UN Transcripts — https://transcripts.un.org/en/ga/c6/80/24 Sixth Committee, 24th plenary meeting - General Assembly, 80th session — Sixth Committee — 23 October 2025 Language: en Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations. --- 6th Committee · Chair [0:06]: I call to order the 24th meeting of the Sixth Committee of the 80th Session of the General Assembly. This morning, our Committee will continue and conclude its debate on Agenda Item 85, the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, following which it will undertake —begin its debate on Agenda Item 82, Diplomatic Protection, to be followed by consideration of Agenda Item 79, United Nations Program of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination, and Wider Appreciation of International Law. Distinguished delegates, let us therefore continue and conclude our debate on Agenda Item 85, the Scope and Application of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction. I draw your attention to the report of the Secretary-General on the item contained in document A/80/274. The report is available on the website of the Sixth Committee. The first speaker on my list for this morning is the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. You have the floor, sir. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [1:18]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The United Kingdom thanks the Secretary-General for his latest report on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. The report constitutes a helpful contribution to the Committee's deliberations on this topic. Mr. Chair, universal jurisdiction can be a necessary and important tool to ensure that the perpetrators of the most serious international crimes do not evade justice. However, the United Kingdom notes the continued lack of international consensus regarding the nature, scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. The United Kingdom's view is that the term universal jurisdiction refers to jurisdiction over a crime irrespective of the location of the alleged crime, the nationality of the alleged perpetrator, the nationality of the victim, or other links between the crime and the prosecuting state. It is distinct both from the jurisdiction of international judicial mechanisms and from other categories boundaries of extraterritorial jurisdiction. However, there is a significant overlap between universal jurisdiction on the one hand and extradite or prosecute regimes on the other. This is an area which requires careful scrutiny. The United Kingdom continues to note the practical constraints on delivering justice through the exercise of universal jurisdiction. The premise of the territorial approach to jurisdiction reflects the reality that the authorities of the state in whose territory an offence is committed are generally best placed to investigate and prosecute that offence, not least because of the obvious advantages in securing the evidence and witnesses necessary for a successful prosecution as part of a credible judicial process. Consequently, there are only a small number of offences in respect of which courts in the United Kingdom may exercise universal jurisdiction. The UK continues to consider that questions as to whether universal jurisdiction should apply to a this particular crime are best approached collaboratively between states. The UK considers that this is generally best achieved by means of international agreements. Finally, Mr. Chair, the UK considers that there would be merit in seeking to reach shared views in respect of definitional issues. The UK stands ready to contribute further to discussions in the CIT Committee to this end. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [3:26]: I thank the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom for his statement. I give the floor now to the Vice Chair, the distinguished representative of Equatorial Guinea. Equatorial Guinea · Vice-Chair [3:40]: Muchas gracias. Thank you very much for giving me the floor, Mr. Chairman. My delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement. In my national capacity, I'd like to make the following comments. Chairman, We'd like to thank the Secretary-General for the report contained in Document A/80/274, as well as for the valuable observations and comments submitted by member states. The Republic of Equatorial Guinea, under our organic law on the judiciary, prioritizes the principle of territoriality as the fundamental criterion for the attribution of jurisdiction, particularly in criminal matters. To the extent that it constitutes the most appropriate and effective basis for the sovereign exercise of judicial authority. In parallel, our legal system recognizes the concept of universal jurisdiction, albeit in a limited manner restricted to certain serious offenses, including those defined in international treaties that are duly ratified by my country. While these legal instruments, such as the Geneva Convention on Genocide or the UN Treaties Against Torture, establish robust foundations for states to exercise universal jurisdiction, it's worth noting that this jurisdiction is mainly underpinned by specific international treaties, not customary law, which implies norms that are generally accepted and binding on all states. Equatorial Guinea acknowledges the importance of the principle of universal jurisdiction, since when it is correctly applied, it can be a powerful tool in fighting impunity for the most serious crimes against humanity and ensuring justice and redress for victims. However, we are concerned that in some cases, particularly involving African states, this principle has been applied selectively abusively and with double standards. Such practices undermine its legitimate purpose and turn it into a tool of interference contrary to the fundamental principles enshrined in the UN Charter. Chairman, my delegation supports the continued exhaustive examination of this principle within the framework of the Sixth Committee, and we reiterate our observations as follows. Firstly, it is essential to establish a precise definition of the principle of universal jurisdiction. Jurisdiction and to clearly identify the offenses that might fall within its ambit. We believe that an overly broad interpretation could lead to jurisdictional conflicts between states and potentially affect fundamental guarantees and human rights enshrined in international law. Secondly, the scope and application of this principle must be carried out in accordance with the principles of sovereign equality of states, non-interference in internal affairs, and territorial integrity as set out in the Charter. Furthermore, all other international legal obligations must be considered, including immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction for heads of state, governments, and other high officials in office. Third, it is crucial to respect the principle of complementarity, recognizing that universal jurisdiction is a complement to territorial and national-based jurisdictions. This means that universal jurisdiction should be used as a measure of last resort, exercised only when territorial or nationality-based states are unable or unwilling to fulfill their responsibilities under international commitments. In conclusion, Chairman, we urge states to renew and expand their cooperation agreements with other states and with regional and international organizations in the field of criminal law, particularly with regard to mutual legal assistance and extradition. In turn, we reaffirm our commitment to an international justice system that is above all fair, impartial, and universal. Thank you very much. 6th Committee · Chair [8:02]: I thank the Vice Chair, the distinguished, uh, representative of Equatorial Guinea. I give the floor now to the distinguished representative of Vietnam. Viet Nam [8:14]: Mr. Chair, we are pleased to see you chairing today's discussions. Vietnam thanks the Secretary-General for his report and aligns itself with the statement delivered by Iran on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. Mr. Chair, Vietnam believes that impunity for the most Serious international crimes must never be tolerated. Crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity constitute the gravest violations of international law, inflicting immense suffering and undermining the foundations of peace, justice, and human dignity. The principle of universal jurisdiction embodies both a legal responsibility and a moral imperative. When exercised in strict conformity with international law, it serves as a vital legal mechanism to ensure that such crimes do not go unpunished and that the justice is ensured. At the same time, we note that divergent views remain among member states regarding the definition's scope.— and conditions for the application of this principle. The absence of internationally agreed understandings risks inconsistent or selective applications. Mr. Chair, in this context, Vietnam would like to reaffirm its following longstanding positions. First, universal jurisdictions must be interpreted and applied in full compliance with with the UN Charter and international law, including the core principle of respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and non-interference in internal affairs. It must also fully respect for the immunity of state officials performing official duty from foreign criminal jurisdictions as provided for under international law. Second, The principle should apply only to the most serious crimes recognized under international law. Extending its scope beyond this category would affect its legitimacy and risk politicization. Third, universal jurisdiction should be exercised only as last resort, complementing other jurisdictions with a closer nexus to the crime. Including those based on territoriality and nationality. States should apply it only when the alleged perpetrator is present in their territory and after consulting in good faith with the territorial state and the state of nationality, including on the possibility of extradition in accordance with the principle of dual criminality. Mr. Chair, Vietnam considers universal jurisdiction an important instrument to promote accountability and cooperation among states, not a substitute for national justice systems. It should serve to reinforce the rule of law and international solidarity in the fight against impunity. Vietnam also takes note of the adoption of the Hague Convention on International Cooperation in the Investigation and Prosecution of Genocide. Crimes against humanity and war crimes and other international crimes last year. This instrument demonstrates how international cooperation rooted in mutual respect and legal certainty can strengthen accountability while upholding state sovereignty. Mr. Chair, at national level, Vietnam continues to strengthen its legal framework to uphold justice and prevent impunity. Our penal code provides for the exercise of universal jurisdiction over certain serious crimes. Then, harmonizing our national legislation with our international treaty obligations. This demonstrates our unwavering commitment to the rule of law and to ensuring accountability. Having endured the consequences of war. Vietnam values peace, justice, and the rule of law. We therefore attach great importance to the continued discussions on this topic in this community— on this committee and its working group to build common understanding and practical guidelines, ensuring that this principle is interpreted and applied objectively, transparently, and in good faith. We stand ready to work constructively with all member states to ensure the consistent and lawful application of the universal jurisdiction so that this principle continues to serve the cause of justice and peace for all nations. I thank you, Mr. Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [13:12]: I thank the distinguished representative of Vietnam for her statement. I call on the representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC. ICRC [13:27]: Chair, the International Committee of the Red Cross welcomes the continued interest of the United Nations General Assembly in the principle of universal jurisdiction and takes note of the Secretary-General's most recent report on this issue. The principle of universal jurisdiction is one of the key tools for ensuring that serious violations of international humanitarian law are deterred, and when they do occur, are investigated and, if appropriate, prosecuted. High Contracting Parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions are obligated to search for suspected perpetrators of certain IHL violations which are qualified as grave breaches, regardless of their nationality. The obligation does not require any link to the investigating state. For example, there is no requirement that the alleged offense was committed in the territory of that state. The Geneva Conventions also require high contracting parties to establish in their national legislation, at a minimum, the universal jurisdiction sufficient to prosecute or extradite the alleged offenders. The 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions extends this principle to grave breaches relating to the conduct of hostilities. It also qualifies all grave breaches as war crimes. Other international instruments place a similar obligation on states, on states parties, to vest some form of universal jurisdiction in their courts over serious violations of the rules contained in these instruments. These include, for example, the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its Second Protocol, the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the 2006 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. In addition, State practice and opinio juris have crystallized into a rule of customary international law whereby states have the right to extend universal jurisdiction to other serious violations of IHL. These include, in particular, serious violations of Article 3, common to the 4 Geneva Conventions of 1984 and of Additional Protocol II of 1977, as well as those listed in Article 8 of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Chair, states have responsibility to investigate war crimes over which they have jurisdiction and, if appropriate, prosecute, prosecute the suspects. In addition to jurisdiction over crimes committed on a state's own territory or by its own nationals, the exercise of universal jurisdiction over war crimes —no matter the perpetrator or location—can serve as an effective mechanism to ensure accountability and limit impunity. A growing number of states are using universal jurisdiction to effectively address prevailing impunity gaps and move towards accountability for serious violations of IHL perpetrated beyond their borders in past or ongoing armed conflicts. These efforts also send an important message to victims and survivors that accountability is not just an aspirational goal, but a tangible commitment made by the international community. The ICRC takes note, however, of the fact that universal jurisdiction is not currently being applied evenly across all armed conflicts. Consistency in the application of universal jurisdiction is an important part of enforcing IHL and states exercising universal jurisdiction should pursue accountability universally, impartially, and without bias. Chair, the ICRC will continue to support states both in their efforts to strengthen their national criminal legislation and to establish universal jurisdiction over serious violations of IHL. The ICRC continues to develop specialized tools to assist states to understand and implement their obligations under IHL. These tools take the form of databases, reports, and technical documents, all of which are made available to states and to the general public. The ICRC has also advised states during the drafting of the Ljubljana Hague Convention on Cooperation in the Investigation and Prosecution of the Crime of Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes, and Other International Crimes, which reaffirms once again that states have an obligation to enact universal jurisdiction. The ICRC recognizes that states may attach conditions to the application of universal jurisdiction to grave breaches or other serious violations of IHL, but those conditions must be intended to increase the effectiveness and predictability of universal jurisdiction and not to unnecessarily restrict the prospect for international justice. Any conditions must not be used by states to bring political considerations into play, or as a way of evading their duties to search for and either prosecute or extradite an alleged offender. The ICRC reiterates its readiness to continue engaging with and supporting states' efforts to ensure greater respect for IHL in the area of universal jurisdiction and all other areas. I thank you, Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [19:19]: I thank the representative of the ICRC for her statement. Distinguished delegates, the representative of the ICRC was the last speaker on the list for this agenda item, so we have therefore concluded our debate on Agenda Item 85, the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. Distinguished delegates, I recall the working group under this agenda item is not scheduled to meet this year. I wish to inform you that the draft resolution for this agenda item will be coordinated this year by Mr. Marvin Ikondere of Uganda. As agreed at our first meeting this year, we will provide coordinators assigned to each agenda item the opportunity to take the floor to give a brief indication of their plans and, if possible, to introduce the initial draft of their proposals for draft resolutions, if applicable. As such, does Mr. Marvin Ikondera wish to take the floor on this agenda item? You have the floor, sir. Uganda · Coordinator · Marvin Ikondere [20:30]: Thank you, Chair. Mr. Chair, dear colleagues, I have followed with great interest the debate and the statements delivered by delegations. As coordinator for the draft resolution on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, I have the honor today to speak about the zero draft resolution on this item. My plan is to circulate a zero draft resolution today containing necessary technical updates. The first round of informal consultations will take place on Friday, 24 October, at 1:15 PM here in the Trusteeship Council Chamber. Mr. Chair, allow me to thank most sincerely the delegations in advance for their cooperation for your help and support on this item. Thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [21:14]: I thank you, sir, for your remarks, and again, wish you all the best in your efforts. I