Sixth Committee, 28th plenary meeting - General Assembly, 80th session

Good morning, distinguished delegates. I call to order the 28th meeting of the Sixth Committee for the 80th Session of the General Assembly. Distinguished delegates, we will continue our debate on the first cluster of topics concerning Agenda Item 80, that is the report of the International Law Commission. On the work of its 76th session. Before proceeding, however, permit me to once again reiterate the recommendation of our Bureau that while there are no time limits per se on interventions on the ILC report, delegations are strongly encouraged to be as succinct as possible and, where possible, to deliver abridged versions of their statements inasmuch as their full statements can be posted on e-statements and on the website of the Sixth Committee. This procedure would certainly help all delegations to deliver their statements within our agreed timeframe in our schedule. The report of the Commission on the work of its 76th session is contained in Document A/80/10, which is available online. The first speaker on my list for this morning's session is the distinguished representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, colleagues. As requested by you, this is an abridged version of our statement. The Kingdom of the Netherlands would like to sincerely thank the International Law Commission for this year's report. The output of the International Law Commission is considered as a valuable contribution to the codification as well as the progressive development of international law. The codification and progressive development of international law continues to be important to us, as the Constitution of the Netherlands sets forth that that the government must promote the development of the international legal order. The Commission's work is pivotal to this end. The Commission's work is crucial for the codification and progressive development of international law. For that reason, my government regrets that the Commission's annual session was reduced from 12 weeks to 5 weeks. Nevertheless, we wish to express our appreciation for the Commission's ability to finalize this year's report despite the encountered time constraints as a consequence of the reduction of the 76th session due to the ongoing liquidity crisis. The reduction of this year's session has had significant consequences for the ILC's meetings and thus for for its annual report. For this year, it regrettably means that the Commission was only able to adopt a final report on the topic sea level rise in relation to international law, and that several first and second readings had to be postponed, as well as the conclusion of other topics. The Kingdom of the Netherlands would like to draw attention to Article 13 of the Charter of the United Nations, in which it is stated that, and I quote, "The General Assembly shall initiate and make recommendations for the purpose of encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification," end of quote. Unfortunately, without adequate resources, the UN General Assembly and its subsidiary bodies, one of them being the International Law Commission, cannot fulfill this obligation. We therefore call on all member states to pay their contributions in full, on time, and without constraints. Chair, let me now continue to the topic sea level rise in relation to international law. As my government has indicated in its statements during previous sessions, the issue of sea level rise remains of great importance for the entire Kingdom of the Netherlands. In Europe as well as in the Caribbean. My government has explained this in its oral statement in the advisory proceedings before the International Court of Justice on the obligations of states in respect of climate change. In its statement, my government highlighted that for centuries parts of the population of the Kingdom of the Netherlands have lived below sea level. However, even those countries that are not situated below sea level have to deal with the consequences of sea level rise. Exactly 13 years ago, on the 29th of October 2012, this city was struck by Hurricane Sandy, which caused the flooding of streets, tunnels, and subway lines, as well as cutting the power in and around the city. Research found that climate change caused around 10 centimeters of coastal sea level rise in the area over the preceding century, which allowed Hurricane Sandy to affect over 71,000 people in the area of New York City. Even now, when we are safely sitting here in this building, Jamaica faced— and here I quote the World Meteorological Organization— one of the biggest storms of the century, and of quote, "with Hurricane Melissa entering its lands. Wind gusts of 300 kilometers per hour are measured, accompanied with heavy rainfall triggering flash floodings, rivers bursting their banks, and mudslides destroying large part of Jamaica's infrastructure, homes, schools, hospitals, and its electricity system." However, news reports overnight have shown that Jamaica is not the only country that is affected by this devastating hurricane. So on behalf of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, we therefore wish to express our deepest sympathies and solidarity to all countries affected by this devastating hurricane. Chair, research shows that a rising sea level may lead to larger storm surges, which amongst others means that a lot of communities will be at risk from storm surges. Thus, if the sea level keeps rising and extreme weather events occur, bigger surfaces and a larger number of people will be affected, with all its consequences for respective states. The examples show the utmost importance of the topic at hand and the interrelationship between the three subtopics. My government therefore expressed support for the conclusion of the co-chairs to submit a joint joint final report on the topic as a whole in its statement on the Commission's report of its 75th session. We also invited the Commission to respectfully consider integrating the three topics on the basis of different scenarios. My government notes that the Commission aimed to link the three subtopics by identifying cross-cutting issues and interlinkages. In this respect, the Commission identified the question as to how to preserve and protect existing rights in the face of the serious and unprecedented consequences of sea level rise for states as a common threat. Furthermore, the Commission identified legal stability, certainty, and predictability as cross-cutting principles for these topics, like other fundamental principles of international law. These include the right of peoples to self-determination and the promotion and protection of human rights, as well as equity and the duty to cooperate. The Commission, however, did not explore in more detail the interrelationships between the cross-cutting principles that it has identified and highlighted in the final part of the report, nor did it take into account the different scenarios. We consider this a missed opportunity. Chair, despite the progress made on this topic, and the outline of possible ways forward in the Commission's final report, several questions remain unanswered that are pivotal for a longer-term perspective or for identifying solutions rooted in international law. The Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore appreciates the work done by the Commission on this topic, but encourages all those involved to further deepen the understanding of these topics and advance its discussions in the Sixth Committee. In this context, we would like to refer to UN General Assembly decision of 24th of July, 2024 on enhancing action on sea level rise. We are committed to engage constructively in the discussions on an action-oriented and intergovernmentally negotiated declaration. And in the high-level plenary meeting during the UN General Assembly's 85th the first session on sea level rise. We believe that these initiatives should take into account outstanding legal issues and questions with regard to sea level rise, taking into account the importance of the topic for the international community as a whole. Chair, please allow me to turn to the topic General Principles of Law. My government wishes to express its appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, as well as the Commission for their work on this topic. In particular, we welcome the proposed amendments and additions to the draft conclusions and the commentaries thereto. My government recognizes that, due to the timing of our submission, the comments of our government could not be taken into account in the fourth report of the Special Rapporteur. We invite the Special Rapporteur, therefore, to consider, when preparing his next report, the submission of my government. In addition, we would like to make the following observations with regard to the Fourth Report of the Special Rapporteur. Firstly, we consider helpful the clarification with regard to the meaning of the term "general" in "general principles of law" as referring to the general scope of application of those principles. We also appreciate the list of general principles highlighted in the Fourth Report of the Special Rapporteur. My government would like to restate its position that the principles emerging from specific areas of international law, such as the law of the sea or international humanitarian law, can also constitute general principles of law formed within the international legal system. With regard to draft conclusion 3 on the recognition of general principles of law, we note that additional paragraphs have been added to this Conclusion. This paragraph reads that in certain cases, the recognition by international organizations may also contribute to the formation of general principles. My government would like to suggest elaborating upon the circumstances under which international organizations could contribute to the recognition in the commentaries. In this context, and with respect to the newly introduced draft conclusion 12 regarding general principles of law is in limited scope of application, and in light of the examples of these principles provided, we would like to ask for clarification. Specifically, we seek to understand whether these principles encompass only the category of general principles of law that are derived from national legal systems, or whether these encompass both categories referred to in draft Conclusion 3. Further, in the discussion regarding draft Conclusion 7, the Special Rapporteur has recalled that the requirement that a principle be recognized by the community of nations as intrinsic to the international legal system in itself encompasses the legally binding character of the principle. In this respect, we wish to repeat our request for further clarification of the term intrinsic. Moreover, we also wish to confirm its understanding pertaining to the without prejudice clause in paragraph 2 of draft conclusion 7, namely that this clause aims to encompass general principles of law arising from specific areas of international law, such as international humanitarian law and international environmental law. My government hopes the Commission will be able to complete the second reading of the draft conclusions in the coming intersessional period and looks forward to discussing this topic further during the next session of the Sixth Committee. Chair, please allow me to turn to the topic other decisions and conclusions. My government notes that two new topics are included in the program of work. Compensation for the Damage Caused by Internationally Wrongful Acts, and Due Diligence in International Law. We also congratulate the Special Rapporteurs with their respective appointments. We wonder though whether the Commission will be able to allocate sufficient time and resources to these topics, taking into account the heavy workload of the Commission, especially as a consequence of the reduction of this year's session and the delay of discussions on specific topics. On the long-term program of work, the Kingdom of the Netherlands welcomes the inclusion of the proposed topics. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands for his statement. I give the floor to the Permanent Representative of Tuvalu, who will also be speaking on behalf of the Pacific of the Pacific Small Island Developing States. You have the floor, sir.

