Sixth Committee, 31st plenary meeting - General Assembly, 80th session

Good morning, distinguished delegates and colleagues. I call to order the 32nd meeting of the Sixth Committee for the 80th Session of the General Assembly. Distinguished delegates, it is a well-established tradition that the President of the International Court of Justice pays a visit to the Legal Committee whenever the General Assembly considers the annual report of the Court. Today, it gives me great honor and pleasure to welcome to the Sixth Committee the President of the Court, His Excellency Judge Iwasawa Yuji. I also welcome Judges Georg Nolte, Bogdan Lucian Orescu, and Mahmoud Daifallah Hamoud, as well as Mr. Philippe Gautier, the Registrar of the Court. who are also with us this morning. President Iwasawa is well known to all of us. I speak on behalf of the Sixth Committee as a whole in expressing how delighted we all are to see him this morning. The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Its activities are essential to the fulfillment of one of the primary purposes of the organization, which is to, quote, to bring about by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace. The jurisprudence of the Court has also been and continues to be of the utmost importance for the progressive development of international law and its codification. Mr. President, the visit of the President to New York is always a busy one and full of other engagements, and the current one is no different. It is therefore pleasing that you have reserved some time to be with us, continuing this well-established practice which members of the Committee always look forward to in this International Law Week. Many of us were in the Assembly Hall yesterday when you presented the Annual Report of the Court. We are keen observers of the Court and always appreciate receiving a description of its activities from the perspective of the Court. So it is with great pleasure that I give you the floor, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. Chair of the Sixth Committee, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. It is great— it is a great honor for me to speak before the Committee. I welcome this opportunity to celebrate and strengthen the ties between this Committee and the International Court of Justice, 2 institutions that play complementary roles in strengthening the rule of law. I wish to congratulate His Excellency Mr. Enrique Manalo for his— on his election as Chair. And the other members of the Bureau on their election as Vice-Chairs. Today, I'd like to share some reflections on the domestic application of international law, and in particular, the role of domestic institutions in the application and enforcement of international law. This topic has been a central focus of my research since the beginning of my academic career, I published a book in English 2 years ago entitled Domestic Application of International Law, focusing on direct applicability. My time as a judge has only deepened my appreciation of the importance of this subject. I hope my observations will contribute, contribute insights that may be useful to the work of the committee. International law was traditionally regarded as the law governing relations between states. Modern international law, in contrast, extends to relations between states and individuals and even relations among individuals. Moreover, it increasingly addresses issues of global concern which represent a common interest of the international community as a whole. Indeed, international law today affects the lives of individuals far more than it did in the past. This is evident both from the topics examined by this Committee and from the trends in the cases brought before the ICJ. In today's world, National institutions play an increasingly important role in the application and enforcement of international law, including by implementing decisions rendered by the International Court of Justice. Among national institutions, the role of domestic courts is particularly relevant. While governments are inherently inclined towards the promotion of national interest, the judiciary is more likely to operate as a true agent of world order, capable of enforcing international law even against its own government, and ensuring national action does not violate international law. Domestic courts can therefore contribute to the making, implementation, application, and enforcement of international law. The role of domestic courts is not limited to holding their own government accountable. In some circumstances, they may also enforce international law externally against foreign states. Domestic courts may also contribute to the development of customary international law, as national judicial decisions are a form of state practice. Among the various roles the domestic courts can play in upholding the international rules— international rule of law, I'd like to focus today on the enforcement of ICJ decisions. The obligation to comply with judgment of the ICJ is laid down in Article 94 of the Charter of the United Nations, which provides that each member state undertakes, undertakes to comply with the decision of ICJ in any case to which it is a party. In practice, however, the mechanism of enforcement remains decentralized. The Security Council may make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken, to give effect to a judgment under Article 94, paragraph 2. However, this power has never been exercised. In practice, the implementation of ICJ decisions depends on the domestic legal system of states. Domestic courts can play a role in this regard and have in fact been called upon to give effect to ICJ judgments. Their responses reveal a certain diversity across domestic legal systems, but the central question is essentially the same, namely whether an ICJ judgment is directly enforceable in the domestic legal order or whether further legislative or executive action is required before it can be enforced by national authorities. A prominent example is the Avena case, in which the ICJ held that the United States had violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by failing to inform certain Mexican nationals of their consular rights and ordered the United States to provide review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences concerned. The ICJ noted that the obligation to provide such review was particularly suited to the judicial process. However, when the question reached the Supreme Court of the United States in Medlin v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that the ICJ's judgment in the Avena case did not have automatic domestic legal force. While the Supreme Court acknowledged that the Avena judgment imposed an international legal obligation on the United States, it found that neither the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations nor the United Nations Charter, nor the statute of the court was self-executing, and that no implementing legislation had been enacted. Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded that the Avena Judgment did not have, and I quote, automatic domestic legal force such that the judgment of its own force applies in state and federal courts, end of quote. This reasoning illustrates the distinction between a state obligation to comply with an international judgment, which was never challenged by the Supreme Court, and on the other hand, the domestic enforceability of that judgment. A similar case arose following the ICJ judgment in Jurisprudence Jurisdictional Immunity of the State, Germany versus Italy, the ICJ held that Italy had violated its obligation to respect the immunity enjoyed by Germany under international law by allowing civil claims to be brought against it based on violations of international humanitarian law committed by the German Reich during the Second World War. It ordered Italy to ensure that the decisions of its court, of its courts, and those of other judicial authorities cease to have effect. Subsequently, the Italian Court of Cassation and later the Constitutional Court were asked to determine the domestic effect of the ICJ judgment. While the Court of Cassation noted that it was not directly and immediately bound to comply with the ICJ judgment, it concluded that under the custom international law authoritative— under the custom international law authoritatively declared by the ICJ and consistent with the obligations incumbent on Italy, It had to accord Germany immunity from jurisdiction. Shortly thereafter, legislative measures were adopted to implement the ICJ judgment. However, in 2014, the Italian Constitutional Court held that implementing the ICJ judgment would conflict with fundamental constitutional guarantees of access to justice and to an effective remedy. There is now a case pending before the Court on this matter. A third example is the ICJ's advisory opinion on the difference relating to immunity from legal process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights. This advisory opinion concern an issue indispensable to the effective working of the United Nations, namely the immunity of its officials. It is also significant because under Section 30 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, the opinion of the ICJ on any differences between the United Nations and a member shall be accepted as decisive by the parties. The request for an opinion arose from an interview given by Mr. Kumaraswamy, a Malaysian national appointed as Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers. In response to comments made by Mr. Kumaraswamy in the interview, 2 companies in Malaysia brought a defamation claim against him. Following a disagreement between the Malaysian authorities and the United Nations on the immunity of Mr. Kumaraswamy from legal proceedings, the matter was referred to the ICJ. The ICJ held that Mr. Kumaraswamy was entitled to immunity and concluded that Malaysian courts had the obligation to deal with the question of immunity from legal process as a preliminary issue to be expeditiously decided, in limine litis. Mr. Kumaraswamy subsequently made an application in Malaysian domestic courts for the dismissal of the lawsuit, which was rejected by the Registrar of the Malaysian Court. And he appealed to the High Court. The High Court, deciding in favour of Mr. Kumarasamy, held that it was bound to give binding effect to the ICJ's opinion, even though it disagreed with certain aspects of the decision. It emphasized that the Malaysian government, which was one of the parties that had referred the the case to the ICJ, had accepted the ruling as decisive. However, at the same time, the High Court also observed that the case should not be treated as a precedent for future cases in Malaysia. These examples are illustrative of the reluctance of domestic courts to act as an automatic enforcement mechanism for decisions of international courts and tribunals. Domestic courts generally do not consider themselves bound to enforce ICJ judgments. We should not, however, read the domestic court treatment of ICJ judgments as a challenge of the court's authority to determine the content and application of international law. Their reticence is mostly due to the constitutional structure of the state, the principle of separation of powers, and varying conceptions of the relation between international and domestic law. For example, as seen in Medlin v. Texas, the issue was whether ICJ decisions should be enforced directly or only after legislative or administrative measures have been taken domestically. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court, nor the Italian Constitutional Court and Court of Cassation, nor the Malaysian High Court challenged the authority of the ICJ in determining the international legal obligations of states. The question concerns not its authority, but rather the manner of implementation. Even when domestic courts reach conclusions that differ from those of the ICJ, this has not amounted to a challenge of the ICJ's interpretation of international law, but rather reflected differing assessment of facts or the application of domestic law. For example, following the ICJ's advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, several cases were brought before Israeli courts. In 2006, the Israeli High Court of Justice arrived at different conclusions from those reached by the ICJ. But they were based on a different factual rather than legal assessment. The President of the High Court of— High Court at the time observed that while non-binding, and I quote, the opinion of the International Court of Justice is an interpretation of international law performed by the highest judicial body international law, end of quote. Assertions of autonomy that may lead domestic courts to refuse to enforce ICJ decisions are not challenge to its authority under international law, but rather reflections of domestic legal reasoning. Now, beyond the question of enforcement, decisions of ICJ carry legal weight within domestic legal systems as powerful statement of law. It is an established principle in most states that courts should interpret national laws in conformity with international law. This is commonly referred to as the principle of consistent interpretation. Thus, domestic courts often use international law indirectly in interpreting the applicable national laws. International law can aid in the interpretation of national laws irrespective whether it is directly applicable or not. There are good reasons for adopting such a principle. First, this principle helps to ensure that the State is giving effect to its obligations under international law. Domestic courts can prevent divergences between the State's domestic and international legal obligations by seeking to harmonize them within the possible bounds of the domestic legal system. Second, in domestic cases of an international nature, reliance on international law in the interpretation of national laws can ensure comity between the states and avoid the perception that the domestic law of one state is being weaponized against another. Additionally, the principle of consistent interpretation can be applied broadly to encompass not just binding treaties and custom international law, but also non-binding international instruments. These include treaties which have not— which have been signed but not yet ratified, treaties which have not even been signed, and declarations adopted by the UN General Assembly. Moreover, treaty bodies established by the UN human rights treaties issue views, general comments, and concluding observations. Even though these pronouncements of treaty bodies are not legally binding, they may be used for the interpretation, interpretation of national laws. Similarly, the decisions of the ICJ may be useful beyond the parties concerned in a contentious case because of the breadth of legal issues that come up in cases on the court's docket and because of the reliable and rigorous jurisprudence developed by the court over the last 80 years. Domestic courts have regard to the ICJ's decisions in providing authoritative interpretation of treaties and identifying and clarifying custom international law, as well as elucidating their reasoning on matters of domestic law. While I do not propose to conduct a comprehensive survey of domestic legal systems, There are a few examples that are illustrative, illustrative, and serve as an important reminder of the relevance of the ICJ's decisions. A typical instance in which the ICJ's decisions have had an important normative effect on the interpretation of domestic law is in the area of state immunity. The jurisdictional immunities case has been particularly influential in this regard, having been cited in recent years by courts in the United States and the United Kingdom. The uniform approach of national courts to the question of state immunity is critical to maintaining comity between states in their international relations. A related area of law where the ICJ's decisions may prove useful is in consular relations. Thus, in Israel, the Notteboom case was cited in an appeals case concerning the extradition of dual Israeli-American citizens to the United States, and the Tehran hostages case was cited in a case concerning a tort claim brought against the Ambassador of Egypt. In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court has referred to the ICJ's decisions in the Lagrange case and the Avena case regarding the interpretation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Of course, the diversity of the ICJ's subject matter jurisdiction means that we are not limited to these areas of law. The ICJ's jurisprudence on a wide range of matters has been cited by domestic courts. These range from the Barcelona Traction case, cited for legal propositions relating to the piercing of the corporate veil, to armed activities, Democratic Republic of the Congo versus Uganda, to elucidate, elucidate the criteria for determining the existence of a state of occupation. Similarly, in considering a criminal procedure application, a domestic court had regard to the state's international humanitarian law obligations, referring to the ICJ's decisions in the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, and military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, Nicaragua versus United States. As this last example illustrates, the Court advisory opinion— opinions have also had some influence. Other examples include the Namibia advisory opinion, which has been cited in support of the normative strength of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, And the Reparations Advisory Opinion in respect of the legal personality of the United Nations. Finally, I'd like to refer to the recent Advisory Opinion on Climate Change as an example to highlight the importance of domestic courts in the enforcement of international law. ICJ delivered this opinion in July 2024, clarifying the legal obligation of states to address the adverse effects of climate change. The enforcement of these obligations will ultimately depend on how they are implemented within domestic legal systems. The Court's advisory opinion does not, of course, create obligations that are directly enforceable in domestic law by national authorities. Like all the Court's advisory opinions, it is not legally binding. However, as Judge Gross once observed, it seems to be generally admitted that the distinction between the Court's judgment and its advisory opinions cannot be taken too far. When the Court replies to a request for an advisory opinion, it does not transform itself into a committee of 15 legal consultants. It continues to be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, end of quote. In its advisory opinion on climate change, The ICJ clarified the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and clarified the framework for determining the legal consequences for those States that breach their obligations. Its reasoning may exert a powerful influence in domestic law. Domestic courts can refer to this opinion in identifying the legal obligation of states in this regard. They can, and they should, interpret national laws in conformity with the standards set out by the ICJ in the opinion, thereby ensuring that its normative guidance is reflected in domestic decision-making. Even before the delivery of this advisory opinion, domestic litigation concerning government climate policies had already been rapidly increasing across jurisdictions. In cases such as the Urgenda judgment in the Netherlands, as well as proceedings in Australia, Nepal, the Czech Republic and Austria, national courts have examined whether their governments' climate policies comply with international obligations and whether failure to do so amounts to a violation of international law. The ICJ's Advisory Opinion on Climate Change is a significant contribution to clarifying the obligations of States in this respect. The extent to which it will influence future domestic climate litigation ultimately rests on the shoulders of national authorities. Of particular significance in this regard is the ICJ's interpretation of the climate change treaties and the confirmation that the customary international principle of prevention of significant harm applies equally to greenhouse gas emissions. These obligations bind all states regardless whether they are parties to climate, climate-related treaties. Even though the advisory opinion was rendered only 3 months ago, there is already some action in the domestic arena. In Brazil, for example, the 9th Circuit Court of Porto Alegre referred to the ICJ's opinion in reaching its conclusions in a recent case. However, the domestic implementation of the international obligations clarified by this advisory opinion will not take place solely through litigation before domestic courts. It requires cooperation between the judiciary, legislative, and executive within each state in order to translate the legal obligations identified by, by the ICJ into concrete measures in the form of laws, regulations, and policies. In this regard, The final paragraph of the Advisory Opinion on Climate Change is particularly illuminating. It reminds us that we must also recognize the inherent limits of international law. I'd like to quote the last part of that paragraph, which is worth repeating, and I quote, the questions posed by the General Assembly represent more than a legal problem. They concern an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet. International law, whose authority has been invoked by the General Assembly, has an important but ultimately limited role in resolving this problem. A complete solution to this daunting and self-inflicted problem requires the contributions— contribution of all fields of human knowledge, whether law, science, economics, or any other. Above all, a lasting and satisfactory solution requires human will and wisdom at the individual, social and political levels to change our habits, comforts, and current way of life in order to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come. Through this opinion, the Court participates in the activities of the United Nations and the international community represented in that body with the hope that its conclusions will allow the law to inform and guide social and political action to address the ongoing climate crisis. End of quote. Here, the ICJ acknowledges the limits of law, yet precisely for that reason, it emphasizes that law must play a more essential role to inform and guide social and political action to address the ongoing climate crisis. It now falls to domestic courts, legislatures, and executive authorities to work together to translate the legal obligations identified by the ICJ into concrete measures such as laws, regulations and policies. The reason why domestic institutions, especially courts, play such a crucial role in the application and enforcement of international law lies in the decentralized nature of the international legal order. First, recourse to international courts is not the ordinary means of resolving disputes between states, since international courts lack jurisdiction without the consent of all parties to the dispute. Second, even where international law grants rights to individuals, those rights generally lack direct access to international remedies when their rights are violated by a state. It is true that several international procedures have been established that allow individuals to submit complaints to obtain remedies. This represents a significant, significant advance in the enforcement of international obligations. Yet these international procedures are often costly and time-consuming. Thus, Despite these developments, the importance of domestic procedures has not diminished. As judges, counsel, diplomats, and academics dedicated to international law, we must not lose sight of the fact that the effectiveness of international law depends above all on its faithful application of enforcement at the domestic level. It is crucial that domestic institutions act as faithful agents of international law while also drawing on the collective knowledge of other fields of human understanding to confront these global issues. Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

