Sixth Committee, 27th plenary meeting - General Assembly, 81st session

Good afternoon, colleagues. I call to order the 27th meeting of the Sixth Committee of the 81st session of the General Assembly. Distinguished delegates, this afternoon, the Sixth Committee will continue and conclude its consideration of agenda item 83, report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization. I draw your attention to the two documents that have been issued in connection with this agenda item and which are available on the website of the committee. I recall the decision taken at our first meeting that statements delivered in national capacity should be limited to seven minutes, while statements delivered on behalf of groups of states will be delivered in 12 minutes. Delegations are strongly encouraged to adhere to these time limits. The first speaker on the list for this afternoon is the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. You have the floor.

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Thank you, Madam Chair. More than 80 years have passed since the establishment of the United Nations, which, as per the Charter, aspires, I quote, "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," end of quote. The realization of this fundamental aspiration rests upon respect for international law and the principles enshrined in the Charter. It is in this context that the mandates of the Special Committee entrusted with considering proposals for the promotion of rules of international law maintains its prominence. Today, this mandate assumes more significance. as the international legal order founded upon the Charter faces unprecedented challenges. Fundamental principles of international law are openly being disregarded, pushing the international community towards disorder rather than order, impunity rather than justice, and rule of force rather than the rule of international law. Madam Chair, the gravity of these developments is particularly evident in the continued atrocities against the Palestinian people and the repeated acts of aggression perpetrated by the Israeli regime throughout the region. The failure to take effective measures to stop the ongoing genocide in Palestine, coupled with the continued impunity of the Israeli regime, has further emboldened it to expand its policies of aggression, violence and bloodshed. The Islamic Republic of Iran has itself been subjected to a blatant aggression, most recently on 28 February 2026, when the United States, in collusion with the Israeli regime, carried out aggression against my country, in flagrant violation of international law, including international humanitarian law. These attacks resulted in the killing and injury of thousands of Iranian civilians, including women and children, and the destruction of Iranian civilian infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, and other civilian facilities. The United States and its accomplice marked their war of aggression, including by killing innocent children. On 28 February 2026, the first day of the aggression against my country, the United States ruthlessly attacked the Shajarat Al-Tayyiba Elementary School in the city of Minab, south of Iran, killing 168 school children and teachers. Children between the ages of 6 and 11 were butchered in this horrific attack. So devastating was the attack that the remains of Maqan Nasiri, A seven-year-old boy was never found, leaving his family without even the possibility of bidding him a final farewell. Another documented instance is the attack on Lamerde Stadium on 28 February 2026, where aggressors killed children attending sport activities. This sport facility was hit by missiles capable of dispersing approximately 180,000 high-velocity fragments, which indiscriminately targeted anyone within its 360-degree radius. These horrific crimes are clear and undeniable examples of war crimes and flagrant violation of international humanitarian law. Perpetrator of these heinous crimes could not claim adherence to international law, including the IHL. Madam Chair, We defended our country in the exercise of our inherent right of self-defense in accordance with international law, successfully frustrating and defeating the aggressors' malicious design against our nation. We have made it clear that we never hesitate to defend our country in accordance with international law. Nevertheless, the international community is not absolved of its responsibility to ensure accountability for the aggression committed against my country. The Charter's aspiration to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war cannot be realized through mere declarations of commitment while perpetrator of aggression enjoy impunity. It requires concrete action to uphold the prohibition of aggression, bringing those responsible to justice and prevent the recurrence of such crimes. Madam Chair, Unfortunately, the aggression against my country was facilitated through the use of territories, airspace, and facilities of certain states in the region. Article 3F of the definition of aggression annexed to General Assembly Resolution 3314 expressly identified as an act of aggression the action of a state in allowing its territory, place at the disposal of another state to be used for perpetration of aggression against a third state. Accordingly, states involved in facilitating such aggression bear responsibility under international law. In this context, we reiterate once again that the measures taken by the Islamic Republic of Iran were undertaken in exercise of its inherent right of self-defense in accordance with international law, including the IHL. Our position regarding Security Council's so-called Resolution 2817 is clear and has been reflected inter alia in document S/2026/202 and document S/2026/389. Any assessment must take due account of the aggression against my country and the circumstances in which our lawful defensive responses were undertaken. We categorically reject all allegations made against my country. Our position remains unchanged. irrespective of how many times allegations are repeated. Madam Chair, we remain gravely concerned about the continued gross violation of international law and egregious crimes, including genocide, being perpetrated against Palestinian people. We reject systematic attempts to undermine the United Nations, its founding charter, and its principal organs, including the General Assembly and