Sixth Committee, 27th plenary meeting - General Assembly, 80th session

I call to order the 27th meeting of the Sixth Committee for the 80th Session of the General Assembly. Distinguished delegates, we will now continue our debate on the first cluster of topics concerning Agenda Item 80, Report of the Law Commission on the Work of its 76th Session. The report of the Commission on the Work of its 76th Session was introduced by the Chair of the International Law Commission yesterday, and the report is contained in Document A/80/10, which is available online. Before giving the floor to the first speaker on my list, I just wish to make a short announcement and in a way also an appeal. For this morning, for this cluster, we have 84 speakers on my list. And we have a very tight deadline to reach. So I wish to recall the recommendation of the Bureau that while there are no time limits per se to interventions on the ILC report, I would like to strongly encourage delegations to be as succinct as possible in their statements and where possible make an abridged version of their statement and recall that full statements may be posted as e-statements or on the website of the Sixth Committee. I'm making this announcement simply so that we could, number one, take into account the time constraints we now face in all our meetings. Second, we have to keep to our schedule. In other words, we have to conclude our debate by tomorrow morning on Cluster 1 and proceed to debate on Cluster 2 on Thursday and Friday. And also, we have to allow all delegations to be able to speak in good time. And I think we can do this if we can keep all of these points in mind when we deliver our statements. So with that said, I give the floor to the first speaker on my list, the delegation of Palau on behalf of AOSIS.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

We will actually deliver tomorrow when our ambassador arrives.

Thank you.

Okay, noted. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Solomon Islands speaking on behalf of the Pacific Island Forum Group.

Chair, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum members with presence in New York. This statement will address the topic of sea level rise in relation to international law with particular focus on the final report of the Commission's study group on the topic. For years, the Pacific Island countries have stressed the serious and irreversible threats and adverse impacts of climate change-related sea level rise will disproportionately imperil lives, livelihoods, food security, ecosystem, and well-being of our Pacific peoples. Today we do so again, but with a sense of optimism. We commend the International Law Commission Study Group on Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law for their dedication and commitment in preparing a comprehensive and consolidated final report reflecting serious and thoughtful deliberations over the past 7 years. The Commission's unanimous support of this report speaks to the importance of this work and the contributions it will provide to to the international community to collectively understand and address the complex questions posed by climate change-related sea level rise within the framework of international law. The final report presented by the Commission is timely, brings clarity, and reinforces some of our longstanding positions on the issue of climate change-related sea level rise, which we— which our PIF leaders have advocated for. Our group has actively engaged in international legal processes that address the relationship between climate change-related sea level rise and international law. Over the past year, significant progress has been made in clarifying and reinforcing principles that underpin the Pacific region's longstanding positions. Chair, we welcome the final report's articulation of the widespread support for preservation of baselines and outer limits of maritime zones, notwithstanding climate change-related sea level rise. This has been our longstanding position, which has been set out in the 2021 Pacific Islands Forum Declaration on Preserving Maritime Boundaries in the Face of Climate Change-Related Sea Level Rise. Moreover, the preservation of maritime zones referenced in the PIF 2021 Declaration, contributes to a just international response to climate change-related sea level rise and underscores that the legal rights and entitlements that flow from such maritime zones shall continue to apply with reduction, notwithstanding any physical changes connected to climate change-related sea level rise. This approach is essential to maintaining legal stability certainty and predictability in the context of climate change-related sea level rise. On the continuity of statehood, we welcome the final report's comments regarding the strong support among States for the continuity of statehood, sovereignty and international legal personality, including the maintenance of membership in international organizations for States particularly affected by climate change-related sea level rise. This recognition is essential to ensuring the continued participation and equality of all States within the international community. This has been the cornerstone of our group's advocacy in this front. We welcome recognition in the final report of the 2023 Pacific Islands Forum Declaration on the continuity of statehood and protection of persons in the face of climate change-related sea level rise. Furthermore, we welcome widespread support for this Declaration and other states and regional organizations, reflecting a growing international consensus to safeguard sovereignty, statehood in the face of climate change-related sea level rise. Furthermore, the final report affirms that the continuity of statehood in the context of climate change-related sea level rise is essential to prevent loss of nationality, the risk of statelessness, and correlates with the right to self-determination of peoples, including indigenous peoples, as these people cannot be deprived of the continuity of statehood without their consent. Chair, peoples and communities in the Pacific have and continue to struggle with the realities of climate change-related sea level rise. Our homes, land, cultural sites, and communities are being swallowed by rising waters. Protection of persons in this context is not an abstract issue. It's, it's survival. It's one of survival, duty, responsibility that the global community must take seriously. In this regard, we welcome the clarity the final report provided on protection of persons affected by sea level rise. The final report reaffirmed that persons affected by sea level rise remain rights holders and States have the duty to respect, protect, and fulfill their human rights obligations, and noted that human dignity is a guiding principle for any action to be taken in the context of climate change-related sea level rise. These comments are within— are consistent, rather, with our PIF 2023 Declaration, whereby PIF leaders declared individually and collectively, PIF members bear an important responsibility for ensuring protection of our people and are committed to protecting such persons affected by climate change sea level rise. Furthermore, we note comments in the final report about the need for international cooperation to protect persons and communities affected by sea level rise in areas such as protection of culture, cultural heritage, and identity. We underscore the final, the final report's comments that states particularly affected by climate climate change-related sea level rise are entitled to take the measures available to them under international law, including adaptation measures to respond to the different levels of submergence of land surface or challenges to habitability, while continuing to uphold their international obligations. Chair, the Pacific Islands Forum reiterates its unwavering commitment to advancing international cooperation and solidarity in addressing legal and human dimensions of climate change-related sea level rise. Our leaders in 2024 called for greater attention to this issue at the United Nations, including its inclusion in the General Assembly agenda. We look forward to the High-Level Meeting on Sea Level Rise to be held in 2026, and I— and believe that the final report will augment our position on this issue, complemented by the recent ICJ advisory opinion on climate change and the ITLOS advisory opinion. We maintain our call for the international community to continue to engage constructively and to support efforts that preserve rights, sovereignty, and dignity of all Pacific peoples in full accordance with international law and the principles of equity, justice, and common humanity. I thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Solomon Islands for her statement and also speaking on behalf of the Pacific Island Forum group. I give the floor now to the distinguished representative of the United States of America.

Thank you, sir. It is my honor to represent the United States. And deliver our remarks on Agenda Item 80. Our thanks to the ILC's Chairman, Mr. Martin Paparinskas, for his dedication and service. As a threshold matter, the United States considers States both the authors and the subjects of international law. Therefore, States' customs and practice should be paramount. I will touch on three general areas in my remarks today: the final report on sea level rise, the general principles of law topic, and other decisions and conclusions of the Commission. First, the United States agrees that any solution relating to sea level rise must be consistent with customary state practice and treaty law. We appreciate the efforts of the ILC and study group to identify an approach grounded in the text of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. The United States will work with other countries toward the goal of lawfully establishing and maintaining baselines and maritime zone limits, and will not challenge such baselines and maritime zone limits that are not subsequently updated despite sea level rise. We urge other countries to do the same. With respect to statehood, we believe it would have been better to allow states to develop the law on this issue, rather than to pursue policy preferences with legal findings. Turning now to the second topic, general principles of law. The United States takes note of the Drafting Committee's provisional adoption of draft conclusions 1 through 12 on second reading. The United States generally supported the Commission's efforts on this topic, one that the Special Rapporteur noted merits comprehensive and careful treatment. Nevertheless, we would like to reiterate a few of our outstanding concerns. First, we support those members of the Commission who feel that the, quote, "final outcome should reflect state consent as a cornerstone of international law," and be firmly anchored in state practice. Close quote. State consent to the formation and recognition of general principles must be on par with the consent required with respect to treaties and customary international law, in our opinion. With respect to specific conclusions, the United States has suggested deleting paragraph B in draft conclusion 3, on the second category of general principles for two reasons. First, because there is insufficient state practice to support the supposed second category. Second, because we agree with the concerns raised by former members of the Commission that this category risks undermining customary international law and becoming a source of custom light for so-called principles that do not meet the rigorous standards to establish them as rules of customary international law. If the Commission nonetheless retains this second category, we believe it is critical that the Commission make it clear that it is a proposal for progressive development of the law and clarify the methodology for its identification. We will address this in more detail with respect to Draft Conclusion 7. On draft conclusion 6, we remain concerned with the assertion that a general principle may be deemed transposed to the international legal system if it is, quote, compatible, close quote, with it. We continue to share the views of ILC members that this test appears to lack a clear requirement that such compatibility is recognized by states. The United States' proposed alternative wording to draft conclusion C 6, rather, to make this clear. But it urges the Commission to, at the very least, consider addressing this issue in the commentaries. Moving on to draft conclusion 7, concerning identification of general principles of law formed within the international legal system. Beyond our concern about the lack of sufficient evidence for this second category, we remain concerned about the methodology for ascertaining it. The present test requires a showing that a general principle is intrinsic to the international legal system, with intrinsic defined in the commentary to mean that a principle is, quote, specific to the international legal system and reflects and regulates its basic features, close quote. As noted in our written comments, this test is too vague, and the examples given of general principles in this category arguably find their genesis in domestic law, or in treaties or customary rules. We note these views found resonance with members of the Commission as well. While the United States suggested deleting Draft Conclusion 7, we note the decision of the Drafting Committee to retain it. We urge the Commission to at least address the broadly expressed concerns in the commentaries, including by narrowing the list of examples to exclude those that may be derived from other sources of law, and including more objective elements defining a clearer and more circumscribed methodology for identifying general principles of law in this second category. Any methodology developed must be sufficiently clear and rigorous to ascertain state consent to any resulting general principle. We note the decision of the Drafting Committee not to include— a more developed methodology for the identification of these principles in the draft conclusion itself, but to elaborate on the methodology in the commentaries. We were disappointed that the Commission was unable to debate those commentaries this year so that states could reflect on them in conjunction with the draft conclusions. It is important, in our view, that states have a meaningful opportunity to do so before the draft conclusions are are finalized. Finally, on draft conclusion 7, we applaud the decision of the drafting committee to delete paragraph 2, a without prejudice clause envisioning the possible existence of other general principles of law formed within the international legal system. At the same time, we gather this issue is to be addressed in the commentaries and would caution the Commission not to leave the door open— to an even more novel and less substantiated source of law, also supposedly binding on states. With respect to Draft Conclusion 10, on the functions of general principles of law, the United States respectfully disagrees with the reordering of paragraphs 1 and 2 by the Drafting Committee and echoes the concerns expressed by Commission members, who noted that this reordering places less importance on one of the main functions of general principles— their gap-filling role by moving it into the second paragraph. We are concerned that this change of emphasis exacerbates the challenges arising from the lack of clear differentiation in the draft conclusions between general principles of law and rules of customary international law. Conversely, we remain unconvinced that new paragraph 1 sufficiently addresses the functions of general principles of law. For example, We are not certain that general principles of law function to contribute to the international legal system, or at any rate, any more so than other sources of international law. We will be interested to see how the revised commentary addresses the concerns expressed by states and members of the Commission in this regard. Turning now to draft conclusion 11, paragraph 2, we note the debate among members as to whether and how whether and how a general principle of law can exist in parallel with a rule of customary international law, and whether and how, once a general principle of law becomes a customary norm, it continues as a separate source of law. This relates to the concern the United States expressed in its comments that there should be an obvious logical presumption against a conflict with a treaty or customary international law. While we appreciate the recommendations to address these conceptual difficulties further in the commentaries, we would suggest they be squarely addressed in the draft conclusions. Finally, on this topic, we refer to the debate among members on whether to include the concept of perset— persistent objector in the draft conclusions as we suggested. We note that some members of the Commission acknowledged that it was hard to understand how If a state could object to the formation of a customary rule, the state could not also object to a general principle of law with the same content. The United States repeats our suggestion that this concept must apply to the identification of general principles of law, and we urge the Commission— we urge the Commission to reconsider this proposal or address the potential application of the persistent objector rule in the common area. I would like to turn now to the third and final topic, other decisions and conclusions. Here I'd like to touch on two issues: working methods of the Commission and topics on the current and long-term progress of work. First, the United States repeats our call to the Commission to clearly identify in its work products when it is codifying international law and when it is making proposals for the progressive development of the law. We continue to see this as a critical task, especially given the lack of consensus among States and members on significant issues within the current topics. We have been disappointed that the Commission has declined to address States' legitimate concerns and achieve greater consensus on these issues. This is a point that will be further emphasized by the United States in Cluster 2 on the topic of immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Given the propensity of national and international courts and tribunals, scholars, and others to cite even draft products of the ILC or reports by special rapporteurs as authoritative, we believe the Commission could do better to protect its legacy through rigor and transparency when it is proposing progressive developments in the law. Second, on the current and long-term program of work, I'd like to congratulate our ILC Chair and Penelope Ridings on their appointments, respectively, as Special Rapporteurs for the topics Compensation for the Damages Caused by Internationally Wrongful Acts and Due Diligence in International Law. The United States is very interested in the compensation topic, and although due diligence is the standard of conduct applicable to certain primary obligations under international law, The United States does not believe there is currently sufficient support for a claim that there is a general obligation of due diligence that applies to a state con— state's conduct outside of those specific primary obligations. We note other states have expressed similar views. Finally, regarding the new topic on non-intervention, we strongly believe that it would be better to allow states rather than the Commission to continue to develop and clarify their views and practice. Chair, thank you for your attention.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United States for his statement. I call on the distinguished representative of Mexico.