Mr. President, on behalf of the committee, I wish to thank you most sincerely for the important statement that you have just made. Also, the important issues that you have highlighted are topical and timely. And I'm sure we are all appreciative. As in the past, the President has kindly agreed to take a few questions and comments. And so therefore, I would like to open the floor to any delegation that wishes to make a comment or raise any other issue. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Japan. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. It is my honor to welcome President Niwasawa, Judge Nouté, Judge Aulaisuku, Judge Humut, and Register Gauthier here in the 6th Committee. I would like to begin by paying special tribute to the late Judge Odashigeru, who served with great distinction as a member of the Court from 1976 to 2003, making immeasurable contributions over a span of 27 years.

Mr.

Chair, the Government of Japan welcomes the election of Judge Iwasawa Yuji, as the President of the ICJ. We wish him continued success in his leadership of the Court. Mr. Chair, in light of the statement made by President Iwasawa, I would like to make the following points on the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. Japan has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ since 1958. Today, 74 states have made the optional clause declaration under Article 36, paragraph 2 of the Statute, and about 300 bilateral and multilateral treaties recognize the ICJ's jurisdiction over disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the treaty. We are convinced that the acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction by as many states as possible will enable the Court to discharge its mandate in the most effective manner. Japan does reiterate its appeal to all member states that have not yet accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction most notably in regard to disputes falling outside the purview of other dispute resolution frameworks, to give serious consideration to doing so. Mr. Chair, in conclusion, I reiterate Japan's unwavering commitment to maintaining and strengthening the rule of law as a foundation of international peace and security, and express continued support for the ICJ as an essential component of international order based on international law. I thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Japan for her statement and comments. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Chile.

Thank you, Chairman. I'd like to express my particular thanks to the President of the International Court of Justice for his briefing on behalf of my country, Chile. And I'd like to tell him that this is a crucial matter and has been over the recent years for the development of many countries, in particular over the last 40 years in Chile, where we have seen a very significant and important evolution of the transposition of international law to domestic law and the application particularly of rulings of international tribunals and courts. It must be said that national domestic courts, while they may be independent from the government, from the executive branch, they are not independent from the state and therefore Any act of a state, including within these court rulings, can lead to the international responsibility of a state. And this is something that we have been working to understand over the last 40 years. 40 years ago, they would tell us that only the Supreme Court of our country was the ultimate highest court. But this vision has changed radically, and today we broadly recognize that international bodies, competent international courts, are competent over national courts. And that's why the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is very important with its rulings that have been complied with in many countries, including Chile. The rulings there have been very important. So just to give you a very brief overview, over the last 25 years, we have as a country been complying with the rulings of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights. At the beginning, we had to do this indirectly when we were asked to change legal decisions. And then to reform the constitution and enact domestic laws to enable the rulings of this court to be enforced, because there's the issue of what is being judged, what is being tried. Over the last five to seven years, more decisive steps forward have been made in this regard. And when it comes to rulings from international courts such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that ruled on legal solutions. Well, this is something that was discussed by the Supreme Court of Justice in my country and then it was the Supreme Court of Justice itself that in light of the international obligations of the state that stems specifically from the ruling of international courts, the ruling that the Supreme Court itself enabled us to take effect, but then due to the high ruling from international courts, it wasn't valid. So this has changed significantly, and President Hiwasawa's work is crucial for the development of international law so that it doesn't only apply between states and international organizations, but increasingly within states themselves. Thank you very much, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative for his statement. Perhaps I'll give the floor to 2 more delegations and if kindly ask the President if he would like to respond after that. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Poland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, President Ivasava, for your very interesting presentation and sharing with us your reflection on the relation between decisions of International Court of Justice and the domestic court application.

You also indicated that sometimes domestic courts use a domestic law as a kind of shield for not having implementation of the judgment of ICJ, indicating, for example, that there is no executive action or legislative action that could allow them to implement the court's judgment.

As we all know, the Court of Justice of the European Union found a solution for this problem by already in its judgment indicating the effect and the scope of the implementation that should be followed by the domestic organs, including domestic courts. And certainly the European Court of Justice based this argumentation of the specificity of the community legal order, but still I was wondering, do you think that there is a possibility that also the International Court of Justice could perhaps in its decisions and judgments more concretely indicate how the judgment should be followed also by the domestic organs?

