General Assembly: 30th plenary meeting, 81st session

Thank you.

Good afternoon. The 30th plenary meeting of the General Assembly is called to order. The Assembly will begin its consideration of the agenda item 9, entitled: Report of the Economic and Social Council to take action on a proposal announced in the Journal of the United Nations. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Uruguay, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, to introduce draft resolution A/81/L8.

Mr. President, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, I have the honor to introduce on behalf of the Group of 77 and China draft resolution A/81/L.8, entitled “Extension of the preparatory period preceding the graduation of Bangladesh and Nepal from the least developed country category under agenda item 9, report of the Economic and Social Council. The group attaches importance to the smooth, sustainable, and irreversible graduation of least developed countries. Graduation represents the development aspirations of their peoples and a shared objective of the Doha Programme of Action. It should strengthen the foundations for continued progress and ensure that hard-won development gains are preserved. Through resolution 76/8, the General Assembly decided that Bangladesh and Nepal would graduate on 24th November 2026. Since then, their preparations have faced successive shocks, including the lingering effects of the pandemic, Climate-related disasters, geopolitical conflicts, and disruptions to international trade and energy supplies, uncertainty affecting migrant employment, remittances, and tourism has added further pressure. These external shocks have interacted with persistent domestic vulnerabilities, complicating the implementation of smooth transition strategies. Meeting the graduation criteria does not eliminate structural weaknesses overnight. The experience of Bangladesh and Nepal underscores the importance of considering the conditions in which countries prepare for graduation and their capacity to sustain progress afterwards. International support must respond to these realities. Mr. President, the draft before us follows the requests submitted by the two governments. and the consideration of those requests by the CDP. In its decision 2026/345 of 21 July 2026, the ECOSOC recommended that the General Assembly take action before the currently scheduled graduation date. We appreciate the Committee's assessments and conclusions that inform this text. We also recognize the contribution of the Office of the High Representative for the LDCs, LLDCs, and SIDS, including through its graduation readiness assessments, to identify and remaining challenges and supporting informed preparations. The draft resolution proposes, on an exceptional basis, a three-year extension of the preparatory period for each country until 24th November, 2029. It reaffirms that graduation should be sustainable and irreversible, and should not disrupt development plans, programs, and projects. For Bangladesh, the text takes note of the Committee's view that an extension is appropriate, provided the country advances significantly on domestic reforms addressing persistent structural vulnerabilities. For Nepal, it reflects the Committee's call for a clear, time-bound plan to adjust and reprioritize its smooth transition strategy. The text also emphasizes cooperation with bilateral, regional, and multilateral development and trading partners. It encourages resident coordinators within existing mandates and resources to support implementation, follow-up, and monitoring through a whole-of-UN approach, guided by nationally established milestones. The group believes that supporting Bangladesh and Nepal in their effort will reinforce confidence in a graduation process that delivers lasting development benefits. The group calls for predictable support in financing, trade, technology transfer, and capacity building consistent with the Doha Programme of Action so that their preparations for graduation can proceed alongside implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. Mr. President, the Group expresses its sincere appreciation to Mr. Mohammed Nasser Al Muhannadi and Mr. Mohammed Hassan Al Emadi from Qatar for facilitating the negotiations, and to Mr. M. Dan Choudhury from Bangladesh and Ms. Pramita Adhikari from Nepal for coordinating this resolution on behalf of the Group. We thank all delegations for their constructive engagement and willingness to work towards a text that responds to the circumstances of both countries. The Group of 77 and China calls upon all Member States to support the draft resolution and looks forward to its adoption by consensus. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Uruguay, who spoke on behalf of Group of 77 and China, and for introducing the draft resolution A/81/L8. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/81/L8, entitled Extension of the preparatory period preceding the graduation of Bangladesh and Nepal from the least developed country category. May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt the draft resolution A/81/L.8? I see no objection. It is so decided. Before giving the floor for explanations of vote after the vote, I propose that the time limits for statements in explanation of vote under this item be five minutes. I see no objection to this proposal. It is so decided. Accordingly, percent rule 72 of the rules of procedure of the assembly When a representative exceeds her or his allotted time, the President shall call the speaker to order without delay, which will be done by means of automatic microphone cut-off. To assist delegations in managing their time, a countdown clock will be displayed on the screens. Members are also reminded that explanations of vote should be made by delegations from their seats. I now call upon the delegation of Ireland, distinguished delegate of Ireland, to speak on behalf of the European Union. You have the floor.

Mr. President, Excellencies, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the European Union and its member states. At the outset, allow me to reiterate deepest condolences and solidarity with the government and people of Nepal following recent tragic flooding. The European Union and its member states support the extension of the preparatory period for the graduation of Bangladesh and Nepal from the least developed country status. We thank the Committee for Development Policy for its careful crisis assessments. We also thank Qatar for their facilitation of consultations on this resolution. The European Union and its member states remain steadfast partners of the LDCs, individually and as a group that deserves our special attention due to their special situation in order to leave no one behind. Given in particular the uncertainties and unprecedented challenges that we face today, we believe that concessional resources should be primarily channeled towards those most vulnerable countries and populations. The EU and its Member States support the path to sustainable and inclusive development for LDCs through development cooperation, trade, investment, capacity building, and technical assistance. We are committed to partnering with the LDCs to strengthen productive capacities, diversify economies, improve resilience to external shocks, and advance towards achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Through our development partnerships, preferential trade arrangements, initiatives such as Global Gateway, we seek to support long-term economic transformation and sustainable development. We recognize that graduation from the LDC category is an important achievement, reflecting years of development efforts and progress measured against internationally agreed criteria. Graduation should be smooth, sustainable, and irreversible. It should consolidate development gains and not risk undermining them. In this regard, we took particular note of the CDP's crisis assessment concerning Bangladesh and Nepal, which concluded that an extension of the preparatory period would be appropriate in both cases, subject to specific conditions. For Bangladesh, the Committee has called for significant progress in domestic reforms to address persistent structural vulnerabilities. For Nepal, it has emphasized the importance of a clear, time-bound plan to adjust and reprioritize the country's smooth transition strategy. These recommendations provide an evidence-based foundation for granting the requested extensions. We acknowledge the exceptional circumstances affecting both countries, including overlapping global and domestic crises, heightened economic uncertainty, and challenges to the implementation of their transition strategies. Additional time accompanied by clear priorities and effective implementation would allow Bangladesh and Nepal to strengthen their preparedness, address outstanding vulnerabilities, and mitigate the risks associated with LDC-specific international support measures coming to an end. At the same time, we must preserve the credibility, integrity, and predictability of the LDC graduation framework. The CDP has repeatedly emphasized the importance of applying the established graduation criteria consistently and ensuring that countries which meet those criteria are able to proceed towards graduation. A system in which countries remain in the category for prolonged periods, despite meeting the criteria, risks weakening the credibility of the framework and incentives it provides for development progress. It delays benefits associated with graduation, such as the positive signaling towards international investors, and it may also undermine the purpose of directing LDC-specific international support measures towards countries facing the most severe structural challenges. In this context, we also recall the CDP's view that under the current framework, domestic political transitions do not constitute grounds for extending preparatory periods, although the specific circumstances of the recent transition may merit their consideration in this case. The extensions under consideration should therefore be understood as exceptional time-bound measures grounded in the CDP's crisis assessments and designed to facilitate a successful transition, not as a departure from the established graduation criteria. They should be accompanied by concrete, measurable domestic actions, effective monitoring, and continued engagement by the countries concerned and their development and trading partners. Mr. President, the European Union and its Member States remain strongly committed to supporting the LDCs in their development ambitions, whether they are working towards graduation, have recently graduated, or still have a way to go. We stand ready to continue working with Bangladesh and Nepal, the United Nations system, and other partners to support their preparations for graduation and to ensure that the transition contributes to durable development gains. We have supported the adoption of the proposed decision in accordance with the CDP's recommendations and reaffirm our commitment to the graduation process that is fair, credible, and conducive to sustainable development. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Ireland, and I now call upon the distinguished representative of Canada to speak on behalf of the CANS group. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. I have the honour of delivering this statement on behalf of Australia, New Zealand, and my own country, Canada. CANS joined consensus on this resolution, and we welcome its adoption. We support the objective of ensuring that graduation from the least developed country category is sustainable, durable, and conducive to continued development gains. In that regard, we support the efforts of both Bangladesh and Nepal to advance their sustainable development objectives and to prepare for a smooth transition from LDC status in 2029. At the same time, we note the conclusions of the Committee for Development Policy. that the extensions granted by this resolution are linked to specific expectations. For Bangladesh, the Committee emphasized the importance of making significant progress on domestic reforms to address persistent structural vulnerabilities and stressed that an extension should serve as a catalyst for reform. For Nepal, the Committee highlighted the importance of developing and implementing a clear and time-bound plan to adjust and reprioritize its smooth transition strategy. We therefore encourage both countries to make full use of the additional preparatory period to advance domestic reforms, strengthen implementation of their smooth transition strategies, and maintain regular reporting on progress consistent with the provisions of the resolution. CAN stands ready alongside the wider international community and development partners to support Bangladesh and Nepal in these efforts. We recognize that a successful graduation is a shared endeavor, requiring both strong national ownership and international support. CANS also wishes to express our appreciation for the important technical work of the Committee for Development Policy. Its independent assessments, monitoring, and policy advice are essential to maintaining the credibility, predictability, and integrity of the graduation process. while also supporting countries in achieving smooth and sustainable transitions out of the LDC category. Lastly, CANS wishes to take this opportunity to express our sympathies to the people and government of Nepal following the devastating floods in late August. We commend the efforts of all of those involved in relief and recovery efforts and reaffirm the importance of continued international support to strengthen resilience to disasters and climate-related challenges. Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the representative of Canada. I now give the floor to the representative of France.