Muchas gracias, señor Presidente.

Thank you very much, Chairman, and a very good morning to you and to all of our colleagues. Chairman, Mexico recognizes the work of the International Law Commission in the progressive development and codification of international law, particularly currently where clarity and the certainty of the global legal regime enable us to act with determination. With this framework, let us move to the first thematic cluster, and we wish to underscore the following points. As for Chapter 4, Mexico congratulates the ILC for concluding its review on sea level rise in relation to international law and recognizes the valuable work of the study group co-chaired by Ms. Patricia Galvão Telles and Nilufar Oral, and Mr. Juan José Ruda Santolaria. The recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of states in respect of climate change is a concrete example of how the studies of the ILC, in this case in relation to rising sea levels, inform and feed the legal reasoning of the court, consolidating institutional dialogue that strengthens the international rule of law. The final report presented this year is a meaningful contribution to help understand the legal implications of rising sea levels, which is a phenomenon, a global phenomenon, that disproportionately affects coastal states, low-altitude states, small island developing states, and archipelago states. Its main value lies in the fact that the ILC proposes legal responses within the framework of existing international law, in particular UNCLOS, reaffirming its comprehensive and almost universal nature as a basis for upholding the stability of the legal regime of the oceans. Mexico stands in solidarity with those countries that face the most significant risks to their sovereignty, their territorial integrity, and human security due to rising sea levels. In the three areas considered by the ILC, the law of the sea, statehood, and the protection of the persons affected, the Commission underscores the importance of preserving the legal stability, predictability, and certainty, as well as ensuring the continuity of the existing rights of states pursuant to international law in force. Mexico underscores that thanks to the work of the ILC, broad convergence has been able to be identified between states around UNCLOS, and in particular, that this does not impose any obligation to update the baselines or the maritime limits once these have been duly established in line with said treaty. This interpretation was reaffirmed by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion of the 23rd of July, 2025, stating that the states parties to the UNCLOS have no obligation to to update the charts or lists of geographic coordinates to account for physical changes due to sea level rise. Mexico agrees with the ILC and with the court insofar as the fact that this interpretation strengthens the stability of the legal regime of the oceans, that it protects the legitimately acquired sovereign rights and contributes to avoiding causing uncertainty or territorial disputes. What's more, the court reaffirmed that the physical disappearance of one of the constitutive elements of a state does not necessarily imply the loss of its statehood. This strengthens the legal position of small island states who face existential threats. In terms of statehood, the ILC's approach, focused on the continuity of international legal personality, self-determination of peoples, and territorial integrity, provides a solid legal basis for protecting the existence and the rights of the states affected. This approach responds to a demand for equity and justice, recognizing that those who suffer the worst consequences of sea level rise are not the ones responsible for its causes. Mexico also shares the priority allocated to the protection of the persons affected. The international community has a duty to ensure the respect of the human rights of the populations displaced, to preserve their dignity, and to facilitate international cooperation mechanisms to provide assistance to them, resettlement, and adaptation. In this regard, the advisory opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the climate emergency and human rights complements the work of the ILC since it highlights the obligations of states to protect the most vulnerable persons and communities from the effects of climate change, including rising sea levels. Both, both developments are mutually reinforcing and highlights the need for coherent legal responses that are focused on cooperation and on human dignity. International cooperation must be guided by the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and the respective capacities, as well as the duty to prevent significant harm to the environment. And the duty to cooperate, both of which are enshrined in customary international law and reaffirmed by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion. In this context, international law remains the best tool for the adaptation and strengthening of multilateral cooperation to ensure stability in international relations in the face of the effects of climate change. The work of the ILC on this issue lays the foundations for an evolutive interpretation of the law of the sea which preserves the rights acquired by states and that promotes equitable and humane solutions for the most vulnerable populations. Mexico will continue to participate actively in multilateral fora that deal with this issue, supporting the developments of international law that ensure stability, legal certainty, and the effective protection of the people and states affected by rising sea levels. Moving on now to Chapter 6. The general principles of law, we reiterate the importance of having clear rules for their identification. When it comes to the 12 draft conclusions included in the fourth report on this issue, we agree with draft conclusions 1 and 2 in relation to the scope of the conclusions and the recognition of the international community required to identify a general principle of law. The distinction between international actors that contributes to said recognition and the differentiated value between states, international organizations, and other actors is timely. As for draft conclusion 3, We share the vision that it is important to maintain the distinction between the two categories of principles: those derived from the comparative analysis of domestic legal systems and those formed in the international law system. In this regard, draft conclusions 4 and 6 on the identification of the principles derived from national systems are timely. Nevertheless, it is worth clarifying in the comments the meaning and the scope of the transposition to the international legal system. Similarly, we believe that it is timely to benefit from objective indicators to establish it, and we invite the ILC to include them. On draft Conclusion 7, it is necessary to address the concerns on the existence of the second category of principles, which in line with what the rapporteur stated in his report, can be addressed through a clear explanation in the comments about the methodologies that distinguish both categories. This with a view to ensuring that its reception is broad, that it's broadly received, and that it can favor its future application. We appreciate the fact that progress made on this issue upholds coherence with the development of others related to the sources of international law, particularly when it comes to the work of the Commission on Auxiliary measures that are reflected in draft conclusions 8 and 9. As for draft conclusions 10 and 11, we agree on the functions listed in the general principles of law and their relationship to treaties and customary international law. The approach reiterates the interaction required between sources of international law as a comprehensive and flexible system. The development of this issue will have a positive and cross-cutting effect on the interpretation and application of international law. Finally, we believe that Draft Conclusion 12 recognizes that international law is a system that is constantly evolving, and that in line with the examples cited by the Special Rapporteur in his fourth report, there could be room for the development of general principles of law with a scope of application that would be different from that addressed under the current topic. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Mexico for his statement. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ireland.

Mr Chairman, as this is the first time taking the floor in the Sixth Committee this year, I would like to express our pleasure in seeing you, Ambassador Manalo, in the chair, and to assure you of Ireland's support for the work of the Bureau. I also wish to express Ireland's My appreciation to the Chair and members of the International Law Commission, as well as to the Secretariat staff for their work during the 76th session. Today, I would like to address the topics of sea level rise in relation to international law and of general principles of law. Before doing so, I wish to acknowledge the financial and other resource challenges faced by the Commission. This year. While the challenges posed by the liquidity crisis apply across this organization, we are all aware that they have had particularly severe consequences for the work of the ILC. Ireland is concerned to ensure that the overall response to the liquidity crisis does not have an undue or disproportionate impact on the work of the ILC or or indeed of OLA. I would also like to welcome the addition of two important new topics to the Commission's programme of work, namely compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts and due diligence in international law, the consideration of which by the Commission is, in our view, very timely. We wish to congratulate Martin Papranskis and Penelope Ridings respectively as Special Rapporteurs for these topics. Mr. Chairman, with regard to sea level rise, Ireland is acutely aware of the importance and urgency of this topic. As we have noted previously, sea level rise raises profound issues that will affect all coastal states, and will have a significant impact on the lives of people living in coastal communities, in particular in small island developing states. Effective responses to the potentially devastating consequences of sea level rise must be developed, and in this connection, we are confident that the study group's final report will make a significant contribution. We thank the members of the group for their work. The report brings into focus the complex and novel inter— issues of international law that arise both in relation to the law of the sea and to statehood and protection of persons. We continue to study the report's conclusions as well as its possible ways forward section, but would like to offer the following preliminary observations. Firstly, as regards the Law of the Sea subtopic, we very much agree on the need to avoid legal uncertainty and fresh disputes over maritime areas that had previously been settled. Ireland's position is that in response to sea level rise, existing lawfully established baselines, limits, and boundaries should be preserved. We agree that the reports We agree with the report's conclusion that 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 this is helpful. However, this conclusion does not address the question of baselines formed by the low water line. There is no obligation or indeed even provision in UNCLOS for the deposit of the details of these with the Secretary-General. An effective solution to the problem of baselines will have to address both types of baseline and not just those formed by straight lines including archipelagic and bay closing lines. As we have said before, in our view, a comprehensive a legal solution is required to ensure that baselines established in accordance with the Convention are to be regarded as permanently settled. Secondly, with regard to the subtopic of statehood, we recall our preliminary assessment last year that principles such as those of self-determination of peoples and of permanent sovereignty over natural resources tend to support the presumption in favour of continuity of statehood. We agree with the report's conclusion that international cooperation will be essential and that such cooperation should be based on respect for the sovereignty of the affected states and considerations of equity and fairness. However, what continuity of statehood actually means in practice and the forms it may take clearly requires further for further consideration and discussion. Ireland looks forward to engaging in that process. On protection of persons, we agree that all states must cooperate and work together to protect to the greatest extent possible the rights of peoples most directly affected by sea level rise. We share the view that the protection of human dignity should apply as an overarching guiding principle in this work. Finally, with regard to the section of the report entitled Possible Ways Forward, we note the suggestions both for developing interpretations of existing instruments and rules of international law and for new instruments and mechanisms specific to climate change-related sea level rise. Ireland looks forward to working with delegations to examine these ideas and to develop comprehensive and effective legal solutions to the very real challenges created by sea level rise. Mr. Chairman, I would like now to make some brief remarks on the topic of general principles of law. Firstly, Ireland wishes to recognize the work of the Special Rapporteur, Ambassador Marcelo Jes Bermúdez on this important topic since 2018, including his fourth and most recent report. We note the progress made at the Commission's session this year, including receipt from the Drafting Committee of a consolidated text of 12 draft conclusions. We also acknowledge the fact that, owing to the limited time available to the Commission at its session this year, consideration and adoption of the draft conclusions on second reading has been deferred until next year's session. On the text of the revised draft conclusions, Ireland continues to have some concerns. We note in particular the retention of the category of general principles of law formed in the international legal system. Ireland remains to be convinced that such a category comes within general principles of law in the sense of Article 38, paragraph 1 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. As my delegation has said on several occasions in the past, in our view Article 38, paragraph 1 is limited to principles derived from national legal systems principles only. In particular, private law principles of municipal jurisprudence insofar as they may be applicable to relations between states. These principles are intended primarily to be applied by international courts and tribunals to fill gaps in customary and conventional law and to prevent non-liquet outcomes in legal proceedings. In that sense, while general principles of law may be autonomous sources of law, in our view they are supplementary to the primary sources of international law, namely custom and treaty. Nor is Ireland convinced by the examples of general principles of law formed within the international legal system to which reference is made in the commentary to Draft Conclusion 7, adopted on first reading. In our practice, we have recognized these simply as general principles of international law inferred or induced from conventional and customary rules of international law. Finally, we note the addition of a new draft conclusion, Draft Conclusion 12, which is described as a "without prejudice" provision. We wonder whether there is a need for this addition, which might, if anything, lead to some confusion. We understand that principles of law with a limited scope of application, by which is understood principles of a limited regional or sub-regional scope, are not to be regarded as general principles principles of law. This seems clear because, according to Draft Conclusion 2, such general principles, in order to exist, must be recognized by the community of nations. What precisely these principles of limited scope are, how they are formed or what standing they have, is not clear and, in our view, reference to them is likely to lead to confusion. On balance, therefore, Ireland believes that Draft Conclusion 12 should not be included in the Commission's final product. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the distinguished representative of Ireland for his statement, and I call on the distinguished representative of Republic of Korea.