And perhaps also Article 103 of the UN Charter could be helpful in this respect. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank the representative, distinguished representative of Poland. I'll give the floor to one more speaker before giving the floor to the President. Give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Philippines.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Firstly, we thank His Excellency Judge Yuji Iwasawa for his insightful presentation, and we are honored by the presence of the members of this Court, along— of his court, along with the ILC. The Philippines welcomes the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of states with respect to climate change. As a state that actively participated in the proceedings, the Philippines values the court's clarification of the legal obligations of states to address the adverse effects of climate change. The court affirmed that states are required under general international law and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to take measures to prevent significant harm arising from greenhouse gas emissions, an obligation that applies equally to transboundary environmental harm and to emissions that cause global impacts. The Philippines underscores that while the advisory opinion, like all advisory opinions of the Court, is not legally binding, It provides authoritative normative guidance on the content of states' duties under international law. As noted by the President, the distinction between the ICJ judgment and an advisory opinion is tenuous. The latter does not transform the Court into a group of 15 legal consultants, but rather reflects the continuing judicial function of the principal judicial organ the United Nations to resolve disputes and clarify the state of law for the benefit of the international community. The reasoning of the court can, however, exert a powerful influence on domestic courts. In the Philippine legal system, international law forms part of the law of the land under Article 2 of Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution. While decisions of international tribunals are not self-executing, they are regarded as persuasive authorities that inform and enrich domestic jurisprudence. In our jurisdiction, cases such as Corota versus Halandoni, Mejia versus Pamaran, and Secretary of Justice versus Lantion demonstrate the willingness of Philippine courts to interpret national laws In conformity with international obligations, a reflection of the principle of consistent interpretation. This approach is increasingly shared across jurisdictions. Domestic climate litigation has been on the rise, as noted by the President, with domestic courts around the globe examining whether national climate policies are consistent with international obligations and the scientific imperative to prevent significant harm. The ICJ's advisory opinion thus stands as a significant contribution consequential to this evolving global jurisprudence on climate responsibility. Whether and how the advisory opinion will influence domestic climate litigation will ultimately depend on the openness of national courts to engage with its reasoning. In this regard, the Philippines recognizes that domestic institutions have both the capacity and the duty to give effect to international legal principles, translating them into actionable standards for governance, accountability, and protection of vulnerable communities. For climate-vulnerable states like the Philippines, the Court's clarification reinforces that the prevention of significant harm applies equally to greenhouse gas emissions, and that states must act with due diligence to safeguard the environment from present and future generations. Domestic courts, in turn, must serve as interpreters and implementers of international law, ensuring that the normative guidance of the ICJ finds expression within national legal orders. Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank the distinguished representative for her statement. Perhaps the President may wish to respond to some of the questions and points raised.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. First of all, I'd like to address the issue of compulsory jurisdiction. Indeed, the Court considered this to be very important, and the Court had a side event on Tuesday, and we presented— we addressed 3 issues in the side event, and one of the issues we addressed in the side event was exactly this issue, compulsory jurisdiction. The Court hopes that more states will accept compulsory jurisdiction, and in the side event, Judge Iaurescu addressed this issue. There is a Friends of the Court states who have— which have accepted compulsory jurisdiction, And Judge Iarascu took initiative in 2021 to encourage states to accept the compulsory jurisdiction. So he was the judge who addressed the issue in the side event because we think this is an important issue. And as Japan pointed out, there are 73 states which have accepted compulsory jurisdiction, and the Court wants, wishes that more states will accept compulsory jurisdiction. So I agree with the representative from Japan in this respect. Now, the jurisprudence of regional human rights courts is especially important and interesting And also the judgment of European Court of Justice, because the legal order of the European Union has much impact on the individuals. So the jurisprudence of the regional courts and also the European Court of Justice, I have taken much interest in those and their implementation in domestic law. And the— it is encouraging that the domestic courts refer to decisions of regional human rights courts and the European Court of Justice in their cases, but unless the domestic courts, domestic legal system, a particular system allowing domestic direct enforceability, it's normally not easy to enforce judgment of international courts and tribunals directly in domestic law. But in the case of human rights, for example, if a court can award just compensation, depending on the legal system of a state, This kind of judgment may be given direct enforceability, like recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and foreign judgment in a similar manner, but usually, especially for International Court of Justice, the judgment of our court is of a different kind, and normally judgments of international courts and tribunals are directed to legislative and executive bodies rather than domestic courts directly. Therefore, the examples from the European Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, they are interesting, but It's probably not directly applicable to the cases of the International Court of Justice. In the case of our court, mostly our judgments are directed to legislature and executive bodies, and that do not have do not intend to have a direct. enforceability. But in any way, this depends on the domestic legal system, and especially whether international law and treaties have legal force in domestic law. In many states, custom and international law have legal force domestically. But whether states have— no, treaties have domestic legal force depends and varies depending on the legal system of a state. So in some states, treaties do have the legal force, domestic legal force, but in other states, treaties do not have legal force. But in any way, Judgment of international tribunals and courts and tribunals can have important effect in domestic law. It's often discussed whether judgment is self-executing and whether the judgment has direct effect or judgment has— is directly applicable. And this term was used in the questions, but I, in my personal view, I don't think we should use the word self-executing or direct effect for judgment of international courts and tribunals. And especially the word direct applicability, because Direct applicability is a concept of application of legal norm to a specific case. And in this instance, when we are discussing the effect of judgment of international courts, we are talking about enforcement, like recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. So it's a different kind of category, and I think we should discuss this issue as an issue of direct enforcement or consistent interpretation of national law rather than self-executing or direct effect or direct applicability of judgment. But anyway, I come back to the issue of human rights and European Union legal order. These are interesting, but it's a different category of legal order. So it's interesting, but these examples cannot be applied directly to the case of the judgment of the ICJ. With regard to the consistent interpretation, I think Domestic courts may be more inclined to refer to judgment and advisory opinions of International Court of Justice in interpreting national laws. And I refer to the impact advisory opinion on climate change can have in domestic litigation. And the representative of Philippines also referred to this possibility. And indeed, I agree that it depends on the openness of the domestic national institutions to judgment and opinions of international courts and tribunals, and I really hope that our opinion on climate change will contribute to clarifying the contents of international law in this area. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the President for his responses. Begging his indulgence, I still have a few more requests from the floor and I would like to give those delegations a chance also to speak. The first on my list is the distinguished representative of Uganda.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And it's a particular pleasure to see Judge Iwasawa here.

We are so grateful that you are elected to that high position, and my delegation wishes to congratulate you.

Upon that elevation, appropriately so.

We know that due to your time-tested objectivity in handling contentious matters, the ICJ is in very good hands. We at the Sixth Committee are co-workers in this vineyard for the cause of Justice at the international level.

No wonder many of the judges that have traversed that wonderful place have been warming the benches here, and at this particular time I'd like to recognize Judge Hamoud.

Congratulations upon what you made and.

We know we can rely on your judgment.

Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not mention this particular person who is always present wherever I have had the pleasant opportunity to meet with President Iwasawa. It has been said that behind every successful man There is a supportive cast.

There is a supportive lady.

Whoever came up with this classic saying must have had Mrs. Yoko Iwasawa in mind. We don't take it for granted. You have been supportive and perhaps tolerant because knowing the work ethic of Judge Iwasawa, You've had to, you know, to be flexible, as it were.

So we are so grateful for that. I will not say much about the work of the ICJ because it is our precedent.

Perhaps I will— you can find time to mention something about the workings of the Court in terms of personnel, And as you recall, it is my pet subject to talk about the racial composition of the personnel and how this is being catered for to make sure that not only is there geographical and gender representation, but also, of course, the juridical disposition of the world in the court, in the internal workings, because that must affect the work that you do, the end product.

So I want to know a little bit of that, and if you cannot, maybe you shall accord me some time when we can meet in a much more cozy environment. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the distinguished representative of Uganda for his remarks. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Canada.

Thank you, Chair, and I wish to thank the President for coming to this assembly and to engage with us. The court plays a critical role, and what we're seeing at this time, though, is an increasing number of cases, an increasing number of intervenors in some cases.

In some ways, I think this is good news.

It's It reflects the importance of the court, but obviously it comes with challenges.

The court has been exemplary and has continued to deliver with limited means.

So that begs the question of if there are something the court is able to do within its remit working methods to address the challenges that it's faced with, which is to deliver decisions in as timely a manner as possible given the circumstances.

I thank you again.

I thank the distinguished representative of Canada for her statement. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Brazil.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, for giving me the floor, and I thank His Excellency Judge Iwasawa for his insightful remarks. Taking also advantage of the presence of the Chair of the International Law Commission, I'd like to ask a question on the importance of the codification of international law for its implementation by domestic courts. My delegation totally agrees with you Judge Iwasawa, on the authority of the ICJ advisory opinions. While non-binding, they represent an important subsidiary means for the interpretation of and the determination of rules of international law. You mentioned how the ICJ provided interpretation on the treaty climate, the climate change treaties, in its recent—

Sorry.

Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and how it should be used by domestic courts in the interpretation of these treaties as duly incorporated in the domestic legal systems. And you even mentioned a case in the Brazilian legal system. But the Court also provides interpretation on customary rules of international law that are not set out in legally binding instruments. In this same Advisory Opinion on Climate Change, for instance, The Court stated that the legal regime related to climate change is not lex specialis in relation to the law of state responsibility. But the law of state responsibility itself is not set out in a legally binding instrument. And I wonder to what extent this may be challenging for domestic courts, especially in civil law countries, to rely on a non-binding advisory opinion interpreting rules that are not set out in legally binding instruments. So I would appreciate any view you may have on the importance of the codification work undertaken by the International Law Commission and the 6th Committee.

Thank you.

Thank the distinguished representative of Brazil for his statement. I'll give the floor to one more delegation, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Jordan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Jordan expresses its appreciation to His Excellency Judge Iwasawa, President of the International Court of Justice, for his presentation.

Jordan also extends its congratulations to His Excellency Mahmoud Dayfallah El-Hamoud on his election as an Arab judge of the Court and commends the members of the Court and its registry for their steadfast dedication to the advancement of international justice and the rule of law. Jordan attaches the highest importance to the work of the Court and welcomes its growing and diverse docket, which reflects the trust that Member States place in its impartiality and independence. We commend the Court's ongoing efforts to ensure transparency, efficiency, and accessibility in carrying out its vital mandate. Jordan also stresses the need to provide the Court with adequate financial and administrative resources to meet the demands of its expanding workload. The ICJ's capacity to deliver timely and authoritative judgments depend on sustained support from member states. Jordan believes that investments in the Court is an investment in peace, predictability, and the international rule of law. In conclusion, Jordan reaffirms its steadfast support for the International Court of Justice, its independence, and the central role of— in upholding the law. I thank you.

Thank the distinguished representative of Jordan. Would the President care to respond to the latest group of observations by states?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. First of all, I'd like to address the issue of composition of the registry. The Court is trying to improve the diversity in the registry. The Court has 2 official languages, English and French. For obvious reasons, in the linguistic department, which is responsible for translating one document into another language, we have native English speakers, native French speakers. This is for obvious reasons. For other departments, it's not that— the requirement is not the same, but still, because the court's official languages are English and French, we have many staff from the European region. And the court is trying to improve the diversity, and that's an issue which we are trying to— we are addressing. We cannot change the situation in a short time, but that's an issue that we are trying to address. But with regard to the gender issue, in fact, the Court has many— I think more women than men, perhaps.

60%.

60%, he says. So the gender is not— maybe we need more men, but gender is— but the regional and geographical diversity is something that we are addressing. We have been addressing and we will address. We will continue to address.

Okay.

The fact that we have more and more cases, more contentious cases brought to the court, and more requests for advisory opinions is, I agree, is good news because it shows. It reflects the trust and confidence of states and international organizations in the work of the Court. So we welcome, but on the other hand, the representative of Canada is correct, it creates challenges. That's why the Court is requesting a modest increase of its budget. But at the same time, we are improving our efficiency. We are reviewing our working methods, including the use of technologies, especially in translation. So it creates— it does create challenges, and I agree with the representative of Jordan that ultimately we need more resources. So I do hope that member states of the United Nations understand these challenges and give positive consideration to our request for a modest increase of our budget. Now, With regard to codification, it is indeed helpful if some subject matter of international law is codified in some kind of document by the work of the ILC. If it becomes a treaty and if the treaty is ratified, it's easier for domestic courts to rely on this treaty text. Maybe directly or indirectly as a consistent interpretation in interpreting international law and refer to this treaty text in the interpretation of national law. So of course the codification is helpful, but even if it does not become a treaty, for example, like The Articles on State Responsibility is an important document even though it's not a treaty. International Court of Justice referred to this and also domestic courts can refer to this important document prepared by the ILC when it comes to the issue of state responsibility. So the work of the ILC, the codification work, is helpful irrespective of whether it becomes a treaty or not. The importance of the articles on state responsibility really shows how important the codification work of the ILC is. Maybe the chairperson of the ILC may want to comment on that.

Perhaps outside of the room. Ladies and gentlemen, I have one more request for the floor and I'll give it to our next speaker, the distinguished representative of Nigeria.

Thanks so much, Chair, for your magnanimity. I know I shouldn't have attempted to take the floor. I want to thank Thank you very much. Thank you, our dear President, for his very insightful presentation this morning and most importantly for your detailed statement and reports in the GA yesterday. And we are quite pleased to see that the docket of the International Court of Justice is getting filled up and states are resorting the ICJ to settle international disputes and also acknowledge the challenges that you may face trying to deal with these several cases that appear before the court. I want to talk about multiplicity of international tribunals. We noticed that not just the ICJ but other international tribunals are also giving advisory opinion and giving decisions, and sometimes some of these decisions do overlap. I take, for instance, the illustration concerns the climate change advisory opinion that was just delivered by the ICJ, and I also noted that prior to this decision, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has also delivered its own advisory opinion on this question of climate change, and if I may quote, part of the decision of this court was that the obligations of states to prevent significant and irreversible damage to the environment and climate is of peremptory character, jus cogens, and binds the entire international community.

That's by the Inter-American Court.

And in contrast, the ICJ did not go that far.

It—

though it characterized obligations as customary and erga omnes in character, but not peremptory. So my question is, what is now the status of the right in international law? And do we think that these overlaps might need some kind of judicial dialogue, whether through institutional cooperation, to find some harmony within the system so we continue to maintain that legal certainty and clarity? Thank you very much.

Thank the representative of Nigeria for his comments and question. Would the President care to reply?