the International Court of Justice, by the occupying regime. We emphasize the necessity of ensuring accountability for these crimes. We reaffirm our consistent and principled position that a viable solution to the question of Palestine can only be achieved through the establishment of an independent and sovereign state of Palestine, rooted in the genuine will of its original inhabitants, regardless of their religion, whether Muslims, Jews, or Christians, expressed through a free and inclusive referendum. Madam Chair, on 18 October 2025, Pursuant to operative paragraph 8 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, all its provisions and those of the preceding terminated sanctions resolutions were terminated and have no continuing legal effect. No previously terminated measures may be reinstated or enforced from that date forward. Any attempt to do so is unlawful, null and void. As such, claims of so-called reestablishment of a UN Security Council sanctions mechanism are unlawful and devoid of any legal value. This position has also been reiterated by many member states, inter alia, through joint statements, including the special communique of a group of countries contained in document A/AD/625, as well as joint letters of the Islamic Republic of Iran, China, and the Russian Federation. the latter two being permanent members of the UN Security Council, contained in document S/2025/783. In view of the foregoing, my country reiterates its strong and categorical rejection of any attempts to portray otherwise, including the statement of the delegation of the United States. Madam Chair, the Islamic Republic of Iran has submitted to the Special Committee a proposal entitled Obligation of Member States in relation to unilateral coercive measures, guidelines on ways and means to prevent, remove, minimize, and redress the adverse impacts of unilateral coercive measures. We reiterate our invitation to member states to engage constructively in its consideration with a view to addressing legal implication and adverse consequences of such measures and promoting respect for international law. In conclusion, The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to attach great importance to the work of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations. We reaffirm our continued support for the Committee and underscore the necessity of pursuing its mandate through a genuine political will, with a view to achieving substantive outcomes that contribute to the realization of the purposes and principles of the United Nations. We will submit our full version of statement to the Secretariat. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished Permanent Representative of Namibia. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Namibia aligns itself with the statements delivered on behalf of the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement. Building on those statements, allow me to present Namibia's national perspective, of which a full version will be shared via a statement. Namibia wishes to thank the Secretary-General and the Special Committee on the report submitted for this agenda item. Madam Chair, the United Nations is the central forum for addressing issues relating to international cooperation, economic development, social progress, peace, security, human rights and the rule of law. All these are achieved through dialogue, cooperation and consensus building among states. For Namibia, the United Nations Charter is not merely a legal text. It is a foundational pillar of our very existence. Our national journey to independence is deeply linked with the historic role of the United Nations in confronting the crimes of slavery, colonialism, imperialism, apartheid, and occupation. Namibia, therefore, attaches profound importance to the work of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and reaffirms its unwavering support and commitment to international law anchored in the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Madam Chair, historically, the agenda item on the role of the Organization has always been discussed based on the prevailing geopolitical climate. Today is no exception. We are meeting at a time when the international system is facing unprecedented strains, characterized by severe global fragmentation mounting reliance on unilateral actions, economic coercion, selectivity, and the threat or use of force. We cannot ignore these realities because doing so will render our discussion ineffective and unresponsive to the much needed reforms of the United Nations. Madam Chair, Namibia is against the unilateral imposition of sanctions outside the multilateral framework, due to a lack of objectivity, cohesive in nature, and because such is harmful to the civilian population and undermines development. Namibia remains concerned about the continued deteriorating humanitarian situation in Palestine, particularly in the Gaza Strip. The operations of many aid agencies have been suspended, in full disregard of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. UNRWA must remain at the core of providing the much-needed assistance to the people of Palestine, and these operations should not be undermined. We call upon Israel to withdraw from the occupied Palestinian territory, respect the ceasefire, end genocide and apartheid, and allow the flow of humanitarian assistance to the needy Palestinian population without delay. Namibia calls on the occupying power to cease all practices and to comply fully with its obligations under international, humanitarian and human rights law as a member of the United Nations. Namibia reaffirms its support and solidarity with the Government and the people of Cuba who continue to endure unilateral sanctions at an unparalleled level, and call for a removal of the inhuman, unjust economic embargo illegally imposed on the people of Cuba. With regard to the question of Western Sahara, this case remains one of self-determination, despite recent pushbacks. We stand firm in full support of the inalienable rights of the people of Western Sahara to freedom and independence, and demand that the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions on Western Sahara are implemented without further delay. The international community should put its full weight behind the holding of a long-awaited referendum for the Sahrawi people to determine their own destiny, in compliance with the United Nations