Mr. Chair, Excellencies, distinguished delegates. I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the Pacific Small Island Developing States. We align ourselves with the statement delivered by Palau on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States and Solomon Islands on behalf of the Pacific Island Forum. PISID wishes to sincerely thank the International Law Commission and its Study Group on Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law for their 7 years of rigorous and inclusive work. This has been a complex and sensitive topic that demanded patient, careful study, and sustained engagement with States. We are deeply appreciative of the Commission's openness in hearing the views of Member States, including Small Island Developing States, and for reflecting those perspectives in its conclusions. The result is a Final Report adopted by the Commission that carries real meaning for our region and for the international community as a whole. We welcome the final report of the Study Group. For Pacific Small Island Developing States, these outcomes represent more than a legal milestone. It reinforces the positions our region has long advanced and recognizes the relieved at challenges that our peoples continue to face. It shows that international law can respond to the realities confronting Small Island States, and that our concerns are now firmly embedded in the global legal discourse. The 2021 Pacific Islands Forum Declaration on Preserving Maritime Zones in the Face of Climate Change-Related Sea Level Rise remains the foundation of our regional position on the relationship under international law between climate change-related sea level rise and maritime zones. That declaration proclaims that maritime zones, as established and notified to the UN Secretary-General in accordance with the UNCLOS and the rights and entitlements that flow from them, shall continue to apply without reduction, notwithstanding any physical changes resulting from climate change-related sea level rise. This position was later echoed by the 2024 AOSIS Leaders' Declaration, which reaffirms the preservation of maritime zones is consistent with United Nations Convention On the Law of the Sea. We welcome the Commission's confirmation that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea contains no provisions requiring States to update baselines, geographic coordinates, charts, or the outer limits of maritime zones once these have been duly deposited with the UN Secretary-General in accordance with the Convention. This interpretation is supported by the principles of legal stability, certainty, and predictability that are essential to the Law of the Sea and broader international law, and ensures that the rights and entitlements of States remain secure. For the Pacific, this issue goes to the core of our sovereignty and long-term security. Maintaining maritime zones in accordance with the UNCLOS preserves equity and fairness among States, and protects the rights and entitlements of those specifically affected by climate change-related sea level rise. The Pacific's position on continuity of State has been clear and consistent. Our leaders reaffirmed this through the 2023 Pacific Pacific Island Forum Declaration on the Continuity of Statute and the Protection of Persons, which declared that the statute and sovereignty of member states of the Pacific Island Forum will continue, and the rights and duties inherent thereto will be maintained, notwithstanding the impact of climate change-related sea level rise. That position was reinforced through the 2024 AOSIS Declaration on sea level rise and statehood. We therefore welcome the recognition of the Final Report of widespread support among States for the continuity of States and sovereignty, and for the maintenance of international legal personality and membership in the international organizations for States particularly affected by sea level rise. The final report recognizes that continuity of state in this context is essential to safeguard nationality and to prevent the risk of statelessness. It also draws a clear link between this continuity and the right of peoples to self-determination, including indigenous peoples, who cannot be deprived of their collective identity and political status without their consent. These conclusions reaffirm the enduring principles that guide our region: that legitimacy of a state rests not shifting shorelines, but on the will, identity, and continuity of its people. Sea level rise continues to affect every aspect of life in the Pacific. Families are moving further inland as saltwater intrudes on their homes and crops. Cultural landmarks and burial sites are being eroded by the sea. These are not distant concerns. They are daily realities of many Pacific communities. We therefore welcome the clarity that the Final Report provides on the protections of persons affected by sea level rise. The Commission reaffirmed that affected persons remain are human rights holders under international law, and that states have a duty to respect, protect, and fulfill their human rights. It also highlights the need for international cooperation to ensure that affected communities can preserve their culture, heritage, and identity. These findings reflect the spirit of the 2023 Pacific Islands Forum Declaration, where Pacific leaders affirm that individually and collectively, we bear a responsibility to ensure that all persons affected by climate change-related sea level rise are protected. Protecting our peoples means protecting our history, our culture, and our human dignity. The Pacific Small Island Developing States, reaffirm our commitment to work with all Member States to strengthen international cooperation on the legal and human dimensions of climate change-related sea level rise. Our response must be guided by equity, fairness, justice, and shared responsibility. No State should face this challenge in isolation, and no people should lose their rights or identity because of rising seas. The final report provides a strong foundation for the next stage of global work on this issue. We look ahead to the High-Level Meeting of the General Assembly on Sea Level Rise in 2026 as an opportunity to translate these findings into a political declaration that reaffirms continuity of states, the preservation of maritime zones, and the protection of persons affected by climate change-related sea level rise. We also acknowledge the complementarity between the Commission's conclusions and the advisory opinions of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the International Court of Justice. Together, these developments strengthen the role of international law as a living framework for addressing climate change and related phenomena such as sea level rise, and for ensuring the equality and dignity of all States. For the Pacific, sea level rise is not only a question of geography and environment. It is a test of international law and of the International Commission's commitment to fairness and solidarity. The Pacific Island small developing states stand ready to work with all nations to ensure that the rule of law continues to serve as a foundation for justice, stability, and respect for all peoples. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the Permanent Representative Tuvalu for his statement and also speaking on behalf of the Pacific Small Island Developing States. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of the Philippines.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Chair, the Philippines commends the International Law Commission for its work during its 76th session and thanks Chair Martin Špaparinskis for his substantive presentation. The report continues to be a vital instrument for the codification and progressive development of international law and provides timely guidance on matters of profound importance to our country and the international community. On the matter of sea level rise in relation to international law, the Philippines expresses deep appreciation to the study group and its co-chairs for for their comprehensive work and adoption of the final report on sea level rise in relation to international law. We are particularly pleased that they are with us today. As an archipelagic state with more than 7,600 islands and numerous low-lying coastal communities, the Philippines faces acute risks from sea level rise and other climate-induced impacts. We therefore attach great importance to the Commission's contribution in ensuring legal stability, security, and predictability amid environmental change. The Philippines believes that existing maritime entitlements established in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea must be preserved, notwithstanding physical alterations to coastlines. To this end, we enacted in November 2024 the Philippine Maritime Zones Act and the Philippine Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act, reaffirming our sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction over our maritime zones and archipelagic sea lanes in accordance with UNCLOS. As an archipelagic state, the Philippines supports the concerns of small island states, including on the continuity of statehood, a position that we have supported in this forum stemming from our longstanding advocacy of the right of peoples to self-determination anchored in the principle of respect for the territorial integrity of states. As our Supreme Court previously held, self-determination operates within such a framework. Loss of territory through no fault of the state should not entail loss of statehood. We have expressed preference for presumption of the right to statehood under international law. The Philippines also emphasizes that respect for human dignity must guide the protection of persons displaced by sea level rise. Having a long record of solidarity with refugees and displaced persons, and as a state party to the relevant UN Refugee Conventions, The Philippines remains committed to upholding humanitarian obligations. We welcome the insights of the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect to climate change, which reaffirmed that states have obligations to protect the environment from climate harm, including under own clause, and recognized sea level rise as a threat to statehood and territorial integrity. We look forward to how these findings, along with the ILC's important report, could be leveraged to generate practical solutions on the ground. Turning now to the topic of general principles of law, the Philippines thanks Special Rapporteur Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez for his valuable work culminating in the draft conclusions 1 to 12 on general principles of law. We welcome work on clarifying, clarifying what constitutes general principle, principles of law, considering that our Constitution expressly adapts the generally accepted principles of international law, including general principles, as part of the law of the land. We wish to share our national jurisprudence, which provides practical insights into this subject. Our Supreme Court, aside from affirming that the sources of international law, namely treaties, customs, and general principles of law, are recognized distinctly within our legal system, likewise clarified that general principles of law, to qualify as a source, must: number 1, be a principle rather than a rule of narrow scope; number 2, be recognized by civilized nations and and number 3, be shared by a fair number of states in the international community. On general principles derived from national legal systems, the Philippines shares the view that when no treaty or customary rule applies, international tribunals may draw from common notions of justice and equity in domestic legal system to fill normative gaps. Conversely, With respect to principles formed within the international legal system, the Philippines notes that while jurisprudence and scholarly teachings help identify or interpret such principles, they remain subsidiary means for determining law and not sources of law in themselves. Finally, consistent with our state practice, decisions of international courts and tribunals are binding only upon the parties concerned and otherwise have persuasive value. Nonetheless, the Philippine judiciary frequently draws inspiration from such decisions in reinforcing universal legal norms. Mr. Chair, the Philippines welcomes the inclusion of new topics in the Commission's program of work, namely compensation for damage caused by internationally wrongful acts. And due diligence in international law. We note with interest the addition to the long-term program of work of the topics on the principle of non-intervention in international law, the identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes, and the legal aspects of accountability for crimes against United Nations personnel in peacekeeping operations. These topics resonate deeply with the Philippines' commitment to uphold the rule of law, human rights, and international solidarity. We look forward to constructive engagement with the Commission as these studies progress. Mr. Chair, in conclusion, the Philippines reaffirms its steadfast support for the International Law Commission's work and for the collective endeavor to strengthen a rules-based international order grounded in justice, equity, and respect for international law. We hope that the ILC remains adequately funded and sufficiently resourced to ensure that they can discharge their mandate effectively. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Philippines for her statement. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Indonesia.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We thank Mr. Martin Paparinsky, Chair of the International Law Commission, for his briefing to the Committee and congratulate him and all members of the Commission for their valuable work during its 76th session. My delegation has studied the Commission's report containing Document A/80/10. We would like to comment on two key topics: syllaborise in relation to international law and general principles of international law, as contained in Chapter 4 and Chapter 6 of the Commission's report, respectively. Mr. Chair, For Indonesia, the world's largest archipelagic state, sea level rise is not an abstract concern. It is a lived and accelerating reality. It is reshaping our coastlines, displacing communities, and testing resilience of international law. We commend the Commission Study Group and its co-chairs for their insightful and comprehensive final consolidated report and the analysis of the three interlinked dimensions of the topic: the law of the sea, statehood, and the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. Allow me now to highlight three pertinent points. First, Indonesia underscores the importance of preserving legal stability, predictability, and certainty in the law of the sea. The UNCLOS, our Constitution for Oceans, remains the cornerstone of maritime order. Indonesia fully supports the ILC's view that UNCLOS neither obliges states to revise baselines nor prohibits their preservation. Natural changes in coastline should not unravel established maritime entitlements. Once existing baselines and maritime boundaries are established in accordance with UNCLOS, they must remain valid and effective. This also affirmed by the 2024 ITLOS Advisory Opinion and the 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion. Preserving maritime zone is not only a matter of law but also of equity and peace. It ensures that coastal and archipelagic state, particularly developing ones, are not deprived of their rights and resources by force beyond their control. Second, Indonesia acknowledges the emerging discussion on the principle of continuity of statehood, sovereignty, and identity. The loss of territory leading to the loss of nationhood is an international law issue that Indonesia stands ready to discuss with other nations. One thing for sure: a state may lose its territory, but it must not lose identity. In this regard, Indonesia notes the growing consensus reflected in the PIF and the IOC's declarations that the legal personality of state endures despite the physical loss of territory. We endeavor to support the initiative to adopt a UN General Assembly declaration on sea level rise in 2026, reaffirming that no state shall cease to exist due to climate-induced change. This effort exemplifies solidarity and shared humanity principles that lie at the heart of the UN Charter. Third, Indonesia calls for the full application of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. The principle must guide collective action to ensure justice, fairness, and effective global cooperation. This requires strengthened international cooperation, climate finance, and capacity building, especially for developing countries and small island developing states. Behind every disappearing coastline is not only territory, but community, a culture, and future that deserve protection. Mr. Chair, on general principle of law, Indonesia appreciates the Commission's continued effort to clarify and refine its draft conclusions. The identification and formulation of this principle must be taken with prudence and inclusivity, ensuring respect for diverse legal systems and state practices. We find the draft conclusion to be valuable reference that can guide states in further developing and applying international law. Mr. Chair, in conclusion, Indonesia reaffirms its appreciation for the Commission's contribution to the codification and progressive development of international law. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the distinguished representative of Indonesia for his statement. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Eritrea.