Thank you very much for the question. Last month in The Hague, we had a dialogue with some judges from ITLOS, so there are some mechanisms for judicial dialogue. We had had some other dialogue with other international courts and tribunals. We cannot have such kind of meetings so often, but there are some attempts and mechanisms for judicial dialogue. With regard to specific issues, we do refer to judgments and opinions of other international courts and tribunals. We may refer to them in our text, in the judgment and opinions, but even if we don't refer to them, we look at them, and of course we consider the views of other international courts and tribunals in in drafting and formulating our own views and opinions. There may be some differences in perspectives, but the International Court of Justice interprets international law in good faith and tries to formulate our understanding of the obligation of states under international law. But I would like to assure you that we refer to the judgment and opinions of other international courts and tribunals. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. With that, we have concluded our interactive debate after the presentation of the President and On behalf of the Sixth Committee, I would like once again to thank the President of the ICJ for visiting us this morning. I wish to extend to you and other members of the Court, on behalf of this Committee, as well as the Registrar, all our best wishes for the continued good functioning of the Court. It is a mark of trust and confidence in the Court that we have witnessed its workload increase over the years, as well as the very good interactive debate we've had this morning. So once again, thank you very much. Distinguished delegates, I understand that the President has to proceed to another engagement, so given that, I would like to suspend our meeting very briefly just to accompany the President and his colleagues Off the podium.

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished colleagues, let's continue with the debate on the first cluster of topics. Concerning Agenda Item 80, the Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its 76th Session, after which we will turn to the second cluster of topics. The Report of the Commission on the Work of its 76th Session is contained in Document A/80/10, which is available online. The first speaker on my list for this morning is the distinguished representative Representative of Serbia.

Distinguished delegates, it is my honor to appear today on behalf of the Republic of Serbia and to make a statement on several topics under Cluster 1. On the topic General Principles of Law, I wish to note that this is one of the most difficult sources of international law to define and elaborate. As reflected in the current and previous reports of the International Law Commission, there is still no consensus on some of the most important issues concerning its nature and scope. The most disputed issue relates to Draft Conclusion 3, which distinguishes 2 categories of general principles of law. The first category— those deriving from national legal systems— was supported by all States. The second category— those those formed within the international legal system, remain subject to debate. Some States accept its existence, while others continue to express serious reservations. The Special Rapporteur considers international law to be a legal system like any other, capable of generating its own general principles. While it is certain that international law may produce general legal principles, it is essential to distinguish between general principles of law as a formal source of law, and those principles of international law that derive from treaties, customs, and general principles of law as recognized by civilized nations. What is referred to as the second category in the report does not constitute an independent source of law. These are not general principles of law in the sense of Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, but principles of international public law derived from other formal sources. It is often said that general principles of law are identified by reference to national legal systems. However, they may also be understood as principles inherent in law as a social phenomenon— principles that exist both in national and international law. Sooner or later, the Commission will need to make a clear determination of the scope of general principles of law as formal source of international law. The best approach is to identify what is inherent in law as such. The very term general principles of law recognized by civilized nations, as used in the Permanent Court of International Justice and the International Court of Justice Statutes, refer to principles of law in general, not to principles specific to international law. Let me briefly refer to a few examples. The Nuremberg Principles, for example, the Martens Clause, the principle of the prohibition of genocide, have international origins derived from treaties and customary rules. Domestic legal systems likewise contain principles derived from constitutions, legislations and customs, as well as legal principles recognized by the community of nations. It is therefore important to distinguish between general principles that are sources of law and those that are based on other sources, such as treaties, customs and general principles of law. General principles that are currently discussed in the so-called second category are not independent of main sources of international law. I would like to state in a clear manner that there is no place for progressive development of international law in the field of general principles of law. As a source, as a formal source of law. At the same time, it should be noted that political bodies such as the General Assembly of the United Nations may seek to promote the development of the principles of international law. Through the lawmaking process by initiating it or supporting it.

Mr.

Chair, distinguished delegates, the Republic of Serbia wishes to express its support for the proposal to include the topic, the principle of non-intervention in international law, in the programme of work of the International Law Commission. This is one of the basic topics of international law whose interpretation and application are often associated with difficulties. Its elaboration by the International Law Commission and this Committee would greatly contribute to the development of international law and to the stability of international legal order. Today, when the relations of interdependence between States are the most intensive in the history of mankind, the importance of the principle of non-intervention is unquestionable. Distinguished delegates, I would like now to, concerning the draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations with Commentaries of 2011, strongly endorse. We believe that consideration should be given to convening an international conference to transform these draft Articles into an international convention. Such an initiative would be highly desirable. The substantial legal analyses have been completed, and there appears to be a solid political basis for moving forward. This initiative would strengthen multilateralism, enhance awareness of the roles of international organizations, and promote their accountability— ensuring that they act in accordance with international law and their founding principles. Mr. Chair, With your permission, I would like to ask you to provide a very short 2-minute statement about the issues of Cluster 2. This is because of very strict travel arrangements I have recently and I will be unable to provide statement on the later moment.

Please proceed.

Mr. Chair, distinguished delegates, it's my honour to appear today to provide also a statement on behalf of the Republic of Serbia. Concerning the topic immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. It must be emphasized that this is one of the most sensitive topics the International Law Commission deals with. The issue has been on the agenda of the International Law Commission since 2007. This is a very difficult political moment for the consideration of judicial immunities of state officials, but The International Law Commission and this Sixth Committee need to align their intention with the realities of international relations on one hand, and the aims of the United Nations on the other. And in that sense, make a clear distinction between codification and progressive development of international law. Also, in order to achieve the aims of the draft articles on the immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, we need to be mindful of the existing framework for international criminal proceedings. While a large part of the draft Articles is not disputed, it seems that draft Article 7— crimes under international law in respect of which immunity ratione materia shall not apply— is the most problematic one, as it seems obvious that it proposes a progressive development of international law. It must be made clear that there is a distinction between current customary international law on the one hand and the aims that might lead to progressive development. Having also in mind, inter alia, the different views of States on this critical issue, it seems obvious that draft Article 7 does not reflect customary international law. Current practice, including the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, as well as opinio juris or lack of opinio juris of various States, does not enable the proposed exceptions to immunità ratione materia to be qualified as rules of customary international law. Also, we need to be mindful of the fact that the national criminal jurisdiction, as well as international criminal jurisdiction, cannot serve as a political weapon, but must serve in the interests of justice. In dealing with the issues covered by draft Article 7, we need to be mindful of the principle of equality of States without distinction between States based on their political, military or economic power. Having in mind the very nature of criminal prosecution, formulating exceptions might be a strong political tool wielded under the veil of criminal proceedings. We are living in an international community of sovereign States that is based on the principle parem parem non habet imperium. As noted by the International Court of Justice in the case concerning judicial immunities of states, customary international law does not treat a state's entitlement to immunity as dependent upon the gravity of the act of which it is accused, or the peremptory nature of the rule which it is alleged to have violated. Draft Article 7 raises many issues that have that are very hard to resolve. How to avoid politicization? The sole power of national prosecutor to qualify acts of the highest foreign officials as serious crimes under international law and national law, when even the power of the international prosecutor is not universally accepted? And the applicability of the concept of universal jurisdiction? In considering the proposals contained in draft Article 7, we must be mindful of the nature of national criminal prosecution, the content of criminal proceedings, the role of cooperation among States in criminal matters, and many other issues. In considering draft Article 7, we must also be mindful of the fact that the United Nations Security Council has the authority to refer situations to the International Criminal Court. That authority is more competent than any other national prosecutor. If there exists an international mechanism to do that in a lawful and unchallenged manner, then it is better to use that mechanism rather than to rely on the discretion of national prosecutors to exercise power over former high-ranking officials of foreign states. It is unavoidable to qualify that act as political, whatever legal explanation is given. It is the right of every state to inform the Security Council of any of the crimes enumerated in the current wording of draft Article 7. We already have a mechanism that makes the power of national jurisdiction to enact criminal proceedings against former high officials of a state unnecessary or a dangerous political tool. Instead of making exceptions to the immunity ratione materie of former high state officials, we can rely on the existing mechanism already accepted by our organizations, the United Nations. I would like to call upon the International Law Commission to end the endless discussion concerning exceptions to the immunity ratione materie and to propose reliance on the already existing mechanism that might even be improved through the draft articles. Actual and former state officials need to be protected by immunities unless the Security Council decides otherwise and refers the situation to the International Court of Justice. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Serbia for his statement. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Argentina. Señor Presidente.

Chairman, if I may, I'd like to begin with the topic rising sea levels in relation to international law. My delegation wishes to underscore the relevance of the work carried out by the International Law Commission on this important area of study. This phenomenon and its legal implications have become more relevant and visible over recent years. We welcome the presentation of the final report of the Study Group on Rising Sea Levels in Relation to International Law. We understand that this report, alongside the recent advisory opinions of the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea, ITLOS, and the International Court of Justice, It contributes to providing clarity on certain questions of particular relevance to states, in particular when it comes to the preservation of the outer limits of their maritime zones, their baselines, and their statehood. Chairman, I wish to refer specifically to some of the matters addressed in the final report of the ILC. First of all, As my delegation has stated on previous occasions, I wish to underscore that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, is the fundamental legal framework that regulates all activities on the oceans and seas. In this regard, we support what is stated in the final report insofar as the integrity of UNCLOS must be preserved and that any solution on rising sea levels must be coherent with the convention. I wish to underscore particularly the importance of preserving the legal stability, certainty, and predictability here. In this regard, Argentina believes that it's fundamental that once the baselines and the outer limits of maritime zones of a coastal state have been duly determined, pursuant to the provisions of UNCLOS, they should not have to be readjusted when rising sea levels has an effect on the geographic reality of their coast. In this regard, we understand that a fundamental contribution of the final report consists in underscoring that there is no obligation to proceed to updating the baselines, geographic coordinates, or outer limits of maritime zones to reflect changes that derive from rising sea levels caused by climate change. What's more, the report underscores that in UNCLOS nor in other norms of international law are there any provisions that prevent states from preserving their baselines, geographic coordinates, or outer limits of existing maritime zones. Zones that are legally established. And this contributes to clarifying this matter that is something that has been under discussion for several years. I also wish to underscore the relevance for coastal states of recognizing in the final report that the preservation of the baselines and maritime rights despite rising sea levels is in line with the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources. When it comes to statehood, Argentina very closely followed with interest the debates and the conclusions taken up in the final report, in particular as regards the fact that the 1933 Convention does not address the matter of the continuity of statehood in the context of rising sea levels. On this, we believe that it's also appropriate what was recently stated by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion on climate change, the fact that once a state has been established, the disappearance of one of the constitutive elements of it does not necessarily involve the loss of their statehood. I wish to particularly underscore that this question should be interpreted specifically in the context of rising sea levels. Lastly, my delegation wishes to underscore that the main challenge that we must discuss now together is the future work on this issue and possible ways of moving forward, making headway. In this regard, the ILC pointed to different approaches that we believe are relevant to discuss. When it comes particularly to the approach to interpreting different instruments and norms of existing international law, we understand that the recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on climate change is a relevant question to bear in mind in discussions. This is due to the fact that the advisory opinion contributes to strengthening the conclusions of the ILC on 2 of the sub-items agreed to be studied, and this is with regards to the preservation of baselines, maritime zones, and statehood. We still need to continue the debate on additional matters that complement the work already undertaken. Chairman, when it comes to the general principles of law, we'd like to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez, and through him all of the members of the ILC, for analyzing and studying such an important matter for the progressive development of international law. Draft Conclusion 3 introduces one of the most sensitive questions and one of the questions on which it's necessary to proceed with the utmost caution and prudence due to the lack of consensus that exists around it. In this regard, this conclusion that is entitled Categories of the General Principles of Law expresses that This includes 2 categories. One, those derived from domestic legal systems, and secondly, the ones that are formed in the international legal system. So according to this conclusion, in addition to the general principles of law that are derived from domestic legal systems, which is the more traditional position in this regard, there are also others that can be formed in the international legal system. So on this, my delegation reiterates the fact that it would be beneficial to proceed with caution when it comes to the second category of principles, since several members of the ILC stated in previous sessions that there's not enough state practice, jurisprudence, or doctrine that would fully support the existence of this category. Without prejudice to the above, though, regarding Draft Conclusion 7, Argentina welcomes the removal of the second paragraph approved by the drafting committee on the second reading that, as was rightly stated, this paragraph wasn't in any way clear. We take note of the fact that the ILC delayed its approval of draft conclusions 1 to 12 to the next session due to the lack of time available to produce, translate, and review the corresponding comments as a consequence of the cut to the duration of the current session. Chairman, as regards Chapter 11 on other decisions and conclusions, the Argentine delegation takes note of the fact that in the session— the meeting on the 30th of May, 2025, of the ILC, the Commission decided to include on its program of work the items, compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts and due diligence in international law. The matter of due diligence in international law is relevant enough to justify its inclusion on the program of work of the Commission, in particular bearing in mind the repercussions it has on other aspects and specific themes of international law. It must be recalled that my country has fought for the recognition of these standards in the international era, specifically in the case of the Uruguay River paper mills that the International Court of Justice ruled on in 2010. When it comes to the matter of compensation for internationally— for damage caused by internationally wrongful acts, my delegation pursuant to what the ILC said, believes that this— and is following this closely and believe that it's relevant. On this issue, it may prove highly relevant for states given the weight that international dispute settlement bodies assign to the outputs produced by the Commission. In this regard, it's important to bear in mind that any work of the ILC to broaden or clarify the provisions of Article 36 of the draft articles on state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts will probably be considered by the judges and arbitrators dealing with international disputes. So given this situation, should the ILC decide to move forward in this area, my delegation wishes to respect that the issue of applicable interest rates be approached with great caution and that the Commission should avoid uncritically adopting the decisions made in certain arbitral awards concerning investor-state disputes. Indeed, it is worth noting that the practice of awarding compound interest by some of these tribunals has been subject to criticism by numerous states, and this is reflected in the reports of UNCITRAL Working Group III. Therefore, this delegation considers that it would be inappropriate to assert that the awarding of compound interest constitutes an accepted practice, even within the limited context of investor-state disputes. Chairman, my delegation observes with concern the negative impacts caused by the reduction to the time length of the annual session of the ILC, and that the funds required for the ILC to renew for the amount of weeks decided on by the General Assembly was not made possible. Although, of course, this liquidity crisis is affecting the whole of the United Nations, Argentina believes that what happened this year should not— must not constitute a precedent. Chairman, we take note of the fact that the Commission has for several years expressed concern over the financial system of the International Law Seminar that hasn't been negatively affected by economic and financial factors and had an impact on the stipends that the seminar was able to offer. We welcome the fact that the situation improved, um, has improved since 2022 thanks to periodic voluntary contributions. My delegation wishes to underscore the importance of the seminar because it enables young international jurists, especially from developing countries, to better understand the work of the Commission and the activities of international organizations based in Geneva. By way of conclusion, we hope that the Commission will benefit from the funds required— the funds required to pay for the travel and subsistence allowances of professionals from developing countries so that more Latin American youth are able to attend this seminar. Thank you.

