Sixth Committee, 24th plenary meeting - General Assembly, 81st session General Assembly Date: 21 October 2026 Language: English Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/en/ga/c6/81/24 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 [14:20]: Good afternoon, colleagues. I invite you to take your seats. I call to order the 23rd meeting of the Sixth Committee for the 81st session of the General Assembly. Distinguished delegates, this afternoon, the Sixth Committee will first revert to agenda item 84, the rule of law at the national and international levels, in order to hear the annual presentation of the Deputy Secretary-General, Ms. Amina Mohammed, who also leads the Rule of Law Unit, which, as you know, brings together entities within the UN system involved in rule of law activities. DSG Mohammed will speak on this year's report on behalf of the Secretary-General. It is my great pleasure to warmly welcome Deputy Secretary-General to the Sixth Committee and to give you the floor. UN · Deputy Secretary-General [15:19]: Thank you, Excellency Ambassador Persaud, Chair of our Sixth Committee, distinguished guests, colleagues, and friends. Let me begin by thanking you, Ambassador, and the Bureau for the leadership of the Sixth Committee at the 81st session of the General Assembly. I also thank the Secretariat for their steady support of your work. It is an honor to present the Secretary-General's report on strengthening and coordinating United Nations rule of law activities. And we do so in an incredibly difficult, complex time where we see not only the pushback on many rights, but also institutions for the rule of law. This report provides an overview of the United Nations efforts to support member states in advancing the rule of law at both the national and international levels. Today, the need to defend and strengthen the rule of law remains urgent. Around the world, we see growing pressures on institutions, challenges to peaceful settlement of disputes, and violations of international law. These worrying trends underscore the need for renewed commitment to cooperation and to the principles that underpin the international system. At such a moment, it is important to recall a fundamental truth: the rule of law is not an abstract ideal; it is a practical necessity. At the national level, the rule of law protects rights, promotes accountability, supports development and helps preserve social cohesion. It ensures that institutions serve the public interest and that all people have access to justice without discrimination. At the international level, the rule of law provides the foundation for relations among states. It enables cooperation, supports stability, and offers peaceful means for resolving disagreements. It helps to ensure that all states, large and small, can rely on a common framework of rights and obligations that are grounded in the Charter of the United Nations. The national and international dimensions of the rule of law are inseparable. Progress in one sphere strengthens progress in another. Excellencies, the report before you illustrates the breadth of the United Nations' support to Member States, provided at their request. It highlights efforts to strengthen justice institutions, expand access to justice, support accountability, and advance legal and institutional reforms. It also presents achievements in the progressive development and the codification of international law, as well as the work of international and hybrid courts and accountability mechanisms. These efforts reflect a common objective, that disputes are resolved by law rather than by force, and that rights are protected through institutions rather than determined by power. Excellencies, this year's topic of discussion, as chosen by delegations, is enhancing the rule of law through strengthened cooperation between the Sixth Committee and the International Law Commission. This focus is both timely and important. For more than seven decades, the International Law Commission has played a central role in the progressive development and codification of international law. Many of the legal instruments and concepts that underpin today's international legal order have their origins in the Commission's careful and expert work. The relationship between the Commission and the Sixth Committee is therefore of particular significance. Through their dialogue, legal expertise is connected to the perspectives and the priorities of member states, helping to ensure that international law remains both principled and responsive to contemporary realities. At a time when the international community is confronting new and complex challenges, including those arising from technological change, environmental pressures, transnational threats, and evolving forms of conflict, This partnership is essential to strengthening and maintaining confidence in international law as an agreed framework for multilateralism. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, the United Nations remains committed to supporting member states in advancing the rule of law at the national and international levels. At a time of growing divisions, our shared commitment to the rule of law is the strongest foundation for peaceful cooperation, for sustainable development, and for human rights. Thank you all for your efforts to strengthen this foundation and to helping build a much more peaceful and stable world. I thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [20:07]: I thank the Deputy Secretary General, Ms. Amina Mohammed, for her important statement and for her introduction of this year's report. I'm sure that we all took note of the Deputy Secretary-General's timely reminder that the rule of law is not an abstract idea, but a practical necessity, and of the important linkage between the rule of law at national and international levels. Madam Deputy Secretary-General, I understand that you have other scheduled meetings this afternoon and will have to leave us, but we On behalf of the committee, I thank you for your statement and for your time spent with us, as well as for your message. UN · Deputy Secretary-General [20:50]: Thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [21:11]: Distinguished delegates, this afternoon, the Sixth Committee will undertake its debate on agenda item 80, expulsion of aliens, following which it will turn to its consideration of agenda item 87, responsibility of international organizations. We will commence the debate on agenda item 80, and I wish to inform that there is no report issued on this agenda item. As always, I remind you of the time limits for statements, seven minutes for statements delivered in a national capacity and 12 minutes for statements by groups of states. The first speaker on the list for this afternoon is the distinguished representative of Malaysia. You have the floor. Malaysia [22:05]: Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation recalls that this topic is included in the agenda of the current session pursuant to the General Assembly resolution 78/110, and notes that the International Law Commission adopted the draft articles back in 2014. Over the years, Malaysia has consistently provided substantive comments, raised pertinent concerns, and engaged in constructive discussion regarding the draft articles. In considering the possible form of the draft articles and any other appropriate action, and taking into account the views expressed on their substance, this delegation reiterates the position conveyed during the 75th and 78th sessions of the General Assembly. Malaysia remains of the view that States should retain considerable discretion to regulate, manage and, when necessary, expel aliens in accordance with their domestic laws and applicable international obligations, Malaysia continues to be concerned that certain provisions of the draft articles, in particular draft articles 3, 4 and 6, may unduly constrain the discretionary powers of states in administering the presence of foreigners within their territories. Moreover, the draft articles incorporate principles drawn from international treaties to which some states, including Malaysia, are not parties to. In this regard, Malaysia considers that the inclusion of such principle in the draft articles should not be construed as imposing treaty-based obligations on non-State parties. Madam Chair, Malaysia also remains concerned with draft article 23, which appears to extend protection against expulsion beyond refugees to aliens generally. This includes the incorporation of protections related to non-refoulement. Malaysia considers that such expansion warrants careful consideration, particularly in light of the differing legal basis and obligations applicable to states. as well as the need to respect their domestic legal and policy frameworks. Furthermore, Malaysia notes that ongoing debate regarding the status and scope of the principle of non-refoulement under international law, specifically whether it has attained the status of customary international law or jus cogens. In this respect, Malaysia maintains that the customary status of non-refoulement remains subject to legal debate, given the absence of uniform state practice and consensus concerning its precise scope legal character. Madam Chair, Malaysia also wishes to emphasize that the draft articles should fully respect state sovereignty, territorial integrity, national security, and public order, while duly taking into account the diversity of domestic legal systems and established state practice. In view of the foregoing, Malaysia is of the view that these draft articles should not take the form of a legally binding framework, such as international convention. Malaysia instead considers that the draft articles should serve as guiding principles for States. With that, I thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [25:16]: Thank the distinguished representative of Malaysia for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States of America. United States of America [25:26]: Thank you, Madam Chair. The Committee has undertaken at this session to reexamine the issue of the Commission's draft articles on the expulsion of aliens. The United States continues to believe it is unnecessary to pursue a legally binding instrument on the expulsion of aliens and will not support disrupting the existing legal framework on one of the most fundamental issues a nation faces who may remain within its borders. As the United States has previously expressed, it is unclear what benefits will be obtained by pursuing the elaboration of a convention based on the draft articles when there are well-settled rules of law that exist in broadly ratified conventions on human rights and refugee matters, which already provide the legal framework that the draft articles seek to address. Key aspects of the draft articles could create confusion by combining elements from existing rules with elements that reflect proposals for progressive development of the law in the same provision. The United States is concerned that such confusion could impede the enforcement of immigration law. The United States will not support a legally binding instrument that limits or interferes with a state's ability to remove aliens from its territory. Accordingly, we believe it is inappropriate to pursue the elaboration of a convention based on the draft articles, and the United States proposes that the Committee remove this topic from the provisional agenda for future sessions, consistent with ongoing efforts to strengthen and improve the working methods of the Committee and streamline the Committee's agenda. I thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [27:11]: I thank the distinguished representative of the United States of America, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Israel. Israel [27:21]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Israel expresses its appreciation to the International Law Commission for its work on the draft articles on the expulsion of aliens and welcomes the opportunity to address this agenda item. As Israel has noted in previous sessions, The explosion of aliens touches upon the core of state sovereignty, specifically the prerogative of each state to control admission, regulate migration, secure its borders and maintain public order. At the same time, this sensitive matter requires a careful balance between sovereign prerogatives and the protection of fundamental human rights. Given the complex context-specific nature of modern migration flows, national practices and legal frameworks vary widely from one state to another. Without international consensus around uniform norms and practices, it is inappropriate to establish a binding universal regulatory regime. Madam Chair, Regarding the question of the possible form of the draft articles, Israel maintains that they should not serve as basis for negotiating an international convention. Our position is based on the following key considerations. Firstly, there is an overlap between the draft articles and existing multilateral frameworks. Core protections of the rights of aliens, including non-refoulement obligations, are already addressed within existing instruments, notably the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the Convention against Torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, as well as other international human rights treaties. Negotiating a separate convention in this field is unnecessary, risks redundancy, and may create fragmentation or conflicting interpretation across established legal instruments. Furthermore, there is glaring lack of consensus on the text of the draft articles. While the article partly rely on existing international instruments, key elements reflect controversial progressive development rather than customary international law or established state practice. The discussions during the 78th session of the CIS Committee revealed notable convers- controversies with regarding to many aspects, controversies with regarding to many aspects of the draft articles. During those discussions, a significant number of member states expressed strong reservations regarding both the mythology and the substantive provisions of the text and pointed out the draft articles do not reflect customary international law or international consensus. Israel notes again that the state practice in this sensitive area is heavily shaped by local and regional security dynamics as well as national interest and is typically very context specific. Therefore, we believe that the attempt to infer universally binding standards from diverse practices of states on this sensitive topic is still inappropriate and premature without the necessary consensus to regulate it in the form of universally binding treaty. Madam Chair. For this reason, ISOO does not support initiating work towards convention on the basis of the draft articles. Rather than legally binding treaty, the draft articles may at most serve as non-binding reference, material or guidelines which states may consult at their discretion in line with their domestic laws and international obligations. Thank you, Madam Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [31:08]: I thank the distinguished representative of Israel for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of El Salvador. El Salvador [31:17]: Thank you. Very much indeed, Madam Chair. El Salvador has consistently reiterated the importance of preserving a close tie between the International Law Commission and the Sixth Committee, in order to guarantee that the work of codification and the progressive development of international law reflect, as broadly as possible, the perspectives and concerns of States. Against that backdrop, my delegation wishes to recall that over the course of debates held in previous sessions on this agenda item, El Salvador has made substantive comments on the draft articles regarding the expulsion of aliens. While we do recognize the significant effort made by the ILC, we are of the view that aspects remain on which Differences of opinion remain between States. These aspects deserve more extensive exchanges of views within this Sixth Committee. The relevance of this agenda item is particularly clear in the current context, a context marked by increasing human mobility and migratory flows driven by several factors, including economic, social factors, situations of conflict, as well as the adverse effects of climate change and rising sea levels. This reality must compel us to continue to reflect upon the way international law might contribute to striking an appropriate balance between the sovereign authorities of states and the respect for human dignity, as well as the fundamental rights of all people, regardless of their migratory status. With this in mind, it is a matter of concern to my delegation to note that that provision can give rise to interpretations or applications which lead to the criminalisation of irregular migration, this when in and of itself irregular migration should be broached. with an administrative perspective and not a criminal one, in accordance with international human rights standards. We are of the view that any provision in this field, and here I'm talking about the draft articles, any provision in the draft articles must guarantee respect for the human rights of migrants. It must also recognize the exceptional nature of detention and be compatible with the recognition of any and all persons to leave any country, including