UN Transcripts — https://transcripts.un.org/en/ga/c6/80/29
Sixth Committee, 29th plenary meeting - General Assembly, 80th session — Sixth Committee — 29 October 2025
Language: en
Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations.

---
6th Committee · Chair [0:03]:

Good afternoon, colleagues. I call this meeting to order. This is the 29th meeting of the Sixth Committee for the 80th session of the General Assembly, and we will now continue with our debate on the first cluster of topics concerning Agenda Item 80, which is the report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 76th session, after which we will turn to the second cluster of topics, but I do not think that will happen today. The report of the Commission on the work of its 76th session is contained in document A/AD/10, as you all know by now, and that is also available online on the website of the Sixth Committee. I will just at the beginning kindly ask the committee, all the representatives delivering the statements, to keep their statements as brief as possible because we still have an large number of speakers on the list, so it would be great if everyone got the opportunity to deliver their statement during this week, and your cooperation is appreciated in this, in this regard. Now, that being said, I think we can start with the debate this afternoon, and the first speaker on my list is the representative of Cyprus. You have the floor.


Cyprus [1:25]:

Thank you, Chair, for the floor. Allow me, on behalf of the Republic of Cyprus, to express our gratitude to the ILC Chair, Mr. Pawarinskis, for his report to the Sixth Committee, and to all members of the Commission and the Special Rapporteurs for their work during this year's session. We note with interest the inclusion of two new topics in the Commission's programme of work: With respect to the new topic regarding compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts, we look forward to a study firmly rooted in the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, and in particular Article 36. We also look forward to discussions surrounding the new topic of due diligence in international law, which encompasses the obligation to prevent significant harm to the environment and to prevent harmful acts by non-state actors in territory occupied by states. Turning to the Commission's work at its 76th session, my delegation wishes firstly to comment on Chapter IV, Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law. We thank the co-chairs of the Study Group on Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law for the preparation of the final consolidated report. Final Report. Cyprus aligns itself with the statement made by the European Union and its member states and further wishes to make the following brief points, mindful of the Chair's urge to delegations due to time constraints to abridge their oral interventions. Our full national statement will of course be submitted as per your guidance. Cyprus supports the position suggested in paragraph 58 of the Final Report that the existing legal framework governing the law of the sea may be interpreted and applied in a manner that effectively addresses the impact of civil rights by following a contemporary interpretation that takes into account the fundamental principles of international law. This approach has been reinforced by the recent advisory opinions from both the ICJ and ITLOS, which emphasize the fundamental importance of UNCLOS and the need to preserve its integrity. Cyprus cannot emphasize enough the indispensability of fully respecting UNCLOS, which constitutes the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out, the provisions of which reflect customary international law and as such are binding on all states. Thus, any interpretation of the applicable rules of international law should be made in conformity with and in full respect of the letter and the spirit of the Convention. Legal stability and certainty in relation to sea level rise are vital for the preservation of the rights of States, including as to the preservation of their baselines and maritime zones. Cyprus welcomes the conclusions presented at Part C of the Study Group's final report and reiterates its position that coastal States may designate permanent baselines pursuant to Article 16 of UNCLOS to withstand any subsequent regression of the low-water line caused by the climate-induced sea level rise. Cyprus is fully aligned with the Study Group's conclusion at paragraph 30 of its final report and wishes to underscore that UNCLOS does not require States to update charts in relation to baselines, geographical coordinates, or the outer limits of maritime zones to account for changes resulting from sea level rise, nor is there any— or nor is there evidence of widespread state practice to that effect. And that, quote, consequently, states are under no obligation to update charts to account for changes as a result of climate change-related sea level rise. To sea level rise. The International Court of Justice has indeed expressly confirmed this conclusion in its recent advisory opinion on the obligation of states in respect of climate change. In light of the overwhelming consensus in state practice, and especially in light of the aforementioned ICJ advisory opinion, Cyprus is of the view that there is no necessity of either an interpretative statement nor a subsequent agreement regarding the preservation of baselines and maritime zones, as suggested as possible ways forward. The ICJ's advisory opinion came after the issuance and adoption by the ILC of the final report of the study group. Cyprus is of the view that the advisory opinion issued by the UN principal judicial organ achieves the desired outcome concerning the interpretation elaboration and application of the existing international law, and in particular of UNCLOS on the matter at hand. On the doctrine of statehood, Cyprus wishes to highlight the observation made in the Commission's report that the majority of states that had taken the floor during the six Committee debates had considered that Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention dealt only with the creation of states and not with the continuity or extinction of existing states. Indeed, as the ICJ confirmed in its recent advisory opinion, once a state is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood. In this regard, Cyprus welcomes the conclusion that states may take all necessary measures in order to preserve their statehood Sovereignty and Maritime Entitlements. Cyprus agrees with the Study Group that the three subtopics—statehood, law of the sea, and persons affected by sea level rise—are deeply interconnected. The ability of a state to protect its population and fulfill its human rights obligations is directly connected with the issue of statehood. Sea level rise threatens the existence of low-lying coastal, archipelagic, and small island states, putting millions at risk of displacement and loss of land, culture, and citizenship. We are of the view that such challenges can only be addressed through effective international cooperation, and we urge the international community to support vulnerable, developing, and small island states in their efforts to confront climate change-induced sea level rise. Finally, with regard to the right of self-determination, Cyprus reiterates that the Commission should aim to preserve the special historical and legal context of the right of self-determination under international law, and in particular that self-determination emerged as a rule of international law in the context of decolonization and has always been applied to situations of colonial rule or foreign occupation. We would like to conclude our intervention on this topic by expressing our appreciation to the Study Group for their contributions to the final consolidated report. Fourth Report on Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law, and to commend the International Law Commission for its comprehensive work on the applicability of the relevant rules and principles of international law. Mr. Chairman, we will now briefly comment on Chapter 6, General Principles of Law. We thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez, for the preparation of the Fourth Report. And for his commendable work in highlighting the main issues of the topic at hand. Cyprus aligns itself with the statement made by the European Union and would like to especially address the discussion concerning the relationship between general principles of law and customary international law. Cyprus reaffirms the importance of respecting Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice which recognizes the general principles of law as an autonomous source of international law and establishes no hierarchy among the principal sources. Cyprus supports the view that the same norm can coexist in different sources of law, as is the case for customary and treaty law, examples of which are widely found in practices— in practice and are effectively addressed by international courts. Such parallel existence, however, should not blur the conceptual distinction between the general principles of law and customary international law. In this regard, Cyprus is of the view that the persistent objector rule should not be applied to general principles of law. We believe that the suggestion by some states of a possible relevance of the persistent objector to general principles of law has no basis in state practice or in the jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals and would unnecessarily conflate two distinct sources of international law. Cyprus affirms that such inclusion in the draft conclusion would offer no practical benefit and thus agrees with the Special Rapporteur that it should be avoided. We would like to conclude our intervention on this topic by congratulating the International Law Commission and the Special Rapporteur for their excellent work so far, and we look forward to continued constructive dialogue on the topic. I thank you for your attention.