Charter. Madam President, notwithstanding the aforesaid, In line with the principle of peaceful and amicable resolution of disputes, Namibia maintains the view that, as a matter of principle, there is need to reconsider the regime of sanctions to resolve disputes and conflicts. Namibia advocates for dialogue, mediation and diplomacy rather than military force or unilateral coercion to resolve international disputes. Namibia acknowledges the importance of the role and inclusion of regional arrangements in the peaceful settlement of disputes. NEBARI affirms its commitment to peaceful settlement of disputes as guided by the domestic legal system, regional mechanisms and in accordance with the United Nations Charter. In conclusion, Madam Chair, the report of the Special Committee reflects that, during its meeting, there were several calls for all Member States to strengthen their commitment to the Charter, including through upholding its purpose and principles, such as refraining from the threat or use of force, respecting territorial integrity and the peaceful settlement of disputes, faithfully practicing multilateralism, and upholding the international system within the United Nations at its core and on the basis of international law. Namibia considers these to be relevant and timely. They speak to the very foundation upon which the United Nations was founded and to its core pillars of peace and security, development and human rights. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the Distinguished Permanent Representative of Namibia for his statement. I now give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Indonesia. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Indonesia aligns itself with the statement of delegation of Iran on behalf of the non-aligned movement. We thank the Secretariat for the report of the Special Committee in document A/81/33 and the report of the Secretary-General on the repertory and the repertoire in document A/81/206. On the repertory, we note the steady progress made by the Committee, including with respect to draft studies on article 2, paragraph 4, article 33 and 51 of the Charter, as well as other several articles. We welcome that the Special Committee was able to adopt its report this year amid the divergence of views. Madam Chair, on that basis, Indonesia would like to stress three key points. First, we reaffirm the prominence of respecting the UN Charter as the foundation of an international law-based multilateral order. 81 years on, the question is not whether the Charter remains relevant or not, but whether we still have the collective courage to uphold it consistently. Sovereign equality, territorial integrity, and the prohibition on the threat or use of force are non-negotiable. Today, we see a widening gap between the principles we proclaim and the actions we tolerate. An international law-based, multilateral order cannot be applied selectively or set aside through unilateral action. Multilateralism with the United Nation at its center remains the only viable path forward. Second, implementation, implementation, and implementation of international law. Our commitment to international law must be matched by consistent and good faith implementation. Disputes must be settled by peaceful means as set out in Article 33 of the Charter. Sanctions should remain a measure of last resort, clearly defined and time-bound, with due regard to their impact on civilians and third States. Unilateral coercive measures disproportionately affect developing countries and undermine international cooperation and sustainable development. Third, The significance of the Charter Committee, including in the context of UN reform. As deliberations on UN reform move forward, including the UN80 initiative, reform must be carried out in accordance with the Charter. In that regard, the Committee is well placed to examine and follow the development of the legal aspects, for instance, From the 1982 Manila Declaration to the Handbook on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes Between States, the Committee has shown or demonstrated its significant role. To strengthen that role, we need to work together to narrow our differences. This requires genuine political will and a strong spirit of consensus to achieve a desirable outcome for all. Madam Chair, Indonesia remains committed to the Charter and to multilateralism and stands ready to work with all delegations to make the Charter Committee a more relevant and effective forum. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Indonesia for his statement. Distinguished delegates, the distinguished representative of Indonesia was the last speaker on the list for this afternoon. I apologize for that. The distinguished representative of Indonesia was the last speaker on the list for this agenda item. It is my understanding that the delegation of China wishes to exercise the right of reply. Before we proceed further, I would like to remind the Committee that, in accordance with paragraphs 9 and 10 of Annex 5 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, the number of interventions in the exercise of the right of reply for any delegation at a given meeting is limited to two per item. And the first intervention should be limited to 10 minutes, and the second intervention should be limited to five minutes. In view of the tight schedule of our meetings this year, I would like to encourage any delegation exercising a right of reply to please be as brief as possible and to remain well within these time limits. I now give the floor to the delegation of China in exercise of the right of reply. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair. With regard to the statement made by the delegation of the Philippines, China would like to exercise the right of reply. I would like to emphasize that the UN is not an appropriate forum for discussing the South China Sea. The award of the so-called South China Sea arbitration is illegal, null and void. China neither accepts or recognizes the award, nor does it accept any claims or actions based on it. Under no circumstances shall China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea be affected by the award. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of China speaking in exercise of the right of reply. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Israel in response or exercising the right of reply. Thank you.

Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am compelled to exercise my right of reply at this time to comment on the baseless accusations once again being weaponized against my country and the blatant politicization of yet another item on our agenda. It is very disappointing but not surprising to see how many non-democratic member states, which organize themselves into groups use their time to question the State of Israel, a vibrant free democracy, on its dedication to the UN Charter. I am sure that within these groups there are different voices. However, in keeping with this non-democratic spirit of how these groups are coordinated, it makes sense that so-called inconvenient opinions would not be represented properly. What more could you expect when the leader of your group is Iran or Libya? Madam Chair, in contrast to those who demonize us, Israel considers the UN Charter as a cornerstone of the multilateralism and a guidepost for international relations. Next week, Israel is holding fair and free elections with equal voting rights for all our citizens, regardless of gender, religion, or ethnicity. Jews, Christians, Muslims, and many other religions and cultures will be represented by their votes, and they will be of the people, and they will of the people will be reflected in the composition of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament and government. How many of those countries that seek to accuse us of violating the charter can say the same? When considering accusations against us, it is also crucial to consider those who voice them and their conduct. Madam Chair, to abide by the UN Charter is to abide by basic human rights. The right to protest freely, the right to freedom of speech, LGBTQI+ and women's rights, and protecting the human rights of all other vulnerable groups. the right to free elections, and the right to basic human dignity and freedom. When was the last time there was freedom of protest or speech in Iran? The answer is many long decades ago. Madam Chair, speaking of those who basically Madam Chair, speaking of those who baselessly accuse us of violating the UN Charter while they openly support terrorism, the Palestinian Authority should examine their relationship with the UN Charter it claims to protect. The Charter guides us to be peace-loving and encourage us to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another. The Palestinian Authority is still wasting hundreds of millions of dollars of their pay-for-slay program. They are rewarding the families of terrorists who have murdered thousands of innocent Israeli civilians and endangered the lives of Israelis and Palestinians alike, and continue to glorify terrorism and regularly include anti-Semitic and terroristic propaganda in their educational materials. It is not surprising that the Palestinian Authority elections have once again been canceled, extending Mahmoud Abbas' four-year term into the 21st year. This is the same PA and the same Mahmoud Abbas that lost election to Hamas in Gaza in 2006. Let me remind you what happened in 2006. Israel left Gaza completely in 2005. We removed the entire Jewish communities, all IDF bases, and even dug up our cemeteries, and we gave the keys to the people in Gaza. They decided to have elections a year later, and when they had the election, Hamas won and took over Gaza. They threw all the PA leaders off the rooftops. So we were not surprised when the PA announced earlier this month that they postponed their election again. Mahmoud Abbas will continue his four-year term that began in 2005, more than 20 years ago. Many countries, including France, the UK, Australia, Canada, the EU, quickly condemned this unfortunate decision by the PA to turn their backs on democracy. Mahmoud Abbas and the PA know this would be their last election in Ramallah. Exactly what happened in Gaza would repeat itself in the West Bank. They should ask themselves how they got to this point. How are they so afraid to lose the election to Hamas? I can tell you with absolute certainty that the answer is not because their strong defense and dedication to the core values of the UN Charter. We all know the real answer, the PA own schools are teaching the same radical Hamas ideology even in kindergartens. Palestinian children, whether in Gaza or in the West Bank, should not be taught that Israel has no right to exist. They should not be taught that terrorism will bring them victory. They should not walk down streets named after terrorists who murder innocent Israeli civilians or learn in schools named after shaheeds. The PA must confront these radical elements and not let them grow. That is the only way to build a better future. That is the way to be peace-loving and, I quote from the UN Charter, practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another. Madam Chair, Benjamin Franklin once wrote, "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones." The Palestinian delegation would have better used its time to self-reflect on what they have done to protect and to strengthen the Charter of the United Nations, and what they could and should have contributed to our debate, rather than repeating the same baseless accusations. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the State of Israel. for his exercise of right of reply. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Philippines in exercise of a right of reply. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Philippines exercises its right of reply to the statements made by the delegation of China concerning the 2016 South China Sea Arbitral Award. We have taken note of the statement made in response to our earlier intervention. The Philippines does not intend to engage in a prolonged exchange. It is necessary, however, to place several matters clearly on the record. The legal position is well established. 2016 South China Sea Arbitral Award was rendered by a tribunal constituted pursuant to Annex VII of the UNCLOS. Under Article 296 of the UNCLOS, Article 11 of Annex VII, the award is final and shall be complied with by the parties to the dispute. The fact that one party does not accept the award does not alter its legal character or the obligations arising from it, nor can unilateral assertions or subsequent domestic measures modify the maritime entitlements established under the UNCLOS. The Philippines likewise rejects any suggestions that its lawful exercise of sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction constitutes provocation. The relevant question is whether the conduct of states is consistent with their obligations under international law. In this regard, the Philippines remains concerned by actions at sea that interfere with the exercise of its rights and jurisdiction in its maritime zones and that create risks to Philippine vessels and personnel. These concerns are not resolved by competing assertions of sovereignty or by the characterization of Philippine activities under another state's domestic law. The Philippines' position remains unchanged. Maritime claims and entitlements in the South China Sea must be determined in accordance with the UNCLOS, and disputes must be addressed through peaceful means consistent with the Charter of the United Nations and international law. The Philippines remains committed to dialogue and diplomacy. Such engagement must proceed on the basis of international law and with full respect for the rights and obligations of all States concerned. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Philippines. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ukraine in exercise of right of reply. You have the floor, ma'am.