Thank you for giving the floor, Mr. Chair. My delegation would like to begin its intervention by expressing its gratitude for the excellent work done by the Commission at its 76th session. We understand that this year's session was drastically shortened to just 5 weeks. Under these highly challenging circumstances, the Commission did its best to carry out its mandate as efficiently as possible. For instance, successfully completing the consideration of the important topic of sea level rise in relation to international law. My delegation would also like to convey its gratitude to the Secretariat of the ILC, whose contribution was essential for this year's ILC session. It is hoped that the circumstances around— surrounding the Commission will improve improve in a speedy manner so that the Commission will be able to effectively carry out its mandate. Regarding the topic of sea level rise in relation to international law, first, my delegation would like to express deep appreciation for the excellent final report of the study group, which successfully concludes the consideration of the topic. With regard to the issue of climate change-related sea level rise, the study group has conducted a broad-ranging and in-depth discussion in a prompt and effective manner. This study group will serve as a template for the Commission's future work in the progressive development of international law and its codification with respect to the topics that require a prompt and comprehensive response. By the international community, such as sea level rise. In connection with the issue of sea level rise, the Republic of Korea fully shares the concern of the international community, in particular low-lying island states, which are confronted with grave challenges posed by climate change. It was in this context that in May 2023, My government expressed its support for the 2021 Declaration on Preserving Maritime Zones in the Face of Climate Change-Related Sea Level Rise adopted by the Pacific Islands Forum. The Korean government's serious commitment to addressing this issue is also demonstrated by its active participation in, among others, Coalition for Addressing Sea Level Rise and Its Existential Threats, and the Rising Nations Initiative. Turning to the final report of the study group, my delegation highly appreciates the study group for bringing together the three subtopics in a cohesive and integrated way by highlighting interlinkages and cross-cutting issues among the three subtopics, such as stability, predictability, and certainty. This final report provides the international community with a solid normative roadmap with which to tackle the issue, which poses a serious global challenge. My delegation welcomes the fact that some conclusions contained in the final report have been endorsed by the international community. For instance, the ICJ specifically referred to the final report of the study group in paragraph 361 of its advisory opinion rendered on July 23rd of this year. It is true that three appears to be— there appears to be some divergence of views among the ICJ judges concerning some conclusions contained in the final report. For instance, the presumption of continuity of statehood in case of sea level rise. In this connection, it should be recalled that my delegation, in its previous statements at this committee, pointed out that study group's work could enhance persuasiveness and acceptance by paying more attention to the distinction between lex lata and lex ferenda, in particular by properly situating the soft law instruments when addressing the topic of sea level rise. It is expected that some of the conclusions of the final report will be developed into international treaties or consolidated into the body of customary international law while other conclusions will continue to be debated as to their status within international law. It is beyond doubt that this landmark report will continue to serve as a source of inspiration and also a solid blueprint for an effective response to the global challenge of climate change-related sea level rise. And regarding the topic of general Principles of Law, my delegation would like to express its gratitude for the excellent work done by Special Rapporteur and the ILC members on this topic. It is regrettable that the adoption of draft conclusions by the Commission had to be postponed to the next session due to the shortage of time. It is hoped that through its work, The Commission will bring greater clarity to this topic, also known as the third source of international law, which is not without a certain degree of ambiguity, as was demonstrated by the discussions with the Commission. Let me first address the central question of the topic, that is, the existence or otherwise of the second category of general principles of law. We will proceed to discuss the ramifications of the existence of general principles of law that may be formed within the international legal system. Then we will make comments on some of the draft conclusions concerning the key question of existence of the second category of general principles of law. It is not surprising that draft conclusions 3B and draft conclusion 7 received the most comments from states. Having carefully considered the Special Rapporteur's fourth report and the discussions held within the Commission, my delegation could be open to recognizing the existence of second category of general principles of law, subject to the following conditions. First, The existence of second category needs to be established by state practice, jurisprudence, and doctrine. Although the Special Rapporteur does not mention doctrine or teachings in his report, it would be worthwhile to further elaborate on this subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law, as is provided for in draft conclusion 9. Secondly, it was frequently pointed out by states and by some members of the ILC that the second category of general principles of law should be more clearly delineated, delineated from the principles of customary international law. Unless the Special Rapporteur provides a lucid and convincing explanation on how these two categories these principles distinguish themselves from or interact with each other, the necessity and legitimacy of the second category will continue to be called in question. Third, my delegation shares the often expressed view that the examples cited as falling under the second category do not appear to correspond to the relevant provisions such as Draft Conclusion 3 and Draft Conclusion 7. My delegation previously raised the question of whether the principle of uti possidetis, which operates in the specific context of colonial independence, could be characterized as a general principle of law intrinsic to the international legal system. Next, we would like to address the ramifications of the existence of the second category for the other draft conclusions. In particular, Draft Conclusion 10 and Draft Conclusion 11, which deal with functions of general principles of law and relationship between general principles of law and treaties and customary international law. Given the substantial differences between the first and second categories in terms of their formative process and function, if the existence of the second category is admitted, then draft conclusion 10 and draft conclusion 11 need to be formulated in a way that reflects these two differences between the two categories. For instance, in terms of function, The first category performs primarily the gap-filling function, while the second category is more geared toward ensuring the coherence of international law itself. However, the current draft Conclusion 10 is formulated in a rather syncretic manner without paying sufficient attention to the differences between the two categories. A similar comment can be made on draft Conclusion 11. Now we would like to offer comments on some draft conclusions. First, concerning draft conclusion 7.1, there is some ambiguity over the phrase "intrinsic to the international legal system." The Commission is invited to shed more light on this important but somewhat nebulous language. Secondly, as regards draft conclusion 7.2, My delegation has reservations about the necessity and substantive clarity of the provision and welcomes the Drafting Committee's decision to delete it. Thirdly, one may wonder whether the newly proposed draft Conclusion 12 providing for general principles of law with a limited scope of application is compatible with the second category, which according to draft Conclusion 7 the community of nations has recognized as intrinsic to the international legal system. One could accept the compatibility of draft Conclusion 12 with the first category. However, the applicability of draft Conclusion 12 to the second category needs to be carefully considered. Hoping that the Commission will continue to make progress on this topic, The Republic of Korea expresses its willingness to fully cooperate with the Commission. And finally, regarding other decisions and conclusions of the Commission, my delegation takes note— take note of inclusion of two new topics, that is, compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts and due diligence in international law. In its program of work. My delegation also extends its congratulations to Marta Špaparinsky and Miss Penelope Writings on their appointment as special rapporteurs and assures them its willingness to work with them on these important topics. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea for her statement. I call on the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Chair of the International Law Commission, Mr. Paparinskis, for introducing the report covering the ILC's work at its 76th session. We're very grateful to him for deftly steering the Commission's work. The Russian Federation has traditionally attached great importance to the Commission's activities and carefully studies its annual outcomes. We've taken note of the fact that the ILC's long-term program of work will now include 3 new topics: the principle of non-intervention in international law, identification and legal consequences of erga omnes obligations in international law, and legal aspects of accountability for crimes committed against UN personnel serving in UN peacekeeping operations, PKOs. We read very carefully the plans for further work on these topics. That's Annexes 2, 3, and 4 to the ILC's report on the work at its 76th session. We'd like to share some brief preliminary comments on these topics. First and foremost, we are compelled to note with regret the fact that the vast bibliography on the principle of non-intervention in international law, in contrast to the two other topics, well, in that bibliography there are no works mentioned by Russian nor Soviet international legal experts. We stand convinced that their work could be very useful for the ILC if this topic were to be included in its programme of work. The idea contained in para 14 of the plan for developing the topic is interesting. The idea being that, that not only states but also international organizations may violate international law by interfering in the internal affairs of states. This reasserts the growing relevance of this topic—responsibility of international organizations. We welcome the fact that the role of unilateral coercive measures have been reflected, especially those of an economic nature. These have been included as one of the ways in which you can interfere in the affairs of states. The Russian Federation is one of the states against which such measures clearly, unequivocally illegal measures have been imposed in the illusory endeavor to affect our sovereign political course, well, we're convinced that this aspect of the topic should be paid particular attention if it is considered by the ILC. Some of the aspects of this topic contained in the plan for developing it further should be addressed with particular care. First, the document contains the following concepts: humanitarian intervention and responsibility to protect. A whole host of states, including the Russian Federation, have a well-known position on these. In the interest of time, I will only remind you that these concepts were, in fact, developed by Western think tanks. Western think tanks with the aim of legitimizing intervention— interference in the internal affairs of states. Second, against the backdrop of mentions of cyberattacks, we'd like to note that on top of them being directly used to interfere in the internal affairs of states, there are other dishonest practices as well. For instance, false allegations about cyberattacks can be used against states to justify the introduction of unilateral restrictive measures. The issue of how to protect honest states from such illicit actions is something that the ILC could also consider. Third, the document mentions the reserved domain of states and its limits as it as Professor Katsas rightly points out, figuring out where the limits lie is something that legal experts alone cannot do. States must play a foremost role in determining what falls within their exclusive domain. Furthermore, the fact that a state enters into an international treaty does not automatically mean that these issues now fall outside and beyond its, uh, its domain. This depends on the specific parameters of the specific international treaties. We support Mr. Minga's assessment according to which this topic is delicate, it's sensitive, and requires a lot of work. Furthermore, it falls within a very serious political context. Therefore, if it were to be further developed in the Commission, we will need to tread very carefully to be very impartial, and to adopt a carefully calibrated approach. The idea that the preferred form for the outcome of the Commission's work on this topic would be draft guidelines is something we're prepared to take note of at this stage. Moving on to the next topic, identification and legal consequences of erga omnes obligations in international law. We agree that in future, considering this topic, could be something in which there is interest. We took note of many references in the plan for developing this topic prepared by Mr. Assad, references to the draft articles on the responsibility of states dated 2001 and the responsibility of international organizations dated 2011. It is asserted that work on urgemessobligations is something that can help develop and broaden the understandings contained in the aforementioned documents. On the whole, we agree with this as this further reasserts the relevance of this topic, that is the responsibility of international organizations. We agree with Mr. Asada on that the development of a list of specific or omnis obligations does not make much sense given that we believe that this list can never be closed. We further agree that what What would be more interesting would be a development of criteria and methodology for determining such norms. We looked at the mention of a case, Ukraine against Russia, under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, dated 1948, uh, International International Court of Justice case in which there was unprecedented mass intervention on the part of Western states as third parties. We believe that this is a clear misuse of the law, a clear attempt to exert pressure on the court to politicize its work, and has nothing to do with erga omnes obligations. We support Mr. Assad's proposal to exclude from consideration of this topic the issue of the potential use of countermeasures by third states if a state does violate its erga omnes obligations. The practice in this sphere is contradictory. As for the law governing countermeasures, it's not clear. Having said that, we don't quite understand why Mr. Assada is proposing to limit our consideration of the topic to state obligations. As he rightly points out in Para 65 of the Plan for Further Work on this topic, erga omnes obligations can be imposed on subjects other than states. For instance, collective security organizations might violate the ban on the use of force, which is an erga omnes obligation. Attempts to exclude this topic for the sake of simplicity and practicality is something that's just not justified. This aspect of this topic is particularly important and once again reasserts just how relevant the issue of the international organization's responsibility is. We have no objections against considering this topic under erga omnes rights— erga omnes law at this stage, yet we will need to modify the title. Draft conclusions on this topic is something that's well-founded, but it is of a fundamental nature. And if the ILC were to adopt a decision to consider it, we would need to ensure that it's worked through in depth and without any haste. Turning now to legal aspects of accountability for crimes committed against UN personnel, serving in UN peacekeeping operations. On the whole, we don't have any objections against including it in the ILC's long-term program. However, we do not exclude that difficulties linked to holding such persons to account for these crimes will arise not only in— less so in the normative sphere, but also and more so in the law enforcement sphere. I also noticed Mr. Patel's proposal that in future we draw on the experience of regional organizations such as the African Union and NATO as we develop the topic. On this note, we call for us to approach this with the utmost care. After all, this topic applies exclusively to UN personnel serving in UN peacekeeping operations. It might be useful to draw on the experience of other associations as well, as for instance the collective security treaty organizations. We took note of the transfer of the following topics: compensation for damage caused by internationally wrongful acts and due diligence in international law. Well, they were transferred from the long-term to the current program of work of the ILC. Furthermore, Mr. Paparinskis and Ms. Ridings were appointed as co-reporters on these topics. Last year in the Sixth Committee, we voiced our preliminary considerations on these two topics, and these comments remain fully relevant. From our point of view, the endeavor to work on progressive development in issues of compensation for damage caused by international wrongful acts, well, we believe that to be premature. We're convinced that at this stage what would be better would be to limit ourselves to the codification of relevant norms on the basis of established practice rather than trying to craft new and viable approaches. We are still unsure whether work on this topic at the ILC will result in tangible practical results. Turning to the second topic, I'd like to remind you that first and foremost we need to determine the legal nature of the very idea of due diligence in international law, which is something that was borrowed from the Anglo-Saxon legal system and is uncharacteristic for the continental legal family. This begs the question: is due diligence an obligation under customary international law? Is it a general principle of law? Is it a behavioural norm? Or does it fall into some other category? Mr. Chairman, we shared the ILC's assessments regarding the negative impact that the reduction from the number of— of the number of sessions from 12 to 5 weeks has had on its work. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that this decision was basically taken automatically by the Secretariat. It was not agreed by states. In other words, it was at odds with paragraph 6 of Section 7 of UNGA Resolution 77/263. We believe that this does not set a precedent going forward. Funding cuts should affect different events equally. Also, states are the only ones who have the right to set priorities when distributing funds. Thus, we cannot but note that under financial crisis conditions here at the UN, the issue of the ILC's overloaded program is becoming more acute. The addition of new topics which we just commented on, only makes the situation worse. It's not fully clear to us how the ILC plans to consider new topics and to catch up on those on which it didn't have fully fledged discussions this year. How does it plan to do that next year without letting quality drop? On this note, we'd like to once again insistently call for the ILC to be guided in its work by the task of crafting high-quality, balanced materials rather than focusing on the speed at which products are issued. Against this backdrop, we support the idea set forth in Para 461 of the ILC's report, that is, the ILC will continue to ground its work in reality and thus will satisfy the needs expressed by states. Mr. Chairman, paragraph 456 of the ILC's report states that it will welcome— that it welcomes calls expressed by the President of the General Assembly to elaborate legally binding instruments on preventing— on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity and on the protection of persons in the event of disasters. We would therefore like to call on the ILC not to forget about its products on which in-depth complicated work was conducted, but which have been gathering dust for a number of years now, which have not been properly embodied in international conventions. For example, I'm referring to the 2011 draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations. The way we see it, this topic is highly relevant. As for the topics the key— the Commission considered at its 76th Session, we'd like to begin by commenting on the issue of sea level rise in relation to international law. We are grateful to the ILC and to all of the co-reporters who prepared thematic documents for discussion throughout the 2021-2025 period: Mr. Arescu, Ms. O'Reill, Ms. Galvão Telles, and Mr. Santillana. Sea level rise is a global phenomenon, although its consequences can manifest themselves in different to different degrees. When considering this topic, we touch upon sensitive issues, hence the need to factor in the positions of all states meticulously. The mandate does not envisage the identification of causal links governing this particular phenomenon, nor does it call for circumscribing such links to solely man-made activities. Detracting from the significance of sea level rise as a natural phenomenon. Previous statements delivered by the Russian Federation on this topic remain relevant. We would now like to submit some comments on the final report of the study group of the ILC. That's Chapter 4 of the ILC— of the ILC's report on its work at the 76th session. This covers a vast number of legal aspects. However, in a number of cases, states' approaches differ. As regards Law of the Sea, we stand in solidarity with those who are in favor of maintaining the integrity of the convention. The convention's norms should be interpreted together with other treaty norms and the norms of customary law, which have priority over subsidiary and optional instruments. We cannot support excluding from our discussions the principle of land dominates the sea. This is a customary law norm. It's important to understand that rights stem not from the land as such, but rather from the sovereignty exercised by a given state over its territory, which includes its coastline. As a general rule, the 19— as a general rule, what the 1982 Convention deems a general rule is normal baselines and, under some specific conditions, straight baselines. The states often combine both methods. The convention does not contain any normative deadlines after which its participants are compelled to revise normal and straight baselines. Despite the constant and inevitable change in the configuration of coastlines due to various reasons, the practice of regularly revising baselines is not something that is part and parcel of state practice. Despite this, it's difficult to agree with the idea that there are no obligations in this respect in the Convention, given that there are criteria in the Convention in Articles 5 to 7 and 10, as well as the principle of in good faith compliance with international treaties. As for the possibility of maintaining baselines and the outer limits of marine zones, at this stage, there is no such norm in customary extramarine law. The reasons lie in the fact that such practice has not been recognized as a legal norm, opinio iuris, and the inadequacy of the practice itself. As the rationale for potentially maintaining baselines and the limits of marine zones, the Study Group refers to the principle of legal stability and certainty. The Russian Federation believes that the established interpretation of the aforementioned principles in this context means clarity and the unchanging nature of the mechanisms used to determine the limits of marine zones on the basis of uniform application of legal norms. The Study Group proposes interpreting— that this interpretation could be an example of the progressive development of international law being used to seek a practically acceptable decision, of course, on the understanding that it would apply not only to sea level rise but also to other natural phenomena so as to preserve marine zones. Regarding the issue of statehood, we should be basing ourselves on the sovereignty of— on the sovereign equality of all states and their right to maintain their existence. What's important here is the principle of international cooperation, especially when establishing sui generis regimes for maintaining fully fledged statehood of the affected states. We agree that it's necessary to develop new legal and practical decisions to better protect persons affected by sea level rise, both persons who remain in place, in situ, and displaced persons. However, what's of paramount importance here is the protection of human dignity. In Section 5 of the final report of the study group, there are the next steps which are listed. It rightfully points out, this report, that it's possible to agree an interpretation of existing instruments, first and foremost the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, we believe that such an interpretation would only apply to states which support it. In the absence of applicable international legal rules, what's relevant is developing either compulsory or recommendatory norms by competent organizations, first and foremost to protect persons. At the same time, the choice of forum must be made with due regard for the mandate and the task at hand. Mr. Chairman, we'd like to thank Mr. Vasquez Bermúdez for preparing the fourth report on the topic of the general principles of law. We also thank the Drafting Committee for provisionally adopting the draft conclusions, 12 of them. At the same time, without any commentary thereon, it's difficult to assess the outcome of the Commission's work on this topic, which is important, but as it turns out, very difficult to codify. General principles of law, or GPL, are interpreted in the doctrine on the basis of— in court decisions and in state practice in very different ways. For example, in Russian doctrine, we see 3 schools of thought. According to some specialists, GPL— GPL are generally recognized principles of international law, while others assert that these are principles common to international law and national legal systems. There's also a third group which believes that these are principles of domestic law of some states. The Special Rapporteur and the ILC Secretariat studied materials which demonstrated the same breadth of opinion among foreign experts. What's more is the ILC's work prompted lively discussion among experts, although the comments of these experts were often contradictory. Therefore, we continue to believe that draft conclusions would benefit greatly if they were to include a definition of GPL and clarification of how this term relates to, for example, fundamentally and generally recognized principles of international law. I would like to repeat the obvious: not everything that's called a principle in international law should be viewed as a general principle of law in the meaning given to it by Article 38 of the ICJ statute. We hope that these terminological aspects of the topic will be meticulously clarified in the comments to the draft conclusions. Differences remain on a number of other key issues, including the following: Are general principles of law an autonomous source of international law? Can these principles be formed within the framework of the international legal system? Can they coexist with treaty norms and norms of customary international law which are similar in substance? What is the methodology for determining them and how do they relate to other sources? The ILC has done work in good faith to come up with answers to these questions, but we're not convinced that they managed to complete this task. Some of the draft conclusions, in our view, are contentious and do not reflect existing international law. Having said that, we believe that the topics related to sources of international law, in principle, are not appropriate for progressive development. They should be limited to codification. We welcome the inclusion in the comments to Draft Conclusion 2 clarification regarding the key role played by states in recognizing general principles of law. We would not object to using in the Russian version of this draft conclusion the term "Mnezhdena Rodna Sobchastva Gostudars," the International Community of States, which would better correlate with the other language versions. As for the issue of different categories of general principles of law, we're ready to agree that just like any other legal system, international law can generate its own legal principles. However, from our vantage point, this begs the question: could these principles then be transposed into other legal systems? What's more is there are doubts about whether the wording chosen is the most appropriate. And the wording was principles which could be formed, could be in the framework of the international legal system. It would appear that we're discussing hypothetical, potential general principles of law, not existing ones. Turning now to the proposed methodology for identifying GPL, Draft Conclusions 6 and 7 continue to leave room for imposing obligations on states against their will. If we don't manage to prove that this— that a given principle is enshrined in international law, in a treaty, or in custom, well then we might can we— we should be able to assert that it is intrinsic for the international legal system or that it be transposed from it— to it from national legal systems because it is compatible with it. We see potential arguments about whether a given principle, for example, utiposidetes, or the principle of non-interference in internal affairs, discussions over whether this is intrinsic to the international legal system. What's more is the Commission rejected the applicability— the applicability of the persistent objector rule as a GPL, which raises the risks of international legal obligations being imposed on states against their will. Like before, we continue to believe that the compatibility of the international legal system is a necessary but an insufficient —prerequisite for transposing general principles of law. The criterion of compatibility does not allow us to unequivocally determine whether a GPL was accepted into the international legal system. Although there is no requirement for a formal act, the formal act of transposition, we do need some kind of objective proof of the fact that states consented to this. Turning now to draft conclusions 8 and 9. We agree with others that they should not prejudge the outcome of the ILC's work on subsidiary means. We do not support the decision to switch Paras 1 and 2 around. This is Draft Conclusion 10 on the functions of general principles of law. We believe that their main and specific function is bridging gaps and preventing non-liquid situations. Rather than helping to facilitate the coherence in the international legal system. Draft Conclusion 11 states that there's no hierarchy between the general principles of law and other sources of international law, treaties, and custom. But this does not change the fact that usually we have recourse to GPL when other sources of international law do not cover nor resolve a specific issue, nor in full, or in part. By way of conclusion, we'd like to repeat what we said at previous sessions. The draft conclusions, which suggest that there are more or less indisputable conclusions on this— these draft conclusions are not the most appropriate form for an ILC final product on this topic. Given the contentious nature of many aspects of this topic, we would be better served by having a final report on this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation for his statement. Before giving the floor to the next speaker, I would just like to again reiterate my appeal that if delegations could kindly take into account the time constraints we face when delivering their statements so as to give every delegation a chance to make their statement. We still have about 70+ speakers on our list. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Israel.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair. The State of Israel welcomes the ILC comprehensive work on the topic of sea level rise in relation to international law, and we thank the study group for its important analysis. The report rightly highlights the profound legal, humanitarian, and security implications of of rising seas for the international community as a whole and especially for vulnerable coastal and island states. The challenge imposed by the sea level rise touch upon fundamental principle of international law including statehood, the protection of person affected by sea level rise, and the stability of international boundaries. The ILC's consideration of these issues contributes valuable analysis of the legal question raised by sea level rise and promotes the discussion on these matters at a time when the international system must adapt to unprecedented realities driven by climate change. In line of our previous statements, while advocating for a careful approach to the legal analysis of the matters inter alia with respect to the question of emergence of customary rule, we support the Commission's emphasis emphasis on solidarity, cooperation, and the preservation of legal stability, in particular the continuity of statehood and the reaffirmation of the principle that existing maritime boundaries and entitlements should not be affected by physical changes in coastlines due to sea level rise. This approach promotes legal certainty while ensuring that vulnerable states are not penalized for circumstances beyond their control. Mr. Chairperson, the work of the ILC on this topic underscores the shared responsibility of all states to address the consequences of climate change within the framework of international law. We look forward to building the Commission's report as we collectively seek equitable solutions in response to one of the greatest challenges of our time. With regards to the topic of general principle of law, Israel wishes to thank the Commission and the Special Rapporteur for their work on this important subject. Greater clarity as to the sources of international law is of great value to practitioners and others, and the Commission's efforts in this regard are both welcome and appreciated. Israel affords to this previous statement and written submission to the Commission and would like to focus its present statement on the issue of methodology for identifying general principles formed within the international legal system. As the stated aim of the topic is to offer pragmatic guidance, Israel considers that the core contribution of the Commission's work lies in the development of a —sound methodology for identifying general principle of law. To serve this purpose, the Commission should devote particular attention to formulating clear criteria that can ensure consistent application in practice. The discussions over methodological questions have promoted divergent views both within the Sixth Committee and among members of the Commission, including during the current session. This is particularly evident in relation to draft conclusion number 7, which addresses the proposed second category of general principle of law, those said to be formed within the international legal system. In this regard, Israel has consistently called for improvements to the text of draft conclusion number 7 and its accompanying commentary in order to enhance clarity. Israel also notes that the draft conclusion in its current form touches upon issues related to state consent, a foundational principle of international law. We note that similar concerns have been raised by several other states and members of the Commission. Israel therefore welcomes several decisions taken by the Drafting Committee and the Special Rapporteur aimed at addressing these concerns. In particular, Israel appreciates the decision to clarify in the commentary the methodology for identifying general principles of law formed within the international legal system and to draw a clear distinction between this methodology and the applicable to the identification of customary international law. Israel further welcomes the the Drafting Committee's decision to delete the second paragraph of draft conclusion number 7, as this step contributes to clarity and improves the overall coherence of the text. We appreciate the Commission's effort to respond to the concern expressed by many states. Even if not all matters received elaborate attention, we believe that such an approach will contribute to broader acceptance of the draft conclusion and enhance both their authority and usefulness. Israel expresses the hope that second reading stage would continue to afford a sufficient platform to allow further matters to be meaningfully addressed as the Commission continues its consideration of the topic. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Israel for your statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of India. You have the floor.

