Sixth Committee, 28th plenary meeting - General Assembly, 81st session

Good morning, everyone. I invite you to take your seats so we can begin. I call to order the 28th meeting of the Sixth Committee for the 81st session of the General Assembly. Distinguished delegates, before proceeding with this morning's work, I wish to acknowledge with profound sadness the recent passing of Stephen Schwibel, Sir Kenneth Keat, and Roy Lee. A former member of the International Law Commission, during which time he served as Special Rapporteur for the topic Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, Judge Stephen Schwebel from the United States of America was a member of the International Court from 1981 to 2000 and served as its president from 1997 to 2000. For his part, Sir Kenneth Keat also led a long and distinguished career in international law, including, I am informed, briefly as a staff member of the Codification Division and thus of the Secretariat of the Sixth Committee. He was also the first New Zealander to be elected to the International Court of Justice and served from 2006 to 2015. Roy Lee served a long and distinguished career in the United Nations Secretariat, including as Secretary of the Sixth Committee and Executive Secretary of the Rome Conference on the Establishment of the International Criminal Court. After his retirement from the Secretariat, he served as permanent observer to the United Nations for the Asian African Legal Consultative Organization. May they rest in peace. I propose to observe a minute of silence in memory of Messrs. Schwobel, Keet, and Lee. Thank you. I understand that the delegation of New Zealand wishes to take the floor. You have the floor, madam.

Thank you, President. It's an honor to acknowledge the passing of New Zealander Sir Kenneth Keith, former judge of the International Court of Justice. who passed on 16 May this year. I was grateful to be able to attend his funeral in Wellington before coming to New York to take up my role as PR. Sir Ken had an unshakable belief in the value of international law and its role in the settlement of disputes peacefully, and a huge enthusiasm for sharing his knowledge with others. Sir Ken was a bit of a Swiss Army knife of a lawyer, being as much a public, administrative and constitutional lawyer as he was an international lawyer. He worked tirelessly as a practitioner, an academic, a law reformer and a judge over the course of his career, reaching the highest judicial office in both the New Zealand legal system, where he served on our Supreme Court, and the international system as a judge on the International Court of Justice from 2006 through to 2015. He was also a member of the appeal courts in Samoa, the Cook Islands, Niue, and Fiji. I first met Sir Ken in 1995 during my first year in the Foreign Ministry, when I had the privilege of working with him on the second phase of the nuclear test case before the International Court of Justice. Sir Ken had been a member of the earlier phase of the case in 1974, and I remember fondly his kindness and his infectious enthusiasm for international law. The lawyers of the New Zealand Foreign Ministry, of which I am one, are always proud to say that Sir Ken started his career in the legal department of our ministry, where he started in 1961. Although he left Foreign Affairs after only a short stint to do other roles, which included, as you have heard, working in the codification division, an academic career, a founding member of New Zealand's Law Commission, he always maintained contact with the Foreign Ministry legal department and showed a strong interest in our careers. He kept up his interest in international law right to the very end and was a regular attendee and speaker at our annual Foreign Ministry International Law Conference. Sir Ken was hugely committed to international humanitarian law, having led New Zealand's delegation to the negotiations on the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1977. as was his wife, Lady Jocelyn Keith, a nurse who went on to be national president of the New Zealand Red Cross. If Sir Ken were able to attend the Sixth Committee today, I think he would be extremely interested to participate in the crimes against humanity negotiations. I am sure he would be excited by the potential of this new treaty to expand coverage for crimes against humanity, and he would urge you to complete this important work as soon as possible. Thank you, President.