6th Committee · Chair [10:54]:

And I thank you very much for your statement, as well as for complying with my request to deliver shorter statements. Indeed, colleagues, the full versions of all statements can be submitted to the Secretariat and will be posted on the website of the Sixth Committee. So in that sense, everyone is kindly encouraged to deliver abridged versions and and submit the full versions of their statements for their publication at the website of the Committee. Now the second speaker on my list is the representative of Lithuania. You have the floor. Mr.


Lithuania [11:27]:

Chair, distinguished delegates of the Sixth Committee. Lithuania underscores the vital role of the International Law Commission in the codification and progressive development of international law, which is fundamental to an international law-based international order. We regret that budgetary constraints have limited the Commission's work during the 76th session and stress the importance of ensuring sufficient time and resources for the ILC to fulfill its mandate. We therefore urge the Secretariat to explore ways to secure adequate funding for future sessions. Despite current challenges, we welcome the completion of the topic on sea level rise and commend the continued progress on immunity of state officials, dispute settlement involving international organizations, and general principles of law, contributions that are essential for legal clarity, justice, and international cooperation. On sea level rise, Lithuania welcomes the completion of the topic sea level rise in relation to international law and commends the ILC and its study group for their thorough work. Lithuania aligns with the statement delivered by the European Union and its member states, particularly regarding the recognition of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as the main legal framework governing almost all ocean-related activities. Its integrity must be upheld and any legal response to climate-induced sea level rise must remain consistent with the UNCLOS. We support the identification of key principles—legal stability, predictability, and certainty—as vital to protecting coastal states and ensuring continuity of Statehood. The final report outlines legal questions related to the law of the sea, statehood, and protection of persons affected by the sea level rise. It highlights cross-cutting issues and interlinkages among these areas, offering possible paths forward. Its release is timely, coinciding with advisory proceedings before international courts on states' climate-related obligations, including sea level rise., an issue also referenced in the ICJ's Advisory Opinion on Climate Change. We further welcome the Commission's decision to include the topics Compensation for the Damage Caused by Internationally Wrongful Acts and Due Diligence in International Law in its program of work, and the appointment of Mr. Paparinskis and Ms. Reding, respectively, as Special Rapporteurs. On Compensation for the Damage, Lithuania affirms its belief that relevant articles on the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts reflect customary international law. However, without effective mechanism to assess damage and disburse relevant compensation, the right to reparation risks being unenforceable. It is therefore essential to develop such mechanism on a case-by-case basis, ranging from quasi-judicial bodies to administrative commissions, all in full compliance with international law. Lithuania places particular importance on establishment of international compensation mechanism for Ukraine following the ongoing Russian Federation's war of aggression. Following UN General Assembly Resolution ES-11/5, this process was significantly advanced with register of damage already established and the claims commission to be set up in the very near future by the convention establishing the commission to be signed this December. The register of damage— with reference, we welcome— is the first of three steps towards a comprehensive compensation mechanism. The second is the Claims Commission. The work on its establishment is now finalized, which will assess and determine compensation for damage caused within Ukraine's internationally recognized borders. The third step will be the establishment of a compensation fund. Importantly, only state that bears responsibility will have to take the financial burden of any awarded compensation. Lithuania appreciates the proposal to address this topic and looks forward to contributing further to discussion in the Sixth Committee. We welcome the inclusion of themes and topics, the principle of non-intervention in international law and identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in the Commission's long-term program of work. By taking up these topics, ILC reflects its responsiveness to evolving legal challenges and its commitment to strengthening international law. We can— we consider both discussions essential. On non-intervention, we recommend streamlining the topic and incorporating relevant practice and opinion juris. Obligations erga omnes, such as Prohibition against genocide, slavery, and aggression are duties owed to international community as a whole. They raise important questions about legal permissibility of neutrality when such obligations are violated. While traditional neutrality allows states to abstain from conflicts, serious breaches may require action in response, or at least a condemnation. The ICJ and other bodies have recognized that non-injured states may have standing to act in defense of erga omnes obligations. Lithuania therefore proposes that the ILC also examine the legal implications of neutrality, clarify the duties of non-injured states, and explore thresholds where neutrality may conflict with need to act collectively. Addressing this issue would enhance the Commission's work and offer valuable guidance to states navigating their global legal responsibilities. Having already commended the ILC responsiveness Regarding the evolving legal challenges, Lithuania supports Poland's proposal to include new topics for future consideration, namely the protection of undersea infrastructure under international law and the status of ships without nationality or operating under false flags. These are timely and relevant issues that merit further legal exploration. Finally, we express our sincere appreciation to the International Law Commission for its significant work comprehensive report. Lithuania reaffirms its unwavering support for the ILC and looks forward to continued engagement. Thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [17:47]:

And I thank you, and I am now calling on the representative of Singapore.


Singapore [17:52]:

Mr. Chair, thank you for giving me the floor. As this is the first time I'm taking the floor, please allow me to congratulate you on your election as chair of this committee. And to reaffirm my delegation's full support. Please also allow me to express my deepest condolences to Spain on the passing of Dr. Concepción Escobar Hernández, and to Argentina on the passing of Professor Julio Barbosa. Both were eminent jurists whose expertise contributed to their Advancement of International Law. I am pleased to address Chapters IV, VI, and XII of the Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 76th Session. However, before I embark on that, I would like to briefly address the constraints on the work of the Commission this year due to the ongoing liquidity crisis. The length of the Commission's 76th Session was greatly shortened due to the liquidity crisis, and as a result, there was significant impact on the Commission's work. The Commission's work is of great importance and value to the understanding, advancement, and development of international law, and we find the current circumstances and the ensuing impact on the work of the Commission regrettable. Singapore hopes that the liquidity crisis can be resolved expeditiously and that the Commission can resume its usual duration of meetings as soon as possible. Until then, we urge the Commission to explore ways to adjust their working methods in order to work around the constraints, such as the possibility of conducting virtual meetings to complement in-person meetings. In this regard, my delegation notes the establishment of the Working Group on methods, on methods of work and procedures of the Commission, which will meet during the Commission's next session. We urge this working group to consider ways in which the Commission can streamline its working methods without compromising the high quality of its work products. I will now address Chapter 4 of the report on the topic sea level rise in relation to international law. Singapore joins other small island states in underlining the urgency and gravity of the climate crisis. As a small, low-lying, and densely populated island state, Singapore is disproportionately vulnerable to the impacts of climate change-related sea level rise. My delegation welcomes the final report of the Study Group on Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law, and congratulates the Study Group for the successful conclusion of the Commission's work on this important topic. Singapore commends the comprehensive work of the co-chairs of the Study Group on this topic over the years. The Final Report is a valuable contribution to the mapping of the applicable legal frameworks and existing state practice regarding the three sub-topics on Law of the Sea, on the sea, statehood, and the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. Singapore supports the conclusion in the Final Report that there is no obligation under UNCLOS to update charts or lists of geographical coordinates once they are duly established in conformity with the Convention and deposited with the UN Secretary-General. Singapore also supports The conclusion in the final report, which affirms the continuity of statehood in the face of climate change-related sea level rise. These are positions which have been endorsed in International Court of Justice advisory opinion on obligations of states in respect of climate change issued on July 23rd, 2025, and represent the consensus among the international community. These are also positions that Singapore has consistently espoused in our previous 6 Committee statements on this topic, and supported in the 2021 AOSIS Leaders' Declaration and 2024 AOSIS Declaration of the Heads of State and Government of AOSIS on Sea Level Rise and Statehood. Singapore also notes with appreciation The conclusion of the Final Report on the Protection of Persons Affected by Sea Level Rise: while there is currently no dedicated legal framework applicable to the protection of such persons, the elements identified in the Final Report provide a useful reference when formulating policies to contribute to the, to the protection of persons in the context of sea level rise. In relation to the cross-cutting issues identified by the Study Group, Singapore reaffirms our support for the view that equity and cooperation are crucial principles of international law in addressing the threat of sea level rise. In Singapore's previous 6 Committee statements on this topic, my delegation has emphasize that the principle of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities in the light of national circumstances is relevant, such that disproportionately affected states are not left to shoulder the burden of sea level rise without assistance from the international community. We are therefore heartened that this has been reiterated in the final report. In the words of the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion, the legal obligation to cooperate requires states in the context of sea level rise to work together with a view to achieving equitable solutions, taking into account the rights of affected states and those of their populations. Singapore looks forward to hearing the views of other delegations in the course of the present debate and engaging with other delegations in building upon the invaluable work done by the Commission on Sea Level Rise in relation to international law, including in the possible ways forward proposed by the Study Group in the Final Report. I now turn to Chapter 6 of the report on the topic "General Principles of Law." My delegation wishes to extend our appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, Ambassador Marcelo Vasquez Bermúdez, and to the Commission for their work on this topic. My delegation notes with appreciation the progress made in terms of the provisional adoption of the draft conclusions by the Drafting Committee on second reading. We particularly appreciate the efforts of the Special Rapporteur and the Commission to take into account the comments and observations of Governments on draft conclusions on general principles of law as adopted on first reading. My delegation is therefore pleased to note that amendments have been made to draft Conclusion 7 on the identification of general principles Principles of Law, formed within the international legal system in response to concerns from Member States, including Singapore, that the without prejudice clause in the now-deleted paragraph 2 was unclear, overly broad, and threatened to undermine the identification criteria in paragraph 1. We are also heartened to note that the Commission intends to include in corresponding Commentary to this draft conclusion, the methodology of identifying this category of general principles of law, and a more refined and illustrative set of examples of such general principles of law. We look forward to studying the revised commentaries when they become available. Regarding the new draft Conclusion 12 on General Principles of Law, With a limited scope of application, my delegation has concerns with the introduction of a substantively new draft conclusion at this advanced stage of the Commission's consideration of the topic. In this regard, we note that the new provision has generated differing viewpoints among Commission members, and we echo the concern raised by some members that no analysis of the relevant state practice has been done, and states have not commented on the possible existence of regional general principles of law. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur has observed in the Fourth Report the limited practice of states and international courts and tribunals on this issue. We note his suggestion to clarify in the Commentary to Draft Conclusion 12 that this is an area in which the law is still developing. However, our view is that it would be more appropriate to address this issue in the commentaries to existing provisions, such as in the commentaries to Draft Conclusions 2 and 5, instead of introducing a new provision at this stage, and to avoid extensive progressive development in the topic concerning one of the sources of international law. We also agree with the view of some Commission members that creating this new category of general principles would appear to contradict Draft Conclusion 5, requiring that general principles be common to the various legal systems of the world. As such, Singapore is of the view that Draft Conclusion 12 should be removed. On the other hand, we support the amendments made to Draft Conclusions 8, 9, and 10, which improve the drafting by providing greater clarity, accuracy, and consistency in the language. However, we reiterate our earlier comment on Draft Conclusion 10 that there is tension between the gap-filling function described in paragraph 1 of draft Conclusion 10 and paragraph 3 of draft Conclusion 11. We also reiterate our suggestion that since it is unclear whether all examples cited in the commentary will fulfill the methodology in draft Conclusions 4 to 7, the commentary should clarify whether these examples were cited from various decisions while reserving judgment as to whether they are indeed general principles of law. I turn finally to Chapter 12 of the report on the topic Other Decisions and Conclusions of the Commission. My delegation congratulates Mr. Martin Paprinsky and Ms. Penelope Ridings on their appointments as Special Reporters for the topics Compensation for the Damage Caused by Internationally Wrongful Acts Due Diligence in International Law, respectively. We look forward to engaging with their work on these topics. My delegation also notes with interest the topics which the Commission has included in its long-term programme of work, namely the principle of non-intervention in international law, identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law, and legal aspects of accountability for crimes against UN personnel serving in peacekeeping operations. These are topically relevant issues, and the work by the Commission could bring greater clarity to these areas of law. At the same time, my delegation is mindful of the current constraints which the Commission is facing due to the liquidity crisis, and the need to be as be especially judicious when it comes to adding further topics to the Commission's programme of work, given these constraints. In addition to efforts to streamline the Commission's working methods, we urge that the number of topics should be kept manageable to allow the Commission, as well as States, to engage with them meaningfully. Last but not least, my delegation Thanks the Commission for their hard work despite the challenges that they face, and we sincerely hope that the crisis can be resolved quickly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [31:04]:

And I thank you for your statement, and I'm now turning to the representative of Estonia, and I ask him to deliver his statement.