encourage the coordinator to use the e-sponsorship module in the e-delegate portal for the circulation of the draft resolution as early as possible, and then to submit it for processing in good time. Distinguished delegates, the Sixth Committee will now commence consideration of Agenda Item 82, Diplomatic Protection. I draw your attention to the report of the Secretary-General contained in Document A/80/280, which is available on the website of the Sixth Committee. The first speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Brazil, speaking on behalf of a group of countries. Brazil · Colombia, Mexico, Slovenia and Brazil [22:10]: To deliver this statement on behalf of Colombia, Mexico, Slovenia, and my own country, Brazil, our countries have come together to reaffirm their steadfast faith in multilateralism, their unwavering commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and their firm belief in the centrality of international law. For this reason, in the Sixth Committee, we stand ready to engage constructively in strengthening the rule of international law through the codification of fundamental norms. We are convinced that the codification of customary international law contributes to stability and friendly relations among states by providing legal certainty and predictability across different areas of of international law. Mr. Chair, as recalled by the second special rapporteur of the International Law Commission on Diplomatic Protection, Mr. John Dugard, when the commission embarked on the codification of this topic, there already existed a rich body of case law supported by treaties, earlier codification efforts, and the writings of jurists. In his words, this was probably the subject most ripe codification ever addressed by the International Law Commission. In this context, we recall that in 2006, in the report on its 58th session, the International Law Commission recommended to the General Assembly the elaboration of a convention on the basis of the draft articles on diplomatic protection. Yet almost 20 years after the adoption of those articles, this committee has not been able to take the first steps towards their codification. In the spirit of cooperation that should guide the relationship between the Sixth Committee and the International Law Commission, our countries believe that the Commission's recommendations should be given due consideration. Mr. Chair, in our view, the draft articles on diplomatic protection largely reflect customary international law concerning the protection of persons in in the international sphere. In their current non-binding form, however, they fall short of providing the necessary legal certainty for the effective protection of those entities. We believe that the General Assembly should codify these rules in the form of a convention. Such a step would preserve the central role of states in lawmaking while enhancing access to justice for injuries arising from internationally wrongful acts particularly in contexts where no regional or international human rights mechanisms are available. Uncertainty does not strengthen the rule of law. It is the breeding ground for impunity for violations of international law. Moreover, the draft articles contain important elements of progressive development, notably those concerning the protection of stateless persons and refugees. That protection can only be fully realized through a legally binding instrument. Mr. Chair, our countries are mindful of the historical relationship between diplomatic protection and state responsibility, as both topics were initially part of the same study undertaken by the International Law Commission. However, while they are related, they constitute distinct subjects developed through separate drafts and accompanied by different recommendations. On the one hand, the Commission's dual recommendation on state responsibility reflected concerns about maintaining the delicate balance of its 59 articles during potential negotiations. On the other hand, such concerns were never raised regarding the 19 articles on diplomatic protection. We believe that inaction under one agenda item should not justify inaction under another. Otherwise, we risk paralysis across multiple topics, regardless of their different natures. To advance this matter, we propose that the agenda item be considered on an annual basis, and that the Committee re-establish its working group to examine the draft articles on diplomatic protection in detail, preferably over consecutive meetings. Such an approach would enhance the role of the Sixth Committee and foster a more productive relationship with the International Law Commission with a view to strengthening the rule of law. Mr. Chair, we must overcome inertia. This legal committee must not shy away from its responsibility to bring legal certainty to fundamental rules of international law. Last year, we demonstrated that it is possible to establish processes leading to codification conventions that reinforce both the rule of law and multilateralism. We should now take the same path for the benefit of persons affected by arbitrary and unlawful acts through the adoption of a Convention on Diplomatic Protection. This is not only our task, it is our duty. I thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [27:09]: I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil speaking on behalf of a group of countries. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Norway speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries—Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Norway · Nordic Group [27:27]: Mr. Chair, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, and my own country, Norway. The Nordic countries once again commend the International Law Commission and the Special Rapporteur, Mr. John Dugard, for the work that led to the adoption by the International Law Commission in 2006 of the draft articles on diplomatic protection. We would also like to thank the Secretary-General for his newest report on diplomatic protection dated 30th of July this year. The Nordic countries have on various occasions expressed their view on the substance of the articles elaborated by the Commission. I would like to reiterate that the articles are generally satisfactory to the Nordic countries. In our view, the articles make an important contribution to general international law in the field of diplomatic protection. The Nordic countries have previously conveyed that we believe that the General Assembly should follow the recommendation of the International Law Commission and elaborate a convention on the basis of the articles. A convention on diplomatic protection would, in this case, enhance legal clarity and predictability in this important field of law. However, we note that there are diverging views between member states on the articles, including the question of whether they should be converted into a convention. This divergence of opinion has materialized both in the written comments by states as well as in the debates before the Committee. We have also taken due note of the diverging views expressed by states in the Secretary-General's most recent report. Bearing in mind the current situation, we are concerned that attempts to negotiate a convention at this point in time might risk opening up a debate that may undermine the already substantial contributions of the Articles to general international law. However, this does not preclude the elaboration of the Articles into a convention at a later point in time. Against this backdrop, we recommend that the General Assembly commends once again the Articles to the attention of governments and decides to revisit the question of a convention on diplomatic protection or any other appropriate action on the basis of the Articles at a later session. We continue to urge states to utilize the Articles as a source of inspiration and guidance as they exercise their right to diplomatic protection. I thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [30:30]: I thank the distinguished representative of Norway speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Canada speaking on behalf of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Canada · CANZ [30:45]: Mr. Chair, I have the honor to speak today on behalf of New Zealand and Australia, as well as my own country, Canada. Canada's countries express once again their continued appreciation for the International Law Commission's contribution to the topic of diplomatic protection. We continue to recognize the important role diplomatic protection plays as a valuable tool for states to protect the rights of their nationals from violations of international law, including to provide protection when violations of human rights are committed against their nationals. We take this opportunity Uh, we, we take this opportunity to recall our statement from UNGA 77, noting we consider the draft articles adopted by the Commission to be closely bound to the articles on the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts. CANZ countries continue to be of the view that in the absence of a clear consensus on the elaboration of a convention on the basis of the articles of State responsibility, it would be premature to commence negotiations on a convention based on the draft articles on diplomatic protection. We again highlight that CANZ countries consider certain aspects of the draft articles on diplomatic protection go beyond our own understanding of customary international law in relation to diplomatic protection, and that there is unlikely to be international consensus on whether those aspects should be made the subject of a convention. CANZ countries are also concerned that, as there is unlikely to be international consensus about certain aspects of the current draft articles, opening up debate on the entire set of draft articles and engaging in the process of negotiating a convention at this time risks undermining the influence and value of the draft articles. CANZ members continue to value the International Law Commission's work on the draft articles in their current form and recognize they serve a useful purpose in informing state practice in this important area of law. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [32:51]: I thank the distinguished representative of Canada speaking on behalf of the CANZ countries. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States of America. United States of America [33:02]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The United States thanks the Secretary-General for his report on this topic containing comments from governments, many of which reflect ongoing concerns about certain draft articles and the continued lack of consensus on this topic. As we have previously indicated, the United States shares the view that where the draft articles on diplomatic protection reflect state practice, they represent a substantial contribution to the law on the topic and are thus valuable to states in their current form. The United States has concerns, however, that certain draft articles are inconsistent with well-settled customary international law. As one example of this inconsistency, draft Article 15 provides an exception to the requirement that local remedies be exhausted before a state may exercise diplomatic protection on behalf of its national, quote, where there is no reasonably available local remedy for effective redress, or the local remedies provide no reasonable possibility of such redress. We have opposed this formulation as more lenient than the customary international law standard, under which the exhaustion requirement is excused only where the local remedy is obviously futile or manifestly ineffective. We maintain similar concerns regarding the draft articles on continuous nationality of a corporation and protection of shareholders, among others, which we have detailed previously in our statements and written submissions. The United States maintains that any articles considered in a convention on diplomatic protection should reflect the well-established customary international law on this subject. In addition to our concern that the current draft articles depart from established custom in several respects, negotiation of any convention could undermine the contributions already achieved by the draft articles by reopening topics that do reflect customary international law and on which states have agreed. This could result in a convention that differs from both the draft articles and customary international law, but which is not ratified by a significant number of states. Reducing rather than increasing clarity in this area. In light of these concerns, the United States would oppose taking steps to negotiate a binding convention based on the draft articles at this time. Thank you, Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [35:17]: Thank the distinguished representative of the United States for her statement. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Netherlands. Netherlands (Kingdom of the) [35:31]: Mr. Chair, thank you for giving me the floor. The Kingdom of the Netherlands continues to support the Articles on Diplomatic Protection as developed by the International Law Commission and would repeat its expression of gratitude for the work of Special Rapporteur Mr. John Dugard, under whose guidance the present Articles were developed. The Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the vast majority of the provisions included in the articles on diplomatic protection reflects customary international law. We therefore have no preliminary objections to initiating the process of concluding a treaty on diplomatic protection. Mr. Chair, if the process of concluding a treaty on diplomatic protection is initiated, the Kingdom of the Netherlands prefers a joint procedure for the articles on state responsibility and the articles on diplomatic protection. We consider that diplomatic protection is intertwined with state responsibility to such an extent that a separate treaty would not be desirable. At the same time, it is important to note that there are differences between the two. The fact that their fate should be joined is just not to be taken to imply the same considerations apply to both sets of articles. While the articles on state responsibility might benefit from further confirmation in state practice, the same does not necessarily apply to the articles on diplomatic protection. The Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that virtually all of the articles on diplomatic protection reflect customary international law. We hope, therefore, that the articles on diplomatic protections will continue to be relied on, as they should be, for the application of the law on diplomatic protection. I thank you, Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [37:19]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands for her statement. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone [37:32]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sierra Leone thanks the Secretary-General for his report and acknowledges the valuable contribution, both in the convergence and divergence of views from member states on this important agenda. Agenda item. We commend the International Law Commission for its earlier work and recall General Assembly Resolution 77/105, which renewed discussion on possible future appropriate action concerning the draft articles on diplomatic protection. Chair, Sierra Leone wishes to make the following 4 points. First, Sierra Leone reaffirms the enduring relevance of the draft articles on diplomatic protection. Adopted by the International Law Commission and annexed to General Assembly Resolution 62/67. These articles provide a balanced framework for states to exercise diplomatic protection on behalf of their nationals while upholding procedural fairness and promoting justice in the international sphere. We are— we particularly value provisions that safeguard the rights of stateless persons and refugees, and those that preserve the principle of continuous nationality, as they offer balanced procedural safeguards and extend protection to the most vulnerable. Second, Sierra Leone acknowledges the diverse views expressed by States regarding the future forms of these articles. We align with the broad sentiment that any move towards a convention should be guided by consensus, and grounded in established customary international law. A treaty, however, could enhance legal certainty and predictability, but only if accompanied by inclusive consultations and the preservation of state consent. On this basis, we therefore support in principle the re-establishment of a Sixth Committee Working Group to explore valuable options for codification or other appropriate actions. Third, Sibylline underscores the link between diplomatic protection and the responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts. The two regimes complement each other in promoting accountability and justice for individuals harmed by breaches of international law. We welcome proposals encouraging coherence between these two sets of articles to ensure consistent interpretation and application. Finally, Sierra Leone reaffirms its commitment to the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations and to the protection, security, and dignity of all diplomatic and consular personnel and missions within its territory. We call for reciprocal adherence by receiving States and stress that effective diplomatic protection must operate within the framework of transparency, due process, and respect for sovereignty. We also encourage continued discussion on strengthening safeguards for refugees, stateless persons, and dual nationals. Whose protection remains a pressing humanitarian and legal concern. Mr. Chair, Sierra Leone remains open to constructive engagement on this item. We stand ready to participate actively in any renewed working group or intercessional dialogue aimed at building consensus towards practical outcomes that reinforce the rule of law, the rights of individuals, and the principles of sovereign equality among states. I thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [41:32]: I thank the distinguished representative of Sierra Leone for his statement. I give the floor to our vice chair, the distinguished representative of Equatorial Guinea. Equatorial Guinea · Vice-Chair [41:47]: Muchas gracias, señor presidente. Thank you very much, Chairman. At the outset, we'd like to thank the Secretary General for the report on diplomatic protection contained in document A/AT/280, which reflects the observations received from member states in this respect. We also express our thanks to the International Law Commission for the dedication and efforts that it has demonstrated in preparing the draft articles on diplomatic protection. Protection in 2006. This important work represents a significant contribution to the codification and progressive development of international law in terms of the protection that states should give to the rights of their citizens, particularly when these are violated by internationally wrongful acts perpetrated by by third states. In this context, we welcome the recommendations of the ILC to consider these articles in a legally binding instrument. My delegation believes that the draft substantively contributes to specifying the traditional requirements for diplomatic protection, particularly the exhaustion of local remedies and nationality, and also incorporating principles of equity and human rights that reflects contemporary developments in international law. We believe that the potential adoption of a convention on this matter could strengthen legal certainty, predictability in international relations. It could ensure a minimum standard for protection for persons from serious violations of their rights abroad and could favor greater consistency between diplomatic protection and other international protection mechanisms, including in human rights systems. We recognize that other states share the same level of enthusiasm. Therefore, we believe it's crucial to drive constructive, open dialogue between delegations so as to better understand the different perspectives, overcome discrepancies, and to advance together and in a consensus basis towards the preparation of a robust universal instrument. It would also be helpful during debates to look at— to coordinate our work with the work on internationally wrongful acts given the links between both topics. Strengthening the international regime involves ensuring clear predictable rules. The codification of diplomatic protection not only will benefit states but would also contribute to a positive image of this organization promoting justice, sovereign equality, and the dignity of the human person. We— to conclude, we therefore reiterate our full support for the efforts of the International Law Commission and our readiness to participate actively in future debates that would allow us to make a gradual consensus-based progress towards a possible convention on diplomatic protection. Thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [45:03]: I thank the Vice Chair, the distinguished representative of Equatorial Guinea. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Brazil. Brazil [45:13]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Brazil welcomes the discussions on the draft articles on diplomatic protection. We believe that the draft articles represent a solid basis for a future convention on the topic. Reflecting customary international law on the subject, the draft articles codify the established practice regarding the rules of continuous nationality and exhaustion of local remedies, while also acknowledging the discretionary character of diplomatic protection. The draft articles also represent an important step towards the progressive development of international law, as they include balanced exceptions to the rules of continuous nationality and exhaustion of remedies. They also provide significant innovations, such as the possibility of exercising diplomatic protection in favor of refugees and stateless persons. Brazil believes that a future convention based on the draft articles could benefit from some improvements. To avoid any misconception or misuse of the articles, Article 1 could explicitly distinguish between diplomatic protection and consular assistance. Citizens. Although the difference between the two concepts is stark in theory, there may be cases where confusion between the two could arise. Article 1 could also be improved by referring to the provisions of Article 8, since the definition of diplomatic protection Article 1 provides does not mention stateless persons and refugees. In Article 2, the draft could expand on the idea of diplomatic protection as a right by referring to the countervailing obligation incumbent upon other states to acknowledge the diplomatic protection invoked by the state that decides to exercise it. Article 6 allows for the possibility that two or more states of nationality may jointly exercise diplomatic protection in respect of a dual or multiple national. It fails to account, however, for the possible complications of this situation, such as the possibility that the states states involved may act autonomously or in any way disagree as to the preferred course of action. This article could benefit from more detailed provisions in this regard. In Article 7, greater clarity is needed as regards the concept of predominant nationality. If it refers to the theory of effective nationality as established by the ICJ, the text could be improved by including language outlining that theory and its application to the article. Mr. Chair, we regret the lack of progress in the discussions on diplomatic protection due to hesitations regarding another product of the ILC, the draft articles on state responsibility. While both are equally important and related topics, disagreement on one should not stall progress on the other. This is especially true in light of the relevance of diplomatic protection as a means to advance the protection of the human person under international law. I thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [48:16]: I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil for her statement. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mexico. Mexico [48:28]: Muchas gracias. Thank you very much, Chairman. Diplomatic protection is of particular importance both due to its legal dimension in defense of the rights of our nationals, as much as for its profound historic and political significance in the Latin American context. Mexico has, over the course of our history, developed a special position on diplomatic protection as a result of the experience that we built up during the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. That experience led my country to taking a staunch position in defense of our domestic jurisdiction and the principle of sovereign equality of states, principles that today enjoy constitutional-level rank. In line with this, my delegation firmly supports the ILC's recommendation to continue efforts to draft an international convention based on the draft articles adopted in 2006, recognizing the close connection of this topic with the articles on state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts, as is recalled in the Report A/80/280. This is another of the topics where we have seen an unacceptable deadlock for almost two decades. Chairman, generally speaking, Mexico maintains that diplomatic protection is a state prerogative, not an individual right. It falls exclusively to the state to decide whether to exercise it or not in accordance with its sovereign discretion and as noted by the International Court of Justice in the Barcelona Traction case, we reaffirm that international claims can only be brought once local legal resources have been exhausted, in essence where there's been a denial of justice. In our view, mechanisms such as amnesty, pardon, or commutation of sentences handed down by the executive due to their political nature, don't represent adequate measures of redress because they lack the very elements of due process of a juristic— of a judicial proceeding. Turning to the draft articles, Mexico acknowledges the customary nature of many of the articles, and we, generally speaking, believe this is an acceptable outcome of the ILC's work. Nonetheless, we underscore that diplomatic protection measures don't represent interference in the internal affairs of the allegedly responsible state, as is made clear in the comments to the draft articles on diplomatic relations and immunities adopted by the ILC at its session in 1958, hence why this principle should be incorporated in the future convention. We further regret that Article 14 does not include the Calvo Clause. No instrument on diplomatic protection can be deemed complete without addressing this principle, which is closely linked to state practice and to respect for national sovereignty. Turning to the concept of national— nationality, Mexico maintains its preference for the term effective nationality, which more precisely reflects the link between the person and the state exercising the protection, as was stated by the International Court of Justice in the Notenbaum case. Thus, we believe that the principle of predominant nationality in the terms of draft Article 7 does not enjoy sufficient grounds in state practice and could generate disputes. Therefore, its recognition should be governed by bilateral agreements or lex specialis norms. Furthermore, we view positively Article 8 on stateless persons and refugees as a good example of progressive development. My delegation underscores that diplomatic protection can only be exercised in a context of a peaceful settlement of disputes. Consequently, the threat or use of force, as well as economic reprisals or sanctions, should not be and must not be considered lawful means of diplomatic protection. Chairman, diplomatic protection and the international responsible— responsibility of the state are closely interconnected matters. The first represents a procedural mechanism to enforce the second. Consequently, we reiterate that the codification of the state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts represents a fundamental step forward. Hence, my delegation categorically supports its codification, particularly in light of the current context and jurisprudential progress. Finally, on the consideration of the topic in the Sixth Committee and in light of the UN80 initiative, Mexico believes it's necessary to review the methods of work and to look closely at procedural options for the future of this and other ILC products and recommendations that remain on the Sixth Committee's agenda. We need together to forge a strategy that efficiently manages the workload of the Sixth Committee and enables concrete progress. Mexico reiterates its commitment to a serious consideration of this topic and to the codification and progressive development of international law. Thank you very much. 6th Committee · Chair [54:45]: I thank the distinguished representative of Mexico for his statement. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Philippines. Philippines [54:56]: Mr. Chair, we thank the Secretary-General for his report on diplomatic protection containing comments and information received from governments as set out in A/80/100. The Philippines commends the International Law Commission's important work on this topic and welcomes its continued consideration in this forum. The question of diplomatic protection is of enduring significance in international relations, having existed even before the emergence of modern nation-states. It represents a sovereign prerogative by which a state acts on behalf of its nationals whose rights have been injured abroad. However, it is a prerogative that must be exercised with prudence and responsibility. The misuse of diplomatic protection in the past particularly when invoked as a pretext for intervention, reminds us of the delicate balance this matter requires. Diplomatic protection must be exercised through peaceful means, including consular assistance, bilateral negotiation, or any other forms of dispute settlement. Under customary international law, two fundamental conditions must be met: the exhaustion of local remedies, and effective and continuous nationality. The Philippines supports the codification of these principles in the International Law Commission draft articles. We stress the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of local remedies must be interpreted stricto sensu juris to safeguard judicial independence and uphold the rule of law. On the question of nationality, the Noteboom case reminds us of the need for a genuine and effective link between the individual and the state exercising protection. For the Philippines, this issue bears special relevance. Our Dual Citizenship Law of 2003 affects nearly 10 million Filipinos overseas, many of whom now hold more than one nationality. We therefore attach particular interest to the practical application of the concept of predominant nationality. Under draft Article 7. The Philippines also welcomes further elaboration on direct injury to shareholders under draft Article 12, and in order to better define the capacity of the state of nationality to exercise protection on behalf of judicial— juridical persons. Similarly, we value the clarification provided by the late Professor Ian Brownlee on situations where representations or delegation among states may give rise to a right of protection. Mr. Chair, draft Article 18 is especially significant for the Philippines. As one of the world's largest suppliers of seafarers, we recognize that the flag state may exercise diplomatic protection over them. However, we believe that such a prerogative should be complementary, not exclusive to that of the seafarer's state of nationality. We also note that the draft articles do not specify the period within which diplomatic protection may be exercised. To promote legal stability, the Philippines suggests that consideration be given to the principles of prescription, estoppel, or laches, which help ensure predictability in both human and international relations. Mister Chair, diplomatic protection remains one of the most rich, even if controversial, fields for the development of international law. The Philippines welcomes the International Law Commission's recommendation to elaborate a convention on diplomatic protection on the basis of the 2006 draft articles. We also acknowledge the close relationship between these principles and those embodied in the articles on state responsibility for international wrongful acts, which together, together strengthen the accountability and stability in international relations. In this regard, we will contribute constructively to efforts towards reaching a broad consensus on this. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [59:08]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Philippines for his statement. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Portugal. Portugal [59:19]: Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, less than 10 years after this topic was first identified as suitable for codification and progressive development, the International Law Commission completed in 2006 a set of 19 draft articles on diplomatic protection. This was a remarkable achievement, demonstrating that the topic was ripe for codification and that diplomatic protection continues to be a relevant and— useful concept in contemporary international relations. Portugal welcomed this development and has consistently supported the recommendation of the Commission to the General Assembly for the elaboration of a convention on the basis of these draft articles. We have also valued the subsequent debates in the Sixth Committee and the periodic reports of the Secretary-General, which have provided member states with an opportunity to exchange views and to contribute meaningfully to the collective reflection on this important matter. Mr. Chair, there is an identifiable trend of recognizing greater autonomy and capacity to individuals and groups of individuals to assure the protection of their own rights. We are convinced that in international social relations, the self-emancipation of individuals is the path to be followed. However, this should not preclude us from admitting that diplomatic protection conducted by state remains an important remedy. Diplomatic protection remains an essential subsidiary mechanism, a last resort to which a state may protect the human rights of its nationals. As the ILC has underlined in its commentaries, diplomatic protection conducted by a state at an interstate level remains an important remedy for the protection of persons whose human rights have been violated abroad. Moreover, diplomatic of protection remains closely linked to one of the fundamental principles of international law, the sovereign equality of states. Mr. Chair, Portugal wishes to thank the Secretary-General for his reports containing the comments and observations received from governments. We also acknowledge with appreciation the adoption of Resolution 77/105, which reaffirmed the importance of this topic and encouraged member states to continue substantive dialogue on an informal basis before the next session of the General Assembly. We note that, as reflected in the debates of previous sessions, member states continue to hold different views on the future of this topic. We also acknowledge that some of the written comments and statements of member states at the Sixth Committee have pointed to a link between the topic of diplomatic protection and of the responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts. Mr. Chair, Portugal would like to express again its agreement with the draft articles in general and our belief that they are suitable for being the basis of an international convention on diplomatic protection. This conviction remains despite our disagreement with certain aspects of this outcome, such as those concerning the scope of certain draft articles and their content. However, we believe these and other issues could be discussed in the context of a the negotiation of a convention. To conclude, we thus continue hoping that these draft articles, together with those on responsibility of states, can soon be part of parallel convention, since they traditionally go hand in hand, as noted by the International Law Commission. This would represent a major step for the consolidation of the law on international responsibility. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [1:02:46]: Thank the distinguished representative of Portugal for her statement. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Algeria. Algeria [1:02:58]: Shukran. Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. We extend our thanks to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for his report on diplomatic protection contained in Document A/AT/280. We thank the ILC for its valuable work and for its draft article on diplomatic protection adopted in 2006, and of which the GA took note in Resolution 62/70. We reiterate that diplomatic protection is of paramount importance in relations among states. It entrenches a fundamental international law principle, namely the state's protection of the rights of its nationals in the event of an injury caused by an internationally wrongful act in another state. Within the limits of the international legal regime, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of states. Chair, diplomatic protection must be aligned with international law and the Charter of the United Nations without politicization or selectivity. We regret some practices where diplomatic protection is instrumentalized to exert political pressure on other states, including arbitrary detention and politicized judgments. These practices run counter to the spirit of justice and international law. Diplomatic protection is closely linked to the state's responsibility for internationally wrongful acts. We call on the Sixth Committee to harmonize both sets of draft articles, thus contributing to the development and codification of international law. On the potential elaboration of a convention based on draft articles on diplomatic protection, despite the important codification and progressive development of international law, The adoption of this convention does not enjoy broad consensus at this stage. As a result, priority must be given to develop mutual understanding and reach a common ground among states prior to any subsequent step towards the codification of this issue in a binding international instrument. Chair, In conclusion, we remain committed to the codification and progressive development of international law, mainly in matters of interest to the international community. We stand ready to contribute constructively to discussions at the Sixth Committee and to interact positively with proposals by member states to reach consensus decisions that strengthen the GA's role in developing international law. Thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [1:06:26]: I thank the distinguished representative of Algeria for his statement. I call on the distinguished representative of Singapore. Singapore [1:06:37]: Mr. Chairperson, Singapore acknowledges the significant and valuable contribution of the International Law Commission's work on the Articles and the accompanying commentaries to the ongoing discourse on the topic of diplomatic protection. Insofar as some aspects of the articles reflect state practice and are consistent with customary international law, the articles provide welcome clarity on the state of the law. My delegation is of the view that any legal framework on diplomatic protection must ultimately be constructed on the basis of international consensus. We note that several states continue to have reservations over the elaboration of a convention based on the Articles. There are also aspects of the Articles that demonstrate progressive development of the law, and these would be a useful springboard for States to continue dialogue on this topic. As many other delegations have noted, this topic is closely tied to the topic of State responsibility for internationally wrongful acts. There is therefore utility that any future action on this topic should track the developments on that topic. Thank you very much for your attention. 6th Committee · Chair [1:07:39]: Thank the distinguished representative of Singapore for his statement. I call on the distinguished representative of Türkiye. Türkiye [1:07:49]: Thank you, Chair. At the outset, we would like to thank the Secretary-General for the report on diplomatic protection, A/80/280, containing the comments and information received from the governments. The Assembly has had this item on the agenda triennially since the— since the 62nd session. The diverging views between the states were reflected in the written comments by states as well as in the debates before the committee. In this regard, we have taken note of various views expressed in the Secretary-General's most recent report. Mr. Chair, Türkiye wishes to express its sincere appreciation to the International Law Commission for its contribution to international law. As regards the work on diplomatic protection, Türkiye noted the previous exchange of views as to overcome the challenges encountered and identifying any differences of opinion on the articles. Like others, Türkiye considers that the fate of the articles on diplomatic diplomatic protection is closely linked to the fate of the draft articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts. The close link between the articles was also acknowledged in the commentaries by the ILC on the diplomatic protection. Due to this close link between these two topics, this delegation believes it's premature to discuss the articles related to diplomatic protection. In view of differences among the member states on the future of the draft articles and of the importance of reaching any decision on the basis of consensus, this delegation expresses its preference to continue the discussions at a later session. I thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [1:09:47]: I thank the distinguished representative of Türkiye for her statement. I call on the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. Russian Federation [1:10:03]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'd like to thank the Secretary-General for compiling the commentaries of states on the ILC draft articles on diplomatic protection and also any future measures regarding these articles particularly drafting a convention based on them. In the context of intensive global migration and increased tourism, the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of individuals and legal persons has become a matter of paramount importance for states. An increasing number of individuals find themselves outside the state of their nationality for their studies, for employment, for medical treatment or other reasons. Legal persons are furthermore active participants in international cooperation. The institution of diplomatic protection has a longstanding history. To date, a substantial body of state practice has been accumulated in the area covered by the ILC articles. We're convinced that the Commission's product can make a valuable contribution to the codification and progressive development of international law. In the field of state protection of the legitimate rights of their nationals and legal persons, including with respect to claims for compensation for damage resulting from internationally wrongful acts by another state. We'd like to underscore that in the framework of diplomatic protection, the state acts as an independent legal subject and not as a representative of a natural or legal person. The state invokes this mechanism when it determines that the harm caused by these persons derives from damage inflicted upon the state itself. The ILC draft articles explain important legal matters related to the subjects of diplomatic protection, the objects of such protection, grounds for diplomatic protection, questions of nationality, the continuity of nationality, the exhaustion of local remedies for legal protection as well. Importantly, there are provisions for the legal right of any state whose national is a dual or has multiple nationality to exercise diplomatic protection of that person. There are helpful provisions furthermore on diplomatic protection for stateless persons, refugees, and legal persons. Furthermore, the articles established their non-applicability if there is incompatibility with treaty provisions. So the ILC adopted the draft articles on diplomatic protection way back in 2006 and recommended the UNGA to develop a convention based on them. Since then, this issue has seen no real progress in the committee. Given this, we'd like to remind you that during the last session, under the threat of undermining the longstanding practice of consensus, a decision was rammed through to draft a convention on crimes against humanity. This is a new topic on which the ILC's ink was barely dry. We would call for equal treatment on all ILC products, and we trust that the Sixth Committee will adopt in the forthcoming sessions a decision to develop a convention on diplomatic protection based on these draft articles. Thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [1:13:36]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation for her statement. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Malaysia. Malaysia [1:13:47]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, Malaysia thanks the Secretary-General for the report compiling written comments on the draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection and notes the continued interest of delegations in this agenda item. We recall our consistent position in previous deliberations of this agenda item that diplomatic protection is and should remain a sovereign prerogative exercised at the discretion of the State. There is no general obligation to espouse claims on behalf of individuals. Malaysia underlines the importance of the rule of exhaustion of local remedies. Any exceptions must be narrowly defined to avoid uncertainty and to safeguard national judicial processes, because such exceptions could generate legal and practical challenges for States, and risk creating uncertainty in international economic relations. We remain cautious about progressive provisions that go beyond established practice or opinio juris, including on nationality continuity, protection for refugees and stateless persons, and shareholder-based claims, as these matters may have implications to domestic legal systems. Given the close conceptual link between diplomatic protection and the law of state responsibility, and noting the absence of clear consensus on the way forward in relation to the agenda item on responsibility of state in the Sixth Committee. At this juncture, Malaysia considers it premature to elaborate a convention in this regard. In any event, Malaysia supports the Committee's continued work to identify areas of common ground and drafting issues. We welcome further written comments from States and stand ready to engage constructively without prejudging the eventual form of any outcome. I thank you, Mr. Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [1:16:06]: I thank the distinguished representative of Malaysia for his statement. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran (Islamic Republic of) [1:16:22]: Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to reiterate the position of my delegation expressed in the previous meetings of the Sixth Committee under the present agenda item and touch upon a few points in this respect. The International Law Commission views diplomatic protection in its commentary on the respective draft articles as a procedure employed by a state of nationality of the injured person to obtain reparation. Given the implication of state and individuals In this discussion, it is essential that any legal regime on diplomatic protection be based on a robust and clear understanding of, and a proper balance between, rights of individuals and those of the states. It is also of utmost, of utmost importance to distinguish as between primary and secondary rules of international law, bearing in mind that in view of the Commission, it does not seek to define or describe acts that give rise to responsibility. Nevertheless, it is doubtful if the draft articles has been able to have due regard to such proper balances, conditions, and understandings. Mr. Chair, some of the draft articles on diplomatic protection could not be deemed as reflective of customary international law. For instance, the draft article relating to diplomatic protection of stateless persons, or the one relating to individuals with multiple nationality, do not feature, among others, sufficient widespread and consistent practice of states accepted as opinio juris. Eventually, the mere recourse of limited specific regional tribunals in certain case laws to such approaches could not have given rise to general practice accepted as law. We took note that the Commission has opined in its commentary of Article 7 on the use of term predominant instead of dominant or effective nationality to convey element of relativity. Nonetheless, it would be difficult to define a decisive and harmonized criterion to establish predominance of a nationality over another nationality. This increases more uncertainty and ambiguity surrounding this topic. Mr. Chair, this delegation understands that the Commission has recognized the very fact that domestic laws may not allow for its nationals to become nationals of other states. This is a pertinent and important consideration, taking into account that the constitutions of certain states do not accept dual nationality or do not recognize its legal effects arising from secondary nationality of their citizens.. In these cases, the exercise of diplomatic protection by one State of nationality against another State of nationality would create uncertainty and ambiguity in obligations of States. Nevertheless, despite the reaffirmation of this matter by the Commission in its Commentary, this important matter has not been well transposed into a clearer provision within the draft Article. Finally, my delegation believes that time is not ripe to elaborate the draft articles into a legally binding instrument. The legal difficulties, uncertainties, and concerns of member states need to be duly addressed and accommodated. I thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [1:19:49]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran for his statement. I call on the distinguished representative of Guinea. Guinea [1:20:02]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my delegation takes note of the report of the Secretary-General, Document A/80/280, observations on any future action that may be taken regarding the articles on diplomatic protection, which also follows General Assembly Resolution 77/0105, recalling the recommendation made by the International Law Commission concerning the drafting of a convention on diplomatic protection based on the draft articles adopted in 2006. My delegation wishes to make the following comments. On the subject under consideration. Firstly, noting that Article 6 of the draft articles does not clarify what may occur when multiple states consider exercising diplomatic protection against a third state on behalf of a person holding dual or multiple nationalities, my delegation suggests that the International Law Commission make a clear distinction in this regard. Highlighting the relevance of such a distinction. This is particularly pertinent in cases involving a change of nationality, as provided for in Article 15, paragraph 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Secondly, my delegation recommends that Article 15 of the draft articles be redrafted to eliminate ambiguity. As it stands, it provides an exception to the rule of exhaustion of local remedies. Clarifying this provision would help define its scope and reduce potential misuse in specific cases. Finally, all regarding this point, my delegation considers it both judicious and prudent that Article 5 apply solely to situations in which the individual held the nationality of the state at the time the harm occurred. This would exclude from its scope claims made by individuals who did not possess the nationality of the state at the date of the alleged harm. Sir, my delegation shares the view of the Special Rapporteur who stated in the 7th report that the fate of the draft articles on diplomatic protection is closely linked to that of the draft articles on state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts. This underscores the importance of not approaching the drafting of a convention on diplomatic protection in isolation. Accordingly, a parallel should be drawn between the two sets of draft articles. Such that one be examined in the light of the other, with a view to establishing a more pragmatic mechanism through cross-referencing. This is because for my delegation, the adoption of a convention on diplomatic protection would ensure better protection of the rights of individuals and other international stakeholders. It would provide a clear definition of effective protection and enforcement mechanisms, as well as appropriate punishments or sanctions of violations, thereby strengthening the international responsibility of states. To this end, it is essential to take into account the diverse views of states while also opening the debate up to academic circles for their valuable input and to practitioners for their practical experience. My delegation supports initiatives aimed at ensuring that the draft articles discussions of the ILC on diplomatic protection result in a convention. My delegation would urge the ILC to continue its work during its forthcoming sessions with a view to reconciling as much as possible divergent views and to achieve consensus among states. From this standpoint, my country reaffirms its commitment to cooperate fully in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Charter and in the spirit of the draft articles on diplomatic protection. Thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [1:24:38]: I thank the distinguished representative of Guinea for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Dominican Republic. Dominican Republic [1:24:52]: Chairman, the Dominican Republic would like to thank the Secretary-General for the presentation of Report A/80/280, as well as the ILC for the work done in preparing draft articles on diplomatic protection adopted at its 58th session. My delegation welcomes the sustained work by the ILC and my member states in reviewing this topic, which reflects a balance between codification and the progressive development of international International Law. Diplomatic protection, understood as the right of a state to invoke the responsibility of another for the harm done to its nationals as a consequence of an internationally wrongful act, represents an essential instrument to safeguard the rights of natural and legal persons at the international level. The systematic consideration that the Committee has given to this topic contributes to the consolidation of customary norms and to greater legal certainty in state practice. The Dominican Republic notes with interest the opinions expressed by member states in the Secretary General's report. We concur with the understanding that the articles on diplomatic protection are closely related to the articles on the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts. Hence why any progress towards the codification or preparation of a convention should be— remain consistent with that normative body. We take note of the positions expressed by various states which have shared valuable reflections on the content, scope, and potential future measures related to the articles. In particular, We highlight the appeals to continue to consider the item in order to garner consensus and, at the right time, evaluate the viability of a legally binding instrument to codify the applicable rules in diplomatic protection, guaranteeing a balance between state sovereignty and the effective protection of individual rights. German. The Dominican Republic believes that To the extent that the articles, to a large part, reflect customary international law, they are a useful reference to guide states' practice even before the possible adoption of a treaty. However, we recognize that certain aspects, such as the protection of stateless persons and refugees, the exhaustion of domestic remedies, or the concept of predominant nationality, warrant further analysis and greater conceptual precision, particularly in light of the implications that they might have for states in sovereignty and determination of nationality, as was noted in the observations made by various states. My delegation believes that the debate in the Sixth Committee provides a valuable opportunity to identify meeting points and potential differences of opinions in the application interpretation of the articles in order to build a gradual consensus towards the next steps. We, in this sense, we are grateful to the Secretariat for collecting the written views of member states and for the committee to assess these in a balanced way. Finally, Dominican Republic reaffirms its commitment to strengthening the international rule of law, the responsibility of states, and the protection of human rights in all of their dimensions. My country believes that the consensus-based development of norms on diplomatic protection will contribute to consolidating an international legal system that is fairer, more predictable, and more equitable. 