I thank the distinguished representative of New Zealand for her statement. Distinguished delegates, this morning the Sixth Committee will begin its consideration of agenda item 78, report of the International Law Commission on the work of its seventy-sixth and seventy-seventh sessions. The report of the Commission for its seventy-sixth session is contained in document A/801/10, which is available on the websites of the Commission and of the Sixth Committee. It is my pleasure to announce that we have with us today, Chair of the International Law Commission at its 77th session, Mr. Andreas Mavrommatis. Furthermore, it is my pleasure to announce that the co-chairs of the Study Group on Sea Level Rise in relation to international law, Ms. Patricia Galvão Telles, Ms. Nilufer Oral, and Mr. Juan José Ruda Santalauria, are with us once again today, together with the Special Rapporteur on the topic of immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, Mr. Claudio Grossman, and that one, the topic of general principles of international law, Mr. Marcelo Vasquez Bermudez. I speak for the Committee as a whole in extending to the Chair of the Commission, as well as the co-chairs of the study group, Mr. Grossman and Mr. Vázquez Bermúdez, a warm welcome. The United Nations, together with the international legal community, attaches great importance to the work of the International Law Commission and values its contribution over the years. International law remains crucial in contemporary international relations, whereby the elaboration of norms addressing some of the big challenges facing the international community is one of the most important tools we have at our disposal. Both the General Assembly and the Commission play pivotal roles in the codification and progressive development of international law under the United Nations Charter and the ILC Statute, respectively. This is thus the most important forum and time for both bodies to interact to fulfil our common responsibility. Comments from governments, along with the state practice presented during this discussion, represent an inevitable part of the Commission's analysis and shape the outcomes of its work. The present debate is, alongside the written comments sent to the Commission, the most natural and transparent way of interaction between the two bodies. Let us therefore use this occasion to the fullest extent. As we all know, the beginning of the debate on the report of the Commission also coincides with the beginning of International Law Week. We also have with us here today legal advisers from Capital, as well as several members of the Commission. I will extend a warm welcome to them all. Distinguished delegates, we will now proceed with our debate under agenda item 78. The International Law Commission's report is known for its scholarly rigor and completeness. In order to help us consider it in a meaningful way, and as approved at our organizational meeting on 5th October 2026, the Committee will once again consider the ILC report in three clusters of chapters. The programme for the consideration of the ILC report is reflected in the overall work programme of the Sixth Committee, which is available on the website of the Committee. The first cluster will consist of chapters 1 to 3, introductory chapters, chapter 4, immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, and 5, general principles of law, as well as chapter 8, other decisions and conclusions. Furthermore, in accordance with resolution 80/164, the Sixth Committee will also continue its consideration of chapter IV of the Commission's 2025 report on the topic of sea-level rise in relation to international law. We shall consider cluster one today, tomorrow, and Wednesday morning. We hope to commence the second cluster on Wednesday afternoon. at which time we will consider Chapter VI, Subsidiary Means for the Determination of Rules of International Law; Chapter VII, Settlement of Disputes to Which International Organizations are Parties; and Chapter VIII, Succession of States in Respect of State Responsibility, of this year's report. According to our program of work, the third cluster will be considered next week and will focus on chapter 9, non-legally binding international agreements, chapter 10, prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, chapter 11, due diligence in international law, and chapter 12, compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts. You are encouraged to follow the thematic approach in your interventions. As in the past, this approach will be applied with flexibility. The work plan for this week takes into account, as far as possible, several other events scheduled to take place during International Law Week. It is important that we utilize fully the time allocated to the agenda item so as to complete our work on schedule. Finally, permit me to recall the recommendation of the Sixth Committee Bureau that while time limits might not be strictly implemented, delegations are strongly encouraged to utilize and to consider in making their interventions the time limits used for the Committee of seven minutes for statements made in a national capacity and 12 minutes for statements by groups of States. and where possible, to only deliver abridged versions of their statements while providing their full statements for posting on e-statements and on the website of the Sixth Committee. Distinguished colleagues, it is now my pleasure to give the floor to the current Chair of the International Law Commission at its 77th session, Mr. Andreas Mavrommatis, to introduce the report of the Commission. I understand that the Chair of the Commission will introduce the entire report in a single intervention. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I'm delighted to see you serving in the present capacity as Chair of the Sixth Committee. Please accept the best wishes of the International Law Commission for a successful session. I also extend my warm congratulations to the other members of the Bureau. The tradition of interaction and collaboration between the Committee and the Commission in the progressive development of international law and its codification is one that the Commission really cherishes. On behalf of the members of the Commission, I wish to express my gratitude for the support of the Sixth Committee to the Commission and its work, which enabled it to hold a full 11-week session this year. As you are aware, the Commission session this year was a busy and successful one, with much progress in the Commission's substantive work. I am pleased to report to the Committee that the Commission concluded two second readings and two first readings. As is customary, the Commission paid tribute to the various special rapporteurs who served towards the completion of these topics: Claudiu Grosman Gilov, Concepción Escobar Hernández, and Roman Kolodkin for immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction; Mr. Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez for general principles of law; Mr. Charles Chernor Jalloh for subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law; and Mr. August Reinisch for settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties. The Commission also concluded its work in one topic and continued its consideration of a number of other topics. Madam Chair, before delving into the details of the substantive chapters, I would like to draw your attention to some of the other decisions and activities of the Commission. The Commission decided to include the topic "Identification and Legal Consequences of Obligations Erca Omnes in International Law" in its program of work and to appoint Mr. Masahiko Asada as Special Rapporteur. With the addition of the new topic and the conclusion this year of the work on the topics immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, general principles of law, and succession of States in respect of State responsibility, which I will return to in due course, there are at present seven topics on the regular programme of work. The re-established working group on the long-term program of work, chaired by Marcelo Vasquez Bermudez, continued its consideration of proposals for new topics. In that connection, the Commission included in its long-term program of work the topic, the right to regulate in international investment law. and approved an updated syllabus on the topic, extraterritorial jurisdiction, which had been added to the long-term program of work of the Commission at the 58th session in 2006. Vilavan Maklathanakul and Mario Oyarzabal, respectively, prepared the syllabuses, which are attached as annexes to this year report. Delegations are invited to comment on each of those potential topics, as well as on the other topics that remain inscribed in the long-term program of work from previous plenary in their statements under cluster one. The Commission continues to attach great importance to improving its working methods. It reestablished the Working Group on Methods of Work and Procedures of the Commission under the leadership of Charles Cernogialo. And this year, the Working Group focused on advancing the preparation of the Handbook on Methods of Work and Procedures of the Commission, which began in 2023. It is the hope of the Commission that work on the handbook will be finalized at the 78th session. I wish to draw the attention of delegations to the Commission's decision to establish a working group on cooperation with regional legal bodies. The Commission places great value on its cooperation with regional legal bodies, and this decision was motivated largely by the objective of strengthening substantive exchanges with such bodies. The working group was chaired by me and held an exchange of views with the Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law of the Council of Europe, the Inter-American Juridical Committee, and the Asian African Legal Consultative Organization. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 80/167 of 15 December 2025, the Commission has again commended in its report on its current role in promoting the rule of law and has reiterated the commitment to the rule of law in all of its activities. Madam Chair, the Commission had the pleasure to receive the Secretary-General, Mr. Antonio Guterres, on 6 July 2026. The Secretary-General delivered remarks to the Commission, emphasizing that its work has rarely been more vital as the rules that form the bedrock of the international legal order are being challenged and eroded constantly. He stressed shaping the future of international law by anticipating tomorrow's challenges, falls with particular weight on the Commission. In addition, Judge Iwasawa Yuji, President of the International Court of Justice, addressed the Commission on 15 May 2026. An informal exchange of views between members of the Commission and the International Committee of the Red Cross took place on 7 July 2026. Permit me also to note that in the course of the session, sadly, the Commission heard statements in honor of the memory of former members Ms. Concepción Escobar Hernández, Mr. Julio Barpoza, and Judge Stephen Schwebel. Madam Chair, the Commission decided at its 78th session sorry, that its 78th session would be held in Geneva from 26 April to 11 June and from 5 to 30 July 2027. As delegations are aware, this year is the last year of the current tenure of the Commission. Allow me at this stage to acknowledge its invaluable assistance of the Codification Division of the Office of Legal Affairs in the technical and substantive servicing of the Commission. The Secretariat is very much an integral part of the working methods of the Commission, and the Commission is grateful for its work, in particular its continued preparation of studies and memorandums on matters on the work programme of the Commission. The Commission was also particularly pleased to receive the United Nations Legal Counsel for the traditional annual briefing on activities and developments concerning the Office of Legal Affairs. Madam Chair, in line with past practice, the report of the Commission for this year contained in document A/81/10, will be introduced in one single intervention. The Commission's overall output is summarized in chapter 2. Allow me also to draw your attention to the various requests of the Commission for information and their respective deadlines as contained in chapter 3 of the report. My statement today will focus on the substantive developments of the various topics in the program of work of the Commission, presented in accordance with the agreed clusters. Accordingly, I will first address cluster one chapters, namely chapters four, immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, and five, general principles of law, Then cluster two chapters, which relate to chapter six, subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, seven, settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties, and eight, succession of states in respect of state responsibility, followed by cluster three chapters, namely nine, non-legal and binding international agreements, 10, prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea; 11, due diligence in international law; and 12, compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts. Madam Chair, let us begin with chapter 4 of the report, which covers the topic immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. After almost two decades of work on the topic, this year, the Commission adopted 17 draft articles, together with commentaries there too, on second reading. The draft articles on immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction have as their objective the potential drafting of a convention. Work on the topic can be characterized as an exercise of both the codification and the progressive development of international law, as indicated in the commentary. The draft articles define the general legal regime applicable to this type of immunity and are limited to immunity from criminal jurisdiction of another state and do not affect the rights and obligation of states under international agreements establishing or relating to the operation of international criminal courts and tribunals as between the parties to those agreements. The draft articles cover all state officials, regardless of their position or the specific functions they perform for the state, with the sole exception of situations where State officials are covered by special regimes. In view of the different positions that different State officials may hold, the draft articles distinguish between two legal regimes, namely immunity ratione personae and immunity ratione materiae. The Commission took into account the need to guarantee respect for the principle of the sovereign equality of states, which is the very foundation of immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, stability of international relations, as well as existing rules in different areas of contemporary international law, such as international criminal law. Provisions in the draft articles address the applicability of immunity ratione materiae of state officials with respect to several crimes under international law, the relationship between the draft articles and the rights and obligations of states under international agreements establishing or relating to the operation of international criminal courts and tribunals, as between the parties to those agreements, and the existence or the establishment of mechanics for enabling the potential prosecution of state officials, either by the courts of their own state or of a third state, or where possible, by an international tribunal. Consideration was also given to the fact that under certain circumstances, the exercise of criminal jurisdiction over officials of another state might be politically motivated or abusive, which in turn would create undesirable tension in the relations between the forum state and the state of the official. The draft articles accordingly include a set of procedural provisions and safeguards aimed at promoting trust, mutual understanding, and cooperation between the forum state and the state of the official, and offering safeguards against possible abuses and politicization in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction over an official of another state. The 17 draft articles are organized into four parts. Part one, comprising draft articles one and two, deals with the scope of application and definitions. Part two covers immunity ratione personae and comprises draft articles three and four, which identify the state officials who enjoy immunity ratione personae from the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction and deal with the temporal and material scope of such immunity. The draft articles contained in Part III, dealing with immunity ratione materiae, namely draft Articles 5 and 6, set out the general regime applicable to immunity ratione materiae, addressing its personal, material, and temporal elements, and provide that immunity ratione materiae shall not apply under the draft articles in respect of certain crimes under international law, even if it is alleged that those crimes were committed by an official acting in unofficial capacity. Such crimes are listed in draft article 6, and are the following: the crime of genocide; crimes against humanity; war crimes; the crime of apartheid; torture and forced disappearance; the crime of aggression; slavery and slave trade. As was the case in the first reading, the Commission provisionally adopted the provision on second reading by vote. Nonetheless, I wish to emphasize that the Commission adopted the entire set of draft articles on second reading without a vote. Part IV comprises draft articles 7 to 17. and contains procedural provisions and safeguards. It addresses inter alia, the examination of the question of immunity from criminal jurisdiction when the authorities of the forum state seek to exercise or do exercise criminal jurisdiction, notification to the state of the official, the recognition of the rights of the state of the official to invoke immunity, waiver of immunity, requests for information, determination of immunity by the competent authorities of the forum state, fair treatment of the state official. Part four also addresses the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the draft articles in draft article 17. The text of the draft articles and the commentaries there to are reproduced in paragraphs 47 and 48 of the report. The Commission decided, in conformity with Article 23 of its Statute, to recommend the draft articles on immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction to the General Assembly. In particular, The Commission recommended the elaboration at the appropriate time of a convention by the General Assembly or by an international conference of plenipotentiaries on the basis of the draft articles. Madam Chair, regarding the topic general principles of law contained in chapter 5 of the report, the Commission adopted 12 draft conclusions, together with commentaries there to on second reading. In draft conclusions concern general principles of law as a source of international law. The legal nature of general principles of law as such is confirmed by their inclusion in Article 38, paragraph 1C of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, together with treaties and customary international law, as part of the international law that shall be applied by the Court to decide disputes submitted to it. The term "general principles of law" is used throughout the draft conclusions to refer to the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations listed in Article 38, paragraph 1(c) analyzed in the light of the practice of states, the jurisprudence of constant tribunals, and teachings. In the draft conclusions, the Commission reaffirmed a basic element of Article 38, paragraph 1c, namely that for a general principle of law to exist, it must be recognized by the community of nations. The term community of nations was employed as a substitute for the term civilized nations found in Article 38, paragraph 1C, because the commission considered the latter term anachronistic. Notably, the term community of nations is found in Article 15, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty to which 175 states are parties and which is thus widely accepted. However, it is to be stressed that the use of the term "community of nations" is not intended to modify the scope or content of article 38, paragraph 1(c). Draft conclusion one concerns the scope of the topic, while the recognition of general principles of law is addressed in draft conclusion two. The draft conclusions cover general principles of law that are derived from national legal systems and those that may be formed within the international legal system, as reflected in draft conclusion 3. Draft conclusions 4 to 6 cover the methodology for identifying general principles of law derived from national legal systems, including the determination of the existence of a principle common to the various legal systems of the world and its transposition to the international legal system. The methodology for identification of general principles of law formed within the international legal system is contained in draft conclusion seven. The commission concluded that to determine the existence and content of such general principles of law, it is necessary to ascertain that the community of nations has recognized the principle as intrinsic to that system. The commission considered that the existence of this type of general principle of law is justified for a number of reasons, examples of their existence can be found in judicial and state practice, as well as in teachings. It was also considered that the international legal system, like any other legal system, must be able to generate general principles of law that are specific to it, and not have only general principles of law borrowed by other legal systems. Additionally, Nothing in the text of Article 38, paragraph 1c of the Statute of International Court of Justice, or in its drafting history, limits general principles of law to those derived from national legal systems. Illustrative examples of this category of general principles can be found in the commentary to draft conclusion seven. The draft conclusions also concern the role of decisions of courts and tribunals and of teachings as subsidiary means for the determination of the existence and content of general principles of law in draft conclusions 8 and 9. The functions of general principles of law are addressed in draft conclusion 10. While the relationship between general principles of law and treaties and customary international law is explained in draft conclusion 11, I wish to note that the draft conclusions are without prejudice to general principles of law with a limited scope of obligation, a point that is explained in draft conclusion 12 and its accompanying commentary. The text of the draft conclusions and the commentaries there, too, is reproduced in paragraphs 58 and 59 of the report. The conclusion decided, in accordance with Article 23 of its statute, to recommend that the General Assembly, A, take note in a resolution of the draft conclusions on general principles of law, annex the draft conclusions to the resolution and ensure their widest dissemination; (b) commend the draft conclusions, together with the commentaries thereto, to the attention of States and all who may be called upon to identify or apply general principles of law; and (c) Note the bibliography prepared by the Special Rapporteur and presented in his fourth report. Madam Chair, I shall now turn to cluster two. Chapter six concerns the topic subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, which is one of the topics concluded on first reading this year. The Commission adopted 13 draft conclusions, together with commentaries on first reading. The text of the draft conclusions and the commentaries thereto is reproduced in paragraphs 68 and 69 of the report. Through this topic, the Commission sought to contribute greater clarity on the use of subsidiary means and their relationship with the sources of international law. In draft conclusions aim at identifying and elucidating the roles of subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, consistent with the letter and spirit of Article 38, paragraph one of the Statute of the International Court of Justice and at offering a consistent methodological approach when using subsidiary means for determining the existence and content of rules of international law. Given its mandate to assist States with the codification and progressive development of international law, the Commission hopes the draft conclusions may facilitate the work of all those who may be called upon to address subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law. In draft conclusions and the commentary there too, should provide useful guidance to states, international organizations, international and national courts, and tribunals, and all those, including legal scholars and practitioners of international law, who may have reason to address subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law. The 13 draft conclusions adopted on first reading are divided into five parts. Part one, comprising draft conclusion one, is introductory and deals with scope. Part two, comprising draft conclusions through two to four, sets out the general provision on the nature and function of subsidiary means for the determination of use of international law, the three categories of subsidiary means, and the general criteria to be used to assess their weight. Part three follows with further guidance on decisions of courts and tribunals and specific additional criteria for assessment of their weight. and is constituted by draft conclusions 5 to 7. Part four addresses teachings and their weight, as reflected in draft conclusions 8 and 9. Lastly, part five, comprising draft articles 10 to 13, examines the other subsidiary means that are generally used in practice to assist in determining rules of international law. The Commission decided, in accordance with Article 16 to 21 of its Statute, to transmit the draft conclusions through the Secretary-General to governments for comments and observations, with the request that such comments and observations be submitted to the Secretary-General by 1 December 2027. Madam Chair, With respect to the topic concluded on first reading, settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties, as reflected in chapter 7, the commission considered the third report of the special rapporteur, which focused on the discussion of disputes between international organizations and private parties. The third report contained an analysis of the practice of settling such disputes, as well as of policy issues relevant to the work of the Commission on the topic. As a result of its consideration of the topic this year, the Commission adopted on first reading 12 draft guidelines together with commentary. They are two. The text of the draft guidelines and of the commentaries can be found in paragraphs 82 and 83 of the report. International organizations may be parties to a variety of disputes at both the international and the national levels. They are disputes with members and host states, but also with third states or other international organizations. will most often arise under international law, whereas their disputes with private parties are likely to arise under national law or specifically stipulated applicable rules. Disputes with international organizations may also arise under the rules of the organization. The elaboration of a set of draft guidelines on the topic was intended to direct states, international organizations, and other users to answers that are consistent with existing rules or that seem most appropriate for contemporary practice concerning the settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties. The draft guidelines are mainly concerned with the availability and adequacy of means for the settlement of such disputes. They are not intended to elaborate detailed sets of procedural rules. In addition to the draft guidelines, the Commission considered whether it should also develop a set of model clauses that may be used in treaties or other instruments governed by international law, as well as in contracts or other national law instruments. It ultimately found, however, that such model clauses would be difficult to agree upon and prone to be misunderstood as too directive. Instead, the Special Rapporteur prepared a document containing sample clauses on dispute settlement illustrating the practice of international organizations. This document is an addendum to the Special Rapporteur's third report. The text adopted on first reading is divided into three parts. Draft-type guidelines 1 and 2 can be found in part 1. which is introductory and deals with scope and use of terms. Part two, comprising draft guidelines 3 to 6, deals with disputes between international organizations as well as disputes between international organizations and states, providing for the resort to means of dispute settlement, accessibility of means of dispute settlement, and requirements for arbitration and judicial settlement. While Part III covers disputes between international organization and private parties, and is comprised in draft guidelines 7 to 12, addressing issues such as resort to means of dispute settlement, immunity of international organizations, access to justice, and requirements for means of dispute settlement of an adjudicatory character. The Commission decided in accordance with Article 16 to 21 of its statute to transmit the draft guidelines through the Secretary General to governments and relevant international organizations for comments and observations, with the request that such comments and observations be submitted to the Secretary General by 1st December 2027. Madam Chair, let us now turn to chapter 8. As I mentioned earlier, the Commission concluded its work on one topic, that is succession of States in respect of State responsibility. Further to the decision the Commission took at its 75th session in 2024, The Commission re-established the Working Group of the Whole on the topic, chaired by Bimal Patel. The Working Group had before it a revised draft report of the Working Group prepared by the Chair. The Commission adopted the report of the Working Group on the topic as amended and decided not to pursue consideration of the topic further. The report of the working group, as amended, is contained in paragraphs 95 to 127 of the report of the Commission. The report of the working group consists of two sections. The first section contains a summary of the Commission's debates on the topic over the years. The second section summarizes the major difficulties faced by the Commission in its consideration of the topic, which included methodological issues, substantive challenges, and problems of form. The Commission decision not to pursue consideration of the topic further brings to an end its decade of work on this topic. Allow me to emphasize the gratitude of the Commission to Bimal Patel for his contribution as chair of the working group, as well as to Pavel Sturma, the former special rapporteur for the topic, and August Reinisch, chair of the working group that met at the 74th and 75th sessions of the Commission. Madam Chair, let us now turn to cluster three. Chapter 9 is concerned with the topic non-legally binding international agreements, and the Commission had before it the second and third reports of the Special Rapporteur, Mathias Fortoe, which were devoted in addressing general elements of the topic, the terminology, scope of the project, form of the output, and the distinction between treaties and non-legally binding international agreements based on jurisprudence, practice, and doctrine. Six draft conclusions were proposed in the second report. The third report supplemented the second report and reflected the views of States expressed at the Sixth Committee during the 80th session of the General Assembly. The Commission provisionally adopted draft conclusions 1 to 5 together with commentaries. The text of the draft conclusions and commentaries thereto is contained in paragraphs 139 and 140 of the report of the Commission. The purpose of the draft conclusion draft conclusion, sorry, is to provide elements of clarification in relation to non-legally binding international agreements as provided for in draft conclusion one. These elements or clarifications take account of the fact that the adoption of non-legally binding international agreements, although a longstanding practice, has intensified in recent years. Of note, I wish to highlight that draft conclusions four and five provide elements of clarification on the approach to be taken when assessing whether an international agreement is legally binding or not. The assessment should be conducted on a case-by-case basis and depends on, inter alia, the intention of the participants to the agreement. Such intention may be expressly stated, and in the absence of an express indication, the intention of the participants can be established by recourse to the relevant elements identified in the draft conclusions. The Commission will return to this point at a future session to determine the relevant indicators that may assist in determining whether the agreement is legally binding. Permit me to point out that, according to the draft conclusion 2, the draft conclusions do not affect rules or procedures followed by states and international organizations in relation to the drafting and adoption of non-legally binding international agreements. The Commission would appreciate receiving information from states, as well as from international organizations, or any updates to information already submitted related to the topic on any practice related to the possible legal implications of non-legally binding international agreements by 1 December 2026. Madam Chair, as for the topic prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea contained in chapter 6, sorry, chapter 10, the commission had before it the first report of the Special Rapporteur Luis Sabadoco. In the first report, the Special Rapporteur reviewed legal instruments on cooperation related to piracy and armed robbery at sea, including regional instruments, analyzed the legislation and practice of states on policing measures to combat piracy and armed robbery at sea, as well as the mechanism for criminal prosecutions of such acts set forth his proposal for future work on the topic, and provided a list of materials consulted in preparing the first report. The Special Rapporteur proposed 18 draft articles in the first report. The first report was considered by the Commission in plenary, and the summary of the plenary debate can be found in paragraphs 162 to 208 of the report of the Commission. The Drafting Committee provisionally adopted draft articles 3 bis, 4 bis, 5, 5 bis, 5 ter, and 5 quater. The draft articles provisionally adopted by the Drafting Committee this year concern autonomous or remotely operated ships or aircraft, criminalization of piracy and armed robbery at sea under national law, criminal jurisdiction with regard to piracy and with regard to armed robbery at sea, jurisdictional basis, and cooperation to facilitate the exercise of criminal jurisdiction. I shall refrain from entering into the details of the provisions. since they have not been adopted by the Commission, and therefore, no commentary has been elaborated thus far. The Commission would appreciate receiving information from State by 1st December 2026 concerning: legislation and any other relevant practice at the domestic level regarding the use of computer software, platforms, or other electronic tools for the commission of acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea; and b) decisions of national courts, legislation, and any other relevant practice at the domestic level regarding the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of committing acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea. Madam Chair, turning now to chapter 11, which deals with the topic due diligence in international law, the commission had before it the first report of the special rapporteur, Penelope writings, which discussed the methodological approach, terminological issues, reviewed the debate on the topic in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly and the previous work of the Commission and other international legal bodies relevant to the topic. The report contained an overview of available material on the topic since the late 19th century. It also identified issues and questions to be examined by the Commission and discussed the possible form of the final outcome and future work on the topic. The first report of the Special Rapporteur was considered by the Commission in the plenary. The summary of the plenary debate can be found in paragraphs 235 to 264 of the report of the Commission. The Commission would welcome information that states, international organizations, and other relevant entities could provide on their practice concerning due diligence in international law by 1st December 2026. At its next session, the Commission will focus on the question of the need for states to exercise due diligence in the performance of certain primary obligations across various fields of international law, while also preparing the groundwork for consideration of a potential general obligation of due diligence. The Commission would therefore appreciate receiving information in this regard. Madam Chair, Regarding the topic, compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts as contained in Chapter 12, the commission had before it the first report of the Special Rapporteur, martins Pabarinskis, which reviewed the debate on the topic in the Sixth Committee and the previous work of the commission and other international legal bodies relevant to the topic. The report contained an examination of the scope, content, and legal status of Article 36 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, an analysis of the scope of the topic and of relevant judicial decisions and state practice. It also identified issues and questions to be examined by the Commission and discussed the possible form of the final outcome and future work. The Commission considered the first report of the Special Rapporteur in the plenary. The summary of the plenary debate can be found in paragraphs 297 to 332 of the report. The Special Rapporteur has indicated that next year, He will focus on drafting provisions regarding the scope of the topic, the basic rule of compensation, and interaction between compensation and other forms of reparation. The Commission would appreciate receiving by 1st December 2026 the following information from States and relevant international bodies: a) examples of practice relating to compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts, b, any information related to such compensation in adjudicative and other context, and c, any information on agreements entered to by states related to such compensation. Moreover, The questionnaire concerning issues specifically relevant to the topic prepared by the Special Rapporteur has been communicated to States. Additionally, the Commission requested the Secretariat to prepare a memorandum for its 79th session providing information on whether or to what extent consideration is given to the financial capacity of the responsible state to pay compensation based on a survey of the case law of international courts and tribunals and other international bodies, and of treaties contained in the United Nations treaty series and the League of Nations treaty series, which may be of relevance to its future work on the topic. Madam Chair, before concluding, it would be remiss if I did not express the Commission's profound gratitude to States that have contributed to the trust fund related to the work of the Commission. The trust fund on the backlog relating to the Yearbook of the Commission and the trust fund of assistance to Special Rapporteurs or chairs of its study groups, and the matters ancillary there to, were instrumental for the work of the Commission this year. In this respect, I'm pleased to express my deep gratitude to Austria, China, Cyprus, Ireland, Latvia, Panama, Portugal, Türkiye, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who contributed since October 2025. Madam Chair, the Commission and the Sixth Committee have a shared interest in the progressive development of international law and its codification. The Commission looks to the Sixth Committee for valuable comments on its work so as to make it more useful and relevant to the needs of States. The interaction that the commission has with the six committee during the debate on the annual report, during the interactive dialogue, as well as the written comments received, provides a useful framework for enriching the work product of the commission. During the coming days, my colleagues and I look forward to hearing comments and observations from all of you. and to a useful exchange of views. Madam Chair, I think I slightly exceeded my seven minutes. Thank you for your indulgence. And this concludes the presentation of the entire report, and I thank you very much for your kind attention. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished Chair of the Commission for his comprehensive, clear, and concise introduction of the report. I also thank him for the kind words addressed to me and the other members of the Bureau. Distinguished delegates, we will now proceed with the debate of the first cluster of chapters. The first speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Cameroon on behalf of the African Group. You have the floor.

