Sixth Committee, 34th plenary meeting - General Assembly, 80th session General Assembly Date: 6 November 2025 Language: English Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/en/ga/c6/80/34 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 · Vice-Chair [0:03]: Colleagues, good morning. Please take your seats. We're going to start. Distinguished colleagues, I call to order the 34th meeting of the Sixth Committee for the 8th session of the General Assembly. Distinguished delegates, This extra meeting has been called in order for us to make further progress on the debate on the second cluster of topics concerning Agenda Item 80, Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its 80th Session. The meeting will adjourn at 11 in order to allow the Working Group on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism to hold their scheduled meeting. Let me note once again that we are We are very behind in our list of speakers. We currently have 35 speakers remaining to speak on this agenda item. So once again, I'd like to reiterate the recommendation of the Bureau that while there are no time limits per se on interventions on the ILC report, delegations are strongly advised to be as succinct as possible, in particular by only delivering abridged versions of their statements while providing their full statements for posting on e-statements and on the website of the Sixth Committee. This will enable us to conclude the debate on the agenda item and subsequent agenda items during the meetings allocated to us. So we'll move on with our speakers list. The first speaker on my list for this morning is the distinguished representative of Israel. You have the floor. Israel [1:52]: Madam Chairperson, at the outset, for the sake of constructiveness and with a view to conserve time, I will speak only on the key points of the issue at hand, while the State of Israel's full submissions will be submitted online in writing. Madam Chairperson, under the item of immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, I wish to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Claudia Grossman, and the Commission for their efforts on the intricate topic. Israel attaches great importance to ensuring that perpetrators of crime are brought to justice and supports international efforts to combat impunity effectively. At the same time, the fundamental issues of immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction are firmly established in the international legal system. The work of the ILC must ensure that the core principles of paremperem imperium non abet is respected. The written submissions submitted by States and discussions of the ILC in the 76th Session indicate significant divergences and unresolved controversies between States and between members of the Commission on key fundamental issues of the draft Articles. These, in our view, constitute compelling reasons, as required by the Special Rapporteur, for the Commission to deviate from its standard practice and amend the draft during the second reading stage. This is critically important, as indicated in the ILC report. Many Commission members have in fact not had an opportunity to express their views. This is further warranted as changes in the text broadening the list of crimes in draft Article 7 and the narrowing of safeguards in Part 4 have been advanced during the second reading stage, further deepening the divide between differing views. Israel shares the concern of other states and Commission members about the ambiguity surrounding the legal status of draft articles. This uncertainty risks leading courts and scholars to mistakenly treat provisions intended as progressive development or even new law as reflecting customary international law, thus misrepresenting the current state of the international legal system. This risks creating international friction and distorting the proper development of international law and may be susceptible to abuse. It is crucial that unsettled issues be appropriately dealt with in order to represent the accurate state of customary international law. international law. At the very least, this warrants a more balanced approach in draft articles and a reflection of the disagreements in the commentary. Proclaiming exceptions to immunity that states have not willingly endorsed by treaty or through a general practice and opinio juris risks creating severe tensions among states when one state seeks to exercise criminal jurisdiction over the officials of another. A concern that the draft articles contain delega feranda provision, if misunderstood, could cause serious harm to international relations on a highly sensitive matter was also raised by the ILC members during the 76th session. The Commission has a responsibility to reconcile the differing views in its final output and to reflect them in the text. Israel urges the Special Rapporteur and the Commission to revisit and resolve these substantial concerns before completing the second reading, to ensure an outcome that can gain consensus and general endorsement among States. Madam Chairperson, Israel wishes once again to make particular mention to draft Article 7, which proposes exceptions to immunity ratione materiae. Israel shares the view of other states and Commission members that this draft article does not reflect the current state of international law, nor even a discernible trend, and should not be welcomed as new law. Since its adoption on first reading, By vote, several courts have reaffirmed that no exception applies when officials act within their official duties. Such is, for example, the decision of the European High Court of Human Rights in the Sassi case, which was regrettably not mentioned by the Special Rapporteur. The few courts that adopted a different position based themselves on erroneous considerations, including a misunderstanding of the Commission's own work. Moreover, sources which were presented in the Second Report as developments in state practice supporting the existence of exceptions to immunity ratione materiae are not indicative of such. Commission members identified numerous methodological issues during the last session, showing the report did not provide evidence of general and consistent practice, as