their own. It must also be compatible with international obligations that states have in terms of human rights. From this perspective, El Salvador is of the view that debates on this issue must continue to draw on all relevant branches of international law. in particular those tied to the protection of human rights, as well as the evolution of the practice and jurisprudence of international courts and relevant regional courts too. We are of the view that there remains room to continue dialogue between delegations with a view to identifying possible areas of common ground, with a view also to building consensus around how exactly we should deal with the draft articles. In our view, the way we deal with this matter in the future could see us draw on mechanisms which might allow a more dynamic and substantive discussion between States. That would foster a broader approach to the various positions expressed and a more comprehensive accounting for them. My delegation wishes to reiterate the comments it has previously made regarding the provisions of the draft articles, more specifically the comments made on draft article 19. It continues to presume that detention is the course to follow against migrant persons without assuring due process. That is a matter of concern for my delegation because, As we have said, this provision, in our view, could be erroneously implemented. The deprivation of freedom of movement must not be a consequence for an administrative infraction. Moreover, we reiterate the need to ensure that the draft articles bear in mind the obligation that States have pursuant to article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Chair, my delegation, by way of conclusion, wishes to reaffirm its readiness to participate as constructively as possible in the discussions that this committee may continue to champion in terms of considering this agenda item. We wish to work to move towards a result which, in a balanced way, reflects both the fundamental principles of international law and the legitimate concerns of states. Thank you very much. 6th Committee · Chair [36:26]: I thank the distinguished representative of El Salvador for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Netherlands (Kingdom of the) [36:36]: Thank you, Madam Chair. The Kingdom of the Netherlands notes the inclusion of the topic "Expulsion of aliens" by the General Assembly to this session of the Sixth Committee. with a view to examining, inter alia, the question of the form that might be given to the draft articles or any other appropriate action. The draft articles include many existing obligations, particularly those related to human rights, essential to the treatment of everyone who is expelled. However, we regret that the draft articles as adopted by the International Law Commission go beyond the currently applicable rules of international law on expulsion of aliens and are not in accordance with state practice. Therefore, at this point in time, the Kingdom of the Netherlands cannot support a convention or any other form of codification on the basis of these draft articles. Thank you, Madam Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [37:43]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Philippines. Philippines [37:53]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Over a decade ago, we welcomed the conclusion of the work of the ILC on the topic of expulsion of aliens, and we took note of its recommendations. The Philippines recognizes the sovereign right of states to regulate the entry, stay, and removal of aliens within their territories. At the same time, the exercise of this right must be consistent with international law, including applicable human rights obligations and the principles of due process and human dignity. For the Philippines, Commonwealth Act No. 613, or the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, has provided the national legal framework governing the issuance of visas, exclusion and deportation proceedings, and other requirements concerning the lawful stay of aliens in the Philippines. and the Bureau of Immigration has issued various regulations to implement and complement this legal framework. Due process guarantees are enshrined in Philippine law, including substantive and procedural safeguards for aliens facing expulsion. Meanwhile, as a country with a significant number of nationals living and working abroad, the Philippines attaches particular importance to safeguards against arbitrary expulsion, access to consular assistance, and respect for the fundamental rights of individuals, affected by expulsion proceedings. Madam Chair, we see value in the draft articles as guidelines for states, as a basis for further discussion, and as a useful reference for the development of national legal frameworks. We particularly appreciate the Commission's efforts to strike a balance between the sovereign prerogatives of states and the protection of the rights of aliens, including through safeguards relating to non-refoulement, family life, and procedural fairness. At the same time, we recognize that the draft articles contain provisions that may reflect both the codification and progressive development of international law. And so further consideration by states would be useful in clarifying the legal basis, scope, and practical implications of these provisions. We acknowledge the different views expressed by the delegations on the future of the draft articles, including proposals for a legally binding instrument. and those favoring non-binding guidelines. We believe that these perspectives should not preclude further constructive engagement by this meeting, by this committee. We note, for instance, the substantive contributions of the delegation from El Salvador. In this regard, the Philippines would support a gradual, inclusive process of substantive discussions aimed at identifying areas of convergence and questions requiring further examinations, and such a process should remain open to all possible outcomes. We believe that this approach would preserve the valuable work of the ILC while allowing member states to build a broader common understanding of the applicable principles. And so we would therefore support retaining this topic on the agenda of the Sixth Committee. Thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [40:55]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Philippines for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mexico. Mexico [41:07]: Thank you, Madam Chair. The draft articles drawn up by the International Law Commission on the expulsion of aliens includes norms both of codification and the progressive development of international law. The matters established arise from the inherent rights of states or from the application of obligations entered into pursuant to manifold international instruments, particularly in the field of human rights and international humanitarian law. While matters that have not been established in these articles, they remain under scrutiny so that we can assess whether they are appropriate for consideration. This distinction does not reduce the value of the work done by the ILC. On the contrary, it gives rise to crucial work that the Sixth Committee must do, that is determining the treatment that should be afforded to the draft articles. Madam Chair, more than a decade now has elapsed since the adoption of the draft articles. During that time, the Sixth Committee has held several debates. However, it has not adopted a substantive decision on the fate thereof. The practice of taking note of the draft and postponing consideration thereof to a future session must not be the highest possible achievable result, particularly given that this is an issue of the utmost importance given the current state of affairs. is of the view that this session must mark a turning point. We must move towards more definite work with a longer-term scope. Keeping the item on the agenda could only be useful if that went hand in hand with a specific process designed to ensure the adoption of a decision on the draft and not simply a process designed to see the reiteration of broader positions. As a first step, it would be appropriate to identify in clearer terms the provisions that reflect international law that is currently in force and, indeed, applicable international law, and those that correspond primarily to an exercise of progressive development. That exercise would make it possible to more precisely assess the degree of acceptance of each provision, and to distinguish differences related to their content from those referring solely to the final form of the instrument. It would also be relevant to have updates on state practice related to the provisions of the draft articles or its substantive content. The evolution over the last decade could confirm some of these standards. It could also reveal trends in terms of finding common ground or demonstrate that differences of opinion remain, differences that make it difficult to contemplate their incorporation into a tangible instrument. Mexico proposes the establishment of a working group with a specific mandate to examine the classification of the provisions. a mandate to update relevant practice and to formulate a recommendation on the form that the draft should have, be that form binding or not. Alternatives on the table are not necessarily limited to achieving a convention or completely abandoning this work. Among the alternatives on the table, we could evaluate the possibility of adopting a declaration of principles, non-binding guidelines, some conclusions which would recognize the customary nature of specific provisions, or a decision that would invite States to use the draft as a reference point for their legislation and national practice. However, any of these options, if chosen, must emerge as a conscious decision being made. Mexico is not of the view that it is appropriate to... continue considering the agenda item indefinitely on a three-year basis without clear objectives or any conclusion on the horizon. The goal must not be to force a treaty into existence when there is not sufficient agreement to take that step. Neither, however, should we allow the lack of a decision to undermine or unravel the important work of the ILC. Consequently, the Sixth Committee must establish a way forward which allows gradual progress to be made towards the adoption of a final decision on the ultimate form of the draft articles. Finally, Mexico wishes to underscore the importance of ensuring that the language used by this Commission reflects the evolution of international law and unfettered respect for human dignity. With this in mind, we believe that it is timely to review the use of the term "alien" in the English version of the Sixth Committee agenda item, this because this is an antiquated concept. a term which could be dehumanizing ultimately and out of step with modern legal language. Mexico is of the view that it is preferable to use an expression such as foreigners in English. This is better in line with a human focused approach and with the mandate regarding the progressive development of international law. The proposals that today we have put on the table, Madam Chair, will be suggested by my delegation for incorporation into the appropriate draft resolution once negotiations on such a text begin. Thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [47:40]: I thank the distinguished representative of Mexico for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [47:51]: Thank you, Chair. On the topic of expulsion of aliens, the position of the United Kingdom has been and continues to be that this is a difficult and complex subject which intrudes directly into the domestic sphere of states and national sovereignty. The United Kingdom continues to consider that the role of states to control their borders and manage migration, especially that of irregular character, remains paramount and should be afforded considerable discretion. The United Kingdom believes that the topic of expulsion of aliens is unsuitable for a convention or legally binding instrument. The United Kingdom does not accept that the draft articles reflect customary international law. As set out in our detailed comments submitted previously, we have substantive concerns regarding a number of the draft articles. While the United Kingdom considers that the subject is insufficiently developed or coherent for codification, we would like to highlight that our own domestic legal framework is exercised consistently with our international obligations and provides sufficient safeguards for individuals facing expulsion. Migrants are expected to comply with the laws of host states. If they do not, then the host states should be able to take appropriate, reasonable measures to promote compliance in accordance with existing international legal obligations. Chair, the United Kingdom took the opportunity at the 72nd session in 2017 to make detailed comments on the draft articles. I have not set out those comments in my statement. However, those comments remain the formal position of the United Kingdom on this issue. Thank you, Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [49:35]: I thank the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Egypt. Moving to the next speaker, I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cuba. Cuba [49:57]: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The delegation of Cuba wishes to thank the ILC for establishing draft articles on the expulsion of aliens. We thank them for bearing in mind the considerations of member states in their reports. At the same time, we are of the view that the draft articles established by the ILC is a valid contribution that might stand as a starting point for the establishment of an international convention on the issue. always using as our starting point consent of the states. Cuba believes it is useful to codify the rights of persons that have been expelled or are on the verge of expulsion, bearing in mind that we bear in mind these human rights of these people being expelled. The protection of the human rights of aliens or those that are about to be aliens cannot be a limit for the exercise of states laws, we must bear in mind domestic laws and the need to maintain public order. We also believe it is crucial to ensure the prior notification by the state of arrival of the expulsion process so that the people concerned can have due consular representation. Criminal legislation in Cuba provides for the expulsion of aliens as something that can be applied by a tribunal to natural persons. A foreign person can be expelled when the competent tribunal is of the view that, given the nature of a crime committed, the circumstances of the way in which it was perpetrated, it is clear that their remaining in the country is prejudicial. Moreover, our legislation provides for the expulsion of aliens is something that can arise after the primary punishment is served and the administration of justice body has ultimate discretion to decide whether an alien must be expelled if they have been punished but before that punishment is served. And if that is the case, the criminal responsibility of that person ends. The legally binding nature of international instruments arises from the consent that states have to the formation of international law. We recognize the contribution made by the ILC and all its members to contribute to the progressive development of international law. However, we insist that we cannot consider the ILC in and of itself as a type of legislative body responsible for establishing international law norms. Its value has been in terms of documenting the way in which states have drawn up norms and proposing matters on which states might be interested in evaluating the possibility of drawing up their own norms. Thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [52:47]: I thank the distinguished representative of Cuba, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran (Islamic Republic of) [53:01]: Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Thank you, Madam Chair. Expulsion of aliens is a significant area of international law that deals simultaneously with both the sovereign prerogatives of states and the protection of individuals other than their nationals. Reiterating our positions expressed in the previous sessions of the Sixth Committee on this topic, we wish to touch upon a few points as follows. First, while the sensitivity and significance of the matter under consideration requires that the provisions of the draft articles be based on lex lata rather than lex ferenda, It seems that the commission has gone beyond customary and treaty law and has engaged with progressive development of international law in which a state practice is still limited. Second, a state has the right to expel aliens on its territory who pose a threat to its national security or public order, as well as the right to determine the components of those two concepts on the basis of its national laws and prevailing circumstances. It is therefore unnecessary to draw up an exhaustive list of grounds that might be invoked to justify the expulsion of aliens, nor do states have an obligation in all cases to specify the grounds for expulsion. This is certainly without prejudice to the established legal fact that expulsion must be conducted with due respect for relevant applicable obligations under international law. Third, With respect to appeal