Sixth Committee, 33rd plenary meeting - General Assembly, 80th session
General Assembly
Date: 3 November 2025
Language: English
Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/en/ga/c6/80/33
Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations.

---

6th Committee · Chair [0:05]:

Buenos días, distinguidos.

Good morning, distinguished colleagues. The 33rd meeting of the 6th Committee for the 80th Session of the General Assembly is called to order. Distinguished delegates, let us now continue with the debate on the 2nd cluster of topics concerning Agenda Item 80, Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its 80th Session. Before proceeding, allow me to note that we are far behind on our list of speakers. I wish again to reiterate the recommendation of the Bureau that while there are no time limits per se on interventions in the ILC report, delegations are requested to be as succinct as possible. In particular by only delivering abridged versions of their statements while providing their full statements for posting on eStatements and on the website of the Sixth Committee. This will allow us to conclude the debate on the agenda item and subsequent agenda items during the meetings allocated to us. The first speaker on my list for this morning is the distinguished representative of You have the floor.


Poland [1:21]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to present the Republic of Poland's comments on Chapter 5, Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction; Chapter 8, Settlement of Disputes to Which National Organizations Are Parties; Chapter 9, Non-Legally Binding International Agreements; and Chapter 10, Prevention and Repression of Piracy and Armed Robbery. Of the International Law Commission's report from its 76th session. With respect to the topic immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, Poland wishes to thank the Special Reporter Claudio Grossman-Guilof for his second report. We note the provisional adoption by the Drafting Committee of draft Articles 7, 8, and 9 on the second reading. In this context, Poland notes satisfaction the inclusion into draft Article 7 the crime of aggression as one of the crimes under international law in respect of which immunité rationnelle matérielle shall not apply. On draft Article 10, we are of the view that the core idea presented there requires further consideration. As was already stated in the draft articles provisionally adopted by the Commission or drafting committee on second reading, Immunity will not always constitute a bar to criminal investigation conducted by a forum state. Against this background, the obligation to notify the state of the official even before competent authorities in the forum state initiate criminal proceedings seem to go too far, potentially precluding any effective prosecution. Thus, we support the Special Rapporteur proposal allowing for an exception to the obligation to notify. On draft Article 14, paragraph 2, we share the opinion expressed by several members of the Commission on the issue of waiver. This issue has already been addressed in a separate draft article. If it were to remain in Article 14, paragraph 2, the question whether a state or the official has waived the immunity should be the first thing considered by competent authorities. Madam Chair, allow me now to turn to the topic settlement of disputes to which national organizations are parties. We wish here to thank Special Reporter August Reinicke for his 3rd report and note the 5 draft guidelines he proposes. Poland believes that further reflection is needed on draft guideline 9. In our view, the scope of the topic does not extend to indicating the purpose of international organizations' jurisdictional immunity, as is currently done in the draft. Furthermore, there is a possibility that the proposed insertion could be read as stating that only jurisdictional immunity serving the purpose mentioned in the text should be respected. On draft guideline 11, we point out that the text juxtaposes procedural rule of law with is rather unclear, in particular considering that no such distinction was made in the Special Rapporteur's commentary to the draft guideline and that the term procedural rule of law is not elaborated therein. Thus, in Poland's view, the draft guideline should refer to general international law, including human rights law. Madam Chair, with respect to the topic non-legally binding international agreements, my delegation wishes to thank Special Rapporteur Matthias Forteau for his second report and the 6 draft conclusions he proposed. We note that owing to the reduction of the length of the present session, the Commission was unable to consider the Special Rapporteur's second report in the plenary. Even so, we would like to take this opportunity to present our views. Poland maintains its opinion that this topic should refer to instruments rather than agreements, since in our view the term instrument better conveys the idea of a document which has no binding legal effect. As for the topic scope, Poland wishes to reiterate its words of caution against introducing inter-institutional agreements or administrative agreements into the topic. Due to the significant variety of forms and practices related to such documents, presenting coherent guidelines on their use could present considerable difficulties. The problem is illustrated by draft conclusion 3, paragraph 2. It attempts to distinguish between agreements entered into by sub-state authorities by requiring them to be adopted at international level in order to become covered by the conclusions. This creates a questionable presumption that sub-state authorities can enter into non-legally binding international agreements at the national level. Madam Chair, on the topic prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, we thank Special Reporter Louis Savadogo for his note. As the Working Group had only one meeting on this topic due to reduction of the length of the session, We wish mainly to concentrate on the form and potential outcome of the Commission's work. Poland continues to hold the view that the Commission should issue guidelines or a report rather than articles. We urge the Commission to decide on the proper format before continuing work on this topic. Thank you, Madam Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [6:56]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Poland for that statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Slovenia. You have the floor.


Slovenia [7:07]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have the honor to address the 6th Committee in relation to the work of the International Law Commission on Cluster 2. With regard to Chapters 7, 8, 9, and 10, Slovenia aligns itself with the relevant EU statements. I will therefore add the following in our national capacity. Madam Chair, regarding the topic of immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, Slovenia would like to express express its gratitude to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Gilov, for his valuable work on this important topic. Slovenia also commends the work of the previous Special Rapporteurs, Mr. Kolodkin and Ms. Hernandez, since the Commission decided to include this topic in its program of work in 2007. Slovenia welcomes the continued progress achieved by the International Law Commission in its work on this topic. We recognize the challenges posed by the complexity and sensitivity of the subject matter, and we appreciate the Commission's efforts advance the second reading despite the limited duration of the current session. Madam Chair, we support the ongoing efforts to streamline the text, incorporate new developments, and clarify previous ambiguities. Slovenia affirms that the draft articles appropriately reflect both the codification of existing customary international law and the progressive development of international law, as is appropriate for the Commission's mandate. Slovenia welcomes the referral of draft Article 7 to the Drafting Committee. We support the Committee's decision to retain the list format in draft Article 7 in the interest of legal certainty. However, recognizing the risk that a fixed list might limit future legal development, we emphasize that the accompanying commentary must clearly state the inherently non-exhaustive nature of this list. Slovenia supports the proposal to include the crime of aggression in the list of crimes to which immunity ratione materiae does not apply. We consider this inclusion necessary, recognizing aggression as a core crime under customary law. We reiterate that immunity is solely a procedural bar to the exercise of jurisdiction and does not eliminate accountability for serious violations of international law. This principle highlights the essential role of Part IV, which details procedural provisions and safeguards aimed at upholding due process and preventing the abuse of politicization of criminal jurisdiction. We note that the provisional adoption by the Drafting Committee of draft Articles 8 and 9 We emphasize that safeguards such as the notification obligation in draft Article 10 must be precisely formulated to avoid inadvertently weakening protections or unduly hindering legitimate investigations and prosecutions. Madam Chair, Slovenia agrees with the widely held view that the most appropriate final form for the outcome of this work is a set of draft articles that will serve as the basis for negotiating an international instrument. Regarding the topic of Chapter 7 on subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, we would like to thank the Special


Speaker 5 [9:53]:

Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr. Cialo, for his thorough and thoughtful 3rd report, and the Commission for its ongoing efforts in this area.


Slovenia [10:00]:

Madam Chair, Slovenia supports a balanced and practical interpretation of Article 38, paragraph 1 of the ICJ Statute that recognizes its non-exhaustive and adaptable nature while maintaining legal certainty. We welcome Draft Conclusion 3, which sets out general criteria for assessing the weight of subsidiary means, such as the quality of reasoning and state reception. This is complemented by draft conclusion 8, which emphasizes the need for evaluation criteria to reflect the diversity and depth of legal reasoning. Regarding draft conclusion 4, Slovenia supports the clarification that judicial decisions and teachings must be understood as serving multiple roles in international law. Furthermore, we encourage further discussion on the potential inclusion of outputs from quasi-judicial entities such as human rights treaty bodies. With regard to the outputs of expert bodies, Slovenia agrees that the distinction between public and private expert groups should not be based solely on formal status. We emphasize that assessment must prioritize independence, objectivity, and methodological rigor. We also support a nuanced approach to the Commission's final draft outputs, given its special mandate and role. Regarding Draft Conclusion 11, we agree that the resolutions of international organizations often carry political weight, yet they can also serve an evidentiary function in demonstrating customary international law. This suggests that such resolutions do not directly serve as subsidiary means, which is consistent with the approach taken by the ICJ in its advisory opinion, Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago. Slovenia also notes the discussion under draft Conclusion 12 regarding coherence in international jurisprudence. While divergence among courts and tribunals is not inherently negative, we support efforts to promote greater consistency and mutual engagement, since coherence enhances the stability and predictability predictability of international law. Slovenia believes the draft Conclusion 14 could be improved by adding a without prejudice clause to avoid overlap with the Commission's previous work on treaty interpretation. We will now turn to the important work of the Commission concerning Chapter 8, Settlement of Disputes to Which International Organizations Are Parties. Slovenia would like to express its gratitude to the Special Rapporteur on this topic, Mr. Reinic, and to the Working Group as a whole for their work. Slovenia regrets that due to the reduced length of the 76th session, the Commission was unable to consider the Special Rapporteur's 4th report in plenary. However, it appreciates the plenary exchange of views held by the Working Group on this important matter. In view of the expanding role of international organizations in the international community and their increasing interaction with States and private parties, this issue is of growing importance. Slovenia commends the Special Rapporteur's 4th report, which focused specifically on disputes between international organizations and private parties. The report proposed 5 draft guidelines that provide a valuable foundation for further discussion due to their established structure. In this context, Slovenia would like to move on to the substantive core of the report, particularly as it relates to the sensitive legal and policy consideration inherent in the dispute settlement practices involving private parties. Slovenia recognizes that the core challenge of this issue, as reflected in draft guidelines 9 and 10, lies in striking the right balance between the immunity of international organizations and individuals' access to justice. With regard to the latter, Slovenia would like to draw attention to the 1999 decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Waite and Kennedy versus Germany, which emphasized that states do not relinquish their human rights obligations when establishing international organizations. The Court ruled that although international organizations enjoy legal personality and jurisdictional immunity, this immunity is subject to the provision of reasonable alternative means for dispute resolution to individuals. This approach was later adopted and endorsed by the UN Human Rights Committee. This principle ensures that immunity does not result in a denial of justice. Furthermore, the Court clarified that if such reasonable alternatives are lacking, the host state may still exercise jurisdiction under the Convention. Slovenia welcomes the expanded scope, acknowledging that the Working Group recognized the complexity of mixed cases involving international organizations. States and private parties. Slovenia agrees that the commentaries must be carefully drawn up to provide clear legal criteria and guidance for application. Further clarification of the term private parties in draft Guideline 7 is essential in order to interpret it broadly. This clarification directly affects draft Guideline 8, particularly with regard to addressing the challenge of reflecting the inherent power asymmetries between international organizations and private actors. Slovenia notes that the current draft Guideline 8 relies solely on the notion of good faith, which does not adequately account for this power imbalance. We consider robust procedural safeguards to be a fundamental principle that should govern such disputes and therefore support the modification of this provision to strengthen its mandate against abuse. Madam Chair, lastly, regarding effective remedies, Slovenia strongly endorses draft Guideline 11 and its efforts to clarify the respect of human rights obligations and procedural rules as part of dispute settlements. As subjects of international law, international organisations have a duty to uphold the right to a fair trial and an effective remedy under numerous legal instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This provision is closely linked to the draft guidelines on immunity, which do not exempt international organisations from complying with human rights norms. The Working Group's emphasis on clarifying the relevance of labour standards and other protections for private parties to contract is particularly welcome. With regard to non-legally binding international agreements, we would like to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Forteau, for the second report in which he draws conclusions from debates on general aspects of the topic, such as the form of the outcome, the terminology used, the scope of the project, and matters to be reserved without a without prejudice— through a without prejudice clause. Mr. Forteau also analyzed the first substantive issue identified in the first report, the distinction between treaties and non-legally binding international


Germany [15:43]:

I would like to express our regret, also relating to other topics, that the Commission did not have the opportunity to discuss the report in the plenary and that the Working Group of the Whole only held a preliminary exchange of views on it. The issues discussed in the report, such as the scope, terminology, and especially the distinction between treaties and non-legally binding international instruments, are essential for this topic and further analysis. They certainly merit an in-depth discussion with the Commission and the 6th Committee. Therefore, since the discussions within the Commission were preliminary at this stage, we will also present our initial views on the issues addressed in the second report. First, in terms of terminology, as DEU, we would also prefer to use the term non-legally binding instruments for the reasons we explained at the previous sessions of this committee. However, as the use of this term may depend on the outcome of the comprehensive debate on the topic as a whole, we believe that the second option, mentioned by the Special Rapporteur in the report, would be an appropriate approach at this stage. Under this option, the term agreement would be retained for now without prejudice to a final decision on it once all draft conclusions have been discussed. With regard to the use of terms, we generally support Draft Conclusion 2, which provides that the term non-legally binding international agreement refers to any mutual commitment entered into at the international level. However, it does not specify whether that commitment is formally embodied in a single instrument or in 2 or more related instruments. We believe it would be beneficial to further discuss whether in this case it would be appropriate to adopt the approach outlined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, which defines a treaty as international agreement regardless of whether it is embodied in a single instrument or in 2 or more related instruments. Secondly, with regard to draft conclusion 3 on scope, we support the inclusion of instruments concluded between sub-state authorities and agree that these authorities should be defined more precisely, as they may include government-related authorities at various levels as well as territorial units of the state. One possible way forward would be to adopt a similar approach to that used in relation to the responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts, specifically the possibility for the attribution of the conduct of such sub-state authorities to the state. Thirdly, we support draft conclusion 4, which states that the current draft conclusions are without prejudice to any rules or practices is applicable at the national level in relation to non-legally binding international agreements. Lastly, regarding draft conclusions 5 and 6, we agree that intention is key in determining whether an international instrument is legally binding or not, and that if all parties explicitly express their intent to be bound by its terms, such an instrument should be considered as legally binding. However, in practice, we can observe that it, it is situations where this is not the case that prevail. Therefore, it will be vital for the Special Rapporteur and the Commission to identify the indicators that can assist in determining intention when it is not explicitly expressed.