Thank you, President. Ladies and gentlemen, France aligns itself fully with the statement of the European Union, and we welcome the adoption by consensus of the resolution. We express our full solidarity with these two countries in the wake of recent events that deeply affected their populations and their economies, in particular Nepal and the terrible disaster that afflicted the country at the end of August. France provided humanitarian support, and we will continue to mobilize and liaise with the authorities in that country. These natural disasters remind us of the importance of strong international cooperation to deal with these disasters. For Bangladesh, we're talking about exogenous shocks, in particular the price of raw materials, which have massively affected that country's economy. We need to have a clear horizon for the graduation process and to bear in mind the situation affecting both countries. President, the eradication of poverty is undoubtedly the most important challenge contained within the SDGs, and multilateral action must be able to provide an effective response to that, because we have a collective responsibility to work for a more effective development system that is more strategic in the allocation of concessional resources to countries and the most vulnerable people. France wishes to recall the importance of the graduation process and for countries to move on from the LDC category. We therefore believe that it's important to give these countries the time to respond to the recommendations from the Development Policy Committee with the support of the international community. This means drafting an economic transition program so that the countries can deal with their vulnerabilities and increase their ability to respond to exogenous macroeconomic shocks. That's for Nepal. For Bangladesh, it has to carry out the necessary reforms. to improve its competitiveness so as to enhance its economic sovereignty and its resilience. France welcomes this decision for an extension which would allow Bangladesh to implement reforms to diversify its economy. It is critical that these responsibilities be fulfilled by Bangladesh. These are major challenges. But these are critical to ensure we are successful in the fight against poverty. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of France. We have heard the last speaker in the explanation of vote after the vote. I will now make a statement as the President of the General Assembly. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, graduation from the least developed country category marks a profound achievement for the graduating countries. But graduation is more than recognition of such achievement. It carries economic, financial, and development consequences. Success is not simply crossing a threshold. It is sustaining progress beyond it. Graduation must advance development, not disrupt the plans, programs, and projects that sustains it. Excellencies, today's consensus decision by the General Assembly responds to the exceptional circumstances related to ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, disruptions to energy supplies and supply chains, global trade uncertainty, and persistent structural vulnerabilities. For both Bangladesh and Nepal, the political transitions that took place recently have compounded external shocks and constrained the government's capacity to respond. Against this backdrop, three additional years is not a retreat from graduation, but an investment in making it succeed. This extended time is not time to stand still. It is time to act decisively, to strengthen institutions, address vulnerabilities, and prepare for the challenges of life beyond graduation. The Assembly invites Bangladesh to advance reforms addressing persistent structural vulnerabilities. It invites Nepal to implement a clear, time-bound plan to adjust and reprioritize its smooth transition strategy. Both countries must strengthen resilience, accelerate progress towards the sustainable development goals, and translate preparations into results. The objective is clear. Graduation should protect hard-won gains and open new development opportunities. National leadership is indispensable. International solidarity must match it. I call upon the United Nations system and all development and trading partners to provide coordinated, predictable, and targeted support. No graduating country should have to cross this bridge alone. Support must respond to national priorities and reach those whose livelihoods are most exposed to transition risks. Excellencies, We must also look beyond graduation criteria. We need a clear picture where the graduating countries stand in achieving sustainable development goals, where gaps persist and which gains are most at risk. I therefore invite UN OHRLLS within its mandate within its resources and through the Sustainable Graduation Support Facility, iGrad, to initiate this mapping exercise for LDCs and report the results to the mid-term review of the Doha Programme of Action next year. This should also inform the review of LDCs criteria. The findings should guide priorities, partnerships, and support throughout the extended preparatory period. What we map, we can Anticipate. What we measure, we can protect. Graduation must be a milestone of progress, not a moment of disruption. Today's decision gives Bangladesh and Nepal three additional years to make that promise real. And let us turn this extended time into lasting progress for the peoples of Bangladesh and Nepal. I thank you. The Assembly has thus concluded. this stage of its consideration of agenda item 9. The Assembly will begin its consideration of agenda item 12, entitled "Integrated and coordinated implementation and follow-up of the outcomes of the major United Nations conferences and summits in the economic, social and related fields", to take action on a proposal announced in the Journal of the United Nations. The Assembly will now take action on draft decision A/81/L.10, further modalities for the 2026 United Nations Water Conference to accelerate implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 6, ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft decision A/81/L.10? I don't see an objection, so it is so decided. The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 12. The Assembly will begin its consideration of agenda item 73, entitled Report of the International Criminal Court, to take action on a proposal announced in the Journal of the United Nations. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to introduce draft decision A/81/L.9.

Thank you, Mr. President. The Kingdom of the Netherlands and Japan have submitted a draft decision that would allow the President of the International Criminal Court to introduce the report of the International Criminal Court to the General Assembly by means of a pre-recorded video message. The presentation of the report traditionally takes place at the beginning of the annual debate on the ICC report. This year, the debate is scheduled on Monday, 2 November. The decision to allow for virtual participation concerns a procedural matter. It does not qualify the substance of the report or the presentation thereof. Irrespective of diverging views that UN Member States may have on the report of the ICC, we ask your support for this procedural decision so we are all able to listen to the presentation by the President of the Court. In conclusion, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Japan ask this Assembly to decide that, at its 81st session, the President of the International Criminal Court may introduce a report of the Court under the agenda item entitled "Report of the International Criminal Court". by means of a pre-recorded video statement, which will be played in the General Assembly Hall after the introduction by the President of the General Assembly at the plenary meeting concerned. I thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. We shall now proceed to consider the draft decision. Before giving the floor for explanations of vote before the vote, I propose that the time limits for statements in explanation of vote under this item be five minutes. Is there any objection to this proposal? I see none. It is so decided. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 72 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, When a representative exceeds her or his allotted time, the President shall call the speaker to order without delay, which will be done by means of automatic microphone cut-off. To assist delegations in managing their time, a countdown clock will be displayed on the screens. Members are also reminded that explanations of vote should be made by delegations from their seats. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Mr. President. The United States unequivocally opposes any ICC actions against the United States or any other U.S. ally that has not consented to ICC jurisdiction. The core U.S. objections to the ICC have remained unchanged for nearly three decades. Going back to our participation in the Rome Statute negotiations, the ICC prosecutor and judges wield enormous power that has proven to be unchecked, as any safeguards provided in the Rome Statute have failed or been ignored. Over the years, the ICC has taken politicized actions over personnel of the United States and certain of its allies that have not consented to ICC jurisdiction. The Court’s ongoing actions set a dangerous precedent, threaten to infringe on the principle of state sovereignty, and undermine our critical national security and foreign policy work. That is why we are voting against the draft General Assembly decision that would allow the ICC President to virtually participate in the November 2 meeting during which the General Assembly will consider the ICC annual report. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, the Russian Federation voted against the draft decision on providing the so-called International Criminal Court with the ability to present to the General Assembly their report of the ICC. And we call upon all delegations to follow our example. Our position on the format of participation in the work of the GA is well known. We consistently have supported in-person participation in light of the Rules of Procedure and established practice. We believe that any deviation from this procedure ought to be fully justified. We do not see such justification with regard to these tribunals that do not have any relationship to the UN as well as the broader UN system. An exception should be dictated not by political considerations of certain delegations or attempts to provide special conditions for a select few. The issue of exclusion of non-UN bodies sounds especially cynical in the context of unresolved problems with the various representatives of certain bodies to the UN. We call on States to focus on resolving these problems. that affect the universal nature of the UN, instead of getting distracted by various politicized pseudo-court structures, we call you to vote against this decision. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote before the vote. The Assembly will now take Action on draft decision A/81/L9, entitled “Introduction of the report of the International Criminal Court at the eighty-first session of the General Assembly.” A recorded vote has been requested. We shall now begin the voting process. Those in favor of draft decision A/81/L.9, please signify. Those against? And abstentions.

The Assembly is now voting on draft decision A/81/L.9, entitled “Introduction of the report of the International Criminal Court at the eighty-first session of the General Assembly.” Will all delegations confirm that their.

Votes are accurately reflected on the screen.

The voting has been completed. Please lock the machine.

The result of the vote is as follows: in favour 106, against 8, abstentions 18. Draft decision A/81/L.9 is adopted. Before giving the floor for explanations of vote, we do not have any speaker to explain vote after the vote. So, the Assembly, with this, has concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 73. And we will now resume consideration of agenda item 72, entitled Report of the International Court of Justice, to hear the remaining speakers on the debate on this item. I call upon the distinguished representative of Guatemala to make a statement. You have the floor.

Mr. President, Guatemala thanks the President of the International Court of Justice Mr. Iwasawa, for presenting the annual report A/81/4 on the work of the Court over the past year.

I would like to begin by commending the Court upon its 80th anniversary. The Court, like its predecessor, is an expression in the trust that states place in the peaceful settlement of disputes through international law. This tradition is of particular significance for Guatemala and for a region that has a large experience of using such judicial mechanisms. I would like to take this opportunity to convey our gratitude to Philippe Gautier, who served as the Secretary of the Court with seriousness, responsibility, and devotion. We are proud by the election of his successor, Santiago Vial Pando, a recognized jurist from our region. We wish him the best of success, and he has our full support as he goes about his work. President, Guatemala reaffirms its commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes, international law, and the judicial function of the Court. Our commitment is not just declaratory. Guatemala submitted its territorial dispute with Belize to the Court. Guatemala reaffirms that it will comply in good faith with the ruling that the Court will provide. with regard to this dispute, and we trust that the decision will be a critical step forward to strengthen our relations with Belize on the basis of mutual respect, cooperation, and international law. Guatemala will continue to support the Court's work and promote the peaceful settlement of disputes through the legal mechanisms that are legitimately established by the international community. In this regard, we wish to express particular thanks to the Organization of American States and the group of Friends of Belize and Guatemala, who have played a critical role to reach a lasting solution to this dispute. We believe that the contributions of both groups are a specific example of the multilateral ecosystem that exists to help the important work of the ICJ in promoting the peaceful settlement of disputes. President, the Annual Report Speaks about the increasing use of the court by states, which is reflected in the increase in the number of cases and the requests for advisory opinions and the intervention of third states in disputes. Against an increasingly complex geopolitical context, the Court is a cornerstone of multilateralism, given the independence of its judicial function, the robustness of its jurisprudence, and the confidence that states place in it. States must therefore support the Court's work. This support is not just in terms of providing the necessary resources for it to carry out its functions, but also respecting its decisions, disseminating its jurisprudence and including its contributions to the application of international law. The Court's activities to bring its work closer to States, including the scholarship programme, are therefore welcome. Judicial authorities such as the ICJ are necessary to prevent both sovereign equality and equal rights between States. In this same spirit, the Court's composition should therefore reflect the main forms of civilization and the principal legal systems that exist in the world in line with its Statute. The Court should therefore be representative of the international character of the membership of this organization, the UN. This does not just mean ensuring diversity of the judges that make up the Court and its staff, but also recognising multilingualism. That is critical. President, we welcome and support the efforts that the Court is making to modernise its case management infrastructure. We believe that this Modernization has been necessary for some time. The Court's importance and its workload, which is increasingly complex, require technological and administrative tools that are commensurate with its responsibilities as the main UN judicial organ. A modern system will make it possible to improve the administration of cases, to strengthen coordination and promote a more efficient use of the Court's resources, at the same time protecting confidentiality and integrity of its procedures. We recognise the importance of carefully assessing the initiative's costs and the efficiencies that are hoped to be obtained. We encourage the Court to continue making headway on this important institutional modernisation. To conclude, President, the Court is a concrete expression of the ideal to achieve peace through law. It is no coincidence that it is seated In this city of international justice and peace, its 80th anniversary is an appropriate opportunity to recognize its invaluable contribution to the peaceful settlement of disputes and to strengthening the rule of law internationally. The presence of the King of the Netherlands and the United Nations Secretary-General during the solemn ceremony that was held in April symbolises the primordial place that the Court occupies in the multilateral system and the commitment of this organisation to international justice. I thank you.

