Sixth Committee, 30th plenary meeting - General Assembly, 80th session
General Assembly
Date: 30 October 2025
Language: English
Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/en/ga/c6/80/30
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 [0:04]:

Distinguished colleagues, good afternoon. I call to order this meeting of the 6th Committee for the 80th Session of the General Assembly. Distinguished delegates, let us now continue with the debate on the first cluster of topics concerning Agenda Item 80, Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 76th session, after which we will turn to the second cluster of topics. The report of the Commission on the work of its 76th session is contained in document A/AT/10, which is available online. The first speaker on my list for this afternoon is that of Cuba. You have the floor.


Cuba [1:08]:

Madam Chair, the Republic of Cuba commends the holding of this debate, particularly important and interesting debate, and we commend the work carried out by the ILC for the progressive development and codification of international law. We can also commend the report that has been submitted to us on this item. We would like at the beginning of this statement to mention the shortening of the session length of the ILC given the liquidity problems encountered by the organization. So there is a need to reduce the program of work from 12 to 5 weeks, and this has caused a great deal of difficulties. The ILC thought that it would be able to conclude its work on sea level rise in relation to international law and did indeed do so, and also prepared drafts on immunity of state officials from criminal criminal jurisdiction and general principles of law. There also was the subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law and settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties. The Commission also sought to conclude its work on the question of the succession of states in respect of state responsibility and would also like to make progress in other areas. The Commission was only able to adopt one final report on sea level rise in relation to international law. The Commission made progress in the consideration of the draft conclusions on general principles of law. That is true, as well as on several articles regarding immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. But it was not able to conclude its second reading during that time period because it did not have enough time. The work on the succession of states in respect of state responsibility also had to be postponed to the 77th And that's going to have an impact because there were subjects that were supposed to be concluded at their first reading during that session but could not move on to the second reading as initially planned. The planet is showing worrisome symptoms of its illness. Production and consumption rates at the moment The countries of the North nonetheless are continuing to use fossil fuels, and we're not doing enough against climate change. The impact of this phenomenon is clear, but it's those who've the least contributed are in fact experiencing most of the impacts. Many SIDS risk losing all or some or all of their territory. The Convention on the Law of the Sea does not provide all the responses to the consequences related to sea level rise. But despite this, we need to take into consideration these provisions regarding maritime baselines and limits, even if there are changes due to sea level rise. We believe that maritime limits and baselines should not be changed due to sea level rise, this would apply— it would incur significant costs that small island development states cannot assume and shoulder. Also, this would lead to a loss of resources for those countries involved. Now, as regards the continuity of the statehood, much caution needs to be exercised.

SIDS.

If that is to lead to SIDS, if sea level rise leads to the disappearance of their territory, that must not lead to the disappearance of their state as such. Cuba has many different plans to deal with the various different impacts of a loss of territorial areas because of sea level rise. We are preparing for climate change. We've talked about population displacement, people who live in coastal areas, the coastal areas that might disappear because of sea level rise. And so we've taken mitigation measures because of this particularly significant phenomenon for us. We are prepared to share our experience in the area of the protection of people living in coastal areas threatened by extreme climate events. Related to sea level rise, international cooperation should be a precondition for addressing this issue.

Resilience and a timely response to the damage resulting from climate change needs to be a priority. Only cooperation and observing the circumstance and situation of each country— only in this way can we avoid an even greater disaster. Chair Kubum calls for a balance to be maintained across essential principles, including the sovereign independence of states, the need to combat impunity when there are crimes contrary to international law, as well as protecting state officials from unjust prosecutions. And we should be able to identify those who benefit from immunity. We also support defense of the principle that any claim to exercise jurisdiction over foreigners with immunity should be communicated to the states of which they aren't national. The duty to notify should be the first guarantee for a state to either invoke immunity or renounce it.

We—

universal jurisdiction should not be applied towards traditional people who enjoy immunity. The international conventions relating to immunity should be applied, especially the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Zones and Consulates. Finally, We need to strike the right balance between adherence to international law and adequate procedural guarantees. I thank you.


6th Committee · Vice-Chair [8:08]:

Muchas gracias.

I thank the distinguished representative of Cuba for that statement. We will now continue to hear the distinguished representative of Bangladesh.


Bangladesh [8:22]:

Madam Chair, thank you. Bangladesh thanks the International Law Commission for its completion of work on this topic and commends the dedicated and insightful work of the co-chairs in this outcome document. We would be making a few points on Cluster 4 of sea level rise in relation to international law. Madam Chair, for a low-lying coastal country, sea level rise is a lived reality for Bangladesh. Which threatens lives, livelihoods, and the territorial integrity of our nation. Especially due to climate change and temperature rise, we are on the verge of losing our territory, although we are contributing very little to the cause of climate-induced events. Therefore, Bangladesh welcomes the Commission's final report, which provides valuable legal clarity and moral direction in case of sea level rise. Madam Chair, let me take this opportunity to make some comments on the report. First, we appreciate the study group's affirmation that the UNCLOS remains applicable in the context of sea level rise, and states are not obliged to revise their baselines or maritime charts due to coastal submergence. This principle of stability, predictability, and certainty in maritime zones is vital for the security of many coastal and island nations. Second, Bangladesh welcomes the emerging consensus on the continuity of statehood of countries affected by the permanent loss of territory, the recognition of self-determination and permanent sovereignty over natural resources as guiding principle in case of territory loss mentioned in this report is a strong validation for the survival and dignity of such states. In this regard, the examples of some recently concluded instruments, as well as the advisory opinions on climate change and sea level rise obligations, are really inspiring. However, we need to continue our work on the topic of maintaining jurisdiction and sovereignty without physical territory. Third, the absence of international legal instrument to protect persons displaced by sea level rise is a matter of concern for Bangladesh. According to an estimate, these climate impacts could displace 13 to 19 million people internally by 2050 in Bangladesh. As a country already hosting millions of forcibly displaced Myanmar nationals, we understand that displacement must be addressed through shared global responsibility, not left to individual states alone. Hence, we support the call to develop comprehensive legal and institutional frameworks that address the rights of climate-displaced persons, grounded in human dignity, equity, and solidarity. In this regard, Bangladesh commends the ongoing discussion to conclude a legally binding instrument for the protection of persons in the events of disasters, which would be an inspiring example for such cases. Fourth, Bangladesh underscores that international cooperation, including financial, technological, and capacity-building support, must be at the heart of the global response. In this regard, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities remains relevant to this discussion. Bangladesh urges that ILC's work be carried forward through continued dialogue among states, regional organizations, and affected communities as a tool for adaptation, equity, and justice. We hope that this report will work not just as some legal safeguards, but a conscious voice for the most vulnerable nations affected by sea level rise. I thank you, Madam Chair.


6th Committee · Vice-Chair [12:54]:

Muchas gracias, el distinguido. I thank the distinguished representative of Bangladesh for that statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Malaysia.


Malaysia [13:09]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Malaysia would like to record her appreciation to the co-chairs of the study group. On issues related to the law of the sea, and to the co-chairs of the Study Group on issues related to statehood and the protection of persons affected by sea-level rise for the final consolidated report on the topic sea-level rise in relation to international law. Furthermore, Malaysia notes that there have been a convergence of views that had been shared among Member States regarding key issues concerning law of the sea in relation to sea-level rise that had been considered by the Study Group. Malaysia appreciates the in-depth analysis of the topic and has studied the recommendations on possible ways forwarded by the co-chairs and the study group and provides its views as follows. With regard to the recommendation for the practical solutions by allowing for the interpretation of the existing instruments which is adaptive to sea level rise, Malaysia wishes to express its concerns on the practicality and viability of this approach. Malaysia observes that the practical solutions that avoid amending existing legal instruments do not necessarily correspond to interpreting those instruments in a manner that accounts for the adverse impact of sea level rise. As rightly pointed out by the study group, many of the existing instruments, such as the UNCLOS, were drafted without having anticipated and taken into account the long-term effects of sea level rise. Therefore, allowing for an adaptive interpretation of such instruments may risk altering the original intention for certain rights, obligations, and jurisdictions established by the drafters. For instance, in the case of UNCLOS, State Parties had invested years of negotiations in reaching consensus on fundamental issues concerning the law of the sea. Reinterpreting its provisions to address issues that were not contemplated at the time of drafting could risk departing from the original intent and undermining the integrity of the UNCLOS framework. Further, Malaysia views that matters relating to statehood and baselines would require consideration and engagement of at least 2 separate instruments, such as UNCLOS and Montevideo Convention. In this context, exploring an interpretation that would be adaptive to sea level rise is not a viable approach due to following reasons. Again, both instruments were drafted without consideration of the consequences of sea level rise. A comprehensive review of the entire legal framework governing baselines and statehood would be unavoidable. Hence, interpretations adopted by States affected by sea level rise could potentially impact the rights and legal position of States not similarly affected. Adaptive interpretation represents a long-term legal evolution. Which does not align with the urgent nature of the sea level rise issue itself. Therefore, this approach is misaligned with the immediacy of the sea level rise threat, which demands more direct and timely responses, and adaptive interpretation on the existing instruments approach risks inconsistency in the application of international law and weakening the uniform application of existing instruments. Hence, it is unclear how it would address the need for the stability and certainty of maritime zones established by coastal states. While Malaysia acknowledges the growing global concern over sea level rise, Malaysia is cautious that this exercise could be used to justify physical responses such as fortifying coastlines with seawalls, constructing artificial islands, or legitimizing land reclamation within maritime zones under the pretext of climate adaptation. Such actions could provoke disputes and erode trust among member states. Malaysia believes that practical solutions that are of short-term in nature and do not touch on the foundational structure of the existing instruments are better suited to address the concerns of the member states directly affected by sea level rise. Hence, the practical solutions which have the effect of freezing of baselines or other measures that promote stability and certainty in maritime entitlements should be prioritized over reinterpretation of existing existing legal instruments. These approaches provide practical solutions for addressing the immediate challenges posed by sea level rise without altering the original intent or structure of foundational treaties. As rightly pointed in the report, it is clear that the existing instruments do not cater for sea level rise. Investing new interpretations for instruments that were not designed to accommodate sea level rise risks undermining the legal certainty and the consensus painstakingly achieved by the State Parties to these instruments. At this juncture, Malaysia observes that practical solutions to be undertaken by Member States to address the impact of sea-level rise on the preservation of maritime entitlements that are short-term in nature should be explored, particularly those that are likely to gain broad acceptance within the international community. In this regard, Malaysia reaffirms its proposal to consider the possibility that coordinates or charts deposited with the Secretary-General by member states directly affected by sea level rise, or those coordinates contained in maritime boundary treaties, be regarded as practical solutions to freeze baselines. This would serve as a means to safeguard maritime entitlements in the face of rising sea levels. Malaysia considers this approach to be more feasible and legally tenable, given that the current legal framework governing the deposit of such coordinates or charts has already been established, albeit not mandatory for normal baselines. Furthermore, the member states have demonstrated positions in favour for freezing of baselines through their concluded maritime boundary treaties. Hence, Malaysia believes that these approaches may be considered as part of the due diligence obligations for the member states that are directly affected by sea level rise. These approaches not only guarantee the consideration of equity and fairness for the member states directly affected by sea level rise, but also for the neighboring and third states whose interests may be impacted. Madam Chair, on Chapter 6, General Principles of Law, Malaysia expresses appreciation to the Commission and the Special Rapporteur for the continued work on this topic. We note that several draft conclusions have been modified after taking into consideration States' comments. Notwithstanding the postponement of the adoption on second reading, Malaysia wishes to provide the following comments. On Draft Conclusion 6, Malaysia reiterates that the compatibility test is important to determine whether a principle in foro domestico can be transposed into the international legal system. The test should be exercised with caution, taking into consideration the diversity of national legal systems to ensure genuine compatibility. On Draft Conclusion 9, Malaysia welcomes the revised phrasing of Draft Conclusion 9, which broadens the scope of teachings to include the coinciding views of persons with competence in international law, from various legal systems and regions. However, Malaysia prefers that the phrase may serve as a subsidiary means be retained to maintain flexibility and reflect the non-binding nature of teachings. On Draft Conclusion 10, Malaysia welcomes the changes to Draft Conclusion 10, including the reordering of paragraphs and substitution of the phrase primary rights and obligations with substantive rights and obligations, which provides greater clarity and flexibility in diverse contexts. On draft Conclusion 12, Malaysia supports the inclusion as a valuable safeguard clarifying that general principles of law do not override principles operating within specific contexts. Malaysia suggests refining the term limited to specific or context-specific, and that the commentary further guide recognition conditions based on state practice and opinio juris, complemented by regional examples. Such improvements would enhance clarity legal certainty and applicability while maintaining a balance between the universality of general principles and their context-specific application. Malaysia reaffirms its commitment to actively engage in future discussions on this topic. Constructive dialogue will help refine the ILC's work into a more equitable and globally representative framework that provides guidance to states, international organizations, and judicial bodies. While my delegation has presented a summary of Malaysia's views today, our full intervention is as reflected in the written statement submitted to the Secretariat, which shall prevail. I thank you, Madam Chair.


6th Committee · Vice-Chair [21:54]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Malaysia for that statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. You have the floor.


