UN Transcripts — https://transcripts.un.org/en/ga/c6/80/26
Sixth Committee, 26th plenary meeting - General Assembly, 80th session — Sixth Committee — 27 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 [0:08]:

I call to order the 26th meeting of the Sixth Committee of the 80th Session of the General Assembly. Distinguished delegates and colleagues, before proceeding with this morning's work, I wish to acknowledge with profound sadness— the passing of Concepción Escobar Hernández and Julio Barbosa. Ms. Escobar Hernández was a distinguished figure within the Sixth Committee, serving with remarkable dedication in various capacities over the years, most notably as a member of the International Law Commission. She was renowned not only for her unwavering passion for international law but also for her excellent intellect and deep compassion. Her invaluable contributions to the progressive development and codification of international law, particularly her work as Special Rapporteur on the topic "Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction," have left an enduring mark on our field. Her loss is deeply felt by all who knew her and worked alongside her. May she rest in peace. Among his many lifetime achievements, Mr. Barbosa was also a former member of the International Law Commission, serving from 1979 to 1996, including as chair of the commission at its 45th session in 1993. He was also appointed special rapporteur for the topic International Liability for Injurious Consequences Arising Out of Acts Not Prohibited by International Law from 1985 to '96, during which time he produced a series of reports that were foundational to the conceptualization of the topic. Needless to say, his impact on the development of international law and on the work of the Commission, and by extension that of the six Committee was immeasurable. May he rest in peace. I propose to observe a minute of silence in the memory of Ms. Escobar Hernandez and Mr. Barbosa. May we please stand for the minute of silence. I understand that the delegation of Spain wishes to take the floor. Muchas gracias.


Spain [3:25]:

Thank you very much, Chairman, for your words, and also thank you to the delegations for this minute of silence. In memory of Professor Escobar Hernández, who was an extraordinary woman whose journey left a profound mark on international law and justice. Her passing was an irreparable loss for the legal community and for all of those who knew her and admired her for her wisdom, her integrity, and her commitment to the highest values of law and justice. Professor Escobar was one of the great Spanish jurists of our time. Throughout her career, she combined teaching as a professor in international public law with very intense institutional activity. She participated in international negotiations and forums of huge relevance, such as the Rome Conference of 1998 that gave rise to the Statute of the International Criminal Court, and for close to a decade she was head of the International Law Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the EU, and Cooperation of Spain. Her international profile reached a new dimension when she was elected as member of— a member of the International Law Commission of the United Nations, from which she contributed decisively to the development and codification of international law. Always being a staunch advocate of multilateralism and the respect for international law. This commitment to justice led her to embark on a final adventure that unfortunately she was not able to finish, which was becoming a judge of the International Criminal Court. Spain is profoundly grateful for the displays of affection and recognition that we've received from the world over. Each and every letter, message, and tribute reflects not only the respect people have for the work of Professor Escobar, but also the love that was shown through her human qualities—being close to people, being generous, and the moral elegance that distinguished her. This morning, in this room, we are paying tribute to her memory. Her work has inspired various generations of jurists, academics, and diplomats, and we know that her light will continue to guide efforts to achieve a more peaceful, a more just world. Thank you very much, Chairman.


6th Committee · Chair [6:01]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Spain for his statement. I also understand that the delegation of Argentina wishes to take the floor.


Argentina [6:17]:

Chairman, distinguished colleagues, a very good morning. On behalf of the government and mission of Argentina and on my own behalf, I wish to pay tribute to Julio Barbosa, who is a man who dedicated his life to justice, to the rule of law, and to teaching to serve both his country as well as the international community. He passed away on, um, the 14th of October, and he was a distinguished figure of international and Argentine law. He served Argentina with, um, distinction as the legal advisor for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and ambassador in Poland, among other destinations. At the International Law Commission of the United Nations, of which he was a member and chair of, in addition to being the special rapporteur on the issue of international Liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law. He brought not only his academic knowledge but also extensive practical experience. At the United Nations, he also served as a judge and president of the administrative tribunal. He worked at many different Argentine and foreign universities, including at the United the United States and taught courses on international law as well as international criminal law and state responsibilities. In each and every one of his roles, he combined intellectual rigor, integrity, and discreet diplomacy. He was a jurist whose voice had clout, not only given its authority, but also because it was based on reason, knowledge, and equity. Julio Barbosa contributed to the reform of the development of modern international law in terms of state responsibility, environmental law, and the law of international water courses, among other things. His work was meticulous, always based on principles and guided by a vision of law as a force for order and peace between nations. But above and beyond his official roles, Julio Barbosa was a mentor for hundreds of young people who he taught not only the norms and standards of international law, but also their deeper meaning as a pacifier of nations and a protector of human dignity. Those who were lucky enough to know Julio Barbosa better than I will remember him not only as a great diplomat, a great jurist, and a great professor, but also as an excellent person and a real gentleman. Thank you very much.


6th Committee · Chair [9:00]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Argentina for his remarks. Distinguished delegates, this morning the Sixth Committee will begin consideration of Agenda Item 80, Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 76th Session. The report of the Commission for its 76th Session is contained in Document A/80/10, which is available on the websites of the Commission and of the Sixth Committee. It is my pleasure to announce that we have with us today the current Chair of the ILC at its 76th Session, Mr. Martin— Martin Špaparinskis. Furthermore, it is my pleasure to announce that the co-chairs of the Study Group on Sea Level Rise. In relation to international law, Ms. Patricia Galvão Telles, Ms. Nilufar Oral, and Mr. Juan José Ruda Santolaria are with us today, together with the Special Rapporteur on the topic General Principles of Law, Mr. Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez. I speak for the Committee as a whole in extending to the Chair of the Commission, as well as the co-chairs of the study group and Mr. Vázquez Bermúdez, a warm welcome. The United Nations, together with the international legal community, attaches great importance to the work of the International Law Commission and values its contribution over the years. International law remains crucial in contemporary international relations whereby the elaboration of norms Addressing some of the big challenges facing the international community is one of the most important tools that we have at our disposal. Both the General Assembly and the Commission play a pivotal role in the codification and progressive development of international law under the United Nations Charter and the ILC Statute, respectively. This is therefore the most important forum and time for both bodies to interact to fulfill our common responsibility. Comments from governments along with the States' practice presented during this discussion represent an inevitable part of the Commission's analysis and shape of the outcomes of its work. The present debate is, alongside with written comments sent to the Commission, the most natural and transparent way of interaction between the two bodies. Let us therefore use this occasion to the fullest extent. As we all know, the beginning of the debate on the report of the Commission also coincides with the beginning of International Law Week. We also have been with us today legal advisers from capitals as well as several members of the Commission, and I wish to extend a warm welcome to them all. Distinguished delegates, we will now proceed with our debate under Agenda Item 80. The International Law Commission's report is known for its scholarly rigor and completeness. In order to help us consider it in a meaningful way, and as approved at our organizational meeting on October 6th, 2025, the committee will once again consider the ILC report in clusters of chapters. This year, given the shorter length of the Commission's report and as a consequence of the reduction of the length of the session, the debate will be structured in two clusters as opposed to the usual three. The program for the consideration of the ILC report is reflected in the overall work program of the Sixth Committee, which is available on the website of the Committee. The first cluster consists of Chapters 1 to 3, the introductory chapters; Chapter 4, Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law; Chapter 6, General Principles of Law; and Chapter 12, Other Decisions and Conclusions. We shall take these up today, tomorrow, and Wednesday. We hope to commence the second cluster on Wednesday afternoon. At which time we will consider the remaining chapters of the report, namely Chapter 5, Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction; Chapter 7, Subsidiary Means for the Determination of Rules of International Law; Chapter 8, Settlement of Disputes to Which International Organizations Are Parties; Chapter 9, Non-Legally Binding International Agreements; Chapter 10, Prevention and Repression of Piracy and Armed Robbery at Sea, and Chapter 11, Succession of States in Respect of State Responsibility. Distinguished delegates, you are encouraged to follow the thematic approach in your interventions. As in the past, this approach will be applied with flexibility. The work plan this week takes into account, as far as possible, several, several other events scheduled to take place during International Law Week. It is important that we therefore utilize fully the time allocated to the agenda item so as to complete our work on schedule. It may well be that the debate on each cluster may be concluded sooner than planned, in which case we will proceed immediately with the next cluster. Speakers should therefore please be ready in that eventuality. Finally, please permit me to recall the recommendation of the Bureau that while there are no time limits to interventions per se on the ILC report, delegations are encouraged to be as succinct as possible and where possible to only deliver abridged versions of their statements while providing their full statements for posting on e-statements and on the website of the Sixth Committee. Distinguished delegates, it is now my great pleasure to give the floor to the current Chair of the International Law Commission at its 76th session, Mr. Martin Paparinskis, to introduce the report of the Commission. I understand that the Chair of the Commission will introduce the entire report in a single intervention. You have the floor, sir.


ILC · Chair · Martin Paparinskis [15:32]:

Mr. Chair, I am delighted to see you serving in the present capacity as chair of the Sixth Committee. Please accept the best wishes of the International Law Commission for a successful session. I also extend my warm congratulations to the other members of the Bureau. The tradition of interaction and collaboration between the Committee and the Commission in the progressive development of international law and its codification is one that the Commission cherishes. As you are aware, the Commission session this year was severely impacted by the liquidity crisis that the organization is facing, with the originally planned 12-week session being reduced to a single 5-week period. Owing to time constraints, as demonstrated by the substantial report of the Commission, contained in document A/80/10, the Commission was not able to make much progress in its work as it had hoped. The Commission's expectation for its 76th session was to complete its work on sea level rise in relation to international law, as well as to adopt two second reading texts under the topics immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction and general principles of law, as well as to finalize two first reading texts for the topics subsidiary means for determination of rules of international law and settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties. It also expected to conclude its work on the topic succession of states in respect of state responsibility and to advance its work on the other topics in its program of work. However, owing to time constraints arising as a consequence of the reduction of the session, the Commission was only able to adopt a final report on the topic sea level rise in relation to international law. While the Commission advanced its consideration of the draft conclusions on general principles of law and draft articles on immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, The conclusion of their second reading had to be postponed to the 77th session. The first reading of the topics subsidiary means for determination of rules of international law and settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties was likewise postponed to the 77th session, as well as the conclusion of the topic succession of states in respect of state responsibility. In addition, I wish to note that the Commission was only able to dedicate meetings under the format of a Working Group of the Whole for the consideration of the topics: settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties, non-legally binding international agreements, prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, and succession of states in respect of state responsibility. The postponement of a significant proportion of the work planned for its 76th session to the 77th session also necessarily constrained the amount of time available for the consideration of topics which were expected to be the primary focus of consideration at the 77th session, namely non-legally binding international agreements and prevention and repression of armed robbery at sea. Needless to say, the curtailment of this year's session for the second year in a row is a matter of great concern to the Commission. Taken together, the reduction in 2024 and again this year amounted in total to almost an entire session of work, therefore impeding the ability of the Commission to contribute to the progressive development of international law and its codification. As I mentioned, the overall plan of work for the quorum quinquennium has been affected by the successive reductions in the length of the Commission's sessions. It is the hope of the Commission that Member States will endeavour to find a solution that will prevent such reductions in the future. Mr. Chair, turning now to this year's report, I would like to draw your attention to some of the other decisions and activities of the Commission. First, it decided to include the topics compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts and due diligence in international law in its programme of work, and appoint myself and Penelope Ridings respectively as Special Rapporteurs. With the addition of the two new topics and the conclusion this year of the work on the topic sea level rise in relation to international law, which I will return to in due course, There are at present 9 topics on the regular programme of work, the completion of 3 of which was delayed from this year to next. We are also expecting the conclusion of the first reading of 2 further topics in 2026, such that the Commission is on course to only have 4 topics on its agenda in 2027. The re-established Working Group on the Long-Term Programme of Work chaired by Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez, continued its consideration of proposals for new topics. The following topics were included in the Commission's long-term programme of work: the principle of non-intervention in international law, identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law, and legal aspects of accountability for crimes committed against United Nations personnel serving in peacekeeping operations. The syllabuses of the new topics prepared by Yvonne Mingueshang, Masahiko Asada, and Bhimalen Patel respectively are annexed to the report. Delegations are invited to comment on each of these potential topics. I recall that there are currently 8 other topics that remain inscribed in the Long-Term Programme of Work from previous quinquennia. Delegations are welcome to make any remarks they may deem appropriate on such a topics in their statements under Cluster 1. The Commission further attaches great importance to improving its working methods. It re-established the Working Group on Methods of Work and Procedures of the Commission under the leadership of Charles General Jalloh. However, owing to the time constraints I mentioned, the Working Group on Methods of Work and Procedures was not able to meet during the 76th session. Pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 79/126 of 4 December 2024, the Commission has again commented in its report on its current role in promoting the rule of law and has reiterated its commitment to the rule of law in all of its activities. Mr. Chair, Judge Yasawa Uji, President of the International Court of Justice, addressed the Commission on May 8th, 2025. However, due to the shortening of the Commission session, the Commission regrettably was unable to have its traditional exchanges of views with the African Union Commission on International Law, the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization, the Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law of the Council of Europe, and the Inter-American Juridical Committee. However, it was able to have an informal exchange of views with the International Committee of the Red Cross on May 20th, 2025. Permit me also to note, sadly, that in the course of the session, the Commission convened memorial meetings in honor of the passing of former members Pema Raju, Sriniwas Rao, Milan Šoković, and Nabil El-Arabi. I also wish to note with great sadness the recent passing of former members Concepción Escobar-Hernández and Julio Barbosa. On behalf of the Commission, I extend my condolences to their families. The contribution of Madame Escobar-Hernández and of Mr. Barbosa to the academy, and in particular their tireless efforts and dedication as special rapporteurs for the topics immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction and international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, respectively, remain part of the living repository of the Commission and international law. I wish to recall that it was under Madame Escobar-Hernández's able leadership and guidance that the Commission was able to adopt the first reading text on the topic at its 73rd session in 2022. While under Mr. Barbosa's stewardship, the Commission conducted a thorough review of the issues concerning international liability, ultimately deciding to subdivide the topic into prevention of transboundary damage from hazardous activities and international liability in case of loss from transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities. Mr. Chair, the Commission decided that its 77th session would be held in New York from 20th April to 29th May 2026, and in Geneva from 29th June to 7th August 2026. The Commission reiterated its recommendation to hold the first part of the 77th session in New York with a view to enhancing its dialogue with the General Assembly to facilitate direct contact between the Commission and delegates of the Sixth Committee. The Commission requested the Secretary to proceed with the necessary administrative and organizational arrangements to facilitate the holding of that part of the session in New York to the extent feasible within resources made available for the holding of its annual session in 2026. In the event that insufficient resources are made available to hold the first part of the 77th session in New York, then the first part of the 77th session would be held in Geneva from 27th of April to 5th of June, 2026. Allow me at this stage to acknowledge the invaluable assistance of the Codification Division of the Office of Legal Affairs, in the technical and substantive servicing of the Commission. The Secretariat is very much an integral part of the working methods of the Commission, and the Commission is grateful for its work. In particular, its continued preparation of studies and memorandums on matters on the work programme of the Commission. The Commission was also particularly pleased to receive the United Nations Legal Council for the traditional annual briefing on activities and developments concerning the Office of legal affairs. Mr. Chair, in line with past practice, the report of the Commission will be introduced in one single intervention. The Commission's overall output is summarized in Chapter 2. Allow me also to draw your attention to the various requests of the Commission for information and the respective deadlines, as contained in Chapter 3 of the report of the Commission. I will specifically mention each request when I address substantive topics. The rest of the statement focusing on the substantive chapters will be presented in accordance with the agreed clusters. Accordingly, I will first address Cluster 1 chapters, namely Chapter 4, Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law, and 6, General Principles of Law. Then Cluster 2 chapters, which relate to Chapter 5, immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction; 7, subsidiary means for determination of rules of international law; 8, settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties; 9, non-legally binding international agreements; 10, prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea; and 11, succession of states in respect of state responsibility. Responsibility. Mr. Chair, let us turn to Chapter 4 of the report, which covers the topic sea level rise in relation to international law. At this year's session, the Commission reconstituted the study group which had before it the final Consultative Report of the co-chairs, Document A/CN.4/793, prepared by the co-chairs Patricia Galvão Teles, Nilufar Oral and Juan José Rueda Santolaria. The final consolidated report addressed the three subtopics, namely the law of the sea, statehood, and the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. It also considered crosscutting issues and interlinkages between the three subtopics. The content of the paper was guided by the previous work of the co-chairs the debates in the Study Group since 2019, specific issues flagged by Member States in comments conveyed either in the Sixth Committee or in response to questions raised by the Commission, as well as recent developments, including before international courts and tribunals. A draft final report of the Study Group was contained in an annex to the final consolidated report of the co-chair. And was submitted for consideration of the Study Group. Subsequently, the Commission received an oral report of the Study Group and adopted the final report of the Study Group, which is contained in Annex I of the Commission's report. It bears recalling that the topic was placed in the programme of work of the Commission in 2019, and the mandate of the Study Group was to undertake a mapping exercise concerning the legal questions raised by sea level rise and interrelated issues to assist states in developing practicable solutions to respond effectively to the legal issues arising from sea level rise. The final report of the study group presents conclusions based on the issues papers by the co-chairs and the additional papers there too. The discussions in the study group are summarized in the annual reports of the Commission. Comments and observations by states, other relevant developments such as regional declarations, regional and bilateral initiatives, and discussions in the United Nations bodies that constitute evidence of state practice on the topic of sea level rise in relation to international law, as well as proceedings before and decisions by international courts and tribunals. The conclusions are to be considered within the context of climate change-related sea level rise and are intended as a summary of the key findings of the work of the study group. In relation to the subtopic of Law of the Sea, the final report of the study group noted that climate change-related sea level rise had not been an issue of concern for the international community at the time of the conclusion of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It noted that states had stressed the importance of the Convention, its integrity, and that any solution in relation to sea level rise be consistent with it. The final report emphasized the importance of legal stability, certainty, and predictability in the interpretation of the Convention. Thus, the final report concluded that the Convention or other rules of international law did not provide an obligation for states to update charts to account for changes as a result of climate change-related sea level rise, and that there was no rule of international law preventing states from preserving existing unlawfully established baselines once duly communicated to the Secretary-General. The final report also underlined that the principle of fundamental change of circumstances as codified in Article 62, Paragraph 1 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, did not apply to maritime delimitation agreements, and that the maintenance of the baselines and maritime entitlements was consistent with the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources. In relation to the statehood subtopic, the final report highlighted that the continuity of statehood and sovereignty and the maintenance of international legal personality was strongly supported by states. The continuity of statehood was also essential to avoid situations of loss of nationality and statelessness and correlated with the right of peoples to self-determination, as they could not be deprived of statehood without their consent. The final report also highlighted the importance of international cooperation between states and other members of the international community to address the impact of sea level rise in relation to the preservation of maritime zones, statehood, and the protection of affected persons. In relation to the third subtopic, that is the protection of persons affected by sea level rise, the final report of the study group indicated that while the current international legal framework was fragmented and not specifically meant to apply to sea level rise, elements for legal protection of persons affected by sea level rise included the protection of human dignity as a guiding principle. It was emphasized that there was a need to develop legal and practical solutions to better protect persons affected by sea level rise, including by resorting to two rules such as special climate mobility agreements, pathways and other alternative arrangements, humanitarian visas and similar administrative policies, and measures to prevent the loss of nationality and statelessness. Other elements included the need for a combination of needs-based and rights-based approaches, the need to delineate the human rights obligations of the different human rights duty bearers involved, and the particular need to protect persons in vulnerable situations. Reference was also made in the final report of the study group to the importance of informing, consulting, and encouraging the participation in decisions by persons affected by sea level rise in the determination of the next steps. Mr. Chair, as I mentioned earlier, the final report addressed cross-cutting issues and interlinkages between the subtopics. Such cross-cutting issues included legal stability, certainty, and predictability, the preservation of existing lawful rights, equity, and the duty to cooperate. Emphasis was also placed on the fundamental principles of international law, such as the sovereign equality of states, respect for territorial integrity, the right of peoples to self-determination, permanent sovereignty over natural resources, and the promotion and protection of human rights. The final report of the study group also referred to the possible ways forward and noted that an approach might be adopted allowing for the interpretation and application of existing instruments and rules of international law to take into account the adverse impact of sea level rise. This approach might include, for example, the contemporary interpretation of existing instruments, interpretive statements, future agreements adopted by the states parties to the United Nations Convention of Law of the Sea or by the General Assembly, or taking into account the elements for legal protection of persons affected by sea level rise. The final report also referred to another approach. Consisting of the development of instruments and mechanisms specific to climate change-related sea level rise, binding or non-binding, on a bilateral, regional, or international level. Mr. Chair, sea level rise has become a topic of interest posing significant challenges to states and to existing rules of international law. The work of the study group was an effort by the Commission to identify the current challenges international law faces and the state of the law. The study group and the Commission greatly benefited from the interaction with states from all regions of the world who provided comments and shared their practice during the past years. The General Assembly is invited to take note of the final report of the Study Group. Mr. Chair, I now turn to Chapter 6 of the report relating the topic General Principles of Law, which has been on the Commission's program of work since 2018. This year, the Commission commenced its consideration of the second reading of the topic. The Commission had before it the fourth report of the Special Rapporteur Marcelo Vasquez Bermúdez, Document A/CN4/785, and the bibliography there too. A/CN4/785 Addendum 1, as well as comments and observations received from governments. A/CN4/779 and Addendum 1. The fourth report addressed the comments and observations received from governments on the draft conclusions and commentaries. As adopted on first reading, as well as comments made by states in the Sixth Committee. The report also contained proposed modifications to the draft conclusions for consideration on second reading in light of said comments and observations and proposed recommendation to the General Assembly. The summary of the consideration of the Special Rapporteur's fourth report is reflected in paragraphs 192 284 of the report of the Commission. Following the debate in plenary, the Commission decided to refer draft conclusions 1 to 12, as proposed by the Special Rapporteur, to the Drafting Committee, taking into account the comments and observations made by governments, as well as a debate in plenary on the Special Rapporteur's report. Upon subsequently receiving the report of the Drafting Committee, The Commission took note of draft conclusions 1 to 12, which constitute the entire set of draft conclusions as provisionally adopted by the drafting committee on second reading. Owing to the unavailability of time for the preparation, translation, and consideration of commentaries as a consequence of the reduced length of the session, the adoption by the Commission of the draft conclusions on general principles of law on second reading— together with the commentaries thereto— was postponed to the 77th session. Since the Commission has not yet adopted the draft conclusions on second reading, nor commentaries thereto, I shall refrain from making remarks on the second reading text provisionally adopted by the drafting committee. Mr. Chair, I now turn to Chapter V of the report, relating to the topic "Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Crimes." criminal jurisdiction, which has been on the Commission's programme of work since 2008. This year, the Commission continued its consideration of the topic on second reading. The Commission had before it the second report of the Special Rapporteur, Claudia Grossman-Giov, document A/CN4/780, as well as the comments and observations received from governments. A/CN4/771 and Addenda 1 to 3. The Special Rapporteur's second report addressed comments and observations made by governments on draft Articles 7 to 18 and on the draft annex, as adopted on first reading, and included proposals for their consideration on second reading. The summary of the consideration of the Special Rapporteur's second report is reflected in paragraphs 89 to 183 of the report of the Commission. The Commission provisionally adopted draft Articles 1, 3, 4, and 5, which it had taken note of at its 75th session. It also subsequently adopted commentaries to said draft articles. Draft Article 2, which deals with definitions, has been retained in drafting committee pending consideration of the remaining draft articles. Draft Article 1, Scope of the Present Draft Articles, defines the scope of the draft articles on immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Draft Article 3, Persons Enjoying Immunity Ratione Personae, lists the state officials who enjoy immunity ratione personae from foreign criminal jurisdiction namely the head of state, the head of government, and the minister for foreign affairs. The draft article confines itself to identifying the persons to whom the type of immunity applies, making no reference to its substantive scope. Draft Article 4, Scope of Immunity Ratione Personae, deals with the scope of immunity ratione personae. Ratéone from both a temporal and material standpoints. Draft Article 5, Scope of Immunity Ratéone Materie, outlines the general regime applicable to immunity ratéone materie and covers its personal, material, and temporal elements. The text of the draft articles and the commentary is there too, as provisionally adopted by the Commission on second reading at its 76 session is reproduced in paragraphs 184 and 185 of the report. Following the plenary debate held this year, the Commission decided to refer draft Articles 7 to 18 and the draft Annex, as proposed by the Special Rapporteur, to the Drafting Committee, taking into account the comments and observations made in plenary. Owing to the unavailability of time for the preparation, translation, and consideration of commentaries as a consequence of the reduced length of the session, the Commission was only in a position to take note of draft Article 7, crimes under international law in respect of which rat— immunity ratio in the matter shall not apply; 8, application of Part 4; examination of immunity by the forum State, as provisionally adopted by the Drafting Committee. Since it has not yet adopted the Drafting Committee's recommendations nor commentaries thereto, those provisions will be introduced next year as part of the complete set of draft articles on the immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, which the Commission is expecting to adopt on second reading together with commentaries. Mr. Chair, I shall now turn to Chapter VII concerning the topic subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law. The Commission commenced its consideration of this topic at its 74th session. This year, the Commission had before it the third report, Document A/C CN4/781 of the Special Rapporteur Charles Cerny-Ruggiello and the preliminary bibliography, A/CN4/781/Addendum 1, there too. The third report addressed, inter alia, the work of private and public expert bodies and the possible consideration of resolutions of international organizations and of intergovernmental conferences. As subsidiary means for determination of rules of international law. The report also addressed the question of conflicting decisions of international courts and tribunals and the possible link between supplementary means of interpretation under law of treaties and subsidiary means. It reflected on the views of states on draft conclusions 1 to 8 and commentaries adopted by the Commission at 74 74th and 75th sessions. 5 new draft conclusions were proposed. The summary of the Commission's consideration of the Special Operator's 3rd report can be found in paragraphs 293 to 357 of the Commission's report. Following the debate in plenary, the Commission decided to refer draft conclusions 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, as proposed by the Special Rapporteur in his third report to the Drafting Committee, taking into account the comments and observations made in plenary. The Commission subsequently took note of the report of the Drafting Committee containing draft conclusions 1 to 13, which constitute the text and titles of the entire set of draft conclusions as provisionally adopted by the Drafting Committee on first reading. Owing to the unavailability of time for the translation and consideration of commentaries as a consequence of the reduced length of the session, the adoption by the Commission of the draft conclusions on subsidiary means for determination of rules of international law on first reading, together with the commentaries thereto, was postponed to the 787th session. I shall also refrain from making remarks on the text provisionally adopted by the Drafting Committee on first reading, given that the Commission has yet to adopt the Drafting Committee's proposals and the commentaries thereto. Mr. Chair, I will now turn to Chapter 8, which concerns the topic settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties. The Commission had before it the third report, documents A/CN4/782, of the Special Rapporteur August Reinisch, with a bibliography thereto, A/CN4/782/Addendum 1. The third report focused on disputes between international organizations and private parties, provided an analysis of relevant practice and policies issues and proposed 5 new draft guidelines. As I mentioned at the beginning of my statement, owing to the reduced length of the session, the Commission was unable to consider the report in the Plenary. Instead, it established a Working Group of the Whole, chaired by the Special Rapporteur, to allow for a preliminary exchange of views on the third report. The Working Group held one meeting. —during which members discussed, among other matters, the nature of disputes involving international organizations and private parties, the balance between the jurisdictional immunity of international organizations and the right to access to justice, and the relevance of human rights standards in the settlement of disputes addressed in the third report. Members also considered whether model clauses or sample provisions to provide practical guidance would be of value to states. Overall, the Working Group expressed the hope that the Commission would be able to proceed expeditiously with its work on the topic at its next session, with a view to concluding the first reading. The report of the Working Group is contained in paragraphs 365 to 376 of the report of the Commission. The Commission would appreciate receiving information from States, international organizations, and others on additional materials in all official languages of the United Nations for inclusion in a future revised version of the bibliography and table of cases prepared by the Special Rapporteur on the settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties for the 76th session. The Commission would particularly appreciate receiving relevant information on decisions of nationals and international courts and arbitral tribunals, as well as publications on the topic, by 1st of December 2025. Mr. Chair, turning now to Chapter 11 concerning the topic non-legally binding international agreements, the Commission had before it the second report of the Special Rapporteur Matthias Porto, Document A/CN4/784. In his second report, the Special Rapporteur further examined the subject matter of the topic, the terminology to be used, and the scope of the topic. He also addressed the first substantive issue related to the topic, as identified in his first report, namely the distinction between treaties and non-legally binding international agreements. The Special Rapporteur proposed 6 draft conclusions. As a consequence of the reduced length of the session, the Commission was unable to consider in plenary the second report of the Special Rapporteur. A working group of the whole on the topic was established, chaired by the Special Rapporteur. The working group held one meeting, the purpose of which was to undertake a preliminary exchange of views on the Second Report, in particular with a view to helping the Special Rapporteur prepare for his Third Report. An exchange of views was held on the best way forward to address indicators to distinguish treaties and non-binding agreements, either in the form of additional draft conclusions or other forms of output. The Third Report of the Special Rapporteur is expected to address addresses the second substantive issue of the topic, namely the possible legal implications under international law of non-legally binding international agreements. The report of the working group is reproduced in paragraphs 384 to 399 of the report of the Commission. The Commission considers as still relevant the request for information on the topic contained in Chapter 3 of the report of its 75th session, and would appreciate receiving the following information or any updates to information already submitted pursuant to that request by 1 December 2025 concerning examples in particular of a) the practice of competent ministries and decisions of national courts as appropriate concerning non-legally binding international agreements, and b) any guidelines adopted at the national level on non-legally binding international agreements that states could publicly share with the Special Rapporteur and the Commission. Mr. Chair, allow me to turn now to Chapter 10, which concerns the topic prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. C. The Commission established a Working Group of the Whole on the topic, chaired by Luis Savadogo, who was also appointed Special Rapporteur for the topic at the Commission session last year. The Working Group had before it a note by the Special Rapporteur, in which he identified points of law which in his opinion could constitute the major themes of the work of the Commission on the topic. He also outlined general areas of inquiry. Based on the main features of the topic and proposed schedule for future work. The Working Group held one meeting, during which a brief preliminary exchange of views on the note prepared by the Special Rapporteur was held. Members generally welcomed the note and discussed various aspects of the topic, including, inter alia, the relationship between the topic and the United Nations Convention of Law the sea, universal jurisdiction, and emerging issues. Members also discussed the schedule proposed by the Special Rapporteur for future work. It is anticipated that the Special Rapporteur will present his first report at the Commission session next year, taking into account the discussion held in the Working Group. The report of the Working Group is contained in paragraphs 409 418 of the report of the Commission. The Commission would appreciate receiving from States and competent international organizations additional or updated information by 1 December 2025 concerning legislation, decisions of national courts and tribunals, and practice of States relevant to the topic, including in relation to Articles 100 and 107 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Commission would also appreciate receiving from States information concerning legislation and practice related to the use of uncrewed vessels and aircraft in the context of prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea.