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

Mr. President, Indian delegation expresses its sincere appreciation to Judge Iwasawa, President of the International Court of Justice, for presenting the Court's annual report. We extend our warm congratulations to the International Court of Justice on the 80th anniversary of its inaugural sitting. As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the Court has played an indispensable role in the peaceful settlement of disputes between States and in upholding the rule of law in international relations. Taking stock of its work since its inaugural sitting in April 1946, the Court has had over 200 cases entered in its general list as of 26 June 2026. This sustained recourse to the Court reflects both the range of disputes arising between States and the Conference proposed in it as a mechanism for the peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with international law. We also welcome the publication of the commemorative volume by the History International Court of Justice, 80th year in the service of peace and justice, which provides a valuable account of the Court's history and judicial activities. Mr. President, India reaffirms its commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. and its continued support for the Court's role in the peaceful settlement of international disputes. We recognize its important contribution to the interpretation and clarification of international law, as well as to its progressive development and codification. The Court discharges two distinct but complementary functions. Its contentious jurisdiction, through which it settles legal dispute between states, and its advisory jurisdiction, through which it provides opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies. Both functions contribute to the clarification of international law and strengthening of the international legal order. As the report indicates, during the period under review, 88 states were involved in contentious or advisory proceedings before the court. The Court delivered one judgment and two advisory opinions, and rendered 16 orders. The volume and diversity of these activities demonstrate the extent of the Court's judicial responsibilities and procedural demands involved in starting its mandate. The cases before the Court cover a wide range of complex factual and legal issues, including territorial sovereignty, land and maritime delimitation, racial discrimination, state immunities, the interpretation and application of international treaties and conventions, and the prevention of genocide. The advisory opinions delivered during the reporting period further illustrate the range of legal questions entrusted to the Court. The Court's contribution to international law must be understood within the framework of the Charter of the United Nations and its Statute. Its independence, impartiality, and adherence to the applicable rules of international law remains essential to maintaining the confidence of state in its judicial work. Mr. President, India recognizes the importance of providing wider access to the Court's Judicial Fellowship Program. In this regard, the trust fund established in 2021 pursuant to UNGA resolution 75/129 is a welcome initiative aimed at enhancing the geographical and linguistic diversity of the program by supporting eligible law graduates from developing countries whose universities may not have the resources to sponsor them. We note that for the 2026-27 Judicial Fellowship Program, five of the 16 selected candidates who are nationals of developing countries and nominated by universities in developing countries were to receive fellowships through the Trust Fund. This initiative enables talented young jurists from developing countries to gain professional experience in public international law and work of the Court. Mr. President, We also recognize the importance of Court's continued efforts to improve its procedures and working methods while preserving the quality and integrity of its judicial process. Adequate institutional support and efficient administrative arrangements are important to enable the Court to discharge its responsibility effectively, particularly as the complexity and diversity of cases before it continue to place demand on its judges and registry. Mr. President, Eight decades of service have underscored the enduring importance of judicial settlement as a means of resolving disputes peacefully. India reiterates its continued support for the International Court of Justice and acknowledges its vital contribution to the peaceful settlement of disputes and the advancement of the rule of law in international relations. I thank you, Mr. President.

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

Thank you, President. It's an honour for me to take the floor on behalf of Spain on this agenda item. Spain aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union, and we'd like to make the following comments in our national capacity. First of all, We would like to thank President Iwasawa Yuji for presenting his report on the activities of the International Court of Justice during the period between 1 August 2025 and 31 July 2026. President, Spain wishes to reiterate its unwavering support to the ICJ, and we also stress its critical role in the peaceful settlement of disputes and then upholding the international law and the United Nations Charter. We think that abiding by these principles are critical to guarantee peace, security, and human dignity. The report reflects an intense, diverse range of judicial activity. During the period under review, 88 states participated states from throughout the world, participated in the procedures that the Court is working on. The Court issued a ruling on a request for an intervention, two advisory opinions, and 16 sentences. By the 31st of July, there were 24 cases on its list, and these figures bear witness to the Court's importance and trust that the State's place in it, and in international law in general. That is why it is also important to state, President, that matters between states that the Court has to deal with cover very different issues: territorial and maritime boundaries, the status of various issues, breaches of obligations pertaining to bilateral or multilateral treaties, or decisions taken by international organizations or bodies. It's also important to state that participating states come from all parts of the world. President, Spain recognizes the mandatory jurisdiction of the Court, and we urge other states to to recognize this, pursuance to Article 36 of the Statute. In the wake of the statement delivered by Iceland during the period under review, it is now 75 states have made statements that specifically recognize the Court's jurisprudence, and this is certainly a good step forward that we must continue to work on. However, accepting the Court's jurisdiction is not enough. The rulings that the court provides and the measures that the court provides for must be abided by by states, states that are parties to disputes. The Security Council must play its full role in this regard and shoulder the functions provided to it by the Charter. In this context, we welcome the amendment to Article 78 of the Court's Rules and Regulations on parties' compliance with provisional measures handed down by the ICJ. President, advisory opinions also warrant serious attention and appropriate follow-up by UN bodies and Member States of the organization. particularly when they are in response to requests made by this General Assembly. President, Spain's commitment to the defense of international law is borne out in our participation in procedures before the ICJ, both in terms of as advisory matters or in terms of disputes. In the latter, we recall our statement made in June of 2022 about the scope of Article 63 of the Court's Statute with regards to the allegations of genocide made by Ukraine against the Russian Federation. And we also recall our statement delivered in June of 2024 on the matter also pertaining to Article 63 of the Statute, pertaining to the application of the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip, which was brought by South Africa against Israel. We continue to keep an eye on how these procedures are evolving, and we reaffirm the importance of the correct interpretation and application of the Convention on Genocide. In the advisory domain, in the period under review, Spain participated in the procedures pertaining to Israel's obligations, pertaining to the presence and activities of the United Nations, other international organizations, and third states in the occupied Palestinian territories, which led to the advisory opinion emitted or issued on the 22nd of October. And we also took part in the procedure on the right to strike in the context of the ILO Statute 86. In these procedures, President Spain has supported the Court in its work, as we believe it is a cornerstone, the cornerstone of international law. President, before concluding, I wish to stress the importance of multilingualism as an expression of the universal nature of the United Nations. Spain welcomes the resolution on multilingualism, which was adopted on the 4th of September by the General Assembly. This resolution recognizes the increasing requests by member states for languages other than English and French, particularly Spanish, to be used, and the increasing interest in having material and publications in the six official languages, particularly Spanish. Spain is thus in favor of a greater presence for Spanish in the Court's work. I conclude, President, by expressing thanks once again for this report and reaffirming Spain's full support to the ICJ in this year, its 80th anniversary, at the service of peace and justice. Thank you.

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

President, I wish to begin by warmly greeting the President of the ICJ and the distinguished members of this Court. Chile warmly congratulates the ICJ at the occasion of its 80th anniversary. Over the last 80 years, the Court has shown itself to be a fundamental pillar of the strengthening of an international system based on the maintenance of international peace and security, the peaceful settlement of disputes, and respect for international law. Chile welcomes the report presented to this General Assembly, which outlines the Court’s activities during the period from 2025 to 2026. The Court's valuable work, as well as the intensive judicial activity undertaken during that period, bear witness to the high degree of trust placed by the international community in the Court, in spite of the increasing complexity of the international context. President, Chile particularly welcomes the progress that has been made in terms of regional diversity and opportunities for new generations within the international judicial system. We underscore in particular the Court Scholarships Program, which has ensured the inclusion of jurists from developing countries. We are particularly pleased that between the universities selected for 2026-2027, there is a Chilean institution involved, which reaffirms our country's commitment to the development of international jurisprudence. President, When it comes to the issues that the Court is currently considering, Chile reiterates the need to ensure the effective compliance with the decisions that the Court hands down, including its rulings and orders for provisional measures. Abiding by these resolutions is critical to uphold the integrity of the jurisdictional function of the Court and avoiding disputes from exacerbating. In this regard, we welcome the reforms made by the Court, in particular the amendments to Article 78 to increase transparency and follow up on the application of provisional measures. Transparency and accountability are the foundation for fair global governance. She also highlights the advisory work that the Court has done. Advisory opinions, even though they are not binding in nature, nevertheless contribute to developing international law, to strengthening peaceful relations between states, and to offering essential tools for preventive diplomacy. Chile’s foreign policy has been built on the foundation of respect for international law and the principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes. These principles, which guide our multilateral work, are the cornerstone of our diplomatic tradition, and they reflect our belief that international justice is an essential element for lasting peace. In a world that has increasingly to address more geopolitical tensions, new technological challenges, and an increase in the number of natural disasters, dialogue and international cooperation are of paramount importance to find solutions to ensure international peace and security. That is why it's critical that they be founded on legal rules that allow for legitimate and effective political decisions to be taken at the international level. President, the Court's work, which goes beyond the settlement of disputes, is critical to promote a culture of peace and mutual respect, to strengthen the international justice system, and to ensure that the principles of international law are applied throughout the world fairly and equally. In conclusion, Chile reaffirms its unwavering determination to continue working with the ICJ and with all Member States to uphold international law. I thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. President. I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the Republic of Korea. At the outset, I would like to extend our warmest congratulations to President Iwasawa Yuzi and the International Court of Justice on the occasion of its 80th anniversary. Since its inaugural sitting in 1946, the Court has faithfully discharged its mandate as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Over the past eight decades, it has played an independent role in the peaceful settlement of international disputes, the clarification and development of international law, and the promotion of the rule of law at the international level. As reflected in the Court's annual report, the Court currently has 24 cases pending on its docket with two new contentious cases instituted during the reporting period. We commend the Court for its unwavering commitment to the effective and impartial administration of international justice. The increasing cause to the Court, including through request for advisory opinions on matters of profound importance to the international community, bears testimony to the trust and confidence that stays at the wide international community continue to place in the Court. Mr. President, Despite these achievements, however, the court continues to face formidable challenges. The number of cases brought before the court has grown significantly, while the disputes submitted to it have become increasingly complex and politically sensitive. The expanding volume and complexity of its judicial work place considerable demands on the court and its registry. whose budgetary and human resources remain constrained. In this regard, we underscore the importance of ensuring that the Court is equipped with the necessary resources to discharge its mandate efficiently and independently. The international community must make further efforts to support the Court and enable it to respond to the growing demands placed upon it. At a time when the international legal order faces increasing challenges, the role of the Court in upholding international law and facilitating the peaceful settlement of disputes is more important than ever. Mr. President, In this context, the Republic of Korea has put forward a highly qualified candidate for this year's election to the court, Judge Jin-Hyun Baek. He brings more than four decades of experience in the study and practice of international law, including extensive judicial experience at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, where he served as a judge and president. We are confident that his expertise, independence, and integrity would enable him to make a meaningful contribution to the Court's important work. We believe that a Court composed of judges of the highest caliber, reflecting diverse legal traditions and perspectives, is essential to maintaining its credibility and authority. The Republic of Korea remains firmly committed to supporting the Court. We will continue to work closely with the international community to advance the peaceful settlement of disputes and the rule of law. Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Italy.