will be further addressed in Israel's written submission. Israel thus reiterates its position that draft Article 7 is not based on general and consistent state practice or opinio juris and should be deleted, not broadened as now suggested. Israel reiterates its position that under customary international law, the category of state officials enjoying immunity ratione personae extends beyond the Troika. Israel also maintains that the procedural safeguards in the draft articles are insufficient to address all the problems created by draft Article 7 and should be reinforced, certainly not diluted. Madam Chairperson, Israel takes note of the recommendation of the Special Rapporteur in paragraph 17 of his second report. Israel maintains its view that the outcome of this project should be limited to clarifying international law as it currently stands, and if the Commission endorses proposals for progressive development of the law, it should make a clear distinction between those draft articles and the draft articles reflecting customary international law. Madam Chairperson, under the item of subsidiary means for the determination of the rules of international law, Israel wishes to thank the International Law Commission and the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Charles Jalow, for their work. Israel attaches great importance to this topic and will continue to engage actively in the Commission's work. As a general comment on this topic, Israel wishes to underline that even if Article 38, paragraph 1 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice may not provide an exhaustive list of subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, this should not be seen as an opportunity to unduly broaden the category of subsidiary means, and a preferable approach would be to inquire into and, where appropriate, further develop the existing categories of subsidiary means set out in Article 38. In the interest of time, Israel's full comments concerning draft conclusions 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 will be discussed in our written statements. With regard to draft conclusions 12 and 13, Israel wishes to emphasize that general references to resolutions and other texts of international organizations or intergovernmental conferences often encompasses documents of a highly political nature, with little or no connection to international law. Moreover, the term international organization covers a wide variety of bodies, many of which may not represent a comprehensive range of state practice or opinion. In this regard, Israel believes that great caution is needed before assigning a normative value to resolutions of international organizations. These resolutions of international organizations in many cases do not serve as an indication for the legal positions of the involved states. states. Accordingly, they, as well as states' votes in their context, cannot be automatically used to determine the rules of international law. Rather, careful analysis of such resolutions and their related discussions may, in some cases, depending on the context, be used to identify the legal position of individual states on a case-by-case basis. Madam Chair, under the item of non-legally binding international agreements, Israel appreciates the opportunity to further engage on the topic. Regarding the draft conclusions proposed in the second report, Israel supports the view that the final output could take a form other than conclusions, as this term is generally reserved for the Commission's work on sources of international law and could create a normative presumption that it reflects rules of international law or suggest the formation of new rules, including customary law. Israel's full comments concerning the draft conclusions will be included as part of our written submission. Specifically, however, concerning Draft Conclusion 5, Israel joins other states in calling for caution and suggests that the final output could include a clarification noting that any list of indicators proposed to distinguish between treaties and non-legally binding agreements is intended to be illustrative. Rather than exhaustive, decisive, binding, or presumptive, and that a case-by-case approach should be applied in this respect. In cases where no express indication exists that an instrument is not legally binding, Israel reiterates its position that in determining the legal status of a text, the parties' intention regarding its non-binding character should be established, inter alia, as reflected in the text, and not solely on the basis of objective elements. Within this assessment, however, Israel considers that primacy should be given to subjective indicators, namely firsthand sources in which the state itself directly reports, testifies, or attests to its intention, such as by the declaration of a state or statements made during negotiations, rather than to the wording of an instrument where the state's intention must be inferred from sources that do not originate from the state itself. Israel reiterates its position that non-legally binding texts cannot give rise to the principle of good faith or pacta sunt servanda, cannot create or generate legally binding expectations or entitlements to good— to reliance in good faith, do not fall within the scope of pacta sunt servanda, and are not binding by virtue of pacta sunt servanda or good faith. Israel holds the view that non-legally binding texts cannot establish new rules of customary international law and should not be perceived or interpreted as doing so. Israel also reaffirms its position as such, and as a matter of principle, non-legally binding instruments do not constitute or create legally binding norms, nor do they give rise to legally binding normative implications, effects, or expectations. The exception is where non-legally binding texts might generate indirect legal effects through estoppel, only where there is uncertainty and doubt as to the instrument's legal nature and binding effect under international law, and only if all the prerequisites of estoppel have been satisfied. In considering draft conclusions with respect to the topic of legal implications, Israel therefore calls for caution and proposes that the final output