Madam Chair, at the outset, I would like to thank through you the condolences that you've expressed for the families of Dr. Pemmaraju Srinivasarao, a former chairman of the International Law Commission as well as a legal advisor in the Ministry of External Affairs, who served his country with great distinction. Madam Chair, India wishes to express its appreciation to Mr. Martin Paparinskis, Chair of the 76th Session of the Commission, for his comprehensive introduction to the report of the Commission and for his able leadership in guiding the Commission's work during this session. We also extend our gratitude to all the members of the Commission for their valuable contribution to its deliberations. India attaches great significance to the work of the International Law Commission, an institution composed of distinguished legal experts from diverse backgrounds— entrusted with the progressive development and the codification of international law. We commend the Commission for its enduring contributions over the past 75 years. We note with concern that in 2025, due to the ongoing financial and liquidity crisis, the Commission's session was limited to 5 weeks instead of— the customary 12. This has understandably affected its program of work. Nevertheless, we commend the Commission for achieving substantive progress despite these constraints. In accordance with the clusters outlined, India's intervention would focus on Cluster 1 with particular attention on the topics of sea level rise in relation to international law and general principles of law. On the topic of sea level rise in relation to international law, India acknowledges the valuable work undertaken by the Commission and in particular by the co-chairs of the study group on this subject over the past several years. As a country with one of the longest coastlines in the world, India is acutely aware of the adverse impacts of sea level rise. We recognize the complex legal and technical challenges this phenomenon presents, particularly under the Law of the Sea and international law more particularly. India believes that an effective response to sea level rise must involve comprehensive adaptation measures, including enhanced protection risk mitigation for coastal communities, land reclamation, management realignment, and ecosystem-based adaptation. In our view, the path forward is through transformative adaptation and climate-resilient technologies. We note that small island states are particularly vulnerable and are already facing real-time consequences of sea level rise. Their concerns merit serious and sustained attention by the international community. India has also taken note of the final consolidated paper prepared by the co-chairs of the study group. We commend the in-depth analysis across the three subtopics, namely the law of the sea, statehood and protection of persons, as well as cross-cutting themes such as legal certainty, stability, and predictability. On the matter of statehood, India is of the view that preserving maritime zones once established under UNCLOS, regardless of the physical changes to the coastlines, has critical implications for legal certainty and including the protection of sovereign rights and access to marine resources. These principles must be clearly articulated and legal pathways for affirming the stability of maritime zones should be further explored. Regarding the protection of persons affected by sea level rise, India underscores the importance of international cooperation in addressing cross-border cross-border movement arising from environmental displacement. While existing legal frameworks provide certain protections, identified gaps warrant a careful study and could be addressed through the development of non-binding, that is soft law frameworks, adaptable to the needs of member states. Madam Chair, on the topic of general principles of law, India appreciates the work of the Commission and has taken note of the Special Rapporteur's fourth report, which reflects the comments and observations from member states on the draft conclusions/commentaries adopted on the first reading. India emphasizes the importance of a careful and balanced approach to this topic, particularly in relation to the sources of international law. The foundation of this work should remain Article 38, Para 1 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, including relevant state practice and jurisprudence. In this context, India reaffirms that there exists no hierarchy among the three principal sources of international law under Article 38, Para 1. General principles of law should not be treated as a subsidiary or secondary source, as this could lead to unnecessary confusion. We welcome the Special Rapporteur's clarification that no specific definition of general principles of law is being proposed. With regard to Draft Conclusion 2, India holds the view that recognition should follow a principle's prior existence rather than constitute its creation. Such recognition must primarily reflect the views of states to ensure that not only principles with broad and representative acceptance are incorporated in international law. Greater clarity is also needed on the phrase "in certain cases" in Para 3 of the conclusion, including the relevance of international organizations within the scope of Para 38. India supports the draft Conclusion 5 in its current form, which provides that the identification of a principle common to the various legal systems of the world must be grounded in a comparative analysis that is broad inclusive and representative of all legal traditions. On Draft Conclusion 7, India finds the term intrinsic to be ambiguous and insufficient in ensuring state consent in the determination of general principles formed within the international legal system. We propose the inclusion of an objective criteria such as broad and representative state acceptance consistent with the structure of international law and a clear legal basis. Madam Chair, India supports the conclusion of work on general principles of law in the form of draft conclusions with detailed commentaries in line with the Commission's established approach to sources of international law. We look forward to further discussion within the Commission on the functions of general principles of law as a source of international law and their relationship with other established sources. Finally, on the matter of other decisions, India has taken note of the Commission's decision to include two new topics for consideration at the next session, as well as its proposals for the long-term program of Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of India for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of France. France, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. France would like to extend its heartfelt gratitude to the International Law Commission And to all of its members, thank you for the latest report which shows the considerable efforts the ILC is undertaking to discharge the mandate entrusted to it by our General Assembly, and this despite the very serious budgetary straits of the United Nations. Before sharing our remarks on the topics covered by the report, I'd like to pay tribute to Miss Concepción Escobar Hernández. Her recent passing has touched the entire international legal expert community. Miss Concepción Escobar Hernández was a well-respected jurist and a leading figure at the ILC. I would like to pay tribute to her memory. Madam Chair, I will begin my statement by making a few general comments regarding the functioning of the ILC. As we've underscored here in the Sixth Committee before, France would like to reiterate its committee to— commitment to the ILC. We'd like to once again commend its work as well as its decisive contribution to the codification and the progressive development of international law. Since 1947, The ILC has consummately discharged its duties fulfilling the role entrusted to it by the General Assembly under Article 13, Paragraph 1 of the UN Charter. A number of ILC drafts now take pride of place in positive international law and the many topics under its consideration today attest to the vitality of international law. Given the crisis of multilateralism which we're facing, the ILC remains a particularly precious framework of reference which states that international law is a language that is common to all states. My delegation very much regrets the reduced duration of the ILC's annual session. It has been cut from 12 weeks to just 5 weeks. Owing to lack of time, a number of topics were not able to be considered and were postponed until next year. Now, if the ILC slows down its work too much, it is the Sixth Committee and thus the very role of states in the formation of international law which will suffer. France thanks members of the ILC for the perseverance they've exhibited so as to ensure the continuity of the ILC's work. In this exceptional context. France is well aware of the budgetary crisis currently hitting the United Nations. We're also well aware of the imperative to make budget savings, which is what's driving the Secretariat. Having said that, it's absolutely vital that we revert to the standard length of time for ILC sessions— that's 12 weeks— so as to allow for the ILC to conduct its work under satisfactory conditions permitting it to provide in-depth analysis of the topics on its agenda, and this within a reasonable timeframe. We, France, support the ILC, including financially. This year, France once again supported the convening of the International Law Seminar. Furthermore, we made a voluntary contribution to the Special Trust Fund to support the work of the ILC Special Rapporteurs. However, We must be clear: voluntary contributions can in no way make up for, nor substitute for, the cuts made to the ILC's regular budget. France has taken good note of the proposal set forth in the annual report, the proposal being to find ways of ensuring adequate funding for future sessions, including by ring-fencing the budget, the programme budget of the ILC from that of the Office of Legal Affairs. We believe that this way forward needs to be further considered by the Secretariat and taken on board by the Fifth Committee. Another option which we might explore would be to introduce in the resolution on the ILC report an explicit provision aiming to guarantee a minimum session length, as well as provisions on the fact that no budgetary performance considerations can be— or measures can be taken without prior agreement or consultation of the Sixth Committee or its Bureau. Last but not least, during this period of budgetary tightening, we call for the ILC to opt for working in Geneva rather than in New York. The savings that this would generate would be significant. The ILC should rest assured that France will continue standing by its side and help coming up with solutions to preserve the proper functioning of the ILC as well as the diversity of geographical representation as well as linguistic representation. My delegation has taken note that the ILC has added to its agenda— to its program of work the following topics. Due diligence in international law and compensation for harm caused by internationally wrongful acts. We welcome the two special rapporteurs who proposed these two thematic topics, Mr. Poporinskis and Ms. Ridings, respectively. We wish them every success in their work. These two topics raise up a number of important questions, including political and diplomatic challenges of great importance. We have trust in the ILC to take the time to address these issues with sagacity and discernment, which are required. We've also taken note that the program has included in its long-term program of work the issue of the principle of non-intervention in international law. Before committing further to this, The ILC should meticulously assess the possibility of coming up with a consensus-based outcome on this topic, which is so sensitive to all states. Madam Chair, I will now make some remarks on the various topics under the first cluster. First, sea level rise in relation to international law. France has taken note of the final report adopted by the ILC on the 26th of May, 2025. We welcome the work done by the study group, its co-chairs, and all of its members. Thank you for completing this project. This is a topic of paramount importance for France and for the international community of states as a whole. The International Court of Justice's advisory opinion rendered on this topic recently regarding the Legal consequences of climate change for states attest to this. First, my delegation welcomes the fact that the ILC has taken into consideration when drafting the final version some of the comments made by a number of states, including France. This applies to the absence of state obligation to update baselines, geographical coordinates, maps, and outer limits of maritime zones related— in relation to sea level rise once these have been properly deposited with the Secretary-General. France also aligns itself with the conclusions of the final report aimed at upholding the inapplicability of the principle of fundamental change in circumstances to maritime delimitation treaties. Because they also, rightfully so, characterize treaties establishing boundaries. This is what prompted France to subscribe to the final declaration adopted at the 6th Pacific-France Summit held in Nice in June of this year. Second, my delegation would like to share its concerns regarding the subtopic of statehood. According to the final report, the idea of the continuity of statehood in the context of sea level rise would garner broad-based support from states. In the aforementioned opinion, the ICJ stated that once a state has been established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements will not necessarily prompt the end to its statehood, the disappearance thereof. My country understands the existential anguish this gives rise to in some of our partners, given the tragedy that sea level rise can engender. We fully understand the duty for other states to exhibit cooperation and solidarity. And this was reflected in our submission to the ICJ. Having said that, the practical implementation of this principle throws up many delicate issues, especially as regards the relationship between this right to continuity and the sovereignty of states over the territory where the population in question has taken refuge. It is the tangible implementation of this relationship that we should reflect on further and in depth. Chair, I would now like to make some brief remarks regarding the general principles of law. I'd like to congratulate the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Vázquez Bermúdez. Thank you for the fourth report. I would like to reiterate that my delegation is perplexed by the category of general principles of law formed within the framework of the international legal system. That is something that's defined in draft conclusion number 7. Indeed, by definition, there is a distinction, at least there is in the French language, between the general principles of the law, du droit, which invoke, in fact, custom, and the general principles of law, de droit, mentioned in Article 38 of the ICJ statute as an autonomous source. It would thus appear at first blush that it is impossible to recognize the existence of general principles of law directly formed within the framework of the international legal system. However, this distinction is, in my delegation's opinion, important, and the ILC should have taken this into consideration. Regrettably, the drafting of Draft Conclusion No. 7 can sow confusion between general principles of law and custom as distinct sources of international law. That was the remark I wanted to make. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you. Oh, je vous remercie beaucoup.