Mr.

Chair, the final substantive chapter I will address this morning is Chapter 11. Which concerns the topic succession of states in respect of state responsibility. Further to a decision taken by the Commission last year, a working group of the whole on the topic was established, chaired by Bimal Patel. It may be recalled that the purpose of the working group, as was decided last year by the Commission, would be to draft a report that would bring the work on the topic to an end. The Working Group held one meeting at which it had before it a draft report prepared by Mr. Patel. The report contained a summary of the work of the Commission on the topic and of the difficulties that the Commission had faced during the consideration of the topic, including as regards a lack of sufficient or consistent state practice on which to base its work. As there was not sufficient time to allow for an in-depth consideration of the draft report, the Working Group held a brief preliminary exchange of views and took note of the draft report. I wish to mention that members of the Working Group generally reiterated their support for the decision to discontinue the work on the topic. The Chair of the Working Group invited members to send him further written comments on the draft report and expressed his intention to prepare a revised draft in advance of the 77th session. It is expected that the Working Group will be able to adopt the revised draft report at the 77th session, allowing the Commission to conclude its work on the topic. The report of the Working Group is contained in paragraphs 428 to 435. Of the report of the Commission. Mr. Chair, the Commission and the Sixth Committee have a shared interest in the progressive development of international law and its codification. The Commission looks to the Sixth Committee for valuable comments on its work so as to make it more useful and relevant for the needs of member states. The interaction that the Commission has with the Sixth Committee during the debate on the annual report— during the Interactive Dialogue, as well as written comments received, provides a useful framework for enriching the work product of the Commission. It is my sincere hope that the Commission and the Sixth Committee will be able to meet in the near future under normal circumstances. That is, where the Commission would be in a position to fulfill fulfill the mandate the Assembly has entrusted it with and report to the Sixth Committee accordingly. That said, during the coming days, my colleagues and I look forward to hearing comments and observations from you all and to useful exchange of views. This concludes the presentation of the entire report, and I thank you very much for your kind attention. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [57:14]:

I wish to thank the distinguished Chair of the Commission for his very comprehensive, clear, and concise introduction. I also wish to thank him for the kind words addressed to me and the other members of the Bureau. Distinguished delegates, we will now proceed with the debate on the first cluster of chapters, and the first speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Cameroon, also speaking on behalf of the African Group.


Cameroon · Africa Group [57:44]:

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. I have the honor to deliver a statement on behalf of the African Group. I take this opportunity to welcome members of the Commission and legal advisers from capitals to this year's International Law Week in New York. We appreciate the opportunity for engagement between the six committee representatives members of the Commission, following what has crystallized as a rich tradition to actualize the interaction between the ILC and member states in the Sixth Committee. At the outset, let me thank the Chair of the Commission, Professor Marcin Paparinsky, the Bureau, the Special Rapporteur, and Chairs of Working Groups for conducting a successful session of the Commission. We appreciate the Chair's comprehensive introduction of the report, on the work of the Commission and look forward to a rich debate on it. It is unfortunate that due to the liquidity crisis, the 76th session was unusually shortened from 12 to 5 weeks. This reduction is unprecedented in the history of the Commission and undermines its ability to effectively discharge its responsibilities. This was apparent in the 76th 76th Session during which, owing to time constraints, the Commission was only able to adopt a final report on the topic "Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law." As a result, it is fairly likely that the Commission program of work for the current quinquennium will be adversely affected. In this regard, the African Group notes that during the 76th Session, members of the Commission inquire as to whether it was appropriate for the Secretary-General or the Secretariat, including the Controller, to modify a provision of the General Assembly resolution without the Assembly's prior approval. Notwithstanding the effect of the shuttering of the Commission session, the African Group appreciates the effort of the Codification Division of the Office of Legal Affairs in acting as the Secretary of the Commission. We take note of the briefing on 5 September 2025 to the Sixth Committee covering, among other things, the report of the Commission on the work of its 76th session. We use this opportunity to thank the members of the Commission for their devoted service to the codification and progressive development of international law. The African Group also thanks the African members of the Commission for taking time to brief the group on the progress of the work of the Commission this session. Their engagement with us underlined the importance of African states giving their feedback on the ILC report. Chair, the African Group attaches great value and importance to the mandate of the International Law Commission in assisting the General Assembly in initiating studies and making recommendations for the purpose of promoting the progressive development of international law and its codification, as set out in the Commission's 1947 statute derived from Article 13 of the United Nations Charter. In noting the particular steps being taken by the Commission to take into account diversity of legal traditions, geographic and linguistic considerations in its work, we continue to reiterate that the process of progressive development and codification of international law must always be inclusive and all-embracing in the consideration of law texts, state practice, precedent, and doctrine as required by the ILC statute. Chair, in terms of its substantive work, respective delegations of the Group will comment on the specific issues stemming from the report of the Commission. The African Group would like to make the following general point: First, the ILC must redouble effort to draw inspiration from all legal systems reflective of our contemporary world, including African sources and principles in its work. Our increasing engagement with the work of the Commission is to ensure these important aspects are duly realized. Our group is committed to multilateralism and the rule-based international legal system. Multilateral system founded on the Charter of the United Nations, and we value the effective contribution of the Commission in maintaining this multilateral system, taking into account the views of all member states. We further stress the importance for inscribed topics to bring added value and be of interest and relevance to the international community as a whole. On the method of work, the African Group underlines the importance building broad consensus within the Commission before advancing draft output. This is key to ensuring that codification contributes to the coherence of international law and strengthens the authority of the Commission. In this respect, we stress that Special Rapporteurs play a vital role in facilitating the work of the Commission. Their reports should provide a basis for collective deliberation and should reflect as faithfully as possible the diversity of views expressed within the Commission and by member states in the Sixth Committee. The African Group underlines that the success of the Commission's work depends on the extent to which its topics resonate with member states and accompany the natural evolution of international law. It is therefore important that the Commission remain attentive to comments and observations expressed in the Sixth Committee. So that its program of work continues to reflect both the priority of member states and current development of international law. The African Group takes note of the inclusion of the topic on the principle of non-intervention in international law, identification and legal consequences of obligation erga omnes in international law, and legal aspects of accountability for crimes committed against United Nations personnel serving in peacekeeping operations on the long-term program of work. The Group also recalled the decision to appoint Professor Penelope Reiding and Professor Marcinis Paparinsky as Special Rapporteurs for the topics due diligence in international law and compensation for damages caused by internationally wrongful acts, respectively. In undertaking studies on this topic, the African Group strongly encouraged the Commission to take cognizance of and reflect the practice and views of all member states and all juridical traditions while promoting and respecting multilingualism. The African Group congratulates the Commission on the adoption of the final report of the Study Group on the topic of sea level rise in relation to international law and commends the co-chairs of the Study Group for their work on this topic. The African Group takes note of the conclusions of the study group, especially on the following points: the fundamental importance of UNCLOS and the need to preserve its integrity and to ensure that solutions to climate change related to sea level rise must be consistent with UNCLOS; the presumption of the continuity of statehood and sovereignty and the maintenance of international legal personality; and membership of international organizations, and the essential need for cooperation between states affected by climate change-related sea level rise and other members of the international communities. As related to persons affected by sea level rise, states have a duty to respect, protect, and fulfill their human rights obligations, including with regard to civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. On the topic of immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, the African Group is cognizant that this is a topic on which states, including within the African Group, have adopted divergent views. Accordingly, the African Group urged the Commission to take its decision on this topic with consensus, which would signal to the states that the draft Article NJOB broad support and are reflective of the widespread and representative practice of states. The African Group also encouraged the Commission to incorporate evidence of state practice, expression of opinio juris, and case law from all regions, including Africa. Indeed, several members of the Commission have noted that case law and practices sit cited in the report were not necessarily representative and that there were insufficient references to case law from regions such as Africa. On the topic of subsidiary means for the determination of the rule of international law, the African Group congratulated the Special Rapporteur, Professor Charles Jalloh, on the progress achieved on this topic. The African Group is convinced that this topic will make important contributions to clarifying areas of uncertainties relating to issues such as whether resolution of international organizations can serve as a subsidiary means of determining the rule of international law, the different form of teaching and their probative values, addressing the fragmentation of international law and maintaining its coherence, and the relationship between subsidiary means and supplementary means of interpretation. In previous sessions, the African Group recalled its concern on the issue of equitable geographical representation in the work of the Commission. We call on the Commission, when deciding to add new topics, to consider a balanced approach to topics in terms of practical interests of member states, as well as in the selection of special rapporteurs, as this could help to enhance the legitimacy of the Commission's work. We believe the next step is to ensure that necessary resources are made available to the appointed Special Rapporteurs to ensure they successfully lead the work of the Commission on their important topic. Here, we once again recall our strong support for the establishment of the Trust Fund to assist Special Rapporteurs from developing countries. Like the Commission, The African Group expresses concern about the discontinuation and availability of the webcast to facilitate the engagement of delegates of the Sixth Committee. The webcasting was particularly helpful for smaller delegations, including those from our region, to follow the work of the Commission. The African Group welcomes the decision of the Commission to convene a session in New York in 2026 We see this as an important opportunity to strengthen dialogue with the General Assembly, and we will be glad to explore practical ways of interacting with the Commission during its presence here in order to maximize the value of this engagement. In closing, Chair, the African Group wishes to thank the Commission and the Secretariat for their tireless work. We believe that restoring the webcasting increased accessibility to the work of the Commission. The African Group assures the Commission of its unwavering support. I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [1:09:19]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Cameroon for his statement, also speaking on behalf of the African Group. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of the European Union, speaking on behalf of the EU and its member Member States.