Mr. Chair, Italy aligns itself with the statement delivered by the representative of the European Union and would like to add the following remarks in its national capacity. I would like to start by expressing Italy's congratulation for the Court's 80th anniversary. It is an honor and a privilege for me to convey such wishes on this important occasion, and I take this opportunity to commend once again work and dedication of the Court, its judges and staff. We thank President Iwasawa for his informative and detailed remarks on the recent activities of the Court. Also this year, the ICJ has recorded a significant track of activity in both its judicial and advisory function. This is further evidence of the continued importance of the Court as the pivotal point of reference for the peaceful settlement of international legal disputes between States, in line with Article 36, paragraph 3 of the UN Charter. This may appear in stark contrast with the growing perception that international law may no longer be the core compass for the entertainment of international relations. However, facts appear to state otherwise. The continued resort to the International Court of Justice indeed testifies how relevant international law remains to ensure an effective multilateral order with the United Nations at its center, an order based on commonly recognized rules for the benefit of the international community and the welfare of our respective peoples. This year’s report clearly reflects this trend, with 24 cases dealt with as for 31 July 2026. Italy is party to a contentious case, although currently suspended. In addition, Italy intervened under Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute in the case instituted by Ukraine against the Russian Federation concerning allegations of genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Genocide Convention. We encourage States to submit to the Court their respective legal disputes, including where political or diplomatic avenues may have no proven suitable to uphold peace and security through the rule of law and legal certainty of respective rights and duties. At the same time, we commend the Court’s role in providing important legal guidance on pressing challenges of our time, including in areas closely connected with the protection of human rights and the rights of people. In this regard, We have taken due note of the recent advisory opinion concerning the right to strike under ILO Convention, whose conclusions are consistent with the Italian constitutional and legislative framework, which expressly recognizes and protects the right to strike. Moreover, we would like to recall the broad follow-up to the Court's advisory opinion on climate change. including through the adoption by the General Assembly of resolution 80/263, co-sponsored by Italy. We take it as a meaningful illustration of the wider relevance that the Court's advisory work can have within the multilateral system. Let me conclude by recalling that Italy remains firmly committed to the Court and to the role it is entrusted to play within the United Nations system. In this regard, we recall Italy's acceptance back in 2014 of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction by means of a declaration under Article 36, paragraph 2, of its Statute, as an expression of our long-standing confidence in the peaceful settlement of international dispute through judicial means. We encourage countries which have not yet done so to provide their acceptance of the ICJ's jurisdiction and therefore contribute to reinforcing the respect for the rule of law. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, President. Belgium aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union, and we would like to make some comments in our national capacity. Belgium, first of all, would like to thank the President of the ICJ for the presentation of his annual report. We'd also like to commend the commitment of the judges. and all of the staff of the Court, and we would like to congratulate those who have been elected to the Court. I would also like to express my sincere thanks to the predecessor of the judge, Mr. Philippe Gauthier, for his many years of service. President, this year is of particular importance. The ICJ is marking its 80th anniversary, and this is an opportunity for us to recall the central role that the Court plays as the main UN judicial body and as a pillar of the international order based on law. For 80 years, the Court has offered States an impartial, independent framework to resolve their differences through peaceful means. Against an international backdrop characterized by various crises and by multilateralism being called into question, the Court's role remains essential. States using Court for their disputes, which are often complex and sensitive, is one of the most specific expressions of the principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes enshrined in the Charter and bears witness to States’ commitment to abide by law rather than to use force. This anniversary therefore invites us to think of the future of international justice and States’ collective responsibility to support these institutions. President, the figures laid out in the report show a particularly intense activity and the trust that states continue to place in the Court. The high number of procedures, both disputes and advisory opinions, the active participation of states in these procedures, as well as the variety of the issues that the Court is dealing with, show the central role that the Court plays in the international legal order. By clarifying and implementing the rules of international law, the Court fosters legal security, thus contributing significantly to strengthening the rule of law and to ensuring stability of international relations. In order for the Court to fulfil its mandate, it must enjoy the active, constant support of States. This notably involves providing the necessary material and human resources to address an increasing caseload, to maintain high quality in its deliberations and to guarantee equal access to justice for all States. President, this year has also been marked by significant deadlines for the composition of the Court. Belgium wishes to stress the importance of ensuring greater gender balance in the Court. Currently, only five women are on the Court out of 15 judges, and this under-representation does not represent or reflect the diversity of our societies, nor the UN's commitment to achieve gender equality. In addition to this, the Court's composition must reflect the plurality of legal systems throughout the world. This must be the case in order for its decisions to be just, inclusive, and universally legitimate. Above and beyond the Court's composition, its effectiveness also hinges on respect for and the implementation of its decisions in good faith by states. The authority of international justice is based on states' commitments to abide by their obligations pursuant to the United Nations Charter and also the Court's very statute. President. As the Court is entering its ninth decade, Belgium reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the ICJ, to its independence and its impartiality, and its multilateralism as the main legal body of the United Nations and the cornerstone of the peaceful settlement of international disputes. In this regard, we welcome the recent award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Ms. Navi Pillay. As the noble committee said.

International law is no longer just a supplement to peace and security. It is an absolute necessity.

This statement clearly illustrates the relevance of the Court's mission. The last 80 years have showed the crucial value of international justice. We now need to make sure it has all necessary means to continue to fulfil this mission for the benefit of future generations. I thank you, President.

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

Mr. President, Malaysia thanks the President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Iwasawa Yuji, for his report. We align ourselves with Uganda’s statement on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and make the remarks in our national capacity. Malaysia reaffirms its support for the Court as the United Nations’ principal judicial organ advancing the peaceful settlement of disputes and the development of international law. Malaysia recognises the critical importance of the Court’s advisory function under Article 96 of the UN Charter. Its opinions provide authoritative guidance on international law and assist the United Nations and its Member States in addressing matters of international concern. Our past participation in advisory proceedings, including those concerning Palestine, demonstrates our commitment to peaceful dispute settlement and confidence in international justice. Of this, Malaysia reiterates its welcome for the Advisory Opinion of 22 October 2025 concerning Israel’s obligations in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations, other international organizations, and third states in and in relation to the occupied Palestinian territory. We are pleased to say that Malaysia has contributed to these proceedings through written and oral submissions, as reflected in the report. The Court’s findings reaffirm UNRWA’s indispensable role in providing humanitarian relief to the population of the OPT and leave no room for delay or obstruction. Malaysia calls for full and immediate implementation Of the obligations identified by the Court, Israel must facilitate humanitarian relief, protect humanitarian and medical workers, and ensure full respect for the privileges and immunities accorded to the OPT. Palestinians must receive humanitarian assistance safely, promptly, and without obstruction. The prohibitions on starvation as a method of warfare and forcible displacement must be upheld without exception. Malaysia remains steadfast in its support for the inherent and inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination, right of return, and the right to statehood. Malaysia reiterates its unwavering and principled support for the establishment of an independent and sovereign state of Palestine based on the pre-1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Malaysia also firmly supports South Africa’s recourse to the Court in the case concerning the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip against Israel. We call for full and immediate compliance with the Court’s provisional measures reaffirmed on 24 May 2024. Mr. President, Malaysia notes the appeal against the ICJ Council’s decision of 30 June 2025 concerning the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. This matter remains profoundly important to Malaysia and the families of all 298 people who have lost their lives. Malaysia respects the Court’s independent consideration of the appeal and remains committed to truth, justice and accountability for the victims and their families. Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 2166, We call for full cooperation from all concerned parties in this common pursuit. In conclusion, Malaysia emphasises that international law must be applied consistently and without double standards. We acknowledge and appreciate the essential role of the Court as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. and the utmost importance of upholding its independence and integrity. Thank you.

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

President, the Chinese delegation thanks President Iwasawa Yuji for his report on the work of the International Court of Justice and pays its tribute to all the judges and the staff of registry for their diligence in implementing the Court's mandate. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the inaugural sitting of the Court. Over the past eight decades, in implementing the Charter and the Statute of the Court, the Court has admitted over 170 contentious cases and 30-plus advisory cases, making vital contributions to the interpretation and application of international law, peaceful settlement of international disputes, and maintenance of international fairness and justice. What the Court has achieved in its development embodies multilateralism in its truest form and significant progress in international rule of law. Over the past year, the Court operated under a heavy workload, with cases reaching a historical high covering international peace and security, territorial and maritime delimitation, diplomatic relations, human rights protection, and the interpretation and application of international treaties, and other international law questions. How the Court handles these cases not only affects directly the interests of States concerned, but also bears on the stability of international order and the implementation effectively and long-term development of international law. President, currently, the international landscape is undergoing the most complex and profound changes since the end of the Second World War, with the post-war international under strain, anti-unilateralism and the law of the jungle resurfacing. Now more than ever, the world needs to revitalize multilateralism and recommit to the norms and rule of law. The International Court of Justice, as the principal organ, judicial organ of the United Nations, stands as an important pillar of international rule of law and serves as an important platform for practicing multilateralism. The increasing number of cases in its docket and the growing international attention bear testament to the high expectation of the international community for the Court's effective delivery of mandates and impartial administration of justice. In this context, China believes the Court should demonstrate courage in overcoming difficulties in implementing its missions, especially in the following four areas: First, safeguarding fairness and justice as its raison d’être. The Court should safeguard equality of states regardless of its size and ensure the uniform and equal application of international law. Second, upholding international rule of law as its core mandate. The Court should firmly stand by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter that underpin basic norms governing international relations. Third, conducting adjudications in strict accordance with the law from which the Court derives its authority. The Court should preserve the authority and sanctity of the international law and avoid expanding its mandate and politicizing its work. Fourth, ensuring rigor and efficiency to lay a solid foundation for progress. The Court should work towards improving the quality and efficiency of its proceedings. Last September, President Xi Jinping proposed a global governance initiative, which has gained positive response from over 60 countries and international organizations. The initiative underscored the importance of international law as the fundamental safeguard for global governance, in which the role of the Court is key. As a permanent member of the Security Council and responsible member to the country, China will continue to support the Court in discharging its duties in accordance with the law and will work with all Member States to firmly uphold multilateralism, improve global governance, and safeguard international rule of law. Thank you, President.