Estonia [31:15]:

Mr. Chair, Estonia would like to express its continuing appreciation for the work of the International Law Commission. And wishes to thank all the members of the Commission for their contribution in various capacities. Mr. Chair, today I start with addressing the topic of sea level rise in relation to international law. Estonia aligns itself with the statement made by the European Union and adds the following comments in its national capacity. We find that the Commission has done valuable work to clarify international law rules regarding this important topic. Moreover, the Commission's work has encouraged states to think about the legal and practical implications of sea level rise and has consolidated state positions and practice. It is notable that the International Court of Justice has already referred to the final report in its advisory opinion on obligations of states in respect of climate change, indicating the high quality and authoritative nature of the Commission's work. In previous statements, Estonia has favored the position that there are fixed baselines. There is no legal obligation to update baselines, geographical coordinates, or outer limits of maritime zones once they are properly established under the Law of the Sea. This approach was supported in the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and is also reflected in the final report of the Commission. Estonia maintains that there is a strong presumption of the continuity of statehood and the maintenance of international legal personality in the case of states whose land surface may be totally or partially submerged. Or rendered uninhabitable by rising sea levels. We need to preserve legal stability, certainty, and predictability, as well as security in international relations. The disappearance of one typical constituent element—territory—should not necessarily lead to the loss of statehood, a position shared also by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion. The loss of territory presents the state with serious challenges, including how to protect the persons affected by sea level rise. However, there are ways to mitigate the situation. For example, developing digital platforms in order to connect nationals scattered around the world and to provide services to such nationals. Estonia's experience as a digital society confirms that this is a measure that is not so difficult to implement and may be suitable for small states affected by sea level rise. We need to admit that the loss of territory is extraordinary and the affected state is not likely able to manage the situation alone. So international cooperation is crucial because the impacts of sea level rise often transcend national borders, requiring collective action for effective adaptation and mitigation. Mr. Chair, now let me turn to the topic of general principles of law. We welcome that the draft conclusions have departed from the traditional term civilized nations found in the Statute of the International Court of Justice and have instead adopted the more inclusive term "community of nations." Also, we agree with the Commission's assessment that the term "community of nations" may capture that international organizations could also contribute to the recognition of general principles of law. We appreciate that the Commission has decided to delete paragraph 2 of draft conclusion 7, which envisaged the possibility of the existence of other general principles of law formed within the international legal system. It was not clear what are such principles and how they are identified. Although Estonia does not see a hierarchical relationship between general principles of law, treaties, and customary international law, we are supportive of draft conclusion 10, that general principles of law are mainly resorted to when other rules of international law do not resolve a particular issue in whole or in part. We note that the Commission has added draft conclusion 12 about general principles of law with a limited scope of application. We understand there may be— or there may exist— general principles of law which operate within certain legal systems for a limited number of international actors, whether regional, sub-regional, or other. This draft conclusion may also be useful to accommodate future developments in international law. However, We ask the Commission to clarify the scope of draft Conclusion 12 in future commentaries. Mr. Chair, turning to the topic of other decisions and conclusions, Estonia welcomes the inclusion of the compensation for the damage caused by international wrongful acts and due diligence in international law in the Commission's program of work., and we wish to congratulate the appointed special rapporteurs and all the best, and we hope that they can soon start the work on these topics. Thank you. Thank you very much.


6th Committee · Chair [37:21]:

Representative of New Zealand has the floor now.


New Zealand [37:26]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. New Zealand thanks the International Law Commission for its report on the work of the 76th session. Please allow me to express New Zealand's sincere appreciation of the Commission's ongoing contributions to international law. We also record our gratitude to the Secretariat for its important work. New Zealand welcomes Chapter 4 of the Commission's report on sea level rise and international law. We thank the co-chairs of the Study Group on Sea Level Rise for their significant work. New Zealand's statement under Cluster 1 will focus on this issue. New Zealand supports in full the statement made on behalf of Pacific Island Forum members. Consistent with the sovereign equality of states, the international community should respond to the priorities of small nations as well as the large. When the most affected states tell us that sea level rise is an exceptional issue of concern,, we must take action accordingly. New Zealand recalls the leadership of the Pacific Islands Forum and the Alliance of Small Island States on these issues, especially their landmark declarations on the continuation of maritime zones and statehood notwithstanding sea level rise. New Zealand actively supports Pacific-led efforts to address issues related to climate-induced people movement in the Pacific. This includes supporting regional dialogue, funding for technical assistance to governments developing climate mobility and loss and damage policies, contributing to national funds for adaptation and relocation of communities, and commissioning actionable research. We commend the study group and its co-chairs for their ongoing and insightful work on sea level rise in relation to international law. This includes their final consolidated report published in February. We continue to welcome and support the approach the Commission has taken to examining this topic. We wish to emphasize 4 observations that are recorded in the Commission's report of its work for the 76th session. First, New Zealand welcomes the co-chair's observation that in addressing the effects of sea level rise, existing international law should be interpreted and applied in such a way as to meet the needs of states and populations that might be affected by the possible adverse consequences of climate change and sea level rise. This helps to ensure legal stability, predictability, and certainty, equity, and the preservation of existing rights. New Zealand was pleased with the International Court of Justice's findings on sea level rise in its recent advisory opinion. They provide important support for the well-established Pith position on the continuation of maritime zones. Second, New Zealand welcomes the study group's observations on the convergence of views that UNCLOS does not prohibit the preservation of baselines and maritime zones. We further welcome the observation that there is no obligation for states to update baselines on nautical charts to account for changes as a result of sea level rise. This in turn underpins the continuation of maritime zones without reduction, notwithstanding sea level rise. We were pleased to see the study group find widespread support for the 2021 Pacific Islands Forum Declaration on Preserving Maritime Zones in the Face of Climate Change-Related Sea Level Rise. Third, New Zealand welcomes the group's observations that there is strong support among states for the continuity of statehood and sovereignty and the maintenance of international legal personality and membership of international organizations. New Zealand supports the observation that in the context of the preservation of statehood, the principle of cooperation implied a duty for all states to cooperate. Finally, New Zealand agrees with the Group's observation that respect for human dignity should constitute a guiding principle in the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. As reaffirmed by the Group, the significant challenges posed by sea level rise for the protection of persons will be more pronounced for states whose coastlines are more vulnerable to rising sea levels, even if they had contributed the least to the creation of the problem. Mr. Chair, the UN General Assembly for the first time last year convened a high-level meeting on sea level rise. New Zealand was proud to co-chair a panel on the legal dimension of sea Sea Level Rise at the meeting. The meeting was an important milestone. States unequivocally affirmed the importance of equity, solidarity, and international cooperation in order to address sea level rise. The meeting has paved the way for an action-oriented Declaration on Sea Level Rise in 2026. It is critical that the international community cooperates to protect those that are most affected. To close, we again thank the Commission for its valuable work on this topic. We reaffirm our high regard for the Commission's activities, which materially help States to develop, clarify, and uphold the rules that contribute to international stability, predictability, and certainty. Thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [42:47]:

Thank you for your statement, and I'm now giving the floor to the representative of Liechtenstein.