Iran (Islamic Republic of) [22:33]:

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Thank you, Madam Chair. At the outset, I would like to express our appreciation and gratitude to the International Law Commission for the significant work it has done during the past year. My delegation wishes to share some observations concerning the topics sea level rise in relation to international law and general principles of law. We also share our views on other decisions and conclusions. Madam Chair, regarding the topic sea level rise in relation to international law, we take note of the final consolidated report of the study group. As concerns the law of the sea aspects of sea level rise, we basically concur with the views of the study group that the principle of rebus sic stantibus would not apply to delimitation lines As it is subject to the exclusion set forth in Article 62, paragraph 2 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It is expected that the approach of the study group on the topic be in line with the facts on the ground as well as the well-established principles of international law. It seems, however, that there are differing views Concerning the issue of statehood, the International Court of Justice in the recent advisory opinion on obligation of states in respect of climate change states that, I quote, once a state is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood, end of quote. Judge Tomka, however, in his declaration cast doubt as to the validity of this view. In his words, I quote, the classical notion of statehood is virtually inseparable from a land and a people. By way of example, Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, which reflects customary international law on this issue, provides that the state as a person of international law should possess certain enumerated characteristics. Should possess is a modal construction which conveys an ongoing normative condition. A state is a state only so long as it has a, a permanent population, defined territory, government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. End of quote. This may indicate that there is still some way to go before a collective opinio juris reflecting a new rule of custom is judicially cognizable. It seems fair to say that many states, perhaps a majority, have not taken a firm and public position on this issue, either in these advisory proceedings or in other fora. The authors of the ILC Study Group's reports themselves suggest that the states consider new binding or non-binding instruments in order to specifically address the legal issues, actions that would hardly be necessary if the case were so clear-cut. These demonstrate the complexity of the issue in the face of the crossroads between objective reasoning and equity, reflective of the difficult task of the Commission in this regard. The work of the Study Group in relation to the protection of persons affected by sea level rise presents an unprecedented balanced combination of what international law has to offer in terms of international human rights law, international refugee law, international humanitarian law, and disaster law frameworks. Practicality remains central when it comes to implementation, which highly depends on cooperation of States and voluntary contribution. On the final output, due to the complex and novel issues discussed in relation to the 3 subtopics, We concur with several members of the Commission on appropriateness of draft conclusions or guidelines with commentaries to clarify the scope and the details of each provision, including state practice, jurisprudence, and where necessary, doctrinal teachings— doctrinal writings. Madam Chair, on general principles of law, we note the introduction of the 4th report by the Special Rapporteur containing comments and observations received from governments, as well as the Special Rapporteur's suggestion on the final outcome of the Commission's work on the topic. General principles of law have made important contributions to the development of international law during the past century. International courts and tribunals have used, have used some concepts and principles of municipal law in order to fill up certain lacunae in the international legal system. In particular, the ICJ has on a few occasions resorted to Article 38, paragraph 1 of the Statute. Nonetheless, both ICJ and its predecessor, PCIJ, have in several cases based their legal reasoning on general principles that are derived from domestic legal systems, including the principles of Stoppel, acquiescence, good faith, res judicata, nemo iudex in res sua, and ex injuria ius non oritur. These principles are general principles of law common to the various legal systems of the world, a strong evidence as to the centrality of states in the formation and recognition of general principles of law. It is therefore noted that while there is no hierarchy among the main sources of international law, general principles are far less frequently invoked or referenced in international jurisprudence, including the ICJ's rulings and arguments. This is partly due to the relative opacity of general principles compared to international conventions and international custom, which does not mean they are ancillary or subsidiary by nature. On draft conclusion 2, we highlight the use of the term community of nations in paragraph 1. In our view, however, the newly proposed paragraphs have fallen short of improving the draft conclusion by making reference to primary recognition by states and its contribution to the formation of general principles of law. Recognition of general principles of law remains central to states, and as such, we see little merit in the involvement of recognition by international organizations or other actors. We therefore submit that, as stated in paragraph 1, any recognition by international organizations or other actors could be helpful in assessing recognition by the community of nations. Such secondary recognition could not occur unless after the formation of general principles of law, which is by essence subject to recognition by the community of nations. That is why we wonder whether this could even rise to the level of recognition in the first place. As regards Draft Conclusions 8 and 9, it should be noted that decisions of courts and tribunals and teachings in the newly edited version of Draft Conclusion 9 could not be put on an equal footing in terms of their possible ancillary role in determining general principles of law. As a matter of principle, and as supported by state practice, judicial decisions should be given more weight than teachings for the purpose of determining general principles of law. Judicial decisions could be invoked in determining a general principle of law if they are compatible with established principles and rules of international law and are widespread. That is, reflective of various legal systems of the world. It should also be noted that the ICG has hardly invoked teachings in its works, although some regional and municipal courts have relied on teachings to corroborate their judicial reasoning. As to the appropriate outcome of of the work, we find guidelines to be the most appropriate one for the work of the ILC on this topic. Madam Chair, on the chapter regarding other decisions and conclusions, we note introduction of new topics for inclusion in the agenda of the ILC, that is, the principle of non-intervention in international law, identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law, and legal aspects of accountability for crimes committed against United Nations personnel serving in peacekeeping operations. On the proposed topic, non-intervention in international law, we would like to highlight that the principle of non-intervention forms the very essence of international relations emanating from Article 7— Article 2, paragraph 7 of the UN Charter. As a corollary of sovereign equality of states, the Special Rapporteur is expected to consider the centrality of sovereignty and the recent trends to encroach upon and corrode the same, in particular through interference in internal affairs of other states as the pretext for— as the pretext of respect for human rights, countering nonproliferation or WMD, and similar excuses. We propose the inclusion of the Algiers Accords of 19 January 1981 as concluded between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States in the bibliography of the work on this topic. The General Declaration thereof in particular explicitly holds, I quote, the United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene directly or indirectly, politically or militarily in Iran's internal affairs, end of quote. The interventions of the United States following the Iranian Revolution remains the subject of numerous pending cases at the Iran-US Claims Tribunal, and could be a relevant primary source for the Special Rapporteur in the years to come. Madam Chair, before concluding my remarks, I am compelled to refer to the serious situation that is impeding the efficient participation of my delegation in the works of the Sixth Committee, whereby the host country of the United Nations Headquarters has refrained from issuing visas for the Iranian delegation inter alia to the Sixth Committee. Such impediments, which constitute flagrant violation of the obligations, including under the Headquarters Agreement, have obstructed our representatives, including the Director General for International Legal Affairs of the Iranian Foreign Ministry, from participating in the discussions in relation to International Law Commission as well as the International Law Week, among others. We once again reiterate that the host country should comply with its obligation on the basis of good faith non-discrimination, and irrespective of its bilateral consideration. Given that our delegation has, has been prevented from participating in this year's session of the Sixth Committee, we reserve our right and any further position under all agenda items of the Sixth Committee and draft resolutions or decisions presented thereunder. I tried to be brief on our statement. We will submit our full statement in written form. Thank you so much, Madam.


6th Committee · Vice-Chair [34:31]:

Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Iran for that statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Colombia.


Colombia [34:50]:

Thank you very much, Madam Vice Chair. Colombia wishes first of all to express its thanks to the International Law Commission for their report for the 76th session. We thank them for their work in the codification of international law despite the abrupt shortening of their session. We're also grateful for the report From the chair, we thank all of the members of the ILC not only for their work but also for their best efforts to achieve greater efficiency and to advance in their work wherever possible. I'd like also to thank the chair of the drafting committee for his excellent work together with the commissioners who are with us here for their work at this session and also Allow me lastly to thank the Secretariat for their continuous support to the Commission and its members. As regards the liquidity crisis, Colombia feels compelled to reiterate, as we have done on other occasions in relation to other delegations, that the ILC should go back to 12-week sessions and we will insist on the allocation of respective resources to make that a reality. The same applies to the sessions of the Commission in New York. In that regard, we highlight the importance of delegations being consulted on any decisions that relate to the sessions of the ILC, and that such decisions shouldn't be taken without consulting us. All states have the right to make contributions to this decision. So, Rick, on the topic sea level rise in relation to international law. Chair, Colombia takes note with appreciation of the final report of the Study Group on Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law and thanks the co-chairmen— the co-chairwomen, rather, Patricia Galvão Teles and Nife Oral and Mr. Juan José Rueda Zúñiga for their work. Sea level rise is a cross-cutting concern of the highest importance and urgency. Its impacts are already being felt on our coasts in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean, and also on the islands of the Colombian archipelago of San Andrés and Providencia. More than 4 million people have been directly exposed to the consequences of this phenomenon, as well as individuals from communities that already belong to— that already belong to vulnerable population groups such as indigenous communities, rice sellers, planning care of women, children, and the elderly. And this is why we have given such importance to this study by the IRC. It was also what motivated our government to go to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights together with the Chilean government to ask the court to instruct us on the best way to respond to the climate crisis, including the effect of rising sea levels and to, in this way, guarantee and protect the rights of our citizens. There's no doubt that in the face of multilateral challenges such as the one we currently face, timely and effective responses must be formed. In that regard, we hope that the report of the study group, and in particular the section on possible ways forward, will be useful to states in the discussions that will follow on these matters. For its part, the Colombian delegation agrees that the rise in sea level raises complex and cross-cutting legal challenges. They require consistent, coherent response from the law of the sea, from international human rights law, and from international refugee and environmental law. Colombia appreciates the fact that the study group has completed its work following a comprehensive review of these 3 subthemes. With regard to the final report, with regard to the preservation of legal stability and acquired rights in the maritime field, provided that it is in accordance with international law, this was the approach adopted by the Commission, and Colombia considers the reaffirmation valuable. It also referred to the ICJ in its advisory opinion on climate change in paragraph 361. However, in relation to stated, Colombia has already requested in its written comments to pay more attention to the distinction between its comments in the lex lata and in the lex ferenda. In this regard, our delegation Colombia welcomes cautiously the conclusion that concluded that statehood must be presumed. We have even concerns about whether for the Commission the continuity of statehood reflects a presumption or a principle. In this regard, we note the divergence of opinions amongst the judges of the ICJ in relation to this conclusion. For Colombia, While it is desirable that states affected by sea level rise should have a right to preserve their existence and therefore their statehood and their membership in the international community, the study group should have— would have benefited from stronger support for this legal reasoning. Indeed, the conclusion of the study group seemed to be based on expressions to this effect by some states through some declarations, that is soft law instruments on the subject, but in the face of other states there was contrasting silence. Colombia would have preferred that in the absence of a more solid legal basis for its conclusion on this matter, the Commission could have taken a route similar to the one chosen for the protection of persons affected by sea level rise, where the Commission recognizes that there is no specific legal framework regulating the matter and rather invites states to fill that gap. At this point, it also seems important to highlight, as indicated by members of the Commission, that while the format of the working group was very useful to the Commission to address this issue from multiple dimensions, the format also had some limitations because it doesn't reflect the various different points of view of the members of the Commission and the debates taking place within the Commission at a higher level of detail. That would make it easier for states to observe the nuances in discussion on these important issues. There is no doubt that we will continue to discuss the issue amongst states in view of what we hear in this chamber this week. With regard to the protection of persons affected by sea level rise, Colombia shares the Commission's concern about the absence of a specific international legal framework to regulate displacement induced by climate change. We reiterate the need to strengthen international cooperation to address that reality. Colombia also shares the strong emphasis on respect for the guiding principle of human dignity and the imperative need to strengthen this protection. We also see a direct link between this issue and the draft articles on protection of persons in the event of disasters, and as a leading delegation in that discussion, we will advocate for full agreement and coherence in approaches to these important issues. Allow me to now move to the topic general principles of law. We begin by congratulating the Special Rapporteur, Mr. of the report. We welcome the systematization achieved by the Commission which contributes to clarifying the nature, scope, and functions of the general principles of law as an autonomous source of international law. However, we continue to have a number of concerns. For instance, in relation to the distinction between the 2 categories of principles that is referred to in draft conclusion 6. Thank you very much. In this regard, Colombia has heard a number of delegations express doubts about the second class of principles also mentioned in the report. Colombia could be receptive to the second category of general principles of law provided that it is— we review in more detail how those principles were arrived at or identified. This category should also be better demarcated from customary international law. It's also worth highlighting that Colombia supports the conclusion that there is no hierarchy between international treaties, customary law, and the general principles of law, although we do understand that courts will resort to these. But we do highlight how the general principles act as elements of coherence. The speaker's microphone has been turned off. Madam Chair, by way of conclusion, we note with appreciation the decision taken by the Commission at the close of its 76th session, in particular the inclusion in its program of work of 2 new items. We also Welcome the decision to incorporate 3 new items into the long-term program of work, but we did want to conclude by saying that we are concerned that the long-term program of work— there is limited practice or limited interest on the part of states. It would be very important for there to be a more interactive dialogue between the Commission and the 6th Committee in the future. Allow me now to conclude with a humble tribute to Professor Concepción Escobar Hernández, a great woman, a renowned jurist, and a person of the utmost human warmth. There is no doubt that we will continue to remember and honor his memory. I thank you.


6th Committee · Vice-Chair [45:22]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Colombia, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the State of Palestine.