Argentina for a statement. The next speaker is the Permanent Representative of Papua New Guinea.

Distinguished Chair, Excellencies, distinguished Chair of the ILC and the members of the ILC, fellow delegates. This has been the first occasion for my delegation to interact at this Committee's 80th session. I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Chair, and your delegation, and the respective Bureau members for your respective mandates. Let me assure you and all other delegations of our constructive support. Let me also take this opportunity to thank you for facilitating the ICJ President's briefing this morning, which was a very useful one, and also for that done yesterday at the General Assembly Plenary. Mr. Chair, we are pleased to align our remarks with those made by the distinguished representatives of the Solomon Islands as Chair of the Pacific Islands Forum, Tuvalu as Chair of the Pacific Small Island Developing States, and Palau as the Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States. In my national capacity, we would wish to offer the following points. Chair, Papua New Guinea would like to firstly warmly welcome to New York and to this committee session the distinguished members of the International Law Commission and for their insightful briefing provided to the committee. Secondly, we would like to express our gratitude to the International Law Commission for the tremendous and valued efforts in the preparation of the report of the Commission's 76th session. Our delegation is especially appreciative of Chapter 4 on sea level rise in relation to international law and Annex 1 containing the final report of the study group on sea level rise in relation to international law. May I take this opportunity to thank the study group and in particular the co-chairs of the study group, Professor Patricia Galvão Telles, Dr. Yakubei Sise, Dr. Nilufar Oural, and Professor Juan José Rueda Santolaria. And we also recognize the contributions of the previous co-chair, Professor Bogdan Arescu, and also to congratulate, congratulate him on his election to the International Court of Justice. Mr. Chair, our delegation broadly supports the conclusion in the final report of the Study Group. We welcome the substantive convergence of certain Study Group conclusions with the relevant 2021 and 2023 declarations of the Pacific Islands Forum as well as the relevant 2021 and 2024 Declarations of the Alliance of Small Island States. We call attention again to these important declarations and invite states and non-state actors alike to endorse and support these declarations, including through international cooperation. We further welcome the broad convergence of certain study group conclusions with particular statements, in the recent advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change issued by the International Court of Justice on 23 July 2025. While broadly supportive of all the conclusions in the final report, our delegation wishes to particularly highlight one, the conclusions of the law of the sea in paragraphs 29 through 34, 2, the right of peoples to self-determination in paragraphs 38 and 39, and thirdly, international cooperation in paragraphs 41 and 48. Papua New Guinea will closely study the possible ways forward section of the final report, in particular regarding possible activities at regional and sub-regional levels. We wish to note that the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat is planning at the regional conference focused on inter-alien protection of persons in the face of climate-related sea level rise, which we anticipate to take place next year. Chair, we also welcome the consolidated report of the co-chairs of the Study Group on Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law. This consolidated report will be a useful guide for international lawyers, judges, scholars, and others interested in gaining a deeper understanding of the relationship between international law and the challenges of sea level rise. We are pleased with the many references to the previous interventions of Papua New Guinea in this committee that are contained in the consolidated report. In this regard, we wish to call particular attention to the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources, including in paragraphs 271, 307, and 431 of the Consolidated Report. In our view, permanent sovereignty over natural resources is a fundamental cross-cutting principle that is grounded in international law. Particularly international human rights law, and inextricably intertwined with the right of peoples to self-determination. As paragraph 271 states, and I quote, the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources should be considered in the context of the possible legal implications of sea level rise for maritime entitlements as well as for statehood and the protection of persons affected by sea-level rise. Chair, turning to the Commission's long-term programme of work, our delegation especially welcomes the inclusion of the topics of due diligence in international law. Our delegation is especially interested in the concepts of stringency and permeability. We encourage the Commission to analyze the stringent standard of due diligence as stated by the International Tribunal of the— on the Law of the Sea and the International Court of Justice in their respective advisory opinions. What does stringent mean in various contexts? We also encourage the Commission to analyze the observation of the International Court of Justice in paragraph 175 of his advisory opinion that the distinction between obligations of conduct and obligations of result is, and I quote, not necessarily an impermeable one, unquote. Chair, as I close, my delegation welcomes the appointment of Ms. Penelope Rydings from the Pacific region a Special Rapporteur on the topic of due diligence in international law and wish her the very best in her mandate. Finally, my delegation looks forward to working constructively with other delegations and the Commission members on these important topics, and I thank you indeed.

I thank the Permanent Representative of Papua New Guinea for his statement. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of the United Arab Emirates.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The United Arab Emirates thanks the International Law Commission for its dedicated work during the 76th session, despite time constraints resulting from the reduction of the session. We regard the Commission's contributions as indispensable to the fulfillment of the General Assembly's mandate to encourage the progressive development and codification of international law. The importance and relevance of the Commission today is a reflection of how the Commission has traditionally approached its work. A strong methodological foundation is crucial to the Commission's continued success. This can only be achieved through analysis that comprehensively and accurately survey state practice, respect the critical distinction between codification and progressive development, and give due regard to states' views. This is the basis for the authoritative position that the Commission has developed over decades. an authority that must not be taken lightly or for granted. With these preliminary remarks, I will now address the specific topics within Cluster 1, turning first to general principles of law. We would like to thank the Special Rapporteur and the Commission for their work over the last several years. Questions relating to sources are at the heart of international law, and the UAE appreciates the Commission's ongoing efforts in this area. We recall the objective of this project as described by the Special Rapporteur in 2017, namely to provide authoritative clarification on the nature and scope, functions, and identification of general principles of law as set out in Article 38, paragraph 1 of the ICJ statute. We find that authoritative clarification on a matter as fundamental as sources cannot be offered through the creation of new law or its progressive development. Rather, it should be focused on describing the current state of international law firmly anchored in the practice and views of states. We believe that much work is required for the draft conclusions on general principles to meet their stated objective, and we have here 3 main observations. First, the inclusion of a category of general principles formed in the international legal system, as suggested in draft conclusions 3B and 7 raises significant questions. We are concerned that these conclusions lack support in state practice, jurisprudence, and doctrine, and share the similar views that have been expressed within both the ILC and the CEX Committee. Also, the examples identified by the Special Rapporteur in support of these draft conclusions raise further questions. Some of the purported general principles appear to reflect customary law, treaties, or both. For instance, the requirement of consent to jurisdiction is inherent in the notion of sovereign equality, which in turn is embodied in both treaties and customary rules. Consent to jurisdiction is also recognized in the statutes of international courts and tribunals. It is critical for this project to examine whether these norms existed as general principles independently from a treaty or custom. Regrettably, we find that no such assessment has been undertaken yet. In other cases, insufficient support is provided to show that a principle was in fact formed within the international legal system. For example, the principle of competence— competence is found in most, if not all, national legal systems. Relatedly, we note that the examples identified by the Special Rapporteur rely on the characterization of a norm or rule by an international court or tribunal as a principle. However, this itself raises difficulties, as rarely if ever, do these decisions specify whether the term principle is recalling Article 31 AC of the ICG statute or is being used in a more general sense. Accordingly, we urge the Commission to consider the implications of this second category of general principles for certainty and stability in international legal order. We echo the viable alternatives proposed in the 6th Committee, such as the use of a without prejudice clause for any future recognition of principles formed within the international legal system as a formal source of rights and obligations. We further request the Commission to reflect the current division among states' opinions and doctrinal views more comprehensively in its commentary. Second, and without prejudice to our general position, we also have concerns about the test proposed in draft conclusion 7 for identifying the second category for general principles. We believe that the difficulty faced by the Commission in providing more precise criteria is a symptom of the larger problem with positioning a second category of general principles. As a preliminary matter, We note that states' consent is fundamental to the creation of rights and obligations under international law. This requirement applies to both treaties and customary international law and must equally apply to any general principle that constitutes a source of international law. Consequently, we invite the Commission to devote greater attention to what the requirement of recognition means in the context of the second category of general principles. Coming to the test specified in Draft Conclusion 7, we find the term intrinsic to be extremely ambiguous. The commentary offers a single line by way of clarification, namely that intrinsic denotes a principle specific to the international legal system that reflects and regulates its basic features. However, the debate in the Commission over whether the cited examples meet these criteria underlines the inadequacy of that clarification. Additionally, we find that not all examples cited in the commentary are specific to the international legal system. At least some of them simply reflect the application of a principle accepted within national legal systems on the international plane. More importantly, the test in Draft Conclusion 7 demonstrates the difficulty of distinguishing the second category of general principles from customary international law. Any number of customary rules could be considered specific to the international legal system and as reflecting its basic features. However, customary rules rest on 2 clear constituent elements, as noted by the Commission in its 2018 draft conclusions. On the other hand, the methodology suggested by the Commission for the identification of a second category of general principles poses the risk of bypassing the requirements of custom to create obligations where none exist. This is especially concerning when read together with draft conclusion 10, which states that general principles can be the source of primary rights and obligations. This brings us to our 3rd point pertaining to the functions of general principles and their relationship with other sources of international law. Notwithstanding whether there is a formal hierarchy between sources, we share the view that general principles are supplementary in nature and perform a gap-filling role, as also acknowledged in the— by the Special Rapporteur in his Second report. The ICG has very rarely referred to general principles of law within the meaning of Article 31 of the statute, and in any case, primarily in the context of procedural rules. Draft Conclusions 10 and 11 and their commentaries should be considered against this context. With respect to paragraph 2 of draft conclusion 10, we invite the Commission to elaborate on which general principles, if any, can be considered sources of primary rights and obligations. For paragraph 3 of draft conclusion 11, we invite the Commission to examine whether a conflict between a general principle and a treaty or a custom is indeed possible, especially for the proposed second category of general principles. Finally, we welcome the Commission's efforts to clarify the concept of general principles of law derived from national legal systems. We understand this category to refer to principles common to various legal systems around the world, which must be ascribed equal weight. We hope the Commission's final outcome will address outstanding questions relating to the recognition, identification, and transposition of these principles. Mr. Chair, with respect to sea level rise in relation to international law, we congratulate the study group on the completion of its work and the adoption of the final report by the Commission. The report will contribute to further dialogue, including at high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly to be held at its 81st session. Climate change-related sea level rise poses an acute threat to lives, cultures, ecosystems, and economies. Its existential implications, especially for small island developing states, deserve the urgent attention of the international community. We stand in full solidarity with those affected and reaffirm our commitment to inclusive, effective, and responsive action. As a country with long coastline, the UAE is not immune to the effects of sea level rise. Around 85% of our population and over 90% of our infrastructure are concentrated in low-lying coastal areas. In our view, any viable response to the effects of sea level rise must be rooted in collective action that takes account of the different practices and circumstances of countries. Legally, sea level rise raises several novel questions that have little or no guiding precedent. We take note of the mapping provided in the final report of legal frameworks and state practice that may be relevant on these issues. We appreciate the study group's efforts to propose practicable and forward-looking solutions without ascribing them prospective value. We find this to be a more suitable approach than reinventing well-settled legal norms. We also welcome the consideration of this topic, topic through a study group, which we believe can be considered in relation to the Commission's future work in the realm of progressive development. Finally, we note with interest the inclusion of 2 new topics in the program of work, namely compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts and due diligence in international law. We look forward to engaging with the Commission on this topic. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Arab Emirates for his statement. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Lebanon.