Liechtenstein [42:58]:

Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair, and Liechtenstein thanks the International Law Commission and all of its members for their critical work in advancing international law, and we extend our sincere condolences for the recent passing of Concepción Escobar Hernández and Julio Barbosa. Liechtenstein views the legal implication of sea level rise sees this as an important opportunity to contribute to the strengthening of international law in responding to the challenges posed by climate change. At the outset of the work of the Commission on Sea Level Rise, Liechtenstein joined other member states in encouraging the Commission to provide legal clarity. We are pleased to see that the final report responds to this call. Drawing on the principle enshrined in the UN Charter and including the right to self-determination, Lichtenstein made two submissions to the IRC study group, and we appreciate that all submissions have been reflected in the work of the Commission. We commend the IRC for providing clarity on two critical dimensions: the continuity of statehood and the cross-cutting legal implications of sea level rise. The report reflects the strong support among states for the continuity of statehood and sovereignty, as well as the mention as well as the maintenance of international legal personality. The report also notes a degree of flexibility in the interpretation and application of international law regarding statehood. This principle was also reflected in the recent unanimous advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on climate change, which emphasized that once established, territorial loss does not necessarily entail the loss of statehood. The ICJ's reference to the work of the ILC is a testament to the constructive dialogue between international institutions and also underscores the authoritative value of the Commission's work. We welcome the ICJ recognition that the preservation of statehood is intrinsically linked to the right to self-determination, an essential jus cogens norm applying towards all. The affirmation of this connection reinforces— the legal imperative to protect populations affected by sea level rise. The IASC report also underlines the cross-cutting nature of sea level rise, particularly its intersection with the law of the sea, the protection of affected persons, and the continuity of statehood. Any legal solutions addressing the territorial consequences of climate change must be grounded in the principles of legal stability, predictability and sovereign equality of states. Lastly, Liechtenstein takes note of the report's recommendation to consider the development of a United Nations General Assembly resolution on the legal implications of sea-level rise. Such a resolution will help translate the work of the Commission into practice and promote a consistent implementation of international law. We look forward to engaging with other states on this important matter. I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [46:04]:

I thank you as well, and I'm now turning to the representative of Vietnam, inviting her to deliver her statement.


Viet Nam [46:10]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are pleased to see you chairing this discussion. The government of Vietnam would like to express our appreciation of the meticulous work by the International Law Commission that has shed light on essential legal topics and proved the commission's irreplaceable role in the progressive development and codification of international law. We thank the members of the Commission for their commitment and tireless effort to advance the discussion on topical issues of our time despite the resource constraints, and we applaud the completion of the topic Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law with a comprehensive report by the study group. At the same time, we share the common concern about the immense workload that will face the Commission in 2026 due to the short-term session and postponement of other critical topics. Vietnam reaffirms its full support for the work of the Commission and expresses its expectation that the ILC will be provided with adequate time, resources, and institutional arrangements to fulfill its work program effectively. On this occasion, our delegation would like to express the sincere consolation for the passing of former members of the ILC, Dr. Concepción Escobar Hernández and Ambassador Julio Barbosa, whose distinguished contributions to international law will long be remembered. Mr. Chair, Turning to the report of the Commission and in particular to Chapter 4, Vietnam would like to share our observations on the topic sea level rise in relation to international law. First and foremost, we extend our warm congratulations to the study group led by the co-chairs and for their tireless effort and devotion that allowed the timely delivery of the report of this important topic. The Study Group's work addresses an issue of great relevance to States at a time when climate change gives rise to unprecedented consequences and complex legal questions. Vietnam highly appreciates that the Commission's Final Report has already been cited by the International Court of Justice in its 2025 Advisory Opinion on Climate Change. —an acknowledgment of the Commission's authoritative and forward-looking contribution to the development of international law. The three sub-topics examined over the past five years—Law of the Sea, Statehood, and the Protection of Persons Affected by Sea Level Rise—have been effectively consolidated, providing Member States with a coherent and comprehensive understanding of the legal implications of this phenomenon. We believe that the outcome of this work will play a critical role in advancing the interpretation and application of international law in this area. As one of the world's most vulnerable countries to the adverse impact of climate change in general and of sea level rise in particular, Vietnam has consistently underscored the necessities and urgency of studying and clarifying legal consequences of sea level rise with a view to identifying appropriate legal solutions in full adherence with the fundamental principles of international law enshrined in the UN Charter, including respect for national sovereignty, sovereign rights, territorial integrity, and sovereign equality of states and their permanent sovereignty over natural resources. We reaffirm the central role of the 1982 The United Conventions on the Law of the Sea as the legal framework governing all activities in the oceans and seas. All responses and solutions to the impacts of climate change and the sea level rise in particular must be consistent with the provisions of the convention. Upholding the stability of maritime limits and boundaries and ensuring predictability, consistencies, and certainty in the law of the sea are essential to maintaining peace security, and stability in international relations. Vietnam therefore aligns itself with the findings of the Study Group that the existing legal framework under UNCLOS remains applicable in the context of sea level rise, and that its faithful implementation will ensure that this challenge is addressed in accordance with international law and the rule of the law at sea. Mr. Chair, Vietnam also wishes to emphasize the necessity of strengthened international cooperation to address the multifaceted consequences of sea level rise, particularly in protecting coastal populations and communities whose livelihoods, health, and cultures are directly affected. We recall that the principle of common but differentiated responsibility should guide our collective efforts In responding to the impacts of climate change, developed states, with their greater capacities, bear an important responsibility to support developing countries, especially coastal and low-lying nations, through capacity building, finance, and the transfer of marine technology. We therefore look forward to continued exchanges of scientific information, legal expertise, and best practices among member states and relevant international organizations in order to mitigate the adverse effects of sea level rise and to preserve and protect the well-being and sustainability of coastal communities. The conclusion of the topic sea level rise in relation to international law and its recognition in the recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice has once again demonstrated the Commission's ability to address complex and evolving legal challenges of our time. Mr. Chair, turning to the topic of general principles of international law, at the outset, I wish to commend the Commission for its dedicated efforts, with the valuable dedication of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vaquez Bermúdez. At the same time, we would like to reiterate our views that the draft conclusions need further examination to fully ensure the compatibility with the international legal system and compact state practice, and take into consideration the member states' comments and observations when it comes to such a fundamental topic of international law. We should like to draw particular attention to draft conclusions 6 and 11, which addressed the transposition of a principle common to the various legal systems of the world to the international legal system, as well as the relationship between general principles of law and treaties, as well as customary international law. We asked the Commission to address the prevalent concern that the test of compatibility lacks a clear requirement of recognition by States We maintain the view that the explicit consent from the community of nations is required for the transposition of a principle formed in domestic legal system to general principle of law as a source of international law. And in case of conflict between a principle formed in the domestic legal system and a treaty-based principle, the transposition must be considered as not being recognized., and the treaty-based principle must prevail. Mr. Chair, in conclusion, Vietnam reaffirms its unwavering support for the work of the International Law Commission. We recognize the growing complexity and breadth of issues before the Commission and call upon Member States to continue providing the necessary support so that the ILC may fulfill its mandate effectively. Through our collective efforts, we can reinforce an international legal order based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, ensure that international law continues to serve as a foundation for peace, cooperation, and sustainable development, and provide a stable and just framework for addressing the challenges ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [55:03]:

I thank you for your statement, and I now give the floor to the representative of Türkiye.