Good morning, Chair. Thank you. Eritrea expresses its appreciation to the Chair of the International Law Commission and all the distinguished members of the Commission and the Secretariat for their hard work during the 76th session, resulting in an extensive report on the work of the ILC. We would like also to thank members of the ALC for encouraging constructive dialogue with members of— with member states, and the Commission's positive contribution to the progressive development and codification of international law. My delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by Cameroon on behalf of the African Group. We also echo the importance of regional perspectives such as the African States on the topics discussed by the ALC. Allow me now to share in my national capacity the following observations concerning the sea level rise in relation to international law. Mr. Chair, Eritrea has taken note of the final consolidated report on the co-chairs of the study group on the sea level rise, which was adopted by the ALC during this session and provided a comprehensive summary of the Committee's work, including the preliminary observations, state submissions, and recent international developments. We acknowledge the co-chair's identification of critical cross-cutting issues, particularly the interlinkages between stability, predictability, and preservation of existing rights along the crucial principles such as self-determination, permanent sovereignty over natural resources, and equity. In this context, Eritrea firmly supports the approach that seeks to ensure the preservation of the legitimate rights of all affected states. We also concur that in addressing the effects of sea level rise, existing international law must be be applied to meet the needs of vulnerable states and populations and thereby ensure legal stability, predictability, equity, and the preservation of existing rights. Coastal states like my, my own country cannot overlook but diligently assess and address the impacts of sea level rise on the coastal communities. With more than 350 islands a water territory making about half the size of the total landmass, Eritrea is disproportionately vulnerable to climate change. To mitigate the threats endangering the marine and terrestrial ecosystem as well as the coastal biodiversity, Eritrea has put in place protective and conservatory policy measures, Mr. Chair. As we grapple with the challenges of sea level rise, Eritrea emphasized the need for stable maritime zones. It also underscores the view that the final outcome of the Commission's work on the topic should guarantee the sovereign rights of coastal states over their maritime spaces. There are parts within Eritrea's territory that consist of low-lying and sand, sand coastal areas which are at risk of— erosion from risk from erosion, in particular with the rise of sea level and climate change. In this regard, Eritrea stresses that baselines and maritime boundaries are preserved and that sovereign and jurisdictional rights of coastal states over their maritime spaces in accordance with traditional sources of international law are protected. Littoral states have play a vital and indispensable role in securing and promoting sustainable and stable maritime ecosystems. Mr. Chair, Eritrea stands in solidarity with the most vulnerable nations. The needs of states and populations that could be affected by the possible adverse consequences of climate change and sea level rise should be met and their future be secured. In this connection, my delegation supports the Commission's adoption of the final report of the Study Group on the topic of sea level rise in relation to international law, in which the study provided useful guidance for states and concluded its consideration of the topic. In conclusion, Eritrea remains committed to fostering a common understanding and promotion for concrete action to counter the threats of sea level rise. Our collective resolve must ensure tackling both immediate and long-term effects and thereby ensure safeguard the rights, livelihoods, and cultural heritage of all vulnerable populations. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Eritrea for his statement. The next speaker on my list is The distinguished representative of Italy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will begin by addressing the topic of sea level rise in relation to international law. First of all, allow me to congratulate the International Law Commission for its work on this topic and for the adoption of the final report. Italy would like to express its own appreciation for such reports and particularly emphasizes some of its conclusions. Regarding the law of the sea, Italy agrees that no provision of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea imposes an obligation on states to change due to sea level rise their baselines, nautical charts, or other geographic coordinates. The International Court of Justice also confirmed such conclusion in its advisory opinion on obligations of states in respect of climate change of 23 July 2025. Based on this conclusion, we support the assertion that it is up to the affected coastal states to evaluate, depending on the type of impact of sea level rise, whether to preserve the proclaimed baseline and the maritime entitlements generated by them, or to update their baselines according to the criteria established by UNCLOS itself and customary international law. Furthermore, Italy shares the view that sea level rise does not constitute a fundamental change of circumstances under Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties. As for statehood, Italy shared the assessment of the Commission that there is support within the international community for the view that sea level rise should not constitute a cause of loss of statehood for the affected States. As a consequence, Italy considers that States which are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise may maintain their international legal personality and membership of international organizations regardless of any loss in territory. Italy notes that the presumption of continuity of statehood may be grounded in the right of states to preserve their existence and territorial integrity, as well as in the principle of self-determination of peoples where applicable. Moreover, Italy supports the conclusion that states affected by sea level rise may continue to enjoy the right of permanent sovereignty over natural resources. Regarding further developments, Italy believes that the Commission proposal about taking into consideration the adverse impacts of climate change and sea level rise deserves further examinations. Mr. Chair, I will now address the topic of general principles of law. First of all, I wish to thank the Special Rapporteur Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez for his continued and committed work on the topic. We highly value the possibility to further reflecting on this subject based on a comprehensive and thorough overview. As a general remark, Italy takes note of the appropriate adjustments to the draft conclusion based on comments by states. While the changes introduced have improved the overall quality of the final outcome, a number of key issues appear to remain unresolved. This is particularly true for the fundamental question of a distinction between customary international law and general principles as an autonomous source of international law. We have taken note, for instance, of the thorough explanation of the methodology described for determining general principles of law formed within the international legal system, as opposed to customary international law. While we see the legal merit of such methodology, we suggest that further consideration be given to its practical implementation. Italy has already had the opportunity to share its reflection on general principles derived from national legal systems, and in particular on the need for clear and functional criteria to determine their transposition into the international legal system. At the same time, we deem it essential that a better understanding on how to 'perform the compatibility test' be offered. Furthermore, additional reflection on terminology may help resolve fundamental ambiguities in the text. Indeed, lack of clarity appears to persist on core operational terms such as recognition, identification, and determination of existence. Which at times seems to overlap with one another. We consider that more clarity on their respective meanings and differences in the context of the draft conclusion under consideration may be beneficial to ultimately clarify their practical application. We acknowledge the general value of the commentary in better outlining the scope as well as the inherent nuances of terms and concepts referenced in the draft conclusion. At the same time, however, the commentary cannot compensate for cases of fundamental lack of clarity of the draft conclusions themselves. In this respect, therefore, we encourage the Commission to allocate additional time to reflect on the core aspects of the topic under consideration ensure that the final outcome serves as a reliable reference for both practitioners and academics. Mr. Chair, as with any case in which general international law is called into question, General Principles II should reflect the widest possible acceptance among States., which in no case can be overlooked. Such could be the risk in the event of implicit recognition, as outlined in paragraph 7 of the commentary to draft Conclusion 6. We join the calls to delete the paragraph in question, while encouraging the Commission always to prefer law determination methods based on clear state recognition. The same should also apply to general principles formed within the international legal system, to avoid that their so-defined intrinsic character might result in overriding States' acceptance. In the same vein, we take note of the views expressed by the Special Rapporteur and within the Commission on the irrelevance of the persistent objector with regard to the general principles of law. In this regard, we are confident the Commentary will help clarify how to consider possible opposition to the formation of general principles of law within the international legal system. Moving to the role of subsidiary means, we appreciate the stated aim to clarify the possible ad hoc role of such means in connection with general principles of law. We welcome the general consistency between the relevant draft conclusions and the parallel work by the Commission on the very topic of the subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law. Against this backdrop, we note, however, that the different wording used to describe the role of decision of national courts may lead to uncertainties for users and practitioners when confronted with a systematic interpretation of the two texts. We call on the Commission to ensure full correspondence between the two texts, including the criteria to be used for assessing the weight of decisions and teachings. Finally, Italy appreciates the inclusion of a dedicated provision reflecting the growing significance of regional organizations, including the EU, and their profound influence on both national and international legal frameworks. We are convinced that recognizing this dynamic is key to accurately reflect the evolving landscape of international law. To this end, we see merit in deepening understanding on the role of general principles with a limited scope of application. Mr. Chair, Turning to Chapter 12 of the report, Italy takes note of the inclusion in the Commission's program of work of the topic "Compensation for the Damage Caused by International Wrongful Acts and Due Diligence in International Law" and congratulates Mr. Paparinsky and Mrs. Ridings, respectively, for their appointment as Special Rapporteurs. We also take note of the proposal to include in the long-term program of work of the Commission the topics concerning the principle of non-intervention in international law, identification and legal consequences of obligation erga omnes in international law, and legal aspects of accountability for crimes committed against United Nations personnel serving in peacekeeping operations. We see value in examining the topics to identify the state of the play of both opinio juris and practice in these domains, while making sure that any effort towards the progressive development of international law is generally supported by States. That concludes Italy's statement on Cluster I. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I thank the distinguished representative of Italy for his statement. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Switzerland.

Monsieur le Président, la—

Mr. Chair, Switzerland reaffirms its full support for the International Law Commission. We recognize the difficulties the Commission has faced this year due to financial constraints and regret that these have slowed the progress of its important work. At a time when international law is under unprecedented pressure, The Commission's mandate is more vital than ever. We therefore call on all states actively to engage with the Commission's work and to ensure that it has the resources needed to hold its full sessions and to fulfill its mandate effectively. We also expect the Commission to fulfill its mandate efficiently and to opt for cost-effective meeting arrangements. Turning to the topic of sea level rise in relation to international law, Switzerland would like to take this opportunity to express its gratitude and congratulate the Commission on the adoption of the final report of the study group. The timeliness and importance of the topic is underlined by the acknowledgement of the work done by the Study Group by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion on the obligations of States in respect of climate change. We call on all States to work together with a view to addressing this multidimensional global challenge and finding equitable solutions. Mr. Chair, Switzerland thanks the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez for its fourth report on general principles of law, as well as the Drafting Committee for its report on the consolidated text of draft conclusions 1 to 12. We take this opportunity to illustrate from the perspective of Switzerland the application of the 12 draft conclusions in a practical context. For example, if they were to be applied to the principle of safe conduct for peace negotiations, Switzerland would conclude that it is constitutive— constitutive of a general principle of international law. Indeed, this principle enjoys recognition by the international community in line with draft conclusions 2 and 7. It is reflected across diverse national legal systems, thereby fulfilling the requisite criteria of commonality and transposability to the international legal order, in line with Draft Conclusions IV, V, and VI. It has also been acknowledged in judicial decisions and authoritative legal scholarship, in line with Draft Conclusions 8 and 9. Safe conduct plays a vital role in ensuring the protection of persons and facilitating international relations, serving as an essential legal principle to complement and interpret existing rules, in line with Draft Conclusion 10. Accordingly, Switzerland considers that safe conduct qualifies as a general principle of international law in accordance with the Drafting Committee's draft conclusions. Finally, Switzerland does not dispute the potential existence of general principles of law with a limited regional scope of application as referred to in Draft Conclusion 12. Switzerland does not anticipate the existence of such principles within specific fields of international law, including international environmental law, but only potentially within general international law. The Special Reporters view that the commentaries for Draft Conclusion 12 should clearly acknowledge this as an area of evolving law is particularly well founded. So Switzerland further takes this opportunity to comment on two annexes of this year's report. As regards the topic of identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes addressed in Annex 3 of the Commission's report, Switzerland is convinced that its inclusion in the Commission's long-term program of work will lead to much-needed and valuable progress on the matter. As regards the topic proposed in Annex IV of the report concerning legal aspects of accountability for crimes against UN personnel, Switzerland reiterates that the protection of UN personnel is key for the functioning of the UN, as is the fight against impunity. During its mandate at the Security Council, Switzerland therefore initiated and submitted Resolution 2730 on the protection of humanitarian and UN personnel. Switzerland would like to underline that the existing rules are clear as regards the rights and obligations of peacekeeping personnel involved in armed conflict, their protection, as well as accountability for crimes committed against them. It is rather the implementation of these rules that is all too often lacking. Switzerland therefore strongly advises focusing on the implementation of the existing framework instead of elaborating new rules as proposed in Annex IV. Indeed, it is essential to preserve the integrity of existing rules of international humanitarian law which protect civilians and persons hors de combat. For these reasons, Switzerland advises against the inclusion of this topic, as currently described in Annex IV, in the Commission's long-term program of work. So, to conclude, Switzerland welcomes the inclusion of the topic compensation for the damage caused by international wrongful acts and due diligence in international law in the program of work of the Commission and congratulates Ms. Penelope Ridings and Mr. Martin Paparantzakis for their appointment as special rapporteurs. Regarding due diligence, Switzerland concurs with the view expressed in Annex II of the Commission's report on its, uh, 70— in its 75th session that a systematic approach is warranted, one that examines the full ambit of due diligence. Switzerland welcomes the Special Rapporteur's plan to clarify the legal character, scope, and content of due diligence in international law. To achieve this, the common elements of due diligence will be identified through review of state practice, judicial decisions, and doctrine. In addition to state practice referenced in Annex II, we propose including the opinio juris of states in this review, assuming it is not already encompassed within the existing text of Annex II. In this regard, it will be important to analyze carefully how the element of knowledge is not only a trigger for primary due diligence obligations, but also an indicator for the standard of due diligence to be applied. Similarly, as due diligence is always a principle guiding measures for the prevention of future harm, current capacities and current responsibilities will similarly be important factors for the determination of the required due diligence standard. Furthermore, Switzerland supports the Special Rapporteur's proposal to develop draft principles as a potential output of this work while remaining open to alternative forms that may emerge as progress is made on the topic. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Switzerland for his statement. The next speaker on my list is the permanent representative of Palau, speaking, also speaking on behalf of the AOSIS. You have the floor.