EU · EU [1:09:40]:

Mr. Chairman, it is my great honor to speak to the Sixth Committee on behalf of the EU and its Member States. Before I start, I would like to say it is with great sadness that we learned of the passing of Ms. Escobar Hernandez and Mr. Barboso, two eminent jurists. We all knew them and their commitment to international law was unwavering. We would like to convey our sincere condolences to their families, their friends, and all those who are privileged enough to work alongside them. I would now like to talk about the work of the ILC. I would like to start by the severe budget restrictions on the United Nations currently that have meant that the annual session of the Commission had to be reduced to 5 weeks this year. This situation is extremely worrisome. This drastic reduction has significant tangible consequences for the work of the— the work that is underway in the Commission and by extension the Sixth Committee. Several important subjects could not be completed in the framework of the current 5-year period, delaying the drafting of the texts which play a key role in the codification and progressive codification and development of international law. We would therefore like to reiterate our support for the ILC and to its work. And we would urge the Secretariat, along with the call of the committee on this— or the commission, rather, on this— to find means to ensure appropriate financing of future sessions to return to the 12-week week session. These means should include, as the ILC report underscores, the separation of the Commission's programme budget from the more general budget of the OLA. It is also crucial that the ILC has enough time to deliberate in order to comply with its mandate. Before presenting the comments of the EU on the first subject on the agenda, the EU I would also like to underscore what was reiterated in the ILC annual report, namely that reducing the Commission's annual session meant that some reports presented by the Special Rapporteurs were not discussed in the plenary meeting. This is an unusual, regrettable situation for the organization of our work. With a desire for effectiveness, the EU has always sought to propose preliminary comments on these reports whilst bearing in mind that the Commission itself has not yet been able to state their opinion on the contents.

Mr. Chairman, I will now turn to, uh, sea level rise in relation to international law. Based on the earlier issues papers and additional papers by the co-chairs, the final report of the study group sets out legal issues in relation to the law of the sea, statehood, and the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. The European Union and its member states note that the final report consolidates and synthesizes the results of the work of the study group, notably by highlighting cross-cutting issues and interlinkages between the aforementioned three subtopics and by presenting possible ways forward. The final report is timely in that it provides for an analysis of sea level rise in relation to international law at a moment in time when international courts and tribunals have been seized of requests for advisory opinions on states' obligations in relation to climate change, the associated harms of which include sea sea level rise. We also note that the ICJ, in its advisory opinion on obligations of states in respect of climate change, makes reference to it. The European Union and its member states would like to make 5 points which they consider to be particularly relevant in the framework of the present discussions. First, in line with their statements in previous years, the European Union and its member states welcome come the recognition of the integrity of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, which is widely recognized as the constitution for the oceans and the provisions of which generally reflect customary international law and are thus binding on all states. To this end, the final report records the views of the states parties stressing that UNCLOS is of fundamental importance, its integrity is to be preserved, and any solution relating to climate change-related sea level rise must be consistent with it. This coincides with the general views of the members of the ILC regarding the applicability of the existing legal framework in the context of sea level rise. As consistently reiterated in the annual General Assembly resolutions on oceans and the law of the sea, UNCLOS sets out the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out. The EU and its member states recognize the need to apply existing instruments and rules of international law in a manner that addresses the impact of sea level rise as referred to in the final report and the importance of a stringent standard of due diligence when complying with obligations relating to activities that address the impact of sea level rise. In relation to sea level rise, ITLOS has held that the general obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment in Article 192 UNCLOS provides for a broad obligation that can be invoked to combat any form of degradation of the marine environment, including climate change impacts such as sea level rise, ocean warming, and ocean acidification. The ICJ has in turn endorsed that interpretation in its recent advisory opinion on obligations of states in respect of climate change. Second, with regard to the legal stability of baselines and the preservation of maritime zones, we note that the observations of members of the ILC that states had largely considered the notion of fixed deadlines— fixed baselines in the context of sea level rise. We welcome the report's conclusion that there is no provision in UNCLOS that imposes an obligation on states to update baselines, geographical coordinates, or the outer limits of maritime zones once duly deposited with the Secretary-General in accordance with the Convention. In its Advisory Opinion on Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, the ICJ, referring to the final report of the study group, noted a convergence of views among states across all regions in support of the absence of such updating obligation and considered that there is indeed no such obligation for States Parties to UNCLOS. On the other hand, the EU and its Member States note that under UNCLOS there is no obligation or indeed provision relating to the deposit of details of baselines that are not fixed, namely baselines measured from the low water line across— along the coast. However, we consider that there is no provision in UNCLOS that would prevent the preservation of existing and lawfully established baselines and maritime zones. Against this background, we look forward to exploring in more detail all the options set out in the final report at paragraph 58. However, any exploration of the need for an interpretative statement or a subsequent agreement should take into account that the ICJ, in its advisory opinion on obligation of states in respect of climate change, has already made pronouncements in this regard. Third, the EU and its member states welcome the identification by the ILC of certain foundational principles relevant to all three subtopics, namely legal stability, predictability, continuity and certainty. In the absence of these foundational principles, there would be a risk of legal uncertainty to the detriment of coastal states affected by sea level rise, which should be avoided. While the issue of the preservation of baselines and maritime zones is an expression of those foundational principles, it is also directly linked to the continuity of statehood. In the given context, We recall that the ICJ has held that once a state is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of statehood. Fourth, the EU and its member states note the emphasis on international cooperation. The duty to cooperate has been accorded specific legal significance in various treaty regimes including in the international climate regime. In this context, the European Union and its member states recall that in its advisory opinion on climate change and international law, ITLOS has held that under Article 202 of UNCROS, states parties to the convention have the specific obligation to assist developing states, in particular vulnerable— developing states in their efforts to address marine pollution from anthropogenic GHG emissions. This includes providing appropriate assistance directly or through competent international organizations in terms of capacity building, scientific expertise, technology transfer, and other matters. When addressing the state's duty to prevent significant harm to to the environment by acting with due diligence, the ICJ noted that states need to pursue technical cooperation and knowledge-sharing initiatives. In this regard, we have already undertaken various initiatives of capacity building, sharing of scientific expertise, and sharing technological knowledge to assist the states most affected by climate change. Moreover, the ICJ found that a duty to cooperate has particular significance in the context of sea level rise, requiring states to take, in cooperation with one another, appropriate measures to address the adverse effect of this serious phenomenon. In the given context, the EU and its member states take note of the ILC's observation that mechanisms to strengthen cooperation in addressing the adverse impact of climate change-related sea level rise may be developed at the appropriate level. Fifth, the EU and its member states commend the identification of possible ways forward in developing practical solutions to effectively address the international legal issues arising from climate change-induced sea level rise discussed in the final report, subject to the need to explore in more detail the options set out in the final report in light of the pronouncements by the ICJ. I will turn now, Mr. President, to the issue of general principle of law. As a general remark on this, the EU notes that the draft conclusions primarily built on the practice of States and international courts. The EU would like to reiterate that EU practice, which reflects the legal traditions of 27 European states, may be an important reference point when identifying principles recognized by the community of nations. In the EU legal order, general principles that emanate from the legal system of its member states constitute principles principles of EU law and are considered to be an autonomous source of law. The EU would now like to make some specific remarks on certain of the draft conclusions. Firstly, the EU notes that draft conclusion number 2 on recognition refers to the recognition of the general principle of law by the community of nations. The same reference appears in draft conclusion number 7, identification of general principles of law formed within the international legal system. The term community of nations replaces the term civilized nations found in the statute of the ICJ in Article 38, paragraph 1. While the EU can agree that the term civilized nations used in the ICJ statute may appear anachronistic and outdated, it considers that the new term community of nations does not reflect the role which is played by international organizations as subjects of international law. The EU notes that the commentary states that the term community of nations was found—— enough not to exclude the practice of international organizations. As already stressed above, the EU recognizes general principles of law as an autonomous part of its legal order. The EU practice, which builds on the legal traditions of 27 EU— European states, may contribute to the formation of general principles of law. In the light of these considerations, The EU expresses its preference for the use of the term "the international community." The EU takes note of the suggestion of the Special Rapporteur to add an additional paragraph which indicates that in certain cases, recognition by international organizations may also contribute to the formation of general principles of law. While the EU welcomes this additional paragraph, it would argue that the circumstances under which international organizations could contribute to the recognition need to be further elaborated. Secondly, we observe that the draft conclusion number 4, identification of general principles of law derived from national legal system— systems, and draft conclusion 5, determination of the existence of a principle common to the various legal systems of the world require that the principles derived from national legal systems must be, I quote, "common to the various legal systems of the world," unquote. The EU attributes great importance to the fact that the principles must be common to the legal systems which are as numerous and as representative as possible. The EU thus agrees with the view that the term "common" should not be understood as universal, but rather as broad and representative. Thirdly, in relation to draft conclusion number 8, decisions of courts and tribunals, we welcome that the ILC has clarified in the commentaries that the term international courts and tribunals is, I quote, intended to cover any international body exercising judicial powers that is called upon to consider general principles of law, unquote. In the EU's view, the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union should undoubtedly be considered a subsidiary means for the determination of general principles of law, and explicit mention to the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union should appear in the commentary.— Finally, concerning Draft Conclusion No. 10, Function of General Principles of Law, and Draft Conclusion No. 11, Relationship Between General Principles of Law and Treaties and Customary International Law, the EU notes the recommendation of the Special Rapporteur that the wording and spirit of these conclusions should reflect the absence of any hierarchical relationship between the three sources of international law. The EU agrees that Article 38 of the Statute of the ICJ does not create a hierarchy of the sources of international law, and general principles of law are to be considered an autonomous source of international law. Mr. President, I will now very briefly address the issue of due diligence in international law, simply to say that the EU welcomes the inclusion of this topic in its— in the work program of the ILC. This leads me to the next topic on which we have observations, which is the one on identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law. In the context of the identification of— such erga omnes obligations, the issue of their relationship to peremptory norms of international law was highlighted. In its draft conclusions on peremptory norms, the ILC alluded to an advisory opinion of the IITLOS to support the contention that obligations of States Parties relating to the preservation of the environment, of the high seas, and the deep seabed may be considered Alga Omnes but not Jus Cogens. The EU considers that there may be more examples of this kind. It invites the ILC to identify relevant state practice and opinion juris to this effect, in particular in the areas of international environmental and economic law. The EU would like to address the two central topics proposed in in the report, namely standing in judicial proceedings and countermeasures. First, in this context, the EU would like to highlight some of its own practice in contributing to the adjudication of erga omnes obligations before the ICJ. EU member states regularly emphasize the erga omnes character of the prohibition of genocide and derived from it the particular importance of drewing the Convention in good faith. Furthermore, during the advisory proceedings regarding obligations of states in respect of climate change, the European Union, in its capacity as an international organization submitting a memorial pursuant to the relevant rules of the Court, also referred to erga omnes obligations at various points of its submissions. Second, Turning to the issue of countermeasures, the EU takes note of the proposal of the rapporteur to exclude this topic of third-party countermeasures from this study on account of its political dimension. Against this backdrop, there may be scope for further studying the matter according to the current practice and opinio juris. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will now I will now pass the floor to my colleague, Mr. Hofmeister, from the IASB.