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ukraine takes the floor in exercise of its right of reply to the statement made by the representative of the Russian Federation. The Russian delegation has once again chosen to offer this Committee its own reading of the decisions of the ICJ. Out of respect for the Court and for this Committee, Ukraine considers it necessary to provide the necessary clarifications. With regard To the case concerning allegations of genocide, we recall that it was Ukraine that brought this case before the ICJ to refute Russia's false pretext for its aggression. In its order of 16 March 2022, the court stated that it was not in possession of evidence supporting Russia's allegation that genocide had been committed on Ukrainian territory. It ordered Russia to immediately suspend its military operations. More than four and a half years later, Russia has not complied with that Biden order for a single day. A finding of admissibility does not constitute a determination on the merits. In its decision of 5 December 2025, the Court made clear that the admissibility of the Russian Federation counterclaims depends on their connection to the principal claim, namely Ukraine's claims concerning the absence of genocide. The case has proceeded to the merits stage, and the Court has not made any findings supporting the Russian Federation's allegations. To date, the Russian Federation has failed to produce any credible evidence in support of each allegation of genocide. As for the Russian Federation's claim that the Court found no violations on its part, the Russian Federation was found by the ICJ in a judgment on 31st January 2024 to be in breach of its obligation under I3C SFT. In particular, the Court determined that the Russian Federation failed to fulfill its obligation to investigate allegations of terrorism financing involving individuals present on its territory. Despite the existence of credible evidence and sufficiently detailed allegations concerning the financing of armed groups associated with the so-called DPR and LPR, the Russian Federation failed to identify suspects, conduct proper investigations, or cooperate with Ukraine. Russia thus invokes obligation which it has itself demonstrably failed to comply with. Ukraine also takes this opportunity to note that in the same judgment of 31st January 2024, the ICJ founded that Russian Federation in violation of its obligation under the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The court established that Russia engaged in acts of racial discrimination and failed to ensure that its public authorities complied with this obligation. In particular, the Court found violations related to the right to education, including to the systematic restrictions of education in the Ukrainian language in Crimea following its occupation in 2014. This finding directly contradicts the Russian Federation's recurring claims of alleged systematic discrimination against the Russian-speaking population. The Russian Federation may distort the decision of the Court, but it cannot change them. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Ukraine. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Morocco in exercise of a right of reply. Thank you. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation is compelled to exercise a right of reply in response to comments made by the PR of Namibia. with regard to the Moroccan Sahara. It is regrettable that the delegation of Namibia chose to divert a debate on the Special Committee for the Charter to introduce a question relating to the political process conducted under the auspices of the Secretary-General and his personal envoy under the authority of the Security Council. On substance, my delegation would like to recall to Namibia that the Security Council has clearly laid out the path to follow in its resolution 2797, adopted in 2025, concerning the Moroccan proposal for autonomy as a base for negotiation without preconditions, recognizing that it could be the most plausible, feasible solution. The delegation of maybe should not speak about the Security Council without mentioning the most recent provisions. Madam Chair. I would like to note a fundamental contradiction in the position of Namibia. This country today is invoking with such insistence the right to self-determination, but it itself has been facing a secession in the region of Caprivi, which was led under the same principle. The operations that followed led to severe violations of human rights, including arbitrary detention and torture, documented by international organizations. for human rights. The brave people of Cape Verde also deserve to have its rights, dignity, and legitimate aspirations be respected. Namibia only invokes self-determination when it comes to another state, but is opposed to it on its own territory. The principles of the Charter should not be applied selectively based on different borders or geopolitical interests. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Morocco. I now give the floor to the distinguished Permanent Representative of Namibia in exercise of her right of reply.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Namibia is not subject of the report under discussion of this Committee. Neither are Namibians hosted anywhere as refugees. In fact, Namibia is a host to many refugees who are afforded with the right to human dignity Neither is Namibia the case in the United Nations. The Sahrawi people are denied their right to self-determination as they continue to suffer under colonial subjugation. Namibia's position is that of principle rooted in its own history, which speaks to the very law that we are all in this chamber have agreed to be abiding to. Namibia's position is not personal, and Namibia has no reason our purpose to stop, to stoop that low. Henceforth, there is no reason as to why there should be such interpretation. Our statement hinges directly on the implementation of the United Nations Charter. Madam Chair, Nairobi statement, let me remind this committee that Nairobi statement did not make reference to any delegation but made a factual reference to the suffering people of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, who are denied their right to human dignity and their right to self-determination. The United Nations has a responsibility to support all refugees, including those living in the camps of Tindouf, whose future is denied while the resources of their country continue to be exploited by the imperial forces. What my delegation is asking for is for the Sahrawi refugees and the Sahrawi people to be accorded the same respect and dignity in addressing their needs, in the same way this organization afforded to the Namibian people when we were in the trenches. If perhaps the colonial power could implement the United Nations General Assembly resolutions in a letter and spirit, there would be no need for us to come here and talk about the suffering of the Sahrawi people, but make a burden of this United Nations lesser. No explanation will ever sound right when the people are being denied their right, their human dignity, and their fundamental freedoms. We urge the occupying power to stand up and be counted on the right side of this matter History will always remember those who stood for what is right. Let me repeat that Namibia is not subject, neither is Namibia a case in the United Nations, but the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is, which is denied their self-determination. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Namibia for for his right of reply I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of China for the second intervention in the exercise of right of reply you have the floor sir.