include a clarification noting that any list of implications considered is not intended to be exhaustive, decisive, binding, or presumptive. Madam Chair, regarding the topic of prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, Israel thanks the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Luis Avedogo, and the Commission for their work. With respect to the proposed schedule of work, Israel welcomes the proposed schedule and the structured approach it reflects. We look forward to engage constructively with the Commission further on this topic. In the face of current challenges to international peace and security, Israel reiterates the importance of effectively addressing the emerging maritime threats posed by non-state actors, such as the Houthis in Yemen. Madam Chair, with respect to the issue of criminalizing piracy and armed robbery at sea through national legislation, Israel reiterates its stance advocating the need for further deliberations to develop a flexible framework that may be adaptable to diverse legal systems and traditions of member states. Informing internal discussions and allowing to factor in procedural considerations that vary across jurisdictions as well. Madam Chair, on a final note, Israel wishes to comment on the Commission's proposal to add 3 new topics of work to its long-term program. Given the significant reduction of the Commission's annual session for the second consecutive year due to financial restraints already hindering the progress on existing topics, It would be inefficient— it would be an inefficient use of resources to expand its agenda further instead of completing ongoing work. Regarding the proposed topic on the identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law, Israel recalls the challenges faced when addressing highly contested issues lacking broad state support, such as jus cogens. In light of current limitations, the Commission's efforts would be better directed towards topics that could realistically be advanced. Madam Chair, as mentioned in my opening remarks, the State of Israel's full submitted positions will be submitted online in writing. Thank you, Madam Chair. 6th Committee · Vice-Chair [15:04]: Muchas gracias a la distinguida representante. Thank you very much to the distinguished representative of Israel for that statement, and I'll now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Egypt. Egypt [15:13]: Muchísimas gracias. Thank you very much, distinguished Vice Chair. In the interest of time, I shall limit our statement to Chapter 5 on the immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. First, on procedure, it is our view that the adoption by the Commission during its 69th session of draft Article 7 with a vote was unfortunate. Egypt encourages the Commission to take its final decision on draft Article 7 through consensus. Some members of the Commission, including Ms. Mankalantankul, have made this point. Adopting this provision with a vote will confirm that it does not represent customary international law and that it is a proposal for the progressive development of international law that does not enjoy the full support of the Commission. Furthermore, Egypt does not share the view that the Commission should revisit draft articles adopted on first reading only if there are compelling reasons to do so, nor does Egypt share the view of the Special Rapporteur that, quote, the Commission should refrain from embarking on a de novo reading of the draft articles. This is an unnecessary and self-imposed restriction that constrains the ability of the Commission to codify and progressively develop international law on the basis of a robust and thorough review of state practice and expressions of opinio juris. Second, on methodology, Egypt is of the view that the Commission's approach regarding draft Article 7 was flawed for several reasons. Primarily, as it currently stands, draft Article 7 is not reflective of widespread and representative state practice and expressions of opinio juris. Despite the fact that the topic has been on the program of work of the Commission since 2007, the ILC has not undertaken a sufficiently robust review of state practice that supports the formulation of draft Article 7. As observed by several members of the Commission, including Mr. Galindo, Monsieur Forteau, and Mr. Diallo, the cases cited by the Commission in support of draft Article 7 are mostly drawn from courts in developed States. Moreover, as Mr. Oyarzabal noted, the jurisprudence in some countries, such as Argentina, came mostly from the lower courts and in no cases from the Supreme Court. Second, in its assessment of the content of customary international law, the Commission has failed to take account of instances in which states upheld the immunity of foreign officials, and cases of inaction in which states decided not to take action in relation to a foreign official suspect— suspected of committing international crimes. This oversight makes the account of customary international law provided by the Commission imbalanced and inconsistent with the realities of state practice. Third, Egypt's methodological concerns are especially relevant in the Commission's decision to include aggression as one of the crimes in relation to which foreign officials are not entitled to immunitas ratione materiae. Egypt recognizes aggression as an international crime, that threatens the peace and security of humankind and categorically condemns acts of aggression. However, from a methodological perspective, Egypt doubts that there are grounds for the Commission to suggest that an exception to immunitas rationis materiae in respect of aggression exists in international law. Normatively, it may be desirable to develop such an exception, but as a matter of lex lata, There is little, if any, evidence that such an exception exists. Moreover, even if the inclusion of aggression is assessed from the perspective of de lege ferenda, a question must be raised as to whether a domestic court should have to determine whether a foreign state has indeed engaged in an act of aggression before proceeding to deny a foreign official immunity in domestic judicial proceedings. In our view, this would be inconsistent with the principle of the