against expulsion, it is noteworthy that many national laws make no provision for such appeals, and there is serious doubt about the existence of customary rules in that area. It seems that the draft articles, by granting unlawful aliens the right to challenge an expulsion decision, has gone beyond existing treaty and customary law. Accordingly, equal treatment to aliens who are lawfully and those who are unlawfully present in a state's territory could create an incentive for illegal immigration. That being said, we are of the view that the idea of drafting a convention and convening a diplomatic conference and the elaboration thereof is still premature. I thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [55:31]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Haiti. Haiti [55:49]: Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. Madam Chair, my delegation is honored to take the floor under agenda item 80 on the expulsion of aliens. This issue requires special attention with regard to the requirements of international law and the contemporary realities of human movement. Haiti recognizes that a state due to its sovereignty and in accordance with international law, has the competence to regulate the entry, stay, and departure of aliens present on its territory. Exercise of this competence, however, should be in keeping with the international obligations of the state concerned, as well as the applicable guarantees for any person that is subject to expulsion. As rightfully recalled by the Haitian Prime Minister's Excellency, Alexis Delfi, during his intervention in the general debate, border protection and respect for human dignity are not incompatible. They must go hand in hand. Because behind the statistics and debates, there are women, children, and men who bear a history, who have talents, hopes, and sometimes carry the burden of exile. This conviction guides our approach toward the issue of migration. Border control is a legitimate prerogative of states. However, it should not be used to justify practices that are incompatible with the fundamental rights and international obligations that apply. My delegation in this context places special importance on procedural guarantees for any decision of expulsion. The legality of the measure, the ability of the person concerned to exercise his or her rights, access to potential appeals, and respect of guarantees stipulated by international law are all key elements of rule of law. Particular attention should also be paid to persons who are in vulnerable situations, especially children, families, and persons who may incur serious risks upon being repatriated. Expulsion measures should be implemented in keeping with the relevant international obligations, especially when the principle of non-refoulement ought to apply. Madam Chair, the situation of Haitian nationals abroad mean that this situation is a particular concern for my country. For generations now, Haitians living abroad are contributing to the economic, social, and cultural lives of the societies that host them. Haiti thanks the states that have provided them with the opportunity to integrate and that have provided them with a treatment that keeps in mind their dignity. At the same time, we are aware that modern migration often is the outcome of factors that transcend an individual decision to migrate. Security crises, economic difficulties, disasters, and the lack of any prospects for a future can force people to leave their countries. The crisis that Haiti is currently experiencing has also led to the displacement and exodus of thousands of our compatriots. That is why the response to the issue of expulsion cannot be separated from a broader reflection on the root causes of migration. Responsibility should be shared between the countries of origin, transit, and destination. This requires policies that combine security, development, cooperation, and respect for fundamental rights. For Haiti, this responsibility begins with the ability of a state to create conditions that allow its citizens to live, work, and build a future in their own country of origin. To this end, the government of Haiti has focused its action on restoring security, holding elections, and on ensuring economic recovery. These three priorities are directly linked to the need to create conditions conducive to a gradual return to stability and to reduce factors that fuel forced migration. My delegation believes that expulsion policies ought to be accompanied by effective cooperation with the countries of origin, adherence to consular procedures, cooperation between competent authorities, access to information, and repatriation that takes place under safe, orderly conditions that are respectful of human dignity are all vital for responsible management of migration. This is why the prime minister of our country has said, "I would like to firmly recall our commitment to respect for the dignity and fundamental rights of all migrants. Regardless of their situation, no circumstance can justify the trampling of their dignity." The fate of migrants requires us to shoulder a shared responsibility and to provide sustainable responses." End quote. Madam Chair, Haiti remains concerned by all practices that could lead to arbitrary or collective expulsions, to the unjustified separation of families, or to the repatriation of persons into situations where they run risks that are incompatible with the international obligations of the state carrying out the expulsion. At the same time, we reaffirm that a responsible migration policy ought to allow states to protect their borders and uphold their legislation. This debate should not artificially oppose sovereignty and human rights. Rather, we must seek conditions that allow us to reconcile these two needs while adhering to international law. The Haitian delegation holds that the work of the International Law Commission on the expulsion of aliens is an important contribution to this debate. It can serve as a point of reference for deepening understanding of the applicable rules and foster greater predictability in the conduct of expulsion proceedings. Haiti, therefore, encourages the continued constructive dialogue on this issue based upon respect for the sovereignty of states, for rule of law, and for the dignity of all human beings. We are convinced that Tightened international cooperation is crucial to address migration challenges without losing sight of the human realities behind every statistic. In closing, the goal ought to be building a migration system in which border security, state responsibility, and human dignity are mutually reinforcing instead of in conflict. Thank you, Madam Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [1:03:04]: I thank the distinguished representative of Haiti for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Brazil. Brazil [1:03:14]: Thank you, Madam Chair. This topic is closely linked to state sovereignty. It is perhaps one of the most concrete demonstrations of state power exercised over the individuals unprotected by the mantle of nationality. States, after all, have the right to control their territory. They have the right to regulate the presence of non-nationals within their jurisdiction. This right is well established in international law, but it's not unlimited. Here too, the rule of law is an imperative. States must exercise this right in accordance with international law. In particular, the vulnerability of persons facing expulsion reinforces the need to respect human rights, refugee law, due process, and the principle of non-refoulement. The ILC's draft articles reflect this, setting out an important range of safeguards that protect human dignity and ensure legality. They include, for instance, the right of all foreigners subject to expulsion to a grounded and individual decision by an impartial authority in accordance with the law. Collective expulsions would thus be prohibited, as well as arbitrary deprivations of nationality for the sole purpose of expulsion, disguised expulsions, or expulsions aiming at confiscation of assets. In this context, internal laws that guarantee human rights and due process of law must not be applied selectively. By enshrining these principles, the draft articles seek to balance sovereignty and legality. Brazil supports this approach. Madam Chair, Brazil's national practice is largely consistent with the draft articles. Brazil's federal constitution reflects precisely the balance sought by the Commission, sovereignty on the one hand, and the dignity and universal human rights of the human person on the other. Human dignity is one of the foundations of our constitutional order. The prevalence of human rights guides Brazil's international relations. Equality before the law is a constitutional guarantee. So are due process and access to justice. These principles have served as a compass for our migration policies. They also guide decisions involving the removal of non-nationals. Brazil's migration law of 2017 puts constitutional values into practice. By embracing a human rights-based approach to migration, it rejects xenophobia, discrimination, and the criminalization of migration. It protects family unity and promotes social inclusion, and it seeks to ensure equal access to public services. Brazil has continued to strengthen this framework since we last considered this topic at the Sixth Committee three years ago. In 2025, Brazil adopted the National Policy on Migration, Refugee and Statelessness. For Brazil, therefore, sovereignty and human rights are not competing concepts. They are mutually reinforcing principles that balance one another. Madam Chair, worrying developments around the world have reminded us that such a balance between sovereignty and human dignity cannot be taken for granted. Cases involving detention, removal and return procedures continue to raise important human rights concerns. This makes the Commission's work all the more relevant. The General Assembly has discussed this topic for many years. Discussions have shown the importance of this subject and also the diversity of views among Member States. Brazil remains committed to a constructive dialogue and also open to discussions on the most appropriate form to be given to the draft articles. In principle, Brazil favors efforts aimed at developing international instruments based on the draft articles. This process allows the states to play an active role in the codification and progressive development of international law. Different options remain available. What matters most is the preserving of the careful balance reflected in the Commission's work. Some may differ on the future form of the draft articles, but one point must be clear. The absence of codification does not mean the absence of applicable law. The draft articles should be welcomed for their potential in providing useful guidance. They can promote legal certainty. They can contribute to the codification of international law. They can also contribute to its progressive development. But the opportunity to promote legal certainty should not be mistaken for a legal vacuum. International law already provides important safeguards for both states and individuals. Madam Chair, state sovereignty and human dignity are principles that expressly govern Brazil's international relations under our federal constitution. We know that these principles are also shared by our entire human family by most, by our international community. They are essential to international law. They are at the very essence of our United Nations. At periods of profound transformation and challenges as the one we are living, principles ensure the rule of law when rules cannot keep up with the speed of history. Rules may need to evolve to respond to changing realities, but principles never become obsolete. They reflect the values that underpin the international legal order. They remind us of what must be preserved amid change, and they define limits that must never be crossed and the balance that is so fundamental to justice. I thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [1:10:05]: I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. Russian Federation [1:10:17]: Madam Chair, for the Russian Federation, the legal regulations of the expulsion of aliens is of great importance, both at the domestic and international level. Recently, our country has been actively modernizing its laws governing the legal status of foreign nationals, including international treaties, including readmission agreements, which allow for the orderly transfer of persons who have violated migration laws. At the initial stages of the consideration by the ILC of the topic of expulsion of aliens, The Russian Federation considers the development of an international treaty in this area to be useful and timely. However, we must note that the draft articles prepared by the ILC have not entirely met our expectations. In our view, they remain quite far removed from provisions that could serve as the basis for a new universal convention. Like many other states, we believe that the expulsion of aliens, especially those who violate migration regulations, is the sovereign and inalienable right of states. Since expulsion is inextricably linked to national security and public order, It is this basic tenet that ought to guide the development of international laws and relations in this area. Russia unequivocally supports many of the provisions on the protection of the rights of persons subject to expulsion. It is important that the sovereign right of states to expel foreign nationals who have violated their laws from their territory ought to be exercised in keeping with applicable international legal norms that includes respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms, as well as the procedural guarantees established under national laws. Russia also remains staunch in its commitment to its obligations to protect refugees, including the universally recognized principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits their forcible return to countries where their lives or freedom could be jeopardized. However, we must point out that the current draft is clearly biased toward protecting persons subject to expulsion. In addition, it fails to adequately distinguish between persons who are lawfully present on the territory of a foreign state versus irregular migrants. And most importantly, given that states already have well-established mechanisms for lawfully removing aliens, including at the interstate level, and the attempt to impose a new and uniform approach on them is unlikely to achieve universal consensus. The duplication of provisions in existing human rights documents also raises a legitimate question as to the added value of the draft. In light of the aforementioned, the Russian Federation does not view the existing draft articles of the ILC as a suitable foundation for developing a universal treaty. In this regard, we emphasize that the absence of such a universal convention does not absolve states of their responsibility for any mass or gross violations of the rights of aliens. such as, for example, the practice of pushbacks used by a number of EU member states, under which asylum seekers are forced back beyond their borders in violation of established procedures. As is well known, this practice leads to the deaths of thousands of migrants every year in the Mediterranean Sea and along land borders. The lack of a dedicated treaty can not justify the detention of asylum seekers in overcrowded camps under conditions that are entirely unsuitable for normal habitation or for threats to deport so-called non-citizens for language reasons. Madam Chair, returning to the draft articles, at this stage, we believe that they could be retained in their current form as a useful recommendatory document. Thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [1:14:24]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Bangladesh. Bangladesh [1:14:43]: Mr. Rahman Ebrahim. Thank you, Madam Chair. Bangladesh reaffirms its continued interest in this item. We thank the International Law Commission for its draft articles on the expulsion of aliens adopted in 2014, and we welcome the opportunity to consider once again the form they should take. In 1795, Immanuel Kant wrote, "Hospitality means the right of a stranger not to be treated as an enemy when he arrives in the land of another." He added that this was not a question of philanthropy, but of right. The Commission's draft articles are faithful to that insight. Draft article 3 affirms that a state has the right to expel an alien from its territory. It then requires that expulsion respect international law in particular those relating to human rights. The sovereign right is real, but it is a right exercised under law, not above it. The ICJ has explained what that means in practice. In the Ahmadou Diallo case, the Court under President Hisashi Owada held in 2010 that an expulsion is compatible with international law only if it is decided in accordance with the law and that it must not be arbitrary in nature. Draft Article 4 states the same rule. An alien may be expelled only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law. A decision, a lawful ground, a hearing, these are not favours that a state grants. They are what distinguishes expulsion from abuse. Madam Chair, for Bangladesh, this subject is not theoretical. More than one million Rohingya have found shelter in our country, having been