EU · EU · Mr. Hofmeister [1:29:27]:

Mr. Chairman, distinguished delegates, given the advanced time, I will be now extremely brief on the remaining two issues, which is compensation for damage of internationally wrongful acts and also the question of non-intervention. On the first one, we consider that Articles 31 and 36 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts reflect customary international law. However, it's also important to establish effective mechanisms to implement that. For that, the Iran-United States Claim Tribunal, and the United Nations Claim Commission for Iraq are important examples. More recently, the Register of Damage was established as a first step for a compensation mechanism. For more details, I refer to our written version. Since we have the privilege of having ILC Chair Martin Špavoranský here, we just want to advise to explore certain questions on the topic. In particular, we would like to— inside the ILC— to explore the question to whom compensation is owed. Specifically, the issue arises as to whether the right to reparation is vested exclusively in the injured state or whether individual victims also enjoy a direct and enforceable right to compensation under international law. The role of the ILC was limited by 32, 33 paragraph 2 in this regard, but the topic of the research of the ILC should go beyond these limitations. We further suggest that the ILC examines the question of the determination of the quantum of compensation owed to victims, particularly in situations characterized by scarcity of resources In mass claims commissions, both at international and national levels, resources rarely suffice to allow for detailed forensic examination of each case, or to ensure compensation strictly proportionate to the harm suffered. Where proportionate compensation cannot be assured, the question arises as to the standards by which a claims commission should assess the amounts of compensation. Dieu. Mr. Chairman, two words on non-intervention, another new topic, and we appreciate the Special Rapporteur Yvonne Mangaachank for his thorough report. On that one, we would like to underline that there are two cumulative legal elements to the principle of non-intervention: the coercive nature of the intervention— and it must be directed against the internal or external affairs, or domain réservé, of a state. This means that two categories of acts do not constitute a violation of the principle of non-intervention. First, acts which relate to the reserved domain but are not coercive in nature and thus do not meet the threshold. And second, acts which may meet the threshold of coercion but are not related to domaines réservés. For more details, again, I refer to our written contribution and would like to let know colleagues in the room that the EU has recently adopted an anti-coercion instrument which puts out 5 criteria how to determine coercion under the non-intervention principle, and we invite everybody to closely study it. And also would like to recommend that the IAEA may take this important practice and opinion—opinion—into account in its future work. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your attention. This concludes the intervention of the EU and its member states.


6th Committee · Chair [1:33:30]:

I thank the distinguished representatives of the European Union speaking on behalf of the EU and its member states. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Oman, also speaking on behalf of the Arab Group.


Oman · Arab Group [1:33:51]:

Mr. Chairman, the Arab Group would like to thank the ILC for its contribution to the strengthening of the rule of law, the peaceful settlement of disputes, and its support for efforts to maintain international peace and security. We would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Martin Paparinskis for his election to the head of the session of the ILC. We would like to thank the chair of the commission for presenting the report on the 76th session. We'd like to thank all of the members of the Commission who are here for International Law Week, and we welcome the Arab members in the work of the Commission. And we do hope that this participation will be bolstered to ensure better representation of the main legal regimes and better, more diverse geographical representation. We would also like to thank the Codification Division of the Office of Legal Affairs for its support for the work of the Commission. We appreciate the role of the Commission as a subsidiary body of the General Assembly. This strengthens the efforts of the General Assembly for the progressive development and codification of international law. We would also like to express our serious concerns regarding the impact of the liquidity crisis on this session of the Commission, which has been reduced from 12 to 5 weeks. So for the 28th of April to the 30th of May, 2025, we support the ILC's opinion that states that this is not in line with the measures that other bodies have been granted within the UN. It has deprived the ILC of a means of implementing its mandate effectively, like the the ILC, we would urge the GA to ensure that it has the means to carry out its work effectively. There needs to be a guarantee of the resources so that the ILC can play its role as it should. We are aware of the different topics and chapters within the report. We would like to thank the Commission for having concluded its work pertaining to sea level rise in relation to international law. As we see in the report, the reduction of the time allocated to the ILC deprived it of an ability to continue properly the work pertaining to the succession of states in respect of state responsibility. We welcome the cooperation between the ILC and the Sixth Committee. Indeed, this cooperation bolsters the mandate pertaining to the progressive development of international law. We welcome the presentations that have been made at the beginning of each session— are made at the beginning of each session— to strengthen this cooperation. Furthermore, we believe that an Executive summary of the report of the ILC should make a positive contribution to the preparation of the work of the Sixth Committee. This all helps us to strengthen dialogue and exchanges of opinion. The Arab Group believes that linguistic diversity is extremely important. This is why translating the relevant documents is of absolute importance. In conclusion, we are closely following the study of the different documents and the work of the ILC. We will actively participate in the relevant work. We hope that everybody has a very constructive International Law Week. Thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [1:37:55]:

Speaking also on behalf of the Arab Group, the next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries.


Sweden · Nordic Group [1:38:07]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have the honour to speak on behalf of the 5 Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and my own country, Sweden. Before I comment on the topics covered in Cluster 1 of the report, we would like to use this opportunity to also make some general remarks regarding Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 7 of the report. The Nordic countries commend the Commission for its efforts during its 76th session despite the exceptional challenges posed by the liquidity crisis affecting the entire United Nations system. We deeply regret that this crisis has led to a shortened session and constrained the Commission's ability to advance its work as planned. The Nordic countries underscored the critical importance of paying our assessed contributions to the regular budget in full and on time, and we encourage all UN members to meet their financial obligations without delay. The functions of the ILC lie at the very heart of the UN mandate as inscribed in Article 13 of the Charter. We note with concern that the ILC was subject to a 60% budget decrease in 2025 5, reportedly higher than that of other Geneva-based bodies. The Nordic countries acknowledge at the same time that each UN institution must consider practical and targeted mitigating measures, and we would therefore respectfully suggest such measures regarding the ILC to also be considered. This could include exploring alternative UN venues with lower costs, such as, for example, Vienna during the Geneva Library renovation, ensuring continued access to essential library resources including digital services, encouraging flexible use of teleworking and intersessional breakout pauses to reduce travel costs, as well as cost-reducing travel costs measures that are currently discussed, discussed in the fifth Committee. And finally, of course, we support the Commission in fulfilling its 5-year work plan and continuously ensuring that new topics on the agenda are relevant and reflect the priorities of states. These are just a few initial suggestions, and the Nordic countries remain open to discussing further solutions in a constructive spirit. With regards to the Commission's working programme, we welcome the inclusion of the topics compensation for damage caused by internationally wrongful acts and due diligence in international law in the Commission's programme of work, and we congratulate Mr. Martin Paparinskis and Mrs. Penelope Ridgins on their appointments as Special Rapporteurs. We also welcome the recommendation to include the following topics in the Commission's long-term programme of work: the principle of non-intervention in international law, identification of legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law, legal aspects of accountability for crimes committed against UN personnel serving in peacekeeping operations. The Nordic countries commend the Commission's recognition of the need to ensure gender parity in national and international institutions, including within its own composition, and encourage continued efforts in this regard. I will now turn to the topic of sea level rise in relation to international law. The Nordic countries have consistently supported and emphasized the importance of the work of the Commission on this highly relevant topic. We welcome the final report of the study group and take this opportunity to commend its co-chairs as well as its members for their thorough work. Mr. Chair, climate change is a common concern of humankind, but its burdens are not evenly distributed. Few feel its adverse impacts as acutely and existentially as small island and low-lying coastal developing states, where habitat security and way of life are directly threatened by sea level rise caused by climate change and its associated challenges. The Nordic countries have been resolute in affirming that finding solutions to these challenges is not only the concern of those states most affected by sea level rise, but a common concern of mankind. We note with appreciation that the International Court of Justice has confirmed this in its advisory opinion issued in July this year concerning the obligations of states in respect of climate change. The court stated that in this regard, cooperation in addressing sea level rise is not a matter of choice for states but a legal obligation. It has also provided useful guidance to the preservation of outer limits of maritime zones that have been duly established in conformity with UN Convention of the Law of the Sea, together with a strong presumption in favor of continued statehood. The Nordic countries note that the study group identified three main areas of international law, namely the law of the sea, statehood, and the protection of persons affected by sea level rise, as interconnected subtopics reflecting the legal implications of sea level rise, and we're pleased to agree and support that approach. When approaching the question of the legal implications of sea level rise caused by climate change for the maritime entitlement of states, the Nordic countries recognize the importance of legal clarity regarding the preservation of baselines and maritime zones for the states experiencing this existential threat. As we seek to realize that commitment in the legal context, We are guided by the universal and unified character of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The convention encompasses the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out. For this reason, it is commonly referred to as the Constitution of the Oceans. It follows that any solution adopted must be crafted in this context. Context and in compliance with the provisions of the convention. Mr. Chair, at the heart of the considerations of the Law of the Sea aspects of sea level rise has been the question of whether the baselines of coastal states are to be considered ambulatory or fixed. The author of St. Claus did not specifically address this particular phenomenon of climate change-related sea level rise. The completely unique and exceptional circumstances of sea level rise caused by climate change call for a responsive approach. As to the question of whether coastal states are required to update their charts or lists of geographical coordinates that show the baselines and outer limits of their maritime zones, once they have been duly established and deposited with the UN Secretary-General in conformity with the convention, the final report highlights that states are under no obligation to undertake such updates to reflect physical changes resulting from climate change-related sea level rise. This conclusion is supported by the ICJ in said advisory opinion. Mr. Chair, the Nordic countries agree that an interpretation of the Convention which allows for the preservation of baselines, the outer limits of maritime zones, and associated entitlements can indeed contribute to the preservation of legal stability, certainty, and predictability. We further agree with the Study Group's conclusion that their preservation is consistent with the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources. While the Convention does not set out a positive obligation for States to update their duly established baselines in the context of physical changes resulting from climate change, this is without prejudice to the principle that baselines correspond to a geographical reality of the natural environment. The formation of new territory as a result of natural phenomena such as underwater volcanic eruptions or post-glacial rebound, can change baselines and the outer limits of maritime zones. To be clear, this does not of course apply to human-made changes of the natural environment, as this would be inconsistent with the Convention. The ILC and the ICJ have contributed to informing how the applicable UNCLOS provisions are to be interpreted to respond to to the urgent need and circumstances caused by sea level rise. As expressed one year ago by the Study Group, it is not sufficient to address these threats through creative interpretation of foundational legal instruments. We believe that the advances now made constitute major contributions to legal clarity and certainty, which is what states affected by sea level Arise deserve. The Nordic countries stand ready to participate in any efforts that may contribute further to this end, for instance, through the drafting of an interpretive statement as suggested by the study group. Regarding statehood, the Nordic countries underscore and affirm the strong presumption in favor of continued statehood, the preservation of sovereignty, and the maintenance of membership of the United Nations and other international organizations in the face of sea level rise caused by climate change. In the words of the ICJ, "In the event of the complete loss of a state's territory and the displacement of its population, a strong presumption in favor of continued statehood should apply." In the view of the court, once a state is established, the disappearance of one of its —constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood. Statehood correlates to the inalienable rights of the peoples that constitute it, including their right to self-determination, the human rights of every person, and the rights of indigenous peoples. We would highlight the importance of avoiding situations of loss of nationality and statelessness. The Nordic countries stress that fundamental principles of international law, such as sovereign equality of states and the right of peoples to self-determination, are recognized as customary international law and should not be undermined by responses to climate change-related sea level rise. Mr. Chair, regarding the protection of persons affected by sea level rise, the Nordic countries observe that the actions required will vary based on the different needs and circumstances of each state and community. The study group highlights that in the absence of a dedicated legal framework, there is a need to develop legal and practical solutions to better protect persons affected by sea level rise, including those who remain in situ and those who are internally and externally displaced as a result. The Nordic countries recognize the need for further work on this issue. While it may be— prove difficult to address all situations through a comprehensive legal framework, the rights and obligations set out in existing provisions of international law provide a foundation for ensuring the protection of affected persons. A catalogue is provided in the final report of the study group. In this regard. The Nordic countries note the usefulness of non-legally binding documents, such as the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, that can inform states' discussion regarding the way forward. Such documents may provide useful guidance to processes that may lead to tailor-made responses at regional and local levels. Mr. Chair, to conclude this section, the Nordic countries support further work of states and the General Assembly building on the findings made by the, uh, by the ILC under this topic, as well as those of the ICJ. We look forward to further engaging with colleagues on the matter and reiterate our determination and willingness to engage constructively and as solution-oriented active participants in the struggle against sea level rise. Turning as the final topic to the topic of general principles of law, the Nordic countries wish to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez, for his continued work. We congratulate the Commission for the significant progress made in the consideration of this important topic, and we welcome the fourth report submitted to the ILC. With the accompanying bibliography and comments received from governments. We note that due to time constraints resulting from the shortened session, the Commission was unable to finalize the commentaries and adopt the draft conclusions on the second reading. We understand that this work will be continued at the 77th session and reaffirm our commitment to engage constructively in that process. We also note, following consideration of the fourth report, that the Commission referred the— to the draft conclusions of the Drafting Committee, which provisionally adopted this report in May this year. The Nordic countries referred to the written comments submitted by us to the Commission on— in December 2024. We continue to support the general approach taken by the Special Rapporteur reiterating our view that a cautious approach remains essential, given the sensitivities, implications, and fundamental importance of this topic. We commend the thoroughness of the Special Rapporteur's work and the broad survey of relevant state practice, jurisprudence, and teachings. It is imperative that the Commission's work on this topic remains anchored in solid evidence of the existence and content of this primary source of international law, as recognized in Article 38 of the Statute of the ACJ. Conclusions must be adequately related to the practice and opinion of states and avoid an overreliance on subsidiary means such as judicial decisions and the opinions of individual writers for the determination of law. We also stress the importance of distinguishing clearly and systematically between practice supporting the existence of a general principle or general principles as a source of law and instances where the invocation of the term principle may not be intended or justifiable as a reference to a general principle within the meaning of Article 38 of the Statute of the ICJ. While we recognize that there is no formal hierarchy, hierarchy among the primary sources of international law, we emphasize that in practice, general principles of law play a subsidiary role, primarily as a means of interpretation, filling gaps, and avoiding situations non liquid. The ICJ has only rarely referred explicitly to principles of international law and generally limited to procedural obligations rather than substantive obligations. I thank you for your attention.