Madam Chair, my delegation has the honour to deliver a statement on behalf of the African Group on the first cluster of the agenda item report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 76th and 77th session. I take this opportunity to welcome members of the Commission and legal advisor from capital to this year’s International Law Week in New York. We appreciate the opportunity for engagement between the Sixth Committee representatives and members of the Commission, following what has been crystallized as a rich tradition to actualize the interaction between the ILC and Member States in the Sixth Committee. At the outset, let me thank the Chair of the Commission, Mr. Andreas Mavroyiannis, the Bureau, the Special Rapporteur, and Chair of working groups for conducting a successful session of the Commission. We appreciate the Chair’s comprehensive introduction of the reports on the work of the Commission contained in document A/H/1/10 and look forward to a rich debate on it. The African Group also welcomes the return for the 77th session to a duration of work substantially closer to the Commission’s usual format. Following the exceptional shortening of its 76th session, This restoration is a welcome development which has enabled the Commission to pursue its work with greater continuity and efficiency. The Group emphasized that an adequate session length is an essential condition for the Commission to fully and effectively discharge its mandate of the progressive development and codification of international law. In this regard, the Group encourages the maintenance of stable and predictable working conditions for future sessions so as to ensure that the Commission is provided with the time and resources necessary for a thorough consideration of the item on its programme of work, in close dialogue with State and regional organizations. The African Group appreciates the effort of the Codification Division of the Office of Legal Affairs in serving as the Secretariat of the Commission. We take note of the briefing on 9 September 2026 to the Sixth Committee, covering, among other things, the report of the Commission on the work of its 77th session. The Group also takes note of the online briefing by the Special Rapporteur of the International Law Commission, as well as by the Chair of the Working Group on Succession of States in respect of State Responsibility, on the outcome of the Commission’s 77th session. We use this opportunity to thank the members of the Commission for their devoted service to the codification and progressive development of international law. The African Group also thanks the African member of the Commission for taking time to brief the group on the progress of the work of the Commission during this session. Such exchanges underline the importance for African States of providing their views on the report of the Commission. Madam Chair, as a general remark, The African Group attaches great value and importance to the mandate of the International Law Commission in assisting the General Assembly in initiating studies and making recommendations for the purpose of promoting the progressive development of international law and its codification, as set out in the Commission 1947 Statute, derived from Article 13, paragraph 1(a) of the Charter of the United Nations. Our group is committed to multilateralism and the international legal order founded on the Charter of the United Nations, and we value the effective contribution of the Commission in maintaining this multilateral system, considering the view of all Member States. In noting the particular step being taken by the Commission to take into account the diversity of legal tradition, geographical and linguistic consideration in its work, We continue to reiterate that the process of progressive development and codification of international law must always be inclusive and all-embracing in the consideration of legal text, state practice, precedent, and doctrine as required by the ILC Statute. In this regard, we encourage the ILC to redouble effort to draw inspiration from all legal system reflective of our contemporary world. including African resources and principles in its work, and our increasing engagement with the work of the Commission is to ensure this important aspect are duly realized. We further stress the importance of selecting topics that bring added value and of interest and relevance to the international community as a whole. The African Group is pleased to note that African members of the Commission continue to make substantive and institutional contributions to the work of the Commission, including at the highest level of its deliberations. Such responsibilities taken by African members of the Commission are a clear reflection of the valuable contribution of African legal expertise to the progressive development and codification of international law. Turning to chapter 5 of the report on the work of the 76th session, the African Group takes note of the work of the Commission on the topic sea-level rise in relation to international law, and particularly appreciates the adoption at its 76th session in 2025 of the final report of the study group, which concluded the consideration of the topic by the Commission. The Group recognizes the importance of this work in addressing some of the most pressing legal challenges arising from climate change, including those relating to maritime zones, statehood, and the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. The African Group commends the Commission for its contribution to advancing legal clarity in this emerging area and looks forward to the continued consideration of the outcome of this work by States and the General Assembly. The African Group takes note of the completion of the Commission’s consideration on second reading of the topic “Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction”. The Group commends the Commission for its sustained effort to address this complex and sensitive area of international law, and notes the adoption of the 17 draft articles and commentaries on second reading. The African Group attaches particular importance to striking an appropriate balance between the principle of immunity of State officials, which derives from the sovereignty and equality of States, and the imperative of combating impunity under international law, with the necessary procedural safeguards. The Group takes note of the recommendation of the Commission that a convention be elaborated at the appropriate time on the basis of the draft article, and considers that States should be given adequate time to examine them, with a view to the broadest possible consensus in the further consideration of this work by the General Assembly. The African Group takes note of the significant progress made by the Commission on the topic of general principles of law. The Group particularly notes the adoption, on second reading, of the 12 draft conclusions and commentaries thereto, as well as the recommendation of the Commission to the General Assembly and recognize that this work seeks to contribute to the clarification of the identification and application of general principles of law in the international legal order. The African Group takes note of the Commission’s consideration of state practice and judicial decisions, and emphasizes that the identification of general principles of law must rest on a rigorous methodology and a demanding threshold of recognition by the community of nations, should be approached with caution, particularly with regard to principles that may be formed within the international legal system, so as to preserve the central role of the consent of state. The group further stressed the importance of ensuring that this area of law continues to reflect the diversity of legal systems and tradition represented in the international community. Madam Chair, the African Group takes note of the Commission decision at its 77th session to include the topic "Identification and legal consequences of obligation erga omnes in international law" in its programme of work and to appoint Mr. Masahiko Asada as Special Rapporteur. The African Group looks forward to the contribution of his work to a deeper understanding of the legal consequences of obligation erga omnes and to the progressive development and codification of international law. The African Group encourages the Special Rapporteur to spare no effort to pursue this work in an inclusive and balanced manner, taking fully into account the diverse legal traditions, state practice, and perspectives of all regions. The Group also takes note of the decision of the Commission to include the topic “the right to regulate in international investment law” in its long-term programme of work. and of its approval of an updated syllabus of extraterritorial jurisdiction, a topic included in the long-term programme of the work in 2006. The Group welcomes this development and the Commission’s continuing effort to identify and consider emerging and increasingly relevant areas of international law. The African Group encourages the Commission to ensure that the consideration of this topic remains inclusive and transparent, take due account of the diverse legal perspectives and interests of States, in particular developing countries, and contribute meaningfully to the progressive development and codification of international law. On method of work, the African Group underlines the importance of building broad consensus within the Commission before advancing draft output. This is key to ensuring that codification contributes to the coherence of international law and strengthen the authority of the Commission. Special Rapporteur play a vital role in this regard. Their report should provide a basis for collective deliberation and reflect as faithful as possible the diversity of views expressed within the Commission and by Member State in the Sixth Committee. The Group further underlines that the success of the Commission's work depends on the extent to which its topics resonate with Member States, and that the Commission should remain attentive to the views expressed in the Sixth Committee. Like the Commission, the African Group expresses its concern about the discontinuation of the live webcast of the Commission plenary meetings. The webcast was particularly helpful for smaller delegations, including those from our region. following the work of the Commission, and we support the call for the necessary resources to ensure its availability at future session. In closing, Madam Chair, the African Group reaffirm its continued support for the Commission and its commitment to contributing actively to the progressive development of international law and codification. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Cameroon for that statement on behalf of the African.