driven from their homes in Myanmar. Their experience shows why the articles matter. Draft Article 9 provides that collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited. Draft Article 8 provides that a state shall not make its national an alien by deprivation of nationality for the sole purpose of expelling him or her. Myanmar first denied the Rohingya the protection of nationality and expelled them as a group. In 2018, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court held that it could exercise jurisdiction over their alleged deportation because an element of this crime, the crossing of a border, took place on the territory of a state party to the statute, which in this case is Bangladesh. The law has recognized what the Rohingya endured. Their future lies in a voluntary, safe, dignified, and sustainable return to Myanmar, with their rights restored, as the Honourable Prime Minister, Mr. Tariq Rahman, stated before the General Assembly on 24th September. Bangladesh and the world have seen other instances of people expelled from different territories. Sometimes they are migrant workers returned in large groups and at short notices, sometimes before they could even recover unpaid wages or collect their belongings. Sometimes they are people without proper documents whose papers have expired or have been cancelled, often for reasons beyond their control. Sometimes they are asylum seekers turned back at the land border or at the sea before their claims are heard. At other times, they are long-term residents whose status has lapsed, or stateless persons whom no state is willing to receive. The principles in these articles apply wherever people are moved across borders. Expulsion should remain an exceptional measure taken only in accordance with law. No person should be removed across a frontier without a decision based on due process and without any verification of nationality. Draft Article 10 prohibits any form of disguised expulsion where a state believes that a person is not its national. The answer lies in procedure and in cooperation between the states concerned not in unilateral removal across a border. Madam Chair, then there is the other side of our experience. Millions of Bangladeshis live and work abroad. Their labor builds the economies of other host states and sustains families at home. When such workers face expulsion, the articles offer protections that are modest but essential. Draft Article 13 requires that every alien who is subject to expulsion, be treated with humanity and with respect for inherent dignity of the human person. Draft Article 15 calls for a special protection of children, older persons, persons with disabilities and pregnant women. Draft Article 26 set out the right to notice, the right to be heard, the right to an effective remedy and the right to an interpreter. These are not obstacles to migration control. They are what make migration control lawful. On the question before us, Bangladesh remains of the view it expressed in 2017. The draft articles could form the basis of a convention at a suitable time. Some articles reflect settled law, others, such as those on the death penalty and on individual recourse to international bodies, involve progressive development and deserve careful discussion. In the meantime, Bangladesh would support the Assembly taking note of the articles and commending them to States as guidance. We are also open to a working group of this Committee so that States can examine the text article by article. Madame Chair, Kant reminded us that the treatment of a stranger is a question of right. Bangladesh As a country that hosts the displaced and a country whose citizens work across the world, we see both sides of that question. We will continue to work with all delegations so that the right to expel and the rights of the expelled are held in balance by law. I thank you, Madam Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [1:21:01]: I thank the distinguished representative of Bangladesh for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Singapore. Singapore [1:21:11]: Madam Chair, the topic on expulsion of aliens is a complex one, given the sensitive interface between a state's sovereign right to expel aliens from its territory, that state's obligation to comply with applicable international human rights law, and the rights and obligations of receiving states, as well as of individuals. Singapore has expressed our concerns consistently on the content of the draft articles over the years. We remain of the firm view that progressive development in respect of the laws and practices applicable to the expulsion of aliens must be approached with caution. In this respect, we maintain our concerns alongside other delegations about the lack of distinction between codification and progressive development in the draft articles and its commentaries. We also reiterate our opposition to the expanded principle of non-refoulement articulated in paragraph 2 of draft article 23. That paragraph is not reflective of customary international law. There is no customary international law obligation to the effect that a state that has abolished the death penalty is bound not to expel a person to another state where the death penalty may be imposed. Therefore, on the question of form to be given to the draft articles, Singapore does not support their status as draft articles. The General Assembly should simply take note of the draft articles, as well as the concerns and reservations expressed by the delegations on them. I thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [1:23:12]: I thank the Distinguished Representative of Singapore, the last speaker on the list for this agenda item. We have thus concluded our debate on agenda item 80, expulsion of aliens. I wish to inform that Mr. Wiznik Pannier of Haiti will serve as the coordinator for the draft resolution on this agenda item. I invite Mr. Pannier to take the floor and to provide an update. You have the floor, Haiti. Haiti · Coordinator [1:23:48]: I thank you for. Giving me the floor once again, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, distinguished colleagues, I have keenly listened to the various debates and the statements of various delegations. And as coordinator of the draft resolution on the expulsion of aliens, I have the honor to inform you that the zero draft will be distributed today. It will incorporate the technical updates that were needed. And the first series of informal consultations will take place on Friday, October 23rd at 2 p.m. And I encourage all delegations present today to take active part in this consultations and to share their comments. And I am fully available to facilitate a constructive dialogue in the spirit of cooperation. in order to arrive at a consensus. I'd like to thank in advance the delegations for their cooperation and their support in this work. Thank you, Madam Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [1:24:51]: I thank Mr. Pannier for the update, and I encourage the coordinator to use the e-sponsorship module in the e-delegate portal for the circulation of the draft resolution. Distinguished delegates, the Sixth Committee will now undertake its debate on agenda item 87, responsibility of international organizations. The Committee has two reports before it under the agenda item. the report of the secretary general containing comments and information received from governments and international organizations which is contained in document a/81/222 as well as the report of the secretary general providing information on decisions of international courts and tribunals con contained in document a/81/83 these reports are available on the website of the sixth committee. There are about 30 speakers on the list. I request delegations who have inscribed but may no longer wish to take the floor, or those who may wish to take the floor not at their stipulated spot but at a later moment, to inform the secretariat in good time so that we can have a smooth flow of the list of speakers. The first speaker on the list is the distinguished representative of the European Union. You have the floor. EU · EU [1:26:20]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its member states. The candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Georgia aligned themselves with this statement. We thank the Secretary General for his two reports under this item, and we reiterate our appreciation for the work of the International Law Commission and of its special rapporteur, Professor Giorgio Gaia. The European Union has contributed to the Commission's work from its early stages. through written comments submitted between 2004 and 2011. As we recall, at the 78th session, the European Union is an international organization that has achieved a very high degree of integration with an autonomous legal order. We therefore consider draft Article 64 particularly relevant as it recognizes the questions of responsibility may be governed by special rules of international law, including the rules of the organization applicable to the relations between the organizations and its members. Chair, in resolution 78/114, the General Assembly included this item in the agenda of this session with a view to further examining the Commission's recommendation to consider at a later stage the elaboration of a convention on the basis of the draft articles or any other appropriate action. It also invited this committee to consider at a later stage the framework, if any, in which it could continue its examination of this topic. In that regard, we would like to make the following five points. First, while the draft article set out a comprehensive legal regime following the model adopted by the Commission with regard to the responsibility of states, The Commission itself acknowledged that several draft articles are based on limited practice and that their authority will depend upon their reception by those to whom they are addressed. The practice of states and international organizations with regard to some of the draft articles remains limited or inconsistent. Second. The Secretary-General's latest compilation records no references to the draft articles in decisions of international courts, tribunals, and other bodies over the past three years. Third, we recall the close relationship between the draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations and those on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts, on which this committee has not yet reached agreement as to their future form. In our view, The question of the form of the present draft article should not be decided before that matter is decided, even though discussion on each of the two topics merit being pursued on their own merits. Fourth, the ILC this year adopted on first reading draft guidelines on the settlement of dispute to which international organizations are parties. that closely related work, including on the definition of an international organization, building on the definition contained in the draft articles, should be taken into account in any future consideration of this item. Fifth, the follow-up to each product of the Commission should be decided case by case on its merits, giving due weight to what the Commission itself recommended. For the present draft articles, the ILC recommends that the Assembly take note of them and consider the elaboration of a convention at a later stage. For all the above reasons, we believe that the later stage envisaged by the Commission has not yet been reached. Together with their commentaries, the draft articles already provide a useful reference. We consider that the periodic consideration of this topic in this Committee, on the basis of updated information on practice, remains appropriate for the time being. To that end, we encourage States and international organizations to continue sharing their practice, and we look forward to further updates of the compilation. I thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [1:30:27]: I thank the distinguished representative of the European Union, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of China. China [1:30:39]: Madam Chair, international organizations are the important subjects of international law and play a significant role in global governance. The Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations, adopted by the ILC in 2011, represent an important step forward in the codification and progressive development of the rules of international law in the field of international responsibility. The consideration of this topic by the Sixth Committee is of practical significance for further clarifying the rights and obligations of States and international organizations and for ensuring international organizations discharge their functions in accordance with the law. China wishes to make the following comments. First, rules on responsibility must be determined in accordance with the legal nature of international organizations. International organizations are established by states and operate under powers conferred upon them by their statutes. Their legal status, sources of authority, and operational mechanism differ fundamentally from those of sovereign states. The codification and progressive development of relevant rules must respect this fundamental distinction, taking into account the differences in the functions and statutes of various international organizations, and avoid simply drawing analogies with the rules on state responsibility. Second, a practical distinction must be drawn between the responsibility of international organizations and that of their member states. Article 14 to 18 of the draft articles set out the responsibility of international organizations for the acts of the state or another international organization, while Article 58 to 62 set out the responsibility of states for the acts of international organizations. including criteria for assessing acts such as aid or assistance, direction or control, and coercion. Further research and discussion are required to distinguish between situations where an international organization acts pursuant to a mandate from its member states and those where member states fulfill their obligations in accordance with the organization's constitution or resolutions, and to determine how responsibility should be allocated. Third, the issue of countermeasures must be handled with caution. Permitting international organizations to take countermeasures against states or other organizations is inconsistent with the functions they perform and may also undermine the stability of international relations. The imposition of countermeasures against international organizations may also disrupt the normal functioning of multilateral mechanisms, could even be politicized or abused. Fourth, a balanced approach must be taken to the privileges and immunities of international organizations and the holding of such organizations to account. The privileges and immunities of international organizations are intended to safeguard the normal performance of their functions and are by no means intended to provide an umbrella of protection for unlawful acts. While respecting the privileges and immunities of international organizations, channels for accountability and compensation should be safeguarded in an appropriate manner. With regard to the initiation of a treaty-making process on the basis of draft articles, China notes that considerable differences remain among states. We stand ready to engage in constructive discussions with all parties to further build consensus. Thank you, Madam Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [1:34:02]: I thank the distinguished representative of China for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Malaysia. Malaysia [1:34:13]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Malaysia thanks the Secretary-General for the reports prepared pursuant to the General Assembly resolution 78/114 and takes note of the written comments submitted by Governments on future action regarding the articles on the responsibility of international organizations. Malaysia recalls its previous interventions on this agenda item and reiterates its view that the elaboration of a legally binding convention based on the Articles would be premature at this stage. In this regard, Malaysia notes that the latest compilation by the Secretary-General found no references to the Articles in decisions by international courts, tribunals and other bodies during the period from 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2025. It is also noted that divergent views remain among States as to whether negotiations on a Convention should commence. Malaysia considers that further relevant practice and broader international consensus are needed before the elaboration of a legally binding convention based on the articles should be considered. The concerns previously identified by Malaysia regarding the application of certain provisions of the articles also require further consideration, particularly given the variances among international organizations in their nature, functions and powers. Malaysia therefore supports the continued consideration of the topic within the Sixth Committee and the further examination of relevant practice without prejudging the future form of the articles. Thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [1:36:13]: I thank the distinguished representative of Malaysia, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States of America. United States of America [1:36:23]: Chair. We express our gratitude to the Secretariat, in particular the Codification Division of the Office of Legal Affairs, for compiling the two reports that form the basis of our discussion on the responsibility of international organizations topic. It is notable that the Secretary General's report found no references to the draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations in decisions of international courts, tribunals, or other bodies during the reporting period. Nor did the reports offer any examples of domestic state practice referring to the draft articles. The limited development of the law in this area and lack of references to the draft articles between 2023 and 2026 reaffirm our view that it is not appropriate to take further action on them. The United States again observes that many of the rules contained in the draft articles fall into the category of progressive development rather than codification of the law. As with many other states, we continue to believe that the provisions of the present draft articles do not reflect the current law in this area to the same degree as the corresponding provisions on state responsibility. Indeed, the commission itself acknowledged this in its commentaries on the draft articles. In this connection, we again highlight our view that the principles contained in some of the draft articles, such as those addressing countermeasures and self-defense, likely do not apply generally to international organizations in the same way they apply to states. Given these considerations and the significant differences of opinion that remain regarding which principles should govern and how they should operate, The United States continues to hold the view that the draft articles should not be transformed into a convention. The United States also respectfully proposes that the Sixth Committee no longer decide to regularly include this item on the agenda of future sessions. If a significant shift takes place in states' views in the future, the Committee always has the ability to resume its consideration. But given the stagnation of interest in this topic over the past decade, the Sixth Committee should allocate its time elsewhere. Thank you, Madam Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [1:38:48]: I thank the distinguished representative of the United States, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Morocco. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Guatemala. Next, the next delegation on the list is the distinguished representative of Germany. Germany [1:39:27]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, Germany aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union and would like to add the following remarks in its national capacity. Germany reiterates its appreciation for the work of the International Law Commission and its Special Rapporteur, Professor Giorgio Gaia, on the draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations adopted in 2011. We also thank the Secretary-General for the updated compilation of decisions of international courts, tribunals and other bodies referring to the articles. Madam Chair. Germany considers that the time is not yet ripe to take the consideration of this topic further. Allow me to set out four reasons. First, the draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations were modeled on the draft articles on the responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts and remain closely linked to them. Last year, the General Assembly decided to return to the draft articles on state responsibility at its 83rd session. with a view to a decision on their future form. In our view, it would be neither consistent nor prudent to take further steps on the derivative text before a decision has been reached on the text from which it derives. Second, the practice on which the articles rest remains limited. The Commission itself acknowledged this. In its general commentary, it noted that the scarcity of practice, quote, "moves the border between codification and progressive development in the direction of the latter," end of quote, that the draft articles, therefore, quote, "do not necessarily yet have the same authority as the corresponding provisions on state responsibility," end of quote, and that, quote, "their authority will depend upon their reception by those to whom they are addressed," end of quote. Fifteen years on, the compilations prepared by the Secretary General confirm that this reception is still developing. We believe that the draft articles should be given the time to gain authority through their application by states, international organizations, and courts, rather than through premature codification. Third, several important questions addressed by the articles remain unsettled in practice in the case law. Reopening them now would be more likely to create legal uncertainty than to provide clarity, both for international organizations and for their member states. Madam Chair, finally, we must use the resources of this committee wisely. The committee is currently engaged in two important processes of codification. the preparation of a convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity and the United Nations Conference for Plenipotentiaries on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters to be held in Bangkok next year. The debate on crimes against humanity just over a week ago demonstrated the broad cross-regional support for that process. These are the areas where consensus is within reach and where the Committee can make a real difference. In times of financial constraints and the spirit of UN 80 Initiative, this is where our efforts should be focused. Germany therefore supports commending the draft articles once again to the attention of governments and international organizations, inviting further submissions on the relevant practice, and returning to this topic once a decision on the draft articles on state responsibility has been taken. I thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [1:42:54]: I thank the distinguished representative of Germany for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Kingdom of Netherlands. Netherlands (Kingdom of the) [1:43:04]: Thank you, Madam Chair. The Kingdom of the Netherlands aligns itself with the statement given by the European Union on behalf of the EU and its Member States and would like to share the following points in its national capacity. We start by thanking the Secretary General for his two reports. The Kingdom of the Netherlands also expresses its gratitude to the International Law Commission for its work on this topic and the formulation of the draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations in that regard. The draft articles provide a valuable framework for discussion within the international community on this important topic. The Kingdom of the Netherlands believes that it would be premature at this stage to move towards negotiations on the Convention concerning the responsibility of international organizations. The Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that further practice of states and international organizations will be needed before entering into such negotiations. Moreover, the consolidation of these draft articles should not precede the consolidation of the draft articles on the responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts. In addition thereto, the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the draft articles in their current form do not sufficiently address the settlement of disputes of a private law character brought against international organizations by natural and legal persons. The Kingdom of the Netherlands welcomes the current consideration of this topic by the International Law Commission and would propose to await the outcome of this work before the topic of the responsibility of international organizations is further considered in this format. Thank you, Madam Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [1:44:59]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Austria. I will move on in the list, and I remind delegations that if you are not ready at your stipulated time, if you could indicate this to the secretariat ahead of time so that we could have a smooth flow of the speakers list. The next delegation on the list, I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ethiopia. Yes. Moving on, next on the list is the distinguished representative of Mexico. Mexico [1:45:54]: Thank you, Madam Chair. The relevance of the responsibility of international organizations has in no way abated since the ILC concluded its study in 2011. Mexico reiterates the legal and practical value of the draft articles submitted for the consideration of this Committee. The draft stands as a reference point for the resolution of disputes to which international organizations are party. This is rooted in the compilation of decisions taken by international courts and tribunals that the Secretary-General presents in his three-year report, as he has done since 2017. There we note various references to that draft with various levels of acceptance and take-up. Mexico is of the view that the Sixth Committee must overcome and move beyond the discussion focused on the immediate choice between whether or not to negotiate a convention. This dichotomy has prevented a detailed consideration of substantive questions. The lack of consensus on the final form of the draft does not justify inaction on its content. We wish to reiterate our suggestion to establish a Sixth Committee working group responsible for organizing a progressive, gradual and focused analysis of the draft. As its first task, the group could draw up a document which would identify the provisions on which there is greatest common ground and those where legal or practical differences remain. Of course, this should be fueled and fed into by developments subsequent to the conclusion of the draft, including subsequent reports of the Secretary-General and current developments within the ILC on the resolution of disputes to which international organizations are party. This with a view to assessing how relevant practice has evolved over time. Such a review would make it possible to clarify where things stand right now on the matter under discussion and to clearly define the steps that we could take forward. that working group could meet more frequently to, in so doing, forge ahead with substantive discussions on this issue without having to wait for the working group to once again form part of a committee in a cycle whose nature hampers a serious analysis. Thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [1:49:11]: I thank the distinguished representative of Mexico, and I give the floor to the distinguished Representative of Singapore. Singapore [1:49:23]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Singapore participated actively in the debate generated by the International Law Commission's work on this topic in 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2023. Singapore expresses its appreciation for the two recent reports of the Secretary-General in documents A/81/83 and A/81/222. Singapore's position on this issue remains the same. We do not support moving to work on a convention based on the draft articles on this topic. some time has passed since the Sixth Committee's last consideration of this topic in 2023, I will briefly reiterate Singapore's views. First, Singapore is not convinced that the draft articles, taken as a whole, embody the consensus view on the law relating to the responsibility of international organisations. The recent report of the Secretary-General states that there were no references to the draft articles in the decisions of international courts, tribunals and other bodies between 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2025, which show that these articles have not been cited as a reflection of existing law by courts and tribunals. Second, Singapore notes that there has been no consensus reached on elaborating a convention based on the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, which was a significant source of inspiration for the draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations. Since there continues to be no consensus, we remain of the view that it would not be appropriate to elaborate a convention based on the existing draft Articles. Singapore values the Commission's contribution to progressive development of the law in the form of these draft articles and its commentaries. However, given the lack of significant developments on the question of the form that might be given to the draft articles and few written comments received by the Secretary-General, Singapore maintains the view that it is not necessary for the item to remain on the provisional agenda of future sessions of the General Assembly. Thank you for your attention. 6th Committee · Chair [1:51:48]: I thank the distinguished representative of Singapore, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Brazil. Brazil [1:51:56]: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Brazil thanks the Secretary-General for his two reports on the topic of responsibility of international organizations. We also thank the International Law Commission, particularly Special Rapporteur Giorgio Gaja, for the important work on the draft articles adopted in 2011. Brazil believes the draft articles provide a useful contribution to discussions on the topic. In general, they constitute a remarkable exercise in the progressive development of international law, which is a core part of the mandates of both the ILC and the General Assembly as set out in the charter. As many delegations have pointed out in past sessions, and as the commentaries to the draft articles themselves acknowledge, practice in this field is scarce. This is not due to a mere rarity of disputes involving the responsibility of international organizations, but rather, and perhaps chiefly, it is due to the fact that most international courts and other standing bodies of 30-part dispute settlement exclude international organizations from their jurisdiction entirely. The ILC recognizes this, stating that in the case of the present draft articles, limited practice nudge the commission's work in the direction of progressive development. Madam Chair, the international responsibility of international organizations is not a disputed concept. The International Court of Justice recognized the international legal personality of international organizations in 1949. And since then, dozens of organizations have emerged. each binding itself to a complex web of international obligations, including a plethora of treaties. For legal personality to be meaningful, it cannot be decoupled from international responsibility. After all, if one can be bound by international law, one must answer for any breaches thereof. To ensure legal certainty and avoid ambiguities and gaps in the law, having clarity over the precise norms and mechanisms that operationalize responsibility is key. This is, after all, what led the ILC to begin its work on the state responsibility and later on the draft articles that we are now discussing. As a general rule, draft articles should not remain in that form indefinitely. As practice has shown in other topics, doing so risks leaving states and international law trapped on unstable terrain, unsure which draft articles are already passing into custom and which are still squarely within the realm of progressive development. Ensuring the applicable law is certain and that it is collectively developed in a state-led process is, in Brazil's view, a preferable option. It puts the states front and center in the process of lawmaking, allowing them to adapt the ILC products to their collective views, preferences, and needs. Madam Chair, this does not necessarily mean that the draft articles adopted by the International Law Commission are in their actual form ready for codification in abiding treaty. Brazil believes caution is warranted in some areas. where analogies to state responsibility may be excessive or undesirable, particularly in sensitive issues such as countermeasures. But this only reinforced the point that in fields where practice is scarce, the states have an even greater interest in avoiding any doubt as to which is the applicable law. I thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [1:55:50]: I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil for her statement. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Burkina Faso to be followed by Colombia. Burkina Faso [1:56:07]: Thank you Madam chair Madam chair my delegation thanks the secretariat for its reports entitled responsibility of international organizations, compilation of decisions by international courts, and responsibility of international organizations, comments and information submitted by governments and international organizations. My delegation reaffirms its interest indeed the benefit of retaining this item on the agenda of the General Assembly. The articles on the responsibility of international organizations adopted by the ILC in 2011 remain a vital reference point for the analysis of relationships between international organizations and states. This in a context marked by the proliferation and diversification of international and regional organizations, namely on the African continent. Chair, distinguished delegates, turning now to the follow-up that should be given to these articles, Burkina Faso is of the view that the practice of states and international organizations remains still insufficiently documented to, at this stage, justify the opening of negotiations with a view to establishing a convention. That is most likely one of the reasons which explains why no reference to the aforementioned articles was found in decisions handed down by international courts or other international organizations during the reporting period of the document A/81/83. However, we believe that the articles remain entirely relevant as a framework for reference, we encourage the Secretariat to continue collecting examples of relevant practice, including that within regional and sub-regional organisations. In the African context, these organisations are still insufficiently represented in existing compilations. Turning to substance now, Chair, my delegation wishes to draw the Committee's attention to three particularly important points for member states of international organisations. First of all, the problem of attributing behavior to an international organization, particularly when that international organization exercises authority delegated by member states or when it acts through the intermediary of bodies comprising representatives of these states, that problem should be clarified in greater depth. This clarification is particularly important in African institutions. institutional frameworks. There, certain regional and sub-regional organisations hold increasingly wide-ranging competences, including in terms of peace, security and sanctions. My delegation also wishes to draw the Committee's attention to the issue of the responsibility that may fall on the shoulders of international organisations following their decision to impose sanctions, suspension or other restrictive measures on a member state. Recent experience in the Sahel demonstrates the importance to ensure the legitimacy of those measures of compliance with minimal guarantees, for example, a clear legal basis that must be found in the organization's constitutive act, proportionality, the respect of fundamental principles of international law, temporary status and the possibility of an effective appeal that respects humanitarian waivers, et cetera, et cetera. Burkina Faso is of the view that this subject deserves greater consideration by the Committee, namely in view of the consequences in terms of the responsibility of an organization of measures which stray beyond the remit of that organization. also in view of the instrumentalization of international organizations by certain Member States in order to evade international obligations, and this matter deserves discussion, particularly in view of the effect of illegal external interference in the functioning of organisations, we underscore the importance of draft article 62 on the subsidiary responsibility of member states. Clarification of the scope of this provision is important, particularly when an international organisation does not have sufficient financial means to provide redress for damage done. This would serve to strengthen legal security for member states and for damaged third parties. We reaffirm our commitment to compliance with international law and the rule of law in the relations between states and international organizations. We're also committed to the principle of the sovereign equality of states. These must remain the foundation of any collective action, including within regional and subregional organizations. We are ready and willing once again to contribute to future work of the Committee on this important matter. I thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [2:01:08]: I thank the distinguished representative of Burkina Faso for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Colombia, to be followed by Serbia. Colombia [2:01:25]: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Colombia wishes at the outset to once again thank the ILC for the work that it did on the draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations. We also are grateful for the SG's reports. They are input for our discussions today. For Colombia, it is increasingly significant to note the role played by international organizations in manifold contexts. Some of these contexts are sometimes very complex. In my country, for example, we have broad presence of international organizations on our national territory. They perform various functions and cooperate with the state on several projects. For some Colombian people, the presence of the UN, for example, is is sometimes as palpable as that of the state. International organizations are capable of taking on legally binding obligations. Consequently, they have responsibility that they can incur. Consequently, the responsibility of international organizations is an area that, in our view, must be regulated by international law. For its part, Colombia has always seen the draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations as a counterpart or a complement to the draft articles on the responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts. In our view, these two important products of the ILC in the sphere of international responsibility bear witness to work, and other delegations have said this this afternoon, work which has matured over the last 70 years and taken more than 70 years to complete. So we think that any collective inaction on the part of states will only exacerbate the fragmentation of international jurisprudence. In our view, this can constitute progress being undone in terms of the progressive development and codification. of international law in this field. As such, in line with our staunch commitment to ensuring that the General Assembly moves forward towards the negotiation of a convention on the basis of the draft articles on the responsibility of the state, we believe that the Assembly must also move forward, or at least seriously discuss negotiating a convention based on the draft articles on the responsibility of international organisations. For Colombia, It is not convincing the argument that some provisions of the draft articles are customary law and that consequently they cannot be incorporated into a convention. This would not be the first time that a convention ultimately crystallizes customary international law. So this argument is not one that holds water as we seek to make progress here. Neither are we convinced by the argument whereby some articles go beyond a simple task of codification. Precisely the discussion that we could hold if we want to be rigorous is what is the current status of law that is applicable to international organizations and the responsibility that they might incur as subjects of law, how can a convention help us to have a legal regime in this field that is robust and homogeneous? Elsewhere, as we've said on other occasions, for Colombia, the Sixth Committee must guarantee that it does not consider the products of the ILC as isolated agenda items. Many products interact among themselves and must be studied with a view to us having a consistent legal framework where all the components interact. If we don't do that, that could seriously impact the work of the ILC and the Sixth Committee. Our task is to ensure that international law that is applicable in this field is consistent. In light of all of the above, Madam Chair, for Colombia, it is important that we have an in-depth, candid discussion on what is applicable law here. We are ready to create any appropriate mechanism to do that work and to facilitate these discussions, as we said, with these discussions need to be rigorous and genuine. Lastly, and here I say this with full respect for all delegations, we should review our working methods. when it comes to ILC products. My delegation is ready to discuss proposals and recommendations that might allow us to better review our work in the Sixth Committee and to discuss a number of common principles. However, that has to be an exercise done with devotion, with a seeking of uniformity, with law in mind and with the sense of responsibility that befits members of the Sixth Committee. Perhaps the appropriate forum in which to do that is within discussions on revitalisation, but there is no doubt that those fora must be found and that we must have a sense of regarding the work that we do and that done by the ILC. That is my conclusion, Chair. Thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [2:07:00]: Thank the distinguished representative of Colombia for her statement and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Serbia to be followed by the Russian Federation. Serbia [2:07:14]: Distinguished delegates, I have the honour to deliver a statement on behalf of the Republic of Serbia on one of the most important topics on the agenda of the Sixth Committee, the responsibility of international organizations. There is little time available for substantive discussion of this very important issue. The draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations adopted in 2011 deserve to be endorsed. At the same time, they can serve only as a starting point for further discussion and appropriate action, and in particular for further examination of this topic, whether within the Sixth Committee or the International Law Commission, or preferably at a diplomatic conference that might result in the elaboration of the convention on the responsibility of international organizations. The topic of settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties is certainly connected with the issue of responsibility and deserve equal consideration. While the issue of state responsibility has been successfully addressed through the adoption of draft articles on responsibility of states for international wrongful act without the need for a convention, this is a very, very good draft, the issue of the responsibility of international organizations remains unfinished. In view of the growing role of international organizations, their increasing ability to act not only through various resolutions, but, uh, also operationally in various fields, and their specific and, uh, diverse nature, it is necessary to keep this issue under more active consideration. Today, more than ever before, international organizations of widely varying types play an important role in international relations, ranging from purely deliberative bodies to supranational organizations. However, their important role is matched only by a limited set of more or less general rules governing their responsibility. The existing draft articles are based on what we can call the common rules of responsibility. Responsibility is well-established legal concept grounded in general principles of law applicable to all subjects of international law, or in other words, legal persons under international law. The International Law Commission didn't go beyond codifying rules that appear to be acceptable and to a significant extent undisputed. However, the draft articles do not constitute a comprehensive legal framework and further elaboration of this issue is needed. Practice in this field appears to be limited and in some instances non-existent or inconsistent. Having in mind the actual and growing role of international organizations it seems reasonable for the Sixth Committee to consider convening a diplomatic conference to further examine the rules governing responsibility of international organizations. While some States prefer to await further developments in practice, including judicial practice, it would be reasonable to consider developing and codifying these rules proactively, rather than waiting for a decision by a panel of few judges or experts. It is the primary task of states and this sixth committee to consider, codify, and propose rules governing the responsibility of international organization with the view to their eventual inclusion in the future convention. In this regard, the Sixth Committee should continue its substantive consideration of this topic with a view to identifying the most appropriate framework for further work. The objective should be to establish a more comprehensive and coherent legal framework governing the responsibility of international organizations. Thank you for your attention. 6th Committee · Chair [2:11:43]: Thank the distinguished representative of Serbia for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation, to be followed by Iran. Russian Federation [2:11:58]: Thank you, Madam Chair. We are all aware that international organizations, together with states, are subjects of international law. They are capable of possessing rights and obligations under international law. It is also indisputable that the failure to fulfill an international obligation entails international responsibility. Thus, the responsibility of international organization for a breach of its international legal obligations is an inherent element of its international legal personhood. The International Court of Justice first affirmed this in 1949. In its advisory opinion on reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations, the court recognized the international legal personality of the United Nations as well as its, and I quote, "capacity to bring an international claim against one of its members which has caused injury to it by a breach of its obligations toward it." In its 1962 advisory opinion on certain expenses of the UN, the ICJ established that the acts of an organization committed in violation of its internal rules, including acts that exceed the powers of particular bodies but falling within its overall competence, are attributable to the organization and have consequences for its member states, including financial ones. In 1999, advisory opinion on the difference relating to immunity from legal process of a special rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, the ICJ also observed that when, and I quote, "damage results from acts performed by the UN or its agents acting in their official capacity, the United Nations may be required to bear responsibility for the damage arising from such acts. Given the very high number of international organizations and their rapidly growing role in world affairs, the issue of the responsibility of international organizations is becoming increasingly pertinent. it has long ago ceased to be purely theoretical, and the legal gaps in this area are becoming even less tolerable. In some cases, the harm caused by international organizations may be more serious than the harm caused by states. In this regard, We could cite many examples of decisions by international organizations, including decisions that are adopted within their mandates that affect the rights of states, individuals, and sometimes entire peoples. We'd like to draw attention to the activities of international financial institutions, decisions of which can have long-term consequences, especially for developing countries. International organizations are derivative subjects of international law. Their powers have the basis and limits that are established by states. The attempt to exercise rights comparable to those enjoyed by states must be accompanied by a willingness to assume the corresponding responsibility. Also very relevant is the question of the responsibility of international organizations toward their member states as arising from violations of their constituent documents. In this context, we are forced to note the negative trend we've seen over the past few years of organizations and their secretariats exceeding their mandates. That is to say that they are carrying out ultra vires acts. We're forced to note that there are numerous examples of this. The most flagrant cases involve illegitimate attributory mechanisms that have quasi-investigative powers. Their establishment violates both the rights of the member states of the organizations involved and the rules of those organizations themselves. In this regard, we ought to mention the assignment of attributive functions to technical secretariat of the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the OPCW, The Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar for collecting evidence of the most serious international crimes and violations of international law committed since 2011, established by HRC resolution 39/2. And the International Impartial and Independent Mechanism for Syria, established by the General Assembly resolution 71/248. which is an overstepping of the General Assembly's powers that's in violation of the UN Charter. There are also many questions about the activities of the so-called International Criminal Court. Madam Chair, as was the case before, our delegation believes that in the fields of international legal organizations' responsibility, there is a gap in regulation that is no longer consistent with the needs of the times. We'd like to recall that in February of this year, Russia, together with a group of states, sent you a letter about the need to convene an international conference to begin negotiations on developing a convention in this regard. We therefore believe that the topic as a whole is ready for codification as an international treaty. The draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations, as prepared by the International Law Commission in 2011, could serve as the basis for this treaty. We believe that these draft articles, which were taken note of by General Assembly resolution 75/143 in 2020, without