Merci, Monsieur le Président.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, colleagues. Chair of the ILC. Mr. Chairman, my delegation would like to associate itself with the statement delivered by Oman on behalf of the Arab Group. Mr. Chairman, through its constant contribution to the edifice of Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the world's leading body for the development of norms, the ILC structures and guides in a determining fashion the efforts of states and the General Assembly to advance the principles and purposes of the Charter. Defending and safeguarding this edifice is imperative, especially as we see the multiplication of breaches of fundamental rights and the trivialization by some of serious violations of international law. Mr. Chairman, much like at As we do after every session, my delegation would like to express its gratitude to the International Law Commission for the high caliber and the richness of its report. We are also grateful to the Office of Legal Affairs Codification Division. Thank you for your indispensable support for the delivery of the mandate. We would also like to congratulate Mr. Paprinskis on his election to chair the work of the ILC throughout this session. Regarding the length of the session, my delegation is also seriously concerned, much like other delegations, reduction of the length of time to 5 weeks due to the current budget crisis. Now, this shortening of the meeting length has had ramifications on the completion of work on some topics and on progress on others, as well as on the translation of documents, which inevitably affects mandate delivery by the ILC. While we're cognizant of the difficulties stemming from the current budgetary straits, we'd like to encourage the Secretariat to do everything within its power to ensure full mandate delivery, the mandate having been established by the General Assembly. There were some interesting proposals crafted so as to preserve the full length of the Commission's mandate, 12 weeks. We've taken good note of those. Mr. Chairman, it's vital to consolidate synergies between the Sixth Committee and the ILC. This complementarity lies at the heart of the mandate, that is, to codify and progressively develop international law. Lebanon appreciates ongoing initiatives aiming to deepen this link, for instance, by organizing briefings in the run-up to our meetings, which are now becoming common practice. We continue to believe that an executive summary of the report would be a useful way of optimizing delegations' preparations for considering the document. The participation of ILC members in the work of the committee this week has allowed for direct and constructive exchanges with delegations, thereby strengthening interactive dialogue, which is of benefit to all of us. Furthermore, we will continue emphasizing the importance of ensuring that the ILC's program of work management is more balanced so as to encourage more in-depth consideration and more effective state participation. Mr. Chairman, turning to the following topic, sea level rise in relation to international law, my delegation would like to thank the ILC, in particular the co-chairs who worked on this topic. Thank you for concluding consideration of this topic and drafting a final report together with the conclusions. We very much appreciate this report, which sketches out a concrete, forward-looking set of next steps in keeping with the initial objective set by the ALC, which was not to reopen and to rewrite international law, but rather to clarify its application. We keenly observed the options which were set forth in that report. Sea level rise, as was underscored in the report, is a serious challenge— is a very serious challenge, and this is something that affects not only Small Island Developing States, the SIDS, but also coastal states such as Lebanon and the entire international community. On this note, we'd like to add that the ILC completed its work on this topic a few weeks before the International Court of Justice delivered its advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change, which attests to the fact that the work undertaken is relevant and topical. My delegation shares the view according to which legal stability, predictability, and certainty are cross-cutting fundamental principles affecting all 3 subtopics under the ILC's consideration. My delegation would also like to emphasize the following elements in the final report which are of paramount importance. We'd like to reaffirm the integrity of UNCLOS, the UNCLOS, the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Any solutions for the challenges thrown up by sea level rise linked to climate change should be in keeping with UNCLOS, a fundamental instrument. The absence of an obligation incumbent on states according to the convention to modify their baselines, geographical coordinates, or the outer limits of their maritime zones so as to factor in modifications resulting from climate-related level rise; the continuity of statehood, which rests on the right of every state to preserve its territorial integrity as well as on the right of peoples to self-determination; the protection of human dignity, which should be a key component of any approach aiming to afford legal protection to persons affected by sea level rise and should also guide any action taken in this context. Last but not least, my delegation would like to note with satisfaction the importance placed on the reference to the need to cooperate, the principle of equity and solidarity as well. We wish to also see taken into consideration the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities as well as respective capabilities. As the General Assembly and the Sixth Committee takes up this final report, going forward we must ensure an orderly and coherent approach taken within the United Nations. to ensure any duplication or confusion between the various processes underway. Mr. Chairman, turning now to the general principles of law, we'd like to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Vázquez Bermúdez. We're grateful to him for the 4th report on this topic. We regret that the ILC's session was shortened, which meant that the adoption of Draft conclusions 1 to 12, their consideration was postponed due to lack of time to craft, translate, and consider the commentary thereto. In practical terms, and with a view to ensuring that the outputs are user-friendly and to facilitate referencing, my delegation believes it would have been preferable to include in the last report the draft conclusions numbers 1 to 12. As we said earlier, we share the objective pursued by the ALC, that is, to clarify some aspects of this source of international law, especially its origins, characteristics, and functions. As for draft conclusion 2, we reiterate our position. That is, the term community of nations, ensemble des nations in French, is language that's sufficiently broad and doesn't include international organizations. As stated earlier, this terminology is contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, We listened very carefully to the various vantage points expressed on this issue. We are open to the ALC coming up with other terminology as well. Nonetheless, we should keep in mind that this is a draft conclusion, not a draft article. Turning now to the reference to the general principles of law that might be formed in the international legal system, as well as the determination thereof. Projects— apologies, Drafts 3B and 7, we see that there are significant differences of opinion within the ILC and the Sixth Committee as to whether such a category exists. We remain receptive to the argument according to which this category could be subsumed by international custom and is therefore unnecessary as a standalone category. We reiterate, as we said in 2023, that we need to avoid any confusion between the general principles of law and customary international law, especially as what we're engaged in here is clarification. Last but not least, we are interested in Draft Conclusion 12, in particular the without prejudice clause with regard to the general principles of law with a limited scope of application. Mr. Chairman, my delegation supports the addition of compensation for damage caused for internationally— by internationally wrongful acts. Its addition to the ILC's program of work. We believe it is of major concrete relevance. We'd like to recall that the ILC intends to tackle it from a practical vantage point. We'll be following work on this topic with a keen interest. Furthermore, we note that the ILC has added the following topics on its— to its long-term work program: principle of non-intervention, 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. By way of conclusion, and thank you very much for your patience, my delegation will continue to support and closely follow the ongoing work of the ILC, which is fully aligned with the endeavor to preserve and develop the— an international law-based order. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Lebanon for his statement. Next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Ecuador.

Señor presidente, Ecuador expresa.

Chairman, Ecuador expresses its gratitude to the chair of the International Law Commission for the presentation of his report on the work carried out during the 76th. Session. Like other countries, my country regrets that the length of the session for this year was reduced due to the UN liquidity crisis. This is a shame and it prevented us from considering all of the different items on its program of work. All efforts must be made in order to allocate sufficient resources to allow the Commission to be able to meet for 12 weeks to deal with all of the themes that it has to deal with and to adequately do its important work on the progressive development of international law and its codification. Chair, Ecuador expresses its congratulations to the study group on sea level rise in relation to international law and for the final report on this important theme. The conclusions of the study group clearly and systematically address the different aspects raised since the beginning when it comes to this issue. When it comes to the law of the sea, we agree, among other things, that the preservation of legal stability, certainty, and predictability is directly linked to an interpretation of the UNCLOS and other norms of international law that enable baselines to be preserved as well as the outer limits of maritime zones and related rights despite the changes that we may see to the coastline due to rising sea levels as a consequence of climate change. We support the continuity of statehood of those states who are especially affected by climate change-related sea level rise, including the preservation of their sovereignty and their international legal part personality. The protection of persons affected by rising sea levels as a consequence of climate change is also a central element that must be considered. We appreciate the recommendation contained in the report of the study group insofar as the fact that states, the General Assembly, and other international organizations may approve binding or non-binding instruments and establish mechanisms that specifically address the legal questions derived from rising sea levels where appropriate. In this context, I must inform that Ecuador, alongside the Dominican Republic, the Bahamas, Cabo Verde, Cyprus, the Maldives, and Malta as members of the core group, headed up the negotiation and adoption by the Human Rights Council on the 7th of October 2025 of Resolution 6020 on rising sea levels and their effects on the full and effective enjoyment of human rights. Ecuador expresses its gratitude to the Commission for the work carried out on the topic General Principles of Law, in particular to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez, for presenting his 4th report where he analyzes the comments and suggestions of states with respect to the conclusions and comments approved on first reading. We appreciate the fact that the Drafting Commission approved a raft of 12 conclusions which alongside the comments will be approved by the Commission in its first session— sorry, its next session— and will adequately clarify the issues addressed here since the beginning of our consideration of this issue, which is the nature of the general principles of law as a source of international law. Its scope or categories, and depending on where these principles emerge from, their functions and relations to other sources of international law. We support the conclusion— the fact that the conclusions and comments reflect the existence and methodology of identifying the general principles of law derived from domestic legal systems and the general principles formed in the international legal system. While states are the main actors when it comes to the recognition of the general principles of law, The comments on Conclusion 2 must adequately reflect the contribution of the recognition of general principles by international organizations. We believe that the reordering of the paragraphs of Conclusion 11 on the functions of the general principles of law is an improvement. The new structure emphasizes first the potential contribution and functions of the general principles of law. And only after does it refer to the circumstances in which these can be invoked mainly but not always. We consider that this is a logical structure that presents first of all the normative proposition and then the factual proposition. We support the assertion that conclusion— in conclusion 11 that the general principles of law are not hierarchically subordinate to to treaties or customary international law and that customary norms and the contents of treaties can coexist. We also support including Conclusion 12 as an in per juicio clause in order to take account of the general principles of law with a limited scope of application, whether it's regional, sub-regional, or other. In order to reflect the existence of this class of principles that are general within the legal system in which they arise and are applied. Chairman, we welcome the fact that in the program of work, the current program of work of the Commission, we have included the themes compensation for internationally wrongful acts and due diligence in international law. We also welcome the fact that based on the recommendation of the Working Group on the long-term program of work of the Commission headed up by Ambassador Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez. We have included 3 new themes on the program: the identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law and the principle of non-intervention in international law, as well as legal aspects of accountability for crimes committed against United Nations personnel deployed in peacekeeping operations. We believe that depending on the spaces that are opened after the conclusion of these issues on the program of— current program of work of the Commission, the ILC could consider at least the first 2 ones on its current program of work. By way of conclusion, once again, we express express our support for the ALC for its work done during this previous period of sessions despite its reduced duration. Thank you very much, Chairman.