Türkiye [55:12]:

Mr. Chair, it's my distinct pleasure to participate once again in the International Law Week at the United Nations among such distinguished legal colleagues as well as the honorable members of the Commission. In this regard, I welcome this opportunity to share the views of my country on the report of the International Law Commission. At the outset, Türkiye would like to express its continuing appreciation for the Commission's valuable and essential work on international law. For more than 75 years, the Commission's work has made significant contribution in terms of codification and progressive development of international law. At a time when the importance of upholding international law is reminded by the unfortunate developments the international community witnessed, continued contribution by the Commission on International Law is needed more than ever. In this regard, it is noted with regret that the reduction of its annual session to a single 5-week period due to the liquidity crisis has adversely affected the work, as this year's report reveals. It is indeed unfortunate that desired progress could not have been achieved in most of the topics under both clusters. This delegation reiterates its call that Commission's should be provided adequate budgetary resources commensurate with the important tasks attributed to it. While we wish to remain hopeful for the improvement of the situation, it might be also useful to reflect on ways to make the work efficient and respondent to the current needs and realities. Mr. Chair, before moving items under Cluster 1, allow me to use this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Martins Paprinskis for the election of the Chair of the Commission. And it would be remiss of me if I didn't take this opportunity to also thank the Secretariat. This delegation commends and extends its appreciation to the Codification Division of the Secretariat for their tireless efforts and valuable support. Using this opportunity, I would also like to welcome Mr. Arnold Pronto as the new Director of the Codification Division of the Office of Legal Affairs and wish him all the best in future endeavors. Mr. Chair, let me first briefly share our views about other decisions and conclusions. As regards the inclusion of the topics due diligence in international law and compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts, this delegation wishes to reiterate its position expressed on earlier occasions. As a general observation for the program of work, We would like to underline the importance of the selection of the topics be guided by the needs and priorities of states, as well as the need for them to be at the— at a sufficiently advanced stage in terms of state practice to permit progressive developments and codification. In our view, where the topics selected are, to a certain extent, related to the earlier work of the Commission, to which significant divergence of views and approaches of member states still remain. The outcome of the newly selected topic would inevitably be affected by this background. At a time when efficient use of resources is more relevant than ever,— we remain doubtful about the priority of newly selected topics. This observation is in particularly valid for the topic "Compensation for the Damage Caused by International Wrongful Acts," which is related to 2001 Articles of Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts. While the divergence of views on the article remains. The decision of the Commission to include its long program of the work, the topics, the principle of non-intervention in international law, identification and legal consequences, obligations erga omnes in international law, and Legal aspects of accountability for crimes against United Nations personnel serving in peacekeeping operations should, in our view, also be assessed in light of the foregoing. Turning to the topic sea level rise in relations to international law, it should first be recalled that since its inclusion in the work program, in 2019, the topic has gained increased attention from the international community. Türkiye believes in the necessity of promotion of international coordination and cooperation from all the countries affected by sea level rise and encourages examination of the legal aspects of sea level rise. Thus, The establishment of an open-ended study group in 2019 and the adoption of the final report by the study group have been crucial steps on the way. Türkiye is thankful for the hard work and dedication of the members of the study group co-chaired by Ms. Nilüfer Oral, Ms. Patricia Galvão Telles, and Mr. Juan José Ruda Santolarija, as well as the former co-chair, Mr. Bogdan Orescu. Türkiye is aware that sea level rise has potential impacts on not only the environment and the livelihood of coastal communities, but on statehood, maritime jurisdiction areas, and statelessness. Indeed, numerous studies continue to prove that sea level rise could have catastrophic effects on small island states and states with low-lying coastal areas. The final report of the study group provides an important contribution to the question of legal effects of sea level rise, and Türkiye hopes that it would inspire further analysis and in-depth research about this issue on which the literature seems still to be in nature. According to well-established international jurisprudence, it is the land which confers upon the coastal state a right to the waters of its coast. Maritime territory is essential and essentially an appurtenance of land territory. Although the issue of statehood might be seen as interlinked with the sovereign rights over maritime jurisdiction areas, it may not necessarily be the case. In this regard, Türkiye is of the view that for the areas where the elimination of maritime jurisdiction areas has not taken place, sea level rise might, might have potential effects for the final delimitation. Türkiye advocates that the impact of sea level rise on statehood and the impact of sea level rise on the rights regarding maritime jurisdiction areas should be dealt with separate issues and on case-by-case basis. As regard to references made by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, This delegation wishes to reiterate its position expressed on the various occasions, including during our deliberation at the Sixth Committee. I wish to refer to our well-known position on the subject and state that the references cannot be construed as change in our position. While UNCLOS may be important element in law of the sea matters from factual points of view, it is not universal nor exhaustive in that domain. Mr. Chairman, climate change is a multifaceted global crisis with social, economic, and humanitarian dimensions. However, factors that trigger migration from people's regions such as drought, flood, rising sea levels, and extreme weather events should be considered not only in relation to climate change, but also in conjunction with economic, social, and political factors. It can be argued that climate change does not cause migration on its own, but rather triggers migration decisions by deepening existing vulnerabilities. In other words, climate change emerges as a significant risk-increasing factor in migration dynamics. In the context of the Sustainable Development Goals, it is important to address this complex relationship between migration and climate change with a holistic Climate change and environmental problems have become one of the most challenging global crises we have to encounter. Regardless of the development level, no country is immune from climate change's negative effects. Indeed, climate change is causing loss of land and livelihoods, environment degradation, food insecurity, water scarcity, and impacting women, girls, and vulnerable populations the most. We therefore need to act immediately for the climate emergency which we are all facing in the form of catastrophes. Climate change is— risk multiplier which is threatening social and economic stability of nations. In this context, we are of the view that the impact of climate change on migration should rather be addressed within the context of sustainable development agenda and by taking into consideration the root causes of migration. Most vulnerable people and countries should be prioritized in combating climate change. They need to adapt faster and build resilience as they have no time to lose. Türkiye is resolved to implement the migration management policies in accordance with the relevant international agreements to which it is party to. Mr. Chair, This includes the observation of my— of the item under Cluster 1. Thank you very much.