Mr. Chair, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the members of the Alliance of Small Island States, AOSIS, the 39 small island developing states that are especially affected by sea level rise. As many other states have said, we were particularly concerned that the current liquidity crisis had such a significant impact on the work of the ILC this year. The role of the ILC in the codification and progressive development of international law is critical. We echo the comments of other states that for the coming session we must return to the traditional length of the ILC sessions. Moving now to the issue of sea level rise. Since the 1989 Small States Conference on sea level rise in the Maldives, we've been at the forefront of the development of international law as it relates to the climate crisis and sea level rise. This reflects our continued commitment to engaging in the development and application of international law on an issue that deeply affects each of our states. In this era of unprecedented and relentless sea level rise, international law must evolve to meet the climate crisis and the disproportionate effects that it has on SIDS. The final report of the study group on sea level rise in relation to international law and its unanimous adoption by the whole International Law Commission is clear evidence that international law is reflecting the reality that we are facing on the ground. We thank the International Law Commission and particularly the co-chairs of the study group for concluding 7 years of work on this historic topic. Their 5 reports, extensive research, and genuine engagement with States practice have clarified a critical area of international law. Its conclusions affirm what AOSIS has said for decades, including that the law of the sea must preserve stability and equity, that statehood and sovereignty persist despite physical change, and that the protection of affected persons demands international cooperation. Today we would like to take this opportunity to comment on the final report and suggest ways forward. On the Law of the Sea, AOSIS has repeatedly, and at its highest levels of our government, said that UNCLOS does not obligate states to keep baselines and outer limits of maritime zone under review, nor to update charts or lists of geographical coordinates once they're deposited with the UN Secretary General. Such maritime zones and the rights and entitlements that flow from them shall continue to apply without reduction notwithstanding any physical changes connected to climate change-related sea level rise. The Commission confirms that UNCLOS contains no provisions requiring states to update baselines, geographic coordinates, charts, or the outer limits of maritime zones once duly deposited. For SIDS, this is not an abstract technicality. It's about the continued enjoyment of rights and entitlements that international law has already conferred. We welcome that the ILC underscored the importance of legal stability, certainty, and predictability, and that it acknowledged that moving baselines and outer limits of maritime zones landward because of sea level rise would produce inequitable outcomes to the benefit of those least affected and to the detriment of those most vulnerable. The Commission notes widespread support among states for the 2021 Pacific Islands Forum Declaration. That declaration, first advanced by Pacific SIDS and later echoed in the 2021 AOSIS Leaders' Declaration, constitutes precisely the state practice and opinio juris that AOSIS has brought to the Commission and this Committee's attention each year. The Commission's acknowledgment confirms that the preservation of maritime zones has now achieved general acceptance by states as consistent with UNCLOS and customary international law. With respect to the issue of statehood, the practice of states over the past century has indicated that the continuity of statehood is a fundamental principle of the international order. EOSIS's interpretation of international law, as reflected in our 2024 Declaration on Sea Level Rise and Statehood, is that there is no existential threat to our statehood from climate change-related sea sea level rise. As such, EOSIS strongly welcomes the recognition in paragraph 35 of the final report of strong support among states for the continuity of statehood and sovereignty and the maintenance of international legal personality and membership of international organizations. It makes explicit reference to the 2023 PIF and the 2024 EOSIS declarations indicating that they have received widespread support from other states. The final report rightly concludes that the Montevideo criteria does not address the question of the continuity of statehood in the context of climate change-related sea level rise. Rather, the right of states to preserve their existence and territorial integrity and the right of peoples to self-determination are relevant legal foundations for continuity. To be clear, AOSIS underscores that once a state is created by people expressing their right to self-determination through statehood, that statehood will cease only if another form of expression of the right to self-determination is explicitly sought and freely exercised by that people. This is the only determinant of whether a state continues. The principles of self-determination, sovereign equality, and territorial integrity are not conditional on geography or elevation. AOSIS also welcomes the Commission's attention to the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. The final report rightly identifies that existing legal frameworks are fragmented and insufficient, and that the protection of human dignity must guide all responses to this phenomenon. In our 2024 Declaration, we acknowledge that international cooperation, including through the provision of technical, financial, or other support will be required to protect persons and communities affected by climate change-related sea level rise, including, inter alia, protecting their culture, cultural heritage, identity, and dignity, and meeting their essential needs. The ILC's conclusion that such cooperation is required to protect culture, heritage, identity, and dignity is therefore of great significance. It brings the law closer to the lived realities of peoples and communities, including those residing in small island developing states, and to the principles of solidarity and equity that underpin the UN Charter. AOSIS has consistently underscored that the duty of cooperation is a general principle of international law grounded in the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Rio Declaration. The final report affirms that duty in the context of climate change-related sea level rise. We have said before that while cooperation is a legal obligation, it's also a matter of equity. AOSIS members are among the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases that drive climate change-related sea level rise, yet we face some of the most severe consequences of rising sea levels. To expect small island states to shoulder the burden of sea level rise without assistance from the international community would be the pinnacle of inequity. The Commission's analysis of cross-cutting issues confirms what AOSIS has long maintained: the three subtopics—law of the sea, statehood, and protection of persons—are legally interdependent. Among other reasons, the continuity of statehood is directly linked to the preservation of maritime zones and the protection of affected populations. The report explicitly identifies legal stability, certainty, and predictability as cross-cutting principles, together with self-determination, sovereignty, equality, and permanent sovereignty over natural resources. This consolidation of principles mirrors AOSIS's articulation of an integrated legal framework grounded in equity and justice. Finally, I must quote directly from paragraph 52, as it succinctly encapsulates This report, the position AOSIS has been advancing since 2020, and indeed the current interpretation of international law. A practical legal response to climate change-related sea level rise should be one that prevents the loss of existing lawful rights, whether territorial or maritime. Sea level rise cannot be a reason for any state to lose the rights associated with statehood, such as maritime entitlements, self-determination, and permanent sovereignty over natural resources. Mr. Chair, AOSIS welcomes the final report as a strong foundation for the work ahead. It lays the groundwork for a political declaration at next year's High-Level Meeting on Sea Level Rise, one that can translate these legal principles into a clear political commitment to equity, stability, and justice for Small Island Developing States. At the same time, as we reflect on this report and the recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on climate change, climate change, it may be timely to consider whether there remain related areas of international law on climate change that could benefit from future attention by the International Law Commission. For example, in relation to obligations of cooperation, prevention, and reparations under international law. The Commission's work has provided the clarity that SIDS have long sought. It has confirmed that international law, when properly understood, is not powerless in the face of rising seas. What is required now is the political will to carry these principles forward as required by international law. As ever, AOSIS stands ready to work with all member states to ensure that our collective understanding of the law continues to mature as it must to secure stability, fairness, and dignity for all nations, large and small. I thank you.

I thank the Permanent Representative of Palau for her statement on behalf of the AOSIS. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Belarus.

Distinguished Mr. Chairman, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, the delegation of the Republic of Belarus would like to commend the work of the ILC carried out during its 76th session on continuing the codification and progressive development of a number of norms of international law. These are significant in terms of strengthening the international legal order and to eradicate uncertainties in regulating contemporary international relations in certain areas. In this regard, we once again, um, underscore the importance of the close interaction with the ILC, with states, and the careful attention given by the Special Rapporteurs and other members of the Commission to their positions as part of the consideration of the outcomes of the codification and progressive development of norms of international law on relevant topics. It is only this kind of cooperation on the— in terms of the work of the Commission can it lead to much-needed international legal documents which ensure the integrity and effectiveness of international law and reflect the genuine collective will of members of the international community. To further improve the clout of the ILC and strengthen its role as a key international body in the area of the codification of international law, it is particularly important to strike the right balance in its work and to determine pertinent topics for its future work. We welcome discussions on this issue. In the Commission, and we hope that, bearing in mind opinions of states expressed in the Sixth Committee, balanced decisions will be taken and the most pressing areas in the area of codification of international law will be chosen. Of the new proposed topics, in our opinion, the topic of the principle of non-interference in international law warrants particular attention. The work on this, although it could lead to a difficult discussion, may well be useful to eradicate various disagreements in implementing this fundamental norm of international law. However, for the work on this topic to be successful, it's important for it to be focused primarily on the codification of existing norms and not on drafting new international legal conceptual approaches. We also suggest that as a priority, attention should be paid to other topics included in the long-term program of work of the Commission, in particular, jurisdictional immunity of international organizations, the protection of personal data in transnational flows, the standard for fair and equal treatment in international Investment law, and proof in international courts and tribunals, or evidence. So regarding the first cluster of topics under discussion, we would like to give the following general comments. The Belarusian delegation studied the final document of the study group, the open-ended study group on sea level rise in relation to international law. We confirm our position, namely that it's important and timely to study this issue for the international community, in particular for those states and populations affected by such phenomena. We note that the results of this study group would nonetheless have been more comprehensive in nature if the topic had also studied the possible impact of international maritime routes between countries, including with landlocked countries. We agree with the study group that maintaining legal certainty, clarity, and predictability is directly linked to a balanced interpretation of UNCLOS and other norms of international law. These allow for the maintenance of baselines, the outer limits of maritime zones and rights linked to them, irrespective of any changes to the shoreline caused by climate-related— climate sea level rise. Questioning maritime boundaries that have been agreed or appropriately established in line with international law and related to sea level rise caused by climate change runs the risk of causing legal uncertainty and new disputes in maritime areas that were previously settled. We also advocate the approach on the continuity of statehood and sovereignty, and also maintenance of international legal personality and membership in international organizations with regards to states particularly affected by climate-related sea level rise, climate change-related sea level rise. In the context of the consideration of all these topics, it is a priority to establish the appropriate legal frameworks to protect the rights and interests of the affected populations of states affected by sea level rise and other global climate change phenomena. Special guarantees should be established to ensure the rights of the affected peoples to self-determination self-determination, the enjoyment of the rights to enjoy ownership of natural resources, and also to uphold human rights, including given the potential growth in the number of displaced persons both internally and externally. The Belarusian delegation will continue to closely follow developments in this area. Mr. Chair, I would like to express my gratitude to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez for his fourth report on the topic General Principles of Law. We are convinced that the fundamental nature of this topic is extremely important for the work of the Commission, including cross-sectoral work. Our delegation recognizes the importance of the general principles of law as one of the sources of international law, which is enshrined in Article 138 of the Statute of the International Court. We support further work in the ILC on explaining the methods to identify, define, and what the functions are of the general principles of law as a formal source of international legal obligations. Nonetheless, we would urge the Commission to take a balanced, gradual approach to studying this topic, work on identifying and interpreting general principles of law cannot lead to the automatic emergence of new international obligations for states who have not consented to this and they in no way intend to consent to them, or the actions of which they have not recognized. In line with the aforementioned norm of the Statute of the International Court, the general principles of law are a source of law binding for states along with international treaties and customary international law. In this regard, it is very important to underscore the fundamental approach here. These two sources of international law can become legally binding only with the necessary existence of clear consent of states or the existence of unified practices of states recognized as legally binding. In order to establish a general principle of law, that should not create new norms of international law, but rather address gaps in existing international legal regimes to ensure their integrity and effectiveness. For this, there's a need for the consent of states to the obligation stemming from general principles of law. Just like for customary international law and international treaties, the issue of the form of expression of this consent or— the recognition should be a subject of discussion and reflection both in the draft conclusions and in the commentaries there too. In the process of working on the topics, the Commission should ensure that when concluding work on this topic, the role of states have been fully taken into consideration and the recognition of the formation of any kind of general principle of law. The participation of international organizations in identifying and recognizing general principles law should depend on the nature of the relations that— to which these principles pertain and the opinion of member states. We also welcome the progressive decision of the Commission to avoid the use of the outdated expression 'general principles of law recognized by civilized nations,' despite the fact that this is enshrined in the Statute of the International Court. Such an approach is in line with the principle of the sovereign equality of states and we believe this to be very important. We also consider it necessary to— for the Commission to continue studying two types of general principles of law that are international legal significance: general principles stemming from national legal systems and general principles formed as part of national legal systems. We continue to believe that general principles of law formed as part of an international legal system should, for them to be recognized, take on the status of a norm of international law in line with the main methods of their formation. We also believe it to be important to add to the draft conclusions regarding relations between the general principles of law and the peremptory norms of international law. When there is identification of a particular principle of law stemming from national legal systems, There's a need to establish that this does not contradict the peremptory norms of international law before they be included in international law. The delegation of the Republic of Belarus is looking forward to further positive outcomes of the work of the Commission on the methodology for identifying general principles of law, taking into consideration the needs to maintain established consensus regarding the scope of the topic, the methods for its study, and forms of the final outcome of the work of the Commission. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Belarus for his statement, and I give the floor now to the distinguished representative of Nigeria.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Nigeria aligns with the statement delivered by the representative of Cameroon on behalf of the African Group and wishes to make these additional remarks in its national capacity. We express our sincere appreciation to the International Law Commission for its exceptional and timely work on the topic of sea level rise in relation to international law. We commend the co-chairs and the entire study group for producing a report of remarkable clarity and depth. This 2025 final report provides the international community with an indispensable legal analysis of a challenge that touches upon the very foundations of our international order. For Nigeria, this is not a theoretical exercise. Our extensive low-lying coastline is home to millions of our citizens, and the rising sea is a clear and present danger. We are witnessing the erosion of our coasts, the intrusion of saltwater into our freshwater supplies, and the displacement of communities in the Niger Delta and in our economic hub of Lagos. In this, we see our own future intertwined with that of our fellow African coastal states and the Small Island Developing Nations who face this threat most acutely. We are bound by a shared vulnerability and a common cause for a just and equitable response. Mr. Chair, Nigeria finds great merit in the legal framework presented by the Commission. With respect to the Law of the Sea, we strongly endorse the conclusion that legal stability and predictability must be paramount. We agree that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not require states to constantly update their lawfully established baselines and maritime zones as coastlines recede. This principle of preservation is a vital safeguard for the sovereign right of states over their natural resources and is essential for preventing future maritime disputes. Turning to the protection of persons, my delegation shares the Commission's concern over the clear gap in the international legal framework. While we have robust human rights laws, there is no dedicated instrument to address the unique situation of those displaced by sea level rise. We cannot allow a situation where people are left without legal protection. Nigeria therefore supports the Court to develop a new cooperative framework or instrument to manage displacements with dignity, prevent statelessness, and protect the cultural heritage of affected communities. Protection of persons is intrinsically linked to the question of statehood. Nigeria fully concurs with the Commission's conclusion that there is a powerful presumption of the continuity of statehood even in the face of significant territorial loss. A state's legal personality and the right of its people to self-determination should not be extinguished by a physical phenomenon. We believe this principle reflects existing customary international law and should be affirmed by the international community. It is worthy of note that the Commission has provided us with legal clarity. It is now up to us to demonstrate the necessary political will. Nigeria believes our collective efforts should be focused on several key outcomes. We must formally endorse the Commission's core conclusions, affirming our collective commitment to legal stability in our maritime entitlement and the continuity of statehood. Nigeria believes we must give true meaning to the principle of cooperation This requires the mobilization of predictable and adequate financial and technical support to help affected states build resilience and adapt to the unavoidable impacts of sea level rise. In conclusion, Mr. Chair, Nigeria affirms its deep commitment to multilateralism and the rule of law. The challenge of sea level rise is a test of our collective resolve. By grounding our response in the principles of justice, with justice, equity, and shared responsibility, we can meet the test. The International Law Commission has charted a clear course, and it is our duty to follow it together. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Nigeria for her statement. I give the floor to our next speaker, the distinguished representative of Spain.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It is an honor to address the Sixth Commission to deal with the ILC work and its 76th session regarding the issues in this Cluster 1. Firstly, Spain would like to indicate that it is aligning itself with the EU delegation and we would like to make the following comments in our own capacity, sir. I would like to start by considering the issue general principles of law. Spain is grateful to the ILC, in particular to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Vázquez Bermúdez, for the work done during this session. My delegation has previously stated that it agreed with the text for the draft conclusion approved at a first reading, and today we should like to voice our agreement concerning particularly some amendments made to the text during this session. Particularly looking at the definition, the categorization of the general principles of law in Draft Conclusion 3, vis-à-vis the distinction between general principles of law derived from national legal systems and the general principles of law that can be formed under the international system of law. Likewise, we wish to say that we agree with the methodology of two stages outlined to identify, determine, and transpose a, a general principle of international law derived from national systems in Draft Conclusions 4 and 6. Spain also agrees with the inclusion in Draft Conclusion 12 pertaining to the general principles of law with a limited scope. We take it that practice undeniably reflects existence of principles applicable solely when it comes to relations between various subjects under international law, for example, between a determined number of states. But also there are principles applied which are proper to distinct and different systems of international law, which have a specific scope, which is determined in material terms. Here, our delegation would like to say that we agree with the deletion of paragraph 2 of draft conclusion 7. On paragraph 1 of this— the draft conclusion number 7 entitled identification of the general principles of law formed under the international rules of law. Spain believes that the drafting of paragraph 1 here runs parallel to the draft conclusion 4 on general principles in the domestic sphere. We agree with this, as in draft conclusion law. Firstly, there is reference here to determining the existence and content of the international law in particular, and secondly, the need to be certain of its acknowledgment. Although the questions could certainly regard— deal with more explanations, Spain believes it's correct to recognize the existence and content —of a general principle formed in international law, we believe it appropriate that the method to determine the existence and the content of a general principle of law formed under the international system of law lies in ensuring its recognition by the international community. In this way, we can avoid references to terms such as acceptance, binding, which in our view are more appropriate when it comes to the sources of international law, such as customary law or treaties. Unlike these, the general principles of law are not a result of agreements between states, and they do not lead to specific obligations in their mutual relations, neither do they recognize additional rights. These are an expression of the legal values and therefore must certainly be acknowledged and recognized by the international community. Sir, regarding the work of Chapter 4 of the conclusions on sea level rise in relation to international law, My delegation would firstly like to express its thanks for the work of the joint chairs of the study groups and also the work of these members of the Commission who made contributions here. The work has emphasized that sea level rise is a matter of vital importance for all states because effectively all states are affected and This is also— this work has also made it possible to underscore the imminent seriousness of the threat here for developing states. My delegation believes that we should highlight the perspective adopted from the very outset by the study group and the selection of those issues which it believed appropriate to address. For example, conclusions on the condition of statehood, questions relative to the condition of those affected, as well as law of the sea. My delegation would like to emphasize that thanks to the work leading to the final report, we have not just been able to identify matters of a serious and complex issue, but also to reach three extremely important conclusions Vis-à-vis which, firstly, nothing under the UNCLOS— nothing prevents the preservation of the basic lines around states regardless of the rise in the sea level. Then secondly, continuing the condition of statehood in the context of sea level rise due to climate change. The basic principle of international law here enshrines this condition. Then thirdly, international law contains principles, norms, and instruments arising from various material spheres, but which can make it possible to arrive at a specific legal protection of those people affected by a rise in sea level. My delegation believes, we take it, that these are sufficient bases to allow appropriate channels of future action by states. Here, it is also notable that the proposals and solutions put forward by, on the one hand, international tribunals and the ILC, on the other, concur. España quiere contribuir a la búsqueda de soluciones legales y cooperación en esto, como expresado por la Unión Europea, refiriéndose también al ICJ.