6th Committee · Chair [1:28:38]: Thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of the Dominican Republic for his statement. Distinguished delegates, the distinguished representative of the Dominican Republic was our last speaker on the list for this agenda item. We have therefore concluded our debate on this item. Distinguished delegates, I wish to inform you that the draft resolution for this agenda item will be coordinated this year by Mr. Cheikh Mohamadou Bamba Gaye of Senegal. As agreed at our first meeting this year, we will provide the coordinators assigned to each agenda item with the opportunity to take the the floor to give a brief indication of their plans and, if possible, to introduce the initial draft of their proposals for a draft resolution where applicable. As such, does Mr. Galle wish to take the floor on this agenda item? Senegal · Coordinator · Cheikh Mohamadou Bamba Gaye [1:29:41]: Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le Président. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to begin by thanking the Bureau for the trust placed in me by naming me coordinator of the resolution on item 82 of our agenda entitled Diplomatic Protection. I have followed our debate with interest and taken note of the statements by delegations which reflect in many regards the rich history which links our committee to the draft articles prepared by the International Law Commission. I'd also like to express my commitment to work with you for the diligent consensus base for adoption of the resolution this session. In this regard, informal consultations are planned for the 5th of November this year from 2:00 to 2:45 PM. In— with this in mind, the initial draft resolution will be distributed this afternoon with the support of the Secretariat. As you will see, this is a technical update of the resolution adopted at the 77th session of the General Assembly. Once circulated, delegations, so who are inclined will be able to submit their proposals for this draft resolution. Finally, I'd like to reiterate my full availability to work with you. My contact details will also be shared with you. 6th Committee · Chair [1:30:48]: Thank you very much. I thank Mr. Geyer for his statement and for the information provided, and of course I wish you all the best in your efforts. I also wish to encourage the coordinator to use the e-sponsorship module in the eDelegate portal for the circulation of the draft resolution as soon as possible and to submit it for processing in good time. Distinguished delegates, the Sixth Committee will now consider Agenda Item 79, United Nations Program of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination, and Wider Appreciation of International Law. I draw your attention to the report of the Secretary-General on this topic, which is contained in Document A/80/437. The report is available on the website of the Sixth Committee. I understand that the Advisory Committee on the Programme of Assistance, chaired by Mr. Hafiz Issahaku, Minister and Head of Chancery at the Permanent Mission of Ghana, had a successful meeting at its 60th session held on 7 October 2025, and I would like to remind delegations that a brief summary of that meeting is contained in the report. Distinguished delegates, as you know, the Secretariat has traditionally provided information on the implementation of the activities under the Programme of Assistance. We therefore have with us today the Secretary of the Advisory Committee, Mr. Markus Pálec, who will provide an overview of the activities during the reporting period. We also have with us Mr. Vladimir Harris, the Director of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, to address the Committee on the Hamilton Shirley Amerasinghe Memorial Fellowship on the Law of the Sea. Following the statement of the Chair of the Advisory Committee, I will invite the Secretary of the Advisory Committee and the Director of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea to make their statements. So I'd now like to give the floor to the Chair of the Advisory Committee, Mr. Isahaku. You have the floor. Ghana · Chair of Advisory Committee · Hafiz Issahaku [1:33:07]: I have the honor to address the Sixth Committee and report on the work of the 60th Session of the Advisory Committee on the United Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching Steady Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law, held during the morning of October 7, 2025. I encourage delegations to refer to the report of the Secretary-General contained in Document A/80/437 for the full version of the Committee's report. As indicated during the session, the Committee expressed its strong support for the Programme of Assistance, as well as its deep concern at the impact of the liquidity situation of the organization on the program and its activities. Members of the Committee expressed the hope that voluntary contributions will continue to be made, while emphasizing the importance of regular budget funding for the Program of Assistance. Pursuant to its mandate, the Advisory Committee reviewed the activities undertaken during the reporting period and took note of proposed activities for the year 2026, including the resulting administrative and financial implications. The Programme of Assistance continues to enjoy the overwhelming support of all members of the Committee, who alluded to its intrinsic value to the realization of the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter, as well as to its contribution to international peace and security and to promoting friendly relations and cooperation among States. In my remarks to the Committee, I highlighted that we celebrate this year both the 80th anniversary of the United Nations in the 60th anniversary of the Programme of Assistance. I also underscored the enduring value of legal education and the critical role international law plays in fostering peace, justice, and development across all regions. I was pleased to note that the general view of the Committee that the Programme of Assistance remains a crucially important tool for enhancing the legal capacities of national experts, and more so for strengthening our collective commitment to Peace and Development. The Committee welcomed that the 4 in-person training programs conducted under the mandate of the Programme of Assistance were held again during the reporting period at their usual venues. While recognizing the efforts of the Office in ensuring gender and regional balance among participants and lecturers of the training programs, the Committee underscored the importance of diversity in the languages and legal traditions as well as gender balance., and welcomed the commitment made by the Secretariat in this regard. Similarly, wider geographic representation and gender balance among the participants of the training programs were emphasized. The Committee expressed its satisfaction for the resumption of the work of the Audiovisual Library of International Law, highlighting its importance as a resource for the dissemination of international law. Proposals were made to make the content of the library available on additional podcast platforms to increase its accessibility and visibility, and to provide outlines based on resources of the Library. Calls were also made for enhancement of the website of the Audiovisual Library. The Secretariat informed the Committee of the publications that were issued during this reporting period, as well as those that are in preparation. In that regard, the Committee welcomed Air Force Towards examining information and materials in international law, particularly in printed format, and suggested exploring further opportunities for dissemination. It was also noted that the Hamilton Shelley Amerasim Memorial Fellowship on the Law of the Sea was awarded in 2025. At the meeting of the Advisory Committee, the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and United Nations Legal Council, presented her proposal already submitted to the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly as part of the revised estimates for the 2026 program budget of the organization to reduce the frequency of the training programs conducted under the program of assistance from an annual to a biannual basis. Members of the Advisory Committee took note with concern of this proposal. The committee expressed its support for the funding of the activities of the program from the regular budget of the organization while also highlighting the importance of voluntary contribution for expanding and enhancing the activities. In this respect, I wish to reiterate the committee's appreciation for the contributions received from Austria, Burkina Faso, Cyprus, Czechia, Finland, the Philippines, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and Spain. The committee also acknowledged in-kind contributions of member states the African Union, the International Court of Justice, UN regional commissions, and the Hague Academy of International Law. The Committee is particularly grateful to the host countries of the training programs for their organizational support, which have always been vital to the success of the program. Before bringing my report to a close, allow me to reiterate Ghana's longstanding commitment to the realization of the objectives of the Programme of Assistance and our chairmanship of the Advisory Committee. We highly value the support and cooperation demonstrated over the years by all member states and remain committed in our service. Mr. Kwesi Aduyobo, the legal advisor of the Permanent Mission of Ghana, will be introducing the zero draft at the close of the debate with the intention of undertaking in-person consultations at scheduled times to be indicated by the Secretariat. We look forward to your distinguished participation in the consultations and count on your cooperation. I thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [1:38:34]: I wish to thank the Chair of the Advisory Committee for his statement. I now give the floor to the Secretary of the Advisory Committee, Mr. Markus Pawlak. You have the floor, sir. OLA · Secretary of Advisory Committee · Markus Pawlak [1:38:48]: Thank you, Ambassador. Mr. Chair, distinguished delegates, it is an honor for me to address you today in my capacity as Secretary of the Advisory Committee on the United Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law. The Programme of Assistance was established 60 years ago, but the need for training and educational materials in international law remains just as important today. Thanks to the constant support of the Advisory Committee, chaired by the Delegation of Ghana, and that of the Sixth Committee, the Programme of Assistance, has been able to provide responses to those needs. Monsieur le Président. Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, distinguished delegates. It is a great honour for me to present to you a brief overview of the implementation of the Programme during the period under consideration, in particular regarding the training programs, the International Audiovisual Library, and the publications of the Office of Legal Affairs. The training programs, that is the International Law Fellowship Program and the 3 regional courses, provide professionals from developing countries access to comprehensive training in international law given by eminent specialists from different regions and legal systems. Thanks to the resources that are part of the regular budget, the Codification Division of the OLA was able to organize 4 training programs mandated by the General Assembly, namely the International Law Fellowship Program that was held in The Hague, and the three regional courses for international law for Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and for Latin America and the Caribbean, respectively. The cooperation of United Nations Regional Commissions and the host countries, namely Chile, Ethiopia, and Thailand, This cooperation contributed significantly to the successful holding of the regional courses, and we would like to thank them for this. We would also like to thank the International Court of Justice and the Netherlands for their ongoing support regarding the International Law Fellowship Program. Mr. Chair, distinguished delegates, Among the 95 participants who attended the training programmes in the period under review, 81 benefited from a scholarship covering all their costs and 14 attended on a self-funded basis. These 95 participants came from 76 different states. I'd like to highlight that we continued to maintain gender representation and geographic geographic diversity among lecturers of the training programme. We will further continue to maintain a principled approach to the full inclusion of persons with disabilities in the training programmes and in our work. I am very proud of the fact that we had a visually impaired participant in the Regional Course for Africa held earlier this year, and that every other participant of the course, in addition to us, took upon themselves the task to realize the right of this person to full inclusion in all activities within the framework of the regional course. Specific information regarding the participants, the number of applications, and the curriculum of each of these programs is available in the report of the Secretary-General and on the website of the Programme of Assistance. I must note the demand for quality training in international law has grown significantly again this calendar year. We experienced again record-breaking numbers of applications for the 2024 Regional Course for Asia-Pacific and the 2025 Regional Course for Africa. We also recorded in 2025 the largest number of applications received for a French language training program. The International Law Fellowship Program. The total number of applications processed for the 2025 training courses reached 1,230, our third largest year in number of applications after 2024 and 2019. In this regard, I want to recognize the important role of permanent missions here in New York in the wider dissemination of information on the training programs. Monsieur le Président. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen delegates. The liquidity crisis has had a significant impact on the International Law Audiovisual Library during the reporting period. It is my pleasure to inform you that since March 2025, the Audiovisual Library team has been reformed and the work of the AVL have resumed— has resumed. Between April and August, we published on the Audiovisual Library, the AVL website, 15 lectures from the lecture series. 