In French, the chair thanks France and switches to Spanish to give the floor to the distinguished representative of Poland. You have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, distinguished delegates. Poland aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union, and in addition, we would however like to make points in the national capacity. To start, let me congratulate the chair of the International Law Commission, Mr. Paparinskis, for his presentation of the Commission's report. Unfortunately, due to the United Nations liquidity crisis, the Commission session was again shortened, this time very significantly, to only 5 weeks. Congratulating the Commission on its efficiency, we deeply regret the situation. Poland believes that strengthening the international legal order is essential at a time when international law faces challenges and violations. Unfortunately, the Commission was unable to exchange views on international law with several UN bodies. As was the case last year, Poland regrets the situation and wishes to highlight the need for more profound dialogue between the ILC and certain UN organs, particularly those dealing with issues related to the use of information and communication technologies. On the topic of sea level rise in relation to international law, Poland congratulates the Commission for adopting this study group's final report. The importance of this step was demonstrated in just a few months since the report's adoption. In particular, it must be noted that the International Court of Justice, in its July 23rd advisory opinion on the obligations of state in respect of climate change, referred to the report as a proof, I quote, of a convergence of views among states across all regions in support of the absence of an obligation of state parties to UNCLOS to update charts or lists of geographical coordinates —relating to the maritime zones when they have been duly established in conformity with UNCLOS. Similarly, end of quote. Similarly to the study group report, the court also formulated an opinion on the relation between the complete loss of a state's territory and its statehood. The Commission's work in this regard won praise at the September 24 high-level plenary meeting in New York, that is, even before the report was adopted. This demonstrates that the Commission is not solely occupied with highly technical or subsidiary topics. Indeed, it has shown an ability to deliver results on the issues— or on issues that concern ordinary people and nations around the world. Finally, let me congratulate the Commission on its use of the new study groups format instead of a special rapporteur. This change proved to be useful, and it's worth considering for future Commission deliberations. Mr.— Madam Chair, Poland has followed very closely the ILC's work on general principles of law. Poland has supported the work of the Commission on the topic because of its potential practical as well as theoretical importance. In this context, we wish to thank Special Rapporteur Mr. Vázquez Bermúdez for his fourth report. Poland notes the Drafting Committee's provisional adoption of its second reading of the consolidated text of draft conclusions 11 to 12. We welcome the streamlined text of the draft conclusions, in particular the deletion of paragraph 2 of conclusion 7 and the aligning of conclusion 9 with ongoing work on the topic of subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law. Even so, we believe that certain other modifications are still needed in the text. We firmly uphold that the Commission's usage of the new term community of nations in draft conclusion number 2 will create additional problems in interpretation. Instead, the Commission should apply terms it has used in the past, either international community of states as a whole or possibly international community as a whole. On draft conclusion 7, we wish again to point out a discrepancy between the rigor required by the Commission when identifying general principles of law derived from national legal systems, as specified in conclusions 4 to 6, and the relaxed criteria for identification of general principles of law formed with the international legal system and comes in encapsulated in a single sentence. Regrettably, neither the conclusion nor the commentary comprehensively explain how the community of nations can recognize these principles as intrinsic and how the term intrinsic should be understood. Furthermore, Poland is in favor of deleting Conclusion 10, on functions of general principles of law for several reasons. Firstly, the Commission has not inserted an analogous provision in its work on identification of customary law. As Conclusion 1 specifies, general principles of law are already considered as a source of international law, thus obviating the need to specify any other function. Secondly, Conclusion 10 is not consistent with Conclusion 11. While the former states that, quote, "general principles of law are mainly resorted to when other rules of international law do not address or resolve a particular issue in whole or in part," end of quote, the latter rightly emphasizes that, again, quote, "general principles of law as a source of international law are not in a hierarchical relationship with treaties and customary international law, end of quote. Thus, there is no obligation under international law to apply general principles in the manner specified in Draft Conclusion 10, Para 2. Thirdly, Paragraph 1, Letter b of Draft Conclusion 10 conflates different type of international law norms, in particular, by wrongly juxtaposing substantive rights and obligations with secondary rules. Finally, Poland also supports the deletion of draft Conclusion 12, as the Commission presented no convincing evidence to support claims about the existence of general principles of law with a limited scope of application as a source of international law. With respect to other decisions and conclusions of the Commission, Poland welcomes the inclusion of the ILC's work program of two new topics. First, the compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts, and second, due diligence in international law. We agree that the Commission's study of these issues would make a useful contribution. In this context, we wish to draw particular attention to the importance of due diligence. We encourage both the Special Rapporteur and the Commission to concentrate on understanding understanding due diligence as a substantive rule of international law, corollary of the sovereignty principle in accordance with the Corfu Channel judgment. Considering the matter from this perspective could be most useful in an era when states face threats from cyberspace. This is proved to be by the plethora of states' position on applying international law to cyberspace, which refer to due diligence as as well as a discussion of this norm in the open-ended working group on the security and use of information and communication technologies. On working methods and procedures, we believe the Commission should not abandon the good practice of appending the final report draft text which served as a basis for the document. As for text discussed but not yet adopted by the Commission, this could be done as in the past, but by citing relevant extracts in footnotes. The lack of such practice in the current report makes this document far from user-friendly. For example, in Chapter 5 on immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, the report discusses draft Articles 8 to 18 in detail, but unfortunately does not provide the draft text of these articles for comparison. The latter issue, which concerns possible modification to the text adopted during its first reading, requires particular attention. We believe that using charts to compare modifications discussed between the first and the second readings would streamline the work and ensure a more transparent and legitimate process. We also think that the use of chart would— charts would be helpful in clarifying the face of particular— particular topics in the general scheme of the Commission's work. As for the ILC's long-term work program, we are of the view that the UN financial crisis makes it even more important for the Commission to focus and work on problems related to present-day applications of international law that are of interest to all states. Poland suggests two such topics concerning the law of sea, namely the protection of critical undersea infrastructure and the question of ships without nationality or operating under false flags. We are of the view that the myriad of challenges that states engaged in cable and pipeline activities currently face require further reflection and clarification of applicable legal regime. Simultaneously, the growing phenomenon of ships flying unauthorized flags or having no nationality poses a serious threat to the global maritime order, including to other vessels they cruise, the coastal states, and not least to the marine environment. I thank you for your attention.