6th Committee · Chair [1:07:34]:

Thank you very much for your statement. And I'm now giving the floor to the Permanent Representative of Fiji.


Fiji · Permanent Representative [1:07:44]:

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Also through you to thank the Secretary for the flexibility it allows as we move from rooms to rooms as far as this committee is concerned. Thank you. Chair Fiji aligns with the statement that was delivered by Palau on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States, AOSIS, and also to the statement as delivered by Tuvalu on behalf of the Pacific Small Island Developing States, and to the statement delivered by the Solomon Islands on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum members with presence here. In New York and wishes to deliver these remarks in its national capacity in relation to Chapter IV, Cluster I of the ILC Report on Sea Level Rise in relation to international law. At the outset, Fiji reiterates its recognition of the UN Charter and its core values, its support to the fundamental principles of human rights, and its respect to international law and its principles. We join other member states in acknowledging the good work and the great work of the Commission and thank the Commission members for their efforts in compiling this report, which is helpful and clarifies the legal questions arising from climate change related to sea level rise in States. It is unfortunate, rather, that the Commission's work program had to be limited due to the liquidity crisis for an important issue as such, in particular for small island States like Fiji, which requires a thorough review and time for the Commission to do its work. Chief Fiji values the continued cooperation amongst member states and recognizes the obligation of states parties to the multilateral treaties and conventions as well as to customary international law. And we acknowledge the reference of ILC report to United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea and Clause, which Fiji is a state party, and the recognition of the reported climate change-related sea level rise was not an issue of concern at the time of the negotiation and adoption of the UNCLOS. But we also recognize in the ILC Report that the obligation of State Parties to UNCLOS is not overlooked. In that regard, Fiji notes and supports the Report in relation to the subtopic on the Law of the Sea on the preservation of baselines, geographical coordinates, or other outer limits maritime zone once duly deposited with the Secretary-General, and that there is no obligation on States to update baselines, geographical coordinates, or the outer limits of maritime zones to account for changes as a result of climate change-related sea level rise. The elements of this subtopic in the Report reinforces States' practices in the Pacific region, as clearly articulated in the 2021 Pacific Islands Forum Declaration on preserving maritime zones in the face of climate change-related sea level rise. Chair, this final report cannot be realized without the strong support of Member States. We therefore call on Member States to support— Member States' support to ensure that the obligation of States to unclose, particularly those affected by climate change-related sea level rise, continues to be recognized. Secondly, Fiji notes and supports the subtopic on statehood of the ILC Report, which according to the report has gained strong support among States for the continuity of statehood and sovereignty, and the maintenance of international legal personality and membership of international organizations of States affected by climate change-related sea level rise. We acknowledge also the reference of the ILC Report to the 2023 Pacific Islands Forum Declaration on the Continuity of Statehood and the Protection of Persons in the Face of Climate Change-related Sea Level Rise, and as well as the 2024 Declaration of the Heads of State and Government of the AOSIS on Sea Level Rise and Statehood, which is also based on States' practices. And but most importantly, Mr. Chair, it publishes the Long-Term Vision of leaders from Small Island States like Fiji, as well as from the Pacific region, on the continuity of statehood for states affected by climate change-related sea level rise. Lastly, we acknowledge and support the subtopic on the protection of persons affected by sea level rise of the ILC Report, particularly on the need to develop legal and practical solutions to better protect persons affected by sea level rise, including those who remain in situ and those who assist internationally and externally displaced by it. We therefore welcome and encourage Member States' support on the protection of persons affected by sea-level rise in consideration of the principle of the duty of States to cooperate, and was also mentioned in the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change. Chair, in conclusion, Fiji reiterates its commitment to collaborating with member states in further unpacking the elements of the final report of the ILC on sea level rise in relation to international law, and we look forward to participating at the high-level meeting on sea level rise in 2026.

I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [1:13:00]:

I thank you too.

And the next speaker on my list is the representative of Maldives. You have the floor.


Maldives [1:13:09]:

Thank you, Chair. The Maldives aligns itself with the statement delivered by Palau on behalf of AOSIS. We extend our appreciation to the International Law Commission, its co-chairs, and the study group for the completion of this valuable study. For the Maldives and other small island developing states, our islands are defined by the seas, our existence intertwined with it. The Maldives welcomes the Commission's reaffirmation that UNCLOS remains the constitutional framework for the oceans. The principle of stability of maritime entitlements must be maintained within the framework. The Commission's conclusion that baselines and outer limits of maritime zones established lawfully and deposited under UNCLOS should remain stable despite the changes to coastlines upholds legal certainty and sovereign equality. Such stability is not exceptional. It flows naturally from the Convention's object and purpose to provide a durable legal order. This is also corroborated by the ICJ in its advisory opinion of 23rd July 2025 on obligations of states in respect of climate change by observing that Once coastal baselines are deposited, states are under no legal obligation to revise the charts or list of coordinates to reflect sea level rise. On the second limb of the Commission's study on statehood, the role of law here is not to record extinction, but to guarantee continuity. The Commission has rightly affirmed what the Maldives and other small island developing states have been saying for decades. That the disappearance of part or even all of a state's territory from sea-level rise does not automatically entail the loss of statehood. The legal personality of a state rests upon its people's self-determination, its government's effective authority, and its continued recognition by the international community, not upon the permanence of its topography. The AOSIS Declaration on Sea Level Rise and Statehood gives political and normative expression to this principle, that statehood, sovereignty, and membership of the United Nations must remain unimpaired by climate-related loss of territory. This principle is not a plea for indulgence, but an affirmation of equity and systemic stability. A world that allows states to vanish from the legal map just because the tide has risen would betray the very purposes of the Charter. The ICJ advisory opinion offers further support for the continuity thesis. The Court stated that, quote, "Once a state is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood," unquote. This clarification situates continuity of statehood firmly within contemporary customary law. On the third dimension, on protection of persons affected by sea level rise, the Maldives welcomes the Commission's analysis that links the preservation of sovereignty with the protection of human dignity. Sea level— sea level rise is a crisis we did not create. But have to bear the consequences of. International human rights law, the law of nationality, and the regimes governing displacement and, and statelessness already provide a proactive ethical framework for protection of persons affected by sea level rise. It is the foresight that provides the right to retention of legal rights and cultural connection by the affected or displaced individuals. And the duty of cooperation that is borne by the international community to ensure that protection. The Maldives supports continued dialogue on how best to consolidate these principles through further clarification of state practice, interpretative guidance under UNCLOS, and the ongoing work on codification. The objective must be a legal order that evolves without fragmenting. One that adapts without surrendering coherence. For the Maldives, the principle that "land dominates the sea" no longer resonates with the reality of today. The law must rise to meet the seas. A state's legal personality, sovereignty, and dignity must not be diluted with the rising seas. And the connection of a people to their homeland must not be measured by coastlines and coordinates. The potential displacement must be protected through interpretations that protect their rights and identities. We must ensure that no member state is left seatless despite what the tides may bring. I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [1:18:17]:

I thank you for your statement, and the Committee will now hear statement of the representative of Canada. The floor is yours.