6th Committee · Chair [1:54:27]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Sweden, speaking— also speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Slovakia, also speaking on behalf of S3, Austria, Czechia, Slovakia.


Slovakia · S3 [1:54:46]:

Mr.

Chairperson, I'm honoured to speak on behalf of the three states belonging to the Slavkov format: Austria, Czechia, and my own country, Slovakia. We also align ourselves with the statement presented on behalf of the European Union and its its member states. We would like to use this opportunity to make a few general remarks before commenting on the topics covered in Cluster I. The Sławkowski states were very surprised and dismayed by the reduction of the ILC's annual session this year due to the liquidity crisis the UN is facing. The extreme shortening of the meeting time for the Commission hinders the effective work of the Commission. We commend the members of the Commission for having been able to produce, in spite of this lack of time, an important outcome. However, the Commission will no longer be able to adhere to its work plan, and topics that were due to be completed during this quinquennium will have to be carried over into the next one, to be considered by presumably a large number of new Commission members. We very much deplore this effect, which impacts the Commission's efficiency. In our view, it is absolutely necessary to provide for a session length that enables the Commission to return to its practice of dividing the session into two parts, thereby allowing the ILC members and the Secretariat preparations and work in between to ensure an efficient consideration of of the topics on the ILC's agenda. Mr. Chairperson, let me now start with our comments on the first substantial topic of this cluster, sea level rise in relation to international law. The Slavko states have already expressed their interest in the ILC's initiative on the issue in previous statements, and we are grateful to the two co-chairs, Ms. Calval Teles and Mr. Rudas Santolaria for elaborating the final consolidated report. The discussion over the years have revealed the extensive difficulties and the potential for conflicts resulting from the sea level rise. The conclusions of the study group are based on the integrity of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Principles such as equity and justice, international cooperation, and in particular the right to self-determination as the cornerstones of possible solutions. The conclusions reflected in the final report illustrate the manifold challenges posed by this phenomenon. One of these challenges is the fragmented and overly general international legal framework potentially applicable to the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. The importance of this issue is corroborated by the fact that it has already been addressed by several international institutions, including the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice in its recent advisory opinion on the obligation of states in respect of climate change. Although the work of the ILC on this topic has come to an end, Its final report should be seen as a starting point for further discussions in other bodies and fora. The conclusions of the final report already contribute to the objectives of legal stability, legal certainty, and predictability in the interest of the states and individuals concerned. We are convinced that these conclusions offer a solid basis for future work that needs to be taken up. The response to this threat must be comprehensive. International law is part of this response, bearing in mind that this response as a whole should reflect the evolving scientific understanding of the phenomenon and its consequences. Mr. Chair, before commenting on the substance of the work of the Commission on the topic of general principles of law, The Slovak states want to express their disappointment that the Commission didn't have the necessary time to adopt the draft conclusions on second reading due to the reduction of the ILC sessions. This implied that there was no time for preparing and considering the commentaries to the draft conclusions. It also made work for states difficult, as they have to compare the explanations contained in the report with the text of the draft conclusions adopted by the drafting committee contained in a separate document. As a matter of practicality, we would appreciate if the Commission could find a way of integrating also the text of draft conclusions so far adopted only by the drafting committee into the report, e.g., by way of footnotes. This would make the report and its content much easier accessible. The Slovak states commend the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vázquez Bernúdez, for his tireless efforts to steer the topic to a successful end. Allow me, Mr. Jefferson, to turn now to the substance of the draft conclusions. We note that in regard to the draft conclusion 2, the notion of community of nations has been maintained. While appreciating the choice of this terminology as definitely preferable to the outdated reference to civilized nations contained in Article 38, paragraph 1, subparagraph c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, we would like to point out that there are discrepancies in the different language versions of the text. We recommend that Commission align the language versions in a way that captures the attention of the Commission not to to exclude that in addition to states, other actors, in particular international organizations, may participate in the recognition of general principles of law. In regard to draft conclusion 6, we realized that the text has been maintained, and we know that the Commission's discussion continued whether the title of this conclusion should refer to transposability rather than transposition. We do not wish to reopen this debate. However, let me just add that the reason given for the choice of terminology in the statement of the chair of the drafting committee is slightly confusing. Therein, Mr. Ole Isabal states, I quote, that the term transposition was retained to avoid giving the impression that a formal act by states was necessary before applying a principle in the international legal system. He continues by saying that whether a principle determined in accordance with draft Conclusion 5 may be transposed to the international system depends on whether it is capable of serving a regulatory function in the latter. It appears that given this reasoning, the phrase possibility of transposition would in fact far better indicate that there is no formal act by states necessary for transporting a— transposing a principle from national legal system to the international system, which should be clarified expressly in the commentary. Finally, the current title of draft Conclusion 6 is misleading with regard to its content. Not stating whether or not a principle is transposed, it speaks about the possibility of being transposed and applicability of a principle in the international legal system. In this regard, we align ourselves with the concern expressed in paragraph 233 of the report. Mr. Chair, allow me now to move to the most controversial part of the topic of general principles of law, the question of general principles of law formed within the international legal system.. As already mentioned on previous occasions, we remain hesitant and are still not convinced as to existence of this type of general principles. Concerning draft Conclusion 7, we fear that the remaining criterion for the identification of general principles of law formed within the international legal system, the recognition of a principle as intrinsic to the international legal system, may be too vague in order to fully explain how and which principles may fall under this category. We know that many general principles of law which are common to national legal orders are now inherent also to international legal system since they are intrinsic to every legal system. The Commission should offer convincing and possible examples of general principles formed within the international legal system, which we consider crucial for justifying this type of general principles of law and to corroborate this, their existence. Otherwise, it would appear that such principles are rather general rules contained mostly in customary international law and treaties, or only non-legal policy or guiding principles de la deferenda. Regarding draft conclusion 8, we believe that further reflection is necessary concerning the distinction made between decision of international courts and tribunals and those of national courts. The current formulation suggests that only the former are a subsidiary means, whereas the latter only may be taken into account. We suggest that the Commission further examine the text of the draft conclusion in light of the specific role of national courts in the formation of general principles of law and consider combining paragraphs 1 and 2 into one paragraph, taking also into account the consistency with previous and current work of the ILC on similar topics. Concerning the role of teaching— teachings as expressed in draft conclusion 9, we note the discussion that took place in the Commission concerning the difficulty of aligning the text with that currently under consideration in regards to the Commission's topic subsidiary means for the determination of international law. In our view, it is key that the ILC keeps consistency with its previous and related current work in mind as far as suitable. With this specific difficulty in mind, we are of the view that the text referring to the coinciding views of persons with competence in international law from the various legal systems and regions of the world is a satisfactory solution. However, we would prefer to return to the previous wording of may serve as a subsidiary means. Additionally, the commentary to draft conclusion 9 should underline that the quality of the reasoning is the most important criterion with regard to teachings as a means to determine a general principle of law. In regards to draft conclusion 10, describing the functions of general principles of law, We welcome the reversal of the order of subparagraphs 1 and 2. In our view, it is justified to emphasize the contribution of general principles of law to the coherence of the international legal system, as well as the fact that they may themselves in principle provide a basis for substantive rights and obligations. In this context, We also welcome the replacement of primary rights and obligations by the adjective substantive in draft conclusion 10, subparagraph 1. We still acknowledge that the gap-filling function of general principles may, in practice, often be the primary one since they are resorted to only occasionally or exceptionally when other sources, namely treaties or customary international law, are not applicable. In regards to the newly proposed draft Conclusion 12, the Slovak states invite the Commission to provide more information on relevant practice and examples in the commentary. Mr. Chairperson, to conclude my statement, let me briefly express our support for the new topic included in the long-term program of work of the Commission on identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law. We would welcome the Commission taking up work on this topic. However, only when its current program of work so allows. An obligation erga omnes is one that is owed to the international community as a whole, giving all states an interest in its protection and which generates the rights on the part of all states to invoke the responsibility of a state that is in breach of this obligation. Recently, this category of international obligations has received increased attention. States are in their actions more than ever relying on the particular legal effects of such obligations in order to protect universality shared values.. Although the ICJ confirmed the existence of this special kind of obligations some time ago, it only had to deal with it in depth in recent years. In the climate change opinions of both the ITLOS and the ICJ, the impact of the erga omnes commitments was clearly apparent. If the ILC decides to include this topic in its— program of work, it should deal with the norms that give rise to these obligations, to explain their special nature, their relationship with jus cogens and with their treaty counterparts' obligations erga omnes partes. Of special interest would also be their place in general international law, in particular in the system of state responsibility. However, the Slovakos states assume that this This discussion will primarily deal with the formation and identification of and secondary norms relating to erga omnes obligations and will not attempt to establish an exhaustive list of such obligations since it will be difficult, if not even impossible, to achieve such a list. Thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [2:09:52]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Slovakia. For her statement and also speaking on behalf of the S3. The next speaker on my list is the Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone.