You have the floor.


State of Palestine [45:34]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Building upon the achievements of the past, the ILC continues to ensure flexibility and efficacy of its deliberations and continues to hold the thin line between stability and advancement. The State of Palestine reiterates that the ILC is uniquely and authoritatively placed as a universal body tasked with analyzing international law. Its direct institutional relations with the Sixth Committee must be protected and advanced. The State of Palestine reaffirms its full support for the ILC and recognizes the difficulties the Commission has faced this year due to financial constraints and regrets that these have slowed the progress of its important work that is more vital today than ever. We call on all states to ensure that the ILC has the resources needed to hold its full sessions and to fulfill its mandate.

Effectively.

On the topic of general principles of law, this topic is of importance to the State of Palestine. The development and consolidation of international law, its treaties and conventions and other sources, are based on common understanding of general principles of law and are valid through all kinds of human societies. The State of Palestine is of the view that general principles of law are expressions of both national legal systems and international rules and principles. They are a core of legal ideas and the essence of all legal systems. They represent the common denominator of a community of nations and ensure the evolutionary character of international law. General principles are not limited to gap-filling. They are intrinsic to the international legal system. They do not supplant customary law. They complement them. Their definitions and appraisals of their functional use require our careful attention and rigorous collective work. We are convinced of the importance of this topic and the need for an enhanced understanding of its scope and content, and we look to the ILC for further guidance. The State of Palestine welcomes the reaffirmation that general principles of law are a source of international law, and we find it appropriate to include the second category in the draft conclusions. Critically, we appreciate the commentary on draft Article 7, where the ILC stated that the methodology will be inductive with an with an analysis of relevant treaties, customary rules, and other international instruments, such as the General Assembly and Security Council resolutions and declarations at international conferences. We stress here the universal power of General Assembly and the enforcement power of the Security Council and their indispensability to the formation and formulation of general principles of law. On sea level rise in relation to international law, the State of Palestine commends the Commission Study Group and its co-chairs for their comprehensive for their comprehensive final consolidated report and the analysis of the 3 interlinked dimensions of this topic: the law of the sea, statehood, and the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. We also recognize that the ILC is responding to unprecedented challenges and filling gaps that will determine the very source of life in an inclusive and shared framework. The final report reinforces the positions of many states under imminent and immediate threat and response to the lived realities of millions of people. UNCLOS remains the cornerstone of maritime order. We support the ILC's view that UNCLOS does not contain provisions requiring states to update baselines, geographic coordinates, charts, or the outer limits of maritime zones once these have been duly deposited. Indeed, once existing baselines and maritime boundaries are established in accordance with UNCLOS, they must remain valid and effective, as affirmed by the 2024 Atlas Advisory Opinion and the 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion. This is also in line with the principles of legal stability, certainty, and predictability that are essential to the law of the sea. We reiterate our position on the continuity of statehood and sovereignty and for the maintenance of international legal responsibility and membership in international organizations for states particularly affected by sea level rise and welcome the recognition of this in the final report. And that the continuity of statehood is essential to safeguard nationality and to prevent the risk of statelessness. It also draws a clear link between the continuity and the right of peoples to self-determination. We also reiterate that the right to self-determination of peoples affected is unassailable. Sovereignty lies with the people. 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. We welcome the conclusion that states may take all necessary measures in order to preserve their statehood, sovereignty, and maritime entitlements. The reaffirmation that affected persons remain right holders under international law and that states have a duty to respect, protect, and fulfill their human rights is also most welcomed. We stress the need for international cooperation to ensure the protection and preservation of affected communities and that human dignity should constitute a guiding principle in the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. We also emphasize the importance of the principles of equity and of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities as the core guiding principles for the implementation of climate treaties, as affirmed by the ICJ and ITLOS in their respective advisory opinions. The State of Palestine is committed to sea governance and to the resilience of millions of the communities who whose livelihood and viability depends on them. Our commitment to the sea and comradery solidarity with the affected communities stems from the universality and the unified character of UNCLOS as the main legal framework for all sea-related activities.


6th Committee · Vice-Chair [51:19]:

Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the State of Palestine. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Micronesia. You have the floor.


Micronesia (Federated States of) · Permanent Representative [51:38]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Micronesia aligns itself with the statement delivered under this cluster by Palau on behalf of AOSIS, by Solomon Islands on behalf of the Pacific Island Forum, and Tuvalu on behalf of Pacific Seas. We thank Professor Martin Paparinskis for his summary of the work of the International Law Commission over the past year. Madam Chair, for this cluster, Micronesia will address the topic of sea level rise in relations to international law. We welcome with deep appreciation the final report of the Commission Study Group on the topic as well as the Commission's endorsement of the final report. The Commission took on the topic of sea level rise in large part because of overwhelming support from the UN members for the Commission to study the matter with particular urgency. The study group established by the Commission has actively engaged with UN members and stakeholders in conducting its study, including the consideration— considered declarations of the Pacific Island Forum and of the Alliance of Small Island States on the matter. This multiyear effort is a model for the— for how the Commission, this committee, and the broader international community can meaningfully engage in good faith in a coordinated manner and with appropriate urgency on a matter of international law with relevance for all of us. On the substantive conclusions of the final report, we wish to make several points. First, on the law of the sea, it is clear to Micronesia that the preservation of baselines and the outer limits of maritime zones and the rights and entitlements that flow from them in the face of climate change-related sea level rise is part of the corpus of international law consistent with the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Commission's conclusion in the final report about that view, the widespread support among states and regional organizations for that view, as well as the support articulated for the view by the International Court of Justice in its recent advisory opinion on climate change, all attest to the soundness of that view. Second, on statehood, Micronesia highlights the final report's conclusion that in the context of climate change-related sea level rise, the preservation of statehood correlates with the rights of people, including Indigenous Peoples, to self-determination. The final report explains that this correlation arises because such peoples cannot be deprived of the continuity of statehood without their consent. It is my committee's view that with respect to the right of Indigenous peoples to self-determination, this right can be exercised in a variety of ways and result in various permutations of self-governance that could include, but need not be limited to, statehood as formally understood under international law. Such permutations, when established in accordance with international law, also benefit from the principle of continuity, including in the context of climate change-related sea level rise. Third, on protection of persons affected by sea level rise, Micronesia echoes the final report's conclusion that, and I quote, elements for legal protection of persons affected by sea level rise include the protection of human dignity as a guiding principle for any action to be taken in the context of climate change-related sea level rise, end of quote. We also support the final report's conclusion that, and I quote again, international cooperation is required to protect persons and communities affected by sea level rise, including to protect their cultural heritage, identity, and dignity, and to meet their essential needs. End of quote. In our view, in order for such international cooperation to be fully reflective of the protection of human dignity as an overarching guiding principle, those states that are most responsible for the cause of the climate crisis that imperil people bear the primary duty to take concrete and effective steps to reverse the causes of the crisis, as well as to assist those persons that are particularly affected by the consequences such as sea level rise. There is no dignity in forcing such affected persons to beg for support that should already be given as a matter of legal application, including through international cooperation. Fourth, on cross-cutting issues and interlinkages between the subtopics, Micronesia echoes the final report's conclusion that legal stability, certainty, predictability, equity, and the preservation of existing rights serve as cross-cutting principles applicable to all 3 subtopics. The topic of sea level rise in relations to international law, more than most topics that have been on the Commission's program of work, throws into stark relief the multiple challenges that the climate crisis inflicts on small island developing states like Micronesia, as well as on peoples and communities throughout the world that are particularly vulnerable to the climate crisis. At the same time, the topic reveals that such states, peoples, and communities already enjoy core rights and entitlements under international law that can never be reduced because of the climate crisis, at least with respect to sea level rise. The final report validates our inherent human dignity, our resilience, and our status as permanent fixtures of international law. To conclude, Micronesia looks forward to a discussion of possible next steps in the international community's consideration of this topic. We remain flexible and open-minded as long as such next steps are additive and constructive rather than regressive. Thank you, Madam Chair.


6th Committee · Vice-Chair [59:47]:

Muchísimas gracias. I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Micronesia. I will now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Greece.


Greece [59:58]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, allow me first of all to express Greece's appreciation to the International Law Commission for the valuable work it has accomplished, notwithstanding the constraints arising from the reduced length of its 76 session. I will start with chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 on sea level rise in relation to international law. In this context, Greece would like to also commend the work of the co-chairs and thank them for their final report, as well as the study group for its final report. The work of the ILC and the relevant discussions on the subject of sea level rise have highlighted the importance of legal stability certainty and predictability in relation to the issue of sea level rise. Predictability, stability and certainty, which are inherent to the Convention and guide its application, require the preservation of baselines and of the outer limits of maritime zones as well as of maritime entitlements deriving therefrom in accordance with the UNCLOS. It is generally accepted that the Convention imposes no obligation of reviewing or recalculating baselines of the outer limits of maritime zones established in accordance with its provisions. Greece welcomes the conclusions of the final report that states are not prevented from preserving existing baselines and maritime zones, that there is no obligation for states to update nautical charts or coordinates, that the principle of the immutability of boundaries applies to maritime boundaries, and that the principle of fundamental change of circumstances does not apply to maritime boundaries in the case of sea level The advisory opinion of the ICJ on climate change, referring also to the final report, states that the provision of UNCLOS do not require states parties in the context of physical changes resulting from climate change-related sea level rise to update their charts or lists of geographical coordinates that show the baselines and outer limit lines of their maritime zones. Once they have been duly established in conformity with the Convention. Furthermore, the relevance of legal stability, certainty, and predictability to the other 2 subtopics, statehood and protection, is also recognized, as these principles, as well as the preservation of existing rights deriving from them, support the continuity of statehood, territorial integrity, self-determination, and the protection of persons, including their human rights, in the face of the effects of sea level rise. It is in light of the principle of stability of boundaries and of the need to preserve the baselines and the outer limits of maritime zones that equity, or the concept that the land dominates the sea, should be assessed. Finally, international cooperation is necessary in order to face the adverse effects of climate change and sea level rise. Madam Chair, Concerning the possible ways forward referred to in the Final Report, Greece believes that caution is required especially as regards subsequent agreements and interpretative statements, including by the States Parties to the UNCLOS. While practice is clear and reflects the above conclusions, it is not certain that an interpretative statement or subsequent agreement will necessarily have any added value. Such statements, based on an adaptive or evolutive interpretation, may entail the risk of raising issues beyond the scope of UNCLOS and of challenging the carefully balanced legal regime for activities at sea whose integrity needs to be always maintained. As repeatedly stated, the Convention sets out the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out and provides the legal basis for settling and regulating any relevant issue which may arise. And now, Madam Chair, I will move to Chapter 6 on General Principles of Law. At the outset, Greece would like to express its sincere appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez, for his 4th report on the important topic of General Principles of Law. In the same In this spirit, Greece further acknowledges with appreciation the report of the Drafting Committee containing the draft conclusions provisionally adopted by the Committee on second reading at its session in May 2025. Against this background, and in recognition of the importance of the subject matter, Greece wishes to share some observations and comments on certain aspects of the draft conclusions currently under consideration. Firstly, with respect to the identification of general principles of law derived from national legal systems, Greece wishes to note its general support for the proposed methodology, which is structured around a 2-step analysis, namely the determination of the existence of a principle common to the various legal systems of the world and its subsequent transposition into the international legal system. At the same time, we consider that the inclusion of concrete and positive examples in the commentary illustrating how such transposition may occur in practice would be particularly useful in enhancing clarity and guidance. Secondly, with regard to draft Conclusion 7, which concerns the identification of general principles of law that may be formed within the international legal system, Greece is of the view that the current wording could benefit from further refinement. So as to achieve greater precision and clarity. At the same time, we consider that the methodology for ascertaining the recognition of such principles could be further elaborated in the commentary. In particular, clarification of the distinction between a general principle of law and the sources from which it is derived would, in our view, greatly contribute to the overall clarity of the draft conclusions. Turning to draft conclusions 8 and 9, Greece would like to stress the need for consistency with the Commission's ongoing work on subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law. We are of the view that the Commission should ensure that its treatment of decisions and teachings is aligned across the consideration of both topics so as to guarantee coherence in the results. Finally, Greece takes note of the newly proposed Draft Conclusion 12 on general principles of law with a limited scope of application. At the same time, we consider that the concept proposed should be further clarified and analyzed in the commentary. In conclusion, Greece wishes to express its appreciation for the work done so far by the Commission on this topic, which in fact is a useful complement to its previous work on the sources of international law. I thank you.


6th Committee · Vice-Chair [1:07:08]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Greece for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mongolia. You have the floor, madam.


