful resolution of disputes. That is a principle that is enshrined in Article 32 of the Charter, which all states, without exception, are obliged to uphold. Vice President, sir, Mexico continues to actively engage with the Court through the two procedures related to the attack on our embassy in Quito and the South African procedure against Israel, in which my country submitted a declaration of intervention under Article 63 of the Treaty. This demonstrates Mexico's commitment to the resolution of disputes. using reason and law, and never using might. At the same time, it confirms our trust in the highest international court. In these times, times in which we are asking ourselves questions, Following the 80 years of existence of our organization, and as we reflect on the measures we should take to tailor it to the challenges currently facing the world, it is necessary to recognize the contributions made by the ICJ to international peace and security. The elect choosing the Court always means choosing law. It means ensuring that dialogue prevails above all. It means choosing peace and backing peace. In times of darkness, when international law is under threat and when we are putting international law on its mettle, the International Court of Justice represents a beacon that lights our path and always reminds us of our civil and our own humanity. Many thanks.


GA · Vice-President [3:13:15]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Mexico. We have now heard the last statement in today's meeting on this agenda item. We will listen to the rest of the speakers this afternoon following consideration of the agenda items as set forth in the journal. We'll do that in this very chamber. This afternoon's meeting will begin at 3:00 PM. With that, the Assembly concludes this stage of its consideration of agenda item 72. As such, the meeting is adjourned.