Group, and now give the floor to the distinguished Permanent Representative of Palau on behalf of AOSIS.

You have the floor, Madam Ambassador.

Madam Chair, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the 39 members of the Alliance of Small Island States, the states that are especially affected by sea level rise. AOSIS thanks the Commission and the co-chairs of the study group for the final report. Our members have spoken at length in this committee on maritime zones and on statehood. Our positions there are clear: maritime zones established in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the rights and entitlements that flow from them shall continue to apply without reduction, notwithstanding physical changes resulting from climate change-related sea level rise. Statehood and sovereignty continue. The study group's conclusions confirm both points, and the UN Declaration on Sea Level Rise adopted by the GA by consensus affirms them. Today we turn to the third subtopic, the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. AECIS asked for this discussion. In September, we wrote to the chair of the Sixth Committee to request that this year's debate focus on the protection of persons. We asked because the protection of persons is the subtopic on which the law is least developed. And because it concerns the people of our countries most directly, maritime zones and statehood define the state and its outer limits. This subtopic is about the people the state exists to serve. This is the first time this committee has focused its discussion on this subtopic. As such, this is the beginning of the discussion, not its conclusion. AOSIS has said less on this subtopic than on the other two. We want to set out how our group approaches it. The protection of persons matters to AOSIS. Sea level rise affects where our people live, how they earn a living, and their culture, heritage, and identity. A legal response that secures the state and its maritime zones, but not its people, is incomplete. Our focus today is the international legal framework within which states protect people affected by climate change related sea level rise and the role of international cooperation within that framework. First, existing law applies. We welcome the study group's conclusion that persons affected by sea level rise remain rights holders and that states continue to bear the obligations applicable to them under international human rights law. The applicable frameworks are fragmented and were not specific to sea level rise. Fragmentation is not an absence of law. Existing instruments and rules of international law may be interpreted and applied in a matter that takes account of the effects of climate change related sea level rise, as the study group recommends. Second, protection depends on the continuity of the state. The study group found that the three subtopics are interconnected, and we agree. The state is the primary guarantor of the rights of its people. The continuity of statehood allows our states to keep protecting their populations, to maintain nationality, and to prevent statelessness. The preservation of maritime zones sustains the livelihood and the economic base on which that protection rests for present and future generations. Sea level rise does not diminish a state's legal capacity to protect its people. Third, every state bears a duty towards affected persons. Under international law, each state has a duty toward persons affected by sea level rise who are within its jurisdiction or under its control in accordance with the human rights obligations applicable to it, including with respect to political status, culture, cultural heritage, identity, and dignity, and meeting essential needs. However, that duty is not confined to the states most affected. It extends to every state in which affected persons are present. Fourth, protection begins where people live. The study group's conclusions cover persons who remain in situ as well as those who are displaced. Our people will seek to continue to live in their own countries and communities. States are entitled to take adaptation measures to preserve their rights, as the study group confirmed. Support for adaptation and resilience is therefore part of the protection of persons, not separate from it. Persons who choose to remain in their homes should be supported to do so in safety and dignity. Fifth, the elements identified by the study group are a useful reference. We welcome the recognition of the protection of human dignity as a guiding principle. The elements for legal protection set out in the final report of the study group offers states a practical reference for interpreting existing instruments and for developing new ones. We note in particular the combination of needs-based and rights-based approaches. A needs-based approach secures essential needs. A rights-based approach ensures that affected persons are treated as holders of rights, not as recipients of assistance. Both are relevant and complementary. We also note the particular need to protect persons in vulnerable situation who may be disproportionately affected, and the importance of informing, consulting, and encouraging the participation of affected persons and communities in decisions that concern them. Six, the duty to cooperate is a legal obligation. IOSIS has consistently affirmed the duty of international cooperation. The study group confirmed that it's a principle of international law rooted in the UN Charter, and that states have an obligation to work together to address the adverse effects of climate change related sea level rise, particularly with regard to the state's most effective. The International Court of Justice affirmed in its 2025 advisory opinion that the duty to cooperate is an obligation under international law in the context of climate change. The duty to cooperate is not discretionary assistance. Cooperation must respect the sovereignty of the affected state, as the study group concluded. It must rest on equity and fairness, including the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, because the states most effective have contributed least to climate change related sea level rise. It should strengthen the capacity of affected states to protect their own people, not substitute for it. And it extends to protecting the cultural heritage, identity, and dignity of affected persons and communities, as the 2024 AOSIS Leaders' Declaration on Sea Level Rise and Statehood affirms. Seventh, regional and plurilateral action matters. The duty to cooperate operates. at the bilateral, regional, subregional, and international levels. Much of the progress on sea level rise began in our regions through the PIF and AOSIS declaration. The practice of our members as states specially affected by sea level rise carries particular weight in the development of law in this area. We welcome continued regional, subregional, and plurilateral efforts. on the protection of persons, including the development of new instruments, binding or non-binding, as the study group contemplates. Practical tools such as climate mobility arrangements, humanitarian pathways, and measures to prevent statelessness may be used to address the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. Such arrangements should respect the sovereignty of the affected state and the choices of the persons concerned. Finally, The issue of protection of persons must not be left behind. The law on maritime zones and statehood with respect to climate change-related sea level rise has developed quickly. State practice is now widespread and consistent. protection of persons has not developed at the same pace, and that's why we ask for this discussion. Because the three sub-topics are interconnected, progress on the first two should carry the third with it. AOSIS will take forward work on the protection of persons in 2027. building on the study group's conclusions and the political declaration. We invite all States to take the study group's conclusions and elements into account in their practice and to engage with us in that work. I thank you.

I thank the Permanent Representative of Palau. for his statement on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the European Union on behalf of the European Union and its member states. You have the floor.

President, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the European Union and its member states. Let me start by thanking the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez, for his work on the topic of general principles of law. His four reports have enabled the ILC to conclude its second reading of the draft conclusions on general principles of law. The EU takes note of the ILC's decision to recommend that the General Assembly, among other things, take note in a resolution of the draft conclusions, annex the draft conclusions to the resolution, ensure their widest dissemination, and commend the draft conclusions. On substance, the EU takes note that draft conclusions 2 and 7 retain the notion of community of nations in relation to the recognition of general principles of law. In this regard, the EU welcomes the pertinent explanations provided in the commentary on draft conclusion 2. Specifically, the commentary explains that the use of the term "community of nations" reflects the equal participation of all nations in the recognition of general principles of law, and embraces the possibility that in certain circumstances international organizations may also contribute to the recognition of general principles of law, and that the term “international community” may be understood as analogous to the term “community of nations” when it is used in relation to the recognition of general principles of law referring to states and international organizations. The EU also welcomes the clarification in the commentary on draft conclusion number 8 The term "international courts and tribunals" in paragraph 1 is intended to cover any international body exercising judicial powers that is called upon to consider general principles of law, including specialist and regional courts. In conclusion, Madam Chair, the European Union wishes to express its appreciation for the work done by the ILC on this topic, leading up to the adoption of the draft conclusions on second reading. This topic is of particular importance for the European Union as an international organization which may contribute to the formation of general principles of law. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of the European Union for his statement, and I now give the floor to the Permanent Representative of Fiji on behalf of the Pacific Small Island Developing States. You have the floor.