Mongolia [1:07:22]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mongolia extends its sincere appreciation to the International Law Commission for its 2025 report and commends the Commission, its Chairperson, and the Special Rapporteur for their substantive work. We also thank the Secretariat for its continued efforts to facilitate member states' engagement in this important topic. Mongolia attaches great significance to the works of the Commission in the codification and progressive development of international law and views the topic of general principles of law as essential to strengthening the coherence, predictability, and legitimacy of the international legal order. We recall that Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice recognizes general principles of law recognized by civilized nations as one of the primary sources of international law. Alongside treaties and custom. Mongolia welcomes the Commission's methodical approach to the identification and classification of general principles. The 3-part analytical framework: a) deriving principles from national legal systems, b) identifying those developed with the international legal system, and c) understanding their interaction with treaties and custom. Offers a sound and balanced methodology that safeguards both universality and diversity. We commend the Commission for the adoption of draft conclusions 1 to 12 on first reading and for their referral for states for written comments in 2025. This inclusive process ensures that eventual outcomes reflect broad participation including perspectives from different legal families and regions. From Mongolia's perspective, the codification and development of general principles serve the following vital purposes. First, they help fill normative gaps where treaty or customary law may be silent, ensuring that international law remains responsive to emerging global challenges. Second, they enhance coherence, fairness, and legitimacy in international adjudication, guiding judicial reasoning and dispute settlement processes. Third, they reinforce the rule of law at the international level, strengthening mutual confidence among states and contributing to peaceful relations and stability. Mongolia supports the view that general principles may also develop within the international legal order itself, particularly through consistent practice of international institutions and recognition by states in their international conduct. However, such principles must be based on clear state practice, opinio juris, and must remain consistent within the sovereign equality of states, non-intervention, and consent as foundational principles of international law. We therefore emphasize the need for caution when identifying principles said to have arisen within the international legal system, so as not to conflate them with the rules of customary international law or international practice. Mongolia affirms that general principles play a vital supplementary role, complementing, not displacing treaty or customary law. Their application should aim to ensure fairness, due process, and equality before the law while avoiding undue expansion of application not consented by the states. In this respect, Mongolia supports a context-sensitive and balanced approach by international courts or tribunals. We therefore see value in exploring how general principles such as sustainable development, proportionality, and good faith can guide the evolution of legal norms in these emerging areas while respecting existing obligations and the balance of rights and responsibilities among states. Mongolia reaffirms its strong support for the work of International Law Commission as a key body bridging scholarly expertise and intergovernmental deliberation. We encourage continued dialogue between the ILC and the Sixth Committee, ensuring that the second reading of the draft conclusions benefits from comprehensive and regionally diverse inputs. In conclusion, Madam Chair, Mongolia supports the continued work of the International Law Commission. We are confident that the final conclusions will contribute meaningfully to the strengthening of the rule of law, predictability, and equality in international relations. Mongolia stands ready to engage constructively in the discussions ahead, guided by our longstanding commitment to multilateralism, the UN Charter, and respect for international law. I thank you, Madam Chair.


6th Committee · Vice-Chair [1:12:57]:

Muchas gracias a la distinguida delegación. I thank the distinguished representative of Mongolia for that statement. I will now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Peru.

You have the floor.


Peru [1:13:13]:

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Peru thanks the International Law Commission, the ILC, for the report contained in document A/80/10 and the achievements and progress made at this— at the 76th session under the chairmanship of Professor Martinez Paparonskis. They represent a valuable contribution to the progressive development of international law and its codification, despite the difficulties arising from the significant reduction in the time initially scheduled for meetings due to the liquidity problems affecting the United Nations. We are also grateful for the outstanding and efficient work of the Codification Division of the Legal Affairs Division of the United Nations, which serves as the Secretariat. For the International Law Commission. An issue to be highlighted beyond the efforts of the ILC itself and the continuous support of the Codification Division is the negative impact resulting from the reduction in the number of weeks initially planned for the 75th session in 2024, and drastically it was reduced only to 5 weeks at the 76th sessions a year. In that connection, delegations stressed the need to ensure a minimum duration of the Commission sessions to allow it to carry out the important tasks and to cover the topics on its agenda in optimal conditions. My delegation wishes to reaffirm its appreciation for the work of the ILC. This work is particularly relevant in the current context. One of challenges to multilateralism and to the rules-based international order. It's continued that we continue to promote the progressive development of international law and its codification. And we should, of course, have an eye on the challenges of both the present time and the future. But at the same time, we must recognize the very important contributions of the United Nations to various areas related to the 3 pillars that underpin its work, specifically international law of 80 years of existence. At the same time, my delegation wishes to pay tribute to the memory of Professor Concepción Escobar Hernández and Dr. Julio Barbosa, 2 distinguished former members of the ILC who recently passed away. They will always be remembered for their humanity and professionalism and, of course, also for their significant contributions to international law. As regards the issues covered in the chapters of this year's bloc under Cluster 1, my delegation wishes to the theme of sea level rise related to international law, and we wish to congratulate the work of the study group co-chaired by Ms. Patricia Galvão and Ms. Niloufer Oral and Mr. Juan José Rueda Santaloria. In this regard, we wish to express our satisfaction and appreciation for the final report of this group adopted by the Commission, including Annex 1 to the report of the 76th session. We also wish to highlight the series of documents prepared by the co-chair of the study group and their consolidated final report issued as Document A/76. Thank you. CN.4/783. In these, they comprehensively address the main aspects related to the 3 subthemes: the law of the sea, statehood, and protection of persons affected by sea level rise. This is in addition to cross-cutting issues and the interlinkages between them. In that connection, it should be emphasized that the conclusions raised were not normative in nature. They cover the convergence between the work of the study group and the views of states. They refer strictly to sea level rise in relation to climate change. This is a phenomenon that is global in nature but has especially serious consequences for low-lying coastal states, small island developing states— sorry, small island states, small island developing states, and archipelagic states. In this regard, it's timely to recall that sea level rise and related to climate change was not taken into account when the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, was adopted in 1982. However, any solution to this phenomenon must be consistent with that and also with international customary law. In the absence of an UNCLOS ruling prohibiting it, it is worthwhile interpreting baselines and geographical coordinates determined by states in accordance with international law and duly notified to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and also the maritime areas of national jurisdiction established by states under them. As being preserved, and so there is no need to update baselines or geographical coordinates or to modify the maritime areas, which should remain their outer limits in the event of physical changes caused by sea level rise. States would therefore retain their maritime areas as well as legal title and rights over them and to living and non-living resources despite this phenomenon for the benefit of their present and future populations. At the same time, maritime boundaries established by agreements or court or arbitral rulings must be maintained. The principle of rebus sic stantibus, as enshrined in Article 62 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, does not apply to cases of sea level rise. Attention should be drawn to the continuity of statehood and sovereignty, and also to the international legal personality and membership in international organizations in cases of states whose land surface may be partially or totally submerged or rendered uninhabitable by sea level rise caused by climate change. International law does not provide for the loss of statehood in the context of sea level rise caused by climate change. The state has the right to preserve its own existence, adopting measures of various kinds in accordance with international law itself, and preferably environmentally sustainable way to ensure the maintenance of its territory conceived as a unit with a view to preserving its land surface, whether or not it's covered by the sea, and the maritime areas under its jurisdiction together with legal titles over these zones. This also includes the natural resources existing there over which the state has permanent sovereignty in accordance with international law, and it should also have a right to conserve its biodiversity and ecosystems for the benefit of its present and future populations. Another relevant issue is the progressive nature of the phenomenon of sea level rise, there may be a number of different scenarios in terms of statehood distinguishing fundamentally different situations in which the land area of the state in question may be affected by erosion, salinization, and partial submergence. It may become uninhabitable despite not being completely covered by the sea, for instance, or there may be other situations where the land surface of the affected state is totally submerged. My delegation concurs with the conclusion of the final report of the group relating to the continuity of statehood and also to sovereignty and international legal personality, which is closely linked to the preservation of legal rights and titles over maritime zones and the resources existing therein, and also with the protection of people affected by the phenomenon in terms of avoiding situations of loss of nationality or statelessness. We must preserve legal certainty, stability, certain predictability, and also respect for human dignity together with considerations of equity and justice. This is underpinned by fundamental principles of international law such as the right to self-determination, protection of territorial integrity of the state, The sovereign equality of states, permanent sovereignty of states over their natural resources, the maintenance of international peace and security, stability of international relations cooperation, and the right to nationality. In addition to an interpretive approach, the adoption. Of legally binding and non-binding instruments, bilateral, regional, or internationally, taking into account the conclusions of the report and also the advisory opinion of the ICJ on states' obligations in the field of climate change are essential, which cites the report. Other jurisdictional rulings and decisions of the matter and the declarations of the Pacific Islands Forum of 2021 and 2023, and AOSIS of 2021-2024 that have been supported by a large number of states and regional groupings. In addition, we wish to highlight the incorporation of 2 issues: compensation for damage caused by internationally wrongful acts and due diligence in international law. We want to congratulate Professor Paparinski and his colleague. Also, with regard to issues included this year in the Commission's long-term agenda, my delegation highlights the topic of the identification and legal consequences and erga omnes obligations in international law proposed by Professor Masahiko Asada, which is is closely linked to the Commission's previous work on peremptory norms of general international law, jus cogens, and which could complement them. Finally, Chair Parurius raised his firm commitment to the work of the International Law Commission, and we reaffirm our full support for full fulfillment of its important task in the area of the progressive development of international law and its codification. I thank you.


6th Committee · Vice-Chair [1:24:00]:

Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Peru for that statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished delegate of Latvia. You have the floor.


Latvia [1:24:13]:

Madam Chair, Latvia aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union and wishes to make the following remarks in its national capacity. Latvia welcomes the final report of the Study Group on Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law. And expresses its deep appreciation for the tremendous work carried out by the co-chairs and all those involved in the work of the Study Group. We believe the report provides valuable guidance to the international community and will serve as a strong foundation for future dialogue among states, international organizations, and other relevant actors. We align ourselves with the Study Group's conclusion that and I quote, the continuity of statehood is essential to avoid situations of loss of nationality and statelessness. Drawing on our own historical experience, Latvia has consistently advocated for the continuity of statehood in the Sixth Committee and before international courts and tribunals. In this regard, we also welcome the conclusion of the International Court of Justice in the advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change that, and I quote, once a state is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood. In this spirit, Latvia has signed a joint communiqué with Tuvalu affirming our readiness to continue recognizing Tuvalu's statehood. And its existing maritime boundaries, even in the event that its population is displaced or its territory is submerged due to sea level rise. We note with satisfaction that the work of the Commission has already contributed to the deliberations of the International Court of Justice in the above-mentioned advisory opinion, in which the Court confirmed that state parties to UNCLOS have no obligation to update the charts and lists of geographical coordinates relating to their maritime zones once they have been duly established under the Convention. Latvia underscores the importance of meaningful cooperation between climate-vulnerable states and the broader international community. It is essential to preserve and protect the existing rights associated, associated with statehood and choose legal and practical solutions addressing climate change-related sea level rise in full respect of the fundamental principles of international law. We share the view that new legal and practical solutions must be developed to better protect persons affected by sea level rise and overcome fragmentation of legal framework. In the meantime, we echo the report's conclusion that any measures for the legal protection of persons, affected by sea level rise must be guided by the principle of human dignity. The final report represents an important first step in addressing the complex legal challenges arising from sea level rise. Latvia reiterates its readiness to work together with the international community to advance effective and sustainable legal solutions. I thank you.


6th Committee · Vice-Chair [1:27:37]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Latvia for that statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Guinea.