sovereign immunity of states. The inclusion of aggression on the list of crimes in relation to which foreign officials are not entitled to immunity is reflective of a broader methodological flaw in the Commission's work. It appears that, for the Commission, the fact that a certain prohibition has attained the status of jus cogens automatically generates procedural consequences, including the loss of immunity, Ratione materie for foreign officials. In our view, jus cogens are rules of substantive international law that do not automatically generate procedural rules relating to enforcement. Third, from a policy perspective, Egypt encourages the Commission to consider the implications for interstate relations of draft Article 7. In all candor, we are concerned that denying the immunity of foreign officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction will, principally apply to officials from the Global South. The realities of power are such that it is highly unlikely that heads of state, heads of government, or senior officials from the Global North are going to be subjected to domestic criminal jurisdiction of foreign states, or that immunity will be questioned in judicial proceedings in foreign states. In its current form, draft Article 7 could lead to the selective and politicized application of justice and will have the unintended consequence of undermining the rule of law. Chair, we recommend the Commission to reconsider and to revisit its approach to draft Article 7 and to the general structure of the draft Articles. One alternative methodology was proposed by Monsieur Forteau during the Commission's deliberations. Specifically, the question of immunity should not be viewed as a binary matter. Rather, the principal policy objective that ought to guide the crafting of this article should be that preventing impunity and ensuring accountability for international crimes should be upheld without undermining the proper administration of justice or infringing on sovereign equality. Therefore, in determining whether to commence investigations or to institute proceedings with respect to foreign officials, national authorities should be guided by the concept of complementarity. No investigations or prosecutions that entail an infringement on immunity should proceed unless the circumstances of the case indicate that national authorities of the individual in question are either unable or unwilling to investigate the matter. Madam Vice Chair, the remainder of Egypt's statement has been uploaded to e-statements. Muchísimas gracias. 6th Committee · Vice-Chair [22:50]: Muchas gracias. Thank you very much to the distinguished Thank you, distinguished representative of Egypt, for that. And I'll now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Estonia. Estonia [23:01]: Thank you, Chair. Estonia would like to express its continuing appreciation for the work of the International Law Commission. We align with the statement of European Union and its member states, and our full statement will be available online. Today I start with addressing the topic of immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. We limit our comments to previously provisionally adopted draft Articles 7, 8, and 9. We note that the Special Rapporteur has suggested some amendments to these articles that are of particular importance to Estonia. Draft Article 7 reflects the important principle of international law that immunity of state officials should not serve as a shield against responsibility for the most serious international crimes that are a concern to the international community as a whole. This approach is consistent with customary international law and the jurisprudence of international criminal tribunals. The draft article includes an exhaustive list of the international crimes in which case— in case of which immunitas rationem materiae does not apply. Estonia continues its support to the inclusion of such a list. Estonia appreciates that the Commission has expanded the list of crimes and has included the crime of aggression. We have consistently suggested the inclusion of this crime, and we agree with the Special Rapporteur that the crime of aggression has long been recognized as the supreme international crime, as originally established by the Nuremberg Tribunal. The exclusion of the crime of aggression would risk creating an artificial, inappropriate hierarchy among the most serious international crimes. Estonia supports the inclusion of slavery and the slave trade to the list of crimes. Draft Article 8 contains the procedural provisions and safeguards governing the application of immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Estonia agrees with the Special Rapporteur that these safeguards apply both in case of immunity ratione personae and immunity ratione materiae. The procedural safeguards ensuring fair trial are indispensable. They are not only practical tools for national authorities, but also fundamental expressions of the rule of law in international relations. Also, they help to prevent politicisation, to protect against arbitrary or abusive proceedings, and to ensure that officials are treated with fairness and respect for their human rights. We support the division of draft Article 8 into 2 paragraphs to enhance precision. The commentary should elaborate on the relationship between draft Article 7 and Part IV, making clear that even where immunity does not apply to the most serious international crimes, The procedural safeguards remain in place to ensure fair proceedings in accordance with the international standards. Draft Article 9 addresses the examination of immunity by the forum state. We support the approach that the forum state must examine whether impunity— immunity applies before taking any step that might affect a foreign state official. This requirement reflects due process and respect for the sovereignty of other states. And serves to prevent wrongful arrests or coercive measures. We concur with the Special Rapporteur that the examination of the question of immunity must occur prior to any coercive act, and that it must be guided by good faith, proportionality, and where appropriate, consultation with the state of the official in question. We support also the