Thank you, madam Chair. Excellencies, distinguished delegates. We have the honour to speak on behalf of the 12 members of the Pacific Small Island Developing States. We align ourselves with the statement delivered by Palau on behalf of the ALOSIS. PCID thanks the International Law Commission and its Study Group on Sea-Level Rise in Relation to International Law, and the co-chairs of the Study Group, Mr. Bogdan Orescu, Ms. Patricia Galvão Telles, Ms. Nulifa Oral and Mr. Arruda Santeloria for years of rigorous and inclusive work. We also welcome the opportunity, pursuant to General Assembly resolution 80/164, to present our views on the legal aspects of sea level rise at this session. For the Pacific, the stability of maritime zones and the continuity of statehood go to the core of our sovereignty and our long-term security. Our position has been clear and consistent. We reaffirm the 2021 and 2023 Pacific Islands Forum declarations and the 2021 and 2024 AOSIS declarations adopted by our leaders. The 2021 Pacific Islands Forum declaration proclaims that maritime zones, as established and notified to the Secretary-General in accordance with UNCLOS, and the rights and entitlements that flow from them shall continue to apply without reduction, notwithstanding any fiscal changes resulting from climate change related sea level rise. We therefore welcome the final report's confirmation into earlier that, firstly, the Convention contains no provision requiring States to update baselines geographic coordinates, charts, or the outer limits of maritime zones once duly deposited with the Secretary General in accordance with the convention. And secondly, there is no provision in UNCLOS or other rules of international law that prevents states from preserving existing and lawfully established baselines, geographic coordinates, and outer limits of maritime zones, once duly deposited with the Secretary-General. Maintaining maritime zones in accordance with UNCLOS preserves legal stability, equity, and fairness among States, and, as stated in the final report, is consistent with the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources. On continuity of statehood, the 2023 Pacific Island Forum Declaration on the Continuity of Statehood and the Protection of Persons declared that the statehood and sovereignty of Forum members will continue, and the rights and duties inherent thereto will be maintained, notwithstanding the impact of climate change-related sea level rise. We welcome the final report's recognition of the widespread support among states for this principle, and of its link to nationality, the avoidance of statelessness, and the rights of peoples to self-determination, including indigenous peoples. These are our interpretations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and of relevant international law. They have been broadly affirmed by the International Law Commission. recognized by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion on the obligations of States in respect of climate change, and supported by a large and growing number of States from every region. We welcome the final report's affirmation that persons affected by sea level rise remain rights holders, that States have a duty to respect, protect, and fulfill their human rights obligations which includes the principles of non-refoulement and that international cooperation is required to protect their culture, cultural heritage, identity, and dignity, and to meet their essential needs. This reflects our 2023 Forum Declaration, in which Pacific leaders affirm that individually and collectively, we bear a responsibility to ensure that all persons affected by climate change-related sea level rise are protected. We underline the need to strengthen adaptation, resilience and international cooperation to that end. Madam Chair, the conclusion of the Commission’s work is not the end of this Committee’s task. In view of the importance of this matter to the many States affected by sea level rise, PC’s calls on the Sixth Committee to decide, in this year’s resolution on the report of the Commission, to continue its consideration of the legal aspects of sea level rise at the 82nd session, so that the law continues to develop in step with the threat. For the Pacific, sea level rise implicates international law and of the international community’s commitment to fairness and solidarity. The legal rights and entitlements of a state rests not on shifting shorelines, but on the will, identity, and continuity of its people. I thank you.

I thank the Permanent Representative for his statement on behalf of the Pacific Small Island Developing States, and I'll give the floor to the distinguished representative of Iceland on behalf of Nordic countries. You have the floor, madam.

Madam Chair, I have the honour to speak on behalf of the five Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and my own country, Iceland. Before turning to Cluster 1 and sea level rise, we wish to make a few general remarks on the Commission's report. The Nordic countries reiterate our deep appreciation for the International Law Commission's contribution to the progressive development and codification of international law. We remain deeply concerned about United Nations liquidity constraints and their impact on the Commission. We welcome the restoration of the Commission's working time from five weeks in 2025 to 11 weeks at its 77th session. Adequate time and resources are essential for the Commission to discharge its mandate effectively. We note that insufficient resources prevented part of the 77th session from being held in New York. We support continued efforts to facilitate direct contact and effective dialogue between the Commission and the Sixth Committee, and call on the Assembly to ensure the necessary resources. We welcome the inclusion of identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law in the Commission's programme of work, and congratulate Mr. Masahiko Asada on his appointment as Special Rapporteur. We also welcome the inclusion of the right to regulate in international investment law in the long-term programme for work. Furthermore, we encourage further progress towards gender parity in the Commission's composition. As a final general remark, the Nordic countries express strong support for the candidacy of Ambassador Rolf Einar Fife for re-election to the ILC. His extensive experience, deep expertise in international law, and multilingualism have made him a valued member of the Commission, and we welcome his continued contribution. Madam Chair, I turn now to sea-level rise in relation to international law, which remains on the Sixth Committee's agenda following the completion of the Commission's work last year. This alone underscores its continued importance. The Nordic countries celebrate the adoption by consensus of the UN Declaration on Sea Level Rise at the opening of the General Assembly's 81st session. This is a significant milestone and a strong expression of political support for further work. We commend the leadership of the Pacific Islands Forum, the Alliance of Small Island States, and other partners whose efforts have brought the existential challenge of sea level rise to the forefront of international law discussions, including at the International Law Commission, the International Court of Justice, and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. We continue to support this work, and we join the call for the sea level rise dimension to be integrated into all relevant international processes. Madam Chair, climate change does not affect everyone equally. Small islands and low-lying coastal communities face particularly grave threats to their territory, livelihoods, cultural heritage, and identity. Those most affected cannot carry this burden alone. For some affected States, the challenge is no longer only adaptation. but preserving the habitability of their territory, continuity of statehood, and the rights and identity of their peoples. Legal responses must go hand in hand with action on the underlying causes. We agree with the Secretary-General that mitigation must be treated as a core prevention, core risk prevention measure alongside adaptation. Rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, including by transitioning away from fossil fuels, are essential. Decarbonization requires a scale-up of technologies and solutions, as well as the creation of new and innovative technologies and solutions. The transition must include all and leave no one behind. Madam Chair, we reiterate our position on the three main legal dimensions of sea level rise. First, the law of the sea. The Nordic countries reaffirm the universal and unified character of UNCLOS, which sets out the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out. Our responses to sea level rise must be consistent with the Convention. The Convention does not require States to update duly established baselines in response to physical changes resulting from climate change. We firmly support the Declaration's affirmation that States that established maritime zones in accordance with UNCLOS can maintain those zones despite climate change-related sea level rise. Second, Statehood. We underscore the strong presumption in favor of continued statehood, preservation of sovereignty, and maintenance of United Nations membership despite the disappearance of states' constituent elements. This presumption is a safeguard to protect the right of all peoples to self-determination and to avoid situations of loss of nationality and of statelessness. Third, protection of persons. As the ILC study group underlined, persons affected by sea level rise remain right holders and States must respect, protect, and fulfill their human rights obligations. We recognize the value of existing legal instruments and stand ready to consider incorporating the sea level rise dimension into relevant processes and undertake dedicated work on the study group's recommendation. Madam Chair, the ILC has in recent years made significant contribution to enhancing legal clarity on this topic. International courts and tribunals have provided further guidance. The UN Declaration now provides an important basis for practical follow-up. For the Nordic countries, upholding the Law of the Sea and standing with states and peoples most affected by sea level rise are mutually reinforcing responsibilities. International law will be a source of stability even as coastlines change. We will continue to support ambitious climate action, the integrity of UNCLOS, and strong international cooperation towards equitable and lasting solutions for States and peoples affected by sea level rise. Madam Chair, I turn now to the immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. The Nordic countries commend the Commission and Special Rapporteur, Mr. Clodio Grossman Gillof, for his hard work on this legally complex and politically sensitive topic. We also thank the previous Special Rapporteurs, Mr. Roman Kolodkin and Ms. Concepción Escobar Hernández, for their contributions. In the absence of a general international instrument governing the immunity of State officials, the draft articles represent an important step towards a common understanding of the applicable international law. We welcome the successful completion of the second reading and note the Commission's recommendation that the draft articles be considered at an appropriate time as a possible basis for future convention by the General Assembly or by an international conference of plenipotentiaries. We agree that the final draft articles could serve as a basis for treaty negotiations, while recognizing that many provisions reflect customary international law already binding on States. We continue to view the draft articles as a broadly acceptable text, reflecting the applicable customary rules, satisfactorily structured and adequately detailed. The draft articles strike an appropriate balance between the interests of the forum State and the State of the official. The procedural safeguards in Part IV are particularly important. They protect fair trial rights, facilitate communication between States, and help prevent abuse or politicization of criminal jurisdiction, while respecting sovereign equality. Madam Chair, the Nordic countries reiterate their support for draft Article 6, including the additions of the crime of aggression, slavery, and slave trade. All are established crimes under international law. Article 6 must be read together with the procedural safeguards in Part IV, which will increase predictability and help avoid politicization. We have consistently stressed the need to reflect developments in international law. The most serious international crimes cannot be regarded as acts performed in official capacity. giving rise to immunity and shielding perpetrators from accountability. We also recall our strong commitment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the other treaties listed in annex to the draft articles. The draft articles should be harmonized with the legal developments reflected in these treaties. Our starting point remains That respect for immunities must not become a shield for impunity for the most serious international crimes, nor should respect for sovereign equality hinder non-coercive collection of important information and evidence. Certain content clearly does not qualify as an official act triggering immunity ratione materiae. These questions can be challenging for domestic prosecutorial authorities and courts, but we believe the draft articles will offer practical assistance to States. Madam Chair, throughout the Commission's work, we have emphasized the importance of grounding conclusions firmly in customary international law while recognizing that the law evolves. The draft articles provide a valuable basis for a common understanding and further consideration by States. We look forward to continued discussions in the Sixth Committee on the future of the draft articles. Madam Chair, finally, on general principles of law, we congratulate the International Law Commission on adopting all 12 draft conclusions together with commentaries. We welcome the completion of this important work and note the Commission's recommendation to the General Assembly. We thank Special Rapporteur Mr. Marcelo Vasquez Bermudez for his diligent work. The Nordic countries have consistently advocated a cautious approach, given the significance and sensitivities of the topic. We welcome the balanced framework reflected in the final draft conclusions. As we noted in our written comments of 1 December 2024, the criteria for identifying general principles of law must be applied with due regard to the other primary sources of international law. While there is no formal hierarchy among these sources, general principles often fulfil a subsidiary function. Conclusions must also be adequately grounded in the practice and views of States, avoiding over-reliance on subsidiary means such as judicial decisions and scholarly writings. We again thank the Commission for its important work on this topic, and I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Iceland for her statement on behalf of the Nordic countries, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Latvia on behalf of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, you have the floor.