I thank the distinguished representative of Ecuador for his statement. The next speaker on my list is the representative of the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization.

Mr. President, the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization, or ALCO, conveys its highest appreciation to the Asia Law Commission for their steadfast contribution to the codification and progressive development of international law, and take note of the ALC report. We regret that due to the United Nations liquidity crisis, the 2025 session was reduced to 5 weeks, constraining the program of work. We join our member states in calling for adequate and predictable resources for future sessions, while reaffirming ALCO's strategic role as a vital bridge that conveys the perspectives of Asia and Africa to the ILC. Mr. President, at the recently concluded 63rd session of ALCO held in Kampala, Republic of Uganda, in September this year, The organization had the distinct honor of hosting several distinguished members of the ILC, namely Professor Bimal Patel, Professor Dapo Akande, Professor Nourifor Oural, Professor Masachiko Asada, Ambassador Xinming Ma, and Professor Martin Paparinsky. Their participation, both in person and virtually, greatly enriched the deliberations of our co-member states. And reaffirmed the enduring partnership between ALCO and the Commission. During the session, ALCO members delivered statements on items before the Commission's 26th session. They commended the IOC's continued work on complex and contemporary issues of international law, acknowledged its central role in shaping the international legal order, and called for a more prominent reflection of Asian and African perspective in its output. The organization also welcomed the inclusion of new topics of the ILC's long-term programs of work proposed by scholars from ALCO member states and expressed strong support for revitalizing structured exchange through intersectoral dialogue, expert workshops, and capacity-building initiatives to further enhance cooperation between ALCO and the ILC. This close relationship finds its foundation in OCUL's institutional mandate to study subjects under consideration of by the ILC and transmit the views of its Member States to the Commission. By fulfilling this mandate over the decades, OCUL has served as a vital bridge between the ILC and the nations of Asia and Africa, ensuring that their legal traditions practice, and perspective are meaningfully represented in the codification and progressive development of international law. Mr. President, during the ALCO 63rd session held in Kampala last September, our member states devoted particular attention to several key issues arising from the report of the ILC. Allow me to briefly summarize some of the highlights. On the topic of civil rights in relation to international law, Our Committee has attached great importance to this subject, which sits at the crossroads of the law of the sea, statehood, and protection of persons. It is a matter of both legal and human significance, touching on sovereignty, the rights of communities, and the stability of international relations in the face of climate change. With regard to legal stability of maritime entitlement, Many member states reaffirm the importance of maintaining legal certainty and the stability of maritime zones once attributed in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Cross. Such stability is seen as essential to safeguarding sovereign rights, access to marine resources, and long-term peace and security. Also note that customary international law, including concepts such as historic water, and historic rights should continue to inform this discussion. A few members that are not party to UNCLOS emphasize that the Convention, while a cornerstone of modern ocean governance, is not the sole legal reference point for all maritime activities. They call for a broader appreciation of established practice and unique circumstances of enclosed and semi-enclosed seas. Concerning statehood and protection of persons, our co-members said welcome the study group's final consolidated work on statehood and protection of persons affected by civil rights. They observed that while views continue to differ on the importance, the implication of partial or total territorial loss, there is a broad agreement on the need of pragmatic, people-centered cooperation. Many emphasize that Response must be drawn upon human rights law, refugee law, disaster law, and valid international humanitarian law, while also employing flexible and non-binding approach to address protection gap and cross-border displacement. As regards regional practice and institutional pathway, member states commend regional initiatives aimed at preserving exceeding maritime zones in the face of climate change and highlight the value of their participation in recent advisory proceedings before the ICJ and ICLOS, which are helping to clarify obligations relating to climate and the marine environment. Several delegations also recognized that the relevant jurisprudence and doctrine are still evolving and encouraged continued consultation within our goal as a platform for compiling and sharing representative regional practice to support the Commission's future work. On general principle of law, our core member states welcome the Commission's continued consideration of this foundational topic and its reaffirmation of sovereign equality as a guiding principle within the community of nations. They underline 3 key points. First, the central role of state recognition in identifying principles and derived from national legal systems. Second, the need for caution when defining principles considered to have emerged within the international legal system so as to avoid blurring their distinction with customary international law. And third, the importance of commentary clarifying the barrier between general principle, custom, and jus cogens. Member States agreed that careful analysis and broad consultation remain vital, ensuring that this work maintains both doctrinal clarity and judicial legitimacy. Mr. President, in addition to this matter, our co-Member States also shared thoughtful observations on other topics discussed in the second cluster of the Commission's report. These include the immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, separate means of the determination of the rule of international law, settlement of disputes to which international organizations are party, non-legally binding international agreements, prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, and succession of state in respect of state responsibility. While time constraints do not allow me to address this matter in detail, and in order to remain strictly within the scope of Cluster 1 of the ILC report. Our comprehensive written statement, already submitted to the Secretariat of the SIG Committee, contains our Member States' collective view and recommendation on this important subject. More detail of this discussion, including the view shared by our Co-Member States on the topic of the ILC, will be available on the verbatim record of the AUKUS 63rd session, which will soon be uploaded on AUKUS official website.

Mr. Chairman, as we cast our minds to the future, we believe we need to deepen our cooperation with the ILC so as to bring Asian and African perspectives to the table in the final outputs and conclusions. We believe we need to prepare member state practices compendia every day— every year, apologies— containing jurisprudence. This will be of use to the ILC. They could be transmitted to the committee in due course. As for intersessional consultations held in person and remotely between governmental experts from our regions and the ILC on priority topics. For instance, sea level rise, piracy at sea, and sources of international law. The list goes on. We also need to ensure that the questionnaire is filled out properly. We encourage all member states to partake in this initiative by sharing their experience and national practices, whether that be fighting piracy or other phenomena, whether that refers to legal responses to sea level rise, into ALIA. Mr. Chairman, we believe that a more active and forward-looking approach is called for, further bringing into the fold members into the work of the ILC through online seminars, including high-level seminars. This helps to establish a high-level dialogue between the ILC, and Asian and African governmental experts. This year, a webinar will be prepared on the immunity of state officials. On the immunity of state officials, eminent experts will be taking part in that event. Other sessions will also be organized. For instance, Shaping International Investment Law: The International Law Commission's Past Contribution and Future Potential. Now, this session brought together Professor Paparinskis and Ambassador Mankla Tanakul. This offered a comprehensive view of the ILC's role in the evolution of investment law and stimulated dynamic discussion on emerging challenges and opportunities. Now, the webinars, as I mentioned, serve a number of purposes. First, they facilitate the exchange of experience among States as well as exchange of good practices. They help to build awareness about the ongoing work of the ILC. They also encourage more active and better informed participation by Asian-African experts as we seek to advance the progressive development of international law. Following each webinar, ALCO disseminates comprehensive proceedings so as to provide a lasting resource for both governments and the broader legal community.

Guided by the Bandung spirit, ALCO reaffirms its commitment to a credible, inclusive, and forward-looking international legal order. We will continue working with our delegation with the ILC so that Asian-African practice and perspective are fully reflected in the codification and progressive development of international law. OCUL also sincerely hopes that several concrete actions, future collaborative activities for the development of international law will continue to receive the kind support and cooperation of the distinguished members of the ILC as has always been the case in the past, for which we express our deep appreciation once again on this occasion. Thank you. Merci beaucoup.

Thank the representative of ALCO, who was the last speaker for the first cluster of topics. I understand that the— that 2 of the co-chairs on the topic sea level rise in relation to international law Ms. Patricia Galvão Teles and Mr. Juan José Ruda Santolaria wish to make some remarks. I give the floor first to Madame Galvão Teles.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It is with great pleasure, but at the same time a lot of emotion that I address the 6th Committee for the last time as a co-chair of the Study Group on Sea Level Rise and International Law that has concluded its work with the adoption of the final report of the Study Group, first by the Study Group and then unanimously by the ILC at the end of May.

in 2025.

I want to thank all delegations for their comments this week. Although we have finished our work, your comments were extremely valuable, not only in showing the support and the interest in our work, but also pointing to the need to further work on this topic. And so I want to sincerely thank all delegations for their engagement this week. I also want to sincerely thank my co-chairs, dear friends. You heard from Nilufar already yesterday. It's been a great adventure at the professional level, but also at the personal level to work with such wonderful colleagues and of course with the past chairs also Bogdan Aresco and Jakub Asisek. I could not do this thank you words without also highlighting the work of the secretariats Arnold, Paula, and all the other ones that are here in the room, but also the other ones that have worked with us over the past 7 or 8 years. Their support has been incredible, not only with their excellent personal skills— personal professional skills, but also at the personal level. So it's been also for me an honor of a lifetime, a privilege to be a participant in this process and in this work and to contribute to finding legal solutions to this important problem and a great challenge that the international community is facing, and to show that international law matters and international law can be proactive to find solutions and not just reactive after problems have occurred. The process has been a fascinating journey, inclusive. We've discussed not only in this room, but inside events, workshops, and informally with many member states, international organizations, and other stakeholders. And a word for the future, because I think this is not the end. We've heard this week also that there are important next steps on the horizon, not only the high-level meeting on sea level rise that is coming up next year, the implementation resolution of the advisory opinion of the ICJ on climate change, the possibility of the Future Disasters Convention also looking into some of the issues we dealt with The Human Rights Council was also mentioned, and it's going to produce a study soon, but also the possibility of having regional declarations or interpretive statements on this issue. So we hope that the ILC work can provide a solid basis for these ongoing and upcoming processes. It is important, it has been reiterated by many, to ensure coherence and avoid fragmentation among these processes. And although we formally finish our work as co-chairs of the study group, you can certainly count on us for anything you may need in the future. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your remarks. I give the floor to Mr. Rueda Santolaria.

Thank you very much, Chairman. I, if I may, also wanted to express my profound satisfaction and joy really over the conclusion of the work of the study group of the ILC on rising sea levels in relation to international law. It has really been a pleasure and an honor to participate in the consideration of this eminent, highly meaningful issue for the international community as a whole that has really serious effects for low-lying coastal states, island states, small island developing states, SIDS, and archipelago states. The International Law Commission is responding in this way to its mandate to make contributions to the progressive development and codification of international law. And these are relevant outcomes. Legal, practical legal solutions have been put forward based on international law with respect to a phenomenon that has very serious implications. I also wanted to underscore the progressive and notable convergence between the different opinions of states on this and the work of the ILC on this issue. And thank, just like my colleagues and friends, the co-chairs have done, the member states for their ongoing support that they have provided for the— with the documents and comments that they have been providing that have been very useful for our work. I also wanted to underscore the interaction in our work that we've had with representatives of states. International organizations and fora, as well as with academia, as my colleagues have also underscored. I also wanted to express my gratitude and recognition to our colleagues at the ILC in its previous and current composition in terms of the fact that this has been collegial work. We have participated the co-chairs, but there has also been very active and valuable contributions made from the different members of the International Law Commission. Thank you for that. I would be remiss not to very specifically express my gratitude and the pleasure and honor that I had working with the other co-chairs, Lulo Ferroral and Patricia Ochoa-Tolles. And with those who did this task before us, Bogdan Ortesu and the others, they are fantastic jurists but also great and very dear friends. We have a lot of gratitude to the Secretariat also. They provided inestimable and very important support to our work, and without their collaboration, we wouldn't have been able to achieve the goal that we had set for ourselves. Lastly, like my friends, the other co-chairs, have said, I'd like to share the perception of the fact that an important step in our work has been concluded, but we also need to consider the next steps that need to be made on this, taking as a reference the conclusions of the study group of the ILC, as well as the advisory opinions of different courts and tribunals, in particular the one from the International Court of Justice, which are going to be very important in the future when we think about new steps forward and how we act in a consistent manner when it comes to work in the present and in the future. Thank you very much, Chairman, and thank you very much, distinguished delegates.