Slovenia [18:26]:

Regarding the topic of prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, I would like first to express our gratitude to the former and current Special Rapporteur, Mr. Kisei and Mr. Sabadogo, respectively, for their efforts. We would particularly like to thank Mr. Sabadogo for his note, which served as the basis for the preliminary exchange of views of the Working Group of the Whole. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea remains the essential legal framework for addressing piracy and armed robbery at sea. Its integrity must be preserved to ensure legal stability. At the same time, recognising that piracy and armed robbery constitute evolving security threats, further examination is necessary to ensure that the framework adequately addresses contemporary challenges and permits the progressive development of the law. We note with appreciation the progress made by the Commission and welcome the approach outlined by the Special Rapporteur and Working Group that draws on a broad range of instruments and national practices, thereby ensuring coherence with existing frameworks. Looking ahead, we see value in the Commission continuing to explore specific gaps and contemporary challenges. These include clarifying the legal status and responsibilities of armed security personnel on merchant ships, examining the applications of new technologies such as cyber operations and autonomous systems, and seeking further clarification of the meaning of the terms prevention and repression. We do advocate for maintaining the distinction between piracy and armed robbery at sea, as their differing characteristics require tailored responses. We are confident that the Special Rapporteur will continue building on this basis, guiding the Commission toward an outcome that is balanced, clear, and useful to States. Finally, regarding the topic of succession of States in respect of state responsibility, we would like to thank the Chair of the Working Group, Mr. Patel, for his report summarizing past debates on this topic and outlining the difficulties encountered during the consideration of this topic. As with other topics, the Commission could not consider this one in sufficient detail due to the shortened length of the session. Regarding the topic itself, the challenges related to the lack of state practice and consequently codification remain the same since there is insufficient regional representation in practice. This continues to hinder the identification of applicable rules of customary international law. The substantive obstacles identified in previous years remain unresolved. Many of these succession issues are preferably resolved through ad hoc agreements between States, which do not provide a sufficient basis for codification. The Commission therefore considers bringing the topic to a close. As emphasised in the report, in that case a transparent and balanced conclusion could be reached by seeking written comments on the draft report from the Members. In Slovenia's view, given the limited progress, it would be better to conclude the topic at this stage. This would involve acknowledging the work that has been been done, for which Slovenia expresses its appreciation, as well as the difficulties that have been encountered. The Commission has now indicated the topic is approaching closure, with work focused on drafting a procedural report summarizing the work already accomplished and explaining the reasons for discontinuation. In conclusion, Slovenia would like to express its appreciation for the Commission's work on this topic, since it has provided us with valuable information and analysis related to the issue of succession, which remains an important topic for us. Slovenia— this concludes our discussion of Slovenia's input for the topics under Cluster 2, offering also our sincere appreciation for the Commission's dedicated efforts and affirming its commitment to continued fruitful engagement. Thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [21:39]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Slovenia for that statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Chile, you have the floor.


Chile [21:52]:

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I will begin by referring to Chapter 5 of the report entitled Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction, under the responsibility of Special Rapporteur Mr. Claudio Grossmann. My delegation would like to congratulate him for the presentation of the second report, which shows exhaustive Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his extensive, well-informed work, and we wish him every success as he continues with it. Madam Chair, on draft Article 7 on international crimes to which immunity ratione materia does not apply, my delegation believes that this draft article in principle does adequately reflect the existing norms of international law and state practice. Chile is of the view that we here have a norm of customary international law and we perceive a trend in the international community towards the acceptance of exceptions to immunity ratione materiae where we have the most serious crimes under international law. In terms of the inclusion of the crime of aggression, slavery, and the slave trade in the crimes set out in Article 7, My delegation supports this inclusion. This is in harmony with the need to ensure accountability for the most serious international crimes, as well as to combat impunity for those responsible for them. On the list of crimes set out in paragraph 1 of draft Article 7, my delegation concurs with the rapporteur that this must be maintained and explains explain in more detail the grounds or reasons why these crimes were included so as to lend legal certainty. Madam Chair, on the 4th part of the draft articles on procedural safeguards, my country would like to express its thanks and support for the inclusion. This is of great value bearing in mind that not all safeguards represent progressive development of international law. Furthermore, it's important— the fact that immunities must not be used by states unduly is important to note. It is essential to protect state officials from any unfounded, politically motivated prosecution in third states. In this regard, we'd like to stress that immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction for state officials does not depend on being invoked. Waivers of immunity must never be presumed. They must always be express and in writing, as is established in Article 12, paragraph 2, which codifies existing customary law. In the same context, Chile believes that the procedure to determine immunity set out in Article 14 of the draft, together with the power to request information set out in Article 13 are fundamental to preventing an abuse of this institution. Madam Chair, I will now refer to Chapter 7 of the report on subsidiary means for the determination— sorry, Chapter 8. It's Chapter 7, Subsidiary Means for the Determination of Rules of International Law. My delegation would like to congratulate the Special Rapporteur, Charles Jallow, for the presentation of the 3rd report, and we wish him every success. As he continues this work. The draft conclusions 9 and 10 refer to doctrine. Regardless of how the doctrine is produced in line with this conclusion, they must meet a set of conditions to fully qualify as subsidiary means. In this context, doctrine should be sufficiently representative. For instance, it's not sufficient in general to have the view or a written work of one author regardless of how eminent they are. Article 38 talks about competent publicists in plural from different nations. This doesn't necessarily mean that works produced must be collective by definition. Doctrine as a subsidiary means cannot only be that that is predominant in one region or related to certain families of legal systems. And at the base of a universal system, we should weigh this factor as is done in different spheres within the international legal system. For instance, we believe that what was adopted on first reading by the ILC allows these to refer to public or private experts and not solely those acting in a personal capacity. It is understood that this category is included in the new text, only excluding entities comprised by state representatives. We concur with this new drafting, which maintains the criteria of the independence of states, but we believe that in the commentary to the guidelines, we should allude to these distinctions and particularly refer to the fundamental work of— fundamental value of the work carried out by the ILC. In this regard, my delegation would like to refer to the fact that both judicial resolutions and resolutions and texts prepared by international organizations or at intergovernmental conferences have specific additional norms that should be taken into account when their weight is being assessed. However, in terms of doctrine, Draft Decision 9 proposed by the Drafting Committee only contains a cross-reference to the common criteria applicable to all subsidiary means in general, as well as to the fact that doctrine is subject to this as a subsidiary means. On Conclusion 11, Madam Chair, my delegation would like to state that while resolutions of international organizations and intergovernmental conferences are not explicitly mentioned in Article 38, they can fulfill this same function. We could consider adding a conclusion that would establish criteria to establish the weight and characteristics that should be complied with by these means, for instance, as we see in judicial decisions for Conclusion 8. On the deletion of draft Conclusions 12 and 13 proposed by the rapporteur, my delegation understands the underlying factor for Conclusion 12 is without doubt a real problem within the international legal system as a whole. and also in certain times the— an issue with the arguments on which judicial resolutions are based. However, we concur with this exclusion on the basis of the fact that this is not in line with the current trend for subsidiary means. On draft conclusion 13, we agree that the proposal is more related to interpretation of treaties than subsidiary means. As highlighted by the chair of the drafting committee, it might be possible to introduce certain elements in these conclusions proposed by the rapporteur in the commentary. Madam Chair, to conclude and in view of the time, I believe that the topics entitled settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties, non-legally binding international agreements were not were duly discussed within the ILC plenary, and we will leave our comments on those in the full statement that will be given in writing. Therefore, I would like to ask the special rapporteurs to refer to the written statement to see my country's comments thereon. I take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. August Reinisch and Mr. Matthias Bothell for the presentation of their reports and reiterate the readiness of our delegation to continue contributing to discussions on the important work carried out by the Commission on these and other subjects. Thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [30:07]:

I'd like to thank the distinguished representative of Chile for that statement, and I will now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. You have the floor.


Netherlands (Kingdom of the) [30:19]:

Thank you for giving me the floor, Chair. As requested, we will deliver an abridged statement and will share with you in written a more extensive statement. We kindly encourage all others to do the same. Chair, please allow me to start with the first topic, that is immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. The Kingdom of the Netherlands would like to take this opportunity to thank the Special Rapporteur for his second report and the Commission for its work done on the topic thus far. Last year, we expressed our appreciation for the Commission's goal for the second reading. This year, however, we note that due to the time constraints arising from the reduction of the length of the ILC session, the discussion of this topic is not complete. It is therefore not yet clear to us how the Commission will deal with the Special Rapporteur's approach to limit the second reading to refining the text, as substantive discussions are very important. We are of the view that the second reading of the topic of immunity of state officials should do justice to the comments and observations made by states, as well as to the uniform state practice and opinion juris that is available concerning the scope and application of immunity. My government wishes to note that at this stage, the procedural provisions contained in Part 4 of the draft articles do not reflect a existing state practice and can therefore not be considered to codify or reflect existing customary law. Instead, the procedural provisions are to be seen as an exercise of progressive development of international law without adequately addressing concerns raised by states. We are of the opinion that an emphasis on procedural safeguards does not help to resolve the differences of opinions views between, on the one hand, those who advocate protecting the interests of the state of the official by pressing for additional safeguards and higher thresholds for the exercise of jurisdiction by the forum state, and on the other hand, those in favor of protecting the interests of the foreign state— forum state, apologies— meaning those who consider that the safeguards and thresholds will make it impossible in practice for the forum state to exercise its jurisdiction at any time. My government takes this opportunity to encourage the Commission to continue the discussion on this important topic by also taking into account any new developments. This applies in particular to the crimes under international law in respect of which immunity in ratione materiae shall not apply, as well as to the views of states. The Commission is further encouraged to make the necessary changes to the draft articles and our commentaries upon second reading. Chair, please allow me to move to the topic subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law. My government would like to thank the Special Rapporteur for the work done on this topic and appreciates that the Commission has taken into account our comments. On our comment of including collectively supported works, My government continues to believe that the added value of these works also lies in the universality of such groups, and it believes that these groups need to be as diverse as possible, representing all regions and legal systems of this world. To ensure an equitable representation in such groups of experts, and to attach weight to their work accordingly, multilingualism is indispensable. With regard to the draft conclusions on resolutions and other texts produced by international organizations, or at intergovernmental conferences that may be used as subsidiary means for determination of the existence and content of rules of international law, we wish to kindly request the Commission to consider the International Court of Justice's views on its advisory opinion on climate change and international law, on the legal status of relevant decisions of governing bodies of these treaties. My government looks forward to the conclusion of the first reading of these draft conclusions. Chair, the Kingdom of the Netherlands would like to make the following observations on the topic of settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties. This topic is of importance for us, in particular insofar as it concerns disputes of a private law character to which an international organization is a party. We would therefore like to thank the Special Rapporteur and the International Law Commission as a whole for the work on this topic thus far. In many cases, for good reasons, the immunity of international organizations prevents individuals who have suffered harm from conduct of an international organization from bringing a claim before a court. This may present a gap in the legal protection of persons and entities and a limitation of their right of access to justice. Therefore, we would like to re-emphasize our commitment to strengthen the mechanisms, in particular the internal mechanisms, of an international organization for resolving disputes of a private law character to which an international organization is a party. Last year, we requested the Dutch Advisory Committee on Issues of Public International Law to provide advice on the settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties. In this early stage of the Commission's process. The report and the response of our government has been sent to the Commission in May and are also available on the website of the Dutch Advisory Committee. In its advice, the Advisory Committee did not address the provisionally adopted guidelines by the ILC, but limited itself to disputes with a private law character and focused on the dispute resolution systems of the United Nations and of the European Union. The Kingdom of the Netherlands agrees, by and large, with the advice of the Advisory Committee, including the recommendation that the Kingdom of the Netherlands request the Commission to clarify 2 specific points. First, the Advisory Committee requested a clarification of the precise difference between disputes of a private and a non-private law character. And second, the Advisory Committee noted that in some cases, national courts do not consider claims relating to the acts and omissions of States during missions abroad to be justiciable, and if the claims relate to the political policy or military activities. On the basis of the advice of the Advisory Committee, my Government requested the Commission to consider whether this approach of national courts in relation to acts or omissions of States should also apply to disputes involving international organizations. The request for this clarification was made when we shared with the Commission the report of the Advisory Committee and the response of our government. We note with regret the fact that the Commission was not able to consider the 3rd report of the Special Rapporteur due to the reduction of its sessions. We hope that the Commission will be able to discuss the Special Rapporteur's report in a plenary session next year so as to advance the discussions on this topic. Let me now continue to the topic of non-legally binding international agreements. My government has reviewed the work done by the Special Rapporteur, introducing the general aspects of the topic as well as elements to distinguish treaties from non-legally binding international agreements, and would like to thank the Special Rapporteur for this comprehensive approach, even though the Commission was unable to consider the second report in plenary. We acknowledge that the challenge of this topic is to find the right balance between the need to ensure legal security on the one hand and maintaining flexibility on the other. It is up to the Commission to consider this balance when discussing the draft conclusions as proposed by the Special Rapporteur during its next session. We emphasize the importance of the Commission having sufficient time to discuss this properly. My government has provided information on its practice concerning non-legally binding international agreements, as requested by the Commission. With respect to the submission of information, we wish to stress that geographical representation and diversity is important for the Commission's work. We therefore encourage other States to provide information on their practice with non-legally binding international agreements as well.

well.

This will enable the Commission to provide for draft articles that are representative, representative of the practice of all regions of this world. Chair, I will now continue with the topic prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. We would like to start with thanking the Special Rapporteur for continuing the work on this topic. Regarding the future work of the Commission, the themes proposed by the Special Rapporteurs still need to be substantively addressed by the Commission. Of particular interest in this regard to my government would be an examination of the consequences of the use of new technologies. More generally, it would be very useful to us to examine if the diverse practices of states pose any problems in practice. As for the final form of the outcome of the Commission's work on this topic, which still needs to be determined, we consider that the added value of draft articles has yet to be established. If no gaps or insufficiencies are identified, my government would deem a report of the Commission, possibly with draft conclusions, but without any draft articles or draft guidelines, the most suitable outcome. With respect to the topic of succession of States in respect of State responsibility, my government wishes to note it considers it of utmost importance for the Commission to conclude its work on this topic so that the Commission can spend its precious time on the other topics on the agenda that still need to be discussed and finalized as well. I thank you, Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [40:21]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands for that statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Italy. You have the floor.


Italy [40:32]:

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Madam Chair. I will address the topics in Cluster 2 by delivering an abridged version of our statement, the complete text of which has been submitted for publication. I will start by addressing the topic of immunity of states' officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. As a preliminary remark, Italy would like to commend the Special Rapporteur, Claudio Grossmann-Guillof, for the excellent work, including by building upon his predecessor's achievements. Draft Article 7 is a crucial provision in the system of the draft articles, since it establishes whether exceptions and limitations to immunities ratione materiae apply for certain crimes under international law. In previous statements before the 6th Committee, Italy expressed general support for Draft Article 7, without prejudice to the customary rules on immunities ratione personae. Italy is mindful that this provision, given its importance, should be supported by the necessary state practice and opinio juris, if it aims to reflect the current state of play of customary international law. Should this provision represent instead a possible progressive development of international law, it should be supported by a decisive stance by the Commission, providing for a clear rationale and a persuasive explanation for the existence of this exception to immunity ratione materiae and the inclusion or exclusion of crimes under said exception. A considerable number of delegations and some members of the Commission have challenged the content of Article 7. Italy considers that achieving consensus on these matters is essential. We therefore encourage the Commission to give these concerns due consideration in continuing its work on Article 7 and its commentary. Secondly, Italy will comment on the proposed text of draft Articles 9 and 14. Draft Article 9, paragraph 2 focuses on the moment in time in which the competent authorities should examine the question of immunity, namely before initiating criminal proceedings and before taking coercive measures. In Italy's views, this general terminology may raise doubts, considering different practices within domestic criminal systems as to which moments or actions might substantiate the commencement of criminal proceedings. We call on the Commission to further reflect on the matter so as to work out an alternative working that may suit the vast array of domestic procedures. Likewise, with regard to draft Article 14, Italy has some reservations about the use of terms before initiating criminal proceedings, with reference to the moment when the immunity should be determined. In particular, Italy would welcome the drafting of 2 different wordings for draft Articles 9 and 14, in light of their different meanings and scopes. Indeed, while we certainly recognise the importance that the examination of immunity begins at the pre-trial stage, the determination of immunity ratione materia requires a preliminary search for evidence and, under several domestic legal systems, a determination by a judge. Therefore, in draft Article 14, we recommend the employment of a different expression that could set the time limit for the determination of immunity at a later stage, before the commencement of the trial. Italy acknowledges the Commission's difficult task of identifying terms and moments that might take into consideration different domestic criminal systems, but we consider this issue to be of primary importance. Additionally, Italy notes that paragraph 3 in draft Article 14 involves that, in cases covered by draft Article 7, the determination of immunity by the forum State should be undertaken by authorities at appropriate high level. It should be noted that, in certain legal systems, this assessment is carried out by the judge assigned to the case, and there are no rules allowing such assessments to be entrusted to other high-level judicial or political bodies. Furthermore, the requirement proposed by the Commission does not seem to be reflected in the practice of Member States, which shows that, even for the most serious crimes, decisions on immunity are taken by authorities at all levels. We call on the Commission to reconsider the matter in order to capture the idea that the competent authority for the determination of immunity is identified based on the provisions of the relevant domestic legal system. In commending the Commission for its work on this subject matter, Italy reiterates the importance for the Commission to clearly indicate which draft articles reflect existing customary international law and which constitute progressive development, the latter being closely linked to the preparation of the draft conventions in accordance with Article 15 of the ILC Statute. We look forward to continuing the engagement with the International Law Commission and the Special Rapporteur in their work on this important subject. We look forward to continuing the engagement with the International Law Commission and the Special Rapporteur in their work on this important subject. Sorry for the repetition. Madam Chair, I will now address the topic of subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law. We wish to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Charles-Chernon Jalot, and commend his continued work. Italy takes note of the provisional adoption by the Drafting Committee on first reading of the draft conclusions 1 to 13. We positively note the new structure given to the draft conclusions, which now appears to be more functional and to provide further internal consistency. We wish to refer to our written statement, and today we would like to focus our comments on draft conclusion nine weight of teachings. We support the insertion of such provisions in line with similar draft conclusions seven and thirteen. We take note of the challenges reported by the drafting committee in setting out additional criteria for the consideration of teachings beyond those listed in draft conclusion four. We encourage the special rapporteur to provide in the commentary a better understanding of their application to the specific category of.

teachings.