inclusion of the phrase as far as practicable which appropriately introduces flexibility for urgent circumstances, such as where immediate action is necessary to prevent imminent harm, without diminishing the overall obligation to examine the question of immunity promptly and in good faith. Chair, now let me turn to the topic of subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law. We note that draft conclusions 1 to 13 were provisionally adopted. We believe that the changes made during the last session to draft conclusions, as well as their structure and order, are going in the right direction. We particularly appreciate the adjustments made to draft conclusion 10 regarding the works of expert bodies. We agree with the view that distinguishing between such bodies based on their public or private character has less practical value than focusing on the scientific rigor of the works produced. It is important that characteristics such as independence of the bodies and their members and objective and impartial scientific methods used are given preference over the public or private character of the bodies, which could be difficult to ascertain. We agree that certain entities have deserved to be specifically mentioned in this context, due to their special status: the ICRC, Institut de droit international, the International Law Association, human rights treaty bodies, notable academic institutions, as well as the Commission itself. We understand that each of these entities has a distinct character. However, it is important to keep in mind that their works remain nevertheless works of expert bodies as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law and are not sources of international law. Consider the example of the ICRC. It has a particular mandate under international law with regard to promoting international humanitarian law and observing compliance of the parties to armed conflict with international humanitarian law. Also, it has undertaken the task of codifying customary international humanitarian law, the value of of which cannot be underestimated. Yet its work remains an output of an expert body, in some cases contains elements of progressive development of law. Nevertheless, their particular role can be reflected in the weight attributed to their works. We specifically acknowledge the in-depth consideration given to the issue of weight of the works of expert bodies. We find additional criteria set out in draft Conclusion 11 for assessing the weight of the works. Of expert bodies helpful with the view of determining the right level of weight to be attributed to the specific works of expert bodies in specific contexts. With regards to resolutions and other texts produced by international organizations or at intergovernmental conferences addressed in draft conclusion 12, underway addressed in draft conclusion 13, we are pleased with the approach taken by the Commission. This serves to further clarify the necessity for a case-by-case assessment and emphasize the possibility of using these resolutions and texts as subsidiary means for the determination of the rules of international law. Thank you. 6th Committee · Vice-Chair [30:23]: I thank the distinguished representative of Estonia, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Algeria. Algeria [30:35]: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. At the outset of my statement, we would like to extend our sincere thanks to His Excellency the Chair of the ILC, Mr. Marcinusz Bobarinskis, the members of the Bureau and Special Reporters, as well as the Secretariat, for their efforts and dedication to undertake their tasks despite the time limitations experienced. Experienced in the 76th session. In the same context, we commend the sound methodology that distinguished the work of the committee during this session. This resulted in tangible results in the development and codification of the rules of international law. We stress the importance of restoring the original 12-week session duration to ensure thorough and in-depth discussion of highly legally complex topics and to enable member states, including developing countries, to effectively participate in drafting the rules governing international relations on the basis of sovereign equality. As to our comments in relation to Cluster 2, as to the chapter on state succession in relation to state responsibility. We express our deep condolences to the family and friends of Madame Concepción Escobar Hernández, who played a great role in the development of international law as a Special Rapporteur on the topic of succession of state in relation to state responsibility. Her legal legacy and her mark on the development of international law will remain. We express our appreciation to all her efforts in service of international law. Algeria welcomes the progress made by the Commission in the second reading of the draft articles on immunities. It commends the work of the current Special Rapporteur, Mr. Grossman, Guilaf and the consensual approach that prevailed in the discussions. Algeria, like many other countries, stresses the importance of keeping the immunities of state officials to ensure that they undertake their official tasks effectively, while stressing that such immunities should not turn into a cover to ensure impunity. It really— Algeria believes that immunity is a legal embodiment of the principle of sovereignty and equality among states. It should be understood as such, and it should be understood as a procedural rule to ensure stability in international relations and not a tool to undermine accountability for serious crimes. In this connection, we welcome the adoption of draft articles 3, 4, 1, and the commentaries thereto. And we support keeping reference to categories enjoying immunities while stressing that the immunity by state officials and high officials should come to an end when their tenure ends. Algeria believes that any exceptions should be developed only through international broad consensus or by well-established norms that are globally recognized. In this connection, we commend the inclusion of serious crimes within the exceptions as included in draft Article 7. This will reflect the commitment to international obligations to fight