Thank you Madam chair we would like to reaffirm that the so-called South China Sea arbitration award uh is illegal and is now and void The essence of the South China Sea dispute between China and the Philippines lies in territorial and maritime boundary issues. Territorial issues fall outside the scope of the convention. matters of maritime boundary delimitation have been excluded from mandatory procedures by a declaration made by China in 2006 pursuant to Article 298 of the Convention. And the arbitral tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction whatsoever over the matters subject to arbitration. We hope that the Philippines could clarify as to what issues the arbitral award settled. If it's maritime demarcation, the arbitral tribunal from the very beginning should have no jurisdiction. If it's not about maritime demarcation, And what basis does it constitute to settle the differences between our two countries? As a matter of fact, the arbitral tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction, and this is toxic, and it has no legal effect whatsoever. The so-called award disregarded legal principles and facts on island regime, outlining archipelagos of continental states and on historical rights, thereby reached extremely erroneous conclusions, seriously undermining the UNCLOS principles and spirit, and gravely undermining international rule of law. China does not accept or recognize this award precisely to uphold rule of law at sea and maintain a fair and reasonable international maritime order. The Philippines is hyping up this issue. It's not meaningful at all. The fact of the matter is the award did not settle this issue. It has become a tool for the Philippines to claim more land and is aggravating the issue. This has become an obstacle for the friendly relations between countries and over the South China Sea issue. In terms of territorial and maritime demarcation, China does not accept any solution that is imposed on us. We have to base ourselves on history and through dialogue and negotiation so as to come to a solution to solve the issue. We would like to urge the Philippines to stop hyping up the issue and come back to the right track for bilateral consultation so as to jointly safeguard peace and stability in the South China Sea. I thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of China. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Philippines in the second intervention on the right of reply. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you again, Madam Chair. The Philippines takes the floor once again in exercise of its right of reply. The Philippines rejects China's characterization of the arbitration and its outcome. First, on state consent, by becoming parties to the own clause, both the Philippines and China consented to its dispute settlement framework, including compulsory procedures, entailing binding decisions under paragraph 15 of Part 15 of the Convention and does not require separate consent to each arbitration instituted in accordance with its provisions. China's non-participation in the proceedings did not deprive the Tribunal of its jurisdiction. Second, on jurisdiction, the Tribunal carefully examined the scope of the dispute submitted to it. including China's declaration under Article 298 of UNCLOS. It determined that the matters over which it exercised jurisdiction concerned the interpretation and application of the Convention and did not require it to decide questions of territorial sovereignty or delimit any maritime boundary. The Tribunal thus acted within its jurisdiction conferred upon it by the UNCLOS. Third, Under Article 296 of UNCLOS and Article 11 of Annex VII, the award is final and binding on the parties. China's continued rejection of the award has no bearing on its legal force. The award neither expanded Philippine territory nor created new maritime entitlements. Rather, to respond to China's question, the award clarified the rights and obligations of the parties under the UNCLOS, including the limits of maritime claims based on purported historic rights. As we mark the 10th anniversary of the award this year, we recall its resounding affirmation of the UNCLOS and its dispute settlement mechanism. Judicial decisions and arbitral awards rendered under the convention have significance beyond the parties to a particular dispute. By clarifying international law, it strengthens legal certainty, guides state conduct, and contribute to the peaceful and predictable governance of the oceans. Yet, notwithstanding the tribunal's finding being overwhelmingly in favor of the Philippines, serious incidents continue to occur in the South China Sea, including infringements upon Philippine sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction. These developments underscore the continuing importance of respect for international law and the peaceful settlement of disputes. 10 years have not diminished the award's significance. The passage of time cannot extinguish rights under international law or relieve states of their treaty obligations. The Philippines remains committed to dialogue, diplomacy, and the peaceful settlement of disputes, but dialogue must proceed on the basis of international law, including UNCLOS, and with full respect for legally binding decisions. The Philippines will continue to uphold the 2016 arbitral award as an integral part of the international legal order governing the seas. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Philippines. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Morocco in the second intervention on exercise of the right of reply. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation will be brief. The delegation of Namibia has not responded to the contradiction that we pointed out. So I will ask a simpler question. How can one defend self-determination in New York but refuse it in Katima Mbulido? After the events of Caprivi, people accused have to wait 16 years in prison before being judged, but 20 of them died. 25 years later, victims are still waiting for justice. In 2024, 25 years later, the UN Committee Against Torture examined allegations of torture linked to these events with regard to Namibia. Madam Chair, in the Moroccan Sahara, we need to respond to the felicitous remarks by this delegation. We've invested more than $8 billion since 2015, with the GDP per inhabitant 25 percent higher than the average in the country. The population of the Moroccan Sahara are managing their economic, political, and cultural affairs well. And just a few weeks ago, they chose a representative through a democratic process, reaffirming their full participation in the present and future of our nation in Morocco. Lastly, Madam Chair, Morocco has no need to justify its territorial integrity before a delegation that lacks credibility in its remarks. Resolution 2797/2025 of the Security Council laid out a roadmap, and my delegation has nothing else to add. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Morocco. I now give the floor to the distinguished Permanent Representative of Namibia in the second intervention in the right of reply.