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

Mr. President, Greece wishes to thank His Excellency Judge Iwasawa, President of the International Court of Justice, for the presentation of the report of the ICJ for the period spanning from August 2025 to July 2026. This year marks the 80th anniversary since the Court began its work in 1946. Since its creation, the ICJ has provided legal clarity and certainty to member states on a broad range of questions of international law, either in contentious cases or in advisory opinions. Its jurisprudence and advisory opinions are also critical for overcoming instances of fragmentation of the law and are key on maintaining unity and uniformity in the interpretation and application of international law. The report contains detailed presentation of the cases, as well as of the advisory proceedings before the Court in the past year. This reporting period is among the busiest in a row in the history of the Court. It involves in its proceedings, whether contentious or advisory, a large number of members of the UN and a number of international organizations. In advisory proceedings, as well as in contentious proceedings, states from all the geographical regions of the world are participating as parties or as interveners under Article 62 and 63 of its statute. Furthermore, the judgments and advisory opinions surrendered by the ICJ relate in their alia to a number of questions of law. ranging from the law of the sea to human rights, international humanitarian law, and to treaty law interpretation, and from the prevention of genocide to diplomatic and consular relations, and the safety of civil aviation. This is evidence of the universal, but equally of the general character of its jurisdiction. Greece wishes to underline, in this respect, that the increase in number of cases, as well as participants in recent contentious and advisory proceedings, sets logistical and financial challenges to the Court. They set a demanding schedule of hearings and deliberations. We wish to highlight, however, that despite the increase of the case load of the Court and the complexity of the cases submitted to it, The period between the conclusion of the oral proceedings and the delivery of a judgment or an advisory opinion by the Court does not, on average, exceed six months. This is also an important aspect of the judicial settlement of disputes by the Court in terms of rule of law. Mr. President, Greece is a staunch supporter of international law. It is also a strong supporter of judicial resolution of international disputes in which the institutional role of the ICJ is preeminent. We invite all states to recognize, if they have not yet done so, as compulsory the jurisdiction of the court, as provided for in Article 36, paragraph two of its statute, noting that the number of states parties which have filed such declarations amounts to 75 UN member states as of today, a number which has not increased significantly for years. Equally, we wish to underscore the importance of providing for compromissory clauses, providing for the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in multilateral or bilateral treaties when such treaties are negotiated or concluded as contemplated in Article 36, paragraph 1 of its Statute. We recall in this regard that according to Article 36, paragraph 3 of the Charter, legal disputes, as a general rule, should be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the Statute of the Court. Greece is of the opinion that the wider acceptance of the above basis of jurisdiction of the Court by the UN Member States would enhance the judicial settlement as a means of the pacific settlement of disputes and hence the respect of international law in international Mr. President, in concluding, Greece is of the view that the preeminence of international law is safeguarded by the judicial work of the ICJ. The challenges, however, which the heavy case load of the Court presents should be appropriately addressed in line with its functions as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, we thank the President of the International Court of Justice, Mr. Yuji Iwasawa, for his report on the work of the Court. The ICJ is one of the most important elements of the global architecture for maintaining international relations based on international law. This gives particular weight to its practice and makes it part of the broader process of strengthening the rule of law. Any attempt to undermine this role or to exploit the Court to advance narrow political interests are unacceptable. This year, we mark the 80th anniversary of of the beginning of the Court's work. Throughout its history, through its history and legal philosophy, the Court has established its authority. Its case load is growing every year. It currently has a record number of cases on its docket, 24. These cases cover all of the vital questions, including state sovereignty, prohibition of genocide, racial discrimination, respect for human rights, immunities, and so forth. Of course, the increased workload of the Court requires that it be provided with resources that are increased accordingly. We believe that the Court must have all necessary staffing, organizational, and technological capabilities in order to carry out its functions. Unfortunately, we're seeing crisis tendencies in international relations. It's telling that currently the Court is currently considering four cases that in some way or another concern the obligations of states to prevent and punish the most serious international crime, genocide. It seems that this problem, we would have thought that this problem had been definitively resolved after the Nuremberg Tribunal, whose 80th anniversary was also being celebrated this year. But to our deep regret, we once again find ourselves Speaking about the resurgence of misanthropic theories, the spread across Europe of Nazi and racial supremacist ideas in old and new formats, and the continued existence of the evil of mass extermination of humans by other humans, the Court faces a very challenging but important task to adjudicate these cases in accordance with principles of justice and impartiality. In December 2025, the Court issued an order accepting for consideration all of the Russian Federation’s counterclaims in the Russia-Ukraine proceedings under the Genocide Convention. These counterclaims concern not only the commission of genocide by Ukraine, but also genocidal acts by individuals and by groups, including neo-Nazi armed groups that committed atrocities in the Donbas region, as well as complicity in genocide, incitement to genocide, and failure to prosecute genocide. of Ukraine’s objections, in which it claimed that the Russian counterclaims were inadmissible, were rejected by the Court. And this clearly showed Ukraine’s status as the respondent in the case originally initiated by Ukraine itself. Today, some speakers referred to the provisional measures that were ordered by the ICJ in this case that Russia allegedly was failing to comply with. I would ask these delegations to consult their legal advisors. Provisional measures require the court to have jurisdiction, but the court ruled it had no jurisdiction over all allegations against Russia under the Genocide Convention, including those related to the special military operation. It has no jurisdiction, not only prima facie, but no jurisdiction at all. So how can we speak of provisional measures when the court itself has acknowledged that it lacks the authority to indicate these provisional measures? Over the past year, we have also seen the conclusion of the hearings on the merits of the Gambia v. Myanmar case. The judgment in this case will be the Court’s first substantive ruling since the landmark cases of the 90s and 2000s regarding the events in the Balkans. There also has been progress in the case of South Africa against Israel, versus Israel, under the Genocide Convention. The Court's legal assessments in these proceedings will be important to help resolve the Gaza crisis and will certainly influence developments in the Middle East. One important and unique function of the Court is to be the highest judicial instance for appeals against decisions of other international bodies. In the current situation, this function is beyond that of an appellate court. In many respects, it is the only proper and truly judicial examination of a given dispute. And this applies in particular to the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO. These bodies were never intended to carry out judicial functions, and they have become so deeply politicized and incompetent that their consideration of disputes between states has turned into an actual farce. The ICJ Council, a body that is political in nature, has not been able to carry out its important responsibilities and handed down a biased and unjust decision in the so-called MH17 case, in which Russia was forced to appeal that decision to the ICJ on nine grounds at once, including legal, factual, and procedural issues. This year, Russia submitted a memorial to the court, laying out exhaustive evidence demonstrating that the ICJ Council's decision was unfounded and inconsistent with fact and the law. This is far from the only case in which an ICJ Council decision has been challenged, but it is the first that involves the merits of the case. Mr. Chair, state sovereignty is the basis of contemporary international relations. It is only through sovereign equality of all states that we can have a just, multipolar world order. Unfortunately, for many years, we’ve been seeing efforts to erode and eliminate this fundamental principle of the UN Charter. These are unacceptable and destructive attempts to undermine the foundations of the international order and should not receive any support. The issues of sovereignty and immunities stemming from it, including those of states, of state officials, and state assets, are fundamental not only for international law, but also international relations. and of themselves, without respect for sovereignty, as well as state and diplomatic immunities, it would be impossible to have any normal interaction between states. Currently, the Court has several cases on its docket directly concerning these fundamental principles. We call on the ICJ to show the maximum respect for these principles when considering these cases. Mr. President, let me return to the issue that I started with. We must all work together to protect the court from attempts to politicize it. We must condemn the growing number of attempts to abuse international law and international judicial bodies to pursue goals that have nothing to do with justice. The ICJ must not be turned into an instrument of the hybrid warfare being waged by the West, for which a term has been coined called lawfare. hallmarks are recognizable: distorted interpretations of international treaties, manipulation of facts, and abuse of procedural rights. Russia has directly experienced this lawfare. It has faced many preposterous allegations, from financing terrorism to race discrimination to violating the Genocide Convention. These allegations have not stood up before the ICJ. Russia is not, however, the only country that's had to defend itself from bad faith attacks before international dispute settlement bodies. One striking example of the flawed practice of politically motivated litigation is Lithuania’s application against Belarus under the Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and its Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants. In August this year, Russia became a third party in the Lithuania-Belarus proceedings. Our goal is to provide a truthful, impartial, and legally well-grounded interpretation of the Convention and its Protocol. Distinguished President and colleagues, We will soon be holding another round of elections to the Court. This requires the greatest of care and considered judgment. It is critical that we get it right. We call on all reasonable states to approach these elections with the utmost responsibility. The ICJ must remain a judicial body where law prevails over politics and block thinking. In closing, I assure you that Russia will continue to engage constructively with the Court in the interest of international law and justice. Thank you.