impunity and ensure accountability. At the same time, Algeria stresses that fighting impunity is a common commitment, um, on all states. It should take place in full respect of international law and procedural guarantees consistent with principles enshrined in the Charter and the Statute of the ICJ. Algeria supports the approach that ensures clear and transparent procedures before national authorities of the state concerned in the cases when exceptions from immunities are triggered. This includes notifications, consultations, judicial review, to ensure objectivity in the procedures and to establish if there are grounds to ensure immunity and to prevent politicization of these rules to be consistent with international practice and human rights. As to the chapter of subsidiary means to determine rules of international law, Algeria welcomes the efforts undertaken by the Special Rapporteur Professor Charles Jalloh, which led to the adoption of draft conclusions from 1 to 13 on first reading under Article 38 of the Statute of the ICJ. Algeria supports the cautious, balanced approach adopted in determining rules of international law, ensuring that— which stated that such means like case law teachings, decisions of international and regional organizations are not sources for international law. Rather, they are subsidiary interpretive tools that contribute to clarifying existing rules. They should be employed within a systematic, transparent approach that takes into consideration geographic, cultural, and linguistic balance that reflects the diversity in legal systems. In this connection, Algeria calls for ensuring representation of jurisprudence in legal systems and to have non-binding guidelines to standardize the approach in using these sources. It commends the approach by the Special Rapporteur, which gave special importance to building capacities of developing countries. As to the chapter of dispute settlement to which international organizations are party, we commend efforts in this respect, and in true— we stress that the broad scope of the work of international organizations and their diverse legal relations with private parties requires that an effective and balanced mechanism be found to settle disputes to which international organizations are parties. And we stress that balance should be found between the respect of immunities of international organizations and the right of individuals to access justice. We believe that developing Alternative mechanisms for dispute settlement like mediation and ombudsperson are practical approaches that will enhance transparency and justice while respecting the legal nature of international organizations. As to the chapter of the non- legally binding agreements. Algeria notes that the increased recourse to non-binding agreements in diplomacy reflects a development in the tools of international cooperation. At the same time, it raises questions about the clarity of international obligations and their distinction from legally binding instruments. Algeria believes that this subject should be considered thoroughly to avoid any ambiguity that can undermine stability in international relations. And Algeria supports efforts to enhance transparency by establishing voluntary national records for these instruments in cooperation with the Treaty Affairs Division and the Global Digital Clearinghouse is a possibility to be considered. As to the chapter of fighting piracy and armed robbery in the sea, Algeria stresses that the UNCLOS remains the sole legal framework in this context to ensure balance between the freedom in the high seas and the authorities of the flag state and coastal state. Algeria welcomes the regional dimension here, in particular in Africa, within the discussions of the Commission, and we commend initiatives like Yaoundé Code of Conduct and Lomé Charter as successful examples of continental cooperation to fight piracy and maritime threats. Algeria calls for highlighting new threats like cybercrimes and attacks by uncrewed vessels. Capacities of Libya— African coastal countries should be built in collaboration with the International Maritime Organization and the African Union. Specificities of every maritime basin should be taken into consideration, including the Mediterranean. As to Chapter 11 on state succession in relation to state responsibility, though the subject of succession and the right of third parties remains important, in particular in countries which are being reconfigured, configured due to regional or international transformations, we believe that the international practice remains limited. Therefore, we are of the view that elaborating general guidelines may contribute to enhancing legal certainty and stability in cases of succession, in particular in relation to protecting the rights of third parties and the continuation of international obligations of humanitarian nature. In conclusion, Algeria reiterates its firm support to the work of the ILC and commends its transparent and professional multilateral approach. And Algeria believes that the development of international law shall remain an inclusive collective process that reflects diversity in international system and ensures equal participation by all states, in particular developing states. Thank you. 6th Committee · Vice-Chair [42:37]: Muchas gracias, distinguished representative of Algeria, for that statement. And I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Greece. Greece [42:46]: Madam Chair, I will deliver an abbreviated version of our statements. The extensive version will be uploaded online. I will start with Chapter 5 on the immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Allow me at the outset to say that it was with great sadness that we learned the passing last August of Professor Concepción Escobar Hernández, eminent former member of the ILC and previous Special Rapporteur on the topic under discussion. I would also like to express our gratitude to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Weilhof, for his second report on the topic. Madam Chair, turning to draft Articles 7, 8, and 9, I would like to state that in our view the issue of exceptions to immunity ratione materie is one of the main purposes of consideration of this