Madam Chair, I will now turn to the topic settlement of disputes to which international organisations are parties. We commend the work of the Special Rapporteur August Reinisch and express appreciation for the 3rd report on the matter. As a host country to several international organisations, Italy positively notes the account offered in the report of the contribution provided by the Italian judiciary, through its extensive case law, for a better understanding of the core features of the subject in question. We encourage the Special Rapporteur to keep devoting special attention to the practice of host countries, whose approach and stance is particularly relevant in setting the trends and steer development on the topic. Madam Chair, this year's report offers an interesting account of the practice of international organizations to resort, for their disputes with private parties, to the same means traditionally available to subjects of international law. Namely states and international organizations. However, it's important to consider possible inherent limitations of the said means should the parties not be placed on a fully equal footing. Therefore, we are convinced that means referred to in draft Guideline 2, subparagraph c, may be resorted to in disputes with private parties to the extent that the 2 main requirements are met: that the assessment process is fully transparent and that the private party is fully involved in the choice of the means, in full accordance with the principle of freedom of choice that governs their use. At the same time, Italy reiterates its clear preference for binding means of dispute settlement, to ensure legal certainty and clear recognition of respective rights and obligations. Against this backdrop, we acknowledge the merits of arbitration, including the free choice of arbitrators and the expertise the latter can bring when matters related to international commercial contracts are called into question. However, given the costs of arbitration, recourse to courts may be sometimes more convenient, for example in disputes with SMEs or for claims of a low to medium value. Madam Chair, Italy is well aware of the rationale behind the immunities of international organisations and is fully committed to respecting, as appropriate, the immunities pertaining to organisations based in our country. At the same time, we take note of the report by the Special Rapporteur accounting for the different extents to which Member States may decide to grant immunities to international organisations, based on the relevant treaty. Such diversity may be reflected in draft Guideline 9 by adding the words as determined by the relevant Convention right after the incipit, the jurisdictional immunity of international organisations. This would serve to highlight the primacy of the relevant founding treaty, conventions on privileges and immunities, or OSCAR agreements, in determining the existence and scope of the jurisdictional immunities of an international organization. In addition, a second paragraph may be added on the questions of the waiver of immunities. In this respect, while reiterating that jurisdictional immunity is an essential tool for the safeguard of international organizations in in the independent fulfilling of their institutional goals, more attention should be devoted to cases and circumstances when such immunities should be waived. This may especially be true in cases where, in light of the legal issues or the subject matter at stake, the judicial proceedings clearly do not infringe upon the independent performance of their institutional functions as determined by the Constituent Treaty. Madam Chair, I will now address the topic of non-legally binding international agreements. Allow me to start by thanking the Special Rapporteur for his second report discussing the first substantive issue, based on a thorough review of state practices and case law, and the first group of draft conclusions. We appreciate the different views expressed on terminology, in particular as regards the use of the term agreement to name the topic under consideration. And in subsequent draft conclusions accordingly. While concurring with the primacy of the parties' intention, it is Italy's firm view that less ambiguous terms should be preferred in order to draw a clear dividing line between binding and non-binding instruments. We reiterate our call to shift to this latter term as the work on the topic progresses. Accordingly, we suggest the use of the term participants to non-binding instruments Thank you. As already mentioned, Italy agrees that the intention of the participants involved should be the primary reference to determine the non-binding character of the instrument under consideration, on a case-by-case approach. No other factor should be able to override such intention when it is clearly stated or when it can be clearly inferred. As for other indicators that may support such a determination, The avoidance of terminology usually employed implying a commitment, such as shall or enter into force, to name a few, and the form of final clauses usually play a decisive role. At the same time, a specific clause on the non-binding character of the instrument may well serve the purpose, being it understood that its absence is not automatically considered, a contrario, evidence of a binding nature. On the whole, we suggest keeping the draft conclusion as concise as possible, leaving examples of such indicators for the commentaries, while avoiding prospective and closed lists. Italy looks forward to continuing its engagement with the Special Rapporteur and the Commission on the consideration of such an important topic. Madam Chair, I will now address the topic prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. First of all, Italy would like to welcome the new Special Rapporteur, Luis Savagodo, and to support the proposed schedule, particularly the drafting of 5 successive reports between 2026 and 2031, including the adoption of provisional articles. As for the deployment of naval operations, Italy emphasizes the importance of studying the practice of naval operations deployed by regional and international organizations to combat acts of piracy and armed robbery in maritime areas. We see merit in clarifying the legal basis of such operations and the limits on the use of force, especially when such operations are not expressly based on resolution of the UN Security Council. Italy is moreover in favour of adopting new articles concerning the use and status of armed security personnel on board of merchant vessels, following the legal developments that have occurred in this field. These new articles should aim at contributing to greater certainty on the legal issues raised by the increasing use of armed security personnel on board of merchant vessels in order to prevent and fight piracy and armed robbery at sea. In particular, Italy agrees with the preliminary assessment of the Special Rapporteur, according to which members of armed security personnel on merchant vessels acting as state agents benefit from the immunities attached to their functions, as confirmed in the arbitration award on the Enrica Lexi case, which has been recalled by the Special Rapporteur. Italy notes that the issue of the right of innocent passage of merchant vessels with armed security personnel on board should also be analysed. Therefore, Italy welcomes the proposal of the Special Rapporteur in this regard. Madam Chair, turning finally to the topic of succession of states in respect of state responsibility, Italy thanks the Working Group and its Chair, Bhimal Patel, for their work on the topic. We recognise the significant challenges in further pursuing the work in question, stemming from the often-cited scarcity and inconsistency of state practices. Against this backdrop, we note that settlement through direct negotiations between and among the States involved in the standard approach, providing for adequate flexibility and full ownership of the process, also in light of the inhereditary political, rather than exclusively legal, nature of issues related to State succession. While reiterating our support for the decision to discontinue the work on the topic We look forward to the report, which we are confident will serve as an important term of reference for practitioners and academics alike. That concludes Italy's statements on Cluster 2.

Thank you, Madam Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [54:42]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Italy for that statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Spain. You have the floor.


Spain [54:52]:

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It's an honor to address this 6th Committee, to address the work of the International Law Commission at its 76th session on the topics included in this Cluster 2. Before beginning, I would like to refer to the reminder that various delegations have made to Concepción Hernández. We thank her with our We align ourselves with the statement of the European Union, and we would like to make some comments in our national capacity, and we'll also submit a more full version in writing. The ILC continued here with its work on the formation of norms of international law with the subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law. This shows their determination to making international law a living body that resolves states' problems. We'd like to thank the special rapporteurs and the presidents, the chairs of the working groups for their efforts and dedication. And we congratulate them for the outcomes. From all of these topics, Spain would like to focus in our statement on the topic of immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. We congratulate the Commission and particularly the special rapporteur, Mr. Grossman, for the presentation of the second report. Spain concurs that the inclusion of a list of crimes of international law for which immunity ratione materiae does not apply is in keeping with the principles of international criminal law and the requirement to criminalize crimes. In the same vein, my delegation deems justified the inclusion in this list of the crimes of aggression, slavery and the slave trade. The list cannot be exhaustive, and in the future, new international crimes may be added as international law evolves. Furthermore, Spain believes that the goal of simplifying the text that was adopted on first reading has been met. The editorial changes made by deleting repetitive paragraphs, dividing paragraphs of certain articles, for instance Article 8, are beneficial in this regard. On Article 9, Spain agrees with the keeping of the assessment of applicability before proceeding with exercising criminal jurisdiction and even before any coercive act. And we welcome the inclusion of the expression, to the extent possible, which allows for urgent acts in certain cases. We believe that the addition to paragraph 1 of Article 10, in accordance with which the obligation on the state to— the forum state to notify the official state before the launch of criminal proceedings or before the adoption of coercive measures could be waived when this notification might jeopardize the proper conduct or the continuity of criminal proceedings. This addition introduces helpful flexibility with regard to the notification obligation. The issue of whether immunity is applied automatically or, on the contrary, must be invoked by the official's state addressed in Article 11 should, in Spain's view, be further elaborated in the commentary. This should link Article 11 with Article 9, according to which the forum states' authorities must always and without delay consider the issue of immunity. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [58:49]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Spain for that statement, and I'll now give the floor to the distinguished representative of South Africa.


South Africa [59:00]:

Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning, colleagues. Madam Chair, South Africa welcomes the continued work of the International Law Commission on the topic of immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. We acknowledge with appreciation the second report of the Special Rapporteur, Professor Gulof, and the referral of draft Articles 7, 8, and 9 to the Drafting Committee during the ILC's 76th session in 2025. We recall previous statements to the ILC where we expressed support for the ILC's draft Article 7 affirming the functional immunity, immunity ratione materiae, cannot apply to certain serious crimes under international law. In 2025, we welcome the further development of a draft Article 7, particularly the inclusion of the crime of aggression among those crimes for which immunity ratione materiae does not apply. South Africa underscores that the prohibition of aggression is a cornerstone of the United Nations Charter and that its criminalization was reaffirmed through the Rome Statute amendments adopted in Kampala 2010. Including aggression within the draft Article 7 strengthens coherence between the ILC's work and the broader international legal framework. South Africa affirms its constitutional obligations and its commitments under the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court, which make clear that immunities do not bar accountability for such crimes. We therefore encourage the ILC to retain draft Article 7 in its current form. With strengthened commentary to clarify that this rule reflects an emerging consensus in customary international law. Madam Chair, under Article 10, we note the proposed requirement for prior notification to the state of the official before the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction. While we recognize the importance of interstate cooperation, we reiterate that safeguards must not undermine effective investigation or prosecution of international crimes. Procedural rules should serve justice and not frustrate it. Madam Chair, South Africa supports the continuation of the ILC's second reading process and looks forward to the adoption of a final set of draft articles and commentaries. We reaffirm our commitment to the progressive development and codification of international law, particularly in the area of criminal accountability of state officials while upholding sovereign equality of states. Madam Chair, South Africa stands ready to engage constructively with other member states to ensure that the draft articles, once finalized, will contribute to a fair and just international legal order. Turning now to the topic of non-legally binding international agreements, South Africa thanks the International Law Commission and the Special Rapporteur, Professor Forteau, for the thoughtful progress achieved on this topic. We note that 6 draft conclusions adopted at the ILC's 76th session, which provide a sound framework for clarifying the legal parameters of instruments that, while lacking treaty status, have become central to the contemporary cooperation. South Africa supports the Commission's disciplined scope focusing on written instruments between states, states and international organizations, and between international organizations, and expressly excluding in its commentary unilateral acts and informal understandings. We welcome the Draft Conclusion 1. We welcome that Draft Conclusion 1 expresses that the draft conclusions remain clarified clarificatory rather than prescriptive in nature. South Africa recalls its intervention in 2024 in which it raised concern over the use of the term agreement in the title of this topic, which in many domestic and regional contexts, including our own treaty practice, carries a presumption of legal bindingness. We note with appreciation that the Special Rapporteur in his subsequent report and in draft Conclusion 2 acknowledged these sensitivities and clarified that the expression non-legally binding international agreement is used in a generic sense to denote a mutual commitment at the international level without implying legal force, while other formulations such as arrangement or instrument more accurately reflect state intention in different linguistic and legal traditions, South Africa can support the approach adopted by the Special Rapporteur. Madam Chair, our own treaty practice underscores the importance of intention as a decisive criterion for determining whether an instrument is legally binding or non-binding. Under South Africa's Constitution, only instruments intended to create binding rights and obligations under international law enter our domestic treaty process. South Africa welcomes that Draft Conclusion 4 contains the provision that draft conclusions are without prejudice to any rules or practices applicable at the national level in relation to non-legally binding international agreements. We are encouraged that Draft Conclusion 5 reflects this approach and states that the absence of express intention does not render such an agreement binding. South Africa stresses the importance of capturing diverse state practice. We therefore welcome the opportunity for states that have not yet done so to share their examples, specimen clauses, and internal guidelines. Broader input will ensure that the final commentaries reflect not only established practice but also regional diversity. South Africa supports the continuation of this topic with a view to concise draft conclusions and commentaries. Finally, Madam Chair, South Africa welcomes the suggestion for guidelines or indicative formulations designed to assist States and international organizations in their practice. Such work will enhance legal certainty in the use of non-binding instruments and enhance interstate cooperation. I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [1:05:47]:

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


Croatia [1:06:03]:

Thank you, Chair. Allow me to begin with the topic immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. And in this regard, the Republic of Croatia welcomes the measured approach Special Rapporteur Mr. Claudio Gross-Manghiello has taken to this topic so far, and the careful consideration of States' comments. We must all work together to ensure that the perpetrators of the most serious crimes are brought to justice, and to overcome the existing accountability gap. The fight against impunity has no alternative, since there can be no lasting peace without justice and accountability. Croatia wishes to stress the importance of striking the right balance between the fight against impunity on the one hand, and the principle of sovereign equality of states and the importance of stability in relations between states on the other. The issue of immunity of state officials requires careful and thorough consideration of state practice, opinio iuris, and trends in international law, as well as recent judicial decisions. It is important to consider all these crucial elements while assessing the proposed Articles. The procedural provisions and safeguards in Articles 7 to 18 need special attention in order to ensure that they respect and are capable of application across diverse national legal systems. Additional time before concluding the second reading is an opportunity to deliver a balanced product which reflects the highest legal standards and enjoys widest possible cross-regional support. We welcome the expansion of the list of crimes covered by draft Article 7 with the crimes of aggression, slavery, and slave trade. We would like to reiterate, though, as we stated last year, that the crime of aggression is the mother of all crimes, during which numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity are committed. To Croatia, the crime of aggression has a special significance since Croatia suffered brutal aggression in the 1990s. Accompanied by war crimes and crimes against humanity. Hence, it is punishable under the Croatian Criminal Code, and jurisdiction over the crime of aggression had been activated by the International Criminal Court through the entry into force of the Kampala Amendments. Therefore, we support inclusion of the crime of aggression in the list of exceptions to functional immunity in draft Article 7. Regarding Article 9, immunity from jurisdiction cannot be confused with inviolability, which is similar to but not a synonym for immunity, and inviolability applies only to officials enjoying immunity ratione personae, so it should be clarified in the comments. Croatia also supports the content of draft Article 14, which would establish important safeguards where a state is considering prosecution for one of its crimes enumerated in draft Article 7. In particular, Croatia supports draft Article 14, paragraph 3, which aims to balance the interests of the states concerned and reduces the risk of politicization and misuse of Article 7, while also ensures that use of procedural guarantees in good faith is not prevented. Concerning draft Article 14, paragraph 4, we would like to reiterate the need to provide additional clarity in the Common concerning inviolability. My delegation strongly supports the work of the International Law Commission on this topic, which is of the highest importance for fighting impunity and ensuring just and lasting peace. Mr. Chair, in regard to the topic settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties, we fully support the work of Special Rapporteur Mr. August Reinisch, the Commission, and newly established Working Group. We particularly welcome the consistent emphasis on the rule of law, legal certainty, and most importantly, the independence and impartiality of adjudicators. These elements are not merely procedural ideals, but are essential guarantees for fair and credible dispute settlement process. The impartiality of adjudicators is of utmost importance for ensuring that international mechanisms and safeguarding the rights of the all parties are involved. We therefore welcome draft Guideline 11, which highlights that adjudicatory dispute settlement must conform to the procedural rule of law and human rights requirements, including the independence and impartiality of adjudicators and due process. We are pleased to note that this language aligns with the wording of draft Guideline 6, and we believe that such consistency significantly strengthens the overall framework. We appreciate the efforts made so far and look forward to continuing our constructive engagement on this matter. And Mr. Chair, we, we finally turn to the topic succession of states in respect of state responsibility, guided by Mr. Bimal M. Patel as chair of the working group. We greatly appreciate the work that the Commission has so far done in relation to this topic. It is an important issue for Croatia, which to this day deals with the consequences of the most serious crimes that it suffered in the 1990s during and after the process of dissolution of Yugoslavia, the predecessor state. Additionally, although the agreement on succession issues between the 5 successor states of the former Yugoslavia was concluded in 2001 and entered into force in 2004, it has not been completely implemented. Due to our particular interest in this issue, we regret the fact that the members of the Working Group support the Commission's decision to discontinue the work on this topic. We would like to emphasize the need for further elaboration on this issue before the Commission completes its work. Concerning the topic subsidiary means of the determination of rules of international law, the topic prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, and the topic non-legally binding international agreements, you will find the comments from the Republic of Croatia in our written statement. Thank you for your attention.


6th Committee · Chair [1:12:19]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Croatia for that statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. You have the floor.


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [1:12:29]:

Thank you, Chair. Turning to Chapter 5 of the Commission's annual report concerning immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, I wish to begin by thanking the Special Rapporteur Mr. Claudio Grossman-Gulov, for his additional report of 29 January 2025. The United Kingdom appreciates his efforts to reflect a broad range of views and encourages him to ensure that any text for inclusion in the draft articles reflects the balanced views of states. This topic has been on the Commission's agenda for nearly 2 decades, and the United Kingdom notes the division of views among members persists in respect of the text, which is yet to be adopted. Indeed, this division is also reflected in Sixth Committee, and we recognize the strength of feeling across states on this important issue. This division of views tends strongly to suggest that some elements of the draft articles are not yet customary international law. This is all the more reason why it is essential for the Commission to clearly distinguish lex lata from lex ferenda in the commentary to the draft articles, to guard against the risk that the status of the product as a whole be misinterpreted as being fully representative of customary international law. The United Kingdom notes with concern that the drafting committee has accepted the rapporteur's recommendation of adding aggression, slavery, and the slave trade to the list of crimes in draft Article 7. We refer to our detailed comments to the commission in December 2023 and look forward to seeing how the commentaries to the draft Article will elaborate on these additions to draft Article 7 and the adequacy of the procedural safeguards in draft Articles 8 to 18. Turning to Chapter 7 of the Commission's Annual Report concerning subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, the United Kingdom would like to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Charles Jaller, for his impressive 3rd report. The United Kingdom is supportive of this topic, recognizing its intrinsic value in relation to sources of international law. However, in progressing this important topic, we encourage the Commission to ensure that the commentaries clearly identify where draft conclusions are predicated on existing rules of international law, and where they are predicated on proposals for the progressive development of international law, and where they are more representative of guidelines. Chair, I turn now to Chapter 8 of the Commission's annual report, concerning the settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties. We thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. August Reinisch, for his thoroughly prepared 3rd report. The United Kingdom supports the views of other states, particularly in connection with draft Guideline 11, in encouraging the Commission's consideration of how the key rule of law principle of equality of arms may feature in disputes of this character, and welcomes the progress of the Commission's work in this regard. We also note the Commission's request for additional information, and we'll respond to this in accordance with the December deadline, in the event that we have anything further to share. Turning now to Chapter 9 of the Commission's Annual Report, concerning non-legally binding agreements. The United Kingdom thanks the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Mathias Forteau, for his well-prepared second report. We refer to the UK's previous comments and our submission of information in support of this topic and look forward to remaining engaged as this work progresses. Turning to Chapter 10 of the Commission's Annual Report concerning prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, the United Kingdom thanks the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Luis Savadogo, for his detailed discussion note on the future work of the Commission on this topic. The United Kingdom looks forward to engaging further on this topic and feels the work on this topic should concentrate primarily on matters that will be of most assistance to states, with the scope of the topic focused accordingly. We are considering whether, further to our submissions in May 2023, to submit additional relevant information before the 1st December 2025 deadline, in accordance with the request at paragraph 29 of the Commission's Annual Report. Finally, Chair, I turn to Chapter 11 of the Commission's Annual Report concerning the succession of states in respect of state responsibility. The United Kingdom thanks the working group chaired by Mr. Bimal N. Patel for their draft report. Given the clear challenges with this topic, including the apparent lack of general state practice, we are fully supportive of the closure of the topic at the Commission's next session. Thank you, Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [1:17:05]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for that statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Brazil. You have the floor.


Brazil [1:17:17]:

Madam Chair, at the outset, I'd like to, on behalf of my delegation, say in Spanish and to express our most sincere condolences for the early loss of Concepción Hernández, who made such a contribution to international law as a Special Rapporteur for the Immunity of State Officials from Criminal Jurisdiction. Professor Escobar Hernández played a decisive role in this crucial topic and in the work that continues today in the Sixth Committee. The tribute— in tribute to her, we also pay tribute to the mark that she left on the progressive development and codification of international law. Further, I'd like to congratulate Special Rapporteur Claudio Grossman for the dedication and quality of his work in leading this important topic.

As stressed in its written comments to the International Law Commission, the immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction is crucial to ensuring the proper performance of their functions, especially when they are not protected under existing multilateral conventions. Such immunity is also essential for the peaceful settlement of international disputes, and friendly relations among States, insofar as it allows States officials to participate in diplomatic conferences and missions abroad. It contributes to the stability of international relations by preventing the abusive, arbitrary, or politically motivated exercise of criminal jurisdiction against State officials. Brazil commends the Commission for provisionally adopting draft Articles 1, 3, 4, and 5 on second reading, together with their commentaries. We agree with retaining the phrase as between the parties to those agreements in Article 1, paragraph 3. As explained in the commentary, the legal regime applicable to international criminal courts, as a matter of treaty law, operates only between the parties to the instruments establishing the Court. This reflects the well-established principle of the law of treaties, enshrined in Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. My delegation will caution Caution against an excessive expansion of the categories of officials entitled to immunities, which could risk eroding their importance. We recall that the draft articles focus primarily on the immunities of the Troika, heads of state, heads of governments, and ministers of foreign affairs. Any possible expansion should be considered only in exceptional circumstances and expressed in clear terms, bearing in mind that immunities—

Thank you.

arising in a specific context, such as those concerning relations between States and international organizations, are governed by their own instruments. Madam Chair, my delegation remains open to the possibility of excepting from immunity ratione materia those international crimes listed in draft Article 7 that result from serious crimes of international law. While State practice remains limited in this regard, we believe that such exceptions could serve as a means to address the impunity gaps. The non-recognition of immunity ratione materiae for these crimes would align with the interests of the international community as a whole in preventing and punishing serious violations of peremptory norms of general international law. Brazil therefore supports retaining the list of crimes in Article 7 and agrees with the inclusion of the crimes of aggression, slavery, and slave trade as proposed by the Special Rapporteur. Brazil also supports the amendments proposed to draft Article 8. By dividing it into 2 paragraphs, the provision now more clearly addresses situations related to the immunities of state officials. We encourage the Commission to elaborate on the commentaries in order to clarify that procedural provisions and safeguards in Part IV apply not only when the person whose immunity is in question is suspected of a crime, but also to other measures, such as witness testimony. At the same time, we are concerned about the proposed inclusion in draft Article 9 of the phrase as far as practicable. This wording weakens the obligation of the competent authorities of the foreign State to examine the question of immunity without delay, once they become aware that such immunity may be affected by the exercise of local criminal jurisdiction. In our view, the proposed phrase is inappropriate, as it could allow undue discretion Thereby undermining the very purpose of immunities: to ensure the unhindered performance of the functions of the foreign state officials. Furthermore, Brazil does not share the assessment that individuals entitled to immunity ratione materia do not enjoy inviolability. In our view, a state official may invoke inviolability solely in connection with official acts, since inviolability implies, among other things, freedom from any measure of constraint by the territorial state, such measure may clearly relate to official acts. My delegation would therefore appreciate further clarification on this point. In draft Article 10, we take note with concern of the proposal to introduce an exception to the obligation to notify the state of origin of the official if such notification will jeopardize the confidentiality of an ongoing investigation or the proper conduct of criminal proceedings. By invoking confidentiality to justify taking coercive measures against a foreign state official without prior minimum notice to the affected state, the foreign state could undermine due process. In our view, this exception could therefore contradict the spirit and purpose of the law on jurisdictional immunities. Accordingly, Brazil supports maintaining the language of Article 10 as originally adopted Turning to draft Article 11, Brazil recalls that immunity of state officials operate ex officio and do not depend on formal invocation. While written invocation enhances legal certainty, it should not be mandatory. The text could therefore be improved by replacing shall with should in paragraph 2, thereby ensuring a less prescriptive approach. With respect to draft Article 12, On the waiver of immunity, Brazil reiterates that waivers must be express and in writing, as provided in paragraph 2, as well as specific in their scope. General or implied waivers may undermine legal certainty. Brazil also reiterates that in certain circumstances, waivers may be revoked. For instance, when new facts arise that were unknown at the time the waiver was made. Regarding draft Article 14, Brazil reiterates that inviolability extends to state officials enjoying immunity ratione materiae. Madam Chair, as the Commission moves towards finalizing its work, Brazil recalls the continuing relevance of the 1971 draft Articles on the Representation of States in Their Relations with International Organizations, particularly Articles 59 and 61, which recognize the inviolability and immunities of delegates representing States in international bodies or conferences. Finally, regarding the final form of the ILC product, Brazil reiterates its view that the elaboration of a Convention would be the most appropriate outcome. Given that several provisions go beyond codification, States must remain central in shaping the rules governing this sensitive area. Brazil, therefore, does not favor a gradualist approach, such as that taken with the 2001 draft Articles on State Responsibility, on which no substantive decision has yet been adopted. Such an approach would not advance legal certainty in this field. Madam Chair, turning now to Chapter 7 on subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, Brazil thanks the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Charles Gellert, for his report. We reiterate the importance of maintaining a cautious and balanced approach to the use of subsidiary means. They play a valuable interpretative and evidentiary role, but they should not be confused with the sources of international law themselves. In this regard, Brazil believes that the language of Draft Conclusion 5 could be refined for a more balanced approach. Instead of a categorical affirmation, it might be preferable to use the expression may serve as, as employed in other ILC products such as those on jus cogens and general principles of law. This would be— this would more accurately reflect the non-binding and auxiliary nature of subsidiary means. Brazil reiterates that subsidiary means are not in themselves sources of international law, as properly stated in Draft Conclusion 6, bearing in mind they do not create legal norms. With respect to Draft Conclusion 7, Brazil reiterates its earlier suggestion to invert the order of the sentences in order to maintain coherence with the title and to underscore the non-binding character of judicial precedents. The commentaries could further elaborate on this aspect. Regarding Draft Conclusion 10, Brazil notes that the public bodies of experts referred to therein are not international courts. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the commentary to Draft Conclusion 8, provisionally adopted in 2024, could therefore have a more appropriate place under the commentary to Conclusion 10. In this connection, Brazil supports the proposal to use the term pronouncements in Draft Conclusion 10, reserving decisions for bodies vested with judicial authority, as reflected in Draft Conclusion 8. Concerning Draft Conclusion 11, on resolutions of international organizations and conferences, Brazil suggests that the commentaries further clarify the circumstances in which such resolutions may serve as subsidiary means or as evidence of state practice or even opinio juris relevant to the formation of customary rules of international law. Finally, with respect to Draft Conclusion 11, which addresses the fragmentation of international law, Brazil underlines the importance of reinforcing coherence within the international legal system. Consistency across different fields of international law is essential for the credibility and unity of the system as a whole. Madam Chair, on Chapters 8, 9, 10, and 11, Concerning settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties, non-legally binding international agreements, prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, and succession of state in respect of state responsibility, Brazil thanks the Special Rapporteurs and the Chair of the Working Group for their reports and notes. We regret once again that due to the United Nations liquidity crisis, the Commission was unable to devote adequate attention to this topic.

talks.

We hope that sufficient resources will be available for the Commission to carry out its work effectively in its next session.

I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [1:27:53]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil for that statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Philippines. You have the floor.