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

Mr. President, At the outset, allow me to congratulate you on the assumption of the presidency of the 81st session of the General Assembly and to wish you every success in guiding our deliberations. We also thank the President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Igarzua, for presenting the Court’s report. Vietnam attaches great importance to the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. This year, the Court marks the 80th anniversary of its inaugural sitting in 1946. It is an occasion to reaffirm our confidence in the Court and our support for its work. Mr. President, Vietnam emphasized the indispensable role of the International Court of Justice in the peaceful settlement of international disputes. It provides states with a vital avenue for resolving disputes in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations. Moreover, the International Court of Justice plays an important role the clarification and development of international law. Through its judgment and jurisprudence, the Court helps clarify the rights and obligations of States under international law, contributing to greater legal certainty and consistency in its interpretation and application. The effectiveness of the judicial settlement, however, depends on the implementation of the Court’s decisions. Vietnam, therefore, underscores the importance of full compliance with the Court’s decisions in good faith, in accordance with their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and international law. Such compliance is essential to upholding the authority of the Court, ensuring the effectiveness of judicial settlement, and maintaining confidence in the international judicial system. Mr. President, Vietnam also recognizes the growing importance of the Court’s advisory function in clarifying legal questions of significance to the work of the United Nations and the international community. While advisory opinions are not binding, they carry great legal weight and authority and provide valuable guidance to the United Nations organs, specialized agencies, and States. in carrying out their functions in accordance with international law. The Court's recent opinions illustrate the relevance of this function to a broad range of contemporary international issues and its contribution to clarification and coherent development of international law. The Court's docket has grown in both volume and diversity, in compassing disputes concerning maritime delimitation, environmental protection, and the interpretation and application of treaties. This growing workload underscores the importance of ensuring that the Court has adequate resources and working conditions to discharge its functions effectively. Vietnam supports efforts in this direction, while safeguarding its independence, impartiality, and integrity of judicial proceedings. Strengthening the court's capacity is not merely an institutional matter; it is an investment in confidence in the international rule of law and in the peaceful settlement of dispute. Vietnam also commends the Secretary-General's Trust Fund to assist States in the settlement of dispute through International Court of Justice, which helps States, in particular developing countries, accept the Court and encourages Member States in a position to do so to contribute to the Fund. Mr. President, Vietnam looks forward to the election of the five members of the Court on 3 November 2026 and hopes that the election will result in the selection of judges who who meet the high standard set out in the statute of the Court, including being independent, of high moral character, possessing the qualifications required, while assuring the representation of the main forms of civilization and of the principal legal systems of the world. Such diversity strengthens the representativeness, authority, and legitimacy of the Court, particularly as its role in international affairs continues to grow. Mr. President, Vietnam firmly believes that respect for international law and peaceful settlement of international dispute are indispensable to international peace, security, and cooperation. We reaffirm our support for the Court and remain committed to the peaceful settlement of international disputes under international law. that sustain a stable and predictable international order. I thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of the Federal Republic of Germany, I would like to congratulate the International Court of Justice on its 80th anniversary. Over the last 80 years, the Court has proven to be the bedrock of international dispute resolution. It is the only court whose legal basis is found in the United Nations Charter itself, and which is open to all members of the United Nations. More than 200 cases have been submitted to it. This reflects its considerable prestige and weight and its central role in upholding the international rule of law. During the solemn sitting in The Hague in April 2026, His Excellency Yuji Iwasawa, the President of the International Court of Justice, called upon the community of states to be vigilant. He characterized the international rule of law as a system under great pressure, which needs to be constantly reaffirmed and defended. Please allow me to thank the President of the International Court of Justice for the precise and honest analysis in his speech. Germany is a steadfast supporter of the International Court of Justice and calls on all other states to continue supporting the Court and its work as well. The Court can only be an effective means for the peaceful settlement of disputes through international law if its judgments are implemented. It is highly important that parties to a case comply with its judgments. In the words of Foreign Minister Waadefoul, and I quote, "International rules are only as strong as our commitment to enforcing them, particularly in a day and age when international institutions are increasingly being called into question, we must clearly endorse these rules together with our partners across the globe," end of quote. I would like to briefly address three cases of particular significance to Germany. I would like to start with the ongoing proceedings brought against Germany by Nicaragua in relation to the occupied Palestinian territory. The ICJ held public oral hearings at The Hague at the beginning of September, addressing Germany’s preliminary objections to the ICJ’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of Nicaragua’s claims. Germany is strongly committed to upholding international law, particularly international humanitarian law, as well as the security of Israel and Palestinian prospects for the future. Given our historical responsibility, advocating for the security and existence of Israel is an integral part of German foreign policy. Germany is contributing to a sustainable peace agreement based on a negotiated two-state solution. Secondly, I would like to briefly touch on the case brought by the Gambia against Myanmar under the 1948 Genocide Convention. In March 2025, we submitted our written observations together with Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. We followed the oral hearing in January 2026 and are attentively awaiting the ICJ's judgment. Thirdly, we have taken note that the Court has admitted the counterclaims submitted by the Russian Federation in the case brought by Ukraine against Russia in relation to the illegal invasion of February 2022. Germany strongly rebuts Russia's attempt to justify its illegal aggression against Ukraine via the false allegation of a genocide. Further developments in this case are now expected in 2028 at the earliest. Finally, I would like to mention the Court's advisory opinion in the proceedings concerning the right to strike under ILO Convention No. 87. Germany decided to submit a written statement and presented its position at the public hearings. We consider the ICJ's advisory opinion rendered in May 2026 to constitute valuable guidance to the organization and its members. To conclude, As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the ICJ is of fundamental importance for the international order based on international law. Its judgments and advisory opinions provide the most authoritative reference for the determination and application of international law. Eighty years on from its creation, the Court has proven to be an indispensable cornerstone of global justice and peace. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, We thank President Iwasawa for his report to the General Assembly on the activities of the International Court of Justice. The State of Israel remains steadfast in its commitment to international law. We believe in the role of the International Court of Justice to uphold international law within the confines of its mandate in a manner consistent with the fundamental principles underlying its statute. Mr. President, for many years, Israel has expressed concerns regarding the politicization of United Nations organs. UN experts and officials, including Secretaries-General, have also highlighted the disproportionate negative focus and extreme bias against Israel. Unfortunately, these problems have also permeated the Peace Palace. For example, reports produced by bodies that are neither neutral nor impartial concerning Israel are increasingly presented as evidence before the court. The authors of this report subsequently sit as judges ad hoc, discussing the appropriate weight to be accorded to them. This situation raises serious concerns regarding judicial impartiality and evidentiary standards. This trend is also evidenced in repeated, frequent recourse to non-binding advisory opinions directed against Israel. in the baseless, outrageous allegations brought by South Africa and in the growing use of interventions as platforms for political confrontation. Indeed, the Court cannot, as a rule, prevent States and UN organs from turning to it. However, it can and must prevent abuse of its proceedings. In this regard, We note the unacceptable rhetoric voiced at the Great Hall in recent proceedings to which Israel is not a party, including repugnant comparisons between Israel’s conduct and the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime. Israel profoundly regrets that these statements were allowed to pass unchecked. Mr. President, in October 2025, The Court delivered its second advisory opinion concerning Israel in just 16 months. Both proceedings were flawed from the inception, including the one-sided questions presented, raising significant questions regarding propriety. This latest advisory opinion barely touched upon the massacre of October 7th. and failed to address the grave attacks, threats, and significant security concerns that Israel continues to face on a daily basis. It only briefly mentioned, in just two and a half sentences out of over 70 pages, UNRWA’s employees’ active complicity in the massacre and hostage taking of Israeli civilians. It brushed off evidence presented by Israel regarding UNRWA’s continued sheltering of terrorists and its dissemination of violent rhetoric. Israel categorically rejects the advisory opinion, in particular its conclusions concerning UNRWA. The Court should not minimize grave misconduct by UN agencies. Instead, It must have a role in rectifying this institutional failure. Mr. President, in its 2025 advisory opinion, the Court also addressed matters connected to issues Sabudze in a contentious case wrote against Israel. Although the Court stated that its advisory opinion should not prejudge those other proceedings, It nevertheless assessed highly contested legal and factual matters without the safeguards necessary in contentious litigation. This is especially worrying since, in recent contentious cases, states have in fact sought to utilize advisory proceedings to circumvent fundamental requirements of contentious jurisdiction. These too give serious cause for alarm. Mr. President, another matter of utmost concern is attempts, with no legal basis, to redefine before the Court fundamental concepts of international law in contravention of their object and purpose. One striking example is the attempted lowering of the legal and evidentiary threshold for a finding of genocide. Let me be clear: Israel’s war against Hamas and its allies in Gaza has nothing to do with genocide. Israel’s intent has been clear and consistent: to rescue the hostages from Gaza and to remove continuing attacks and threats against Israel from that territory. Israel has taken extraordinary measures to mitigate civilian harm and to facilitate humanitarian aid. For example, approximately 2.3 million tons of food have entered the Gaza Strip in the last 12 months. In contrast, Hamas has deliberately embedded its militants in civilian areas and obstructed the distribution of aid. Genocide is the distinct, meticulously formulated legal term recognized as such in the Court's well-established jurisprudence. The consequences of armed conflict, though tragic and devastating, must not be conflated with genocide. The Genocide Convention must not be used to prevent states from protecting themselves and their civilians against terror. All states have the duty and indeed obligation to defend themselves and their people from terrorist threats. Mr. President, in these difficult times, while the international rule of law faces unprecedented challenges, upholding international law is a responsibility that rests with the courts, but also with every member state. To this end, the court's impartiality and judicial integrity must be safeguarded. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, Nigeria thanks President Iwasawa Yugi for presenting the report of the International Court of Justice contained in document A/81/4. The report reaffirms the Court's central place in the peaceful settlement of international disputes in accordance with the UN Charter. During the reporting period, 88 states participated in the proceedings before the ICJ. The Court delivered one judgment and two advisory opinions, issued 16 orders, held hearings in four cases, and received two new contentious cases, bringing the total number of its general list to 24. Nigeria also welcomes the amendment to Article 78 of the Rules of Court, which took effect on 2 February 2026, and provides for public disclosures of reports on compliance with provisional measures. This is an important step towards enhancing transparency and accountability in the implementation of the Court's order. As the Court marked its 80th anniversary on 17 April 2026, Nigeria recalls its long-standing engagement with the Court. The judgment of 10th October, 2002, in the land and maritime boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria was followed by peaceful implementation through the 2006 Green Tree Agreement. This remains an important example of how international adjudication, supported by political will and constructive engagement, can resolve even sensitive territorial disputes peacefully. Nigeria has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36, paragraph 2 of its statute. Furthermore, Nigerian jurists, including Judge Taslim Olawale Elias, who served as President of the Court, have made significant contributions to its jurisprudence and work. We appreciate the Court's engagement with Nigeria's judiciary. particularly its reception of a delegation of judges from the Supreme Court of Nigeria on 13 August 2025, and a delegation of the Nigerian judiciary on 16 July 2026. Such exchanges are invaluable in deepening the knowledge of international law, strengthening national judicial capacity, and promoting greater coherence between international legal principles and domestic judicial practice. Mr. President, to further strengthen the Court's capacity to discharge its treaty-mandated roles, Nigeria wishes to advance three recommendations: A, adequate and predictable funding. The General Assembly should ensure that the Court is provided with resources commensurate with its caseload. In this regard, Nigeria underscores the importance of case management system proposed in the Court's 2027 budget, particularly its role in facilitation of electronic filing and processing and management of case materials. B, broader acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction and access to justice. States that have not accepted the Court's jurisdiction should consider doing so through declarations under Article 36, paragraph 2 of its Statute. In addition, States are encouraged to contribute to the Secretary-General's Trust Fund to assist States in the settlement of disputes through the ICJ. Adequate support for the Trust Fund would ensure that developing countries can access the Court and effectively pursue or defend their legal claims irrespective of their financial capacity. C, capacity building and judicial outreach. The Court should strengthen its engagement with national judiciaries, particularly in Africa, to deepen understanding of international law and the Court's jurisprudence. Member States should support the Judicial Fellowship Programme, enabling young lawyers, especially from developing countries, to gain practical experience at the Court and contribute to future development of international law. In conclusion, Mr. President, Nigeria reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the ICJ and to peaceful settlement of international disputes in accordance with international law. We underscore that respect for and compliance with the Court’s judgment and orders are indispensable to preserving its authority and upholding the rule of law and strengthening confidence in the international legal order. I thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Nigeria. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Thailand.

Can I just pause for a moment?

I beg your pardon. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Argentina. Beg your pardon.

President, my delegation thanks the International Court of Justice and its President, Judge Iwasawa Yuji, for presenting its annual report. which lays out the work achieved between August 2025 and July 2026. I would also like to commend Santiago Vichelpaldo upon his election for the next period, and we wish him the very best of success as he goes about his work. Over the last 80 years, the Court has made an invaluable contribution to the development of international law, and in particular to the peaceful settlement of disputes. It has promoted the rule of law and the maintenance of international peace and security. The report that we're looking at today clearly shows that work. During the period under review, 88 states participated in different ways in contentious procedures or advisory procedures. The Court issued two advisory opinions and handed down a ruling, and by the 31st of July, there were 24 cases on its docket. When it comes to its jurisdictional function, the Court's decisions, which are binding upon the parties, have not just made it possible to resolve disputes between states, but also to consolidate fundamental principles for the peaceful coexistence between nations. Its jurisprudence thus constitutes an indispensable reference to understand the evolution of international law and its application to specific circumstances. I wish to stress, President, that the importance of the Court’s work is also to be appreciated in its advisory function. This warrants particular consideration because it allows the Court to clarify legal questions submitted to it by UN bodies. This contributes to the development and interpretation of international law, to pinpointing applicable standards, and to making clear the legal obligations that are derived from them. President, over the last 80 years, the Court's activities reflect the broad scope of the issues that reach the Court and the trust that States and UN bodies place in it. It also stresses the responsibility that befalls this institution to respond to an increasing demand for international justice, preserving high quality in its decisions and the efficiency of its procedures. The Court's authority hinges to a large extent on it being able to exercise its functions independently and for its decisions to be fully respected. Strengthening its work therefore requires sustained commitment from Member States to the peaceful settlement of disputes, for States to abide by their international obligations, and to respect the institutions laid out in the Charter. President, Argentina reaffirms its commitment to these principles and recognizes the Court’s contribution to strengthening the international legal order. We also commend its efforts to disseminate its jurisprudence and to facilitate understanding of its procedures, particularly through the Judicial Scholarships Programme and its outreach activities. Bringing the Court closer to new generations of jurists helps to train future professionals and to apply international law, and thus to strengthen the institutions that underpin it. In conclusion, Argentina reiterates its support to the work of the ICJ and to its role as the main judicial body of the United Nations. The continuity of its contribution to the development of international law and the peaceful settlement of disputes is critical to strengthen the rule of law and the functioning of an international system based on respect for international law. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Argentina, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Thailand.

Madam President, Thailand thanks the President of the International Court of Justice Judge Iwasawa Yuji for introducing the report this morning. We warmly congratulate the Court on its 80th anniversary and express our appreciation to the President and members of the Court, as well as the Registry and staff, for their unwavering dedication to the administration of international justice. We also wish to congratulate Mr. Santiago Villalpando for his election as Registrar of the Court. As we mark this important milestone of eight decades of existence of the Court, Thailand wishes to reaffirm the importance of the Court's continuing role in discharging its functions as a principal judicial organ of the United Nations, both in deciding disputes between States and in giving advisory opinions on legal questions. Through these functions, the Court contributes to the peaceful settlement of disputes and the promotion of the rule of law in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Madam President, Thailand has followed with interest the Court's judicial activities during the reporting period. We took note of its substantial and diverse caseload, encompassing territorial disputes, the interpretation and application of the Genocide Convention, and matters concerning international civil aviation. We also took note of the judgment and the two advisory opinions delivered during the reporting period. The advisory opinions concerning the presence and activities of international organizations and labour rights demonstrate the Court's important role in clarifying international legal principles and obligations across different fields. Thailand also welcomes The Court's continued efforts to review its procedures and working methods, including the amendment to the Article 78 of its Rules, which provides for public access to reports on measures taken to give effect to reparational measures, as well as the recent amendments to Articles 50 and 56 of the Rules and several practice directions aimed at improving the conduct of the proceedings before the Court. We recognize the importance of these efforts in enhancing transparency, procedural efficiency, and the sound administration of international justice.