Canada [1:18:28]:

Mr. Chair, Canada congratulates the ILC for its final report, in particular for its work on sea level rise in relation to international law and for the study group's dedicated work on this issue over several years. Globally, sea level rise is an existential threat that puts people in jeopardy, disrupts access to food, water, and healthcare, and destroys economic prosperity. Canada has the world's longest and most diverse coastlines along the Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic Oceans. This includes the perimeters of more than 52,000 islands, 75% of which are in the Arctic. It is estimated that the sea may rise as much as 175 centimeters in parts of Canada by the year 2010. And in the Arctic, Canada is already experiencing the direct and indirect effects of sea level rise, with the coastline declining in some areas up to 15 meters per year. We therefore share coastal state concerns with member countries of the Pacific Island Forum, an alliance of small island states, and the Commonwealth Law Ministers, among others, with respect to the effects of sea level rise. Canada takes special note of the specific catastrophic risks posed to small island states in this regard. The lines of inquiry of the study group are indeed essential in developing a global understanding of the unprecedented legal implications of sea level rise for statehood, displaced populations, and delimitation. It is a reality that sea level rise and related climate events disproportionately affect certain populations, including residents of small island developing states, indigenous peoples, women, persons with disabilities, elderly persons, low-income groups, and minorities. Canada appreciates that the ILC has acknowledged all of this in its work. Canada reiterates the importance of maintaining stability of the jurisdiction of coastal states, of preserving the legitimacy of baselines and maritime zones, and the associated rights and entitlements established in accordance with international law. We therefore agree with the final report that that the preservation of baselines duly established in accordance with international law is consistent with UNCLOS and international law in general. There is no legal obligation on coastal states to change or update their baselines or maritime zones to account for changes brought about by sea level rise related to climate change. We also note the growing support from states for the continuity of small island statehood in the context of climate-related sea level rise. Beyond the legal concepts implicated in the discussion, statehood continuity may maintain international stability and protecting— and protection for vulnerable populations. International cooperation will be essential to advance this complex legal and policy issue. Further consideration is also required on the protection of persons affected by climate-related sea level rise. Canada agrees with the final report that current international legal frameworks are potentially applicable but are not sufficiently specific to issues resulting from sea level rise. There is a need to develop legal and practical solutions. Chair, much of the discussion on this topic may seem theoretical at this stage, but it is only a matter of years before the international legal implications of sea level rise related to climate change become a reality. It is important that the international community continues working together to find solutions to respond to this crisis, including through the evolution of existing frameworks. Mr. Chair, we would now like to turn— I would now turn to our comments regarding the general principles of law issue. Firstly, we would like to underscore, as the Special Rapporteur on this issue has done, that the consideration of the topic of general principles of law requires comprehensive and careful treatment in due to its role as a source of international law under the statute of the ICJ. Article 38 of the ICJ statute is of particular importance, as it sets out the tools that the Court must apply in resolving the disputes submitted to it. Article 38 requires the Court to apply general principles of law recognized by civilized nations. When considering conclusions regarding the establishment of general principles of law recognized by civilized nations, the same careful approach should be used as in the case of consideration of the interpretation of international conventions recognized by states involved in dispute, or for international custom as evidence— evidence of a general practice. Accepted as law.

Monsieur le Président. Mr. Chair, Canada notes that certain elements of discussion have shown up a lack of clarity in the terminology used to distinguish general principles of law as such as an independent source of international law peremptory norms and the more general principles of international law. This concern also underlines implicitly the tension that there is because of the way in which the Court can take as its basis general principles of law as a source of law pursuant to paragraph 38 paragraph 1 of the Court's statutes. In certain cases, these sources of law could be applied to create international obligations. In others, they could simply be applied by the Court to rule on certain aspects of a dispute, particularly to determine competence and admissibility, or to decide on measures for redress as pursuant to Conclusion 10. This double purpose also emphasizes the need to move carefully when the time comes to draw conclusions on the general principles. Of law. Moreover, whether the source of general principles come from national legal systems or international legal systems, it is appropriate to emphasize that all sources of law imposing obligations on states must proceed from the states themselves. Because it is they who create international law.

Chair, I will now turn to comments on the immunity of state officials, as I will depart New York, uh, tomorrow and will not have an opportunity to speak under Cluster 2. Canada understands that the task before the Commission in this issue is a complex one. The draft articles must carefully balance two fundamental principles: the imperative to ensure accountability for serious international crimes and the need to respect the sovereign equality of states as reflected in the law of immunity. While mindful of the Special Rapporteur's rationale for the current approach in the draft articles, Canada considers it important for the Commission to clearly differentiate between provisions that codify existing customary international law and those that reflect its progressive development. In particular, Canada views draft Article 7, at least in part, as reflecting the ILC's mandate for progressive development of international law. In conclusion, Canada continues to support the work of the ILC and the Special Rapporteur on this important issue. Thank you, Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [1:27:39]:

I thank you very much for your statement. And dear colleagues, I think that the representative of Canada was the last speaker for this afternoon's debate. The debate or the discussion will continue tomorrow afternoon at 3 PM in this room, as there will be no meeting of the Sixth Committee in the morning tomorrow in order to allow delegates to attend the debate on the report of the International Court of Justice in the General Assembly. Today, after adjournment of the meeting, the interactive dialogue will be held in this room. Before I adjourn the meeting, I have a housekeeping announcement to make. I'm asked to remind those delegations that have not yet submitted their list of participants in this year's session of the Sixth Committee that they should register the names of the representatives, alternate representatives, and advisors through the e-list of participants module in the e-delegate portal at their earliest convenience. The Secretariat will be circulating a draft of this year's list of participants next week. I was going to say enjoy your evening and all the receptions ahead of us, but please only do so after the interactive dialogue now. This meeting is adjourned.