Philippines [1:28:01]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the Philippines thanks the International Law Commission for its work during its 76th session. We offer the following preliminary observations on topics under Cluster 2. We will also be submitting further written observations. First, on immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. The Philippines thanks Special Rapporteur Claudio Grossman Gilov for his second report, as well as the Commission for the progress on this topic, including their close examination of the submission of states. The Philippines recalls that the doctrine of immunity of state officials is grounded in sovereign equality of states, reflected in the maxim pare parem non habet imperium. Immunity from the domestic criminal jurisdiction of another state is therefore not a mere privilege of officials, but a functional safeguard to stable interstate relations and the effective performance of governmental duties. At the same time, the Philippines joins others in noting that this doctrine cannot become a shield for impunity. When confronted with the need to prosecute the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. In this regard, the Philippines sees clear value in the work of the ILC on this topic, bearing in mind its mandate involving not only the codification of existing state practice and opinio juris, but also the progressive development of international law. On the one hand, any attempt to narrow immunities without foundation in state practice risks undermining legal certainty and the very committee the doctrine seeks to preserve. On the other hand, we also acknowledge the prevailing expectation that the gravest international crimes must not go unpunished. In our view, the Commission's task is therefore not simply to declare that immunities exist, but to articulate with precision and restraint where those immunities must yield. The Philippines therefore calls for a principled approach which on the one hand preserves legitimate functions of immunity, while on the other ensures that perpetrators of atrocity crimes do not find refuge behind that doctrine. Turning now to subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, we thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Charles Cernorjolo, for the 3rd report, which looked at the work of private and public expert bodies and the possible consideration of resolutions of international organizations and of intergovernmental conferences as subsidiary means in the preliminary bibliography. Firstly, the Philippines would appreciate further clarification on the definition of what constitutes private expert groups and public expert bodies. Nevertheless, the Philippines shares that certain relevant judicial decisions from our Supreme Court have previously touched on issues on the legal status of certain documents that may be contemplated as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law described in draft conclusions: 9, output of private expert groups; 10, pronouncements of public expert bodies; and 11, resolutions of international organizations and intergovernmental conferences. On these occasions, the Philippine Supreme Court classified them as soft law, or those that do not fall into any of the categories of international law set forth in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. It is, however, an expression of non-binding norms, principles, and practices that influence state behavior. On the settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties, we thank Special Rapporteur August Reinisch for his 3rd report, which focused on the discussion of disputes between international organizations and private parties. With respect to the draft guidelines on the topic proposed by the Special Rapporteur, we wish to share the following. The Philippines is amenable with the language of Draft Guideline 8, which provides that disputes between international organizations and private parties should be settled in good faith and in a spirit of cooperation by the means of dispute settlement referred to in Draft Guideline 2, subparagraph 6. That may be appropriate to the circumstances and the nature of the dispute. On draft Guideline 9, the Philippines is of the view that while international organizations enjoy jurisdictional immunity to ensure their independent functioning, such immunity must not deprive individuals of access to justice. Additionally, states should not be absolved of their obligations under international law simply because legal authority has been transferred to an international organization. However, careful consideration must be given on the differences between internal dispute resolution mechanisms within international organizations and that of fair trial standards of national courts, while at the same time ensuring that they remain objective, necessary, and free from arbitrariness. The Philippines also calls for careful consideration of the critical differences between the organizational between the organizational immunity enjoyed by international organizations and the functional immunity of its personnel. Further, we are of the view that further deliberation may also be undertaken to— in order to ensure that international organizations are not allowed to hide behind a blanket immunity from suit, primarily by warranting states granting privilege and immunity to an international organization existing within its territory to ensure that the subject rights are protected during the negotiation of host agreements. On non-legally binding international agreements, we thank Special Rapporteur Matthias Fortu for his second report, which included an introduction on the general elements such as the object and the purpose of the topic, the terms used, the scope of the topic, and if possible, without prejudice clause. We also take note of the inclusion of in the report of a study on the substantive issue of distinguishing between treaties and non-legally binding international agreements. Firstly, we join other states' position preferring the use of the term non-legally binding international instruments over non-legally binding international agreements, insofar as we usually use the term agreement for documents which are legally binding under international law. Further, we also wish to share the following views reflecting the Philippines' state practice relating to distinctions between treaties and non-legally binding international instruments. Under both international law and Philippine practice, a distinction is made between a treaty or the less formal memorandum of agreement on the one hand and the memorandum of understanding on the other hand, on the basis of whether or not the contracting states intended the instruments to be legally binding. A treaty or MOU is legally binding, which means that a party to the agreement may compel the other party to comply with its terms in case of a breach, including a possible recourse to a third-party compliance mechanism. An MOU, on the other hand, is not legally binding, and the parties intend to carry out its terms on a best-effort basis. Nevertheless, both must be carried out in good faith. We look forward to the future work of the Special Rapporteur, which would address the substantive issue concerning the possible legal implications under international law of non-legally binding international instruments. On prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, we thank Special Rapporteur Luis Savadogo for his work on the topic as described in his note. The Philippines welcomes the Commission's continuing work on the prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea and thanks the Special Rapporteur for his work. The Philippines notes the Commission's recognition of both the persistent maritime threats and the need to bridge legal gaps between piracy, as defined under the UNCLOS, and the broader problem of armed robbery at sea within territorial and archipelagic waters. For the Philippines, these issues are not abstract but directly linked to national, regional, and global maritime security. The Philippines also notes with interest the rapporteur's discussion of armed security personnel aboard merchant ships, the use of force at sea, and the need to respect human rights and due process in enforcement operations. These are key to ensuring that anti-piracy measures remain consistent with international law, particularly the principles of sovereignty, the freedom of navigation that are central to Philippine maritime interests. In conclusion, the Philippines views this initiative as a valuable contribution to clarifying states' obligations and enhancing cooperation mechanisms. The country stands ready to participate actively in the ongoing deliberations with the goal of achieving a balanced framework that both protects maritime commerce and upholds the rights and responsibilities of coastal and archipelagic states in ensuring safe and secure seas. Madam Chair, the Philippines reiterates its appreciation to the Commission and the Special Rapporteurs for their valuable contributions. We look forward to continued engagement in this committee's consideration and the Commission's future work. We intend to revisit the views raised today as appropriate when we again consider these topics in the subsequent sessions. Thank you, Madam Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [1:37:32]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the Philippines for that statement. I now give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Indonesia, you have the floor.


Indonesia [1:37:42]:

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Allow me to start with the topic of immunity of states' officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. We thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Claudio Grossman-Guiloff, for his report. This topic strikes at the heart of a delicate balance between sovereignty, equality of states, and accountability under international law. Indonesia approaches it in light of our new criminal code, Law No. 1 of 2023, which strengthens accountability for all individuals, including state officials. We wish to share 2 pertinent observations. First, Indonesia reaffirms that heads of state, heads of government, and ministers for foreign affairs enjoy immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction during their tenure for both official and private acts. This immunity, however, is linked to office and ceases once the official leaves that position. Second, immunity does not mean impunity. Immunity regulates jurisdiction, not shields wrongdoing. Any restriction must rest on sufficient, representative, and consistent state practice and opinio juris. Attempts to override immunity without a clear legal basis risk politicizing justice and erode sovereign equality. Indonesia therefore prefers that the Commission pursue codification than the creation of new or progressive rules. Having said that, the draft articles adopted on first reading need further refinement. On draft Article 7, Indonesia remains unconvinced that exceptions for so-called crimes under international law reflect existing customary law. Listing such exceptions risks distorting the legal balance. On draft Article 18, Indonesia cannot support any wording that would circumvent state consent in judicial settlement, including before the International Court of Justice. Recent trends show that consent remains the cornerstone of international adjudication. Let me now turn to the second topic, namely settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties. Indonesia commends the Special Rapporteur, Mr. August Reinisch, and the Secretariat for their valuable work. As both a member and host to many international and regional organizations, Indonesia attaches great importance to this discussion. Allow me now to share our views as follows. First, we support the broad scope covering disputes involving states, other organizations, and private persons. Yet disputes with private parties must follow proportionate procedures suited to each organization and type of dispute. A one-size-fits-all approach could create unrealistic obligations or burdens. Guidelines should also recognize the position of foreign residents who may fall outside both domestic and institutional jurisdictions. Second, Indonesia supports all peaceful means of settlement. Negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, and judicial settlement. However, this should operate sequentially. Simply put, dialogue before litigation. Third, on jurisdictional immunity, Indonesia upholds that immunity is functional, not absolute. It should protect acts necessary for official duties, but not block access to justice. Where immunity applies, alternative remedies such as internal justice systems must ensure accountability. Host country agreements should reflect this delicate balance. Fourth, access to justice and due process are the foundation of legitimacy. Procedures must be transparent, impartial, and accessible to all affected persons, including non-nationals and contractors. Standards such as independence of adjudicators should be elaborated in the commentaries to promote consistency across institutions. Finally, Indonesia welcomes the Commission's choice of non-binding guidelines, Allowing flexibility for diverse organizational frameworks, including practical examples from arbitral or host country practices, will make them more useful. For Indonesia, immunity and accountability are not opposites; they are partners in legitimacy. Now let me turn to the last topic, namely prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. We thank Special Rapporteur Mr. Luis Savadogo for his preliminary note. For Indonesia, this topic is. Vital, and we welcome the framework as a sound basis for further deliberation. We wish to share 3 observations. First, UNCLOS must remain our compass. Articles 100 to 107 of UNCLOS provide the clear legal foundation against piracy. Although the Convention does not define armed robbery at sea, its principles should guide the development of complementary norms at national and regional levels. Second, unilateral measures must be approached with care. Some states have adopted national regulations allowing armed guards aboard merchant vessels. While security concerns are legitimate, uncoordinated actions risk legal inconsistency. We must ensure coherence, cooperation, and caution. Third, international cooperation anchors maritime security. Indonesia's new Penal Code criminalizes piracy and armed robbery, consistent with UNCLOS. We continue to strengthen regional frameworks, information sharing, and capacity building. After all, security at sea is a shared responsibility. Indonesia stands ready to work with all states and partners to strengthen cooperation, advance international norms, and ensure that our oceans remain safe, secure, and governed by the rule of law. Thank you, Madam Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [1:42:49]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Indonesia for that statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished Representative of Switzerland, you have the floor.


Switzerland [1:43:06]:

Madame la Présidente, Madame Chair, Switzerland would like to thank the International Law Commission, the ILC, at the work it undertook at its 76th session. We're grateful for the report as well. Switzerland recognizes the considerable challenges the ILC faces because it was compelled to shorten its 2025 session owing to budgetary constraints. We understand that this acted as a brake on the ILC's work. Therefore, we'd like to reiterate our unswerving support to the ILC. We would like to highlight just how important the ILC's mandate is, especially at a time when the internet international law is confronted with unprecedented challenges. Switzerland calls on all states to express their full support for the ILC, including through substantive and active commitment, as well as by guaranteeing the necessary financial resources for the Commission's work. We are counting on the ILC to effectively and fully perform its functions to carry out— deliver on its mandate. We need to conduct efficient and economically responsible meetings. Switzerland remains convinced that thanks to the collective commitment of member states, the ILC will be in a position to make headway on its work and therefore strengthen international law. Madam Chair, Switzerland commends the work under— being undertaken by the ILC regarding Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction. We'd like to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Claudio Grossman-Gulof, for his work. We note that the ILC made work— made headway on its consideration of the draft articles, but it had to postpone consideration of draft Articles 7, 8, and 9 to next year's session, the 77th session. Generally speaking, The need to strike the right balance between the principle of the sovereign equality of states and also the need to combat impunity was duly taken into consideration, something that Switzerland welcomes. Stable and predictable interstate relations, as well as the independence of officials acting on behalf of their government, are vital for the international legal order. It is equally important that we guarantee accountability for the most serious international crimes, regardless of the rank or the function of the official involved. Switzerland hails the Special Rapporteur's proposal to broaden the list of crimes covered by draft Article 7 for which immunity ratione materiae does not apply, especially The inclusion of the crime of aggression. Switzerland appreciates the Special Rapporteur's recommendation regarding draft Article 8. That is, the commentary clarifies the application of procedural safeguards throughout all stages of the procedure with a view to ensuring respect for the rule of law and so as to avoid any arbitrary proceedings. We share the opinion that dividing draft Article 8 into 2 separate paragraphs will improve the clarity of that particular provision. We've taken good note of the discussions on draft Article— Articles 9 to 18, and we wait with a keen interest for the ILC to continue its consideration of this important issue. In light of the global developments, So far, this topic is timely, relevant, and of paramount importance. We believe that the ILC's work in this sphere can make a priceless contribution to strengthening the international legal framework. For that reason, there is a pressing need for the draft articles to be adopted as a whole. Madam Chair, This brings me to non-legally binding international agreements, the next chapter. Switzerland welcomes the rich nature of this report. We'd like to thank Mr. Matthias Fortu, the Special Rapporteur on this topic. Thank you for your high-caliber report. Generally speaking, the preliminary conclusions do reflect practice. Draft number 1 offers an excellent introduction. In our view, it's vital for the aim of this work to not be prescriptive but rather indicative. This would help us to maintain the flexibility that's necessary in practice. As for draft conclusion 2, Switzerland reiterates its reservations regarding the use of the term agreement. This term is generally absent from case law, doctrine, and practice, both in the titles and in the body of all non-legally binding agreements. We believe that the word instrument— the term instrument would be more appropriate and easier to determine the limits of. As for the term understanding, which evokes the idea of a meeting of intent would be a good alternative. Draft Conclusion 2 can therefore be either deleted or simplified. In a similar vein and in keeping with the majority practice, we believe that the signatories to such an instrument should not be termed parties. They should not be called parties as per treaties, but rather Participants, governments, or signatories, simply put. Draft conclusion number 3 lays an excellent foundation. However, further precision and analysis might be required as regards interstate actors. What is their capacity to act at the international level? To what extent do they Are they related to the state? Inter alia, restrictions proposed at the international level seem both justified and necessary. Turning to draft conclusion 4, now we don't have any specific comments on that, which brings me to draft conclusion 5. Switzerland would like to expressly welcome the approach adopted with a view to distinguishing between legally binding and non-legally binding international agreements. This has been done not just on the basis of practice and doctrine, but also convincing developments in the jurisprudence of the ICJ. Draft Conclusion 6 states that explicit mention of the legal nature of a text in the text helps to determine the intent of the signatories. Switzerland nonetheless believes that, as para 120 of the report states, this is not sufficient. The express notion of nature is in principle decisive. Nonetheless, we should avoid it being contradicted, for instance, by the rest of the text, which might be too broad in its formulation. Having said that, we fully support the work done so far on non-legally binding international agreements. We await with a keen interest follow-up work on this topic. We will humbly contribute to this endeavor by submitting to the ILC updated developments in our practice, especially on the issues I mentioned earlier. Madam Chair, Switzerland welcomes the work undertaken by the ILC and very much looks forward to future cooperation on these relevant topics.

I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [1:51:13]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Switzerland for that statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Belarus. You have the floor.


Belarus [1:51:29]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. My full statement has been submitted. Belarus supports the ILC continuing work on the articles on the immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Having said that, we share disquiet about the fact that as things stand, these draft articles do not reflect existing customary international law. Rather, they are trying to determine Rules which limit the sphere in which immunities apply and are also promoting the use of mechanisms of extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction. The way we view it, incorporation into the draft articles delegiferenda provisions can have a negative effect on cooperation between states. Draft Article 7 introduces exceptions to immunities— immunity res unimaterie.

Yes.