topic by the Commission. As we stated in the past, we believe that in contemporary international law the rules on immunity should strike a balance between, on the one hand, the respect for the sovereign equality of States and the stability of international relations, and on the other hand, the need to preserve the essential interests of the international community as a whole, one of which is undoubtedly to combat immunity for the most serious international crimes. Furthermore, we welcome the fact that the Drafting Committee adopted the proposal of the Special Rapporteur to add the crime of aggression in the list of crimes to which immunity ratione materie shall not apply. Indeed, we see no reason whatsoever for the exclusion of this supreme international crime the commission of which usually generates most of the other international crimes included in the list. We also note the proposal of the Special Rapporteur to clarify in the commentary that this list is not exhaustive, so as not to foreclose possible future developments in international law in this area. Regarding, finally, draft Article 9, we share the view expressed during the ILC debate that the commentary should further elaborate on the nature of the obligation to examine immunity, the thresholds for triggering this obligation and the consequences of the examination of immunity. Turning now to the subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, Greece would like to express its appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Gallo, for his 3rd report on the matter. With regard to Draft Conclusion 4, Greece supports the option of an indicative and open-ended enumeration of the general criteria for the assessment of subsidiary means as more flexible. However, we would like to point out that the insertion of additional criteria in draft conclusions 7, 8, 11, and 13 may create ambiguities and may lead to eventual overlapping. For instance, regarding draft conclusion 7 concerning the weight of the decisions of international courts and tribunals, criterion A on the specific competence of an international judicial body does not seem to be an additional one as envisaged in the first sentence of the draft conclusion, since it is already encapsulated in criterion F of draft conclusion 4. Regarding draft conclusion 8, we support the approach according to which a more contemporary formulation is used to refer to the category of teachings as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, which should be understood in a broad way in order to reflect diversity and representativeness. Concerning draft conclusion 10, Greece notes that the Commission opted for a broader reference to expert bodies. Although such a reference covers virtually all types of expert bodies, avoiding delicate terminological delineations of their origin, one should consider the importance attributed to their respective outcomes. For instance, although the views of a human rights treaty body on an individual communication fall short of a judgment or award, They qualitatively differ from reports produced, for instance, by private experts. Finally, turning to draft conclusions 12 and 13, Greece acknowledges that resolutions of international organizations may have a dual function and may also serve to determine a rule of international law. However, we are of the opinion that, apart from the surrounding circumstances of their adoption as an additional criterion for assessing the weight attributed to them, The Commission should consider adding the legal basis upon which they are adopted. I will now move to Chapter 9 on the non-legally binding international agreements. Madame la Présidente, la Grèce tient à féliciter le rapporteur. Madam Chair, Greece would like to congratulate the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Matthias Forteau. We're grateful for his second report, a very interesting report on non-legally binding international agreements. I'd like to clarify that the term agreement as used by the Special Rapporteur does not prejudge the legal nature and outcome of the instruments in question, nor is it a terminological choice which would circumscribe the term agreement to legally binding instruments solely. Here, the term agreement does not equate to a presumption that this is a legally binding text. We believe that we need to find an option to replace the term agreement, one that would not throw up additional difficulties. There is another issue of particular importance for practitioners of international law, given that we're seeing an exponential proliferation of such kinds of legal instruments in international relations, which are generally seen as a flexible alternative for diplomatic activities. Greece would also like to state its agreement with the decision to broaden the scope— broaden the scope of the draft to instruments between states, states and international organizations, or between international organizations themselves. Thus, we would like to reiterate that in our view, the working objective of the committee should be focusing on the text which are very similar to international treaties, figuring out how to distinguish them, and by identifying potential effects. This would be useful for states, both for international organizations but also international courts and tribunals. When it comes to interstate agreements, we believe that incorporating them would only be worthwhile if we're looking at texts adopted at the international level which could sow confusion. Last but not least, we'd like to support the positions of the Special Rapporteur considering the assessment of the legally binding nature or not of an agreement, as well as the criteria proposed. Thus, we reiterate that the consideration of a legally binding text or non-legally binding text should be done on a case-by-case basis. As the ICJ recently highlighted in its judgment in the case on the maritime and land-based delimitation and the sovereignty of the 2 islands, Gabon versus Equatorial Guinea, the most important criteria is the party's intent, more important than the criteria listed in the instrument. The repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea is a priority for the Madam Chair, we would like to thank the Special Rapporteur for