Gracias, señor presidente.

I thank the distinguished representative of Spain for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Thailand.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. At the outset, please allow me to express our sincere and deepest condolences to the Government of Spain on the passing of Madame Concepción Escobar Hernández and to the Government of Argentina on the passing of Ambassador Julio Barbosa. Their distinguished work guidance, and contribution to the international law will leave an enduring legacy. Thailand appreciates the work of the International Law Commission and the valuable guidance it provides to States through the codification and progressive development of international law. Before diving into the substance of the report, let me begin by expressing deep concern that the UN liquidity crisis affect the Commission works. We hope that a sustainable solution could be found to allow a sufficient period of the session for full consideration of the important topics. For substantive part, let me turn to Chapter 4, Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law. Thailand wish to congratulate Madam Patricia Galawa'o Teles, Madam Nulifer Olaw, and Mr. Juan José Luda Santo Lalia, the distinguished co-chair of this study group, on the successful finalization of the report on this important topic. Thailand welcomes the report and attaches great importance to sea level rise. And its implications not only for low-lying coastal states and small island developed states, but also for the international community, please allow me to share a few reflections on this matter. First, on the law of the sea, Thailand welcomes the report's affirmation that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea contains no obligation to update baselines, coordinates, or the outer limits of the maritime zone once duly established, and that there is no widespread state practice requiring such updates. This aligns with Thailand's consistent position that maritime boundaries, once determined by treaties or through decision of international courts and tribunals shall be final. We wish to reiterate our support for this finding, which upholds the principles of legal certainty and stability, as well as the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources. Second, on statehood. Given the importance of legal certainty and effect of the established maritime boundary, Thailand considers that statehood should not be deprived as a consequence of sea-level rise. In this regard, Thailand notes with appreciation the recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on climate change, in which Thailand participated. Participated, as it complements the Commission's work on this matter. Third, on the protection of persons affected by sea-level rise, Thailand recognizes the close linkage between this topic and the upcoming negotiation to conclude a treaty on protection of persons in the event of disaster, for which The draft articles were adopted in 2014. Speaking as a member of the core group on this matter, Thailand concurs with the Commission's final report on the sea level rise and international law, which suggests that a future legal instrument could be developed to provide a climate disaster nexus framework. Such a framework could play a vital role in upholding the rights and dignity of persons while ensuring their legal protection in the face of sea level rise. On this matter, Thailand wishes to reiterate the importance of the duty to cooperate, a principle of international law, roots in numerous treaties and instruments. We fully agree that international cooperation is indispensable in addressing the impacts of sea level rise, particularly with respect to the preservation of maritime zones, the issues related to statehood, and the protection of affected persons. Turning to Chapter VI, General Principles of Law, Thailand would like to express our appreciation to Mr. Marcelo Bacías Bermúdez, Special Rapporteur, for his dedication and valuable contributions. While we note that the draft conclusion could not be adopted at second reading due to the limited time allocated during this session, we recognize with the progress made, we further observe that Draft Conclusions 2, 3, and 12 have been the subject of extensive debate and reflect divergent views among members of the Commission. In this connection, Thailand would like to share the following comments on these draft conclusions. On Draft Conclusion 2, Thailand is of the view that "civilized nation" stated in Article 38, Paragraph 1 of the ICJ Statute is archaic and should be read differently today. At the same time, it is important to ensure that the use of different language shall not alter the meaning or scope of this provision. Any substitution should reflect the understanding that general principles of law emerge from the domestic legal systems of the States, why States remain the primary subjects of international law. Thailand also recognizes the roles of international organizations in the formation of general principles of law, insofar as their acts serve as evidence of such recognition by States. On Draft Conclusion 3, our position is that the criteria for the identification of general principles of law must be clear and distinct from the required elements for the formation of customary international law. In this regard, Thailand believes that caution should be exercised in the interpretation of Draft Conclusion 3. The suggestion that general principles of law may be formed within the international legal system may be overlapped with the formation of customary international law. On Draft Conclusion 12, Concerning general principles applicable only among a limited number of States, Thailand would welcome further clarification regarding both the applicable threshold and the methodology for their identification. Such general principles of law should be established on demonstrable commonalities among the domestic legal system of the relevant state, accompanied by clear recognition by those states. In this regard, Thailand emphasized that this conclusion should not be conflated with customary international law, which permits the formation of bilateral and regional custom. Thailand underlines the importance of ensuring consistency in the Commission's works under the theme of sources of international law, the careful examination of the interplay and synergies between the ongoing topic of general principle of law and subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law., as well as the Commission's previous work on identification of customary international law, it is essential to draw clear distinctions among those sources. With regard to Chapter XII, Thailand welcomes the inclusion of compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts and due diligence in international law. In this Commission's programme of work and extends its congratulations to Mr. Martin Palalinski and Ms. Penélope Leidings on their election as Special Rapporteurs for these important topics. Thailand also takes note of the inclusion of 3 topics in the Commission's long programme of work, namely: the principle of non-intervention in international law; identification and legal consequences of obligation erga omnes in international law; and legal aspects of accountability for crimes committed against United Nations personnel serving in peacekeeping operations. We consider this topic both timely and highly relevant. To the issues concurrently under discussion in the Sixth Committee. Thailand believes that the Commission will take the approach that could give practical guidance and solutions to theological-legal problems on these matters. In this regard, we also see potential further works on underexplored areas which may need more deliberation, such as international investment law and the protection of foreign investors. Last but not least, Thailand underscored the importance of the International Law Seminar as a vital platform for nurturing the next generation of international lawyers by enabling them to gain firsthand insight from the work of the Commission and its members. We encourage sustainable support for this seminar and reiterate the significance of teaching and dissemination of international law. In this regard, Thailand sincerely hopes that the current UN liquidity crisis will be resolved at the earliest opportunity and will not hinder the convening of this important seminar in the long term. We look forward to continue to engage on the remaining topics in the Cluster II session. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Thailand for his statement. I give the floor to our next speaker, the distinguished representative of China.

Mr.