Madam Chair, distinguished delegates, I have the honour to speak on behalf of the three Baltic States, Estonia, Lithuania, and my own country, Latvia. We align ourselves with the statement delivered on behalf of the European Union. As coastal states bordering the Baltic Sea, we view sea level rise as an important issue that requires special attention, particularly with regard to legal certainty, maritime governance, human security, and the resilience of coastal communities. We welcome the adoption of the UN Declaration on Sea Level Rise and strongly advocate for promoting its objectives. The Declaration recognizes sea level rise as an accelerating global challenge requiring strengthened international cooperation. It affirms the importance of implementing international law, including the Law of the Sea, as reflected in UNCLOS, in responding to the consequences of sea level rise. In this regard, I would like to share a few reflections on the key pillars of the Declaration. Firstly, knowledge, data, and science. Sound policy-making and legal responses must be grounded in the best available scientific knowledge. We emphasize the importance of continued cooperation among states, scientific institutions, and international organizations in monitoring and understanding the impact of sea level rise on coastlines, ecosystems, and societies. In the Baltic Sea region, scientific cooperation has long been essential to understanding changes in the marine environment. Strengthening scientific capabilities and knowledge sharing will remain critical for informed decision-making and effective adaptation strategies. Secondly, the Baltic States attach particular importance to the legal dimensions of sea level rise. We appreciate the work of the ILC, ITLOS, and ICJ, and recognize that UNCLOS remains the cornerstone of international maritime governance and rule of law at sea. To maintain its integrity, we must be consistent in its application and firm in upholding a rule-based maritime order. We commend small island developing states for their leadership and tireless efforts in advancing international discussions on sea level rise and its implications under international law. Their contribution has been instrumental. While the Baltic region is not exposed to the same existential risks faced by low-lying coastal and small island developing states, we recognize that the legal questions arised by sea level rise are of common concern to the international community as a whole. We emphasise that legal stability, certainty and predictability are key principles for the maintenance of the international legal order. In the context of sea level rise, these principles are particularly relevant with regard to maritime zones, maritime boundaries, and the exercise of rights and jurisdiction under international law. The Baltic States believe that there is no legal obligation to update baselines, geographical coordinates, or outer limits of maritime zones once they are properly established under the Law of the Sea in case of sea level rise. Finally, as Baltic coastal states, we have a strong interest in ensuring stable maritime governance. Legal certainty supports navigation, sustainable management of marine resources, marine scientific research, offshore renewable energy development, and the protection of critical underwater infrastructure. It is therefore essential that responses to sea level rise reinforce, rather than weaken, the predictability and stability upon which peaceful maritime cooperation depends. Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia align with the presumption of the continuity of statehood and the maintenance of international legal personality in the case of states whose land surface may be totally or partially submerged or rendered uninhabitable by rising sea levels. We need to preserve legal stability, certainty, and predictability, as well as security in international relations. The disappearance of one typical constituent element, territory, should not necessarily lead to the loss of statehood, a position shared also by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion. Madam Chair, the Baltic States welcome the international consensus reflected in the UN Declaration on Sea Level Rise. We reaffirm our commitment to international law, multilateral cooperation, and evidence-based decision-making in addressing the challenges posed by sea level rise. We stand in solidarity with those States and communities most affected by sea level rise and remain committed to supporting efforts within the United Nations to preserve legal certainty and ensure that international law continues to provide effective responses to this global challenge. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Latvia for that statement on behalf of the Baltic States, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom.

You have the floor, madam.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I begin by thanking the chair of the International Law Commission's 77th session, Mr. Mavroyiannis, for the Commission's substantial and interesting report to the Sixth Committee. I would also like to thank the chair of the drafting committee, Mr Rolf Einar Fife, Mr Arnold Pronta in the codification division, and all members of the commission for their work this year. The United Kingdom recognises the critical role of the commission, and we were delighted that the commission was funded for a much more substantial session this year and to see the significant progress that that has allowed. Before turning to the Commission’s work during its 77th session, I would like to mention sea level rise. When I addressed this Committee last year, I affirmed the United Kingdom’s commitment to work closely with other states on the issue of statehood. Over the last year, we have worked hard to develop our position, benefiting from the Commission’s valuable contribution on the topic. As a result, the UK was proud to join consensus on the recently adopted Declaration on Sea Level Rise, playing a collaborative role in shaping that declaration with Australia, Cabo Verde, and those states most affected by rising seas. The declaration affirms the presumption in favour of continued statehood, and in this respect, it underscores continuity in the face of sea level rise. The declaration reflects common ground that places continuity as the starting point for considering the effects of climate-related sea level rise on statehood. Consistent with that, His Majesty's Government recently announced a significant development in our long-standing policy on recognition. Our new starting point is to continue to recognise a state, notwithstanding the loss of some or even all of its land to rising seas. We would then give due regard to the prevailing circumstances of each case. These would include, amongst other considerations, the other criteria of statehood and the wishes of the people of the affected state. I end my remarks on this topic by acknowledging the issue of the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. As the Alliance of Small Island and Developing States recently highlighted to the Committee, this issue is of fundamental importance and must not be forgotten. As states consider, in line with the recent declaration, how individuals affected by sea level rise can best be protected, we underline the UK's ongoing commitment to international cooperation on this issue. Madam Chair, I turn to the Commission's work on immunity of state officials from criminal jurisdiction. The United Kingdom thanks the Commission and the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Grossman-Gilov, for nearly two decades of careful work on this exceptionally difficult subject. This topic requires balancing of state sovereign equality and legitimate interests, while recognizing that accountability for serious crimes under international law remains imperative. We welcome the Commission's conclusion that under existing customary international law, immunity ratione personae is not subject to any exception. Functional immunity is less straightforward. Draft Article 6 suggests that immunity ratione materiae does not apply to nine listed crimes under international law. As we have previously commented, the Commission has not identified clearly which of these crimes do not attract immunity as a matter of existing customary international law and which constitute progressive development. The United Kingdom has previously acknowledged a strong treaty law basis under the Convention Against Torture for the non-application of functional immunity to that crime. Separately, the material in the commentaries may warrant further consideration by states of whether customary international law provides sufficient basis in relation to certain other crimes. However, the divergent views among states and within the Commission, combined with the absence of the required widespread, extensive, and virtually uniform state practice, strongly indicate, to our mind, that draft article 6 in its entirety does not yet reflect existing customary international law. So, in our view, the appropriate way to progress this issue in the longer term would be through treaty negotiations, allowing clear and settled rules to be established. However, we do think it would be premature to progress immediately to such negotiations, given the divergent views, particularly on draft article 6. We believe that further state-led consideration is needed now in order to make some meaningful progress. Madam Chair, I turn very briefly to general principles of law, and the United Kingdom is grateful to the Commission and the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Vázquez Bermudez, for their hard work to conclude this topic. We welcome the work of the Commission on general principles derived from national legal systems. However, I should say that we remain somewhat doubtful that there are general principles of law derived from the international legal system. Finally, Madam Chair, the United Kingdom welcomes the addition of the new topic, identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law, to the Commission's programme of work. These obligations have been much relied on in recent years, and so we welcome examination of their underlying principle. We would like to see a focus on the methodology for identifying obligations erga omnes, rather than attempting to list those obligations. In conclusion, Madam Chair, I would like to reiterate the United Kingdom's strong support for the Commission. I hope that where we have occasionally offered critique of the Commission's output, that will be taken as reflecting the seriousness with which we regard its work and our continued commitment to engaging with its proposals. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Portugal.

Madam Chair, Portugal aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the EU and its Member States, and would like to offer a few additional remarks in its national capacity. Since I am taking the floor for the first time, I wish to congratulate you and other members of the Bureau on your election. Let me also congratulate Mr. Mavroyiannis on his election as Chair of the ILC and thank him for presenting the report. Madam Chair, Portugal welcomes the opportunity to once again discuss the issue of sea level rise in the Sixth Committee and recalls the important contribution of the International Law Commission's final report on sea level rise in relation to international law, as well as of the International Court of Justice and its advisory opinion on the obligations of States in respect of climate change. Together, they provide greater legal certainty in addressing the unprecedented legal challenges posed by sea level rise, as recognized in the recent UN Declaration on Sea Level Rise adopted by consensus. Madam Chair, Portugal wishes to underline that the protection of persons must remain at the heart of all international efforts to address sea level rise. In this regard, Portugal reiterates that respect for human dignity should serve as a guiding principle in addressing the consequences of sea level rise. Any response to sea level rise must therefore place affected individuals and communities at its centre. Portugal further recalls that States must continue to respect, protect, and fulfill their human rights obligations in the context of climate change and sea level rise. This applies to all affected persons, including those who remain in situ and those who are internally or externally displaced. At the same time, Portugal recognizes that the existing international legal framework applicable to persons affected by sea level rise remains fragmented and, in many respects, unsufficiently tailored to the specific challenges posed by this phenomenon. Further reflection is required regarding the long-term and potentially permanent consequences of sea level rise. Particular attention should be devoted to the risks of forced displacement, loss of livelihoods, loss of nationality, and statelessness. These challenges require practical and forward-looking solutions. In this regard, Portugal supports continued consideration of measures such as climate mobility arrangements, humanitarian pathways, and legal and policy tools designed to prevent statelessness and ensure effective protection for affected populations. Madam Chair, regarding other legal dimension of sea level rise, Portugal continues to support the preservation of existing baselines, maritime limits, and maritime entitlements established in accordance with international law, as well as the continuity of statehood of states affected by sea level rise. Sea level rise should not deprive affected states of their existing rights under international law, nor create legal uncertainty capable of undermining international stability. Madam Chair, Portugal remains committed to working with all partners to advance solutions grounded in international law, solidarity, and international cooperation. Madam Chair, We will now make a few general comments on the Commission’s work during its 77th session. My delegation welcomes the restoration of an 11-week session of the Commission this year. We consider the restoration of the Commission’s regular working time particularly important to enable it to discharge its mandate effectively and to advance its substantive programme of work. Our appreciation also goes to the Office of Legal Affairs, in particular the Codification Division, for its important contributions to the Commission's work. Madam Chair, Portugal attaches great importance to the dialogue between the Sixth Committee and the ILC. In this regard, we welcome the attention devoted this year in the context of the debate on the topic of rule of law to this matter. we also welcome the Commission's continued reflection on the methods of work and procedures. In this regard, we particularly welcome the establishment of a working group on cooperation with regional legal bodies as an important step towards strengthening dialogue and interaction at the regional level. In addition, we would also like to highlight the usefulness of the briefing notes prepared by the Special Rapporteurs in the context of the Sixth Committee’s briefing on the work of the Commission. Madam Chair, my delegation welcomes the inclusion in the Commission’s programme of work of the topic “Identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law”. Portugal also takes note of the inclusion of the topic, the right to regulate in international investment law in the Commission's long-term programme of work, as well as of the approval of an updated syllabus on the topic, extraterritorial jurisdiction. Madam Chair, regarding the topic of immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, Portugal welcomes the Commission conclusions of its work, which we consider to be an important milestone in the fight against humanity and the maintenance of international peace and security. Madam Chair, Portugal welcomes the inclusion of a list of international crimes in draft Article 6 for which immunity rationis materiae shall not apply. The list is both balanced and responsive to developments in international law. With regard to the procedural provisions and safeguards, we consider that draft article reflects a right balance between the principle of sovereignty, equality of states, and the imperative to fight impunity for serious international crimes. Madam Chair. Portugal takes good note of the recommendation to submit the draft articles on immunity of State officials to the General Assembly, including on the elaboration at the appropriate time of a convention by the General Assembly or by a conference of plenipotentiaries. Madam Chair, I will now turn to chapter 5 on the ILC's report devoted to the topic of general principles of law. We welcome the conclusions of the Commission's work. The draft conclusions and their commentaries complement the Commission's existing work on other sources of international law and provide useful guidance. Portugal supports the Commission's recommendations that the General Assembly take note of the draft conclusions in its resolutions. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Portugal for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Malaysia.