his note on the prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. It provides a very insightful input on important questions regarding piracy. Such questions as armed security personnel on board merchant ships, legal instruments for international cooperation in the prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, liability for seizure without adequate grounds are indeed issues which need to be discussed in order to have a clear picture of the various parameters of piracy, including emerging questions. Other possible issues to be discussed may include the use of new technologies such as uncrewed aerial vehicles. It is important that the Commission takes an approach based on the provisions of the UNCLOS, which sets out the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must, must be carried out. The Convention provides a carefully balanced legal regime for activities at sea whose integrity needs to be always maintained. Regarding the final form of the outcome of the work of the Commission, as noted in the ILC report, it still needs to be determined. In our view, draft conclusions could be the most appropriate outcome. We look forward to the next steps of that next steps of that work and to engaging in further debates on this issue in the 6th Committee. I thank you. 6th Committee · Vice-Chair [51:46]: Muchas gracias. I thank the distinguished representative of Greece. Distinguished delegates, we have come to the end of our time, but we still have speakers on our list. So the 6th Committee will continue its consideration of the debate of the 2nd cluster of topics concerning Agenda Item 80, Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its 80th Session. At its next meeting, which will be held tomorrow morning, but only after the conclusion of the scheduled consideration of Agenda Item 160, Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country. In other words, we will at this stage suspend the debate on Cluster 2 under Agenda Item 80 And resume that debate once we've concluded our scheduled consideration of agenda item 160. Distinguished delegates, it's my understanding that the delegation of the Philippines would like to take the floor in the right of reply. Before giving them the floor, I'd like to remind the committee that in accordance with paragraphs 9 and 10 of Annex 5 to the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, the number of interventions in the right of reply for any The time for each delegation is limited to 2 per topic, and the first intervention should be limited to 10 minutes, and the second should be no longer than 5 minutes long. Once again, we have a very busy agenda this year, so I would invite delegations to exercise their right to reply within the shortest timeframe possible, and in any case, to respect the time limits. I give the floor in the right of reply to the Distinguished delegate of the Philippines. Philippines [53:24]: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I wish to refer to an earlier statement mentioning the South China Sea arbitration. The July 12, 2016 arbitral award is binding and final. The award was an affirmation of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea dispute resolution mechanism. It authoritatively ruled on the That the claim of historic rights to resources within the seas falling within the Nine-Dash Line had no basis in law and is without legal effect. It upheld the Philippines' sovereign rights and jurisdiction and in its exclusive economic zone. We firmly reject attempts to undermine it. Thank you, Madam Chair. 6th Committee · Vice-Chair [54:13]: I thank the distinguished representative of Philippines for that exercise of the right of reply, and I'll give the floor to the distinguished representative of China to exercise their right of reply. China [54:26]: Thank you, Chair. In response to the statement of the Philippines, China exercises its right of reply. On Nanhai Zhudao and the surrounding maritime area, China has indisputable sovereignty, has sovereign rights and jurisdiction on the relevant maritime areas. China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights in the South China Sea has full legal and historical Grounds. China's position on the so-called South China Sea arbitration case has been consistent and clear. The Philippines unilaterally launched the arbitration in violation of the principle of state consent, violating international law including UNCLOS. The arbitral tribunal reviewed the case Ultravirus and made the judgment against the law. The award is null and void and illegal. China does not accept or recognize the relevant award, or any proposal or action resulting from it. China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights in the South China Sea will not be affected by the award under any circumstance. The so-called award is a negative example of international law and by no means forms part of international law. China once again requests the member of the IOC to remove the language of this award in the relevant case. Thank you, Chair. 6th Committee · Vice-Chair [56:41]: Muchas gracias. I thank the distinguished representative of China. Distinguished colleagues, With that, we conclude this agenda item. We conclude this section of our program. I remind you that informal consultations on agenda item 109, Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, will take place from 1:15 to 2:00 PM. Informal consultations on agenda item 80, Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its 76th Session, will be held from 3:00 to 4:30 PM. Followed by informal consultations on agenda item 77, criminal accountability of UN officials and experts on mission. Please also recall that as was decided at the first meeting of the committee, the deadline to inscribe for the debate on the agenda items scheduled for next week, namely agenda items 161 to 170 relating to the various ongoing requests The voting on the texts for the grant of observer status in the General Assembly will be from tomorrow afternoon at 5:00 p.m. The Working Group on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism will meet immediately following the adjournment of this meeting. And with that, the meeting is adjourned, colleagues. Thank you. Thank you.