prejudice to any future action on them, as a whole represent a carefully crafted document that largely takes into account the specificities of international organizations as subjects of international law. Although some of its provisions do require further discussion, especially the issue of whether international organization possesses a right to self-defense. We also would like to recall the need for the Sixth Committee to treat the products of the ILC equally. In recent times, with regard to certain topics, first and foremost the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity, as well as the protection of persons in the event of disasters, we have seen persistent efforts to advance treaty-making processes. Substantive objections raised by delegations have often been depicted as obstacles to progress. An atmosphere of artificial urgency has been created, with pressure exerted on those who disagree, and states' willingness to maintain consensus has been called into question. The impression has been that for advocates of these initiatives, launching negotiations and bringing them to a conclusion as soon as possible by a predetermined deadline is more important than developing genuinely universal instruments by resolving serious disagreements about the substance of these future treaties. We are convinced that the quality of work on the codification and progressive development of international law must not be sacrificed for the desire to announce yet another achievement Consensus means taking the states into account, not simply securing their agreement under pressure. And this makes the contrast with the treatment of other outcomes of the ILC's work all the more glaring. The draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations are recognized as being an important part of international legal doctrine, and judicial bodies cite them in their decisions. Yet it is clear that from the point of view of legal certainty, it would be preferable for the relevant decisions to be based on rules approved by states and that have binding legal force. And adapting to international organizations, the approach underlying the work on the article of state responsibility, the commission demonstrated thus a consistent understanding of issues related to international responsibility as a whole. At the same time, it took into account specificities of international organizations as subjects of international law. Not all the provisions of the draft articles are beyond dispute. Special rules and accumulated practice must be taken into account as well, but these are arguments in favor of substantive intergovernmental negotiations. Experience has shown that States have no fewer and often considerably more specific objections to the relevant outputs of the ILC on crimes against humanity and the protection of persons in the event of disasters. Madam Chair, it is no secret that translating the question of responsibility of international organizations into practical terms leads to a number of challenges. A universal international legal instrument that would clearly regulate this issue has yet to be adopted. In reality, there are virtually no effective mechanisms for holding international organizations to account. Unlike states, organizations generally do not take part in international treaties containing provisions for the judicial settlement of disputes. The statute of the ICJ limits the court's jurisdiction to disputes between states only. Recourse to national courts, where this is possible at all given the immunity that is enjoyed by international organizations, in general is limited to matters of civil law. The enforcement of judicial decisions is also very difficult because of the immunities that are involved. Given that certain organizations and governments have in their comments cited the lack of relevant practice with regard to the draft articles on responsibility of international organizations, and therefore argued that the subject is supposedly not yet ready for codification, the question arises, how can such practice develop under these circumstances? We believe that the lack of practice on the implementation of responsibility for international organizations is actually evidence of a legal gap that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, we would have to accept a reality in which international organizations, unlike states, bear no responsibility whatsoever for their internationally wrongful acts. They would simply become an instrument for evading responsibility in circumstances where it would be unavoidable if a state were to act in its national capacity. In light of all this, we cannot agree with the reasoning of certain international organizations that they should not bear any responsibility independently because of certain distinctive characteristics, such as the high degree of integration among the member states or decision making by consensus. In their view, this responsibility is a matter for states alone. But this approach runs counter to the very idea that an organization is a subject of international law. If it is unable to bear responsibility, then it should not be entitled either to exercise the rights that arise from that status, including, inter alia, the ability to conclude international treaties or participate in the work of other international organizations in their own name. In addition, some states object to having their responsibility adjudicated by the courts, including international courts, on the grounds that they were implementing a decision of an international organization. This creates a situation in which decisions of international organizations, including those that have been adopted beyond their mandates, becomes a means of evading responsibility. Madam Chair. In closing, our delegation looks forward to more active discussions in the General Assembly on the issue of responsibility of international relations. We'd like to also note that on October 27, the permanent mission of the Russian Federation to the UN will be holding an event on the topic of our discussions today, that is to say, the role of international relations in the modern world, including the question of their responsibility. We invite all interested parties to attend. We'll be happy to welcome you from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon at the UN headquarters in conference room 8. Thank you for your attention. 6th Committee · Chair [2:25:04]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, to be followed by Namibia. Iran (Islamic Republic of) [2:25:19]: Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Thank you, Madam Chair. We appreciate the valuable work of the International Law Commission in preparing the draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations and their accompanying commentaries. We concur with the view of the ILC that the number of international organizations are considerable and their functionings are increasing. This important development requires corresponding accountability for internationally wrongful conduct attributable to international organizations. for international organizations cannot be regarded as operating outside the international legal order. It is a fundamental notion that international wrongful act of an international organization entails its responsibility. Such responsibility may arise from acts or omissions attributable to the organization that constitute breach of its international obligations. It also entails consequences, including the cessation of continuing wrongful conduct, assurances and guarantees of non-repetition and full reparation for the injury caused. The existence of financial or institutional difficulties cannot in itself relieve an international organization of the legal consequences of its international wrongful acts. At the same time, in certain aspects, international organizations differ considerably from states and exhibit significant diversity among themselves as well. Unlike states, international organizations do not possess general competence, but are established to exercise the specific functions which should be carried out in accordance with the fundamental principles of international law. Accordingly, while the draft articles draw upon the framework of state responsibility, they must constitute a set of rules reflecting the particular legal nature and characteristics of international organizations. We therefore underline that certain concepts developed in the context of state responsibility, particularly those relating to self-defense, necessity, and countermeasures, are are not in the context of responsibility of international organizations. Madam Chair, we also wish to underline the importance of ensuring that rules of an international organizations are not invoked as a means of circumventing obligations on the international law. In our view, the distinct institutional arrangements of international organizations should not be used to create gaps in accountability or to shield international wrongful conduct from its legal consequences. Another matter deserving careful consideration concerns the responsibility of states in connection with the conduct of international organizations. In particular, circumstances involving aid or assistance, discretion and control, or coercion warrant careful examination under the relevant rules of international law. This question is especially important where member states through their own conduct or participation in an organization's decision-making process contribute to international acts. In this context, we wish to draw attention to a particularly concerning development where an international framework, namely NATO, has expressly acknowledged that the territory of some of their member states has been used in support of aggression against my country. In an interview on 23 September 2026, the Secretary General of NATO again admitted that 5,000 sorties of flights had taken off from certain bases in support of the aggression against my country. Such acknowledgements points to the aid and assistance in commission of an international wrongful act. This also entails the responsibility of member states of such organizations who contributed to the aggression. These circumstances further underscore the importance of a clear and effective legal framework governing the responsibility of international organizations. Madam Chair, that being said, we reiterate that the rules of responsibility of international organizations should be crystallized in the form of a binding treaty. Such a framework contributes to legal certainty, reinforces the credibility and legitimacy of international organizations, strengthens confidence in international cooperation and international law, while ensuring that the role of international organizations remain consistent with accountability and the rule of law at the international level. Finally, we reaffirm that products of the Commission should receive equal and appropriate treatment, by way of which progress is imperative under the present agenda item. I thank you, Madam Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [2:30:04]: I thank the distinguished representative of Iran for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Bangladesh, to be followed by Vietnam. Bangladesh [2:30:23]: Mr. Lahiru Manoreen, thank you, Madam Chair. Bangladesh thanks the Secretary General for his reports under this item, the updated compilation of decisions of international courts, tribunals, and other bodies referring to the articles on the responsibility of international organizations, and the comments and information received from governments and international organizations. Madam Chair, it is now 15 years since the International Law Commission adopted these articles in 2011. as a companion to its 2001 articles on the responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts. The question before us is the same one this Assembly has returned to since resolution 66/100. What future action should be taken on them? Let me begin with first principles. International organizations are not above the law that created them. The International Court of Justice made it clear in 1980 in its advisory opinion on the interpretation of agreement of 25 March 1951 between WHO and Egypt. It said, "International organizations are subjects of international law and, as such, are bound by any obligations incumbent upon them under general rules of international law, under their constitutions, or under international agreements to which they are parties." Article 3 of the Articles draws the necessary conclusion. every internationally wrongful act of an international organization entails the international responsibility of that organization. And Article 31 adds that the responsible organization is under an obligation to make full reparation for the injury caused. Madam Chair, these principles matter more today than when the articles were adopted. International organizations now administer territory run refugee camps, deploy tens of thousands of peacekeepers, regulate global finance, and shape the lives of millions. Where power is exercised, responsibility must follow. An organization that can act but cannot be held to account is a contradiction that undermines the legitimacy of multilateralism itself. For Bangladesh, it is not just a debate. As one of the largest contributors to uniform personnel to the United Nations peace operations, Bangladesh has direct interest in Article 7, which concerns the conduct of organs of a state placed at the disposal of an international organization. Under that article, such conduct is attributed to the organization if the organization exercises effective control over that conduct. Effective control is the right test, it reflects reality on the ground and the practice of the United Nations itself. When our peacekeepers serve under United Nations command and control, they serve the organization and the organization answers for their operational conduct. At the same time, troop contributing countries retain disciplinary and criminal jurisdiction over their personnel. And Bangladesh exercises that jurisdiction seriously, including on sexual exploitation and abuse, where our commitment to zero tolerance is unwavering. The articles help to clarify this shared allocation of responsibility, and that clarity protects victims, the organization, and contributing states alike. Bangladesh also notes the importance of part five of the responsibility of states in connection with the conduct of an international organization. States must not use international organizations as a shield to do collectively what they could not lawfully do individually. Article 61 on circumvention of international obligations addresses exactly that concern. Madam Chair, on the question of future action, Bangladesh takes a careful view. We recognize that, unlike the articles on state responsibility, these articles rest on a more limited body of practice. Several provisions represent progressive development rather than codification. and international organizations vary greatly in their functions, membership, and rules. The lex specialis principle in the Article 64 rightly acknowledges this diversity. At the same time, the Secretary General's compilation shows that courts and tribunals are increasingly referring to the articles. That trend shows they are already shaping the law, whatever their formal status. Bangladesh therefore considers that the articles should continue to be commended to the attention of States and international organizations and that the question of a convention should be kept under review as the practice develops. We remain open to considering the matter further, including through a working group, and we stress that the articles on the responsibility of international organizations and those on State responsibility should be considered in a coherent manner. Madam Chair, the deeper principle at stake is simple. The rule of law cannot apply to states alone while the organizations they create stand outside it. Accountability is not a threat to international organizations. It is the foundation of their legitimacy and of the trust that peoples place them in. I thank you, Madam Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [2:36:02]: Thank the distinguished representative of Bangladesh for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Vietnam, to be followed by Namibia. Viet Nam [2:36:18]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Vietnam welcomes the reports of the Secretary-General contained in documents A/81/83 and A/81/222. We appreciate the efforts of the Secretariat in compiling relevant decisions by international courts and tribunals, as well as information and comments submitted by States and international organizations concerning the articles on the responsibility of international organizations. Vietnam commends the International Law Commission for its valuable work on this important subject. The articles adopted by the Commission in 2011 and later noted by the General Assembly in resolution 66/100, represent a significant contribution to the codification and progressive development of international law. As international organizations play a more prominent role in addressing global and regional challenges, questions concerning their international responsibility have become increasingly relevant. A clear and coherent legal framework in this area is important for ensuring accountability, promoting respect for international law, and maintaining confidence