I thank the Undersecretary of State of Poland for her statement, and I will now give the floor to the distinguished Representative of Chile, you have the floor.

Muchas gracias, señor. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Please allow me to begin my statement by expressing my most sincere congratulations upon the elections for chair of the Sixth Committee and the Bureau. I extend my best wishes of success in the work that you are undertaking in this role. What's more, it's fundamental to underscore the work of Mr. Martins Paparinskis, Chair of the International Law Commission, and Mr. Mario Oyarzábal, Chair of the Drafting Committee, for both of their leadership during the 76th session of the International Law Commission. And also for the significant achievements that have been reached in particularly difficult circumstances due to the reduction in the length of the session. Chile also thanks the Codification Division of the Secretariat for their valuable assistance to the Commission and to the Sixth Committee in general, without which it would not be possible to engage in such thorough work. During the next few days, my delegation will refer to some of the issues touched on in the ILC report this year. Today, I will specifically refer to the following issues: rising sea levels in relation to international law, the general principles of law, and also other decisions and conclusions of the commission, respectively. Due to the limited time available, my delegation will submit to the Secretariat in a timely manner a more extensive written text of the issues that we will be referring to this morning. Chair, I will refer first to Chapter 4, Rising Sea Levels in Relation to International Law, the work on which concluded this year. We wish to thank the work of the study group and the co-chairs for the dedication and rigor with which they have dealt with the issue of rising sea levels, underscoring the final consolidated report as a careful summary of the observations made by states and a thorough legal analysis. This work has contributed to generating reflections and operations of state practice as regards to legal solutions and also identifying general principles that guide the actions of states and that provide a reference framework for future discussions. My delegation appreciates the progress made since this issue was included on the agenda of the Commission in 2019, which also reflects the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. Growing— the growing consensus and constructive dialogue between states is strengthening the development of international law in this regard. The advisory opinions of different courts and tribunals on climate change complement this effort. By clarifying the obligations and fundamental principles, such as adaptation, mitigation, cooperation, and protection of human rights. Chile reiterates its recognition and gratitude to the co-chairs and the Commission for their work, justice, equity, and stability of the international community. They've contributed to that. Chair, I will next refer to the general principles of law, and particularly to the fourth report of the Special Rapporteur on this issue. The general principles of law are autonomous, a clearly distinguished source of international law, um, for treaties and custom, whose existence is subject to recognition by the international community. The recognition is a key element for the emergence of one of these principles. Respect to who should give this recognition, my delegation shares the criteria of the Commission as to the expression international community that seems to be more appropriate. In the current reality. Now, as for the general principles of law that originate from domestic systems, it's clear that this recognition is something that states must give. In turn, in terms of the principles that come from the international sphere, without prejudice for the fundamental role that corresponds to states and the intervention of international organizations, when it comes to this. Madam Chair, my delegation shares the content of Conclusion 3 insofar as the general principles of law can originate from this, and in addition from the domestic system, from international legal systems. And it's obvious that like any independent legal system, the international one has principles that determine its basic structures and can give rise to others. When it comes to the identification of the principles originating in domestic legal systems, Chile supports the two-phase approach: existence and transposition. Transposition is not automatic, but nor should it be considered a formal or express act. Transposition does not require either compatibility with all international norms or standards because in the case of conflict, the principle of lex specialis will apply. Madam Chair, as for the general principles of law originating from the international legal system referred to in Conclusion 7, it must be clearly established that broad and representative recognition by the international community is required regarding their existence and the fact that they are intrinsic to the international legal system. This recognition can be determined and reiterate the customs and resolutions in international treaties without prejudice to the fact that the principle deduced is independent from the one that is deduced. We also require the element of representation from different states since this acceptance benefits from sufficient and diverse support. As for this conclusion, there must be a clear distinction between the process of identification of general principles of law and the procedure of identifying a customary norm. On the one hand, the formation of a customary law is a process in time of creating a rule through a deductive method, which would include a situation of persistent objection while the general principles of law in the second class are inferred from different materials. So once the intrinsic quality of the international legal system is recognized as a general rule, a general rule is incumbent on states without the possibility of states denying this character being possible. Chair, Draft Conclusion 10 refers to the functions of the general principles of law. In the view of my delegation, this conclusion adequately takes up the different functions of the general principles of law within the international legal system. Without prejudice to the fact that all functions are equally relevant, the role of giving coherence to the international legal system deserves to be highlighted. Effectively, the general principles of law are structural elements that are permanent and that serve as guidance and inspiration to many conventional or customary norms, and they are part of a basis that establishes the fundamental bases. Finally, while there may not be any hierarchy between the different sources referenced in the statute, in case of conflict on norms also, the special law will prevail, that ordinary— ordinarily is taken up in the general principles of law. Madam Chair, lastly today I will refer briefly to Chapter 13, other decisions and conclusions of the Commission. First of all, Chile takes note of the impact of the reduction of the length of the 76th session. We regret that the decision of the General Assembly to give the Commission 12 weeks, a 12-week session, was not respected. My delegation hopes that this decision to so drastically reduce the time length of the Commission was a exceptional circumstance because it limits the time available to review all of the different agenda items of the Commission and it delays the second reading and delays review of other agenda items. Similarly, Chile is concerned about the reduction in resources allocated to the Codification Division, in particular the reduction in personnel available to provide services. As was already underscored, the work of the ILC and the Sixth Committee are supported significantly in their work by this. We wish to underscore that the statements of the Secretary-General on this always underscored the importance of intergovernmental processes. Madam Chair, with regards to the decision to include on the program of work the agenda item Compensation for Damage Caused by Internationally Wrongful Acts and Due Diligence in International Law, Chile wishes to congratulate Mr. Martin Paparazzi and Ms. Penelope Ridings, who were appointed as special rapporteurs to deal with the above-mentioned items respectively. We wish to— wish them every success in these endeavors. Chile is looking forward to the outcomes of this work and will participate actively in the debates that will take place on this. Madam Chair, Chile welcomes the decision to include the following items on the program of work. On the long term, the principle of non-intervention in international law, the identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law, and the legal aspects of accountability for crimes committed against United Nations personnel deployed to peacekeeping operations. Madam Chair, finally, I— I would just like to finish my statement by also paying tribute to a notable jurist that left us recently, who is Ms. Concepción Escobar Hernández of Spain. I wish to join my delegation's voice to the tribute paid to her, and state how privileged and lucky so many of us were to know her personally. And I wish to recognize her huge contribution to the development of international law. Thank you very much.

Muchísimas gracias. Agradezco.

Thank you very much. I thank the distinguished representative of Chile for his statement, and I will now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Egypt. You have the floor.

Thank you. Thank you, my dear sister, Madam Vice President. Egypt aligns with the statements delivered by the African Group and the Arab Group and wishes to make the following remarks in its national capacity. Before discussing specific chapters of the report, Egypt wishes to make the following general comments regarding the Commission's working methods. First, Egypt encourages the Commission to give greater attention to the views of states expressed during meetings of the Sixth Committee. While the reports of some special rapporteurs cite statements by states, other reports have not been as robust in acknowledging and incorporating the views expressed by states in these statements or have done so selectively. Second, Egypt acknowledges that it is not always possible to delineate between codification and progressive development of international law. Nonetheless, Egypt encourages the Commission, especially in projects that include elements that do not enjoy widespread support among states, to indicate with greater clarity when its views reflect proposals for progressive development or instances of the codification of international law. Third, Egypt urges the Commission to ensure that studies that it conducts consult evidence of state practice and expressions of opinio iuris from the widest possible range of states, legal traditions, and languages. Fourth, Egypt urges the Commission to maintain its tradition of adopting its products through consensus. Chair, I shall now turn to the topic of sea level rise. Egypt congratulates the Study Group on the adoption of its final report. On matters relating to the Law of the Sea, Egypt supports paragraph 26 of the final report, which refers to the importance of preserving the integrity of enclaves. We also support the view that sea level rise should not bring into question baselines, maritime zones, boundaries, delimitations, or associated entitlements, nor should sea level rise be invoked to call for any of these to be shifted landward. On questions of statehood, Egypt supports the view expressed in paragraph 38 of the final report relating to the continuity of statehood, which is inextricably linked to self-determination and permanent sovereignty over natural resources. However, the Commission should have engaged in a more robust analysis of the jurisprudential foundations underlying this conclusion. Indeed, it is notable that in its advisory opinion on climate change, the International Court of Justice left room for doubt in this regard by indicating that, quote, "Once a state is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood," end quote. Moreover, in his declaration appended to the opinion, Judge Tomka made the following probing observation. He stated, "Territory has been indispensable to the concept of a state. The community of states finds itself engaged in a profound self-inquiry touching upon its own identity, continuity, and extinction." Egypt believes that greater study and clarity on this matter are needed to ensure that the principle of the continuity of statehood is placed on firm doctrinal grounds. Furthermore, the Commission has not provided sufficient clarity on how the duty to cooperate can generate specific legal obligations to provide tangible assistance to states to adapt to or mitigate the effects of the partial or complete loss of territory. In this regard, Egypt welcomes the view expressed by the ICJ in its Advisory Opinion on Climate Change, which affirms that cooperating to address climate change is not a matter of discretion but an established obligation in customary international law. On the protection of persons affected by sea level rise, Egypt supports the view that characterizes sea level rise as a human-made, slow-onset disaster. However, we remain unconvinced that the concept of human dignity can serve as a functional legal principle. Rather, human dignity could function as a broad moral notion that inspires the development of specific rights and obligations, the violation of which entails international responsibility and generates specific consequences. More broadly, Egypt is of the view that it is unfortunate that the ILC took the decision early in its consideration of this topic to exclude questions of causation, responsibility, and liability. We encourage the Commission to consider exploring those issues in the future, perhaps in the context of the topic on compensation for the damage of— for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts. Indeed, paragraph 14 of the report submitted to the Commission by the Special Rapporteur of this topic, Professor Martin Špaparinskis, refers to several elements that are relevant in this context, including legal and factual causation, questions of interest and contribution to injury, the relevance of equity, and the matter of whether claims for general macroeconomic damage caused by wrongful conduct is compensable under international law. Chair, I shall now turn to Chapter 6 of the Report on General Principles of Law. Egypt continues to see merit in this topic, which serves to clarify the nature and function of general principles. General Principles of Law. On draft conclusion 7, Egypt remains skeptical that a category of general principles formed within the international legal system is established in international law. Successive reports of the Special Rapporteur have identified certain examples of rules that are characterized as examples of such general principles. These include the Nuremberg Principles, the criminalization of genocide, the Martens Clause, the polluter pays principle, consent to jurisdiction by international judicial bodies, uti possidetis iuris, respect for human dignity, and pacta sunt servanda. In Egypt's view, these are rules either of a conventional or customary character or that exist concurrently in both treaty law and custom. However, these rules are not normally viewed as general principles principles of law. Indeed, in paragraph 121 of his second report, the Special Rapporteur identified three methods for the identification of these purported general principles. Egypt is concerned that this methodology does not provide sufficient clarity on how to distinguish between treaties and custom on one hand and general principles of law on the other as distinct sources of international law. The methodology adopted also risks confusing jus cogens, which are not a source of law, with general principles of law. Egypt is also uncertain about the meaning of principles that are described as being inherent or intrinsic to the international legal system. With regard to draft conclusion 2 on the recognition of general principles of law, Egypt is of the view that states retain primacy in the establishment and recognition of such principles. This should be reflected in the text of the conclusions, while the potential role for other subjects of international law, including international organizations, could be mentioned in the commentary. With regard to draft conclusions 13 and 14, Egypt generally views general principles of law as performing a gap-filling function to avoid a non liquet in the interpretation or application of rules of law in the process of litigation. Egypt urges caution in adopting an expansive view of the content and function of general principles that could weaken the rigor and clarity of the process by which rules of international law are made. Chair, I shall now turn to Chapter 12 of the ILC report. Egypt takes note of the decision to include two new topics on the Commission's long-term program of work. With regards to the topic On obligations erga omnes, Egypt congratulates Professor Masahiko Asada on the inclusion of this topic and makes the following remarks. As the document prepared by Professor Asada shows, this topic directly implicates the law of state responsibility. This confirms once again the appropriateness of the position espoused by Egypt and several other states that have called for increasing periodicity of discussions on the law of state responsibility in the Sixth Committee. Once Professor Asada begins work on this topic, the Commission will have on its agenda two topics that build on the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. It is unfortunate that states continue to be denied the opportunity to express views on the law of state responsibility in a systematic and structured manner, and the developments in these fields continue to be led not by states, but by the Commission, international and regional courts, and arbitral tribunals. We see benefit in the clarification of the difference between interdependent obligations, obligations erga omnes partes, and erga omnes obligations. Generally, while it is conceptually conceivable that there may be overlap between them, these categories are and should remain distinct, especially for the purpose of responsibility. We agree with the distinction drawn by Professor Asada between standing, which is a question of admissibility, and the jurisdiction of a judicial body to hear a case relating to an alleged violation of an obligation erga omnes. It is our view that the establishment of jurisdiction pursuant to a compromissory clause should not, should never be, should never be presumed simply because of the purported existence of standing arising out of an alleged violation of an obligation erga omnes codified in a treaty to which states are a party. Finally, we agree with Professor Asada that the question of countermeasures should be excluded, and we take this opportunity to reaffirm our opposition to the concept of collective countermeasures. Thank you, Madam Vice President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Egypt for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of South Africa. You have the floor.