Mr. President, five members of the Court to be elected this year, and Thailand reaffirms the fundamental importance of independence, integrity, and the impartiality of these judges. We also place special importance on ensuring that the composition of the Court reflects the world's major legal systems in accordance with the provisions of its Statute. These principles contribute to maintaining the lofty moral and legal authority of the Court as well as the trust placed in it by the international community. Thailand reaffirms its commitment to the peaceful settlement of international disputes in accordance with the UN Charter. The Court is one of the most important mechanisms in this regard, together with the other means stipulated under Article 33 of the Charter, given that The use of each of these means is based upon the consent of the States concerned. It is crucial to choose the most appropriate method, taking into account the nature and circumstances of each dispute, in order to reach peaceful and lasting solutions. President, we believe that the strength of international law lies in our collective commitment to uphold it and to implement it in good faith. At a time when the international legal order is facing growing challenges, Thailand remains determined to strive together with the international community to support the Court as it carries out its mandate in order to promote a more peaceful, stable, and just world. Thank you, Chair, President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Thailand, and I now pass the floor to the distinguished representative of Luxembourg.

Madam President, Luxembourg fully supports the statement of the European Union. Allow me to complement that statement with a few comments in our national capacity. I'd like to thank the President of the International Court of Justice, Mr. Iwasawa, for presenting the annual reports of the Court. This year, we're celebrating the 80th anniversary of the inaugural session of the ICJ. For eight decades now, the Court has been playing a vital role in the protection and strengthening of an international legal order based upon the UN Charter. The Court was founded upon the key conviction that Relations between states ought to be governed by law and not by force. 80 years later, at a time when the fundamental principles of international law are increasingly being called into question, this belief remains more important than ever. For Luxembourg, the Court also represents a tangible manifestation of the principle of the sovereign equality of states. Before the Court, all states, regardless of their size or power, are subject to the same rules of law. And it is this very equality in the eyes of the law that is one of the cornerstones of a just, stable, and predictable international order. It is of particular importance for small states, the security and sovereignty of which are based upon the respect for common rules. Madam President, the report once again demonstrates the central role played by the Court in the peaceful settlement of international disputes. As of July 31, 2026, 24 cases were on the Court's docket. Over the course of the period under consideration, 88 states participated through various types of status in the proceedings and consultations. These figures demonstrate not only the significant workload of the Court, but also the trust that states and international organizations continue to place in it. Geographic diversity, as well as diversity in the topics of cases covered by the Court, demonstrate its vital role in addressing modern challenges. My delegation would like to also underscore the importance of the advisory function of the Court. Its two latest advisory opinions demonstrate the key contribution of the Court to the clarification and development of international law. In this regard, we welcome the advisory opinion of May 21, 2026, on the right to strike in relation to Convention No. 87 of the International Labour Organization, as well as that of October 22, 2025, on the obligations of Israel with regard to the presence and activities of the UN on occupied Palestinian territory, a proceeding in which Luxembourg took active part by submitting a written briefing as well as presenting oral comments. The authority of international law is based upon respect for that law as well. The conclusions of the Court must be enforced. Luxembourg would like to reaffirm that the decisions of the Court and its decrees that indicate provisional measures ought to be fully respected and executed by the parties involved. As for advisory opinions, even if they do not have binding force, they represent interpretations with the authority of international law and ought to be given due regard by States. Here, we commend the modification of Article 78 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, which entered into effect in February 2026, and which, under certain conditions, allows for the publication of reports presented by the parties on the implementation of provisional measures. This is an important change that will help to bolster transparency and follow-up on the execution of the Court's decisions. Luxembourg remains convinced that a broader acceptance of the mandatory jurisdiction of the Court would significantly strengthen its effectiveness and its contribution to peaceful dispute settlement. We are pleased that, over the reporting period, Iceland joined those states that recognized this jurisdiction. bringing the total number of such States to 75. Luxembourg recognized the mandatory jurisdiction of the Court in 1930, and encourages all States that have not yet done so to follow our example. Madam President, the 80th anniversary of the Court provides us with an opportunity not only to celebrate its achievements, but also to renew our collective commitment to the primacy of international law The primacy of international law should not be taken for granted. It depends on the constant willingness of states to uphold and respect the rules that they established collectively. Luxembourg reaffirms its unwavering support for the International Court of Justice and to its status as the main judicial organ of the UN. In a world characterized by growing tensions and uncertainty, we must now more than ever reaffirm our commitment to an international order in which law prevails over force, and in which disputes are regulated through peaceful means in accordance with the UN Charter. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Luxembourg, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Maldives.

Thank you, President. The Maldives thanks the President of the International Court of Justice for presenting this year's report and the Secretary-General for his report on the Trust Fund to Assist States in Settling Disputes through the Court. For small states, international law is our strongest safeguard against unequal power. The court gives that protection practical meaning by clarifying obligations and providing a peaceful means to resolve disputes through law. But the authority of the court ultimately depends on implementation. For people evading humanitarian assistance and states seeking peaceful resolution of disputes, implementation is what turns legal protection into real protection. This year's report brings that responsibility into sharp focus. Nowhere is the need to translate legal obligations into action more urgent than in Palestine, illegally occupied by Israel. The court's advisory opinion clarified that Israel must ensure essential supplies, facilitate humanitarian relief, and protect relief personnel. The Maldives participated in those proceedings, and our position remains clear and unchanged. Legal findings must be implemented. The protection afforded to the Palestinian people cannot remain on paper while violations continue on the ground. The Court's work on climate change requires the same follow-through. For small island developing states, sea level rise is not simply an environmental concern. It affects our sovereignty, statehood, maritime entitlements, and national agency. Rising seas must not diminish a state's maritime zones, erase its statehood, reduce its rights, or weaken its ability to shape its own future. States must therefore give effect to the duty to cooperate, including through support that strengthens the capacity of affected states to protect their rights, maintain essential government functions, and plan for their long-term future. This year's report also demonstrates the breadth of reliance on the Court and the need to provide adequate resources for its work. The Maldives therefore makes three calls. First, respect and implement international law, ensuring that the court's findings translate into meaningful protection on the ground. Second, strengthen international cooperation on climate change and sea level rise, safeguarding statehood, sovereignty, and maritime entitlements. Third, uphold the court's independence, provide adequate resources, and ensure equitable access to international justice, regardless of a state's size or financial capacity. As the court marks more than 80 years in the exercise of its judicial functions, its value lies in how it applies, interprets, and clarifies international law, and in the protection the law provides. For small states, this gives practical meaning to sovereign equality, the ability to make sovereign choices under rules that apply equally to all. The measures of our commitment to international law is therefore simple, whether those rules are respected and implemented. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Maldives. And I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Brazil.

Madam President, I thank the President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Iwasawa Yuji, for presenting the Court's annual report. My country highly commends the judges and staff of the Court for their dedication and valuable work. This year, we celebrate the 80th anniversary of the International Court of Justice. I recall the words of the rapporteur of the committee that proposed the creation of the Court at the San Francisco Conference. He stated that the United Nations sought to offer a war-stricken world, I quote, "the possibility of substituting orderly judicial processes for the vicissitudes of war and the reign of brutal force," end of quote. For 80 years, the World Court has helped channel disputes towards law rather than force. It has brought legal clarity to unresolved questions and contributed to the peaceful settlement of international disputes. During all these years, the Court has been the embodiment of Article 33 of the Charter and proof that the pacific solution of disputes among states is not only possible, but effective and long-lasting. This is why in the current international environment, the ICJ is more needed than ever. It offers a path to resolving disputes through law and addressing potential violations through established legal procedures. The Court's judgments and advisory opinions serve as persistent reminders that we do not live in a lawless world. Madam President, the report confirms the Court's continued relevance. During the period under review, States from all regions participated actively in contentious and advisory proceedings. Some have suggested that the growing recourse to the Court reflects a politicization of international law. Brazil sees the opposite trend. States resort to the Court because they recognize that legal processes solidly rooted in international law and international humanitarian law offer a more legitimate and sustainable path to deal with conflict than unilateral or lawless action. During the period covered by the report, the Court delivered two advisory opinions addressing questions of broad concern to the international community. One reaffirmed the importance of protecting workers' rights as an integral element of freedom of association. The other clarified legal obligations relating to the protection of civilians, the provision of humanitarian assistance, and the role of the United Nations in situations of occupation in armed conflict. Though arising in very different contexts, Both opinions remind us that international law is ultimately about the protection of people, particularly those in situations of vulnerability. Madam President, Brazil welcomes the Court's efforts to improve its procedures. We take note in particular of the amendment to Article 78 of the Rules of Court concerning reports on compliance with provisional measures. The publication of such reports, subject to appropriate safeguards, is a welcome step towards greater transparency and may further encourage compliance with the Court's orders. Provisional measures are legally binding. Respect for the Court does not end with participation in proceedings. It must also be reflected in good faith compliance with its orders and judgments. Brazil welcomes the continued operation of the Trust Fund supporting participation in the Judicial Fellowship Program by candidates from developing countries. This initiative contributes to greater geographical diversity within the international legal community. We are encouraged by the increasing participation of candidates from developing countries in the program. We hope that this positive trend will continue, bringing us closer to a more equitable balance between participants from developed

and developing countries.

Madam President, as the Court marks its 80th anniversary, Brazil reaffirms its strong support for its work and for the central role it plays within the international legal order. At a time when the principles of the Charter are being challenged by some of the very states that drafted it, Renewed commitment to international law and to the institutions entrusted with its interpretation and application is more necessary than ever. The International Court of Justice remains one of those institutions. Its work is indispensable, today perhaps more than ever. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Liechtenstein.

Madam President, the International Court of Justice is the guardian of international law, in particular of the United Nations Charter, grounded in the rule of law and the peaceful settlement of disputes. At a time when international law is increasingly under attack, its relevance is stronger than ever. The Court was established under the Charter as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations with jurisdiction divided into two core functions, contentious and advisory. It was created at a defining moment in history, with a strong conviction that law, not force, should govern relations between states. This year, we commemorate the 80th anniversary of the inaugural sitting of the Court. Over these eight decades, the world has changed significantly. As international legal questions have grown more complex, the Court's answers have become richer, more nuanced, and more indispensable. At a time when multilateralism faces growing challenges and the rule of law is often disregarded, the need for authoritative legal guidance has never been greater. Madam President, the Court is uniquely placed to respond to these challenges by ensuring the consistent interpretation and application of international law. It is encouraging that states continue turning to the Court to guide them in both its advisory and contentious functions. The SG's report outlines that a total of 88 states were involved in either contentious or advisory proceedings before the Court, and the Court was seized with two additional contentious cases this year. It speaks to the Court's authority that its decisions have been implemented to a very high degree by member states. While the increasing interest in the Court's work is a positive and welcome development, it also places additional strain on its resources, which continue to be very modest. We hope that the political support for the Court and the membership will result in a quick agreement on the very limited budget increase proposed for next year. Madam President, the work of the Court on interstate disputes is based on consent, which is why the acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction is of such importance for the jurisdictional reach. As of today, only 75 states recognize the Court's compulsory jurisdiction. The 80th anniversary is a timely opportunity for more states to make the relevant declaration under Article 36 of the Court's statute. Another important aspect of the Court's decisions is its ability to issue provisional measures. These binding measures protect the rights of states and can help prevent the further escalation of disputes, two essential ingredients to pave the way towards the peaceful settlement of disputes. The ICJ will soon make a decision in the case between The Gambia and Myanmar under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. This important case is another illustration of the vital importance of the Court in the application of international law, and we look forward to this decision and hope that states will respect the independence and integrity of the Court in carrying out its work. We believe that the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity, which is under negotiation, should provide for the same role of the Court in the settlement of disputes between state parties. Madam President, since 2025, the Court has issued two important advisory opinions clarifying complex questions of public international law. These welcome decisions further underscore the Court's role in clarifying member states' rights and obligations under international law, and assist the political organs of the UN, such as this Assembly or the Security Council, to do their work. The effective follow-up to the Court's advisory opinion by states and domestic courts is essential to give practical effect to the guidance that the Court gives. We have therefore supported the General Assembly resolution promoting the implementation of the Court's findings on the advisory opinion on climate change, supported by more than 140 states. We are grateful to our colleagues from Vanuatu for putting this resolution forward. Madam President, looking back over the past 80 years, one thing is for certain: the International Court of Justice has stood the test of time. This is an occasion for us, Member States, to ensure that it can continue its work impartially and independently, and with the financial and political support it requires and deserves. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Liechtenstein. I now pass the floor to the distinguished representative of Costa Rica.