Guinea [1:27:48]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, my delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by Cameroon on behalf of the African Group. We would like to thank the members of the International Law Commission for the final report adopted on the 26th of May, 2025, issued as Document A/80/10, entitled Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its 76th Session, as part of Cluster 1, Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4, namely sea level rise, in relation to international law, general principles of law, and other decisions and conclusions. Before proceeding, allow me to convey on behalf of the Republic of Guinea to the members of the International Law Commission and to the international community our sincere condolences following the passing of Ms. Concepción Escobar Hernández and Mr. Julio Barbosa. We pay tribute to their immense contributions to the development and dissemination of international law. Madam Chair, my delegation would like to thank you for this opportunity to contribute to the debate on this item on the agenda. We commend the ILC for carrying out its mandate and for its efforts to codify and the progressive development of international law. These affirm its vital role as a subsidiary body of the General Assembly in promoting the rule of law at the international level and also peace in accordance with the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter. My delegation notes with satisfaction the constructive interaction between the Sixth Committee and the International Law Commission in line with Article 13 of the United Nations Charter. and GA Resolution 73/265 of the 22nd of December 2018. This synergy is crucial for the effective functioning of the Commission and for maintaining high standards of rigor and expertise that underpin its excellent reputation. My delegation would like to make several comments in its national capacity. We note with regret the reduction of the length of the standard annual session from 12 weeks to just 5 weeks. This meant that the consideration of numerous subjects that could not be examined this year had to be postponed to next year. We welcome the efforts of the members of the ILC for having ensured the continuity of this work in the context of a reduced number of sessions. My delegation would recommend a return to the standard length of the sessions of the ILC to enable it to work in the best conditions possible. I would now like to come to some comments regarding the first cluster. Madam, my delegation agrees with the Commission that sea level rise in relation to international law has a considerable— significant, rather— impact on populations in diverse regions. We consider that in certain conditions, this question could have an impact on the statehood and also of a state and also on international peace and security. Although this is complex, we consider that there is a nexus between the principle of equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. This latter establishes in international law the fact that there are obligations incumbent upon all states to combat climate change and its impact, including sea level rise. For my delegation, legal stability and equity must be the guidelines of the Study Group on Sea Level Rise in relation to international law. We commend the cautious approach of the Study Group and the pragmatic approach of member states that have constantly invoked the need to consider the issue of sea level rise from the standpoint of legal stability, certainty, and predictability, which are inextricably linked to the preservation of maritime zones and the principle according to which land dominates sea. Accordingly, the principle of the immutability of boundaries is crucial, and states whose national legislation provides for moving baselines must continue to interpret the Convention as prescribing the use of fixed baselines in order to preserve maritime zones, as well as the regime established under paragraph 2 of Article 7 of UNCLOS. Madam, as regards the chapter on the general principles of law, my delegation would like to thank the Special Rapporteur for efforts made to delineate the subject. Also, efforts on the study of this jurisprudence of interstate arbitration tribunals, the jurisprudence of universal international criminal courts, the identification of general principles of law pursuant to para C of paragraph 1 of the article— of Article, rather, 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice as well. My delegation takes note of the adoption at the first reading of the draft conclusions on the general principles of law and the commentaries thereto. We note the conclusions of the ILC on this point. We note that they are in line with mechanisms of identification and the role of the general principles of law, and they are in line with the positive law pertaining to these sources. Nonetheless, my delegation would urge the ILC to make the terminological distinction between general principles of law evoked in the draft Conclusion 1 and the general principles of law evoked in paragraph 1 of its commentary, which takes up in extenso indent C of paragraph 1 of Article 38 of the Statute of the ICJ. My delegation is more in favor of the terminology used in Article 38 of the Statute of the ICJ. Madam, my delegation notes with interest the consideration given to states observations which have enabled reservations to be made regarding the notion of civilized nations. My delegation believes that the doctrine in all its diversity should be used as an auxiliary means to determine general principles of law. It has a reservation regarding the use of the expression the most qualified publicist, which it believes to be too subjective. Paragraph 2 of Draft Conclusion 11 stipulates that general principles of law and treaties are not in a hierarchical relationship, and therefore the doctrine of international law is constant on this issue based on conventional sources from international law, based on the fact that the treaty-based sources rather of international law take precedence over all others. Comment 2 of Draft Conclusion 10 pertaining to the role of general principles of law leads one to think that the enumeration of Article 38 of the Statute of the ICJ attributes to these principles an equal value to other sources of international law like treaty and customary sources. So the order of the enumeration of the sources of international law given in Article 38 of the Statute of the ICJ establishes a hierarchy between these sources. For my delegation, these interpretations must be extended to all sources, namely international conventions, international custom, general principles of law, jurisprudence, and doctrine. In conclusion, my delegation reiterates the desire of the Republic of Guinea to support the ILC and to contribute to its work to ensure the codification and progressive development of international law. Thank you very much.


6th Committee · Vice-Chair [1:36:19]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Guinea for that statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Guatemala.


Guatemala [1:36:32]:

Madam Chair, Guatemala thanks the chair of the Commission, Martin Papadinsky for his presentation and the report. We express our appreciation to the Commission on International— the International Law Commission for the work carried out at its 76th session. The current financial crisis of the United Nations is a timely opportunity to reflect on the way in which issues under the framework of the 6th Committee are being addressed. It has shown that it's not reasonable to have a very busy schedule where many highly complex issues all have to be addressed, whereas they require careful analysis, and yet they are addressed only during single— the mornings of a single week through interventions that were very limited in time. From our perspective, international law is going through a period of regression. In a number of jurisdictions, we're seeing a decrease in its application and a growing the besiegement of its principles, this reflects worrying disconnect between international law and national courts. Sometimes this is seen as an elitist sphere distant from internal legal judicial realities, and this in turn has a negative impact on the consolidation of the rule of law. For instance, the limited number of participants in the seminar on international law has unfortunately contributed To this perceived elitism, to counteract it or to stop it, it's essential that we strengthen the links between international law institutions and national jurisdictions, especially in the current context of challenges to the multilateral system. The financial difficulties facing the Commission compel us to focus our efforts, and in our view, these should be a focus on a pedagogical dimension. The codification of international law, the result of highly technical work of rigor, should not remain confined to New York, Geneva, or The Hague. It must go beyond these spaces and take root in those states where its application faces questions and setbacks. For this reason, we call on the work of the ILC to take on a pedagogical approach approach when working with countries that need to consolidate authentic rule of law. In the face of the current budgetary constraints, we consider that in the future the Commission should give priority to actions aimed at strengthening international law, promoting more fluid communications between international and national institutions. It's not just about making progress in consideration of new topics, but also about understanding that progressive development of international law is also demonstrated through consolidation and through dialogue with and between states. Having said this, allow me now to address the specific issues for the discussion today. With regard to the topic sea level rise in relation to international law, we welcome the final report of the Study Group on Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law. The report satisfactorily concludes the work the Commission has been carrying out since its 71st session in 2019, when the Commission decided to include this topic in its work program. So we note with satisfaction the international— the ICJ in the advisory opinion on the obligations of states in relation to climate change took into consideration the work of the ILC on this topic. In our view, this is an example of adequate interaction and cooperation between organs of the United Nations. Guatemala considers that Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations, which states that the purpose of the organization is to achieve cooperation in solving international problems, from which stems the obligation to apply and interpret instruments and rules of international law in accordance with the principle and the duty of cooperation. That is, when assessing the effects of sea level rise, existing instruments and norms of international law must be applied and interpreted taking into account this duty to cooperate. We also share the view that questioning maritime boundaries agreed or determined in some other way by virtue of international law due to rising sea levels could lead to legal uncertainty and reopen disputes over maritime areas that had previously been settled. And therefore, we advocate for the maintenance of legal stability, certainty, and predictability. We also support the Commission's observation that the United Nations General Assembly and other international organizations could adopt resolutions or declarations in relation to the continuity of statehood and the preservation of sovereignty, and also membership of the United Nations and other international organizations. We note with satisfaction that the Commission was able to find that states strongly support continued statehood and sovereignty, as well as preservation of international legal personality and membership of international organizations. We note that both the Commission and the ICJ agree that the disappearance of one of the constitutive elements of a state does not necessarily imply the loss of a condition— statehood per se. However, the international community still has a lot to do in response to a sea rise scenario? How does self-determination occur? How is the rule of law maintained in such circumstances? How would you elect the authorities of a state when there is no physical base? Statehood not only implies the recognition of the sovereignty of a country, but it also implies recognition of its institutions, and mechanisms and processes through which this sovereignty is exercised. It also implies recognizing the legal regime that underpins it, including the government, the parliaments, the courts. And so we must be ready to accept that the existence of these institutions is not necessarily linked to a physical space within a territory, but rather to the functions that are carried out, which may be In this regard, we support the creation of legally binding and non-binding legal instruments applicable to the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. And these should anticipate the elements necessary to provide the legal protection of persons affected by this phenomenon. We not only support the creation of practical tools with an approach based on international human rights law and the principle of the dignity of each human person, but there should be special agreements on climate change, migration pathways, and so on. But we support analysis that goes even further, something that encompasses the protection of institutions because they are necessary for the realization of self-determination in these countries. We also recognize the fragmentary and inadequate nature of existing legal frameworks for the protection of persons affected by sea level rise and other disasters. And this is why we urge for further development of the international legal framework that should be more specific, coherent, and comprehensive. In relation to the topic General Principles of Law, we take note of progress towards the second reading and final adoption of draft conclusions 1 to 12. We have the following specific comments to make. On draft conclusion 1, Guatemala considers that it would still be appropriate to include a list as other delegations have stated, and we are not convinced by the argument that this can give the mistaken impression that only the general principles of existing rights are the ones that appear in it. This risk can be mitigated by including a without prejudice clause as was done in Conclusion 12. In other words, it would be enough for the list to stand out as as being merely indicative. Draft Conclusion 2, Guatemala supports the expansion of Draft Conclusion 2 to address, among other things, the role of international organizations played in the process of recognizing the general principles of law, and we also support the use of the concept of the international community. On Draft Conclusion 5, Guatemala takes note of the use of the term common not to reflect universality but rather to mean broad and However, the work to determine how a principle can be broadly and representatively applied refers not only to the biased selection. This should be detached from a comparative study. This exercise should not be performed within those states that are the usual subjects. Subjects, suspects, but to study the application of these in a truly broad sphere. International courts and bodies should work with national authorities and courts to share access to national gazettes and go beyond reviewing just the international law reports that only reflect the jurisprudence of a selected group of countries. On draft conclusion 10, we have taken note of the discussions of the Commission-specific Specifically with regard to paragraph 2. Bearing that in mind, we suggest that paragraph 2 actually be converted to subparagraph C. We did not support the suggestion to remove the reference to coherence of the international legal system in paragraph 1. On draft conclusion 11, Guatemala would appreciate an explanation in draft conclusion 1 of the relationship and the difference between the general principles of law and international customary law only if this is not— if it cannot be clarified in the comments. On the other hand, we agree with the general— that the general principles of law are not hierarchical in terms of the relationship with other sources of international law. Filling gaps does not report— does not identify hierarchy but rather is a matter of specialism. This conclusion is supported in Article 38. of the statute of the ICJ. Finally, on other decisions and conclusions, we welcome the inclusion and discussion of new topics to the work of the ILC, including identification of legal consequences deriving from the obligations of international law and the study on non-intervention. However, on the second point, it's worth highlighting there's still a lack of a truly global approach to this study. This can be seen in the very still limited jurisprudence on the subject, which is essentially limited to Latin America, specifically Central America. For a long time, it sought interaction of— between international law and national law. Democratic Charter of Inter-American States is an example of this. And so we urge the rapporteur to include a bibliography of the region to reflect insights into the complexities of this topic. Bearing in mind what we said at the beginning, it is indispensable for the Commission to reach out to countries that are seeking to and that need to consolidate genuine rule of law. I thank you.


6th Committee · Vice-Chair [1:48:20]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Guatemala for that statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished delegate of Japan. You have the floor.


Japan · Delegate [1:48:30]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the delegation of Japan. Japan appreciates the leadership of the Chair of the International Law Commission this year, Mr. Martins Paparinskis, as well as the contributions of all the Special Rapporteurs and the members of the Commission. Japan firmly believes that the rule of law must be upheld, and in order to ensure that, promoting the progressive development of international law and its codification is essential. In this regard, it is regrettable that the 76th session of the Commission this year was held in a significantly reduced format due to the liquidity crisis facing the United Nations. As an opportunity to enhance the dialogue between the member states and the Commission, Japan welcomes the Commission's decision regarding the 77th session and hopes that the necessary resources will be secured. Before going into specific topics, allow me to address the long-term program of work of the Commission. During this session, several prominent agenda items were proposed from both practical and academic viewpoints, and Japan recognizes their significance. One of the agenda items The guidance proposed by Professor Asada Masahiko aims to provide valuable practical guidance on obligations erga omnes in international law. Japan welcomes the proposal as timely for consideration by the Commission, especially given that in recent years the ICJ has been frequently referring to obligations erga omnes or erga omnes parties. in its judgment and advisory opinions. Having the Commission's perspective on this matter will provide practical insights for the member states. With regard to climate change, for instance, the ICJ in its recent advisory opinion acknowledged that obligations pertaining to the protection of the climate system are obligations erga omnes, highlighting that responsibility for the breaches of such obligations may be invoked by any state when such obligations arise under customary international law. Establishing appropriate criteria for identifying these obligations from a legal perspective and clarifying the legal consequences of breaches would contribute to strengthening the rule of law in the international community while ensuring legal stability and predictability. Japan also notes that the Commission added 2 new topics to its program of work, and it looks forward to the deliberations on these topics. Japan would like to reiterate our assurance to full support and active contributions to the work of the Commission. Now, I'd like to turn to a topic of sea level rise in relation to international law. Japan recognizes that the risk of land submersion due to climate change-induced sea level rise is an urgent issue for the international community. It has been recognized as a serious and imminent problem, not merely a legal matter, particularly for those states that are most affected by the phenomenon. From 2021 to 2024, the Commission reconstituted the study group and considered 3 subtopics. This year, the Commission adapted a final report consolidating previous discussions on this issue. This report, as requested by several states including Japan, addressed the interconnections among the 3 subtopics and also examined cross-cutting issues such as legal stability and predictability. The study group, in accordance with its mandate, provides valuable observations for member states as a reference from a legal perspective without requiring modification to existing international law. Japan would like to extend its sincere respect to the members of the working group, especially the co-chairs, for their dedicated contribution. Regarding issues related to the law of the sea, the Commission stated its view that states are under no obligation to update the baselines or the outer limits of maritime zones established— established under UNCLOS to account for changes as a result of climate change-related sea level rise. This is the very position that Japan has officially endorsed, having fully considered the Commission's view and state practices. Japan welcomes the ICJ's recognition on this point in its recently— recent advisory opinion. Japan acknowledges that the continuity of statehood is crucial in facilitating the protection of affected populations, particularly in terms of legal stability, security, and political stability. And given that this issue could have direct relevance to questions of peace and security around the world, it is essential for the international community to cooperate on preserving their territory and territorial integrity, and safeguarding the people of those states affected by sea level rise. At the same time, regarding obligations and responsibilities of the states in the context of sea level rise, careful consideration should be undertaken in relevant forums to their legal basis and specific contents in the future. The elements of legal stability, security, and predictability indicated by the Commission present important directions for the international community in addressing civil rights, their practice, and accumulation of consensus among member states. Japan understands that the study group encourages the progressive development of international law to address the inherent challenges posed by sea level rise through both interpretation of existing instruments and development of new legal instruments, and that their final conclusions are intended to provide guidance for countries' policy decisions from a legal perspective, taking into account the request of states facing sea level rise. Madam Chair, the present international community is different from that in 1982. New challenges have emerged, ranging from the impacts of climate change to protection of submarine cables. Japan calls for cooperation to address these problems within the framework of UNCLOS. Japan remains committed to working and discussing with other states toward reaching a consensus on these issues. Let me now address the topic of general principles of law. Japan welcomes the progress made on this topic. Our appreciation goes to the members of the Commission, particularly the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Melcerdo Vázquez Bermúdez, for his untiring contribution. Japan expects that the Commission's final outcome on the general principles of law as an autonomous resource of international law will reflect state consent as a cornerstone of international law and be firmly anchored in state practice. As stated in Draft Conclusion 2, recognition by the community of nations is essential for such a principle to exist. In this regard, Japan takes note of the discussions concerning the possible relevance of the persistent objective rule. Further research on the matter and clarification in the commentary, including the treatment of persistent objective states in general principles of law, are expected. With regard to the notion of the second category of the general principles of law, namely general principles of law formed within the international legal system, Japan notes a divergence of views among the members of the Commission and between states regarding the legitimacy of general principles of law occurring without the involvement of a national legal system or state consent, particularly when clarifying the existence of such a category may fall within the realm of progressive development of law. The final outcome of the Commission needs to reflect the broad consensus among States. On a final note, with regard to clarification on distinction between general principles of law and customary international law. Japan hopes that future discussions within the Commission will achieve further clarification, moving beyond abstract concepts to provide practical direction that contributes to identifying sources of international law by the community of nations. I thank you, Madam Chair.