Madam Vice President of Vice Chair, South Africa aligns with the statement delivered by Cameroon on behalf of the African Group. My delegation would like to thank the International Law Commission for its report and the work of its members. Whilst the work of the Commission is commendable, we express concern over the impact that the reduced session has had on the Commission's work. Given the time constraints, we are particularly grateful that despite these challenges, the Commission was able to finalize its work on sea level rise, a topic which South Africa, as both a developing country and a coastal state, considers extremely important. In this regard, my delegation would like to extend our gratitude to the three co-chairs of the Study Group on Sea Level Rise for their valuable work, the significance of which is reflected in references thereto by the International Court of Justice in its recent advisory opinion on climate change. Tshê, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, concluded in its 6th assessment report that the global mean sea level increased by 3.7mm between 2006 and 2018, and this is very likely due to human influence. South Africa is particularly vulnerable given its expansive coastline, which which stretches over 3,000 km. From 1990 to 2020, the observed sea level rise in Cape Town was 12 cm and in Durban it was 8 cm. More people live in coastal areas classified as high or extremely high flood risk zones. Compounding this challenge, population growth rates in coastal regions significantly outpace those of inland areas. Currently, about 22% of South Africa's total population of of 260 million, roughly 12.9 million people live within 20 kilometers of the coast, with 60% of this group concentrated in densely populated metropolitan areas. Whilst coastal states and islands are perhaps the most directly impacted by sea level rise, its consequences are undoubtedly of global concern. Xie, the study group was mandated to investigate the legal questions arising from sea level rise, with a broader view of assisting states in developing practical solutions to respond effectively to these very legal questions. The final consolidated report from the co-chairs is extremely useful to South Africa and will surely be useful to other states as well. The Commission, in its report, underscores that in addressing the effects of sea level rise, It is important to interpret international law in a manner that will ensure, amongst others, legal stability, predictability and certainty, equity and the preservation of existing rights. South Africa deeply values these principles, principles which underpin many of our positions, not only in the context of sea level rise. The report has highlighted the complexities arising from the consequences of sea level rise, and the Commission's study prompted South South Africa to convene consultations amongst governmental stakeholders to consider its response to sea level rise more comprehensively. Many of the matters identified by the Commission have far-reaching implications, which South Africa will need to deliberate on carefully. Moreover, there are numerous domestic peculiarities that South Africa will need to take into consideration before it will be able to pronounce itself on various aspects arising from the useful study. Che— South Africa supported the inclusion of the topic in the ILC's long-term program of work in 2018 and notes the increased significance of the topic in the last 7 years. The impact of sea level rise has been and will continue to be felt in numerous impacts, ranging from land erosion and destruction of infrastructure to displacement and migration from coastal areas, as well as impacts on fisheries and agriculture. Additionally, sea level rise will have a socioeconomic impact and could lead to loss of revenue and livelihood. The impacts are thus cross-cutting, and responding thereto will require a multidisciplinary approach. South Africa therefore underscores the importance of international cooperation, particularly in these uncertain times. The broader impact of sea level rise will be borne disproportionately by developing countries and will negatively impact their ability to achieve sustainable development. South Africa remains committed to cooperation and stands ready to do so with a view to ensuring that ultimately the most vulnerable are protected. I thank you very much for this opportunity and we, as I indicated, we wish to focus on one specific area of concern to us. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of South Africa. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cameroon. You have the floor.

Madam Chair, my delegation aligns itself with this statement delivered on behalf of the African Group. We'd now like to make some remarks in the national capacity. Madam Chair, my delegation will be focusing on the topics covered by Cluster 1. First, sea level rise. We welcome the diligent work undertaken by the ILC given the interest states have exhibited in this matter. Madam Chair, my delegation takes note of the final report of the Study Group adopted by the ILC at its meeting on the 26th of May, 2025. We also take note of the conclusions there in the three subtopics, cross-cutting issues, and the links between the three subtopics. Conclusions on the, uh, law of the sea. We note that the study group conclusions are in favor of maintaining baselines and maritime zones in the context of sea level rise. We welcome the recognition of the link between the preservation of stability, legal certainty, and predictability, and Convention interpretation, which would allow to preserve baselines of maritime zones despite modifications to the coastline owing to sea level rise. Thus, my delegation agrees that the principle of boundary immutability does apply to maritime boundaries legally established in the interest of stability, certainty, and predictability. Interstate disputes over territory are far too important in the current international context for us not to be proactive on this complex issue. For this reason, we also believe what's interesting is the conclusion that calling into question due to sea level rise agreed maritime boundaries or maritime boundaries agreed by other means risks creating uncertainty and legal insecurity which could give rise to new interstate disputes. Similarly, my delegation welcomes that the principles of justice and equity are embodied in the study group's conclusions. They conclude that risks arising for coastal states that are affected from the movement of baselines of maritime zones due to sea level rise— these are important risks. Furthermore, my delegation believes that The preservation of baselines and maritime zones is compatible with the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources. This is the principle of customary international law which applies to maritime— marine resources. Turning now to statehood, another subtopic. My delegation reiterates its position that is the presumption of state continuity, the state being directly affected by sea level rise. This, as the study group rightly points out, would have implications on the preservation of sovereign rights of states over their territory, including maritime zones under their jurisdiction and would be linked to security, stability, certainty, and predictability, as well as equity, justice, the sovereign equality of states, the permanent sovereignty of states over their natural resources, the maintenance of international peace and security, the stability of international relations, international cooperation, and the right to nationality or citizenship. As regards the subtopic protection of persons affected by sea level rise, My delegation notes with satisfaction the emphasis placed on the protection of human dignity, a cardinal principle in the framework of all action undertaken in the context of sea level rise. It's one of the elements to be factored in when establishing legal protection for persons affected by sea level rise. The fragmentation of existing international legal frameworks which might apply to the protection of persons affected by sea level rise and the absence —of a specific legal framework on this matter mean that this issue is extremely sensitive. My delegation takes note of the elements provided by the study group which might be taken into consideration when establishing legal protection. Clearly, international protection and regular consultations between our states are vital to guarantee protection of persons and communities affected by sea level rise, in particular to protect cultural heritage, inter alia. Nonetheless, it's also necessary to undertake actions which are related to this matter in an inclusive and participatory fashion involving persons and communities affected. As for cross-cutting issues and the links between the three subtopics, my delegation is in favor of a holistic approach. The importance of the fundamental principles of international law within the framework of sea level rise in the context of climate change is something that's of paramount importance for us. Similarly, international cooperation set forth in various international legal instruments is crucial if we are to respond to the constraints stemming from sea level rise. Madam Chair, my delegation takes note of the study group's recommendations on the potential way forward following these conclusions that were drawn up. This is of interest. We are convinced that efforts must continue to strike the right balance between the need to maintain, to preserve the integrity of existing legal frameworks which address sea level rise and the imperative to respond to the practical constraints imposed by this phenomenon. Turning now to the general principles of law. These are indeed a source of international law, the use of which the ILC should continue considering. My delegation takes note of the 4th report drafted by the Special Rapporteur. Nonetheless, we regret that the adoption of the draft conclusions 1 to 12 by the ILC was postponed to the next session due to time constraints pertaining to the drafting, translation, and consideration of the commentary on the draft conclusions at the current session, and this due to the reduction of the session length. Madam Chair, draft conclusion 1 especially the proposal to introduce a definition of the principles, general principles of law. Well, the Special Rapporteur explained that on the whole, the draft conclusions already give a general picture of these principles. He stated that he's prepared to flesh out the commentary on Draft Conclusion 1 to clarify the terminology that's used, ensuring that the general principles of law are effectively designated as being practiced by the term principle. For my delegation, this is not convincing because in the absence of a clear definition of a GPL, well, this could pave the way for ambiguity and uncertainty on the very meaning of this notion. However, trying to determine this terminology would be a way of creating a robust basis for the determination and application of these principles. My delegation is not convinced that the draft conclusions as a whole do give a general picture of these principles. The text does achieve in some respects overall coherence. Nonetheless, the definition of general principles of law should facilitate further work on the other aspects of the text and not the other way around. For a subject that's so important and sensitive, my delegation remains convinced that the definitions should be deliberate. They shouldn't just be— they should be deliberated on, not just deduced. The absence of definition does not help achieve clarity nor certainty. However, conceptual clarification would help us to save time on diverging interpretations and determinations. Having said that, the Special Rapporteur proposes to comment on the draft conclusions, but the commentary may not turn out to be sufficient. Justifying the absence of a definition by the idea according to which general principles of law are not not always defined due to their fluidity and ambiguity, and not defined as a source of international law because coming from social and historical contexts that are very specific. This is something some ILC members said is contentious. Refusing to recognize that we draw inspiration from certain specific contexts, well, nonetheless, international law is something that's general and universal. We can't have approximation and imprevisibility. Madam Chair, my delegation notes the other decisions and conclusions of the ILC, as well as the inclusion of some topics on its long-term program. We urge the ILC to continue choosing topics which will help craft useful solutions to practical difficulties. We encourage the ILC to try base its conclusions on state practice. My delegation takes note of the constraints which prompted the decision to reduce the session length from 12 to 6, as the speaker speaks. However, this also has negative effects on the work program. We encourage the Secretariat to do its utmost to ensure that we revert back to the standard length of the ILC sessions, given that it has a very heavy agenda and work program. By way of conclusion, my delegation would like to extend its support to the ILC work. We intend to actively participate in its work and in the Sixth Committee as well. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Cameroon for his statements, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The UK, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I wish to begin by thanking the Chair of the International Law Commission's 76th session, Mr. Martins Paparinskis, for his report to the Sixth Committee. And I'd also like to thank the Chair of the Drafting Committee, Mr. Mario Oyarzabal, all members of the Commission and the Codification Division of the Secretariat for their hard work this year. It's been a particularly difficult one for the ILC, with budget constraints seriously impacting the work of the Commission. Before turning to specific chapters in the Commission's report, I would like to make a few general remarks regarding the value and the working methodology of the ILC. The United Kingdom regards the work of the Commission as playing a critical role within the international legal order. Its contributions help and have helped shape the international rule of law, providing exceptionally high-quality legal analysis. This has the capacity to inform the content of future treaties, identify future rules of customary international law, and to influence international adjudication. We recognize the difficult financial conditions, but also the need for the ILC to be adequately resourced to carry out its work. In the United Kingdom's view, the ILC could strengthen its role by carefully considering its program of work,, including whether it might focus on fewer topics in parallel. We also encourage the ILC's Working Group on Methods of Work and Procedures to consider whether there are any other changes to the Commission's ways of working that could assist if future sessions are unfortunately also reduced for financial reasons. I now turn to Chapter 12 of the Commission's Annual Report concerning other decisions and conclusions of the Commission. Slightly contrary to my general comment regarding the workload of the ILC, the United Kingdom welcomes the decision to introduce new topics of compensation for damage and due diligence. We encourage the Commission, however, to look at topics which might be brought to an early close in order to keep the program of work manageable and on track. Chair, turning to Chapter Chapter 4 of the Commission's annual report on the topic of sea level rise in relation to international law. The United Kingdom is pleased to acknowledge the culmination of several years' worth of work by the Commission on this important topic. We commend the study group and the co-chairs for their dedication to this work. I begin by offering some observations on the Commission's approach. The United Kingdom's consideration of this topic has benefited greatly from the co-chairs' analysis in their various issues papers. We would perhaps have liked to see a little more of that analysis in the Commission's final products, as well as the views and perspectives of other Commission members. And this would assist us in understanding all the areas of divergence and convergence, and in appraising the practices and conclusions underpinning the Commission's final reports. The United Kingdom in— observes that the Commission has done very important work on the identification of customary international law, including the need to apply deductive reasoning cautiously, and that work is particularly relevant to the conclusions of the study group as adopted by the Commission on the continuity of statehood of states particularly affected by climate change-related sea level rise. We note that several of the study groups Conclusions are linked to principles of legal stability, certainty, and predictability, yet the status of these in international law is not, we would say, entirely clear. Turning to the first subtopic on law of the sea, the United Kingdom welcomes the study group's recognition of the fundamental importance accorded to the United— to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by many states States Parties and the imperative to preserve the integrity of UNCLOS. It is the UK's position that UNCLOS provides for States Parties the complete and definitive rules on drawing baselines from which maritime zones are measured. UNCLOS imposes no express— no express or affirmative obligation on States to keep their baselines or the outer limits of the maritime zones derived them under review, or to establish them once established in accordance with UNCLOS. The United Kingdom notes the convergence of views expressed by states on this matter. We also note the conclusions on this point by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion on climate change. However, the United Kingdom does not accept that this amounts to a conclusion that basically baselines must remain fixed. UNCLOS permits states to update their baselines and the outer limits of their maritime zones, subject to the obligation under Article 76 of UNCLOS to permanently describe the outer limit of the continental shelf. The United Kingdom wishes to emphasize that there is no obligation on states parties to UNCLOS to deposit with the UN Secretary-General the charts on which its normal baselines in accordance with Article 5 UNCLOS are marked. It is the United Kingdom's view that such normal baselines, if lawfully established in accordance with UNCLOS, may in principle be preserved by states in the same way as other baselines, but without being deposited with the Secretary-General. The United Kingdom also considers it essential essential that navigational charts continue to be updated as frequently as necessary for the purpose of safety. There would be value in further discussion between states on the development of practical approaches in this respect. This might take the form of a practice of publishing and identifying separate charts for navigational purposes and for the depiction of normal baselines. Turning to state The United Kingdom's starting point, in line with customary international law, is to consider whether a state has and seems likely to continue to have clearly defined territory with a population, a government exercising effective control, and independence in external relations. However, the United Kingdom also recognizes that other factors may be relevant. We are acutely aware of the fundamental importance of this issue for many states, and we note that paragraph 35 of the study group's report, with regard to states particularly affected by climate change-related sea level rise, refers to the strong support among states for continuity of statehood. This remains a complex issue on which many states may still be developing positions. The Commission's final report notes differing positions among states on whether international law recognizes a presumption or a principle of continuity. In relation to loss of territory as a result of climate change-related sea level rise, it is the UK's view that international practice has not yet sufficiently coalesced around whether a presumption or principle of continuity exists in international law. However, neither should it be the case that a state's people are rendered stateless due to climate change-related sea level rise. The United Kingdom commits to working closely with partners on how to address these issues. It is of fundamental importance that the practice of specially affected states is taken into account. Finally, the issue of statehood raises questions about the status of, responsibility for, and solutions for the protection of persons, including those displaced by sea level rise. Statehood is a key concept in international law, granting legal personality and entailing various rights and obligations, including under human rights law. The UK agrees with the Commission that states must remain able to fulfill their human rights and other obligations in the context of sea level rise. Such obligations fall primarily on the territorial state, as human rights obligations only apply extraterritorially in very limited circumstances. However, given that loss of territory could impact a state's ability to meet its obligations, the United Kingdom supports developing solutions to protect those affected by sea level rise. Such solutions should take account of the needs of of all affected persons, and whether individuals remain in situ, are in transit, or in a receiving state. The Commission might also consider this subtopic further through its more traditional methods of work, perhaps to develop a concrete set of draft principles or guidelines that could help inform the development of legal and practical solutions by states. The United Kingdom reiterates its thanks to the Commission and looks forward to continued for collaboration on this important issue. Finally, Chair, I turn very briefly to the topic of general principles of law. The United Kingdom expresses its appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez, for his fourth report. Regarding Draft Conclusion 7, the United Kingdom agrees with the Drafting Committee in connection with the deletion of the second paragraph of the draft conclusion. We agree also that the commentary needs to elaborate a clear methodology, particularly in distinguishing between general principles and customary international law. However, we reiterate our previous comments that the United Kingdom remains rather skeptical as to whether general principles exist at the international level beyond those derived from national law. In conclusion, we thank the Commission for a very— another very valuable report despite the shortened session. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Croatia. You have the floor.