If they are accused of committing international crimes from the list, but this does not reflect customary international law. Now, limiting the category of high-ranking officials to which immunity re tribune personae applies is undesirable in our view. Belarus has unswervingly held that personal immunities are enjoyed by a wider range of high-ranking Officials. This is something that's reflected in our treaty practice with states, states who seek more robust legal standards for protecting their officials. Therefore, we believe that the draft articles should not be too categorical as regards the list of persons who do enjoy personal immunity, not limiting these to just the big 3. We're concerned by the broad use in the draft articles of direct and indirect references to the Rome Statute of the ICC and other international agreements which have not been generally recognized. Basing any important provisions of the draft articles on the approaches and the practice of the ICC casts doubt on all of the work undertaken by the ILC. This in fact predetermines the fact that it will be unacceptable for a large group of states. We believe the draft articles, as things stand, cannot be used as the basis for an international convention. They can, however, be further studied by states. Turning now to subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, Belarus supports the majority of the draft conclusions. Having said that, we reassert our position, that is, the list of means mentioned in draft conclusion 2, Paris, C should be specified in the text itself, including by adding by way of illustration state declarations, decisions by international organizations, opinions of public and scientific organizations working on international law, individual opinions of courts serving in international courts and arbitral tribunals if they meet the criteria. Listed in draft conclusion number 3. We support the overall assertion in draft conclusion 7 regarding the fact that decisions of international courts and tribunals are not— do not constitute international legally binding precedents. Although some courts' decisions, first and foremost of the ICJ, are authoritative, we cannot rule out the fact that legal precedents cannot necessarily be applicable to a specific case. They could also contain erroneous or ambiguous interpretations of the rules of law. As regards sector-specific rules of international law, greater weight should be placed on the practice of specialized international courts and arbitral tribunals. The decisions of domestic courts is one of the sources of rules of international law, well, we should tread here with caution. As for doctrine, that is the commentary and draft conclusion number 5, according to which we need to act carefully because doctrine sometimes reflects not simply trying to determine lex lata but also to create the conditions for lex ferenda, especially in situations where scientific works are trying to resolve academic disputes, not to determine what the existing rules of international law are. We must tread carefully, as was said earlier. We believe that they could be other sources of doctrine used as subsidiary means. We welcome the work of the ILC on the settlement of disputes to which international organizations are Regarding the emphasis placed by the 3rd report, that is, by the Special Rapporteur, on disputes between international organizations and private parties, we believe this is a good approach because such cases constitute the bulk of practice. As for the methodology of this topic, we believe it's advisable to focus on civil cases, administrative disputes regarding the international civil service, that is, cases pitting international organizations and their personnel are somewhat different in terms of their legal characteristics and could be excluded from the ILC study. We believe it would be worthwhile for the ILC to draft recommendations about the internal mechanisms that could be used and would be acceptable to use when settling disputes with the involvement of private parties. When can such a mechanisms be used. We should emphasize the use of extrajudicial mechanisms for settling disputes, for instance, reconciliation and mediation. This refers to disputes with third parties. Turning now to non-legally binding international agreements, we support the Special Rapporteur's proposal regarding the fact that the outcome of this work should be draft conclusions, which could be a useful practical instrument for states when determining which agreements are non-legally binding international agreements. We support the approach according to which issues of terminology need to be resolved before we pinpoint the scope because the use and the definition of terms to some extent dictates the scope of the work at hand. We share other delegations' concern regarding the use of international agreements here. The term agreement is generally associated with international treaties. As for the term instrument, well, this also does not fully reflect the topic at hand. In the Russian language, this term instrument most frequently refers to procedural issues. For instance, an instrument of ratification. Furthermore, instruments sometimes refer to reservations— reservations to state declarations. Another term, document, is simply too broad. In light of the above, we believe that the Governo Unesti in Russian, that is understandings, is perhaps more appropriate, user-friendly, and concise. Therefore, we call on the Special Rapporteur to use his time to work on the terminology for the draft conclusions. We hope that this work will continue in a constructive fashion. By way of conclusion, we would like to note that as regards the succession of states in respect of state responsibility, we believe The current limited international experience attests to the limited practice, refers to the fact that the issue of the succession of states is resolved in each specific situation by way of political decisions. There is no uniformity here. Therefore, Belarus would like to reiterate its position regarding the fact that it is not desirable at this stage to craft any guidelines, any principles, or any other documents We believe that work on this specific topic, succession of states, should cease.

I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [2:00:01]:

Thank the distinguished representative of Belarus for her statement. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Nigeria.


Nigeria [2:00:14]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for giving Nigeria the floor. At the outset, Nigeria expresses its sincere appreciation to the International Law Commission for their diligent and scholarly work at its 76th session. We particularly commend the profound efforts of the Special Rapporteur on the topic of immunity of state officials from foreign jurisdiction. This work addresses one of the most complex and critical areas of modern international law. The progress towards finalizing draft articles on this important topic represents another significant contribution to the progressive development and codification of international law, and we commend the Commission for its useful consideration of the diverse views and interests of states. Mr. Chair, Nigeria's approach to this important topic seeks to balance 2 fundamental imperatives of contemporary international legal order. On the one hand, we recognize the paramount importance of combating impunity and ensuring accountability for most serious crimes of international concern. On the other hand, we equally acknowledge the continued relevance of the doctrine of immunity as a cornerstone of stable and predictable international relations necessary for the proper functioning of sovereign states and the conduct of international affairs. Nigeria believes that these principles, though seemingly in tension, are not irreconcilable. Rather, a careful, calibrated approach can advance accountability for certain grave offenses while preserving the essential protections that immunity affords to facilitate interstate relations and prevent politically motivated prosecutions. It is within this framework that Nigeria expresses its explicit support for Article 7 of the draft articles, which addresses exceptions to immunity ratione materiae. We view this provision as a critical mechanism for ensuring that immunity does not become a shield for the most heinous crimes that shock the conscience of humanity. The crimes enumerated in Article 7 represent offenses of such gravity that they transcend the official functions of any state and warrant the application of universal concern. Mr. Chair, while Nigeria supports the current formulation of Article 7, we believe there is merit in expanding the list of crimes included as exceptions to immunity ratione materiae. The international community faces evolving threats that undermine the rule of law, destabilize societies, and inflict profound harm on populations. In this regard, Nigeria proposes the addition of 3 categories of offenses to the list of exceptions contained in Article 7. First, we propose inclusion of grand corruption. Systemic and large-scale corruption by state officials not only depletes national resources desperately needed for development, but also perpetuates poverty, undermines democratic institutions, and creates devastating consequences that warrant recognition. We believe that corruption has a transnational dimension, and its devastating consequences warrant its recognition as an offense for which immunity should not apply. There are several legal instruments dealing with corruption, including the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, and the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. Corruption enables illicit financial flows, creates poverty, maternal mortality, low life expectancy, and other vices. The nature and impact of grand corruption on our societies are profound enough to merit inclusion in the exceptions considered under Article 7. Second, Mr. Chair, Nigeria proposes the addition of terrorism. Acts of terrorism represent a grave threat to international peace and security, inflicting indiscriminate suffering on innocent populations and destabilizing entire regions. No state official should be permitted to invoke immunity for acts that constitute or support terrorism, particularly given the comprehensive international legal framework condemning such acts. Third, we propose inclusion of drug offenses of a serious nature. The illicit production, trafficking, and distribution of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances constitute a global scourge that fuels organized crime, violence, and social disintegration. When state officials are complicit in or facilitate such activities, they betray their responsibilities and should be held accountable without recourse to immunity. As a guide and reference on this point, the ILC may consider the 3 main drug control conventions, namely the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988. These treaties create a framework for combating illicit trafficking, laundering, and other drug-related crimes. Mr. Chair, Nigeria reiterates its firm commitment to fighting impunity in all its forms. We believe that accountability for serious crimes must be pursued vigorously and systematically, both at the domestic level through national judicial systems and through appropriate international mechanisms established in accordance with international law. Robust domestic institutions remain the primary venue for accountability, and Nigeria continues to strengthen its own legal and judicial frameworks to ensure that those who commit serious crimes, regardless of their official capacity, face justice. At the same time, Nigeria recognizes the legitimate concerns regarding the potential abuse of the exceptions to immunity. We therefore affirm our strong support for the draft articles that establish appropriate safeguards and procedural protection against politically motivated prosecutions and unwarranted exercise of jurisdiction. These safeguards are essential to ensure that the laudable objective of accountability does not become a pretext for interference in the internal affairs of states, or the disruption of international relations. A balanced approach that incorporates robust procedural safeguards will enhance the legitimacy and acceptance of any legal framework on this important topic. In conclusion, Mr. Chair, Nigeria stands ready to engage constructively with other delegations to refine the draft— to refine the draft articles in a manner that advances both accountability And the stability of international relations. We believe that inclusion of grand corruption, terrorism, and serious drug offenses as exceptions to immunity rationale materiae under Article 7 would strengthen the normative framework and reflect contemporary challenges facing the international community. And for want of time, our views on other aspects of the report in Cluster 2 will be submitted to the Secretariat. I thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [2:07:22]:

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


Thailand [2:07:33]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. For Cluster 2, Thailand wishes to share its reflections on the report as follows. Let me begin with Chapter 5, Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction. Thailand would like to extend its sincere appreciation to Special Rapporteur Mr. Claudio Gilov for his analysis on this topic. Thailand underscores the importance of striking balance between immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction derived from the principle of sovereign equality of states and the imperative of ending impunity. First, Thailand recognizes the divergent views expressed in the discussion concerning crimes that immunité rationnelle, matérielle shall not apply under draft Article 7. Thailand is of the view that if a list of crimes is to be included, it should be formulated in a non-exhaustive list so as to ensure legal clarity while allowing space for further legal development. Second, on draft Articles 8 and 9, Thailand supports the inclusion of procedural safeguards. Thailand is of the view that prior determination by a competent tribunal or organ that the state official concerned has committed the relevant crimes, in particular crime of aggression, may be essential to ensure a balance between the sovereign equality of states and the maintenance of peaceful relations among them on the one hand and the aim of ending impunity on the other while minimizing the risk of political Turning to Chapter 7, Subsidiary Means for the Determination of Rules of International Law, Thailand appreciates Mr. Charles Jalloh, Special Rapporteur, for this report. On the issue of expert bodies, Thailand is of the view that distinguishing between the proposed category of works of expert bodies and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists may not add significant practical value. Expert bodies are often composed of individuals serving in their personal capacity, and many of whom may themselves be regarded as highly qualified publicists. Consequently, their publications may in practice be considered similar in nature to teachings within the meaning of Article 38 of the ICJ Statute. Regarding resolutions and other texts adopted by international organizations or intergovernmental conferences, Thailand notes that as they are often the outcome of political negotiation, bargaining, and compromise, compromise, they may not always reflect the objective legal reasoning expected of subsidiary means. Rather, such texts may be more appropriately regarded as evidence of state practice in the formation of customary international law. With respect to Chapter 8, Settlement of Disputes to Which International Organizations Are Parties, Thailand wishes to express its sincere appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. August Reinisch, for the progress made. Thailand observes that In fact, many disputes involving international organizations arise from private relationships governed by contract, procurement, or employment law. Accordingly, the categorization of disputes should take into account not only the identity or type of parties involved but also the legal basis of dispute. Thailand would welcome further elaboration on disputes of private law nature In the next report. With respect to draft guidelines 9 and 10, Thailand acknowledged the needs to carefully strike a balance between the jurisdictional immunity of international organizations and the right of access to justice. Regarding draft guideline 11, Thailand considers that, in addition to human rights, attention should also be given to labor standards and other protections afforded to private parties in contractual contexts. Mr. Chair, on Chapter 9, Non-Legally Binding International Agreements, Thailand wishes to thank Mr. Matthias Focke, Special Rapporteur, for his dedication to this important topic. Thailand considers that the Commission's work on non-legally binding international agreements should remain packed practically oriented. States and other parties often conclude such instruments precisely because of their flexibility, which allows for varying degrees of commitment. The current definition of term non-legally binding international agreement is a useful working basis, provided that it remains without prejudice to the terminology used by individual states and the interpretations of treaty bodies. Thailand also welcomes the discussion on the meaning of the term agreement with reference to the case before the International Court of Justice concerning land and maritime delimitation and sovereignty over islands, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea. Thailand supports continued analysis of the legal implications arising from non-legally binding international agreements in the next report.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Turning to Chapter 10, Prevention and Repression of Piracy and Armed Robbery at Sea, Thailand wishes to express our appreciation to Mr. Luis Savadogo, Special Rapporteur, and takes note with appreciation of the working group. We believe it would be useful to include the aspects of humanitarian assistance and the protection of human rights of victims stranded or affected by piracy and armed robbery at sea. Thank you. Including cases where victims are held hostage for ransom. Furthermore, greater clarity on strengthening international cooperation mechanisms for safe return, reintegration, and access to compensation could be further elaborated at the next session. Lastly, turning to Chapter 11, Succession of States in Respect to State Responsibility, Thailand wishes to thank Mr. Bimal Patel, Chair of the Working Group on this topic. We acknowledge the work of the Commission and concur that current state practice and opinio juris are not sufficiently clear to crystallize customary international law on this matter at this stage. In this regard, Thailand looks forward to the outcomes that reflects contemporary developments in international law limitations and the challenges that may arise. Mr. Chair, Thailand fully supports the work of the Commission and reaffirms our commitment to engage constructively in its future endeavors. I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [2:14:42]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Thailand for his statement. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of China.


China [2:14:56]:

Thank you, Chair. China notes with concern that due to the liquidity crisis, this year's session of the International Law Commission has been shortened from 12 weeks to 5, which has affected the Commission's ability to perform its functions effectively. China calls for adequate resources to be secured for the Commission to assure it of sufficient meeting hours to achieve its intended work objectives. At the same time, the Commission should continue to optimize working methods and improve efficiency. With regard to Cluster 2 of the report and work of the ILC at its 76th session, China wishes to share the following observations. Topic 1, immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. China thanks Professor Grossman and his predecessors for their work on this topic. Recent chairs, China has, We have on numerous occasions expressed concern over some draft articles. Building upon our previous comments, we wish to emphasize the following points. First, the draft articles must properly balance the principle of sovereign equality with the goal of eliminating impunity. The issue of immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction pertains to the political dignity and personal safety of state officials, as well as the stability of international relations. Given its highly sensitive nature, it is not appropriate to divide new laws in the absence of consensus, particularly regarding such key provisions as exception to immunity ratione materiae. In assessing state practice and the opinion of juries, the Commission should fully consider state practice across different regions, avoiding the one-sided selection for reference purposes of the practice of certain regions or select few international criminal justice institutions. It should take into account the practice of states that do not recognize exceptions to immunity ratione materiae and distinguish whether the legal basis for such exceptions lies in international treaties or customary international law. China is of the view that in light of the existing state practice and opinion of jurists, there is not yet customary international law pertaining— providing exceptions to immunity rights on immateriality for specific crimes. Many countries have repeated similar concerns in the Sixth Committee, which we hope the Commission will fully take on board in addressing prudently the question at hand. Second, the scope of persons entitled to immunity rationale personnelle should not continue to be limited to the traditional trio of head of state, head of government, and minister of foreign affairs. By restricting immunity rationnelle personnelle to those 3 top officials, draft Article 3 may overlook the diversity of national political systems. Other senior officials may, by virtue of their representative functions or their elevated status, also be entitled to immunity rationnelle personnelle. China hopes that the Commission will take into full account the practical needs of international interactions and leave room for potential expansion of the category of persons entitled to immunity, whether in the current draft articles or in the commentaries. Third, procedural safeguards play an indispensable role as a pillar in upholding the sovereignty of state, of the official, and in preventing politically motivated abuse of prosecutions. As it stands, the text of existing provisions on the safeguard still leaves considerable room for improvement, including inter alia an expected recognition through appropriate means of the primary jurisdiction of national courts of the officials on state. Going forward, China hopes the Commission will refrain from hastily completing the second reading next year, but instead resolve the existing differences prudently on the basis of fully responding to views and recommendations expressed by states over the years. This includes carefully considering whether it is indeed necessary for outcomes of work to assume the format of draft articles so as to ensure broad acceptance. Topic 2, subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, that is Chapter 7. The study of this topic helps to clarify the relevant provisions of Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice and therefore of critical relevance. China congratulates the Commission on completing the first reading of the 13 draft conclusions and expects the Commission to continue its work with prudence and rigor in drafting and review of the commentaries and inquiry of the territorial follow-up work. Regarding draft conclusion 7 on the weight of decisions of courts and arbitrators, China generally agrees that the criteria for determining the weight of such decisions should include whether the judicial body has acted within its jurisdiction, the consistency of its decisions, and the soundness of legal reasoning. As the International Court of Justice noted in the Barcelona Shipyards case of 1970, decisions of international courts or arbitral tribunals should not be applied in China's without regard to the political circumstances of each case. China believes that in assessing the weight of decisions of courts and tribunals, the same criteria should be applied. A thorough examination should be carried out to ascertain whether a given decision has been widely recognized by international, regional, and regional civilizational legal systems, whether it represents a typical example of legal reasoning and argumentation in similar cases, and whether it demonstrates continuity, stability, and consistency. Doing so will also help improve— avoid improper citation or drawing generalized conclusions from Thank you. Regarding draft Article Conclusion 9, expert bodies, China believes that the definition and scope of expert bodies in this provision require further clarifications as to whether the outputs of such bodies should be categorized as teachings or as a distinct class of other subsidiary means. A case-by-study analysis is in order. For instance, human rights treaty bodies have mandates and working methods of special nature. Their decisions and concluding observations under individual communications do not constitute authoritative interpretations of real legislative provisions. The nature of such octopus should therefore be approached with caution. Regarding draft conclusions 12 and 13, China believes that the— China holds that certain resolutions of international organizations may serve as a subsidiary means for determination of rules of international law. For example, in its 2019 advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the separation of Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, the International Court of Justice treated General Assembly Resolution 1514 as subsidiary means for determining the rule of customary law pertaining to the right to self-determination. In addition, Security Council resolutions may in some cases constitute source of international law, while resolutions of other international organization may serve as evidence in the identification of international custom, international law. China hopes that in their commentary to these draft resolutions, the Commission will further elaborate on the different functions of such resolutions and specify the specific factors to be considered when assessing their weight at subsequent meetings. Topic 3, settlement of debt disputes to which international organizations are parties. China thanks Professor Rainisch, the Special Rapporteur, for submitting his report as well as the Secretary-General The Secretariat for preparing the memorandum. These materials have laid a useful foundation for further discussions amongst states. China wishes to express following views on the third report. With regard to draft guidelines eight, resort to means of dispute settlement, China agrees in principle with the provision that disputes should be settled in good faith and in a spirit of cooperation, and that means employed should be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the. Dispute. China further considers that the choice of dispute settlement methods must fully respect the mutual consent of parties concerned and should not be biased towards the preference of one single side. With regard to draft guideline 9, jurisdictional immunity of international organizations, China notes that in practice such immunity is primarily determined through treaties concluded between international organizations and host states, and that no uniform standards exists. Therefore, China believes that these guidelines should lay down general principles only without delving excessively into detail so as not to stray from the overall focus of the topic. Regarding draft guideline 10, access to justice, China notes that, as mentioned by the Special Rapporteur in earlier reports, many international organizations indicated in their questionnaire responses that when dealing with international disputes, and/or disputes of private law nature, negotiation and consultation remain the most commonly used means of settlement. Compared with arbitration or litigation, negotiation and consultation are often less time-consuming, less costly, and more efficient. China believes that when formulating recommendations, the draft guideline should emphasize that choice of a dispute settlement method must take into account the circumstances and nature of the dispute and fully respect the autonomy and mutual consent of the parties to choose at liberty the most appropriate means of settlement. Arbitration and judicial proceedings should not be designated as the preferred means for resolving disputes between international organizations and private parties. Regarding draft guideline 11, Dispute Settlement and Procedure Rule of Law, as well as human rights requirements, China agrees in principle with the emphasis that means of dispute settlement should comply with requirements of due process, independence, impartiality, and other elements of procedural of law as well as with human rights requirements. At the same time, China hopes that the Special Rapporteur will further clarify the specific scope and meaning of the term human rights requirements in this context. Topic 4, non-legally binding international agreements. China welcomes the submission of the second report by Professor Fontour, the Special Rapporteur. China believes that The determination of whether an international instrument is non-legally binding depends primarily on the intention of the parties and that whether the parties at the time of concluding the instrument intended not to create rights and obligations of a legally binding nature. China also wishes to emphasize that unlike agreements or contracts concluded between states on the basis of domestic law, non-legally binding international instruments, albeit political in nature and constituting political commitments and understanding, should nonetheless be concluded in accordance with international law and respect the fundamental principles of international law, such as principles of good faith, state sovereignty, peaceful settlement of disputes, self-determination of peoples, and non-interference in internal affairs. As to the form of the outcome of the talk, many states have expressed the view that the final outcome should not assume a normative character. China supports this position and believes that the outcome of the study would do well to take form of non-binding draft guidelines. China also notes that the Special Rapporteur's report repeatedly cites the highly contentious South China Sea Arbitration Award. China views such with profound concern. China believes that the award in question is illegal, null, and void. Invoking this erroneous award not only fails to bolster legal justifications, but on the contrary gives rise to greater controversy. China recommends that the Special Rapporteur delete all related references. Topic 5, prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. Piracy and armed robbery at sea represent security risks faced by the international community as a whole. China supports the Commission in continuing its in-depth study of the topic, China believes that draft articles should conform to the rules of international law, including UNCLOS. The draft should not prejudice the principle of freedom of the high seas established under the Convention. It should ensure the universal jurisdiction of all states over such crimes and exclusive jurisdiction of flag states, and it should not undermine the sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction of coastal states. It is important to preserve the complete balance Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.


Speaker 39 [2:26:12]:

The Commission is pleased to report that the Commission has adopted the conclusions of the 76th session of the Commission on the Status of Persons in Step-by-Step Conditions.


China [2:26:13]:

Topic 6, Succession States in Respect of State Responsibility. At the present session, the Commission decided to establish a working group to draft the endgame report on the topic to be considered at the 76th-77th session of next year with a view to bringing to an end the relevant work on the topic. China considers this decision pragmatic given the dearth of practice and lack of universality coupled with difficulty in ascertaining the opinion of jurisprudence. of various states, it is indeed difficult for the Commission to continue its substantive consideration of this topic. I thank you, Mr.

Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [2:26:45]:

I thank the distinguished representative of China for his statement. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Romania.


Romania [2:26:56]:

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

It is my pleasure to take the floor to present Romania's position on the 2nd cluster of chapters from the report of the International Law Commission. On Chapter 5, we would like to express our appreciation for the work of the Commission on the topic of immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, and for the second report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Claudio Grossmann-Gilov, which had to accommodate a significant number of comments and observations submitted by governments. My delegation would make a few remarks with respect to draft Article 7 and some general remarks related to Part 4 of the draft articles. Articles, as provisionally adopted by the Drafting Committee. In what concerns the list of crimes under international law featured in the first paragraph of draft Article 7, there are 3 aspects that we would like to address. First, we noted the decision to maintain the approach of listing crimes for which immunity ratione materie does not apply, instead of providing general criteria for understanding which conduct can lead to the removal of immunity. While we do not oppose the approach, we must must stress that the resulting list cannot be exhaustive, as it would bear the risk of undermining the further development of international law. Second, with regard to the suggestion expressed by several states of exclusively using general criteria instead of a list of crimes, we believe that such an approach could lead to a lack of legal certainty in criminal matters and potentially fragmented approaches depending on the interpretation of the general criteria. Thus, we agree that the clarification should be brought in the commentary by referring to a non-exhaustive list and relevant selection criteria. It is also worth noting that all the crimes enumerated in draft Article 7 are covered by treaties in which the parties have, by their consent, accepted an implied waiver of immunities in respect of those specific crimes. Third, we very much salute the decision of the ILC to include the crime of aggression in the list. Aggression is a crime under international law for which international criminal responsibility has been clearly established, and which is typically committed by persons in an official capacity. Perpetrators of such a heinous act should not be able to escape responsibility due to political considerations. The addition of slavery and slave trade to the list of crimes in draft Article 7 can also be beneficial. These are arguably some of the oldest international crimes consecrated in treaties, and impunity for such crimes should not be allowed to persist today. While we generally support the Commission's work on Part 4 of the draft articles and acknowledge the constructive approach adopted by the Special Rapporteur, we must note several aspects that remain contentious or require further clarification. In particular, we are concerned by the ambiguity introduced by the reformulated draft Article 8, which leaves uncertain the precise scope of application of Part 4 and the point at which the procedural safeguards become operative. Further clarification Clarification is also required regarding the legal and practical implications of the invocation of immunity under draft Article 11, specifically whether such invocation entails procedural obligations for the forum state and how its timing may affect ongoing proceedings. Similarly, questions persist as to the consequences and potential limits of waiver under draft Article 12, including the treatment of partial waivers and the exceptional circumstances under which a waiver may be deemed invalid. We also consider that additional precision is necessary in the commentary to delineate the distinctions between immunity and invalidity under draft Article 14. While Romania appreciates the pragmatic and flexible orientation of Part 4, we remain concerned that the absence of sufficient definitional clarity may give rise to divergent interpretations in domestic practice, thereby undermining the coherence, predictability, and legal certainty that the draft Articles seek to promote. With regard to Chapter 7, the subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, Romania would like to thank Special Rapporteur Charles Cernogialo for his 3rd report and for his comprehensive study of the matters that form the substance of this report. We also commend the work of the Commission for such an informative discussion on the topic, as proven by the relevant chapter in the ILC report. We are satisfied with the general direction of the discussion aimed at clarifying various aspects of the subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law. We also salute the fact that the analysis is not limited to decisions of courts and tribunals and to teachings, but also looks into other possible means which could assist in determining the rules of international law. I will further focus my comments on draft conclusions 9 to 13 as contained in the Third Report. In what regards draft conclusions 9 and 10, we consider that the distinction drawn between them on the basis of the private or public character of persons and expert bodies is difficult to ascertain in practice and may lead to unintended exclusions. In particular, such a distinction could omit from the category of teachings the work of professors and researchers affiliated with public universities who, although public servants, contribute independently and scientifically to the development of international law. It would therefore appear more appropriate to adopt a functional rather than an institutional criterion, focusing on the nature and method of the work rather than the status of its author. Teachings should encompass the work of individuals or expert bodies acting with independence, objectivity, and adherence to the ethics of research, regardless of whether they belong to public or private institutions. Accordingly, further clarification is also required regarding the notion of expert bodies and the conditions under which their work may be regarded as teachings within the meaning of the draft conclusions. As for draft conclusion 11, Romania notes with concern that the characterization of resolutions of international organizations and conferences as subsidiary means is not sufficiently supported by practice or case law. Such resolutions fall primarily within the sphere of lawmaking rather than that of subsidiary means. They may in certain cases constitute evidence of state practice or of opinio juris, thereby contributing to the identification of customary international law. However, their normative content and evidentiary value relate to the process of establishing or confirming custom, not to the subsidiary means used for determining its rules. The case law of the International Court of Justice, including the advisory opinions on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons in 1996 and on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius from 2019, illustrates that resolutions are referred to as evidence of existing law or practice rather than as subsidiary means in the sense of Article 38, paragraph 1 of the Statute of the Court. Accordingly, Romania Romania considers that draft Conclusion 11 should be reconsidered or substantially revised to avoid conflating the evidentiary role of resolutions in the formation of custom with a distinct category of subsidiary means. Only documents produced independently by expert bodies within international organizations, such as analytical reports or studies, could appropriately fall within the latter category. In respect of the coherence between the decisions of courts and tribunals, Romania considers that This is a very important point. We believe that this matter falls outside the scope of the topic. As such, we urge the Commission not to retain draft conclusion 12. The same should be considered in relation to draft conclusion 13. The relationship between subsidiary means and supplementary means of interpretation is also outside the scope of this topic and should not be included as a draft conclusion. However, an analysis of this relationship would be welcome in the commentary to draft conclusion 6, paragraph 2. On Chapter 8, Romania would like to thank Special Rapporteur August Reinisch for yet another thorough report dedicated to the analysis of disputes between international organizations and private parties. We have read with great interest this 3rd report of the Special Rapporteur, which includes a wealth of information on the varied practice of international organizations. As a general remark, we find the proposed 5 new draft guidelines to be reflective of the principles and rules of international law relevant for the settlement of disputes which may arise between international organizations and private persons. Nevertheless, we believe that the draft guidelines might benefit from further refining and completion, in particular in order to better reflect the comprehensive findings in the report. As an example, in the case of Guideline 11, a fuller list of standards for impartiality and independence could be inserted. We look forward to the continuation of the work of the Commission on this important topic, including the further drafting of the guidelines. With regard to Chapter 9, my delegation would like to express its high appreciation to Special Rapporteur Mathias Forteau for another excellent, well-structured report on the subject of non-legally binding international agreements. We regret very much that the Commission did not have the necessary time to properly debate this topic, which is of increasing importance in international relations marked by a proliferation of non-legally binding agreements. agreements. With reference to the substance of the second report, my delegation would like to make a few preliminary remarks. The proposed draft conclusion 1 on the purpose of the topic and the enshrinement of the non-prescriptive approach in the text is welcome. At the same time, we are open to the idea expressed by some members of the Commission to streamline the text of this draft conclusion and to include some of its content in the commentary. As regards draft conclusion 2, we are well aware of the challenges concerning the use of terms and we understand the views expressed by a number of delegations which did not favor the use of the term agreement. However, the Special Rapporteur provided, in our view, very persuasive arguments in paragraph 29 of his second report to continue using the term agreements in the title of the topic. Moreover, we believe that he suggested a very wise approach in retaining this term provisionally at this stage of the work without prejudice to a final decision on this issue once the full set of draft conclusions has been discussed. While being open to hear other views, we believe that any other term that may be proposed as an alternative should not be one that would present new or even greater challenges. On the matter of the scope of the study in Draft Conclusion 3, we support the proposal of the Special Rapporteur to include the agreements concluded by sub-state authorities to the extent that they are adopted at the international level. There is indeed significant practice that deserves clarification. We also believe that the inclusion of a without prejudice clause is useful. Therefore, we are in favor of the proposal of the Special Rapporteur concerning, concerning Draft Conclusion 4. In relation to Draft Conclusion 5, the question of distinguishing between treaties and non-legally binding agreements is essential and has a significant practical value as it determines the effects to be attributed to the agreement. We share the view that such assessments should be carried out on a case-by-case basis cases, and that the intention of the parties is the essential criterion in this process. It is also important to exercise due care in determining the indicators that could evidence that a certain agreement is not an international treaty, so as not to prevent the further development of state practice in the field and ignore the specific wish of states for preserving a certain flexibility when resorting to such instruments. With respect to Draft Conclusion 6, the existence of an express indication we favor the suggestion expressed during the preliminary discussions in the ALC to address this issue in the commentary. In our practice, the determination of the legal nature of a document before being signed is important, as it triggers the procedure for its conclusion. As is the case with many States, the procedure for becoming a party to an international treaty is more cumbersome than one permitting the signing of a non-legally binding agreement. Hence, the procedure itself followed by States for the conclusion of an agreement could be an indication of their intention in what concerns its legal nature. This final observation underscores the importance that we attach to the topic, since in Romania the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has an established competence to determine the legal nature of an agreement intended to be concluded by any central authority with a foreign institution. Hence, we will follow with great interest the substantive discussions within the Commission on this impressive second report and As well as its future work on the topic. I would like to now turn to Chapter 10, referring to the topic of the prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. Romania warmly commends Special Rapporteur Luis Savadogo for his comprehensive note outlining major topics for further work and the International Law Commission for the establishment of a working group of the whole. We appreciate the progress achieved so far despite the limited time available. Romania actively engages in international efforts to strengthen maritime security and combat piracy and supports the further development of the legal framework for the prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. Romania places great importance on the collaborative efforts of the International Law Commission to codify and progressively develop rules addressing piracy and armed robbery at sea. We recognize that piracy due to its transnational nature, requires a harmonized legal response, and we are committed to contributing our expertise and practical insights to ensure that the ILC's work reflects both established international norms and contemporary challenges. Romania supports the drafting of clear, consistent, and implementable legal provisions that can serve as a reference for states in updating their national legislation and in fostering cooperation at the regional and global levels. Regarding piracy, Romania has established a robust internal framework in line with international law. However, practical experience remains limited, for example, in terms of domestic jurisprudence. We therefore fully support initiatives aimed at fostering greater alignment and exchange of legislative and practical approaches among states. Romania notes with interest the Commission's focus on emerging technological challenges, including the use of uncrewed vessels and aircraft in the context of maritime security, as evidenced by the debate on the topic. We consider that further legal clarification in this area is essential. Finally, Romania remains committed to constructive engagement in order to advance an effective and comprehensive legal framework for the prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. On the topic of secession of states, we only reiterate our hope that that, as we have repeatedly stated in relation to this matter, the discussion will be brought to a close and the item removed from the Commission's agenda. With these remarks, I conclude Romania's intervention on Cluster 2 topics. Thank you, Mr.

Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [2:41:11]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Romania for his remarks. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Portugal.


Portugal [2:41:20]:

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Portugal aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union and would like to offer some comments in its national capacity. In the interest of time, I will read an abbreviated version of our statement, and the full statement will be available in the e-delegates portal. Mr. Chair, allow me to begin by addressing the topic immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Portugal wishes to express its appreciation for the work carried out by the Commission and the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Claudio Gilov, on the topic. Notwithstanding the challenges, Portugal recognises the substantive progress achieved this year and takes due note of the constructive exchanges surrounding draft Article 7 on crimes under international law for which immunity ratione materia shall not be applicable. Mr. Chair, we take note of the diverse views expressed by States regarding the inclusion of the of a list of international crimes. While some delegations have favored a criteria-based approach, others, including Portugal, recognize the value of legal certainty that a clearly defined list can provide. Portugal also welcomes the Special Rapporteur's acknowledgment of the contributions made by non-governmental organizations, all of which emphasize the importance of clarifying the non-exhaustive nature of the list. Mr. Chair, as previously stated, Portugal strongly supports the proposal to include the crimes of aggression in the list. This justification for the inclusion— the justification for the inclusion of aggression is convincing. It has long been recognized as one of the gravest violations under international law, described by the Nuremberg Tribunal as the supreme international crime. Similarly, the inclusion of slavery and the slave trade is both appropriate and timely. These crimes have long been condemned by the international community and are subject to well-established treaty regimes aimed at their prevention and punishment. Portugal remains committed to supporting the Commission's effort and looks forward to continued engagement in the development of a balanced and principled framework that upholds both sovereignty and equality of states and the imperative of accountability for serious international crimes. Regarding the topic subsidiary means for the termination of rules of international law, Portugal wishes to express its satisfaction with the work of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Charles Jallow. And although the Commission has not had the opportunity to discuss in detail his report and specifically draft conclusions 9 to 13, there is much for states to consider on this topic. The question of determining the weight of teachings has probably never been more important, and it's more— and it's most welcome. In this context, Portugal would like to emphasize that the quality of the work is what matters most, not the name of the author. Such quality should be assessed based on peer validation, institutional independence and ethical integrity, methodological transparency, and diversity and representativeness. These criteria are especially important since the term teachings also encompasses non-written works such as lectures and audiovisual materials which may not meet any of the above criteria. On this basis, Portugal believes that introduction of a mere renvoi rule to draft conclusion 3 in draft conclusion 9 is not sufficient, and there are specific criteria for teachings that are not encapsulated in draft Conclusion 3. Mr. Chair, regarding the issue of resolutions of international organizations, and as a preliminary observation, Portugal considers that the distinction between mere evidence of a customary rule and the reasoned basis for determining the existence and content of customary rules is difficult to establish. Portugal believes that the question, the question of whether resolutions of international organizations might also serve as subsidiary means of determining rules of international law warrants further study and discussion. Accordingly, Portugal looks forward to analyzing the discussions of the Commission on this topic. Mr. Chair, regarding the topic settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties, Portugal wishes to provide brief observations. First, regarding the question of whether disputes should be distinguished based on the parties' to the dispute rather than the subject matter or the— of the applicable law, Portugal agrees that there is no rule that fits all cases. Second, regarding the question of power imbalances, there is again no rule that fits all cases. Finally, Portugal would like to reserve its observations on the remaining issues until the Commission has had the opportunity to discuss the Special Rapporteur's 3rd report in detail.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Portugal welcomes the ongoing work of the International Law Commission on Legal— Non-Legally Binding International Agreements and commends the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Mathias Fortu, for his comprehensive first report. We share the assessment that this is a subject, subject of pressing practical relevance, one that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and practitioners encounter with increasing frequency. Mr. Chair, Portugal observes that non-legally binding instruments are now an integral part of international practice both bilateral and multilateral. While they do not create obligations under international law, they frequently embody political commitments, generate expectations of compliance, and may even influence subsequent treaty practice or the development of customary international law. Portugal stresses, however, that the use of such instruments must be accompanied by safeguards. In particular, they should respect international human rights standards, avoid undermining democratic oversight, and be made publicly accessible to ensure transparency. Mr. Chair, Portugal believes that the ILC's work should clarify, without being over-prescriptively— prescriptive, the criteria for distinguishing treaties from non-legally binding agreements, as well as the possible consequences of the latter. On Chapter 10, Prevention and Repression of Piracy and Armed Robbery at sea. Portugal congratulates Mr. Luis Savadogo on his appointment as Special Rapporteur— excuse me— and thanks him for structuring the next phase of work on this pressing topic. Portugal aligns itself with the view that Article 101 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea remains the authoritative codification of piracy and reflects customary international law, while armed robbery at sea, its best understood as a substantially similar conduct taking place with the coastal states' maritime zones, within the coastal states' maritime zones. Mr. Chair, prevention and repression are inseparable. Portugal welcomes the Special Rapporteur's intention to map international, regional, and bilateral instruments and highlights the proven value of regional architectures, most notably the Djibouti Code of Conduct and its GEDA amendments, the Yonde Code of Conduct and Architecture of the Gulf of Guinea, and the RECAP in Asia. At the same time, it is worth recalling that practice within and beyond the United Nations Security Council remains highly instructive. Therefore, any draft provisions should therefore reaffirm the duty to cooperate, uphold coastal state consent and sovereign prerogatives, and promote model clauses capable of integration into regional and bilateral frameworks. Mr. Chair, in the Gulf of Guinea, Portugal, Portugal has maintained sustained engagement through the IUNDA architecture and within the framework of the G7++ Friends of the Gulf of Guinea. In the Indian Ocean, we participate actively in security efforts as part of the EU NAVFOR ASPIDS operation where Portuguese officials have also assumed command responsibilities. Domestically, we have established legislation governing the use of armed private security on board of Portuguese-flagged vessels operating in high-risk areas. These experiences are not presented as prescriptive models, but rather as concrete evidence that calibrated and rights-respecting responses can both feasibly and effectively can be both feasible and effective when firmly anchored in cooperation. In conclusion, Portugal supports a focused and practice-oriented outcome, one that preserves UNCLOS and the normative keystone, provides precise commentary and model provisions where practice reveals genuine gaps, particularly on armed robbery at sea, cooperation, transfers, and fair trial guarantees, and private security governance and keeps prevention at the forefront. On Chapter 9, on the topic succession of states in respect of state responsibility, Portugal recognizes with appreciation that the Working Group has presented a clear report on the difficulties for the continuation of the Commission's work on this topic. While Portugal has underlined the importance of continuing the work with draft guidelines, we understand that the report partly addresses the concern that the closure of the topic has justified. It remains a priority for Portugal that the work done so far, in particular that of the former Special Rapporteur, Mr. Palvas Turma, is incorporated and emphasized in the final report. Looking to the future, Portugal believes that the conclusions of this report should not be seen as the end of the matter, but rather as a point of reference.

Thank you.

conference.

Preserving the work already done is essential to ensure that investments made by the Commission and States are not lost but continue to inform the progressive development of international law. I thank you, Mr. Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [2:51:29]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Portugal for her statement. Distinguished delegates, the representative— distinguished representative of Portugal was our last speaker on the list for this second cluster of chapters Thank you very much. Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers for this morning as we have run out of time. However, there are still about 35 more speakers remaining on my list for the second cluster of topics. Therefore, the Sixth Committee will therefore have to hold an additional meeting on Thursday morning at 10:00 a.m. for 1 hour to accommodate the remaining speakers. Speakers, following which the Working Group on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism will meet as scheduled. At the same time, it's come to my attention, unfortunately, that some of our colleagues from the International Law Commission will be unable to be with us on Thursday. As such, I would like to give them the floor this morning to make some brief remarks in reaction to the statements made. I would therefore like to give the floor to Mr. Matthias Forteau, the Special Rapporteur for the topic non-legally binding international agreements, who will, as you see, intervene online. You have the floor, Mr. Forteau. Mr. Forteau, you have the floor.


ILC · Special Rapporteur · Matthias Forteau [2:53:00]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the floor. I hope that you can hear me. Representatives of States, legal advisers, I would like to thank you for all of the views expressed throughout this debate. I have been following the proceedings of the Sixth Committee since the start of last year remotely online, and I wanted to thank you Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for the wealth of positions that have been expressed so far throughout the deliberations. Regarding the discussion on non-legally binding international agreements, at this stage of your discussion in the 6th Committee, I know that there are 30-odd states who have yet to take the floor. I did see convergence regarding the approach adopted in my second report. The views expressed in the Sixth Committee here and the views expressed in May of last year in the Working Group of the ILC. I'm very grateful that there is such broad convergence of viewpoints. I've taken good note of points of divergence on a number of issues, and I've also taken good note of the very constructive remarks and suggestions which were voiced throughout the 6th Committee debate. These will, without a doubt, help us to garner a consensus-based position within the ILC. All of the above, I believe, will help make— will help the ILC to make significant headway at its next session in 2026. They will put us in good stead for further work on this issue, bringing together information that is both representative and as practical as possible. So thank you very much. I know that some states have already submitted information about practice. For those of you who have not yet done so, I encourage you to submit written proposals, written submissions, so that our work can be as diverse, as representative of the practice around the world as possible. Now, I won't take up any more of your time because I know there are other speakers on the list. Nonetheless, I wanted to assure you that I will be factoring in all of the views that were and will be expressed as I draft my next report. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for giving me the floor.


6th Committee · Chair [2:55:35]:

I thank Mr. Forteau for his remarks. I also understand that the Chair of the ILC, Mr. Martin Paparinskis, also wishes to make some concluding remarks. You have the floor, Mr.

Chair.


ILC · Chair · Martin Paparinskis [2:55:51]:

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Let me begin by thanking you, all 3 Vice-Chairs with whom I have had the pleasure of sitting on the podium and observing the excellence with which you have managed the Sixth Committee procedures, the Secretariat that ILC is delighted to share with the Sixth Committee, the translators, and of course, last but emphatically, emphatically not least, States and other participants in the discussion. That is truly the reason why the Commission may have the role that it does in international law in helping the General Assembly to carry out its mandate under Article 13 of the United Nations Charter. I will make 4 brief points. The first is to express the great, great appreciation for the care and thoroughness with which states have engaged with the Commission's work on the variety of topics. On issues of substance, on issues of drafting and emphasis on points that should be addressed in the commentaries or elsewhere, particularly grateful to those states that drew attention to examples or characterization of practice relevant to the work of the Commission. Something that benefits the Commission greatly and is very seriously considered and taken into account. Secondly, in light of the discussion that I have to say is familiar to me from chairing the Commission during the summer, the possible brevity of interventions where not everything can be said that one wants to say, I wanted to assure States that the Special Rapporteurs and members of the Commission engaged on the topics read most carefully both the transcripts in the records and also the e-statements that are accessible to all of us and that we read with great interest. Also, I understand, and I have been asked by the Secretary to remind those states that have not yet submitted the written versions of these statements to the Secretariat, that that might be a helpful thing to do at some point. The third point relates to the methods of work, something that the Commission takes very seriously. We have the working group on the topic chaired by Mr. Jallow. Unfortunately, this year, due to the time pressures, we could not convene. But the repeated emphasis on the importance of working methods is something that we note, and you will recall from the point I made in my introductory statement, the interactive dialogue, that there was a very spirited discussion of working methods and that they were quite significantly adjusted for this year with an eye to being as effective as possible while not undermining the integrity of the process. And the quality of the output. So this is something that the Commission is thinking very seriously about, and suggestions and recommendations and queries by states are very welcome, and I do hope that next year the Commission will be able to address the issue squarely. My final point, in a slightly bittersweet way, I did appreciate the almost uniform expression of regret. By the effects that the liquidity crisis has had on the Commission, and I would perhaps just refer back to myself and express hope that states would build on this regret, both under the auspices of the Sixth Committee in the work on the resolution, in discussion with colleagues in the Fifth Committee and elsewhere, and perhaps in reflection on the broader political importance and stakes of international law and the International Law Commission. I regret very much that I will not be able to be with you on Thursday, but rest assured that I, as well as everybody, will read most carefully the work that you produce. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [3:00:14]:

I thank the Chair of the International Law Commission, Mr. Paparinskis, Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Vice President of the United States for his comments and his observations. Distinguished delegates, since the commencement of our debate on this agenda item last week, I have been encouraged by the richness of the exchanges on all the topics, and I'm quite confident that the comments and observations that delegations have made, especially on the topics that we are still continuing to consider, will be of great value and guidance to the Commission. Furthermore, delegations have had an opportunity on a number of occasions and in different settings to interact and exchange views with Special Rapporteurs as well as members of the Commission who were present. So I thank them all for— also for their availability and for their valuable comments and observations. I also wish to echo the words of gratitude and praise expressed by delegations to the Commission for the successful outcome of work this year. The important contribution of the International Law Commission to the progressive development of international law and its codification speaks for itself. So I wish the Commission every success in all of its future endeavors. Distinguished delegates, as announced earlier, we will continue our debate on the second cluster of chapters under Agenda Item 80, Report of the Thank you, Mr. President. The General Assembly will resume its deliberations on the work of its 76th Session at the next meeting of Plenary on Thursday, 6 November, at 10 AM, following which the Working Group on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism will meet. The Working Group on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts is scheduled to hold 2 meetings this week, this afternoon at 3 PM and on Friday, 7 November, At 3 PM. Also, before concluding, I wish to thank the interpreters for their cooperation this morning. Finally, please be reminded that informal consultations on Agenda Item 85, the Scope and Application of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, will take place from 1:15 to 2 PM, to be followed by informal consultations on Agenda Item 80, which his report of the ILC on the work of its 76th session from 2:00 p.m. to 2:45 p.m. Delegations are advised to consult the website for information on further informal consultations on draft resolutions scheduled for this week. The meeting is adjourned.