Madam President, distinguished colleagues, Costa Rica thanks the President of the International Court of Justice for the presentation of the Court's annual report very much, okay? Very much. and extends its appreciation to the judges and staff of the Court for the rigorous work carried out during the period under review. This year, we also join with enthusiasm in commemorating the Court's 80th anniversary, celebrating its invaluable historical contribution to strengthening the international legal order and preserving peace. As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice constitutes one of the most important fundamental pillars of Costa Rica's foreign policy. We are grateful for the existence of the ICJ, and we hope that your requests for your budget are hereby approved. The Court's contribution to the peaceful settlement of disputes, the progressive development of international law, and the strengthening of the rule of law in international relations is widely recognized. In this context, Costa Rica has maintained a close relationship with the Court, participating actively with its contentious cases and advisory proceedings. The report before us today confirms the growing relevance of the institution. During the reporting period, 88 states participated in contentious or advisory proceedings before the Court. At the close of the period, 24 contentious cases remained pending. Two new cases have been filed, and 12 states had intervened in ongoing proceedings. These figures demonstrate that states continue to turn to the Court as a legitimate, impartial, and specialized forum for the resolution of complex legal disputes. We also note with satisfaction that the number of States accepting the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction has risen to 75 following the submitted declaration by Iceland. The development deserves our full recognition, as each new acceptance strengthens international legal certainty. The report also reflects the particular importance of the Court for Latin America and the Caribbean. At present, eight states from the region are involved in pending contentious cases before the Court. This participation illustrates our region's deep-rooted legal tradition and its confidence in international mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of disputes. The regional contribution is also reflected within the institutional framework of the Court itself. In this regard, Costa Rica wishes to extend a warm welcome to the Court's new registrar, Mr. Santiago Villalpando of Argentina, who assumed his duties in August of this year. We wish him every success in the exercise of his responsibilities. In an international context marked by geopolitical tension, armed conflicts, and persistent challenges to multilateral institutions, it is timely to recall that international law and its institutions are indispensable complements to diplomacy. The Court provides states with a privileged forum in which difference can be addressed through legal argument rather than force. within a framework of sovereign equality and mutual respect. In this regard, Costa Rica reiterates the importance of safeguarding judicial independence and ensuring that judges are able to perform their functions free from political considerations, guided solely by international law and the objective identification of opinio juris. At the same time, we believe there remain opportunities to strengthen the work of the court. Costa Rica particularly values the institution's continuous efforts to adapt its working methods in response to an increasing caseload while preserving the quality, independence, impartiality of its decisions. The report highlights both the sustained growth in cases brought before the Court and the institutional effort undertaken to improve procedural efficiency. We respectfully, yet emphatically, invite those states that have not yet done so to consider recognizing the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in accordance to Article 36 of its statute. Broader participation would strengthen the universality of the institution and contribute to consolidating a rules-based international order. Finally, the International Court of Justice requires adequate resources to discharge its mandate effectively and under appropriate conditions. Costa Rica therefore calls on all States to fully honor their financial commitments. so as to ensure that all nations, regardless of their size or resources, can access international justice on an equal footing. Madame President, the authority of the Court rests upon the confidence of States. That confidence is reflected in respect for and effective compliance with its judgment and advisory opinions. And it is strengthened when we defend judicial independence and support the work of the international institutions. As we commemorate the 80th anniversary of the ICJ, Costa Rica reaffirms its conviction that respect for international law constitutes the best guarantee for peaceful coexistence among nations. the small states in particular, it represents conditions for the preservation of its sovereignty, security, and legal equality. Facing current global challenges, reason and law must guide our decisions as the foundations of understanding among nations and of human progress. Only through the strengthening of the international law and of the institutions responsible for implementation, will we be able to build a lasting peace and a more just international order. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Vice President. I would begin by thanking Judge Ugi Iwasawa, President of the International Court of Justice, for the Court's annual report contained in the document A/81/4. We also thank the Secretary-General for his report contained in the document A/81/323. The establishment of the International Court of Justice as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations in 1945 was underpinned by a shared conviction that interstate relations should be conducted in accordance with international law, not the use of force, coercion, or intimidation. Despite great transformations in the international landscape in the last 80 years, international community's desire to explore a peaceful settlement of dispute remains as pressing as it was 80 years ago. Our world today is grappling with multiplicity of crises which impact Member States and individuals alike. We are witnessing a disturbing tendency toward disregard of international law, mockery of sacrosanct international treaties, and grave and systemic violations of human rights. Such cavalier approach to statecraft and global governance threatens sanctity of international law, imperils international peace and security, and undermine the rules underpinning global order. These extraordinary challenges demand an extraordinary commitment to uphold international law and to firmly reject efforts aimed at making rule of law a casualty of power politics or narrow national interest. and Vice President, we note with satisfaction that in face of these challenges, the International Court of Justice has continued to discharge its responsibilities with consistency and clarity. The Court’s docket has never been full as it is today, which is a sign of the respect and trust reposed in it by the UN Member States. Court's judgment and advisory opinions have provided an authoritative clarification of international law and legal obligation states in issues as diverse as foreign occupation, human rights, and climate change. We also appreciate that Court has preserved diversity of world legal traditions, regions, and civilizations. We underscore that court's overload should not hamper its ability to perform its function, and it should be provided with requisite financial and human resources. Pakistan welcomes the recent advisory opinion of ICJ on Israel's obligations in relation to occupied Palestinian territory. The Court has unequivocally established that Israel, as the occupying power, is under a legal obligation to facilitate and not obstruct humanitarian relief operations by the UN and its entities. Equally significant is the Court advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change issued last year. Court has reaffirmed several key positions advocated by Pakistan, that states should prevent activities within their jurisdiction from causing significant transboundary harm, and that state bear responsibilities when their actions or emissions lead to significant climate-related harm in other state. Mr. Vice President, despite its pivotal role for the peaceful resolution of international disputes, International Court of Justice cannot substitute the role of diplomacy and dialogue. Dispute resolution and prevention require more than a legal solution provided by the Court. They demand compliance by the Member States with the Court's decisions and political will and courage to implement them with sincerity and clarity. While we commemorate the 80th anniversary of Court this year, it is a high time to renew our commitment to the rule of law and to make continuous endeavour for its further strengthening over the time. As a country with unwavering faith in the rule of law and UN Charter, Pakistan would continue to make effort for the full attainment of this cherished objective. I thank you.

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

Mr. President, Portugal aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union, as well as by the statement delivered by CABVIR on behalf of the member states of the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries. In our national capacity, Portugal thanks the President of the International Court of Justice for presenting the Court's annual report. At a time when the international community faces complex challenges, the Court stands as a beacon of reason and authority. The Court is a constant reminder that the peaceful settlement of disputes through law is not only possible, but imperative, and that state policies and actions shaped in accordance with international law better serves the causes of peace, development, and human rights. The Court embodies the conviction enshrined in the United Nations Charter that justice and peace are inseparable. By bringing disputes to the Peace Palace rather than to the battlefield, we strengthen the fabric of an international order grounded in the power of the law rather than in the law of power. Mr. President, for eight decades, the Court has helped states settle their disputes peacefully. and through its judgments and advisory opinions, has shaped the development of international law. Portugal pays tribute to all the judges and members of the Registry who, over these 80 years, have built the authority and prestige the Court enjoys today. Mr. President, the Court's docket bears testimony to its relevance and vitality. This sustained recourse to the Court is both a challenge and a sign of confidence in the universality and adaptability of international law, reflecting the trust that states place in its authority and impartiality. However, for the Court to fully perform its mission, its jurisdiction must be accepted more broadly. Portugal underscores the importance of states making the declaration recognizing the Court's compulsory jurisdiction. It is both an expression of confidence in the international legal system and a commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes. Mr. President, the Court's advisory function has also proven essential in clarifying the interpretation and application of international law, providing authoritative guidance to the United Nations and its specialized agencies, as well as to States. Portugal calls upon all concerned to give these opinions, like all pronouncements of the Court, the full consideration and effect they deserve. The judgments of the Court, as well as its orders indicating provisional measures, are binding and must be complied with in fully and good faith. Mr. President, The effective function of the International Court of Justice also depends on its interaction with the other principal organs of the United Nations, especially the Security Council. Next week, the General Assembly and the Security Council, acting independently of one another, will elect five members of the Court. Portugal underlines the importance of electing persons of high moral character and recognized competence ensuring that the Court remains independent and impartial, and that as a whole, the principal legal system of the world are represented. Mr. President, and to conclude, at a moment when geopolitical tensions are unprecedented, global challenges test international law, Portugal wishes to reaffirm its confidence and support for the International Court of Justice. And as Secretary-General Antonio Guterres recalled in April at a solemn sitting commemorating the Court's 80th anniversary, the Court, and I quote, "is also a reminder that even overwhelming strength cannot and must not replace legal obligation," end of quote. Let us therefore renew our collective pledge to reinforce the Court as a cornerstone of an international order based on the rule of law. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Portugal. We have heard the last speaker in the debate on this item for this meeting. We shall hear the remaining speakers tomorrow afternoon, 30 October, after the consideration of the item already announced in the journal. The exercise of the right of reply has been requested. I propose that the time limits for statements in the exercise of the right of reply under this item be limited to five minutes for the first intervention and to three minutes for the second intervention. Is there any objection to this proposal? I hear none. It is so decided. Accordingly, pursuant to rule 72 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, when a representative exceeds his or her allotted time, the President shall call the speaker to order without delay, which will be done by means of automatic microphone cut-off. To assist delegations in managing their time, a countdown clock will be displayed on the screens. Members are also reminded that statements and exercise of the right to reply shall be made by delegations from their seats. I now call on the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Thank you, Madam Vice President. We categorically reject the baseless allegation levelled against my country. We reiterate that measures taken by the Islamic Republic of Iran in response to the blatant aggression against it, were undertaken in the exercise of its inherent right of self-defense, in accordance with international law, including international humanitarian law. The politically motivated narratives advanced against my country seek to reverse the roles of victim and aggressor by portraying Iran’s defensive measures as though they had occurred in a vacuum. The facts giving rise to the exercise of our right of self-defense cannot be disregarded. On 28 February 2026, the Islamic Republic of Iran was subjected to a brutal, unprovoked, and premeditated aggression by the United States and the Israeli regime, resulting in the killing of thousands of Iranian civilians, including women and children. This aggression was facilitated by certain states in the region that placed their territories, airspace, and facilities at the disposal of the aggressors for the conduct of such heinous attack against Iran. All countries who place their territories at the disposal of aggressors against my country are responsible under international law, not just for aiding and assisting in these grave violations and internationally wrongful acts, but also in violating obligations in prohibiting of aggression. I thank you.

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 72, and the meeting is adjourned.