3 new notes of introduction and 3 translations of existing notes from the archives, as well as 4 research guides for the moot courts in the library's search database. Over recent months, we started a new project to improve accessibility of the AVL for all users, and in particular for those who have a hearing impairment, we are striving to include transcriptions of lectures on the website over and above having video and audio content. We are now striving to ensure that transcriptions of recently recorded lectures are accepted, and we do hope that this format will also be available for lectures that have been previously recorded. Thanks to the use of AI, we've been able to prepare transcriptions of lectures quickly. We hope to be able to continue along these lines. As regards the publications during the reporting period, the Division has continued its activities to have computer-assisted publication and public— of the 2017 Handbook in English. Preparations have been sped up to publish the 2018 Handbook and the 35th volume of the Arbitral Awards. Deutsch: Ich möchte die ständige Verpflichtung der Vereinten Nationen, des Büros für Rechtliche Angelegenheiten, vollständig umsetzen, alle Aktivitäten, die unter dem Programm der Unterstützung verpflichtet sind. Ich hoffe, dass Sie sich der seriösen Liquiditäts- und Budgetärkeitskonsequenzen der Organisation bewusst sind und ihrer Impact auf die konsistente Ausführung von Mandaten im Sekretariat. In the context of the revised estimates for 2026 programme budget, the Office of Legal Affairs has proposed, as a temporary measure, to adjust the scheduling of each training programme under the Programme of Assistance to a biennial basis for the coming— for the next 2 years. Specifically, it is proposed that 2 training programmes be held in 2026, with the remaining two scheduled for 2027. It is anticipated that, subject to the availability of resources, the annual delivery of all courses will resume in 2028. This will preserve training programs for all regions. In practical terms, the revised program budget for 2026 includes the projected costs for the regional courses in international law for Africa and for Asia-Pacific only. The International Fellow— the International Law Fellowship Program and the regional course in international law for Latin America and the Caribbean will therefore be included in the program budget for 2027. The overarching objective of this proposal is to preserve the 4 training programs in their current format. To achieve the true potential of the Programme, voluntary contributions remain essential. I would like to thank the following Member States for their generous voluntary contributions. As noted in the report of the Secretary-General, during the reporting period, contributions were received from Austria, Burkina Faso, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Finland, the Philippines, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and Spain. In addition, a contribution from China was received after the end of the reporting period and will therefore be reflected in next year's report. I thank you for your attention and for your continuous support for the Programme of Assistance. Assistance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 6th Committee · Chair [1:49:09]: I thank the Secretary of the Advisory Committee for his statement. I now give the floor to Mr. Vladimir Jarisch, the Director of the Division for Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea. You have the floor. DOALOS · Director · Vladimir Jarisch [1:49:23]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure for the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea to provide the Sixth Committee today with an update on the implementation of the Hamilton Shearley Amarasinghe Memorial Fellowship on the Law of the Sea and also on other capacity-building activities of the Division. And I am being accompanied here by Ms. Valentina Germani, the Senior Legal Officer who administers and manages the fellowships in the Division. Capacity-building activities are one of the core mandates of the Secretary-General under the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly relating to oceans and law of the sea and sustainable fisheries. On numerous occasions, most recently in Resolution 79/144 of 16 December 2024, the Assembly recognized and expressed its appreciation for the important contribution to the capacity building of developing countries and the promotion of the law of the sea made by the Hamilton Schiele Amrasinghe Memorial Fellowship. Over the last 10 years, demands for capacity building and technical cooperation in ocean affairs and the law of the sea has grown substantially. And this is evidenced, for example, by 300% increase in applications for the HSA Memorial Fellowship. Another illustration is that recently the Division received 2,500 applications from 115 states for the 2026 session of the United Nations Nippon Foundation Fellowship on Oceans and Law of the Sea. Similar increases in demand are also taking place for national and regional training workshops and technical assistance projects. Señor Presidente, quisiera— Chair, I wish to recall that the Hamilton Shirley Amarasinghe Memorial Fellowship on the Law of the Sea was established in 1981. Its aim is to assist governmental officials and other ocean professionals from developing states to acquire understanding of the UN framework for the law of the sea in order to broaden their understanding and further their training in maritime law and related areas. In 2025, Ms. Virginie Corinne Ngumuche from the Republic of Cameroon received the fellowship after carrying out a 3-month internship in our division at the beginning of this year. Ms. Ngumuche is currently completing the academic part of the fellowship in the Littoral Environnement et Société Laboratory in La Rochelle, France. And she is programmed to complete the fellowship in December. 6 fellows from 31 developing countries would have completed the HSA Memorial Fellowship. Of these, 18 are women and 18 are men. These oceans professionals are now making important contributions in their respective countries and regions. We have seen many of them returned to New York, taking active roles on behalf of their states or regional organizations in important fora and processes relating to ocean affairs and law of the sea, and some might be even sitting in this room. The Division also implements other fellowships, and I've already mentioned the fellowship done in collaboration with the Indipon Foundation. Since its inception in 2004, With a single fellowship, this collaboration has evolved and the Division currently implements 3 annual fellowships: the Ocean and the Law of the Sea, the Strategic Needs, and the Ocean Governance for Small Island Developing States fellowships. The overall aim of these fellowships is to provide advanced training on ocean affairs and the law of the sea, as well as related disciplines. An alumni network presently comprising 326 ocean professionals from 104 countries, and out of them is 159 male and 167 female, was established in 2009 as a platform for information exchange, ongoing support, and continued capacity building opportunities for former fellows. Recognizing the significance of the HSA fellowship and the number of esteemed beneficiaries over 40 years, as well as the considerable value of alumni networks, the establishment of an HSA alumni network would seem a valuable next step for the program to consider. This would not only foster professional connections among alumni in support of their roles as social experts, but it would also enhance the visibility significance and promotion of the fellowship, particularly with regard to application cycles and efforts to seek voluntary contributions. Monsieur le Président. Chairman, other capacity-building activities undertaken by the division, in particular regional training workshops, were conducted— have been conducted over the last last year. In December 2024, a regional workshop for South America was held in Brazil to build capacities in the law of the sea, ocean governance, the science-politics-policy interface, and sustainable marine economies. In September 2025, we had a workshop on the law of the sea and ocean governance for the Indian Ocean region in the Maldives as well as a world workshop on training on the UN agreement, Fish Stocks Agreement, which is planned for December in Japan. In addition, we are continuing a regional series of workshops on the BB&J Agreement in the next 12 months. The first will be for African coastal states along the Indian Ocean, the Gulf of Aden, and the Red Sea as well as for landlocked countries in these regions and for states parties to the Benguela Current Convention planned for December 2025 in Ethiopia. The Division, in addition, has been providing technical assistance in the last 12 months to the Comoros, Ecuador, the Maldives, Tonga, Uruguay, and Vietnam under the project of assistance to strengthen participation in and implementation of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. At the same time, Technical assistance to strengthen the strategic capacity of developing states in ocean governance and the Law of the Sea for sustainable ocean economies has been provided through another project to Guatemala, Madagascar, Somalia, and Saint Lucia. It is now more important than ever for countries to build and maintain the capacity to actively participate in ocean-related processes and effectively implement in an integrated manner the Law of the Sea framework as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Sea and its three implementing agreements, as well as other related international instruments. It is also crucial for the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, in particular Goal 14, and the commitments under the Paris Agreement which noted the importance of ensuring the integrity of all ecosystems. Getting back to matters concerning the Hamilton Shirley Amarasinghe Memorial Fellowship on the Law of the Sea, I wish to point out that it is critical that awards under this fellowship are implemented continuously and consistently. This implies that the necessary funding is made available, as at 31st July of this year, the certified balance of the trust fund minus program support cost is approximately $60,000. Estimated costs of one fellowship can be as high as $75,000 depending on the location of the academic portion of the fellowship. I note in this regard that due to insufficient funds, No awards were made from 2007 to 2009, in 2014 and 2016. In addition, owing to insufficient funds in 2017, only a partial award was made. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to remind you that the General Assembly, in its Resolution 79/144, for Global Oceans and the Law of the Sea recognized with satisfaction the important contribution that the Memorial Fellowship made to the building of capacity of developing countries and the wider appreciation of the law of the sea. It expressed its gratitude to states who had made contributions to the HSA Fellowship Fund, and it noted that the financial situation of the Fellowship Fund continued to be worrisome, and in order for one fellowship to be made a year, it was important for contributions to be expanded. It also reaffirmed its commitment to further expanding the importance of the fund and urged states and international financial institutions and donors, as well as international and non-governmental organizations, to continue to make contributions. To be urgently needed so the regular award may be granted every year. I wish to close my statement by thanking those states which have made the current and previous 36 fellowships possible, and by reiterating the call by the Assembly, which strongly encourages voluntary contributions in support of future fellows. The Division remains available to address any questions in this regard. Thank you, Mr. President. 6th Committee · Chair [2:00:17]: I thank the Director of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea for his statement. Distinguished delegates, I now wish to give the floor to the first speaker on my list for this item, the Permanent Representative of Iraq, speaking on behalf of the Group of Group of 77 and China. Iraq · G77 + China · Permanent Representative [2:00:40]: Mr. Chair, I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, except the Republic of Azerbaijan, based upon their request. Under Agenda Item 79, United Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching study, dissemination, and wider appreciation of international law. The Group of 77 and China would like to thank the Secretary-General for his report A/80/437, which provides a detailed account of activities undertaken to implement the Programme of Assistance. I would like also to express the group's appreciation For the members of the Advisory Committee on the United Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law and its Chair, Mr. Harold A. Agyeman, Permanent Representative of Ghana to the United Nations. We also commend the Codification Division of the Office of Legal Affairs for their continued effort to implement the Programme of Assistance, as well as recognize the contribution of the Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea. The Group of 77— Xi Jinping, the Group of 77 and China reaffirmed its support for the Programme of Assistance, which serves as an effective means of strengthening international peace and security, and promoting friendly relations and cooperation among States through the dissemination of international law. As it marks its 60th year after its establishment, the Programme continues to be relevant in furthering objectives of the United Nations by training generations of specialists, particularly those with the developing countries, in the field of international law. The Group of 77 and China appreciate the necessary resources that are budgeted for the administration of the Programme and reiterate its calls on the continued funding of the Programme in years to come. Such funding remains essential for conducting the International Law Fellowship Program and the United Nations Regional Course in International Law, issuing publications, developing and maintaining the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law, and for the award of the Hamilton Shirley Amersingle Memorial Fellowship on the Law of the Sea. These capacity-building activities help to improve the participation of the developing countries in the multilateral arena. In this regard, the Group expresses its concern that the deteriorating liquidity situation of the Organization has had a significant impact on the implementation of the activities of the Programme and invites States to continue to support these activities through the Organization's regular budget, as well as the Trust Fund, and encourages the Secretary to explore practical solutions, including partnership models with academic institutions in particular States, to help ensure the Programme's financial sustainability when regular budget funds are no longer available. We also express our sincere appreciation to all Member States that have made financial and in-kind contributions to ensure the continued success of the Programme of Assistance. Mr. Chair, the Group of 77 and China welcomes that during the reporting period, the Regional Course in International Law for Latin America and the Caribbean was held at the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean in Santiago from May 23rd to May 16th, 2025. For Asia-Pacific, it was held at the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific in Bangkok from November 18th to December 11th, 2024. And for Africa, it was held on the Economic Commission for Africa in Addis Ababa from 20th of February to 14th of March, 2025. The group also notes with satisfaction the International Law Fellowship Program was also held in The Hague from 7th to 25th of July, 2025, as well as the various seminars organized by the Codification Division. Mr. Chair, the importance of utility The importance and utility of Audiovisual Library of International Law cannot be overstated. It continues to provide vital, high-quality training to the unlimited number of individuals around the world, free of charge, throughout the internet. The Group of 77 and China also supports the off-site recording sessions undertaken by the Codification Division in various locations. In order to promote a broader geographical and linguistic representation of the recorded lectures, and to record lecturers who are unable to travel to New York to— and encourage remote recording where applicable. We also commend the Codification Division for its effort to facilitate access to the lectures for users with limited high-speed internet on computers and mobile devices throughout the library podcast. We applaud the effort of the Office of Legal Affairs to promote knowledge on international law in an inclusive manner and to encourage its continued outreach to Member States and to inform them on how to access and use available resources. Finally, Mr. Chair, the Group reiterates the importance of the Programme of Assistance in achieving SDG 16, more particularly Target 16.3, which calls for the promotion of the rule of law at international and national levels. The training activities under the Programme will ensure greater dissemination of information law and ultimately strengthen the rule of law. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [2:07:33]: I thank the Permanent Representative of Iraq for his statement on behalf of the G77 and China. I call on the distinguished representative of Iran speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. Iran (Islamic Republic of) · NAM [2:07:49]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. The Non-Aligned Movement extends its appreciation to the members of the advisory committee and the United Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination, and Wider Appreciation of International Law, and its Chair, the Permanent Representative of Ghana to the United Nations, as well as the Codification Division of the Office of Legal Affairs, for their continued commitment and support to the programme and its success. The Programme of Assistance, as a means for promoting friendly relations and cooperation among States, is considered to be one of the most important activities of the United Nations, greatly contributing to the promotion of enhancing the knowledge of international law while establishing conditions enhancing respect to principles of the Charter of the United Nations. As an undeniable fact, the program of assistance also plays an important role in the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 2016, especially regarding the promotion of the rule of law at the national and international levels. It would be remiss if we did not mention the valuable opportunity presented for the— for participants in the program of assistance courses and seminars that promote the exchange of views, sharing of experiences, and improvement of intercultural dialogue and understanding. While placing emphasis on the strengthening of capacity building among all countries, especially within developing countries, the Nam encourages the Codification Division to also continue the provision of as much free and high-quality training as possible to a larger range of trainers around the globe. In order to obtain added tangible results from the programs It is recommended that the audience of the courses and fellowships should consist of future decision makers in their countries to the fullest extent possible as well. The NAM fully supports the continuous efforts of the Codification Division to increase the number of fellowship awards, either fully or partially funded, provided under the regular budget for the International Law Fellowship Program and regional courses, particularly for participants from developing countries. Noting the liquidity crisis currently faced by the United Nations, admission of participants from developing countries that are willing to bear the entire cost of the participation should be facilitated as one of the cost-saving measures. The Codification Division should continue to enhance the content of the audiovisual library, which is an invaluable training resource for individuals and institutions around the world. In this regard, the Nam welcomes the initiative of conducting off-site recording sessions and suggests that the suitable presentations made by the Special Rapporteurs of the International Law Commission to the Committee be uploaded to the library. In addition, adding lectures in more languages would be another way to enrich the content of the library. The Nam is of the view that geographical diversity among lecturers represented in the library and at the regional courses should be increased. Furthermore, lecturers should be representatives of all principal legal systems of the world. Regarding the curriculum of courses, while the needs of each region should be