Sierra Leone · Permanent Representative [2:10:08]:

Thank you, Chair. Chair, Excellencies, distinguished legal advisers and delegates. Let me join the Chair, members of the Committee to welcome to New York the members of the International Law Commission and legal advisers from capitals in this auspicious week, as we reflect on the primacy of international law amid current stresses on compliance and the risk of its selective application. Chair, on 24 October, we commemorated United Nations Day, and Member States reaffirmed their commitment to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. Central to that recommitment is international law. In this moment of consequence and renewal, it is fitting to acknowledge the General Assembly's subsidiary body established precisely to assist it in, I quote, "to cooperate in the progressive development of international law and its codification," end of quote, and that is the International Law Commission. I therefore thank the Commission for its report A/80/10, and commend the Chair, the Bureau, the Special Rapporteurs, the Study Group co-chairs, and the Secretariat for their dedication during a shortened session, as well as for their commitment to the Commission's mandate. I also congratulate the Chair of the Commission, Professor Martin Špaparinskis, my dear friend, for his election and thank him for introducing the report. The delegation of Sierra Leone aligns its statement with the statement delivered on behalf of the African African Group by the distinguished representative of Cameroon and wishes to make these additional comments in a national capacity. This is certainly the shortened version. The full version has been circulated via a statement. This year, the conclusions reached in the Commission's 76th session bear special significance as it continues to address issues whose impact is keenly felt by all states. Particularly small states and developing economies. The progress made in relation to key topics, together with the Commission's hard work to produce results in an unprecedented shortened session, underscores its continued value and relevance, multilateral engagement in strengthening the rules-based international legal order. Contrary to assertions of a post-international law era and a return to power-based international relations, Sri Lanka reaffirms that international law is resilient and that accountability, like the moral arc of the universe, may be long but it bends towards justice. Accordingly, in this Committee and in the Security Council, we have consistently and resolutely defended the primacy of international law. We therefore welcome the engagement with Judge Esau Sawa Yugi, President of the International Court of Justice, and the Commission. We have the view that the health of the international rule of law depends upon a virtuous interaction between the ILC's codification and progressive development and the International Court of Justice's adjudication, grounded in Article 38 of the ICJ statute, which guides the identification of applicable law and illuminates the place of general principles and subsidiary means. The Commission's current topic on subject matter means for the determination of rules of international law, which will be discussed in the cluster 2, underscores this interface and will assist courts and tribunals in responsibly using jurisprudence, scholarly writings, and expert materials. This symbiosis is reflected institutionally when the ILC expertise transition to the court —an illustration of the bench benefiting from the Commission's deliberate depth. Sustained judicial codification dialogue enriches both the Court's reasoning and the ILC's future output. We saw that symbiosis on display in the Court's findings at paragraphs 355 to 365 in the landmark 23 July 2025 advisory opinion, which Sierra Leone welcomes, drawing on the Commission's work on sea level rise in relation to international law. In this regard, Sierra Leone proudly recognizes the distinguished services, the service of Professor Charles Chai Nwajalo, serving in his second quinquennium and as the ILC Special Rapporteur on subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, a topic that sits at the heart of our court tribunals, and practitioners responsibly ascertain rules of law. Skaalel strongly supports Professor Diallo's candidacy for Judge of the International Court of Justice, with elections to be held concurrently in the General Assembly and the Security Council on 12 November 2025. His record of scholarship and service, including steering the Commission's work on subsidiary means and the Working Group on Methods of Work, will be of great value and asset to the Court. Chair, let me now proceed to address the substantive topics in Cluster I. On sea level rise in relation to international law, we welcome the Commission's adoption of the study group's final report, which represents the culmination of years of considered analysis traversing the law of the sea, statehood, and the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. We pay tribute to each of the co-chairs and members of the study group for their significant contributions and commend them on the results achieved. Overall, while Sierra Leone is of the view that the Commission could have presented more ambitious proposals, such as elements of a framework convention on sea level rise in relation to international law, The general conclusions reached and the proposals for ways forward offers avenues that should now be pursued by member states, regional organizations, the United Nations, and the international community as a whole. We take note of the report's forward-looking and consolidated approach. Despite its shortened period of review, the Study Group has been instrumental in ensuring coherence, predictability, and inclusivity in the evolution of rules governing affected areas. With regards to the Law of the Sea, Sierra Leone strongly endorses the Commission's conclusion that maritime baselines and entitlements, notably Exclusive Economic Zones and continental shelves, once established pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, should remain unaffected by subsequent physical changes to coastlines resulting from climate induced sea level rise. This interpretation affirms that legal stability, sanctity, and predictability must guide the application of the Convention, and that equity and permanent sovereignty over natural resources are central to preserving existing lawful rights. Sir Elion echoes the Commission's view that the preservation of baselines and maritime entitlement is essential to prevent inequitable outcomes, protect the rights and resources of coastal States, and uphold fairness and security within the rules-based international legal order. Sierra Leone also supports the Study Group's finding that, and I quote, "The continued enjoyment of maritime rights by States whose territory may be compromised by sea level rise is supported by the principle of stability of boundaries and by evolving practice." This position reinforces the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources and affirms that the preservation of maritime rights and entitlement is indispensable to economic security and sustainable development of particularly coastal states. It provides necessary safeguards against economic and ecological marginalization and upholds the legitimate rights of states to maintain their resource-based of space and jurisdictional authority in the face of environmental threat. Again, Sierra Leone aligns itself with the Commission's conviction that such preservation is integral to equity, stability, and the enduring balance of rights and responsibilities under international law. Sierra Leone further welcomes the Commission's call for regional and sub-regional organizations, including the African Union, to play an active role in future discussions on the interpretation and consolidation of maritime zones affected by sea level rise. We note the report's recognition of regional initiatives, including those undertaken by the Pacific Island Forum and the Alliance of Small Island States, which have contributed to coherent approaches to the issue and underscored the value of collective action at the regional level. On the subject of statehood, Tselewe affirms that the continuity of state personality should not be called into question solely because of the loss or reduction of habitable territory resulting from processes beyond a state's control. We note the Commission's observation that the disappearance or alteration of territory does not necessarily entail the extinction of a state, and that principles such as recognition, continuity of state personality, and self-determination may contribute to the maintenance of state identity in changed circumstances. Suleiman considers the Study Group's recommendation to apply analogical reasoning and broader interpretative approaches as a constructive basis for preserving legal continuity and international legitimacy in the face of climate-induced transformations. With great support for international precedents including the Montevideo Convention, which constitutes customary international law, and the 2023 Pacific Islands Forum Declaration on the Continuity of Statehood, and note the Commission's suggestion that, and I quote, "in the context of sea level rise, calls for a flexible interpretation of criteria previously considered requisite for statehood." End of quote. Sierra Leone's position is clear. Sovereignty, independence, and international rights of people must remain inviolable, regardless of the physical effects of climate-related phenomena. Now turning to the protection of persons, Sierra Leone is acutely aware of the profound inadequacy of current international legal instruments to address the needs of populations displaced by sea level rise. We note the Commission's observation that there is currently no comprehensive legal framework addressing the protection of persons displaced across borders as a result of sea level rise, and that existing instruments provide only partial coverage. This gap underscores the need for innovative and coordinated legal responses to ensure the dignity and rights of affected populations. Sri Lanka continues to take concrete steps to address the growing threat of sea level rise, which poses an existential challenge to our coastal communities. Similar to other developing countries, our national response remains constrained by limited resources and data gaps. Sri Lanka therefore underscores the need for enhanced international solidarity and financing to enable small coastal states to protect their people economies, and ecosystems for the accelerating impact of sea level rise. We commend the Commission for acknowledging the significant financial and technical challenges faced by affected States in undertaking adaptation and preservation efforts necessitated by sea level rise. We call for the establishment of a dedicated funding mechanism and technical assistance, particularly for African States, to support the construction of both physical and legal safeguards for vulnerable coastal areas and populations. In keeping with the Commission's call for greater clarity and expanded legal protection for persons affected by environmental catastrophe, Sudan supports further progressive development of international law to address displacement caused by sea level rise. We see merit in the possible expansion of existing mechanisms, including the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, to better accommodate climate-induced movement. The instructive precedent established by the Human Rights Committee in Teti Ota v. New Zealand also demonstrates that the adverse effects of climate change may, in certain circumstances, implicate fundamental human rights. Ceylon therefore advocates for a coordinated international approach, one that strengthens the link between climate adaptation human rights, and protection frameworks whilst ensuring that obligations do not impose disproportionate burden on developing and coastal states. Chair, concerning the topic of general principles of law, CELAN welcomes the progress made towards the completion of the second reading of the draft conclusions on general principles of law and looks forward to the completion of the topic during the 77th session and the final recommendations of the Commission. Sierra Leone broadly supports the Commission's approach to the topic, which for the most part retains the formulations of the draft conclusions adopted on first reading, with plans to further develop the commentaries to address concerns raised by some States. The draft conclusions are grounded in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice and affirmed that general principles of law derived from the common features of national legal systems and, where appropriate, from principles intrinsic to the international legal order itself. Unlike customary international law, which emerges from state practice and opinion juris, general principles of law are identified through comparative analysis of domestic legal systems and recognition of shared legal reasoning. Suleiman emphasizes that the representativeness and inclusiveness of all major legal traditions and systems must be safeguarded in the identification of general principles. There is a compelling need to ensure geographical and substantive diversity, as well as the equitable treatment of differing legal philosophies within any framework adopted. Suleiman commends the Commission's inclusive approach to identifying general principles of law and recalls his guidance that, and I quote, "The comparative analysis should include not only geographical regions, but also a variety of economic, social, cultural, and linguistic traditions and legal systems of the world," end of quote. We particularly welcome this effort to ensure balance and representativeness in the identification of general principles, and support continued recognition of African customary law and the legal experiences of at least— of least developed countries as integral to understanding state practice and adherence to shared legal principles. Additionally, my delegation commends the Commission's balanced approach, combining rigor with flexibility, and its intent to refine the commentaries where needed to maintain clarity and relevance. We underline the call for a broad and representative comparative analysis across legal systems,— and support continued methodological clarifications to ensure that the identification and application of general principles remains precise and practicable. We, however, urge the Commission to ensure that any general principles identification are subject to transparent, participatory, and representative process so that developing and small states can contribute meaningfully to the formulation to their formulation and application. We also urge the Commission in offering guidance to states and users of international law to exhaust all efforts to ensure its harmony of treatment of the same subject across overlapping topics, especially those concerning Article 38 of the ICJ statute. Also takes positive note of the opportunities for targeted technical assistance and capacity building in the area of general principles and requests further collaboration between the Commission, the UN Secretariat, and regional organizations to advance understanding and implementation across diverse legal jurisdictions. We thank the Special Rapporteur for his diligence and encourage continued engagement with states, regional bodies, and academic communities to ensure the broad acceptability and practicality of the Commission's recommendations. Chair, returning to other decisions and conclusions, the delegation of Sierra Leone welcomes the inclusion of new topics in the Commission's program of work, notably compensation for damage caused by international wrongful act and due diligence in international law. Further welcoming the appointment of Professor Martin Paparinskis and Dr. Penelope Rydins Special Rapporteurs to advance this work. Sudan looks forward to offer views on framing the scope and outcomes of the work of the Commission on these topics. Sudan welcomes decisions taken regarding the long-term program of work, including the addition of topics on non-intervention, obligation erga omnis, and accountability for crimes against United Nations personnel. My delegation joins others in expressing concern over the unprecedented the unintended reduction of the Commission's 66th session to 5 weeks due to the organization's liquidity crisis. We support the Commission's appeal for the restoration of the 12-week session, the provision of a dedicated budget for it, and the timely translation and circulation of official documents. We welcome the decision to hold the first part of the 77th session in New York, resources permitting, as this will enhance the direct interaction with the Sixth Committee and strengthen dialogue between Member States and the Commission. In conclusion, Chair, CEEU remains committed to constructive engagement with the Sixth Committee in its consideration of the Commission's work. Guided by the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and sovereign equality, we affirm that the progressive development and codification of international law must remain inclusive, just, responsive to emerging global challenges. And with this, I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [2:29:01]:

I thank the Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone for his statement. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Germany.