in international cooperation. Vietnam recognized the value of the draft articles in identifying and addressing important legal questions concerning the responsibility of international organizations for internationally wrongful acts. These include the attribution of conduct, the violation of international obligations, the legal consequences of wrongful acts, and the relationship between the responsibility of international organizations and that of their member states. At the same time, we believe that careful consideration should be given to the specific legal nature of international organizations, unlike states, International organizations derive their functions and powers from their constituent instruments, resolutions, decisions by their respective membership, and other applicable rules. Their legal personality, mandates, institutional structures, and relationships with member states may differ considerably. These characteristic raise complex questions as to how general rules of international responsibility should apply across different organizations and require further examination in light of states practice and opinion juris. Any future development of the draft articles should take new account of these institutional differences and the rules of the organizations concerned. while ensuring consistency with the broader framework of international law. Madam Chair, Vietnam is of the view that the assessment of practical application of the draft articles constitutes an important factor in the consideration of any possible future action. In this regard, We note the findings of the Secretary-General's report A/81/83, according to which no reference to the articles were identified in decisions of international courts, tribunals and other bodies during the period from 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2025. We also note that the compilation was limited to international decisions, and did not include a systematic review of domestic judicial practice. While such a finding should not be interpreted as an absence of relevant state practice, it highlights the importance of obtaining a more comprehensive understanding of how the draft articles have been considered and applied by states, international organizations, and judicial bodies. Vietnam believes that the objective of strengthening the international legal framework governing the responsibility of international organizations should be pursued through an inclusive, cautious, and step-by-step process, taking into account the views and practical experience of both states and international organizations. In this connection, further consideration should be given to the potential implications of the Convention for organizations with different mandates, structures and memberships arrangements, as well as its relationship with the constituent instruments and other applicable rules of international law. A careful examination of these issues would help identify areas of convergence and outstanding questions, thereby providing a sounder basis for determining the most appropriate way forward. Madam Chair, Vietnam supports the continued consideration of this agenda item within the Sixth Committee in accordance with General Assembly resolution 78/114. We encourage all Member States to engage actively and exchange views on the substance of the draft articles and the future action, especially on the possibility of elaborating a convention on the basis of the draft articles. We encourage States and international organizations to provide further information on relevant practice, including judicial decisions, institutional arrangements and practical experience concerning the application of the draft articles Vietnam believes that when our sixth committee continues to elaborate on this topic options should remain open the decision to draft a legally binding instrument should be made at a later stage when sufficient grounds and the necessary consensus have been established in that spirit Vietnam stands ready to work constructively with all Member States in advancing a balanced and broadly acceptable approach that contributes to the progressive development of international law. I thank you, Madam Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [2:43:15]: I thank the distinguished representative of Vietnam for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished Permanent Representative of Namibia, to be followed by Portugal. Namibia · Permanent Representative [2:43:27]: Thank you, Madam Chair. It is common cause that they cannot be rights without obligations or responsibilities. As such, will be a travesty to the body of law that ought to serve humanity. With the rise of international organizations enjoying legal personality and in their relations with other legal persons, including states and natural persons, it is just right that the responsibilities and obligations of international organizations are ascertained by virtue of codification. Madam Chair, to place this statement in context and perspective, the oldest existing international organization is over 200 years old. Although the current draft articles might need more refinement, that should not be interpreted to mean that the subject matter is not ripe for codification. It is on the above background that Namibia welcomes the draft articles under the General Assembly resolution A/RES/66/100 and takes note of the General Assembly report in document A/81/222 entitled responsibility of international organizations, comments and information received from governments and international organizations. Namibia also commends the work of the International Law Commission, ILC, and encourages the Commission to enhance the draft articles, taking into consideration States' views. Madam Chair, Namibia is also of the view that the ILC draws lessons from the initial processes of early international organizations to inform its progressive development of international law. Also, considering that international organizations cannot operate carte blanche in relation to its international partners, such as states. Madam Chair, distinguished delegates, the need for an urgent convention regulating international organizations is indeed ripe and timely. This is considering that wrongful acts of international organizations disproportionately affects the less developed and developing countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Henceforth, it should not be a surprise that the call for codification of international law regulating the responsibilities of international organizations is louder from the conventional South. In conclusion, Madam Chair, we caution that objections towards the codification of the said law should be done in good faith and not in pursuit of unprincipled political gains. I thank you, Madam Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [2:46:38]: I thank the distinguished representative of Namibia for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Portugal. Portugal [2:46:50]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Portugal aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the European Union and its member states and would like to offer a few additional remarks in its national capacity. Madam Chair, Portugal would like to start by thanking the Secretary General for his two reports on this agenda item. We particularly note regarding the report A/81/83 that no references to the draft articles were identified in decisions of international courts, tribunals, and other bodies during the period under review. In this regard, Portugal reiterated suggestions for future reports to include these relevant dissenting opinions of judges. Those are important elements for enriching the judicial practice and interpretation of the draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations as adopted in 2011. Madam Chair, Portugal has always seen the draft articles on responsibility of international organizations as a logical counterpart of the articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts. However, calling for a diplomatic conference to consider the adoption of a convention based on the 2011 draft articles without further developments on state responsibility is not reasonable. During its last session of the General Assembly, the Sixth Committee held very concrete discussions with a view to taking a decision on the question of a convention on the topic or other appropriate action on the basis of the draft articles on state responsibility. Portugal believes that the General Assembly may again take note of the draft articles on responsibility of international organizations. As in previous sessions, we argue that this agenda item should be considered in the session immediately following the next consideration of the agenda item on the responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts. Madam Chair, the member states and the General Assembly have a duty to contribute towards the stability and strength of these two sets of draft articles and to prevent further fragmentation of the law of international responsibility and related jurisprudence. These significant outputs reflect more than 60 years of the work by the International Law Commission. My delegation hopes that the renewed dynamics of the discussions on the articles of state responsibility will have a positive impact on the topic at hand. Thank you, Madam Chair. 6th Committee · Chair [2:49:14]: I thank the distinguished representative of Portugal for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom, to be followed by Cuba, the last speaker on the list. United Kingdom. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [2:49:28]: I will offer some brief remarks in relation to the agenda item. I begin by thanking the Secretary General for his two reports on the topic. Our general approach is that products of the international law commission should be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the topic in question and the extent of relevant practice. In relation to the agenda item, we have considered the proposal to take further action on the commission's draft articles, including through the negotiation of an international convention. In this case, we consider that relevant state practice remains limited. We therefore do not consider that proceeding to negotiate a convention based on the draft articles would be timely at this stage. In our view, the draft articles may continue to provide a useful reference point while allowing practice in this area to develop further. 6th Committee · Chair [2:50:17]: I thank the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cuba. Cuba [2:50:30]: Thank you, Chair. Forgive me the honour of being the last speaker today. Cuba wishes to express its gratitude for the consideration of the issue of the responsibility of international organizations within the Sixth Committee. We are also grateful for the presentation of the Secretary-General's reports A/81/83 and A/81/222. These reports contain the comments and information received from governments and international organizations, as well as a compilation of decisions from international tribunals and courts. We also thank the ILC for its work in establishing draft articles on this issue as a contribution to the progressive development of international law. the responsibility of international organizations is a matter of great importance in view of the growing presence of these actors in the international landscape. With this in mind, the draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations stands in and of itself a Herculean effort to regulate in a homogeneous fashion the consequences of internationally wrongful acts and the attribution thereof. We are of the view that this is a draft that bears in mind the complex and the innovative nature of the issue, as well as the diversity of criteria applicable to and used for relevant international organisations. There is a wide range of international organisations, and that gives rise to difficulties, but the draft articles rightly enshrine and take up principles of international law, such as the principle of responsibility. and liability. International organizations is not an easy term to define from a technical legal point of view. Consequently, the draft articles stand as a major effort to regulate in a uniform fashion this crucial element of any future convention. We urge member states to analyze in detail any amendment that they intend to make to that definition. such as, for example, the definition of international organizations. That was a definition presented in the draft guidelines on the resolution of disputes to which international organizations are a party. Cuba is of the view that the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties should be the guide for any legal definition produced in this field. Moreover, we have expressed on other occasions the fact that, in our view, the reference is a crucial element of internationally wrongful acts committed by international organizations because that is the element that determines obligations to provide redress, the cessation of the violation or the provision of guarantees for non-repetition to the damaged party. Other Crucially important elements in this field are definitions of the state of necessity regulated in draft article 25. In our view, that should have been defined as essential interest. In terms of collective countermeasures, we're of the view that instead of the current wording, we should have included wording that referred to the system of collective security provided for in the UN Charter. My delegation has, during other discussions on the issue, expressed the fact that a proposal for mechanisms to resolve disputes relative to the interpretation of responsibility and liability would constitute a guarantee of the peaceful resolution of these. This is vital for developing countries that have been victim to the solution of conflicts through use of force. Chair, our country recognises the existence of legal obligations regarding the functioning of international organisations, and we respect the privileges and immunities that are given to international organisations to guarantee the smooth conduct of their duties. However, despite the fact that we do not have domestic legislation specifically on this matter, legislation that regulates the legal responsibilities of those organisations. However, we impose criminal responsibility on both legal and natural persons in various articles of our criminal code. Consequently, we are ready to continue discussing this issue, which is crucially important from a legal perspective, providing that the establishment of a legal framework on norms for international responsibility is a premise to ensure the respect of the rule of law and a guarantee for domestic legal systems. A convention on the responsibility of international organizations must be clear and binding in nature. A duly negotiated instrument on this matter can contribute to legal certainty and consequently to compliance with international law. With that in mind, Cuba supports the negotiation of a legally binding convention on the responsibility of international organizations based on the draft articles drawn up by the ILC. Thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [2:56:00]: Thank you I thank the distinguished representative of Cuba for his statement we have thus concluded the debate on agenda item 87 responsibility of international organizations I wish to inform you that the draft resolution for this agenda item will be coordinated this year by Miss Mai Souza Schmitz of Brazil As agreed at our first meeting, we will provide the coordinators assigned to each agenda item the opportunity to take the floor to give a brief indication of their plans and, if possible, to already introduce the draft of their proposals for draft resolutions. I request Ms. DeSouza-Schmitz to take the floor on this agenda item. Brazil · Coordinator [2:56:48]: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. And I would like to thank the Bureau for entrusting me with coordinating the negotiations on this topic. And I also like to thank all delegations that participated in the debate on this agenda item. And I listened carefully to the interventions, which provided usable perspectives as we move into the next stage of our work. Delegations will receive an e-mail later this afternoon with a zero draft of the resolution, which is basically a technical update. And the first informal consultations will be held tomorrow at 2:00 PM. You also received that by e-mail. The purpose of tomorrow's informal consultations will be to introduce the zero draft, provide information on the negotiating timeline, and give delegations an opportunity to share preliminary comments on the draft before International Law Week begins. Delegations wishing to propose amendments will be invited to submit them by Friday, 23 October. And I invite all delegations to engage in this negotiation, in this process constructively and with flexibility. I look forward to working with all delegations towards a successful outcome. I thank you. 6th Committee · Chair [2:57:58]: I thank Ms. DeSouza Schmitz for her update. And I now wish to inform that the committee will commence its consideration of agenda item 77, United Nations Program of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination, and Wider Appreciation of International Law at its meeting tomorrow morning, beginning at 10:00 a.m. I wish you a good evening. The meeting is adjourned.