6th Committee · Vice-Chair [1:58:28]:

I thank the distinguished delegate of Japan for that statement. I now give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Jamaica, you have the floor.


Jamaica [1:58:49]:

Aligning itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States, the Jamaican delegation wishes to provide comments on Chapter 3, specifically settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties, as well as Chapter 4, sea level rise in relation to international law. We will commence with the former topic. Regarding the topic settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties, the Jamaican delegation wishes to advise the International Law Commission that it has case law in the form of the Court of Appeal case of Industrial Disputes Tribunal and Caribbean Examinations Council and Gerard Philip. That is a 2024 case. The background of this case concerns a suit against the Caribbean Examinations Council by Mr. Philip in which he claimed unjustified dismissal before the Industrial Tribunal disputes— before the Industrial Disputes Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled in favor of Mr. Philip, and as such, the Council submitted the matter to the Supreme Court to have the award set aside. The Supreme Court quashed the Tribunal's decision, having found that hearing, and I quote, hearing of a dispute in which the Council was a party violated the principle of international organization immunity. Chair, having lost at the Supreme Court level, the Tribunal appealed the matter before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by upholding the Supreme Court's decision. The court ruled that the Council in Jamaica has an immunity that is general and absolute in the absence of any express language limiting the immunity recognized in the relevant international instruments or in domestic law which provided for the establishment of the Council. The court considered that a general and absolute immunity from all legal process that it was essential or necessary to allow international organizations like the Council to operate independently and effectively. Thus, it rejected the appellant's argument that the immunity was limited by considerations such as ensuring access to justice or the existence of alternative dispute settlement mechanisms. The court also relied on the Council's right to have its property immune from search, acquisition, confiscation, and other forms of interference, to conclude that the significant limitations on the ability of any court or quasi-judicial body to enforce its orders supports the necessity of a general and absolute immunity for the international organization. It further explained that the immunity the Council enjoyed would shield it from all legal processes, which would include shielding it from the jurisdiction of an Employment Disputes Tribunal, which acts as a quasi-judicial body. Noteworthy, Chair, is that the court would have also been satisfied that the IDT lacked jurisdiction applying the functional immunities test, as the relevant employee's work on the review was connected with the clear purposes of the organization. The court concluded the matter by stating at paragraph 17 of its judgment that, and I quote, we are of the view that the learned judge was correct in holding that the tribunal erred in assuming jurisdiction in this matter involving the Council in circumstances in which the Council enjoys absolute immunity in Jamaica from every form of legal process and had not waived its immunity. Chair, it was noted that the Special Rapporteur's 3rd report, which is being considered by the ILC on settlement of disputes with international organizations as parties, includes extensive references to state practice, especially national court decisions addressing the scope of immunity of international organizations. The Jamaican delegation believes that the Court of Appeals decision would be suitable for inclusion in the Special Rapporteur's study and report and will submit further information for consideration for inclusion in the report. Now let us turn to Chapter 4 of the ILC report, and that is sea level rise in relation to international law. My delegation expresses its appreciation to the International Law Commission for the final report of the Study Group on Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law. We also extend congratulations to co-chairs Miss Patricia Golovar-Telles and Miss Nalufa Oral and Mr. Juan José Ruda Santolaria, as well as to the former co-chair Mr. Bogdan Arescu, for their commendable work on the preparation of the issues papers, the additional papers thereto, and the final consolidated report of the co-chairs of the study group on the topic. My delegation further notes with gratitude the results indicated in the final report of the Study Group on Sea Level Rise in relation to international law and will seek to offer brief remarks, particularly in relation to the conclusions of the study group. Madam Chair, the Jamaican delegation, in its submission before the International Court of Justice on Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, that is the Advisory Opinion underscored the impact of climate change-related sea level rise. It averred that, and I quote, small island developing states like Jamaica are most affected by the effects of climate change whilst contributing the least to emissions. Climate model projections show least— show increasing temperatures for the Caribbean region that will result in changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, greater climate variability, and rising sea levels. Madam Chair, the Climate Change Policy Framework for Jamaica, that is March 2023, at page 22 indicated that increased sea levels and changes in the severity or frequency of storms are likely to result in changes to the frequency or magnitude of storm surges on Jamaica's coast. The likelihood of more severe hurricanes will increase. It also indicated that there was a projected 80% increase in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes over the next 80 years. And I must state that this was based on a report that was done in 2015. 2015 and updated in 2016. Yesterday, Madam Chair, Jamaica was ravaged by Melissa, a Category 5 hurricane which resulted in deaths of individuals, partial or whole destruction of houses and infrastructures, flooded communities, and many other catastrophes. It is for this reason that the Jamaican delegation believes that the final report could not have come at a more opportune time, even as we use this opportunity to call on member states to lend their support to Jamaica and other Caribbean countries affected by this hurricane, and thank countries which have already pledged their support. Madam Chair, my delegation notes that the final report contains 3 subtopics. These are the law of the sea, Statehood, and the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. Each will be discussed in turn. Regarding the Law of the Sea, the Jamaican delegation wishes to reiterate its previous sentiments before this forum that the drafters of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea could not have foreseen the rapid changes to our oceans due to climate change. thereby provide for the challenges that are now being faced by the global community in respect of sea level rise. It has, however, laid down principles by which states may delimit their boundaries, and we are of the view that those boundaries, once established, must be preserved, acknowledged, and respected even in the context of sea level rise. We therefore consider that there should be a consistency between the application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, regarded as the constitution of the oceans, and any proposed solutions to address climate change-related sea level rise. This means that previously established maritime boundaries must not be altered as a consequence of climate change-related sea level rise. This will ensure the preservation of legal stability, certainty, and predictability under international law, as well as guard against inequities to coastal states losing rights in their maritime zones to other nation-states. Such a posture also allows for the realization of the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources, and in this regard, the principle of fundamental changes of circumstances are inapplicable in relation to maritime delimitation agreements. We further wish to reiterate our position as expressed in 2023 interventions on this subject matter. That is, and I quote, states do not have a legal obligation under UNCLOS to maintain baselines and outer limits of maritime zones on the review or update charts or list of geographic coordinates after depositing the same with the Secretary-General in accordance with UNCLOS. This is because there is no legal requirement under international law which mandates states to update charts to take into account changes which occur due to climate change-related sea level rise. This view is also expressed at paragraph 359 of the aforementioned ICJ advisory opinion. Madam Chair, we now wish to turn to our second subtopic, which is statehood. My delegation shares the view that preservation of states' maritime zones rights is deeply connected to the preservation of state, statehood, and sovereignty. Accordingly, Jamaica supports the 2024 Declaration of the Heads of State and Government of Alliance of Small Island States on Sea Level Rise and Statehood. The Jamaican delegation agrees that the Montevideo Convention is silent on the matter of the continuity of statehood in the context of climate change-related sea level rise. We therefore wish to adopt the perspective shared at paragraph 38 of the final report, which asserts that the continuity of statehood in the context of climate change-related sea level rise is grounded in the following rights, and I quote, the right of states to preserve their existence, the right of each state to preserve its territorial integrity, and the right of peoples to self-determination. Now let us turn to the 3rd subtopic, Madam Chair, the Jamaican delegation maintains, as previously articulated before this committee, that appropriate regulations must be put in place to ensure the maintenance of the human rights in the event of displaced populace. This should underscore the respect for and protection of human dignity. To this end, we look forward to the development of needs-based and rights-based based approaches to resolve these issues. Finally, Madam Chair, the Jamaican delegation would in principle also support discussions or efforts to realize these protections through the use of the special climate mobility agreements, pathways, and other alternative arrangements as outlined in paragraph 46 of the final report. We also support consultation regarding affected persons and communities, as well as international cooperation among all relevant stakeholders, so as to ensure the protection of not just persons and communities in decision-making processes affected by climate change-related sea level rise, but also the preservation of culture, cultural heritage, identity, and dignity, as well as the maintenance of essential needs. Madam Chair.


6th Committee · Vice-Chair [2:11:31]:

Muchas gracias, Alejandra. I thank the distinguished representative of Jamaica for that statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Monaco.


Monaco · Ambassador [2:11:44]:

Merci, Madame la Présidente.

Thank you, Madam Chair. From the outset, first and foremost, I would like to commend the remarkable work of the ILC and the report adopted following its 76th session. The work under Chapter 4 on sea level rise in relation to international law undeniably help us to better understand the legal issues regarding this environmental phenomenon, the scale of which continues to grow as climate change speeds up. The impact on the life of people in coastal regions, on coastal states, and SIDS is growing, there are many states as well which have to suffer the consequences indirectly, in particular because of population displacement or restricted access to resources. The international community in its entirety is affected by the fallout from this phenomenon. 6 years ago, the report on the oceans and the cryosphere adopted in Monaco highlighted the impact of climate change both on the ocean acidification, warming, and also on the cryosphere, ice melt and sea level rise, as well as the interdependence between these 2 ecosystems. Today, the scientific work, in particular within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, confirms that sea level rise is increasing. Given this, the interpretation of existing instruments and rules of international law. They're of great importance. Madam Chair, the advisory opinions requested from ITLOS and the International Court of Justice have helped clarify the obligations of states regarding their greenhouse gas emissions and more generally climate change, and we welcome this. The work of the ILC today strengthen our collective thinking by providing a robust basis to provide solutions to as yet unresolved legal questions on sea level rise in relation to international law. This thinking is not theoretical. This thinking concerns the very survival of nations, the continuity of their international legal personality, the protection of their maritime zones and boundaries, and also the dignity of their citizens. To this end, it is crucial that these solutions remain compatible with the integrity of the legal framework established by UNCLOS. This is a universal instrument under which all activities related to seas and oceans should be conducted. The preservation of legal stability, certainty, and predictability should guide our decisions. While no provision of the Convention deals with the evolution of baselines or the outer limits of maritime zones and the rights linked to this in terms of sea level rise, the report nonetheless pragmatically highlights that states do not have the— are not obliged, rather, to update such data once it has been duly deposited with the Secretary-General, the work of the ILC clarifies the practices to promote, to preserve, and protect existing rights of states and populations, and has proposed several options for the future. The protection of human dignity, solidarity, and international cooperation must be central driving forces behind our mobilization to protect people affected by this phenomenon, particularly people from small island developing states, or small island states rather, and low-lying coastal states. As my delegation recalled last year, whether this be during the 4th SIDS conference in Antigua and Barbuda or at the high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly on the subject, as my delegation reiterated, sea level rise is a major risk for humanity. There is an urgent need to act. Indeed, only a massive, swift reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can limit this phenomenon. Madam Chair, action taken must be collective, ambitious, and financed commensurate to the issues. The needs for mitigation and adaptation are considerable. Possible avenues include investing in the blue sustainable and regenerative economy. This will help to contribute to this effort. The interest shown on the 7th and 8th of June this year during the Blue Economy and Finance Forum in Monaco underscored the potential of such investment. Coastal management, early warning systems, and protecting vulnerable populations are also crucial. We should continue along these lines. The General Assembly high-level meeting that will take place next year during which a statement on sea level rise will be adopted, will provide us with an opportunity to send a strong signal regarding our collective determination to protect the rights of states and peoples, and will provide a specific concrete opportunity to act in the face of a threat that endangers the stability, security, and prosperity of all worldwide.