I thank you, Madam Chair. Namibia shall not be dragged into baseless war of words. We shall not answer to a case that does not exist. Our focus is on the case of Western Sahara, a real case of real people whose lives deserve a better living. Namibia, as I indicated earlier, is not a case in the United Nations. The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is the case in the Security Council. As a result, of its people being denied the right to self-determination as they continue to suffer under colonial subjugation. Namibia's position is that of a principle rooted in its own history, which speaks to the very law that we all in this Chamber have undertaken to uphold. Namibia's position is not personal, as I indicated earlier. And Namibia has no reason or purpose to stoop that low. Our settlement hinges directly on the implementation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions in line with the Charter of the United Nations. No explanation, Madam Chair, will ever sound right when people are being denied their right, when people are being denied their fundamental freedoms and human dignity. We urge the occupying power to stand up and be counted on the right side of this matter. History will always be remembered by those who stood for what is right. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Namibia. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran in exercise of a right of reply.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's really a mockery of the Charter of the United Nations when the delegation of the Israeli regime claims its adherence to the Charter, calling this cornerstone, while their delegation literally shredded the UN Charter in the General Assembly to show their contempt and disregard to the UN Charter in plain sight in the UN General Assembly, a formal meeting. But this has not been the only disregard that they had to the charter. In practice, they have violated nearly every provision of the UN Charter. Looking only into the first sentence of the Charter of the United Nations aspiration, which is to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. And in the region right now, the source of instability and war is the Israeli regime attacking nearly every country in the region, killing civilians, targeting civilian objects. And these are quite known to everyone. I don't need to elaborate on that. Well documented in the proceedings before the International Court of Justice, other international institutions, also reflected in the UN General Assembly resolution and many other documents. We do not need to elaborate on that. It's clear for everyone. If you move forward after the first sentence, then the Article 1 of the UN Charter, which contains reference to self-determination. For decades, the Israeli regime is denying the right of Palestinian people to self-determination. The Israeli regime, which is in entirety, is on the base of occupation. And this is also being well established in the relevant international legal instruments. Also, this has been pronounced by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion in 2025, 2024, stating, this is a quote from the ICJ advisory opinion, "Among the obligations erga omnes violated by Israel are the obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination." End of quote. And of course, the court goes on to explain how this has happened. The denial of self-determination of Palestinian people by the Israeli regime was followed and conducted by commission of genocide, war crime, crime against humanity, terrorism, torture, occupation, new forms of terrorism, settler terrorism. You see what's happening in Palestine. Moving forward, Article 2, reference to the prohibition of threat or use of force. Every country, nearly every country in the region have been subjected to these unlawful acts by the occupying regime. And I do not want to go through every single article of the UN Charter, but I think we could go to the end. Article 105, regarding the privileges, immunities of the United Nations personnel and officials. The highest death toll in UN history has been the result of the Israeli killing of UN personnel. Again, the ICJ in its advisory opinion 2025 states, this is a quote from the ICJ, "The Secretary General of the United Nations has stated that between 7 October 2023 and 20 August 2025, 366 United Nations personnel have been killed in the Gaza Strip. End of quote. And this only belongs to the period of 7 October 2023 and 20 August 2025. And the number has risen to our knowledge near 400 UN personnel. There is no provision of the UN Charter that the Israeli regime has not violated. It's clear for everyone. And speaking of human right, Of course, the Israeli regime is violating the very most fundamental human rights of people in the region, the fundamental of which is the right to life, especially the right to life of children. And there are myriads of statistics, unfortunately, that children are the principal victims of the Israeli regime genocide. To just name a few, According to the UN reports, more than 20,000 Palestinian children had been killed in Palestine, equivalent to an average of approximately 22 children killed every day since 7 October 2023. Separately, at some point, the UN reported, I quote, this is from the UN reports, An average of 28 children have been killed each day, the equivalent of an entire classroom." End of quote. In its blatant aggression against my country, the Israeli regime also killed hundreds of children, toddlers, and even unborn babies, most of them together with their parents, an entire family. The magnitude of the savagery of the Israeli regime is to the extent that due to its persistent killing of children in Palestine, there has emerged a new term in medical context. It's called wounded child, no surviving family, which refers simply to Palestinian children injured while their parents were also killed by the Israeli regime. And recently, the Israeli regime was included in the blacklist of the main perpetrators of grave violations affecting children in the camp in armed conflicts. I can go and expound on this, but the statements of many delegations in the United Nations has made it clear. Everyone knows what's happening. The baseless statements by the Israeli regime could not help them whitewash the genocide they're committing in Palestine and war crimes and aggression they're committing in the region. And Maybe I just end my right of reply by stating that the child cling is the true designation of the Israeli regime. Everyone knows this. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Distinguished delegates, we have thus concluded our debate on agenda item. Do we have another one? Yes, we have one more. Okay. We just received a request for the floor from Bahrain in exercise of a right of reply. You have the floor, ma'am.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. On behalf of member states of the GCC, member states in the United Arab Emirates as well, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Sultanate of Oman, the State of Qatar, Kuwait, and my country, Bahrain, and in response to the intervention by one of the states, an intervention that includes accusations that we would like to refute as follows. Our member states categorically refuse claims that they facilitated any attacks against Iran or put their territories as a springboard for attacks against Iran. We stress that we are not a party to this conflict and that those accusations are unfounded and it could not be a pretext to undermine our sovereignty, interfere in our internal affairs, or target our territories. Our country's sovereign decisions, including its relations with member states, is a matter that belongs to our states alone, and no other country has the right to interfere directly or indirectly in these decisions. And for no matter what reason, they could not also be used as pretext to use force against our territories. The simple claim that it is part of a self-defense argument cannot justify the use of force against our countries. Security Council, in its resolution 2817 of 2026, has stressed our right to defend ourselves in the face of these armed attacks. And this does not absolve anyone from any commitment under international humanitarian law that should be applied at every juncture, no matter what the causes for the conflicts were. In Resolution 2817 of 2026, the Security Council already recognized that the attacks against our territories are a violation of international law, and it stressed our right to self-defense. We cannot really use Article 151 and Resolution 3314 cannot be used in this pretext, no matter how many narratives. The fact remains that Our countries are not party to this conflict and will therefore have the right to self-defense and against any attacks on its territories. And we would only like to recall Article 25 of the Security Council of the UN Charter that calls for the fact that member states should accept the resolutions of the Security Council and implement them according to the Charter. What we are stressing today is based on clear resolutions adopted by Security Council organs and facts cannot be changed and decisions should be reflected, should be respected under the Charter of the United Nations. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Bahrain for his statement in exercise of a right of reply. I don't see any more requests. Distinguished delegates, we have thus concluded our debate on agenda item 83, report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization. I recall Mr. Mohamed Hilal of Egypt, this year's coordinator for the preparation of the omnibus draft resolution on this agenda item this year, and Ms. Shansita Haque of Bangladesh, the Bureau's coordinator for the ICJ commemoration draft resolution, both took the floor at our meeting this morning. Distinguished delegates, we have concluded our work for this meeting. The working group on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction will meet immediately following adjournment of this meeting. The next plenary meeting of the Sixth Committee will be held on Monday morning, 26 October 2026, at 10 a.m., at which time the Committee will commence its consideration of agenda item 78, report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 76th and 77th sessions. As is customary, the annual report of the Commission will be considered in three clusters. Cluster one will consist of chapters 1 to 3, which are introductory chapters, chapter 4, immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, and chapter 5, general principles of law, and chapter 13, other decisions and conclusions. Furthermore, in accordance with resolution 80/164, the Sixth Committee will also continue its consideration of chapter 4. Sea level rise in relation to international law of the Commission's 2025 report. Cluster 2 will consist of Chapter 6, Subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law. Chapter 7, Settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties. and chapter eight, succession of states in respect of state responsibility. Cluster three will consist of chapter nine, non-legally binding international agreements, chapter 10, prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, and chapter 11, due diligence in international law, Chapter XII, Compensation of the Damage Caused by Internationally Wrongful Acts. As has been customary, the chair of the International Law Commission will be invited to introduce the Commission's report in one single intervention. Delegations are also advised to consult the briefings and side events page of the website of the Sixth Committee for information on the events that will take place next week. which is designated as International Law Week. I have been asked to remind delegations that the annual meeting of the legal advisors will commence on Monday afternoon at 3:00 p.m. Please be informed that the meeting of the legal advisors scheduled for Tuesday afternoon, 00 p.m. will now be held in the ECOSOC chamber. Before we conclude, And before we adjourn, I recall that as was decided at the first meeting of the committee, delegations are reminded that the deadline to inscribe for debates for the first two clusters of the debate on the annual report of the ILC scheduled for next week is this afternoon at 5:00 PM. The meeting is adjourned.