Madam Vice Chair, distinguished colleagues, at the outset, the Republic of Croatia would like to extend its sincere appreciation to the International Law Commission and its members for the valuable work and thank the Chair for introducing the report. In addition, we would like to express our concerns regarding the reduction of the International Law Commission sessions, which resulted in the Commission no longer being able to meet the schedule of work. Therefore, we hope that the continued successful functioning of the Commission will be ensured. In this regard, let me turn to the final report on the topic sea level rise in relation to international law. We would like to thank the study group and the co-chairs, both current and former, on their work on this challenging and pressing issue. We also congratulate the Commission on adapting the final report of the study group on sea level rise in relation to international law and completing its work regarding this topic. With respect to the subtopic of issues related— related to the law of the sea, we emphasize once again the necessity of fully preserving the integrity of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Therefore, we welcome and appreciate the UNCLOS-based analysis that has been the bedrock of the Study Group's work on this subtopic. We also welcome its inclusion in the final report and the acknowledgement of the support of the fundamental importance of UNCLOS. We further reiterate our support for the interpretation that baselines remain fixed despite the physical changes in geography consequent to climate change-related sea level rise. Accordingly, we welcome the final report's emphasis and argumentation in favor of the concept of preservation of baselines in the context of sea level Sea Level Rise. Regarding the subtopics of Statehood and Protection of Persons Affected by Sea Level Rise, we find it important that despite political and legal complexities and sensitivities associated to them, potential solutions aimed at addressing these issues are based on international law. Furthermore, regarding the subtopic of Protection of Persons Affected by Sea Level Rise, We are aware of the adversities that threaten such persons. Therefore, we believe that further elaboration of certain details relating to this issue and discussions of potential solutions would be— have been useful. Having a significant coastal territory and therefore being directly exposed to the adverse effects of sea level rise, Croatia understands the importance of this topic and will continue to follow future discussions in the international community and to international legal developments in this field. We believe that the final report will be a useful basis for future activities of the international community in this matter. Madam Vice Chair, distinguished colleagues, the Republic of Croatia would like to express its appreciation for the continued work of the International Law Commission on the topic of general principles of law. We commend Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vasquez Bermúdez, for his efforts and the comprehensive reports submitted thus far. Croatia has been closely following this progress made on this topic and welcomes the ongoing discussions aimed at better clarifying the nature, scope, and role of general principles of law within the international legal system. We wish to emphasize the importance of Draft Conclusion 5, which stresses the need for comprehensive, comparative, and representative analysis of various legal systems of the world when determining the existence of a general principle of law. It sets out the criteria necessary for the initial step of such an analysis. While we acknowledge the valuable contribution of the Commission in identifying general principles of law as a form— source of international legal obligation, we encourage more extensive reflection on state practice in the report. We believe that it should reflect a broad enough range of state practice to substantiate that such practice has been firmly established within the framework of the international legal system. Therefore, we believe that a broader overview of the practice of states should be provided. With regard to the statement in Conclusion 8 that the decisions of international courts and tribunals, in particular of the International Court of Justice, regarding the existence and content of general principles of law constitute only a subsidiary means of their determination, we wish to emphasize once again that impartiality and independence of adjudication mechanisms are crucial general principles of law and a fundamental fundamental element of the rule of law, both on national and international level. As we have emphasized in our previous statements, subsidiarity of general principles of law in relation to treaties and customary law is based on principle of speciality instead of principle of hierarchy. In conclusion, Croatia reiterates its view that general principles of law are essential in ensuring the completeness of the international legal system, particularly in the absence of treaty or customary rules. At the same time, we must ensure that their identification and application remain grounded in legal certainty, impartiality, and the rule of law. We thank the Commission for its valuable work and look forward to the completion of the topic next year. Turning to the chapter Other Decisions and Conclusions in Commission's report, Croatia welcomed the inclusion of the topics compensation for damage caused by internationally wrongful acts and due diligence in international law in the Commission's program. We believe that an in-depth study by the Commission of these topics would be timely and of practical relevance to states. Regarding the topic compensation for damage caused by internationally wrongful acts, we agree that practice has has considerably evolved since the adoption of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts by the ILC in 2001. Recently instituted contentious proceedings before the ICJ specifically seeking compensation suggest that importance of compensation will continue in future. Concerning the topic due diligence in international law, we consider that A thorough study of due diligence will provide a needed framework and clarification that would be useful in various areas, in particular environmental and cyber law. I thank you for your attention.

I thank the distinguished representative of Croatia for her statement, and with the permission of the room, I will give the floor to the Dominican Republic. Who needs to leave this afternoon. The Dominican Republic, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We congratulate the ILC for the presentation of their report corresponding to its 67th session, and we thank its members for their commitment and dedication, in particular their chair, Mr. Martin Popolinsky. The Dominican Republic recognizes the broad work carried out by the Commission on all of its agenda items, in particular the second reading of the draft articles on immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction for state officials and the conclusions on the general principles of law, as well as the questions related to the determination of norms of international law and international agreements, non-legally binding international agreements, We also appreciate the decision of the Commission to include in its program of work issues of growing relevance, such as compensation for damage caused by internationally wrongful acts and due diligence in international law, reflecting the vitality of the Commission as a technical and legal forum that continues to in which practice and contemporary international doctrine. Given the importance that the Dominican Republic attaches to international law, in particular to the efforts of codification and progressive development by this commission, we wish to inform that our country has presented the candidacy of Dr. Julio José Rojas Báez to join the ILC. For the 2028-2032 period. Dr. Rojas Báez is currently vice chair of the Inter-American Legal Committee of the OAS, where he also works as special rapporteur on the legal implications of rising sea levels in the Inter-American regional context. The Dominican Republic is particularly welcoming the decisions on rising sea levels in relation to international law, which is an existential matter for small island developing states and for coastal countries. We appreciate the fact that the final report of the study group has consolidated a comprehensive approach that addresses the three sub-issues identified: the law of the sea, statehood, and the protection of the persons affected. In light of the principles such as stability, legal predictability, equity, solidarity, and international cooperation. My delegation considers that the work of the Commission is a significant step forward in the identification of the legal challenges posed by climate change and in the search for responses that are based on international law. We particularly recognize the importance of preserving the integrity of maritime zones and the rights stemming from the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, including in the face of the effects of rising sea levels. What's more, we underscore the needs to strengthen the normative frameworks that ensure the protection of the of displaced persons and communities displaced by these phenomena. The Dominican Republic notes with concern that in this 76th session, um, we saw a reduction to 8 weeks in the session, which limited progress made on substantive issues. We understand that this situation is due in part due to the liquidity crisis that the organization currently faces. However, we believe that the work of of the Commission is essential, and it should not be affected by these financial limitations. My delegation reiterates that international law must serve as an instrument for adaptation and cooperation in the face of global threats that threaten the security and sustainable development of peoples. The Dominican Republic, lastly, reaffirms its commitment to the defense of international law as an essential pillar to tackle the challenges of climate change and to guarantee justice, equity, and the security of peoples. The issue of rising sea levels reminds us that international law does not only codify norms, but rather it also protects the dignity and the very existence of states and of their citizens. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Dominican Republic for his statement. Distinguished delegates, the distinguished representative of the Dominican Republic was the last speaker for this morning. According to our program of work, we will continue the discussion on the first cluster of topics tomorrow morning at 10:00 AM. This afternoon from 3:00 PM, the legal advisers will continue their customary meeting in this room. Before the meeting is adjourned, I wish to thank the interpreters for kindly giving us some extra time. Thank you also to the Secretariat. Thank you.