Madam Chair, Malaysia thanks the International Law Commission for its valuable work. Under cluster one, our oral intervention will focus primarily on sea level rise in relation to international law. We will also offer observations on the immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction and on general principles of law. Nevertheless, given your encouragement for the delegation to keep its statement to seven minutes, Malaysia will submit fuller statements on the latter two topics to the Secretariat for posting on the Sixth Committee’s website. Malaysia congratulates and wishes to express its appreciation to the Co-Chairs of the Study Group on the topic Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law for their continued dedication and the comprehensive examination across the three sub-topics: the Law of the Sea, Statehood, and the Protection of Persons Affected by Sea Level Rise. Malaysia welcomes the adoption of the final report of the Study Group on Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law by the International Law Commission at its 76th session. On the subtopic, the Law of the Sea, Malaysia reaffirms that maritime entitlements, once lawfully established and deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations in accordance with UNCLOS, should remain fixed and stable in perpetuity. Furthermore, Malaysia agrees with the conclusion by the Commission that fundamental change of circumstances under Article 62(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties does not apply to maritime delimitation agreements, as they are covered by the exclusion for treaties establishing boundaries under Article 62(2)(a) of the VCLT. In line with the findings of the Final Report and Malaysia’s position, Malaysia stresses the need for stability of maritime zones in response to physical changes resulting from sea level rise. Thus, by depositing coordinates or charts with the Secretary-General, or by freezing the coordinates contained in their concluded maritime boundary treaties, we affirm that States can accordingly maintain their maritime zones in the face of physical changes, resulting from sea level rise and safeguard maritime entitlements in the face of rising sea levels. While supporting the stability of lawful established maritime limits, measure highlights the necessity of distinguishing natural sea level rise from physical coastal alterations, including land reclamation, while recognising the right of affected States to employ legitimate adaptation and preservation measures under international law. Malaysia maintains that artificial structures or land reclamation in response to sea level rise do not alter or generate maritime entitlements beyond those generated by a natural coast. On the subtopic of statehood, Malaysia acknowledges the broad support among States reflected in the final report regarding the presumption of continuity of statehood, sovereignty and international legal personality for States severely affected by sea level rise. On the subtopic of the protection of persons, Malaysia emphasises that legal and practical responses to assist affected individuals Whether remaining in territory or displaced, should be underpinned by international cooperation based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. Malaysia reiterates that any assistance measures must respect national sovereignty and domestic legal frameworks. States maintain their sovereign prerogative to manage humanitarian assistance in accordance with national security, public order, and domestic laws. Madam Chair, To this end, Malaysia commends the International Law Commission for concluding its work on this topic. The final report provides a valuable structural reference for Member States. Malaysia remains committed to upholding international law and preserving maritime stability in the region. Turning to immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, Malaysia welcomes the completion of the draft articles on second reading. including revisions responding to concerns raised by States. Malaysia nevertheless reiterates the importance of the formal invocation of immunity by the State of the official, particularly for immunity rationis materiae, for the forum State may lack information on the official character of the act concerned. In view of the sensitive legal questions involved, Malaysia favours further discussion among States on the draft articles in their future form. On general principles of law, Malaysia welcomes the completion of the draft conclusions. We particularly appreciate the clarification under draft conclusion 2 that recognition by international organisations alone is insufficient without recognition by States. On draft conclusion 5, Malaysia continues to favour that clearer criteria must be established to guide judicial discretion in identifying principles common to different legal systems. On draft conclusion 9, Malaysia welcomes the inclusive approach to teachings, but considers that the expression "subsidiary means" may introduce a degree of rigidity that is not fully consistent with the nature of teachings. Malaysia also welcomes the finalisation of draft Conclusion 10, particularly on the updated terminology. Malaysia particularly notes that using the term "substantive" when referring to rights and obligations provides a more accurate contrast to word "procedural rules". Malaysia welcomes finalised Conclusion 12 as a vital legal safeguard protecting general principles of law operating within specific contexts. Malaysia understands limited scope of application as encompassing regional, sub-regional, specialized or bilateral frameworks, provided they strictly respect peremptory norms of general international law. In conclusion, Malaysia commends the Commission on the completion of this topic and supports the recommendation under Article 23 of its Statute for the General Assembly to take note of the draft conclusions on general principles of law in a resolution, annex the text thereto and ensure its wide dissemination. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Malaysia for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of China.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. China thanks Mr. Mauro Janis, Chair of the International Law Commission, for his presentation of the Commission's report. We also thank the special rapporteurs on the various topics, the members of the Commission, and the Secretariat for their dedicated efforts in advancing the Commission's work. China is a staunch supporter of the international rule of law. Upholding the international rule of law is one of the five core principles of the global governance initiative put forward by Chinese President Xi Jinping. China will continue to support the Commission's important role in the codification and progressive development of international law and in promoting the international rule of law. In this regard, China would like to offer the following three suggestions regarding the Commission's work. First, strictly distinguishing between lex lata, the existing law, and lex ferenda, the law as it ought to be. In the progressive development of international law, the Commission should ground its work in broad and sufficient state practice and opinio juris, and refrain from formulating new rules on the basis of abstract theoretical deductions or the practice of a limited number of states. As for rules that are still evolving or remain controversial, the Commission should adhere to its long-standing tradition of consensus-based decision-making, give full consideration to the views of all parties, and pursue further comprehensive study. Second, attaching due importance to the perspectives and practices of developing countries. During its consideration of topics, the Commission should further broaden its channels for soliciting views, paying particular attention to materials on State practice submitted by developing countries and to statements made by States on the relevant topics in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, so as to ensure that its outputs comprehensively and equitably reflect the relevant practices of all major civilizations and legal systems. Third, strengthening the study of rules governing emerging fields. In new frontiers such as AI, cyberspace, outer space, the deep sea, and the polar regions, rapid advances in science and technology have led to a steady increase in new activities. As a result, gaps in rules and deficiencies in governance have become more pronounced. We hope that the Commission will focus on new developments and emerging needs and provide intellectual support for the progressive development of rules in these fields. Chair, China would now like to offer its views on the topics covered in Cluster 1 of the report, on sea level rise related to international law. The ocean connects the world. In the face of sea level rise, no country can tackle this challenge alone. During the high-level week of the 81st session of the General Assembly, Member States adopted by consensus the United Nations Declaration on Sea Level Rise, reflecting the international community's shared concern about this global challenge and its determination to address it. China would like to offer the following views on the legal issues under this topic. First. With regard to safeguarding States’ maritime rights and interests, both the Declaration and the final report on this topic focus on the interpretation of UNCLOS, affirming that once a State has established its maritime zones in accordance with the Convention, it is under no obligation to update those zones. These conclusions are conducive to protecting the interests of small island developing States, and China supports them. At the same time, beyond UNCLOS, The rules of customary international law concerning historic waters, historic title, and historic rights also constitute an important legal basis for safeguarding states' maritime rights and interests. Second, the determination of statehood is directly related to the question of whether an entity possesses international legal personality. Sea level rise may cause small island states to lose certain traditional elements of statehood. The Declaration and the Commission's work have affirmed the continuity of statehood in the specific context of sea level rise. China supports this conclusion. As victims of sea level rise, small island states should not be deprived of their statehood as a consequence. Preserving their statehood in such circumstances is conducive to maintaining the stability of international relations. Third, on the protection of affected persons. The final report on this topic states that the duty to cooperate is a principle of international law, while the Declaration encourages strengthened international cooperation to assist persons affected by it. China believes that these propositions help safeguarding the dignity, security, and well-being of affected persons. China stands ready to continue implementing the Global Development Initiative, deepen South-South cooperation with developing countries, and contribute to addressing the challenges posed by sea level rise. China also calls for the adherence to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and urges the international community to provide greater support, including financial resources and technology transfer, to help developing countries respond to sea level rise. Turning to immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction contained in Chapter IV, China notes that the ILC has completed the second reading of this topic and adopted a full set of draft articles with their commentaries. China thanks Special Rapporteur Mr. Grossman and his predecessors for their efforts on this topic. In recent years, many States, including China, have expressed a range of concerns regarding this topic. It is regrettable that a number of these legitimate concerns were not reflected in the final draft articles. In this regard, China wishes to emphasize the following points. First, it is important to strike a balance between upholding sovereign equality and combating impunity. Immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction concerns the political dignity and personal security of state officials, and bears directly on the stability of international relations. Given its highly sensitive political nature, new rules should not be developed in the absence of broad consensus. Judging from existing state practice and opinio juris, There is as yet no rule of customary international law recognizing exceptions to immunity rationis materiae. Accordingly, draft article 6 cannot be regarded as a codification of existing customary international law. Second, the category of persons entitled to immunity ratione personae should not be confined to the traditional troika of heads of state, heads of government, and ministers for foreign affairs. Draft Article 3 and its commentary explicitly rule out the possibility that other high-ranking state officials may enjoy immunity ratione personae. China does not share this view. The immunity ratione personae accorded to the Troika is the product of historical development, based on their representative status and elevated position in international relations, and reflects respect for state sovereignty. In light of the practical needs of contemporary international relations, the relevant rules should evolve with the times and leave room for a broader scope of immunity ratione personae. Third, the scope of application of the procedural safeguards remains insufficient. Procedural safeguards are indispensable for respecting the sovereignty of the State of the official concerned and preventing politically motivated or abusive proceedings. Draft Article 2, however, does not clearly define what constitutes the exercise of criminal jurisdiction. raising concerns as to whether the relevant procedural safeguards contained in the draft articles can be effectively implemented. China believes that the concept of the exercise of criminal jurisdiction should be expressly understood as to include immunity from measures of enforcement and should extend to all forms of coercive enforcement measures. On future work, the Commission has recommended the deliberation, the elaboration of a convention on the basis of the draft articles. China considers that significant divergences persist both within the Commission and among Member States on core provisions, including exceptions to immunity ratione materiae. The time is not yet ripe for the negotiation of a convention. Turning to general principles of law. General principles of law constitute a source of international law expressly recognized in the Statute of the ICJ. China thanks Special Rapporteur, Ambassador Bermudez, and the ILC for the extensive work undertaken on the topic since 2018. and congratulate the Commission on the adoption, on second reading, of the full set of draft conclusions and commentaries. Draft conclusion 3 provides that general principles of law comprise two categories: principles derived from national legal systems and principles that may be formed within the international legal system. China is of the view that under Article 38 of the Statute of ICJ, general principles of law as a source of international law should normally be derived from rules that are widely recognized across national legal systems. They serve as a supplement to treaty provisions and customary international law. If, as an exceptional matter, general principles of law may also arise within the international legal system itself, then their identification should be subject to clear and rigorous objective criteria. Such principles should be clearly distinguishable from treaty rules and customary international law. China has noted that there are also considerable reservations within the Commission regarding principles formed within the international legal system, The Commentary to Draft Conclusion 7 cites examples of general principles of law formed within the international legal system. In China’s view, some of these are in fact treaty rules or rules of customary international law, while whether others have attained the status of general principles of law generally accepted by states remains a matter requiring further discussion. Chair, The election of members of the ILC for the next term will be held during the 82nd session of UNGA in 2027. China has nominated Ambassador Ma Ximin, the current Chinese member of the Commission, for re-election. Since joining the Commission in 2024, Ambassador Ma has performed his duties with dedication, and China will continue to support and facilitate his work and looks forward to the support of the Member States for his re-election. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of China for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of South Africa.