Germany [2:29:15]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Regarding the first cluster, Germany intends to address the topic of Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law. First of all, Germany would like to warmly congratulate the Study Group on Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law and the three co-chairs, Ms. O'Reilly, Ms. Galvão Teles, and Ms. Arruda Santolaria, on the final consolidated report. Germany would also like to congratulate the Commission on the fact that the International Court of Justice the United Nations has referred approvingly to the Commission's report containing its detailed analysis on the topic of sea level rise in its Advisory Opinion on Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change. Germany attaches great importance to the global fight against the adverse effects of climate change, including sea level rise. In its Climate Foreign Policy Strategy from December 2023, It recognizes climate change as an existential threat, not only but especially to small island developing states. In this regard, Germany has taken proactive measures to facilitate legal discourse and to support its partners, including but not limited to its contributions to the Rising Nations Initiative, as well as its role as founding member and co-chair of the Coalition for Addressing Sea Level Rise and its Existential Threats. In the context of legal engagement on the effects of sea level rise on international law, Germany is pleased to see its findings and efforts reflected in the Commission's final report. Its conclusions regarding the interpretation of existing legal frameworks and the continuity of statehood, as well as of maritime delimitations, to a large extent align with the German standpoint. In particular, Germany is pleased to see that the final report took up Germany's line of reasoning regarding potential recovery possibilities of submerged territory and pointed out Germany's support for the Rising Nations Initiative, which inter alia aims at digitally documenting cultural heritage and designing a blueprint for digital citizenship. Over the course of the past years, Germany has submitted 3 written contributions to the ILC Study Group on Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law, with a particular focus on the delimitation and preservation of baselines and maritime zones, On the continuity of statehood. Germany is of the view that existing legal instruments, in particular the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, must be interpreted in a contemporary manner. In this context, Germany contends that UNCLOS does not impose any obligation on coastal states to regularly review or update update their baselines, delimitation lines, or the outer limits of their maritime zones, provided these have been delineated in accordance with the Convention and their charts and lists of geographical coordinates have duly been published and deposited with the UN Secretary-General. Hence, maritime zones remain stable unless and until the the coastal state voluntarily decides to update them. We welcome that the report, as well as the ICJ in its recent advisory opinion, confirm this contemporary reading of UNCLOS, which is shared by a number of states. On the aspect of statehood, Germany welcomes the Commission's analysis of possible pathways forward in order to tackle the many challenges posed by sea level rise. The Commission rightfully seeks to provide practical guidance from the perspective of international law to those states that are most directly affected by sea level rise. In line with the CCET statement, Germany reaffirms that the UN membership of member states affected by sea level rise is enduring. As the UN membership is tied to statehood pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 of the UN Charter, it is essential to uphold the statehood of the affected states. Thus, Germany contends that the submergence or uninhabitability of land territory cannot automatically lead to a loss of state territory and thus statehood. Germany is of the view that in the context of sea level rise, the presumption of continuity is consistent with relevant rights and principles of international law, including the right to self-determination, stability in international relations, equity and fairness, maintenance of peace and security, the right of a state to ensure its preservation, and the duty of cooperation. Germany welcomes that the final report identifies these principles in relation to the presumption of continuity of statehood. The findings of the ICJ in its recent advisory opinion that once a state is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood strengthen our common efforts to establish feasible legal solutions regarding the continuity of statehood in the context of sea level rise. Therefore, a range of practical solutions grounded in international law must be explored. Germany concurs with the report's findings that in situations where a state land's territory becomes partially or completely submerged or becomes uninhabitable, one should not rule out the possibility that an affected state could, with support from international cooperation, gain access to potential technological advances that would enable it to restore the territory to its previous condition. Additionally, in Germany's views, and as reiterated by the final report, An effective state would retain its sovereign right to construct artificial installations and structures on its submerged territory land. The population of the affected states would continue to enjoy the right to live in or return to the area within its internationally recognized boundaries, which could even accommodate or one or more organs of its government. The affected state would also retain the right to explore and exploit the living and non-living resources within its territorial sea and the submerged land therein, as well as within adjacent exclusive economic zones and continental shelf. In this spirit, Germany is committed to finding practical solutions in this context, concerning small island developing states. In Germany's view, further questions arise from sea level rise in relation to statehood need to be addressed. Convinced that climate change, sea level rise, and the human rights implications need to stay on the agenda of all relevant international fora, Germany intends to continue to follow recent developments and actively engage in the process. Germany remains resolute in its commitment to exploring all viable legal avenues to facilitate a constructive discourse on this matter. The importance of developing a common understanding to address the future of affected states cannot be overstated. The findings of the final report and the ICJ advisory opinion provide valuable guidance in in addressing the challenges of sea level rise, and in particular on the continuity of statehood. In conclusion, Germany would like to once again congratulate the Commission and the study group on their excellent work in a short time, and on a matter that is of one of the great importance for the international community as a whole. Germany looks forward to further discussion on aspects of these issues. Mr. Chair, finally, I would like to briefly comment on one other decision and conclusions of the Commission as noted under Chapter 12 of this year's report. Germany welcomes the decision to include in the long-term proposal the new topic, identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law. Litigation by third-party states concerning possible breaches of obligations erga omnes have been rapidly increasing before the International Court of Justice. On the other hand, many questions regarding obligations erga omnes remain unsolved since the concept of obligations erga omnes was set out in the Barcelona Traction case before the International Court of Justice for the first time in 1990. 1997. Thank you very much. That concludes my presentation.


6th Committee · Chair [2:39:04]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Germany for her presentation. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Australia.


Australia [2:39:17]:

I thank you, Chair. I'll turn firstly to sea level rise in relation to international law. Australia expresses its gratitude to the Commission for its crucial work on sea level rise in relation to international law. We recognize the profound threats and impacts of sea level rise to the international community, particularly on low-lying states. In our region, climate change is the single greatest threat to the lives, livelihoods, culture, and the security of Pacific communities. We sincerely thank the co-chairs of the Study Group for their significant work and welcome the final report adopted in May 2025. In particular, we welcome the significant progress on the relationship between sea level rise and maritime zones, statehood, and the protection of persons, as outlined in the report. Australia acknowledges the leadership of Pacific Island countries on the issue of sea level rise. In this respect, it is encouraging many positions advanced by the Pacific Islands Forum have been useful to the study group's conclusions, including the references in the report to the PIFs' declarations on sea level rise as examples of relevant state practice. In particular, the report concluded there is no provision in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea that imposes an obligation on states to update baselines geographical coordinates or the outer limits of maritime zones once duly deposited with the Secretary-General in accordance with the Convention. And nor is there evidence of widespread state practice to that effect. The report concluded that consequently states are under no obligation to update baselines geographical coordinates, or the outer limits of maritime zones to account for changes as a result of climate change-related sea level rise. We welcome the report's reference to the widespread support amongst states for the 2021 PIF Declaration on preserving maritime zones in the face of climate change-related sea level rise. Australia considers there to be a general state practice with regard to the preservation of baselines and maritime zones notwithstanding sea level rise, as articulated through endorsement of this Declaration. On statehood and the protection of persons, we welcome the final reports consideration of the 2023 PIF Declaration on the Continuity of Statehood and the Protection of Persons, which it acknowledges has received widespread support. This groundbreaking declaration affirms that international law supports a presumption of continuity of statehood and does not contemplate its demise in the context of climate change-related sea level rise. We also welcome the Commission's consideration of the protection of persons in the context of this Declaration. As emphasised in this Declaration, international cooperation is required to protect persons affected by sea level rise. Which involves promoting, protecting, and fulfilling their human rights. We are also proud of the Australia Tuvalu Falepele Union, which is the first agreement of its kind. Like the 2023 PIF Declaration, this agreement recognises the statehood and the sovereignty of Tuvalu will continue notwithstanding the impact of climate change-related sea level rise. Australia is heartened to see these world-leading PIF initiatives were favourably considered by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion on Climate Change. We encourage all states to support the positions expressed in both PIF declarations. We appreciate the study group has offered ways forward to progress its work, including developing mechanisms within the UN to strengthen cooperation on addressing adverse impacts of climate change-related sea level rise. Australia would support avenues for the Sixth Committee to further discuss these options following the General Assembly's high-level meeting on sea level rise in September 2026. We would encourage States to build on the momentum of the significant work undertaken by the Commission. I'll now turn to general principles of law. Australia welcomes the Commission's continued work on general principles of international law and conveys its sincere appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vasquez Bermúdez, for his fourth report. Australia reaffirms the importance of the Commission's consideration of this topic and considers that the Commission's work on this topic will complement the work the Commission has done on other sources of law under Article 38, paragraph 1 of the Statute of the ICJ. Australia welcomes the Commission's further clarification on how to distinguish general principles of law and customary international law. This distinction is vital for maintaining coherence in the identification and application of legal rules and norms. With respect to general principles of law derived from national systems and their transposition to the international legal system, Australia agrees with the Special Rapporteur that the Commentary to Draft Conclusion 6 could usefully provide further clarification on the circumstances in which national principles common to various legal systems are compatible with the international legal system. More generally, we would welcome any inclusion in the commentaries of examples of state practice and decisions of courts and tribunals. Australia reaffirms its commitment to the rule of law and the development of a principled and inclusive international legal framework. We look forward to continued engagement with the Commission and member states to ensure that general principles of law are considered, and applied in a manner that respects state sovereignty and promotes the stability and fairness of the international legal system. I will now turn to Chapter 7, Other Decisions and Conclusions, contained in the Commission's latest report. Australia supports the Commission's decision to include the topics compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts Due Diligence in International Law in its program of work. Australia also welcomes the appointment of Special Rapporteurs Professor Martens Paparinkas and Dr. Penelope Ridings for these topics respectively. The Commission's consideration of these topics is timely and Australia looks forward to constructively engaging with with the work of the Commission on these topics in future sessions. Finally, Chair, we wish to commend the Commission for its extensive work on the codification and progressive development of international law to date. As a consequence of the ongoing liquidity crisis facing the United Nations, the annual session of the Commission was reduced— to 5 weeks in this year, with clear impacts on its ability to progress its work. In the context of deep cuts to the UN system and the ongoing liquidity crisis, Australia encourages the Secretariat to streamline processes and create efficiencies in ways that enhance the Commission's ability to undertake its critical work to strengthen the rules-based system. Australia acknowledges the Commission's continuing and invaluable contribution to international cooperation, the strengthening of national legal capabilities, and the pursuit of a world where differences and disputes are settled through institutions and agreed rules and norms, and not by power and size. I thank you, Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [2:49:05]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Australia for his, uh, for his statement. Uh, I have 5 minutes left. If we can do the statement in 5 minutes for our next speaker, I'll gladly give him the floor. I got a nod. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Slovenia, and I thank him for his flexibility.


Slovenia [2:49:30]:

Thank you, Chair. I will try to be short. And as I'm taking the floor for the first time, I would also like to congratulate you for being the Chair of the Sixth Committee and assure you my delegation's full support. I would also like to express Slovenia's alignment with the views presented by the European Union on the issues at hand. Slovenia remains fully committed to supporting the essential work of the International Law Commission in the progressive development and the codification of international law. In reviewing the report on the work of its 76th session, we must immediately note with deep disappointment the consequences of the shortened working period. The originally planned 12-week session was reduced to a single 5-week period, which the Commission described as unfortunate and unprecedented. This reduction significantly affected the Commission's schedule, resulting in the postponement of the conclusion of the critical topics planned for second reading, such as General Principles of Law and Immunity of States Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction. We call on the General Assembly and responsible bodies to ensure sufficient resources to sustain the Commission's to do its future work without hindrance, allowing it to fulfil its mandate under Article 13 of the Charter. Furthermore, Slovenia welcomes the appointment of Mr. Martin Špirinskis and Ms. Penelope Readings as Special Reporters for the newly included topics Compensation of the Damage Caused by Internationally Wrongful Acts and Due Diligence in International Law, respectively. Chair, I have the honor to address the Sixth Committee regarding the work of the International Law Commission on Chapter 4, Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law, and Chapter 6, General Principles of Law. Slovenia welcomes the finalization of the work of the Open-Ended Study Group on Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law, as reflected in Chapter 4 of the report of the ILC on the work of its 76th session. The final report of the Study Group contained in Annex I of the Commission's report is an important milestone providing guidance for States facing this existential challenge. As previously stated, this issue is of profound importance to the international community, particularly for low-lying coastal States are hypallagic States and Small Island Developing States. Slovenia reaffirms its support for the continuity of statehood and the preservation of international legal personality for States whose land territory is threatened by sea-level rise, a principle as reaffirmed by the ICJ in its Advisory Opinion in Obligation of States in Respect of Climate Change. The study group confirmed that legal stability, certainty, and predictability are fundamental cross-cutting principles, noting that the preservation of existing lawful rights in relation to sea level rise is essential for the continuity of statehood, the preservation of maritime entitlements, and the protection of affected persons. Chair, we support the conclusion that the existing legal framework, especially the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, should be interpreted and applied in a manner that ensures such stability. Specifically, the report's conclusion that UNCLOS imposes no obligation on states to update their coastal baselines on the outer limits of maritime zones to account for changes resulting from sea sea level rise is crucial for maintaining legal certainty. Finally, Slovenia strongly endorses the Study Group's conclusions regarding the protection of affected persons. We agree that respect for human dignity should be a guiding principle and that practical tools such as special climate mobility agreements and measures to prevent statelessness should be explored. We reiterate the duty to cooperate, as well as equity and solidarity, are essential for assisting affected States in preserving their territories and protecting their peoples, and recall the ICJ's finding that a duty to cooperate assumes particular significance in the context of sea level rise, requiring States to achieve equitable solutions. Chair, moving on the important work of the International Law Commission on the topic of general principles of law, Slovenia would like to thank Special Rapporteur Marcelo Vasquez Bermúdez for his insightful fourth report and the progress made during this session. While significant progress was made in bringing this theoretically demanding subject closer to final adoption, The unexpected shortening of the session meant that the second reading could not be concluded. Specifically, the adoption of the draft conclusions and their commentaries has been postponed to the 77th session. This regrettable delay highlights the negative impact of the current recourse limitations to vital codification work of the ILC. Chair, Slovenia continues to advocate for clarity and rigor in the methodology for identifying general principles of law. This involves a careful study of the distinction between the two proposed categories—principles derived from national legal systems and principles potentially formed within the international legal system. It is crucial that the methodology for identifying the second category is precise enough to avoid confusion with customary international law, thereby preserving the integrity of legal sources. This is— rigorous differentiation is essential to avoid the conflation of general principles of law with customary international law. Chair, we reaffirm the position set out in the draft conclusions that general principles of law are not in hierarchical relationship with treaties and customary international law. This stance accurately reflects the fact that general principles of law have equal status as a source of international law. Furthermore, we welcome the recognition of principles with a limited scope of application. This judicious endorsement, particularly of draft conclusion 12, demonstrates an approach that seeks to better accommodate the complex and evolving nature of the international legal system. I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [2:56:36]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Slovenia for his statement and again for his flexibility, and I also want to thank the interpreters for giving us a few more minutes. And I'll finalize this meeting with some announcements. We will continue the debate on the first cluster of chapters tomorrow morning at 10 AM. Just for your information, I have inscribed at least 74 speakers for tomorrow. I wish to remind the Sixth Committee also that this afternoon the legal advisers will have their customary meeting in this room commencing at 3 PM. Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.