Chair, China thanks the Chair of the International Law Commission, Mr. Paparinskis, for his report on the work of the Commission's 76th session and thanks the Special Rapporteurs on the various topics, the members of the Commission, and the Secretariat for their hard work in advancing the research. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the victory in the world anti-fascist war, and the founding of the UN. Looking back, the Commission's work has strengthened and upheld international rule of law, consolidated the UN-centered international system, and made outstanding contributions to an international order based on international law. Mr. Chair, on September 1st this year, Chinese President Xi Jinping proposed the Global Governance Initiative. One of the core ideas is upholding international rule of law, which includes formulating international rules based on broad consensus, ensuring the equal and uniform application of international law and rules, and safeguarding the authority and rigor of international law. Facing a complex and volatile international situation, the Commission should uphold tradition and pursue innovation. Continuously improve its working methods, and being guided by practical problems and countries' needs, broadly listen to member states' views at every stage to ensure its outcomes meet the real needs of the international community. In its research, the Commission should fully consider regional and linguistic balance so that its results fairly reflect the practices of major civilizations and legal systems, and they should maintain the good tradition of consensus, seek common ground, and set aside minor differences. Mr. Chair, China will now present its views on the topics in Cluster 1 of the report. First, sea level rise in relation to international law. Sea level rise is a common challenge for the world. This year, the Commission unanimously adopted the study group's final report, thus concluding its consideration on this topic. The final report covers 3 subtopics, and China offers the following comments. On Subtopic I, Law of the Sea, the final report notes that methods that would require moving baselines and the outer limits of maritime zones landward because land territory has actually been submerged due to sea level rise may produce unfair results. It also notes that states are not obliged to update baselines, geographic coordinates, and the outer limits of maritime zones to reflect changes brought about by sea level rise related to climate change. China agrees with these views. Sea level rise may have adverse impacts, with small island states bearing the brunt. These points in the final report help protect the interests of small island states, meet the broad expectations of all, and embody international equity and justice. China also wishes to stress that when studying and addressing law of the sea issues regarding sea level rise, it is not sufficient to discuss only baselines. Questions of historic rights should also be included. Beyond UNCLOS, the rules of customary international law on historic waters title and rights are likewise important bases for states' maritime rights and interests, and they provide legal support for preserving maritime zones and rights that may disappear because of sea level rise. China notes that the study group held useful discussions on historical waters, but the final report does not reflect that, about which China expresses its concern. On Subtopic II, Statehood, the final report refers to Article 1 of the 1933 Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, which stipulates that a state must have a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to conduct foreign relations. It also notes that these criteria do not address whether statehood continues to exist in situations of sea level rise linked to climate change. China agrees with such a view. Xi Jinping said, "Sea level rise may cause small island states to lose some of the traditional elements of statehood, but concluding on that basis alone that statehood has ceased would be profoundly unfair and harmful to the stability of international relations." It must be emphasized that the determination of statehood concerns international legal personality and is a cornerstone of international relations, so any discussion on statehood criteria should be conducted with great caution. On this basis, the final report rightly confines any flexible treatment to statehood to the context of sea level rise and does not inappropriately broaden it. In addition, China considers that the final report's linkage of sea level rise with the right of self-determination may constitute an expansive interpretation of the scope of that right, which warrants further discussion. China notes that in earlier discussions on this issue, some members pointed out that the application of self-determination is interconnected with other principles of international law, such as territorial integrity and non-interference in the internal affairs of other states, and that applying self-determination outside the decolonization context has proved controversial in practice. China emphasizes that the right of self-determination may be exercised only by peoples under colonial rule or foreign occupation, and sea level rise does not constitute an applicable circumstance. On Subtopic 3, Protection of Persons Affected by Sea Level Rise, the final report sets out guiding principles and elements of legal protection, identifies a range of practical tools, and emphasizes the need for international cooperation. These points help safeguard the dignity, security, and well-being of affected persons. While preserving the stability of international order and rules, which China supports. China appreciates the view that the three subtopics are interconnected. The final report proposes that for countries most severely affected by sea level rise, the principle of international cooperation should apply, and the international community is obliged to provide assistance. Which China agrees. As human society develops, the international community has become a community with a shared future in which we are all interconnected. China is ready to implement the Global Governance Initiative, promote the building of a community with a shared future for mankind, and make its contribution to addressing sea level rise. China also calls on developed countries to follow the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and to provide more support in funding, technology, and other areas to developing countries to address the adverse impacts of climate change. Second, general principles of law. The study of general principles of law as one of the sources of international law recognized under Article 38 of the Statute of the ICJ holds significant importance. China thanks Special Rapporteur Mr. Bermúdez for his contributions and congratulates the Commission on the adoption of the full set of 12 draft conclusions at the second reading. On general principles of law formed within the international legal system, Draft Conclusion 3 states that general principles include principles that may be formed within the international legal system. Draft Conclusion 7 provides that the identifying criteria is that states have recognized the principle as inherent in the international legal system. China hopes that the Commission will further provide examples of relevant international practice and clarify the distinction between such principles and customary international law, as well as principles contained international treaties so as to offer clear guidance. Third, other conclusions and decisions. China notes that the Commission has decided to include three new topics on its long-term program of work, namely the principle of non-interference in international law, the ratification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes international law, and the legal aspects of accountability for crimes committed against the UN peacekeeping personnel. China looks forward to the Commission continuing relevant research with rigor, caution, and balance, fully taking into account states' views and the practice to ensure outcomes that are aligned with current needs. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of China for his statement. Distinguished Dear colleagues and delegates, I wish to beg the indulgence of the Sixth Committee by temporarily interrupting the list of our speakers in order to give the Special Rapporteur on the topic "Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction," Mr. Claudio Grossman Gilof, the floor. I understand that the Special Rapporteur will not be able to be with us for the debate on his topic, which will be considered in the second cluster, as he has to depart from New York today. He wishes to make some brief remarks for the benefit of delegations at this time, after which we shall, of course, revert to our list of speakers. You have the floor, sir.

Muchas gracias por esta oportunidad.

Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity. Alas, I have to fulfill my obligations as a teacher and I therefore cannot remain. But the people who are with me will take very detailed notes of the comments and points raised. I would like to commence by looking at the special significance that there is in our being here, being able directly to enter into dialogue with the principal actors in international law, vis-à-vis the states. We have the ILC, which you created, which has a unique position. It's elected by states. It reports to states, and it is therefore different from other academic centers which contribute to the reasoning in international law but which do not have the opportunity to dialogue directly with states. Dialogue has made it possible to arrive at consent to create the basis of international law and at the same time address challenges which affect the existence and applicability of international law. It's enough to look at the principles of Nuremberg, what the Commission did, the Vienna Convention on Treaty Law, and there are many other contributions made by the Commission in this dialogue among states. Support and recognize the work of my distinguished colleagues. So their contributions have been vital. And also the Secretariat has done sterling work objectively making it possible for us to gain access to essential sources. I would just like to refer briefly to the history of this draft and the amendments on the part of the drafting committees and looking also at the future. Just to cast our minds back, it was decided in the past to look at the question of state immunity when we looked at Roman Kolodkin in 2007 to 2012. And Hernández from 2012 to 2022. This started in 2007, and we benefit from the work that they have done on this. Then on the 10th of May, '23, the Commission appointed me as a special rapporteur on this issue, and 3 reports have been issued by Kolodziej and Serrano Fernández, uh, Guided Eight Reports. I would also like to say a few words about the loss of my esteemed colleague Concepción Ignárez Hernández, whose contribution to international law has left a lasting imprint. In 2019, the Commission, at a first reading, approved 18 provisional articles with an annex pursuant to Articles 16 to 21 of the statute, and it provided this to the Secretary-General, to governments for their comments and observations, asking that this be presented before the 1st of December, 2023. The issue is intending to codify and gradually develop, as constant with the ILC, the rules pertaining to international law regarding to the immunity of state officials regarding criminal law of other states. This also considered international— or rather immunity regarding the most heinous crimes committed, and the aim was to achieve a balance between the sovereignty and equality of states and the guarantees, the assurances that should be inherent in the rules of due process and thereby avoiding politicization of the issue. Comments referred exclusively to criminal accountability, not civil. And again, the— special parties to this treaty remained outside the scope of this issue. This draft does not look at state obligations under treaty or special instances such as the Rome Statute amongst states parties to this instrument. As indicated in Article 1, these articles are to be understood without prejudice to immunity regarding criminal prosecution pursuant to rules of international law, particularly regarding those involved in diplomatic and consular offices, international obligations, armed forces, et cetera. There are two types of immunity in the draft. Immunity for persons and immunity of the material. Ministers, prime ministers have complete immunity while carrying out their functions. At present, the draft is at its second reading. This solely makes it possible to clarify and include new developments pursuant or in agreement with the state of international law. This draft has been looked at by the Commission for more than 20 years, and there have been manifold opportunities for states to express their points of view. As Special Rapporteurs in the past, in order to take into account everything, presented two reports providing new opportunities, one on Articles 1 to 6 and the other 7 to 18. I'm pleased to see that 54 countries came forward with comments during the 77th and 29th in 2023. 51 countries came forward during the 79th session in 2024. And 3 countries subsequently, looking at the last report I drew up. The Chair of the Commission mentioned that we dealt with Articles 1 to 6 and the corresponding comments, and that the Drafting Committee approved these provisionally without a vote, including Article 7. I would wish to say again that in accordance with the procedures of the Commission, the only definitive approval is given to the draft when all articles and comments have been presented. Having said this, I would say again that the Commission has provisionally approved 1, 2, 3, and 4, left definitions for Article 2, included 6, and took note of Articles 7, 8, and 9. I would say again that during the most recent session and on the basis of the proposals made by the Special Rapporteur, approval—provisional approval—was given by the Draft Committee to Article 7. Articles 7, 8, and 9, these are the articles pertaining to exceptions to legal immunity. These included crimes against humanity, genocide, torture, and forced disappearances. Taking into account the comments from states, it was proposed that the Commission should add the crime of aggression, slavery, and trafficking of as additional proposals to strengthen the safeguards established in Articles 8 and 18. I would like to voice my pleasure that the Draft Committee approved without a vote the proposals pertaining to exceptions for legal immunity, including those I've just mentioned. A commission next year will consider Articles 18, Article 12, definitions which we need to look at at the end of the draft and the relative comments thereon. The approval of the entire draft is given by the commission at the outcome and is the conclusion of its work. The crime of aggression was added because Pursuant to international law, it is a crime normally committed by a person carrying out his official functions. This crime has been widely recognized as such under the Nuremberg Trial. Again, it was recognized by the Commission in the draft Code of Crimes Against Peace and Human Safety in 1996, and it is in Article 6 of the Rome Statute. A considerable number of states have incorporated this in their national criminal legislation. Including exceptions to immunity preserves the development of international law as since— and Nuremberg is a very important stage in international law. The crimes of slavery and slave trade were added because these are clearly defined crimes under international law. They lead to individual criminal accountability and are also in customary law in many cases. Indeed, clarity also is constant with the crime— the definition of crimes against humanity in international law. These— inclusion of these crimes is justified because they have been used Cogans for much time. They have a very high status in international law— that is, aggression, slavery, and trafficking of slaves. To allow for immunity would mean that there would be a risk of legitimizing conduct that the international community has always condemned. The rapporteur identifies many reasons that are relevant here and acknowledges the important step taken by the drafting committee. I agree with you that I'm virtually— I feel myself superfluous when I say that slavery and Trafficking in slaves is incorporated. The next time the Commission will look at the safeguard when it next meets in Articles 17 and 18, as well as the relevant parts in the entire draft. Comments will cover the existing universal practice considering general steps practice. Now, our proposal in— here is to ensure that there's no impunity for the most heinous crimes, but at the same time, we need to adopt the necessary safeguards to prevent the politicization of this issue, to guarantee the respect of state sovereignty, and contribute to the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Disputes and the conduct of international affairs. Once this commission has analyzed these matters, the conclusions will be brought to the General Assembly with a recommendation that this should lead appropriately to states convening an international conference. States are the most important actors in this matter, and they therefore would have the opportunity to review and modify, look at the scope of these articles, and comment on there being the possible basis for a future instrument. I would like once again to say that I very much am grateful to you for having given me this opportunity.

Thank you. I thank the Special Rapporteur for his presentation, and on behalf of the Sixth Committee, I thank you again for all your efforts. Let us now resume to the list of speakers, and on my list, the next speaker is the distinguished representative of Romania.