I wish to thank the co-chairs of the study group for their remarks and also to convey the gratitude gratitude of the Sixth Committee for their efforts and hard work, as well as the congratulations of the Committee on the completion of their study group's work. Thank you very much. Distinguished delegates, the Sixth Committee will now consider the second cluster of topics concerning Agenda Item 80, Report of the ILC on the Work of Its 76th Session, which is devoted to the remaining chapters of the Commission's report. I recall that the present Chair of the ILC, Mr. Martin Paparinskis, introduced these chapters in his statement on Monday. At the same time, I wish to acknowledge the presence in the room of Mr. Charles Cernogialos, the Special Rapporteur for the topic Subsidiary Means for the Determination of Rules of International Law; Mr. August Reinisch, Special Rapporteur for the topic Settlement of Disputes Disputes to Which International Organizations Are Parties; Mr. Luis Sabadogo, the Special Rapporteur for the topic Prevention and Repression of Piracy and Armed Robbery at Sea; as well as Mr. Bimal Patel, Chair of the Working Group on Succession of States in Respect of States' Responsibility. I also acknowledge the presence of Mr. Matthias Fortol, the Special Rapporteur for the topic non-legally binding international agreements, who will be following the debate on Cluster 2 online. You are also most welcome. Oh, you can see them online. Right. Distinguished delegates, let's start the ball rolling. I'll give the floor to the first speaker on my list for the debate on the second cluster of the chapters of the Commission's 2025 Report. This morning, and that is the distinguished representative of the European Union speaking on behalf of the EU and its member states.

Monsieur le Président.

Mr.

Chairman, thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I will first address the topic of settlement of disputes to which international organizations are the parties. As an international organization, the EU is particularly interested. In this very important topic, and we'd like to thank the Special Rapporteur for his very detailed report on member state practice and the practice of international organizations. Generally speaking, the European Union fully aligns itself with the priorities set by the Special Rapporteur, the priority being access to justice. And as the Special Rapporteur highlighted, there is a need to strike the right balance between the rights of the interests of organizations to guarantee their independent functioning thanks to jurisdictional immunity and private parties' desire to access effective remedies. The EU nonetheless believes there must be a more ambitious and operational translation of this idea, this objective, into the draft guidelines. For now, Guidelines 9 and 10 do not mention the uncontested— do nothing but set forth uncontested principles, setting aside the question on which we await the ILC's opinion. That is the right balance between the ends pursued by immunity and the protection of the rights of private persons. This is what's covered in paras. 225 to 229 of the report. The balance that must be struck between the necessary immunities and the requirement for remedies is something that deserves greater analysis. Practice varies widely. There are different ways of striking this balance in different legal systems. The 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations envisages, for instance, that if the organization and its officials do enjoy immunities, while they do enjoy immunities, the UN should come up with appropriate means of settlement of disputes, private law disputes, to which the organization is party, as well as for disputes in which organization officials are involved. This system therefore calls for the establishment of appropriate remedies without prejudice to the remedies of the organization. At the Council of Europe, the constant case law of the European Court of Human Rights recalls that jurisdictional immunity of an international organization does not necessarily undermine Article 6, paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, a paragraph which covers the right to access a tribunal. Given this jurisprudence, reconciling jurisdictional immunity of an international organization and Article 6, Para 1 of the Convention is done on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the dispute and the act that was committed, the act in question subject to national jurisdiction. As the Special Rapporteur states, the interpretation of this jurisprudence prudence has been the object of debate. The ongoing tension between immunity and the availability of remedy throws up a number of questions, not only theoretical but also practical. What springs to mind, for instance, are the potential financial consequences of some of the remedies that might be used, the consequences for an international organization. The EU encourages the Special Rapporteur to draw on these examples and to introduce a directive, a draft directive on this topic. As for the EU, the immunity regime the EU enjoys in its relations with member states, much like any other international organization, is governed by various treaties. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union thus states that the EU, the European Central Bank, and the European Investment Bank should enjoy— on the territory of member states— should enjoy the necessary immunities required for them to carry out their missions. Protocol 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the EU fleshes this regime out and is also complemented by more specific texts, for instance, the rules of procedures of specific EU institutions. Moving beyond this principle, the European legal order is characterized by a comprehensive redress system, remedy system, which further limits the hypothetical situations in which the EU can invoke jurisdictional immunity. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, specifically its Article 274, states that save where jurisdiction is conferred on the Court of Justice of the European Union by the treaties, disputes to which the Union is party shall not on that ground be excluded from the jurisdiction of the courts or the tribunals of member states. Now, while this provision implies that the EU does not enjoy jurisdictional immunity on the territory of member states, the scope of the jurisdiction attributed to the Court of Justice of the European Union only leaves jurisdictional— residual jurisdictional— residual jurisdiction to national jurisdictions. Thus, we would be of the opinion that a new guideline should take as its starting point, as a minimum, respect for the jurisdictional immunity of international organizations, which are necessary for their independence and their functioning, as well as an obligation for remedies without prejudice to the remedies Under relevant treaties, and this is something the committee will have to work on further.

To the issue of legally— non-legally binding international agreements, I would like to congratulate the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Matthias Voigt, on his excellent work throughout, and in particular for the elaboration of the second report on this topic. The growing number of non-legally binding instruments concluded in practice at international level fully justifies the consideration of this topic by the ILC. The EU would like to present the following comments on the 6 draft conclusions proposed by the Special Rapporteur in his second report. Firstly, in relation to the purpose of the draft conclusions, the EU agrees that the ILC work on this topic should focus on the clarification of the existing practice. Moreover, the draft conclusions should aim at providing legal certainty without, however, creating new rules which could endanger the flexibility related to the use of non-binding international instruments. In this regard, we welcome the express provision specifying that draft conclusions are not intended to be prescriptive, but to provide elements of clarification regarding non-binding instruments. Secondly, concerning terminology, the EU welcomes that the Special Rapporteur is particularly sensitive to the argument raised by several States and also by the European Union that the term agreement may lead to confusion, as the use of this term is usually associated with legally binding international agreements. The Special Rapporteur thus suggests that the Commission should consider the 2 following options: either to use the broad term instrument, which would further require a precise definition, or to retain, at this stage of the work, the term agreement. The EU would like to reiterate that EU law reserves the term agreement for legally binding instruments. Moreover, as regards non-legally binding international instruments, the EU institutions have established an extensive practice using the very term non-binding instrument. The EU thus reiterates its preference for the use of the term non-legally binding international instruments. We agree with the Special Rapporteur's suggestion to provide a precise definition of the term instrument. Instrument to exclude from the scope of the draft conclusions unilateral acts in particular. Thirdly, the EU welcomes the clarification concerning the scope of the draft conclusions. The EU agrees with the view that the scope of the conclusions should cover only non-legally binding international instruments concluded between states, states and international organizations, organizations and between international organizations. The EU also supports the Special Rapporteur's suggestion to include in the scope of the draft conclusions also agreements entered by sub-state authorities to the extent that they are adopted at international level. In this regard, we would appreciate more precision on non-binding instruments concluded at international level between an institution of international organizations on one side and a sub-state authority on the other side. Fourthly, we welcome the explicit addition of a without prejudice clause specifying that the draft conclusions on non-binding international instruments do not affect the rules and practices applicable at national level. The EU would nevertheless suggest clarifying that the national rules and practices which— to which draft conclusion 4 refers include also the rules and practices of international organizations. Fifthly, in relation to draft conclusion number 5 on assessment on whether an agreement is legally binding or not, we agree that a key element in distinguishing between legally and non-legally binding instruments should be the intention of the parties as it appears from the text of the instruments. The EU further shares the view that the assessment of the nature of an instrument should be carried out on a case-by-case basis, as it is now explicitly stated in the draft conclusions proposed by the Special Rapporteur. The EU understands that the general discussion on various indicators relevant for distinguishing between treaties and non-legally binding international instruments is desirable before elaborating any concrete text in this regard. Lastly, as far as draft conclusion 6 is concerned, on the existence of an express indication, the EU shares the view that the fact that all parties to an instrument adopt an explicit position on the nature thereof, as legally binding versus non-legally binding could be sufficient to identify their intention. The EU also agrees that the indication of the intention may appear not only in the text of an instrument but can also be formulated elsewhere. Mr. President, in conclusion, the EU wishes to express its appreciation once again for the work done so far by the ILC on this important topic and is looking forward to continuing contributing further to the debates on this matter in the 6th Committee. And with your permission, I will now hand over to my colleague, Stoffmeister.

Mr. President, thank you very much. 2 more short remarks, and I will apply the principle, the KISS principle, keep it short and simple. So, on piracy and armed robbery, Thank you, Mr. President. We welcome the note of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Luis Sabadogo, and the first exchange in the Commission. We expressly welcome the reference to EU practice, in particular the missions with respect to Somalia and the Red Sea, and for all the details of what those missions are doing, I refer to our written version. We also welcome the reference to EU practice in respect of cooperation and regional initiatives with other countries which are concerned by those enforcement actions. That brings me to the second topic, and that is subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, and we congratulate the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Charles Chanor-Gelot, for the important progress made and also the Drafting Committee for the conclusions number 1 to 13. On substance, as regards judicial decisions as subsidiary means, the EU welcomes the fact that the Special Rapporteur recalled also the practice of international organizations that are entrusted by States in exercising their competence, and in particular the important role of the Court of the European Union. The Court regularly pronounces itself on relevant issues of public international law, and these decisions can be relevant for the determination and interpretation of treaties and customary international law. And we have enumerated a couple of examples, for example, on the WTO Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights, and also on bilateral agreements that the EU has with third states. And finally, the courts also hold that the European Union is bound by customary international law and accordingly the regular rules pertaining to it. The Court of Justice monitors the observation of international treaties as well as of its member states. Second, as regards the other subsidiary means, which is grouped in Part V of the conclusion, the Special Rapporteur has emphasized the importance of state-created or empowered expert bodies. In the European Union, we also have such bodies, and I refer for detail to our written version of this statement. Finally, we would like to support suggestions to ensure consistency between draft conclusions 8 and 9 on the one hand, and the draft conclusions on subsidiary means and the draft conclusions on general principles of law. Mr. President, that concludes the statement of the European Union and its member states, and I thank you for your attention.

I thank the representatives of the EU for their Thank you very much, everybody, for their statements. The 2 representatives of the EU were both the first and last speakers on this cluster for this morning. And I also want to thank the interpreters for their cooperation. The Sixth Committee will meet again this afternoon at 3 PM to continue our debate on this cluster. Please be informed that since the list of remaining speakers is quite long. I still have about 74 speakers on my list. It is expected that we will have to hold a further meeting of the Sixth Committee on Monday, 3 November 2025, at about 10 AM. Please also recall that, as was decided at the first meeting of the committee, the deadline to inscribe for the debate on the agenda items scheduled next week, that is Agenda Item 160, Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country, is this afternoon at 5:00 PM. Have a good lunch. The meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.