addressed during courses, the synergies between international law and international relations could be included as a topic. Furthermore, under this topic, lecturers should elaborate on the development of international relations and theories on the basis of international law. Denam would also like to highlight the role of the United Nations Information Centers in member states. These centers are fundamental tools for disseminating international law and provide access in multiple languages to resources such as the United Nations Digital Library and the Yearbook of the United Nations. In conclusion, the Nam reaffirms its commitment to the Programme of Assistance and urges all member states to ensure that the Programme's activities are well-funded. Through the regular budget and other voluntary contributions. It is essential to guarantee the continued funding for the program, given its importance to ensure the widespread dissemination of international law as a toolkit in international relations. I thank you, Mr. 6th Committee · Chair [2:12:44]: Chair. I thank the distinguished representative of Iran speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cameroon speaking on behalf of the African Group. Cameroon · Africa Group [2:12:57]: Okay, I have the honor to deliver a statement on behalf of the African Group. We thank the Secretary-General for his report on the United Nations Program of Assistance in Teaching, Study, Dissemination, and Wider Appreciation of International Law. Chair, the African Group note with appreciation that during the 2024 2025 reporting period, the Programme of Assistance successfully conducted all four of its mandate training programmes, namely the Regional Courses in International Law for Africa, Asia-Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean, the Regional Workshop on Treaty Law, as well as the International Law Fellowship Programme. The African Group welcomes the Workshop on Treaty Law and practice organized by the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs from 20 to 22 May 2025 in Addis Ababa. The group underlines the value of bringing capacity-building activity closer to the beneficiary, as holding such workshops within the region allows for broader participation of United Nations member state experts and maximizes their practical impact. The group therefore encouraged the treaty section to continue organizing similar initiatives in Africa and other regions on a regular basis. The group particularly welcomes that the regional course in international law for Africa was held at the Economic Commission for Africa in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from 20 February to 14 March 2025. The African Group notes that the duration of the Regional Course in International Law for Africa in 2025 remains consistent with the previous year, spanning slightly over 3 weeks, notwithstanding the Group's earlier call for an extension to 4 weeks. Nevertheless, the Group welcomes several important developments in 2025. These developments reflect both the strong demand for and the growing relevance of the training program. Notably, the 2025 regional course included for the first time a visually impaired participant who successfully completed the program with the support of supervisors and lecturers who adapted their delivery to accommodate his disability. In this regard, the African Group emphasized that while the audiovisual library constitutes a cost-effective means of expanding access Access to international law training. Traditional in-person programs provide irreplaceable benefits by fostering in-depth discussion, personal interaction, and professional cooperation amongst participants. The experience of the visually impaired participants in the 2025 Regional Course vividly illustrates this point. In-person delivery enables effective support and inclusive participation participation, which would have been significantly more difficult to achieve through a purely online format. The group therefore welcomes the continued in-person delivery of the regional course and the International Law Fellowship program and reiterates that these should not be supplanted by virtual formats. The African group further welcomed that the International Law Fellowship program was conducted in The Hague from 30 June to 1 August 2025 in French. We take particular note that 528 applications were received from Africa alone, underscoring both the strong interest and the need for expanded capacity-building opportunities for our continent. This compares with 2024 opportunities 2024, when 905 applications were received globally, but with a smaller share from Africa. The 2025 outcome demonstrates the rising priority that African professionals attach to this training. Chair, the statistics contained in the Secretary-General's report reveal that a significant majority of applicants, over 4/5, originate from the African continent. Yet, only about one-third of those ultimately selected were African participants. In this regard, the African Group encouraged that in future editions of the program, equitable geographical representation reflect more closely the strong interest demonstrated by African applicants. The African Group commended the Codification Division for the recruitment of a legal officer and a video producer producer/webmaster for the Audiovisual Library of the International Law in 2025. This development has allowed the resumption of work on the maintenance and continued development of the library, which had been adversely affected in the previous reporting period. We note with satisfaction that over 15 new lectures have already been recorded and made available in English, French, English and Spanish, including materials prepared for international moot court competition. This represents a significant improvement compared with the situation in 2024 when the library was unable to record new lectures due to liquidity constraints and only uploaded older material. Sorry. We also acknowledge the continuing progress made in the area of publication. The finalization of the United Nations Juridical Yearbook of 2017 in English and the publication of 21 individual summaries of judgments, advisory opinions, and orders of the International Court of Justice, with 4 already available in all UN languages, constitute tangible output that strengthens the dissemination of international law. The African Group notes with appreciation the in-kind and institutional contributions that facilitated the holding of the regional course and the International Law Fellowship Program. In particular, we commend the government of Ethiopia, the African Union, and the Economic Commission for Africa for their support to the regional course in Africa by disseminating information and providing training venues and facilities, and particularly for Ethiopia, Enriching Cultural Framework Program visit and guided tour of the National Palace in Addis Ababa. We also note the contribution of the Government of Chile and ECLAC for the Latin American and Caribbean course, as well as Thailand and ESCAP for the Asia-Pacific course. We note with satisfaction that the 2025 course in Santiago was conducted in full with 27 participants compared to 19 the year before. The African Group further welcomed the voluntary financial contributions that have supported African participation in the Programme of Assistance during the 2025 reporting period. We also acknowledge with gratitude the contribution by the Philippines for the Hamilton Shelley Amerasinghe Memorial Fellowship on the Law of which in 2025 was awarded to Miss Virginie Corinne Gemche of Cameroon, an achievement of particular significance for our continent. Tchè! The African Group acknowledged the organization by the UN Treaty Section in collaboration with Ethiopia, the Economic Commission for Africa, and the African Union of the first UN Treaty Section regional workshop for African on treaty law and practice, the first in more than a decade, which took place from 2022 May to 2025, gathering 25 African participants. In this regard, we highly recommend its consistent annual regularity. The African Group recalls that in its 2024 statement, it requested the inclusion of the African Law Handbook among the training material of the Regional Course in International Law for Africa. In this regard, the group notes with appreciation that the publication was made available to the participants during the 2025 edition of the course through the support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of New Zealand. The group commends this development and encourages its continued inclusion in future editions. Chair, the African Group acknowledges the efforts of the African Union in always making the regional course successful. In conclusion, the African Group reaffirms its strong support for the Programme of Assistance as a vital mechanism for capacity building in international law. We urge continued effort to expand fellowship opportunities, ensure multilingual access to publication, and enhance transparency in budgetary allocation to meet the ever-growing demand particularly from Africa. I thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [2:22:01]: I thank the distinguished representative of Cameroon for his statement on behalf of the African group. I call on the distinguished representative of Colombia, speaking on behalf of the community of Latin American and Caribbean states. Thank you so much, Mr. Colombia · CELAC [2:22:19]: Chair, Madam Chair. I have the honor to speak on behalf of the 33 members of the community of Latin American and Caribbean States, CELAC. The member states of CELAC, since their inception as independent, independent states, have declared international law as the guiding principle of international relations and are bound by it in their relations with other states and subjects of international law. Additionally, the Latin American and the Caribbean states have continually participated and contributed to the progress development of international law, as well as to the establishment and operation of numerous organizations dealing with international law, with a view to strengthening international peace and security and to promoting friendly relations and cooperation among states. CELAC considers that the knowledge and understanding of the substantive roles of international law facilitate and contribute to their fulfillment and such knowledge and understanding and their force of the utmost importance for the organization whose principles and purpose based on respect for international law. To the, to the SN, CELAC member states, deemed vital to strengthen the teaching, study, and dissemination of international law and all actions that the United Nations system carry out in this field. We thank the Secretary-General for his valuable report contained in Document 18/47, which describes the activities carried out in the implementation of the United Nations Programme of Assistance in Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appraisal of International Law in 2025. As well as the guidelines and recommendations for the implementation of the program of assistance for the year 2026, assistance programs, and the related administrative and financial implications. Mr. Chair, Madam Chair, among the several elements contained within the report, we consider it pertinent to highlight the following. First, scholar— scholarship and course including the international law Fellowships Program that allow participants to attend the renowned summer course and the Hague Academy on International Law have a multiplier effect on the student and professional communities. Over the decades, generations of diplomats and professionals from various states, including our own, have reaped invaluable benefits as a result of the lessons offered by prominent experts in the wide— in the wide range of topics of international legal agenda. We know that for countries like ours, regional courses are highly effective platforms for the teaching and dissemination of international law. In this regard, we request that in the regular budget for 2026, the necessary financial resources should be allocated to the program to enable in carrying out all 3 regional courses on an annual basis. In particular, CELAC welcomes the fact that the Regional Course of International Law for Latin America and the Caribbean was held from 23 April to 16 May 2025 of this year in Santiago, Chile, In cooperation with the Chilean Foreign Minister and the Economic Commissioner for Latin America and the Caribbean, HACCP generates important benefits for our region, for our diplomats and international lawyers, and contributes to dissemination of international law. We would like to thank the program and all those who work day by day in it for all the work deployed for the carryout for our regional course. On information— on information resources, the Office of Legal Affairs deserves our appreciation for their efforts in establishing and maintaining 24 international law-related websites, which not only contain valuable resources to the researchers but are also remarkably user-friendly. Resources such as the lecture series, the stories archives, and the research library, and the audiovisual library provide a particularly useful toolbox for the achievement of the goals of the program, which has the potential to reach millions of people throughout the world. Evidence of that indeed in the access of the website by over 1.5 million persons from all member states. Regarding legal publication, we will come to the work of the Office of Legal Affairs, particularly their sustained effort to continue fostering the electronic publishing program. The academic community benefits benefits have reaped from access to the materials compiled online in signature publications such as the Legislatives Series and the Summaries of Advisory Opinion and Judgment from both the International Court of Justice and the Permanent Court of International Justice. Bearing in mind that the working languages of the court are only English and French. The publications on the compilation of the summaries and decisions of the International Court of Justice in all the legal, the official languages of the United Nations is also of particular value. In many cases, this constitutes the only way for teachers, researchers, and students of our countries to become familiar with the contents of the rich jurisprudence of the ICG. No effort should be spared in maintaining this collection, ensuring that it is updated as appropriate, and facilitating its widest possible dissemination at the national level. Mr. President, before concluding, we recall that during, during past sessions, member states agreed to use the regular budget provision to finance the activities of the assistance programs, including the International Law Scholarship Program, the United Nations Regional Courses in International Law for Africa, Asia, and the Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean, the United Nations Audiovisual Library for International Law, and the Hamilton Shirley American Memoria on the Law of the Sea. We reiterate the importance of such decision. However, in the event that regular budget funds or voluntary contributions were insufficient for all these activities to be carried out, we invite to consider all options practical available so they all remain in place, including extraordinary recouring to further voluntary contributions, reducing the amount of scholarships per year, or considering entering into partnerships with other academic institutions. In times of the difficulties like we are facing right now, we need more, not less, international love. CELAC stays attached the utmost importance to the program and encourage all to continue to support it. I thank you so much. 6th Committee · Chair [2:30:28]: I thank the distinguished representative of Colombia for his statement on behalf of CELAC, and I call on the distinguished representative of the European Union, speaking on behalf of the European Union and its member states. EU · EU [2:30:43]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have the honor to speak on behalf of the European Union and its member states. The candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Georgia, as well as Armenia and Monaco, aligned themselves with this statement. Mr. Chair, we thank the Secretary General for his report. This year marks the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations Programme of Assistance. At the time, the General Assembly considered that this would have contributed towards meeting the pressing need for wider knowledge of international law as a means of strengthening peace and security and promoting friendly relations and cooperation among states. This need could not be stronger today when the international legal order and peace face severe challenges due to the proliferation of conflicts and egregious violations of international law. Over the past 6 decades, the program has demonstrated its relevance and its cap— and its capacity to train brilliant minds in international law and build networks between scholars and young professionals around the world. The European Union and its member states are particularly grateful to the Office of Legal Affairs and its Codification Division for their continuing efforts to ensure the implementation of the activities of the program despite the deteriorating liquidity situation. Looking ahead, we are concerned about the impact that the liquidity crisis may have on the International Fellowship Program and the regional courses in international law for Africa, Asia and the Pacific, as well as Latin America and the Caribbean. Such in-training programs are invaluable offering unique opportunities for in-depth discussions, interaction, and cooperation among participants from such regions. We encourage every effort to avoid scaling down these programs from an annual to a biannual basis. We also reiterate the importance of continuing to diversify the pool of lecturers and participants of the training programmes, ensuring balance among different legal systems and various geographical regions. In the digital era, the importance of online training activities and materials cannot be overstated. They have the capacity to provide free access to high-quality training to an unlimited number of individuals and institutions around the world. In this regard, we welcome the recruitment of two full-time positions dedicated to the further development, dissemination, and maintenance of the audiovisual library and the resumption of its work since April 2025. We also welcome the efforts to facilitate access to the lecture series through the library podcast and encourage the codification Education Division to continue with these efforts and to make the content of the Library available on additional podcast platforms to increase its accessibility and visibility. In order to expand the reach of the program, we also encourage the use of technology to facilitate access to materials and courses in other languages at low cost. In line with the recommendations of the United Nations Strategic Framework on Multilingualism adopted in 2024. Finally, we welcome that the activities of the program continue to be financed from the regular budget. We also commend to all those who have provided voluntary monetary and in-kind contributions. Voluntary contributions remaining important to continue to complement and strengthen the program's efforts. Chair, in closing, the European Union and its member states reiterate their continued support for all the activities of the program of assistance. We recognize the program's role in equipping legal professionals with the knowledge and networks to engage with international law in an increasingly complex environment, thereby strengthening multilateralism and the rule of law. I thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [2:35:40]: I thank the distinguished representative of the European Union speaking on behalf of the EU and its member states. I call on the distinguished representative of Oman speaking on behalf of the Arab Group. Oman · Arab Group [2:35:55]: Shukran, Sayyid al-Raidi. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Chair, the Arab Group thanks the Secretary-General for his report A/80/43777 on the activities of the UN Program of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination, and Wider Appreciation of International Law. This program is an important UN tool to promote international peace and security and foster friendly relations and cooperation among states. The Programme of Assistance contributes to a better understanding of international law. It enhances respect of the Charter and promotes rule of law at the national and international levels. The 60th anniversary of the Programme is a testament to its vitality, continuous relevance, and renewed role in promoting and disseminating international law. The Arab Group has taken note of the three regional courses in international law for Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean, and the International Law Fellowship Program. We underscore the importance of a balanced representation of all legal systems, including multilingualism. Multilingualism is not only a fundamental UN principle but a fundamental value. Regional courses must also address topics of interest to concerned regions in addition to other fundamental international law issues. Since the International Law Seminar for Arab States held in Cairo in 2015 within the program of assistance, no training sessions in Arabic have been conducted since then for the benefit of Arab states. The program of assistance activities are of paramount importance for the Arab Group to build national capacities. These activities have gained growing interest from diplomats, lawyers, judges, civil servants, and law researchers. For international law to be integrated into the teaching of legal specializations in all Arab universities, We encourage the Codification Division of the Office of Legal Affairs to organize regional international law courses in Arabic for the Arab region. These courses must accommodate the specificities and interests of the Arab region as a distinct cross-regional geographical region. The International Law Fellowship Program hosted in The Hague since 2010, offers comprehensive training by highly competent jurists and international law professionals representing different regions and legal systems. On this, we call on the Codification Division to increase the geographic diversity of lecturers by ensuring the widest participation possible of professors, experts, and specialists from Arab universities and institutes. We commend the efforts of the Office of Legal Affairs to increase the number of lecturers from Arab countries. We continue to encourage these efforts that enhance the inclusion and equal— equitable geographical representation of all legal systems. In light of the current financial crisis and the existing constraints as part of UN Haiti Initiative, we express our concern over the biannual nature of training activities. These activity— this must remain a temporary, not permanent measure. We commend the Secretary General's efforts to enhance training activities for the dissemination of international law mainly the establishment of the alumni network of participants of the training program organized under the Program of Assistance. We commend the gradual updating of UN electronic publications. This is an effective tool by the Codification Division to promote the culture of international law. We encourage the Division to ensure equality among all official languages to the best of its capacity, mainly Arabic, in the development of the audiovisual library as a main contribution to the teaching and dissemination of international law across the world. On the desk— desktop publishing by the Codification Division, mainly the publishing of summaries of judgments, advisory opinions, and orders of the ICJ in English and French. French, the two working languages of the ICJ. Out of fairness, we believe that these summaries should have been published in the official languages of the UN, even if they are not working languages of the ICJ. More often than not, they are the only reference on the ICJ's jurisprudence for teachers researchers, and university students. The UN Juridical Yearbook must be published in Arabic since it contains documents of legal nature published by the UN and international organization— governmental organizations. This will help Arab specialists and legal researchers to benefit from this yearbook. The Arab Group is keen to preserve the effectiveness and efficiency of the UN program of assistance so that it can increase awareness and knowledge of international law rules. We underscore the importance of respecting the Charter of the UN, promoting rule of law, and ensuring compliance with international law. We therefore condemn the appointment of Israel, the occupying power, as a member of the advisory committee. Israel pursues its unlawful occupation of Arab territories and defies the world with its repeated violations of international law and international norms. It does not respect the UN and Charter, which was torn apart by its representatives at the General Assembly in full view of the world. Israel targets UN staff and criminalizes UN agencies, mainly UNRWA. As such, Israel has no place in the Advisory Committee and the UN. How outrageous and contradictory it is to see Israel, the occupying power that has been violating international law day in, day out, over 77 years become a member of an international law-related committee. In conclusion, Mr. Chair, we express our gratitude to member states that have made voluntary monetary and in-kind contributions to provide for additional fellowships. We underscore the importance of funding the program activities from the regular budget of the UN. 6th Committee · Chair [2:43:57]: Thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of Oman speaking on behalf of the Arab Group. I call now on the Permanent Representative of Singapore and former Chairman of the Sixth Committee speaking on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Singapore · ASEAN · Permanent Representative [2:44:19]: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Let me say how delighted I am to see you chairing this very important committee, especially since you are also part of our community of ASEAN countries. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the 10 member states of ASEAN, namely Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. ASEAN would like to extend its sincere appreciation to the Secretary-General for his report contained in Document A/AT/430, 3.7, which covers the implementation of the UN Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law and activities planned for 2026. ASEAN also commends the efforts of the Advisory Committee and the Office of Legal Affairs, in particular the Codification Division, in conducting activities under the Programme of Assistance. We note that the three UN Regional Centres in International Law for Africa, Asia-Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean were held in person, as well as the International Law Fellowship Programme. ASEAN greatly appreciates in-person courses, which affords the opportunity for in-depth discussions and interactions between participants and their instructors, and looks forward to the convening of the UN Regional Course in International Law for Asia-Pacific to be held in Thailand in November-December. ASEAN also takes note of the increasing demand for the Programme's courses as reflected in the Secretary-General's report. The applications for the Asia-Pacific Regional Course grew by twofold in the past year, with 184 candidates competing for 24 places. This reflects the strong interest in capacity building in international law and underscores the Programme's great value to our region. ASEAN expresses concern that due to the liquidity situation of the Organization, the Office of Legal Affairs has proposed that the Programme's courses will be conducted on a biennial basis for the next 2 years as a temporary measure. ASEAN calls for practical solutions to be explored explored in order to sustain the regular frequency of these important courses. We emphasize that any temporary measure taken should not be precedent-setting, and certainly should not signal a deprioritization of in-person capacity-building initiatives. Mr. Chair, ASEAN acknowledges the key role of, and fully supports the Programme of Assistance in Promoting the Rule of Law at the at national and international levels, which contributes to the strengthening of international peace and security. The activities conducted in traditional in-person format help deepen knowledge and capacities of participants in the field of international law, provide an invaluable experience, and promote in-depth discussions as well as foster friendly relations and cooperation among participants. The regional courses in particular are especially important for developing countries. ASEAN notes the Secretary-General's report, which recognized the contribution of the Programme of Assistance to full, equal and equitable participation at all levels in the international legal system. ASEAN takes note of the work undertaken by the Codification Division in supporting the alumni network by continuing to update a shared online repository of international law materials and publication. ASEAN encourages the Division to provide online interactive sessions for the alumni network, as it has done in the past, and suggests that these events can be driven by alumni to minimise costs. We remain convinced that this platform will serve as a helpful tool for participants of the training programmes. ASEAN also appreciates the work undertaken by the Codification Division to further develop the Audiovisual Library of International Law, and strongly supports its continued development. The Audiovisual Library has been an important resource for ASEAN and other developing countries. We applaud the Division's use of artificial intelligence to generate transcripts of lectures, which has served to improve the accessibility of the Audiovisual Library. We urge the Division to continue exploring ways to use emerging technology to enhance the user-friendliness of the audiovisual library while maintaining cost efficiency. Mr. Chair, ASEAN strongly supports the funding of activities of the Programme from the regular budget of the United Nations. We encourage voluntary contributions to further expand and enhance these activities. This is all the more important in the light of the ongoing liquidity crisis, which is poised to affect the regular conduct of vital capacity-building initiatives under the Programme. ASEAN wishes to take this opportunity to thank all member countries who have made their continued contribution to the Programme of Assistance. I would like to conclude by reiterating ASEAN's continued commitment and support for the UN Programme of Assistance, with a view to further promoting international law while strengthening multilateral cooperation and friendly relations among nations. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [2:49:53]: I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Singapore for his statement on behalf of ASEAN. I now wish to give the floor to the Permanent Representative of El Salvador, but before doing so, just to thank our distinguished representatives from Chile and Republic of Moldova for their flexibility. They will have the floor in the afternoon session to begin it. So I give the floor to the PR of El Salvador. El Salvador · Permanent Representative [2:50:21]: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The Republic of El Salvador wishes to align itself with the statement delivered by Iraq on behalf of the G77 and China, by Colombia on behalf of CELAC, and by Chile that will give its statement on behalf of a group of states. And I'm grateful Thank you to the colleague of Chile for giving us the floor. In our national capacity, my delegation would like to make the following statement. Firstly, we recognize the relevance of regional courses on international law and the International Law Fellowship Program, as well as the preparation and publication of— publications, the development and maintenance of the audiovisual library on international law. As well as the drafting of relevant reports on this matter. Capacity building doesn't only guarantee the better understanding and dissemination of international law, it also strengthens cooperation and solidarity between nations. It reduces asymmetries and contributes to sustaining an international legal order and a national legal order that is fairer.— through capacity building that the United Nations stops being a distant, ethereal organization, becoming a tangible, specific, impact-giving organization in which all member states can contribute to international law on an equal footing. For this reason, we highlight the latest course in our region carried out in April and May this this year in Santiago, in Chile, and we would like to express enormous thanks to the Republic of Chile for their valuable cooperation in providing their headquarters for the holding of this important course. This precise course showed that despite the limitations and challenges, these programs are indeed possible wherever there is will and creativity because this last program was possible through extra budgetary resources. Chair, obviously my delegation is fully aware of the organization's financial situation, which is truly critical, but we are concerned that in— the report of revised estimates for the United Nations for the budget next year, particularly Section 8 on the Office of Legal Affairs, it proposes a reduction of almost 15% with an impact on the regularity of the holding of the Program for Latin America and the Caribbean. Efforts to build a more effective organization tailored to addressing current challenges must not in any circumstances be made at the expense of initiatives and programs for capacity building that benefit countries such as ours. But— or particularly— we're particularly concerned, Chair, that this decision was adopted by the Secretariat without due prior consultation with countries within the Advisory Committee on the Aid Assistance Program, of which my country is a member. This is unacceptable. Therefore, in the plenary session of that committee, my delegation had to request an additional briefing to garner more information and more detailed explanations on the budgetary implications of this measure because we were at no stage told what was happening in this. The information provided by the Secretariat came subsequent to our insistence on the possibility of exploring partnerships or collaborations with academic institutions from participating states and other modalities through which we could indeed continue these courses, these programmes. Chair, clearly the current circumstances oblige us to seek measures that would guarantee the sustainability of the programme and its annual frequency, the fact that it can be held every year. Holding it every 2 years should not establish a precedent, and it should only be recognised— it should be recognised only as a temporary measure. Therefore, my delegation will, in the relevant resolution, propose inviting the Secretariat to continue exploring pragmatic solutions, always in conclusion with— in collaboration with member states, including collaboration with academic institutions from participating states through financial contributions or contributions in kind, as well as with other UN agencies It will do this in order to identify more effective ways to mitigate the impact of the liquidity crisis and the budgetary cuts. Furthermore, we will— we hope that we will maintain the mandate of resuming regional courses frequently as well, provided and as quickly as the necessary support is guaranteed through these practical solutions We would be enormously grateful for the support, understanding, and accompaniment of all of our delegations in this proposal, particularly the willingness of the Secretariat to improve cooperation and work with member states. Thank you very much, Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [2:56:15]: I thank the Permanent Representative of El Salvador for his statement, and also again to to thank the representatives of Chile and Moldova for their flexibility. The distinguished Permanent Representative of El Salvador was the last speaker for this agenda item for this morning. We will continue and conclude our debate on this agenda item 79, UN Program of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination, and Wider Appreciation of International Law, We'll continue this at our meeting this afternoon. Delegations are also reminded that, as was decided at the first meeting of our committee, the deadline to inscribe for the debate on the agenda item to be considered by plenary next week, namely Agenda Item 80, Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its 76th Session, is tomorrow, 24 October, 2025 at 5 PM. Furthermore, informal consultations on Agenda Item 146, Administration of Justice at the UN, will take place from 1:15 to 2 PM, uh, this afternoon, followed by consultations on Agenda Item 76, Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, from 2 PM 2:45 PM in this room. Meeting is adjourned.