Mr. Chair, at the outset, the Romanian delegation congratulates wholeheartedly the International Law Commission, all its members, and the Secretariat for the abnegation and commitment with which they have worked to produce yet another substantive report that so well informs the debates during this International Law Week. They have done this tremendous work in spite of all the difficulties, and especially despite the significant financial cuts that affected the ILC particularly harshly compared to the other UN bodies. These cuts translated into the loss of more than half of the working time of the Commission compared to the previous year. This means that more than half of the work of the Special Rapporteurs have not— was not used this year. Also, some of the works which have gone through the Drafting Committee could not be adopted by the Commission due to the second part of the session being cut. It is this delegation's firm position that solutions must be found in order for the International Law Commission to benefit of a full 12-week session divided into two parts that would allow it to progress efficiently with its work. Besides ensuring best conditions for the ILC, such solutions would also help to correct the perception that international law, its codification and progressive development, is no longer a UN priority and that its importance has been overshadowed by the more politicized files on its agenda. The international rule of law, to the consolidation of which the ILC undoubtedly contributes, remains an essential guarantor of the international peace and security, and no effort to promote it would be too costly. I would also like to pay tribute to the memory of Dr. Concepción Escobar Hernández, former member of the International Law Commission and distinguished diplomat in the Spanish Foreign Ministry, whose recent passing away was deeply sorrowed by, sorrowed by the international legal community. Her tremendous work on the ILC topic on immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction has expanded our understanding of its legal intricacies and enabled the significant progress that we are making today. Her scholarly work spanned beyond international criminal law into the fields of human rights and diplomatic law, where she left an important mark. She was a dedicated and modest person and an accomplished professional. She will always be remembered. I would also add our tribute to the memory of Professor Julio Barbosa, former member of the ILC on behalf of Argentina, and to this important legacy to the development of international law. I will turn now to the chapters within the first cluster. This year we have before us the final report on sea level rise in relation to international law, which concludes the work of the International Law Commission Study Group created in order to deal with the legal implications of the phenomenon of sea level rise. The final report completes an already substantial output of the Study Group: the first issue paper, the second issue paper, and the additional papers to each of them. As Romania has consistently highlighted, these papers are notable by their high quality, and the final report is no exception. We take this opportunity to express our gratitude to the members of the Study Group: Ms. Nilüfer Oral, Mr. Juan José Ruda Santolaria, Ms. Patricia Galvão Teles, and Mr. Jakub Cisse, for their work on this topical subject, and acknowledge the important contribution of Mr. Bogdan Aurescu as former member of the study group. We also pay tribute to the ILC for the courageous endeavor of embarking such a study, which uncovered significant areas where the intervention of states, including of prescriptive nature, appears essential in tackling the consequences or potential consequences of climate change. We note that the work of the study group has already made a significant impact. In particular, The International Court of Justice has made use of several findings of the study group in relation to sea level rise in its landmark advisory opinion on obligations of states in respect of climate change delivered earlier this year. The final report does a tremendous job in summarizing the key findings of the study group in respect of the three subtopics into which the matter was divided: law of the sea, statehood, and protection of persons affected by sea level rise. Together with those related to the cross-cutting issues and interlinkages between those subtopics. Equally valuable is the section which charters possible ways forward in order to address the implications of sea level rise, both in relation to the interpretation of existing instruments and rules and in respect to the development of new instruments and mechanisms. Romania regards as especially significant the conclusions presented in the final report in relation to the question of maritime zones, notably the finding that states— state practice generally supports the preservation of existing maritime delimitations even as physical baselines may shift due to sea level change. In relation to statehood, we would like to highlight the conclusion that the loss of territory due to sea level rise does not automatically imply loss of statehood and that continuity of legal personality should be preserved. Romania commends the ILC for clarifying these points, which help strengthen legal certainty, stability, security, and predictability in international relations regarding maritime boundaries and associated rights and obligations. Drawing on the ILC report, Romania wishes to single out the following issues which we believe would merit further consideration by this Committee. And which could be addressed in the future work of the General Assembly. First, preserve— preserving existing maritime boundaries and baselines in cases where they have been properly established, notwithstanding physical changes due to sea level rise. Second, ensuring that states already threatened by sea level rise must not be deprived of their legal personality or status simply due to loss of physical territory. And third, to strengthening cooperation in order to ensure that vulnerable states are assisted through financial, technical, and capacity-building means in line with the existing international law framework. Romania reaffirms that sea level rise is no longer a distant hypothesis. It implies core aspects of international law: maritime entitlements, statehood, human rights, and global cooperation. The work of the ILC provide much-needed legal clarity, which must be matched by political will and concrete action. To conclude, we stand ready to work in cooperation with all states to ensure that international law evolves to meet the challenges of sea level rise in ways that are equitable, predictable, and protective of the most vulnerable. Moving to Chapter 6, General Principles of Law, we would like first to take the opportunity to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez for his fourth report, as well as for all his hard work and for his constant dedication throughout the years for the study of such a complex topic. We also commend the work of the Commission in preparing the structure and content of the chapter dedicated to this issue. There are a few points that I would like to make, recalling our previous positions on these matters. First, while we appreciate the extensive and well-reasoned recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur,, we consider that the Commission should exercise greater caution in advancing the second category of general principles of law, namely those formed within the international legal system. The derivation of general principles of law from national legal systems is firmly grounded in the traditional understanding of Article 38, paragraph 1 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice and enjoys vast support among states. There remains insufficient evidence of consistent state practice and case law to conclusively affirm that general principles formed within the international legal system could constitute an independent source of law within the meaning of Article 38. Many states have rightly expressed concern that introducing the second category risks conflating general principles with customary norms, thereby creating uncertainty in the structure of sources of international law. Accordingly, we propose that the Commission exclude Draft Conclusion 3 and the corresponding methodological framework envisaged in Draft Conclusion 7. General principles of law should be limited to those derived from national legal systems. This approach preserves the stability and clarity of the topic, remains faithful to the traditional interpretation of Article 38, and avoids unnecessary complications and the risk of conflation with other sources of international law. Second, regarding draft conclusion 11, we fully endorse the Special Rapporteur's view that the absence of hierarchy should be maintained without introducing references to formal or informal hierarchies, which could create unnecessary confusion. The position that general principles can coexist in parallel, in parallel with treaty or customary norms of similar content is likewise appropriate. Where a treaty or customary rule specifically regulates a matter, the lex specialis principle should guide the relationship, meaning that, meaning the specific rule would prevail in that context without distorting the existence of the general principle as such. Further, we consider it necessary to clarify explicitly in the commentary that first, general principles may coexist alongside treaty and customary rules. Second, if a conflict arises between a general principle and another source, the general methods of interpretation and conflict resolution, including lex specialis, apply. And third, if a general principle were to conflict with a jus cogens norm, the jus cogens norm would prevail in accordance with the established hierarchy of peremptory norms. Finally, Romania opposes the inclusion of draft conclusion 12 and the principles referred to therein, which could suggest that existence of an— the existence of an additional category of principles beyond those mentioned in draft conclusion 7. Such a new category would only bind states, state members of a particular regional international organization, and would not be principles universally recognized by the community of nations, nor intrinsic to the international legal systems, which would seem contradict the draft conclusion requiring that general principles be common to the various legal systems of the world. We look forward to the final outcome of the ILC on this topic and congratulate it once again on the important progress made. On the final chapter of the report, we welcome the decision of the Commission to include the topics compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts and due diligence in international law. In its active agenda. These are subjects of the utmost importance for the international community, which Romania will follow with great interest. We congratulate Mr. Martin Špaparinskis and Ms. Penelope Ridings for their appointment as Special Rapporteurs for the respective topics and wish them good luck and wisdom in assisting the LSE with the codification and progressive development of international law in these fields. As far as the long-term agenda is concerned, Romania welcomes the introduction of the topics Identification and Legal Consequences of Obligations in International Law and the Principle of Non-Intervention in International Law. Both topics meet the criteria for the selection of topics for the ILC and are extremely relevant for states and their interaction in the international field. In particular, the topic concerning the identification of erga omnes obligations would complement the work of the ILC on jus cogens norms, offering thus a complete picture about these categories of special norms in international law. We would like to make just one point in relation to what seems to be already a decision of the ILC to exclude from the scope of analysis of the legal consequences of obligations erga omnes the issue of third-party countermeasures to ensure cessation of the breach and full reparation for the injury of such obligations. Such a position seems to rely not on the progress of state practice on the matter, the accumulation of which is noted in paragraph 53 of the syllabus, but in the— in its political sensitivity. It is the position of this delegation that the ILC should assist states in clarifying the law in connection with the topics chosen to the fullest extent possible based on state practice. The ILC should leave to the discretion of states and their debate the political sensitive aspects surrounding the matter and the assessment of the correctness of the conclusions reached by the ILC on this matter. Hence, Romania would find great value in the study the ILC could take based on developing state practice on the third-party countermeasures in connection with violations of erga omnes obligations. On the other hand, we consider that the topic of legal aspects of accountability for crimes committed against United Nations personnel serving in peacekeeping operations falls outside the specific mandate of the Commission, which is limited to codification and progressive development of international law. The legal aspects of accountability for crimes committed against UN personnel serving in peacekeeping operations have not been settled through state practice or opinio iuris, but are rather dealt with within the specific UN legal framework, including the specific contractual relations between the UN and concerned states. Consequently, it remains unclear on what specific matter the Commission would be expected to take a position. With these remarks, I conclude Romania's intervention on Cluster I topics. Thank you.

Agradeço ao Distinguido Representante. I should like to thank the distinguished representative of Romania for those words, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Portugal. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Since I am taking the floor for the first time, let me begin by congratulating you and the other members of the Bureau on your election. We are indeed in good hands. My delegation also wishes to congratulate Mr. Martin Špaparinskis on his election as Chair of the International Law Commission and thank him for presenting the report on the work carried out by the Commission during its 76th session. We would also like to acknowledge the valuable contribution of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs to the work of the ILC. In today's statement, my delegation will begin by making a few general comments on the Commission's work. We will then address the topics sea level rise in relation to international law and general principles of law. The other chapters of the report will be addressed over the coming days according to the proposed clusters. I'd also like to note that in the interest of time, I will read an abbreviated version of our statements. The full statements will be available online, as customary, in the delegates' portal. Coming to general comments and other decisions. Madam Chair, at the outset, Portugal wishes to convey its profound sorrow at the recent passing of Miss Conceição Escobar Hernández. In this moment of mourning, We extend our deepest sympathies and a message of affection and fortitude to Spain, her family and friends. We are also saddened by the passing of Mr. Julio Barbosa. We wish to convey our heartfelt condolences to Argentina, his family and friends. Madam Chair, their immense contribution to the codification and development of international law is today an important testimony that the dedication to and the profound belief in an international order based on the rule of law matters. That the work we carried out in this committee matters. That our own everyday commitment to international law indeed matters. The International Law Commission plays a critical role in building an international order based on the rule of law. My delegation, like many others, was seriously concerned about the dramatic and unexpected reduction of the time available for the Commission to carry out its work. We asked the Secretariat to take the necessary measures to ensure adequate funding for the ILC so it can meet for at least 10 weeks in 2026. Madam Chair, to conclude the first part of our intervention today, my delegation would like to welcome the Commission's decision to include in its programme of work the topics compensation for the damage caused by international wrongful acts and due diligence in international law. We congratulate the appointment of Mr. Martis Pamparinskis and of Ms. Penelope Ridings respectively a Special Rapporteur. I'll turn now to the topic sea level rise in relation to international law. My delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union on this topic yesterday. Mr. Chair, there are not many issues as challenging and pivotal as sea level rise. It is a direct consequence of climate change,— perhaps the most urgent challenge of our time. As Portugal stated in its oral submissions in the request for an advisory opinion submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law, it is not only science that compels us to act, but also international law. However, it is essential that what international law requires of States is as unambiguous and clear as possible. In this regard, Portugal would like to warmly congratulate the Commission for its comprehensive and invaluable contribution over the last 6 years. In particular, Portugal would like to associate itself with the Commission's resolution congratulating the Study Group and its co-chairs, Ms. Galvão Teles Mrs. Oral, Mr. Santolaria, and Mr. Aurescu. Outstanding contribution, tireless efforts, and devoted work are indeed very well-deserved compliments. It is a particularly proud moment for Portugal, as one of the co-chairs, Ms. Patrícia Galvão Teles, was instrumental in achieving this extraordinary result. The study group's final report addresses three essential aspects concerning the intersection of sea level rise and international law: the law of the sea, statehood, and the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. We would like to highlight some key ideas for each of these issues. Madam Chair, regarding the issue of law of the sea, in the past Portugal has stated that the aim should be to preserve existing rights and maritime entitlements under international law. In this context, allow me to underline the following aspects. First, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not impose any obligation on states to update their baselines when coastal conditions change, whether they are straight or not. The only obligation is to give due publicity to and deposit copies of charts and lists of coordinates. Second, the ambulatory approach in which states would be obliged to update their baselines would create unsustainable uncertainty that could lead to unbearable risks and potential threats to international peace and security. This is not without legal significance. It is in this context that Portugal believes that the principle, the principle that the land dominates the sea should be interpreted. Finally, it follows from the above that the principle of stability of and respect for for existing boundaries also applies to maritime boundaries, which as the Study Group has concluded, and I quote, "share the same function of demarcating the extent of the sovereignty and the sovereignty rights of a coastal state," end of quote. In this regard, Portugal notes that maritime entitlements do more than just granting rights to coastal states. Therefore, the stability of and respect for existing maritime boundaries are relevant to maintaining an ordered and well-managed ocean, a common objective in which coastal states play a fundamental role. Madam Chair, regarding the issue of statehood, Portugal supports the continuity of statehood principle. However, This is without prejudice on one hand to any state under the threat of sea level rise enacting appropriate measures capable of enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience, and reducing vulnerability to climate change. On the other hand, enacting adaptation measures is also without prejudice to the obligation of developed states to provide financial assistance and to transfer technology to developing countries to assist them. In this context, Portugal has been involved, among other initiatives, in capacity-building initiatives for Pacific Small Islands Developing States in fundamental issues such as international law and climate change. For this purpose, Portugal has proudly been among the financial supporters to a program organized by the Hague Academy of International Law in Vanuatu in this month, October 2025, which was open to participants from all PCEIDs. Miss— Madam Chair, regarding the issue of protection of persons affected by sea level rise, Portugal aligns itself with a careful analysis in the study's group final report. Namely, Portugal would like to reiterate that respect for human dignity must be a guiding principle in the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. Madam Chair, overall, Portugal stresses that the global challenges such as sea level rise can only be addressed through good faith international cooperation. In this spirit, Portugal would like to conclude by commending once more the Study Group for the quality of the work that has now come to an end. Madam Chair, I will now turn to Chapter VI of the reports of the International Law Commission devoted to the topic General Principles of Law. We thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vasquez Bermúdez, for his work and for presenting his fourth report, which allowed the Commission to make some progress on this topic. This is a topic not only of great relevance but also of some complexity. And as such, in our view, it needs a thorough debate so that clear solutions may be presented relating to this source of international law. Madam Chair, Regarding the issue of identification of general principles of law formed within the international legal system, we would like to recall once again the concerns Portugal raised concerning the distinction between general principles of law and international customary law. We had in the past expressed our understanding that although there had been some improvements to Draft Conclusion 7, there were still some questions, namely when it comes to paragraph 2. Since there seems to have been now a proposal to delete paragraph 2 and offer further explanation in the commentary to draft conclusion 7, we look forward to seeing how the Commission will address this question in the commentary. In addition, and as mentioned in previous years, My delegation would still welcome draft conclusions on the usefulness or significance of other subsidiary means for the determination of general principles of law, which could cover, for example, resolutions of the United Nations or international expert bodies and outputs of the International Law Commission. Madam Chair, to finalize our intervention on this topic, I would like to state that Portugal will continue following attentively the work of the Commission on the topic of general principles of law, and we hope that the Commission can address these and other questions that have been raised by my delegation. I thank you, Madam Chair.