Thank you, Chairperson, for giving me the floor. South Africa aligns itself with the statement delivered by Cameroon on behalf of the African Group. South Africa welcomes the completion by the International Law Commission of the second reading of its work on the topic, immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. We extend our appreciation to the Commission and to the Special Rapporteur for the dedication and effort invested in bringing this complex and important topic to its conclusion. We also wish to acknowledge the significant contributions of the previous Special Rapporteurs, whose work laid much of the foundation for the outcome today before us. South Africa has consistently attached great importance to this topic. The issue of immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction touches on core principles of international law, including the sovereign equality of states, the stability of international relations, and the need to ensure that state officials can effectively perform their functions. At the same time, South Africa has long maintained that immunity should not serve as a shield for impunity with respect to the most serious crimes under international law. The challenge has always been to strike the appropriate balance between these objectives. On the one hand, preserving the legitimate functions served by immunity in international law, while ensuring accountability for crimes of concern to the international community. In our view, the draft articles constitute an important contribution to the clarification and progressive development of international law in this area. Chairperson, South Africa wishes to focus on draft article 6, which addresses crimes under international law in respect of which immunity rationis materiae does not apply. We have consistently supported the Commission's approach that immunity ratione materiae should not be available in relation to certain serious crimes under international law. We therefore welcome the retention of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, the crime of apartheid, torture and enforced disappearance, as well as the inclusion of the crime of aggression, slavery and the slave trade in the final text. South Africa particularly welcomes the inclusion of the crime of aggression. As we noted during the previous session, the prohibition of aggression lies at the very heart of the Charter of the United Nations, and individual criminal responsibility for this crime is firmly established within the framework of international criminal law. The final formulation of draft article 6 represents a significant development in the Commission’s work. We also welcome the clarification that the crimes listed in the draft article are to be understood in accordance with the applicable rules of international law. South Africa further welcomes the distinction maintained between immunity ratione personae and immunity ratione materiae. The draft articles appropriately recognize that heads of state, heads of government, and ministers of foreign affairs enjoy immunity ratione personae while in office. At the same time, they address the circumstances in which immunity ratione materiae applies to acts performed in an official capacity, as well as the situations identified in draft article 6, where such immunity does not apply. Maintaining this distinction is essential for legal certainty and for the coherent application of international law. Chairperson, the procedural provisions and safeguards contained in part four of the draft articles are of particular importance to South Africa. In previous discussions, South Africa highlighted the value of interstate cooperation and appropriate procedural safeguards, while emphasizing that such safeguards should not undermine the effective investigation and prosecution of serious international crimes. We therefore welcome the balanced approach reflected in the text. South Africa notes that draft Article 1 continues to recognize that the draft articles do not affect the rights and obligations of States under international agreements establishing or governing international criminal courts and tribunals, as between the parties to those agreements. This provision is important in ensuring coherence between the draft articles and existing frameworks of international criminal law. South Africa welcomes the Commission's recommendation that the draft articles be submitted to the General Assembly and that consideration be given at an appropriate stage to the elaboration of a convention based on these draft articles. As the General Assembly considers the future form of the draft articles, it will be important to continue taking full account of State practice and the views expressed by States. Any future process should preserve the careful balance reflected in the text between sovereign equality, the effective conduct of international relations, procedural fairness, and accountability for serious crimes under international law. Chairperson, South Africa remains committed to the progressive development and codification of international law, and to an international legal order grounded in the Charter of the United Nations, sovereign equality, accountability, and, crucially, the rule of law. We look forward to engaging constructively with all delegations as the General Assembly considers the Commission’s recommendation and the future of these draft articles. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of South Africa for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ireland.

Madam Chair, as this is the first time I am taking the floor in the Sixth Committee this year, I would like to express my pleasure in seeing you, Ambassador Symante Perceau, in the chair, and to assure you and the Bureau of Ireland's support. In the interests of time, I will not deliver my full statement, but have furnished the Secretariat with the complete text and ask that this be reproduced in the record of today's proceedings. Madam Chair, turning to the topic of sea level rise, Ireland remains acutely aware of the importance and urgency of this topic. Since our last discussion of the topic here, the legal dimensions of sea level rise have received increasing attention. In particular, it's important to acknowledge both last year's advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of states in respect of climate change and the United Nations Declaration on Sea Level Rise, adopted by consensus during High-Level Week here in September. With regard to the subtopic of statehood, we reiterate our view that important principles of international law tend to support a presumption in favour of continuity of statehood in the face of sea level rise. These include the principles of self-determination of peoples and of permanent sovereignty over natural resources. As regards the protection of persons affected by sea level rise, our view is clear: the response of the international community must be guided first and foremost by respect for human dignity. International cooperation will be essential. Looking to the future, Ireland agrees that mainstreaming sea level rise into all relevant processes, as appropriate, must now begin. We look forward to further discussions on this important topic in preparation of the high-level meeting on sea level rise scheduled to take place at the 84th session of the General Assembly. Madam Chair, I turn now to the topic of immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Ireland acknowledges the careful effort made by the Commission in preparing these draft articles to balance the principles of sovereign equality, accountability for the most serious crimes under international law, and the importance of stability in relations between States. Ireland recognises that draft Article 6, which provides a list of crimes to which functional immunity shall not apply, is a key provision in these draft articles and is likely to be among those most closely scrutinised in any negotiations on a future convention. As we have said before, Ireland agrees that functional immunity does not apply in the case of any of these crimes. However, we remain concerned that some of the crimes listed are already regarded as crimes against humanity. Our concern has been that an approach of expressly referring to some crimes against humanity, but not to others, may suggest that the latter are excluded or that their inclusion is in some way qualified. This, in turn, creates some confusion and uncertainty. We are conscious, of course, that the Commission's draft articles on crimes against humanity are themselves currently the subject of a negotiating process among Member States. with the objective of elaborating a new convention. Among the issues to be considered in that process is the definition of crimes against humanity, as well as whether express provision should be made in a future convention with regard to immunity. In this connection, Madam Chair, it seems clear that States will wish to ensure coherence between the future Convention on crimes against humanity and a Convention on immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Madam Chair, I turn to the final topic that I will address today: general principles of law. I thank Ambassador Baskett Bermudez for his work on this important topic since 2018, and we note the Commission’s recommendations. Ireland has maintained a keen interest in this topic from the outset, conscious of its importance and complexity, and of the benefit of having draft conclusions that would bring clarity to this topic. As the Commission is aware, we and others have questioned the inclusion of a second category of general principles of law referenced in draft conclusion 3, those that are said to be formed within the international legal system. I regret to say that we remain unconvinced by such a category. In our view, it does not fall within the scope of general principles of law in the sense of Article 38, paragraph 1c of the Statute of the ICJ, which Ireland regards as being limited to principles derived from national legal systems only. intended to fill gaps in customary and conventional law and to prevent non liquet outcomes in legal proceedings. Madam Chair, I am conscious that this is not a new debate. Indeed, it is a matter that has been discussed since the work of the Advisory Committee of Jurists in their preparation of the corresponding provision of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice over a century ago. However, we remain of the view that as a supplementary source of international law, general principles of law are limited to those recognized by national legal systems necessary to fill legal gaps in areas not otherwise regulated by custom or treaty. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Ireland for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mexico.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and good afternoon to all of the colleagues. First of all, Mexico would like to congratulate the Commission as well as Special Rapporteur Grossman for the adoption of the draft articles on immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction for State officials on the second reading. Mexico supports the legal regime. of this draft, and it's crucial to have an international instrument that is structured, that offers legal certainty on the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction with respect to state agents. This normative text should be a pillar which would ensure unlimited respect for the sovereignty of states. and which, at the same time, would strengthen the combined efforts in order to combat impunity effectively at a global level. The ultimate aim should be to strengthen institutions that procure and administer justice to guarantee that victims of crimes would have real and effective access to justice, particularly in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, apartheid and torture. It highlights, the provisions point out that they try to obtain an optimal balance between the determination of the immunity, the rights of people who are subject to legal proceedings, and the integrity of investigations. This balance is crucial in order to safeguard immunities which are acknowledged by international law, to protect the fundamental rights of the accused, and to maintain the effectiveness of criminal investigations. Those comments adopted by the Commission provide greater clarity on the articles, and in particular, some of the questions which were previously pointed out by my delegation, such as the level of the competent authority in order to determine immunity, and the measures which can be adopted once that determination is made. Furthermore, my delegation would like to reiterate the appropriateness of favouring the peaceful settlement of disputes. the negotiations and the judicial or arbitral arrangement is the best way to resolve any interpretive or difference or difference in application, since it avoids bilateral tension and ensures the stability of the international order, always respecting the sovereignty of states. Mexico is in favor of the possibility that this draft would become a legally binding instrument. With respect to the general principles of law, we congratulate once again the Special Rapporteur and the Commission for the conclusion on second reading and the final adoption of the 12 draft conclusions with their respective comments. This work is an important contribution to the codification and progressive development of international law. We are pleased to note that the final version of the draft reflects in a very balanced manner the observations presented by the States in previous periods, including the contributions made by Mexico with respect to regional representation and comparative analysis, the methodology for the transposition, and the appropriate use of the concept of international community to replace anachronistic formulas. The Strengthened Instrument offers a clear methodology to identify the general principles of law, distinguishing appropriately between those derived from national legal systems and those formed in the international legal order, and specifying its interaction and consistency with other sources of international law. Likewise, it reaffirms clearly its complementary function and the absence of any hierarchical relationship with respect to the other sources listed in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Likewise, my delegation would like to support the recommendations made by the ILC with respect to this draft. And lastly, with respect to other decisions and conclusions of the ILC, First of all, my delegation would like to join in the commemoration made by the ILC with respect to Madame Concepción Escobar Hernández, Mr. Julio Barbosa, and the Magistrate Stephen Schwebel and Magistrate Sir Kenneth Keith, whose trajectories and contributions to international law are a lasting legacy for the international legal community. Mexico also welcomes the inclusion of the topic related to the identification and the legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in the work programme of the Commission. We believe that this is a question of historic and contemporary importance as well, particularly due to its importance and the relationship it has with State responsibility. My delegation also supports the initiatives which promote a substantive consideration of State judicial and arbitral practice in topics being studied by the Commission, such as the case of the memorandum requested of the Secretariat on compensation for damage caused by internationally wrongful acts. This memorandum will be a very useful tool, which will complement the request for information directed to States. Likewise, we'd like to insist on our request to the ILC to incorporate in its current work program the topic related to universal jurisdiction. As for the long-term work programme, we consider that the incorporation of new items is always welcome, as long as they respond to the practical needs of the international community, addressing current topics, topical topics, which respond to specific contemporary challenges. And therefore, we have to update this list of topics in order to prevent its stagnation. Furthermore, we also need the cooperation of the ALC with other bodies, especially when this interaction enriches the work of the Commission, thanks to its areas of specialized competence, whether it be due to the topic or due to the region that is being considered. And lastly, Mexico welcomes the holding of the International Law Seminar as an activity which would promote the dissemination of specialized knowledge among the new generation of legal experts and which will bring it closer to the work of the United Nations. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Mexico, the last speaker for this morning. We will continue the debate on the first cluster of chapters tomorrow morning at 10:00 AM. I wish to remind the Sixth Committee that this afternoon the Legal Advisers will have their customary meeting in this room, commencing at 3:00 PM. I look forward to seeing you all there. Also, please be informed that the meeting of the legal advisors scheduled for tomorrow afternoon, starting at 3:00 PM, will be held in the ECOSOC chamber next door to this one. The meeting is adjourned.