6th Committee · Vice-Chair [2:17:09]:

Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Monaco for that Thank you, Ambassador, for that statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative and Permanent Representative of Timor-Leste. You have the floor, Ambassador.


Timor-Leste · Permanent Representative [2:17:21]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. As an island nation whose future depends as much on the stability of law as on the resilience of the ocean, Timor-Leste attaches the highest importance to the work of the International Law Commission and to the strengthening of the international legal order on which our collective security rests. Timor-Leste aligns itself with the statement delivered by Palau on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island Developing States and is pleased to offer the following remarks in its national capacity. We convey our deep appreciation to Mr. Martins Paparinskis, Chair of the International Law Commission, the members of the Commission, and the Codification Division of the Office of Legal Affairs for their outstanding work during the Commission's 76th session. Their dedication, despite reduced time and resources, reflects the enduring validity— vitality of this indispensable body. Timor-Leste joins others in expressing sincere condolences on the recent passing of Professor Concepción Escobar Hernández and Ambassador Júlio Barbosa, whose distinguished service greatly enriched the work and legacy of the International Law Commission. Madam Chair, Timor-Leste welcomes the completion of the Commission's work on sea level rise in relation to international law and commends the co-chairs, Patricia Calvão Teles, Nilo Ferreira O'Reilly, and Juan José Ruda Santolaria, for their vision and perseverance. For us, as for all Small Island Developing States, And secures the legal foundations on which our sustainable development depends. Equally significant is the Study Group's recognition that statehood endures even if territory becomes partially or wholly submerged. By rooting this conclusion in the principles of self-determination and permanent sovereignty over natural resources, the Commission offers reassurance that this the disappearance of land does not mean the disappearance of peoples. Timor-Leste also welcomes the report's focus on the protection of persons affected by sea-level rise, guided by human dignity, equity and solidarity. We join others in urging that this work inform practical responses across the United Nations, from adaptation finance to mobility frameworks, so that the rule of law becomes a shield for the most vulnerable. We further note with appreciation the recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of States in respect of climate change, as of 23 July 2025, which reinforces the Commission's findings on the stability of maritime zones, the continuity of Statehood, and the duty to cooperate in responding to sea-level rise. Timor-Leste also supports enhanced regional and inter-regional cooperation, including within AOSIS, ASEAN, and other relevant groupings, to promote coherent legal and political responses to sea-level rise and climate-related displacement. In this regard, we underscore the importance of exploring pathways for the protection of persons and communities affected by sea-level rise, including through cooperative mobility arrangements and legal safeguards to prevent statelessness. Madam Chair, Timor-Leste notes with appreciation the Commission's continued work on the draft conclusions on general principles of law under the guidance of Special Rapporteur Marcelo Vasquez Bermúdez. This project strengthens the methodological foundations of Article 38 of the ICG Statute and contributes to a more coherent and inclusive international legal order. We stress the importance of ensuring that the identification of general principles reflects the pluralism of legal traditions, including those of developing and small States. Diversity in legal experience enriches rather than fragments the universality of international law. Team Morello-Strozzi welcomes the Commission's decisions under Chapters 12 of its report, including the addition of new topics to its long-term program of work, namely compensation for damage caused by internationally wrongful acts and due diligence in international law, alongside the continued consideration of subjects such as the principle of non-intervention and obligations erga omnes, which remain of enduring relevance to the equality and sovereignty of States and to the protection of collective interests. We join others in emphasizing that the International Law Commission must be adequately supported, for its work is essential to maintaining a rule-based international system in which all States, large and small, stand on equal footing. For small and developing nations, the Commission represents far more than an academic forum. It is a guarantor of legal equity— equality, transforming the principle of sovereign equality into concrete, codified rules that shield the rights of all States. By enabling participation on the basis of law rather than power, the ILC helps ensure that justice, not influence, remains the measure of international relations. The shortened session of the Commission This year, caused by the liquidity crisis, is a matter of grave concern. For small and developing states such as ours, the ILC is often the principal forum through which we contribute to shaping the rules that govern the international community. When the Commission's work is curtailed, the pace of legal development slows and the gap widens between those with the capacity. To influence lawmaking and those who rely on the clarity of law for their protection. Restoring the Commission's full 10-week session is vital to preserving the inclusivity, equity and legitimacy of international law itself. We further commend the Commission's commitment to gender parity and diversity among its members, which enhances the representativeness and legitimacy of its work. Thank you, Mr. President. Madam Chair, Timor-Leste's own experience has taught us that justice, peace, and sovereignty are inseparable from respect for international law. We therefore attach the highest importance to the work of the International Law Commission as a guardian of legal certainty and as a bridge between principle and practice. We reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the rule of law, multilateralism, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. We stand ready to work with all Member States to ensure that the Commission's achievements on sea level rise and other topics translate into genuine protection for people, planet and sovereignty— the values on which Timor-Leste was founded. I thank you.


6th Committee · Vice-Chair [2:25:03]:

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Timor-Leste. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Costa Rica.


Costa Rica [2:25:16]:

Madam Vice Chair, can I just say what a pleasure it is to see you leading our work. Members of the ILC, Excellencies, colleagues, Costa Rica appreciates the presentation of the report of the ILC. Specifically, we welcome Chapter 4, which contains the final report of the Study Group on Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law. We recognize the rigorous process conducted by the Study Group and its co-chairs, whose work offers technical and legal contributions of enormous value to states. For Costa Rica, this report not only systematizes existing practice, but also consolidates legal principles that provide guidance for a consistent interpretation of international law in the face— international law in the face of the emerging physical changes already being experienced by coastal areas. The emphasis on stability, legal certainty, and the preservation of acquired rights constitutes a fundamental basis for preventing disputes and protecting legitimate expectations. The report confirms, as numerous states have argued, that the current legal framework of the Law of the sea remains applicable and that there is no obligation to modify or update baselines to reflect physical changes resulting from sea level rise. Costa Rica agrees that the preservation of maritime rights is a direct expression of the principle of legal certainty. International law already contains instruments to ensure continuity even in the face of irreversible physical changes in coastal areas. With regard to the continuity of statehood, Costa Rica agrees with the legal interpretation put forward by the Commission. The disappearance or reduction of land territory should not result in the extinction of international legal personality. Recent practice, including regional developments and political declarations, reveal a growing trend towards preserving the existence of the state permanent sovereignty over natural resources and the effective protection of its populations. This approach not only prevents regulatory gaps, but it also reflects the principle that international law should adapt to contemporary challenges without sacrificing institutional stability or human dignity. With regard to the protection of persons, the report shows the existing legal framework remain fragmented. Costa Rica fully agrees with the need for human dignity to be a guiding principle. We also agree with the relevance of the complementary approaches based on rights and needs. It's especially important to analyze the application of the principle of non-refoulement in certain contexts to prevent situations of statelessness and to strengthen international cooperation. Based on an understanding of differentiated capacities. Following the co-facilitation process that Costa Rica and New Zealand carried out last year at the G8, an intergovernmental space has been opened with a view to a substantive political declaration. This declaration will constitute a first common understanding at the United Nations as to how to address the impacts of sea level rise from a legal standpoint, point. The Commission's report, together with recent advisory opinions, are a fundamental starting point for such negotiations as they systematize existing practice and offer interpretive avenues that provide concrete answers for coastal states. For Costa Rica, this declaration should reaffirm the principles for the protection of affected persons and consolidate international cooperation based on science, equity, and through concrete measures. Chair Costa Rica reiterates its commitment to effective multilateralism with the centrality of international law and collective solutions that provide legal certainty and stability and protection to our coastal communities and also future generations. The report of the ILC represents a solid starting point for beginning work in that direction. I thank you.


6th Committee · Vice-Chair [2:29:31]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Costa Rica for that statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Bulgaria.


Bulgaria [2:29:39]:

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Let me start by addressing the topic of sea level rise in relation to international law. Bulgaria aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union on and would like to further make the following remarks in our national capacity. Bulgaria welcomes the final Consolidated Report of the International Law Commission, prepared by co-chairs Patricio Gaval-Teleš, Nilufer Oral and Juan José Rodas Santoralia, and expresses its high appreciation for their work. We acknowledge the adverse impacts of sea level rise, especially but not only on low-lying and small island states. It is a critical issue for international law as it threatens the very concept of statehood, displaces populations, and jeopardizes maritime entitlements for all states. This turns sea level rise into a global phenomenon that can lead to indirect effects like population displacement and resource scarcity. Thus affecting even states far from the coasts. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to once again reaffirm our position that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is the fundamental pillar of ocean governance that establishes the overarching legal framework within which all activities in oceans and seas must be carried out. In this regard, we welcome the IOC's conclusion that the Convention should remain applicable with regard to the challenges posed by sea-level rise, thus ensuring that any legal conclusion on this topic will be undertaken on the basis and with full respect of the integrity and relevant principles, provisions and the balance between rights and obligations enshrined in the Convention. We welcome the Commission's deliberations on possible ways forward in addressing challenges posed by sea level rise in relation to the matter of statehood and protection of affected persons. It is Bulgaria's understanding that legal discussions on the topic of sea level rise in relation to statehood, maritime zones, baselines, and delimitation should take into due account the importance of preserving the boundaries and rights of coastal states over their maritime spaces established in line with the principles and relevant provisions of the Convention and the principles of legal stability. As a final note, Bulgaria would like to express its appreciation for the work done since the inclusion of the topic in the long-term programme of work of the Commission. Through their diligent work, the co-chairs of the Study Group and the members of the Commission have once again demonstrated the critical role of the ILC in evolving international law to meet the challenges of our times. Their efforts to reconcile climate change with the principles of state sovereignty, territorial integrity and protection of vulnerable populations are invaluable in guiding the international community towards solutions that are both fair and forward-thinking. Turning now to the topic, the principles of non-intervention in international law. We would like to express our great appreciation for the comprehensive report of Mr. Ivan Mingashang, included as an annex to the International Law Commission's annual report. We are pleased that the ILC has decided to include this topic in its long-term programme of work, which is more pertinent than ever in light of the current dynamic geopolitical shifts and the challenges the international and national security are facing. From the outset, allow me to stress that non-intervention emanates from the sovereign equality between States as enshrined in the UN Charter. However, this founding treaty is being increasingly put under pressure. It should be acknowledged that the prohibition of intervention is widely considered as a core basic, yet crucial rule of customary international law and is duly reflected in the founding treaties of numerous international and regional organisations. States must respect each other's rights, internal autonomy and jurisdiction, and must not interfere in each other's internal affairs. In particular, Bulgaria commends the importance that the Commission attached to the application of the principle of non-intervention in cyberspace, where and non-state actors are becoming increasingly active. This subtopic therefore needs to be further explored, not only within the Sixth Committee but also in the framework of the future global mechanism on developments in the field of ICTs in the context of international security. Madam Chair, we would like to underline that the question of thresholds regarding what should be considered as an illegal foreign intervention in one state's internal affairs deserves a more in-depth look by the Commission. More and more state and non-state actors misuse this grey zone and resort to coercion in pursuit of their malign goals at the expense of other states. This requires an adequate and determined response from the international community given the current global threat landscape. Bulgaria will reform Israel remains fully committed to the principle of non-intervention and would like to use this opportunity to encourage all states to abide by their international obligations under international law. We will be following closely the development of the ILC's work on this important topic. We look forward to having further constructive discussions on the matter and we hope that concrete deliverables will be identified. Madam Chairperson, we also acknowledge the proposal of the ILC on the topic of legal aspects of accountability for crimes committed against United Nations personnel serving in peacekeeping operations. In light of recent developments, we deem that this important effort to address existing legal gaps, particularly under the 1994 Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel and the 2005 Optional Protocol, and to strengthen accountability for attacks against UN peacekeepers. We share the opinion that the proposed draft guidelines would clarify the application of international law, enhance cooperation in investigating and prosecuting such crimes, and improve the overall protection of peacekeeping personnel. We therefore consider this initiative as timely and necessary step towards ending impunity, ensuring justice and reinforcing the effectiveness and integrity of United Nations peacekeeping operations. With regard to Chapter 12, Other Decisions and Conclusions of the Commission, Section B, Bulgaria welcomes the Commission's decision on the inclusion of the topic Compensation for Damage Caused by International Wrongful acts in its programme of work and wishes to congratulate Mr. Paparinskis on his appointment as Special Rapporteur. We believe that the IOC's consideration of this topic is a welcome and timely effort as it would further the codification and progressive development of the topic on State responsibility, building upon Article 36 of the 2001 Articles of the Responsibility of States of international wrongful acts. We share the view that compensation remains a key means of ensuring justice when international law is breached. Madam Chairperson, in clarifying how compensation should be assessed and applied, particularly regarding the types of damages that may be compensated, the potential involvement of third states, the evaluation of losses, the applicable standards, and the importance of fairness, we encourage the IOC to take into consideration both past and emerging practice, as well as recent jurisprudence of international regional courts and tribunals. In this context, as a current development in line with the topic, we underscore the importance of the process of establishing an International Claims Commission for Ukraine. This initiative, undertaken pursuant to UN General Assembly Resolution 11/5, and developed within the framework of the ad hoc committee on the establishment of the International Claims Commission for Ukraine will represent a significant step in ensuring accountability and reparation for internationally wrongful acts. Furthermore, we appreciate the inclusion of the topic due diligence in international law, which we supported last year in the programme of the work of the IOC, and congratulate Ms. Penelope Rydings, respectively, on her appointment as Special Rapporteur. In conclusion, Bulgaria would like once again to convey the appreciation for the IOC's latest report and to reaffirm our strong support for the Commission's invaluable role for the codification and progressive development of international law.