Agradeço à Distinguida Representante de Portugal.

I should like to thank the distinguished representative of Portugal And I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Brazil.

The floor is yours.

Madam Chair, I thank the International Law Commission for its report on the work of its 76th session and Mr. Martins Paparinskis for presenting it to the Sixth Committee. Brazil deeply regrets that the Commission was unable to meet for 12 weeks as mandated by Resolution 79/121. This serves as a stark reminder of the impact of the ongoing liquidity crisis on the work of the organization. While mindful of the challenges posed by the current financial situation, we encourage the Secretariat to fully implement the mandates established by the General Assembly. Brazil thanks all members of the Commission for their continued efforts to strengthen the international legal system and to promote the codification and progressive development of international law. We believe that comments from States are of the utmost importance and must be duly considered in this endeavor. Madam Chair, Brazil commends the Commission for adopting the final report of the Study Group on Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law. And I thank the distinguished co-chairs, Ms. Patricia Govontelis, Ms. Núria Fororau, and Mr. Lula Santolaria, for their efforts in such an important topic. My delegation reiterates that respect for human dignity, the fundamental principles of sovereign equality, non-intervention, and the duty to cooperate remain essential when addressing the consequences of sea level rise. Given the anthropogenic nature of climate change and sea level rise, Brazil also emphasizes the importance of the principles of equity and of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. As affirmed by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, the CBDRRC is a core guiding principle for the implementation of climate treaties. It ensures the equitable distribution of burdens and acknowledges the historical responsibility of certain States. Likewise, The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, in its advisory opinion on climate change and international law, confirmed that CBDRRC is a key principle in implementing the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement. According to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, CBDRRC also reinforces intergenerational equity in the context of the climate emergency. Madam Chair, Brazil upholds the integrity of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We believe that any solution to the complex problems arising from sea level rise must be consistent with the Convention. In this regard, we note that there is no provision in the Convention requiring States to update baselines, geographical coordinates, or the outer limits of maritime zones once they are duly deposited with the Secretary-General, nor to update charts related to these zones, without prejudice to issues related to the safety of navigation. On the question of statehood, Brazil endorses the principle of state continuity. We agree with the Commission that the criteria for statehood set out in Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention are essential for the creation of states, but not necessarily for their continuity. We believe that state continuity is firmly rooted in fundamental principles such as the self-determination of peoples, sovereign equality, legal stability, certainty, and predictability, and equity. On the protection of persons, I wish to underline that Brazil's migration policy reflects Brazil's commitment to a human-centered approach anchored in international solidarity and international human rights law. Its firm belief in the continuity of states affected by sea level rise notwithstanding, it is worth noting that Brazil's migration legislation also aims to protect stateless persons and to reduce statelessness. To that end, we have adopted an expedited naturalization process for stateless persons. Which could also benefit those affected by sea level rise. Finally, regarding the possible ways forward suggested by the Commission, we believe that any mechanism designed to address the impacts of sea level rise grounded in state consent must take into account the right to self-determination and the human rights of populations affected. Any future arrangement with states affected by sea level rise should not create relations of suzerainty or subservience, nor give rise to new forms of trusteeship over formally independent States. Legal solutions to these challenges must safeguard both the dignity of affected populations and the sovereign equality of States. Madam Chair, I now turn to Chapter VI, on General Principles of Law, and I would like to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez, for his report. Brazil acknowledges the divergent views among states and among members of the Commission on the possible recognition of a category of general principles of law formed within the international legal system. In our view, beyond the methodological debate on identification, attention should also be given to the functions performed by general principles of law. These principles can serve as guiding elements for interpretation, and application of the broader body of international rules. In addition to those mentioned in the report of the Special Rapporteur, principles such as common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities also play an essential role. General principles enhance the coherence, consistency, and legitimacy of international law. In this context, Brazil supports the Special Rapporteur's proposal to revise the order of paragraphs in Draft Conclusion 10. —so that current paragraph 2, which highlights the systemic and interpretative function of general principles, appears first. Brazil reaffirms its understanding that the principles of international law are reflected in treaty and customary law. Nevertheless, my delegation would not exclude the possibility of categorizing them as general principles of law for the purposes of the draft conclusions. Given their distinctive nature and their interpretative and systemic value. At the same time, Brasil recalls that draft conclusions are primarily intended to systematize existing international law. We also take note of the concerns raised by many States during the debate in the Sixth Committee this week. My delegation believes that the ILC could carefully reassess the conclusions in light of the comments provided by States. Should the Commission conclude that there is broad resistance to recognizing the second category of principles, Brazil would support a "without prejudice" clause so as to allow for the possibility that State practice may, at a later stage, support the emergence of principles formed within the international legal system as a formal source of legal obligation. Brazil also supports the new draft Conclusion 12 proposed by the Special Rapporteur, taking into account recent regional developments, such as the recognition of representative democracy as a general principle within the American continent, as recognized by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Finally, Brazil agrees that a State may not act as a persistent objector with respect to general principles of law,, as this would be incompatible with the nature of this source and not supported by international jurisprudence or state practice. Madam Chair, with regard to Chapter 12 of the Commission's report on other decisions and conclusions, Brazil welcomes the inclusion of the topic "The Principle of Non-Intervention in International Law" in the ILC's long-term program of work. We hope it will be soon included in its active program of work. As noted by Mr. Mingyang Zhang in his syllabus, although the principle is widely recognized in international law, there remains significant uncertainty as to its precise scope and as to which measures adopted by states may constitute undue intervention in the domestic affairs of others. To conclude, Brazil welcomes the decision of the Commission to hold the first part of its 77th session here in New York. We hope it will have sufficient resources to do so, and we believe that closer interaction between the ILC and the Sixth Committee will help generate outcomes that are both relevant in substance and effective in practice. I thank you, Madam Chair.

Agradeço ao Distinguido Representante do Brasil. I should like to thank the distinguished representative of Brazil for And I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Algeria. You have the floor.

Muchas gracias, señora presidenta. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

My delegation aligns itself to the statements delivered by Cameroon on behalf of the African group and Oman on behalf of the Arab group. And would like to make the following remarks in our national capacity. At the outset, we would like to thank the International Law Commission for its comprehensive report on its works in its 76th session as contained in Document A/80/10. On this occasion, we commend the comprehensive presentation made by its chair, Mr. Martínez Babarriénsiquez, and commend the efforts by the members of the committee as well as the special rapporteurs and chairs of the working groups during the session despite the financial and administrative constraints and challenges faced by the organization. In this regard, we express our regret over the reduction of the— duration of the session from 12 weeks to only 5 as a result of the financial crisis in the UN. Such a reduction is unprecedented in the history of the Commission, and it will undermine its capacity to fulfill its mandate in the codification and development of international law. We believe that addressing this matter requires a strict commitment to the resolutions of the General Assembly and full respect of its prerogatives without any amendment not authorized by member states. Madam Chair, Algeria reiterates that the ILC is a key pillar in the international legal system structure, given its vital role in maintaining the stability in rules that organize relations among states and upholding the principles of justice and equality among all states. Algeria believes that the importance of codification and development of international law should be based on the comprehensiveness, geographic representation, and legal and linguistic balance to ensure that all legal systems are represented in the work of the Commission, in particular those which have over history contributed to enriching the international legal jurisprudence. Algeria also reiterates that the success of the Commission in its work depends on the— its interaction with member states, their priorities, and comments made in the Sixth Committee, as well as the commitment by all special rapporteurs to follow a balanced, comprehensive approach in dealing with all views and legal practices. In this connection, we welcome efforts by the Commission to add new topics on its long-term program work, including the non-interference in internal affairs of states, as well as the erga omnes in international law and the legal aspects of accountability in crimes committed against UN personnel working in peacekeeping operations. We believe that these topics are of special attention in a world— special importance in the world that experiences increasing challenges that are related to independence and sovereignty of states. We welcome the decision by the Committee to convene part of its upcoming session in New York. This will be an opportunity to enhance dialogue and direct interaction between the Commission and experts of member states in the Sixth Committee, which will consolidate the link between the national legal, uh, practice and the specialized academic discussion. However, we express our concern over the geographic imbalance in the representation in the work of the Commission, and we call for practical steps to be taken to ensure that the selection of the special rapporteurs considers all regions based on the principles of efficiency and balance. We express our regret that video broadcast of the work of the Commission has been suspended. This broadcast was an effective tool that enabled small delegations, especially from developing states, to follow the discussions in real time, and we call for the resumption as soon as possible. Madam Chair, regarding the progress made in relation to Chapter 8 on the sea level rise, we commend the efforts of the study group which has successfully concluded its work. We thank in particular the co-chairs, Ms. Galvão Teles and Mr. Santalorio, for their in-depth analysis which contributed to understanding understanding the legal aspect and impact of this phenomenon at the global level. And allow me to make the following remarks. Algeria believes that the continuous rise of sea level is one of the most serious impacts of climate change. It has legal and humanitarian consequences that threaten small island states and low-lying coastal areas. As such, it requires requires international solidarity and coordinated legal cooperation to address this phenomenon. Algeria believes that any legal approach to deal with this subject should be consistent fully with the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea as the law— the constitution of seas. This is to maintain the legal stability and existing maritime maritime limits. We encourage the study group to continue developing the legal rules without prejudice to the sovereign rights of states. In this connection, we commend the agreement— broad agreement among states that amending baselines or the maritime limits are not an obligation on states, to be amended as a result of the physical changes resulting from the sea level rise. Algeria also stresses the importance of the approach adopted by the Commission in addressing the statehood continuity and its legal international personality based on the principle of self-determination and territorial integrity. Of territorial integrity, including the protection of small island states that are threatened as a result of climate change. Algeria believes that justice requires recognition that the peoples most affected by this phenomenon are not responsible for it. On these grounds, we call for the inclusion of the international environmental law, in particular, the REIU principle on common but differentiated responsibility when examining the impact of this phenomenon to ensure equity and justice to developing states in shouldering the burdens and assisting them to build their capacities to address the impacts of climate change. As to Chapter 6, General Principles of We commend the work of Mr. Bermúdez and the efforts he made in presenting the fourth report. We believe that determining the general principles of law requires a nuanced approach that will distinguish clearly between the two categories: principles derived from national legal systems and those formed within the international legal system. In this connection, we stress the importance importance for any conclusion to be based on a broad comparative analysis of the national legal systems while taking into consideration the legal and linguistic diversity among member states. We support the approach that believes the, the general principles of law are one of the three sources of international law consistent with Article 38 of the statute of the ICGU without any hierarchy in— among these sources. We stress that these principles are a complementary interpretive tool to ensure consistency in international legal system. We stress that it is important to avoid conflating these general principles of law and the treaty or normative rules to maintain clarity in the normative structure of international system. In conclusion, Madam Chair, Algeria believes that it remains committed to the principles and purposes of the Charter and the rule of law. Algeria will remain committed to supporting the ILC and will continue to contribute in the development of international law based on justice, mutual respect, and international cooperation. Algeria reiterates its support to the Chair and members of the ILC, the Codification Division, for their continued efforts in service of international law.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President, the last speaker. In accordance with our program of work, this afternoon at 3 o'clock we shall continue looking at the second group of issues after we've dealt with the conclusion of the first. I have to inform you that this afternoon's meeting will conclude approximately at 4:30, after which there will be an interactive dialogue on the paragraph 12 of 59.313, the GA resolution. This dialogue will offer delegates an opportunity to deal with— an opportunity to assist in an informal setting any issue with respect to the ILC Report. This year, the dialogue will be moderated by the delegation of Sweden and will focus on the topic of sea level rise in relation to International Law. Before I adjourn, I should like to thank the speakers and kindly thank the interpreters for the time. Thank you.