6th Committee · Vice-Chair [2:38:59]:

Thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of Bulgaria for that statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished


El Salvador [2:39:12]:

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It's a real pleasure to see you coordinating this session. Madam Chair, allow me to begin by briefly expressing our condolences over the death of Professor Concepción Escobar Hernández and Ambassador Julio Barbosa, highlighting their legacy for international law. All protocols observed, we will now make some general comments and then some more specific ones in relation to the cluster we're dealing with today. El Salvador recognizes the financial difficulties of the United Nations, especially the liquidity crisis that has limited the work of the International Law Commission, the ILC. My delegation expresses its grave concern at the lack of access to funds that had already been budgeted and calls for greater transparency of information on the administrative and financial causes that have led to this difficulty. We suggest seeking more effective mechanisms to ensure the availability of these funds, but in this effort we would caution against isolating the Commission's budget, as it might not be the best option. Instead, delegations should strengthen mandates to ensure direct access to the necessary resources— to the allocated resources, rather. On the Study Group on Sea Level Rise, we appreciate the work of the study group and the co-chairs. Allow me to make the following comments. On the Law of the Sea, we take note that there is There is no provision in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or in other norms of international law preventing states from preserving baselines, geographical coordinates, and outer limits of existing maritime areas as established and once duly deposited with the Secretary-General. However, it should be noted that the I think the study group's conclusion should be interpreted in 2 ways. Firstly, UNCLOS is not the only applicable instrument. And secondly, in referring to other international law norms, particularly in the specific context of historic bays, such norms should be understood as the custom or customary practice of states together with the exercise of acts of navigation or sovereignty over maritime spaces and natural resources that are considered vital. On continuity of statehood, we recognize the importance of ensuring recognition of the preservation of statehood insofar as it is associated with the rights of peoples to self-determination. And this should be understood from its internal dimension. Since they cannot be deprived of the condition of statehood without their consent. On protection of persons affected, we once again stress the need to recognize the principle of human dignity as the bedrock of the international legal order. As the person is at the core of any— of the ultimate goal of any norm or policy, any action against sea level rise must include consultation and informed consent of affected communities. In terms of next steps, my delegation encourages delegations to consider identifying those elements that warrant being codified in a legally binding instrument, whether at the multilateral, regional, or bilateral level. Identifying elements in this way could help asks, uh, identify concrete efforts to strengthen the applicable obligations in this area, such as the duty to cooperate, in order to provide greater legal certainty and stability. In this same vein, taking into account the decision of the General Assembly to convene a high-level meeting for the 81st session, it's necessary for the members of the GA to take due account of the different, differing scope generated by a political declaration as opposed to a binding instrument. The identification of elements to be adopted for a codification process should not be misrepresented in terms of its scope through a political declaration. In terms of general principles of law, El Salvador appreciates the work of the Special Rapporteur. And following in line with the second reading of the draft conclusions, we wish to make the following abbreviated comments. On Conclusion 5, the 2-step verification contemplated in the comparative analysis in the draft conclusion— Draft Conclusion 5 on determination should take into account not only the diversity of the world's legal systems but also linguistic nuances. And conceptual connotations on Conclusion 11, the relationship between sources, specifically the consideration made by the ILC in its discussion of the coexistence of general principles of law versus customary law. My delegation believes that this discussion can be resolved by taking into account the dynamic effects of the source of international law and thus the repeated application of a general principle of law may have the effect of generating a customary norm as long as the practice identifies opinio juris. This was an abbreviated version of our intervention. The full version has been submitted in writing to the Secretariat, and we request that it be recorded in the minutes of this meeting. I thank you.


6th Committee · Vice-Chair [2:45:10]:

Muchas gracias.

I thank the distinguished representative of El Salvador for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Bahamas.


Bahamas · Deputy Permanent Representative [2:45:24]:

Madam Chair, at the outset, allow me to express the solidarity of the government and people of the Bahamas with our sisters and brothers in Jamaica, Haiti, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic. Who have been severely impacted by Hurricane Melissa, a Category 5 storm that have moved across the northern Caribbean. The Central and Southeastern Territory of the Bahamas was impacted by a Category 2 hurricane. The storms brought significant rainfall and heavy winds, creating damages to homes and buildings. Hurricane Melissa is now on its way to to our sister Caribbean country Bermuda. We extend our deepest condolences to those who have lost loved ones and stand in sympathy with all those affected. Storms such as these remind us that for Small Island Developing States, climate change is a lived, legal, and existential reality. It tests both the resilience of our nations and the reliance of the rules-based multilateral system. For the Bahamas, climate change remains the foremost foreign policy and development priority, shaping the country's engagement across all multilateral and regional processes. Hurricane Melissa is also a sobering reminder of the human dimensions of disaster. Disasters, and the urgent need to operationalize the ILC's draft articles on protections of persons in the event of disaster. The Bahamas, as a core group member on this agenda item, believes that these draft articles embody the principles of humanity, solidarity, and international cooperation, which are essential for protecting the lives and dignity of persons in the moments of crisis. We therefore encourage all delegations to provide their comments and observations with a view to elaborating these draft articles into a legally binding treaty that ensures timely and equitable assistance to all those affected by disaster, wherever they occur. Madam Chair, the Bahamas aligns itself with the statement delivered by the Alliance of Small Island States, and we wish to reiterate the concerns raised on the reduction of the Commission's 2025 session to only 5 weeks owing to the United Nations liquidity crisis. This unprecedented curtailment undermines the Commission's ability to fully discharge its mandate of progressive development and codification of international law. And it weakens one of the core pillars of the rules-based multilateral system. The Bahamas therefore calls for the assurance of adequate, predictable, and sustainable resources to safeguard the integrity, the independence, and the continuity of the Commission's vital work. Nevertheless, the Bahamas commends the ILC for the adoption of its Final Report on sea level rise in relation to international law. We further extend our appreciation to the co-chairs of the Study Group for their 7 years of dedicated consideration on this topic, and for incorporating extensive state practices, including those of SIDS. The Bahamas was pleased to contribute to this process through the submission of its comments to the Commission. Madam Chair, My delegation would like to highlight several points of particular significance. First, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea remains the foundation of Bahamian engagement in maritime affairs. As an archipelagic state, under Article 46 of the Convention, the Bahamas legislated and deposited its archipelagic baselines with the Secretary-General in 2008, consistent with Article 47. These baselines and maritime zones produced— they produce are vital to our sovereignty, identity, and development. We welcome the ILC's conclusion that no provisions of UNCLOS oblige States to update their baseline charts or outer limits once duly deposited. The Commission has reaffirmed that legal stability certainty and predictability, equity, and the preservation of existing rights all prevail over physical changes. The Commission observed that requiring landward adjustment of boundaries would benefit those least and penalize the most vulnerable, like the Bahamas. We further note that the confirmation that fundamental changes in circumstances principle under Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties explicitly cannot be revoked to terminate boundary agreements. This preserves the preeminence of maritime boundaries, which is essential safeguard for peace, security, and orderly relations among states. These principles are consistent with the 2021 Pacific Island Forum Declaration on preserving maritime zones and the 2024 AOSIS Leaders Declaration on Sea Level— on Sea Level Rise and Statehood, both of which the Bahamas has endorsed. Together, they represent an emerging corpus of customary international law anchored in equity and stability. The Bahamas reiterates that rising sea levels must not extinguish statehood, sovereignty, or international legal personality. The Montevideo Convention criteria relate solely to the creation or the recognition of states and cannot be interpreted to deny the continuation of an existing state. We welcome the ILC's recognition of strong support among states for the continuity of statehood and sovereignty and its reference to the PIFFOR and the ASES Declaration. The continuity of statehood derives from the rights of people to self-determination, the principle of sovereign equality, and the principle— the permanent sovereignty over natural resources. These rights are not conditional on geography, elevation, or the physical permanence of landmass. For the Bahamas, the perseverance— the preservation of statehood is also a moral imperative. It ensures that future generations may continue to ensure the protection of international law and the heritage of nationhood entrusted to us by our forefathers. The ILC rightly concluded that existing legal frameworks remain fragmented and inadequate to protect those affected by sea level rise, including the most vulnerable communities. The Bahamas therefore commend the Commission's recognition that these threats strike at the very core of dignity, jeopardizing fundamental rights including the right to life, food, water, housing, and cultural identity. It is for this reason the Bahamas call for greater international resolve to bridge these legal gaps and to advance coherent, people-centered frameworks capable of addressing the realities faced by small islands and low-lying coastal states. Madam Chair, the Bahamas was proud to serve as a core group member and co-sponsor of the human rights resolution entitled Sea Level Rise and Its Effect on the Full and Effective Enjoyment of Human Rights, adopted by consensus in October 2025. Led by the Dominican Republic as penholder, and co-sponsored by Cabo Verde, Cyprus, Ecuador, the Maldives, and Malta. The resolution marked the Council's first formal acknowledgement of the guidance provided by the advisory opinions of the ICJ, ITLOS, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on climate-related obligations. By the resolution's recognition of the continuity of statehood and its call for an in-depth study of human rights implications of sea level rise, it reinforced the Council's awareness of the special circumstances of states. In doing so, it called for strengthened technical assistance and capacity building, which are practical expressions of the duty to cooperate, a general principle of international law rooted in the Charter of the United Nations. That duty demands collective action, solidarity, and the mobilization of resources to assist those least responsible yet most affected. The smallest contributors to global emissions must not be left to bear the greatest burden. Equity and justice require that international cooperation be both a legal obligation and a moral and the continuity of statehood for low-lying and coastal states. The Bahamas further underscores the importance of coherence across the various United Nations processes now addressing sea level rise, from Geneva to New York, to avoid fragmentation and to consolidate the gains achieved through the Commission's work. As Hurricane Melissa reminds us, the forces shaping the physical world cannot be halted by humans alone. Yet the erosion of law, equity, and justice is within our power to prevent. The Bahamas reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the rule of law and to the preservation of sovereignty and the protection of persons in the face of rising sea. I thank you, Madam Chair.


6th Committee · Vice-Chair [2:56:06]:

Muchas gracias, al distinguido— I thank the distinguished permanent rep— Deputy Permanent Representative of the Bahamas for that statement. Esteemed colleagues, I, the co-chair, would like to share some remarks, and so I will now give her the floor.


ILC · Co-Chair [2:56:31]:

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, for allowing me this opportunity to make some final closing comments, as I will not be here tomorrow. I have to say, I can't believe actually we've come to the end of sea level rise, the work on sea level rise, and it has been maybe one of the greatest honors for my— in my career to be co-chair of this study group and work over 8 years with this fantastic team, my co-chairs. We've become very good friends over the years. We've worked in perfect harmony. Moreover, I am extremely grateful to the member states of the Sixth Committee and in particular the most vulnerable states, the small island states, who entrust the Commission, who entrusted the co-chairs to undertake the responsibility of working on an issue that has profound impact on states and individuals. I thank the tremendous support from the Sixth Committee over the years, as I feel we work together to find practicable solutions to the very real legal questions created by climate change-related sea level rise. I thank, of course, my esteemed colleagues, the members of the study group, both from the past quinquennium and the current quinquennium, for providing the co-chairs with robust and rigorous discussions and guidance to ensure that the output would be of the highest quality. It has been indeed a great honor to work with such eminent jurists on this question. The Commission is also extremely fortunate to have the support of a Secretariat who has been absolutely integral and critical to the work we have done on sea level rise. Any praise that the Commission receives, the co-chairs receive, must be shared with the Secretariat. You don't see their work, but we, we do. And we have just heard the very poignant statements from the representatives of Jamaica and Bahamas of the devastating impacts right now that is happening from climate change on a rapidly changing ocean. Climate change is here, and we have to be prepared to respond to the challenges, the multiple challenges. And yet we are also in a time when international law and multilateralism are challenged. But the work that we have done under the common roof of the United Nations is very tangible evidence, as a delegate said, that international law can respond to the existential issues and the essential role of multilateralism that we see through the Sixth Committee and other fora, including the ICJ and ITLOS. So while my work as a co-chair will end after the 80th session of the Sixth Committee, my commitment to this issue will not. And I, I really express my profound gratitude for all your support of everyone. And so I don't want to say goodbye, but thank you.


6th Committee · Vice-Chair [2:59:53]:

Muchas gracias. I thank the co-chair of the study group for those remarks. And as you can see, I extend the thanks of the 6th Committee for all of your work and congratulations to the Commission for completing the work of the study group. Distinguished delegates, the distinguished representative of the Bahamas was the last speaker. We will be back tomorrow at 10:00 AM to continue our work on the first cluster of the 2025 Report of the ILC under Item 80. In relation to the report as to the work of the 76th Session and the Chair of the ICJ, the President of the ICJ, Let me remind you that the deadline for inscription for next week, the report of the host country, the deadline is tomorrow at 6:00 PM. I thank you. The meeting is adjourned.