Sixth Committee, 29th plenary meeting - General Assembly, 81st session

Good morning, everyone. I call to order the 29th meeting of the Sixth Committee for the 81st session of the General Assembly. Distinguished delegates, this morning we will continue with the debate on the first cluster of topics concerning agenda item 78, report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 76th and 77th sessions. The report of the Commission on the work of the 77th session was introduced by the Chair of the International Law Commission yesterday. The report is contained in document A/81/10, which is available online. Furthermore, in accordance with resolution A/16/164, the Sixth Committee will also continue its consideration of chapter 4 of the Commission's 2025 report on the topic "Sea-level rise in relation to international law", as contained in document A/18/10, which is also available online. Before proceeding, I remind of the Bureau's recommendation that national statements should be limited to seven minutes and group statements to 12 minutes. Delegations are encouraged to keep their statements within these time limits and, where possible, deliver abridged versions of their statements while providing the full statements for posting on eStatements and on the website of the Sixth Committee. This will enable all delegations to deliver their within the schedule. The first speaker on my list for this morning is the distinguished representative of Chile. You have the floor, madam.

Madam Chair, allow me to begin my statement by offering our most sincere congratulations for your recent election as a chair of the Sixth Committee. And I would also like to congratulate the other members of the Bureau. I wish you every success in carrying out your duties. Similarly, I would like to highlight the work of Mr. Andreas Mavroyiannis, Chair of the ILC, and Mr. Rolf-Heiner Pfeiffer, Chair of the Drafting Committee, for their leadership during the 77th session of the ILC and for the important achievements that they have made during this period. We would also like to thank the Codification Division of the Secretariat for the valuable support given to the Commission and to the Sixth Committee as a whole. without which we would have been able to carry out such arduous work. In the coming days, my delegation will refer to some of the topics developed in the ILC report for this year. Today, I will refer specifically to the immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, the general principles of law, as well as other decisions and conclusions of the Commission. Chair, I'd like to refer, first of all, to chapter 4 of the IOC report, immunity for state officials from criminal foreign jurisdiction. My delegation would like to congratulate the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Claudio Gossman Gillof, for his great work, tireless dedication, and the successful conclusion with the adoption of the draft articles on second reading. We would also like to express our gratitude to the previous Special Rapporteurs, Mr. Roman Kolobkin and Madame Concepción Escobar Hernández, whose valuable contributions were crucial for the development of this topic over the years. Chair, the study and development of this matter are extremely important for the international community, in that it aims to reconcile the respect for sovereign equality of States and the stability of international relations with the urgent need to fight impunity and to ensure accountability for the most serious crimes of international law. My delegation takes note with great satisfaction that, after almost three decades of technical work and the consideration of comments presented by the Governments, The Commission has concluded successfully, on the second reading, the draft articles and their comments. My delegation values in particular the adoption on the second reading of draft article 7 concerning the crimes of international law, where immunity rationis materiae does not apply, as well as the draft articles 8 and 9 referring to procedural guarantees. Lastly, my delegation would like to support the recommendation made by the Commission to the General Assembly, in accordance with Article 23 of the Statute, directed to drawing up an international convention on the basis of draft articles. We believe that the codification of these rules through a multilateral binding instrument will grant certainty and the legal clarity necessary for State practice. Similarly, with respect to the topic general principles of law, my delegation would like to congratulate the Special Rapporteur, Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez, who in the last seven years has carried out tireless work to achieve the adoption on second reading of the draft conclusions and their comments. We believe that this is a very important work, which would make possible to offer study of international law to future generations and to clarify elements related to principal generals, their creation, their functions, beyond the important role that they play from a jurisdictional point of view as an element which unifies and provides consistency to different sources of international law. Chair, in particular, my delegation would I values in particular the comment of conclusion seven, which explains the methodology that should be used to identify the general principles which are derived from the international legal system and which uses an inductive analysis of existing rules similar to what is used for the principles which originate in national legal systems. It makes it possible to establish common methodology for both categories of principles, unifying the rules which regulate this source of international law. And makes it possible to differentiate the general principles which originate in the international legal system from the customary law of international law. We appreciate the fact that the comment includes examples of these principles, which allows us to better understand how we should interpret the intrinsic character of the international legal system. We believe that the draft conclusion should maintain the structure and the same line of work previously done by the Commission with respect to the sources of international law and Article 38 of the Statute of the ICJ. As a result, my delegation would call upon the Sixth Committee to take note in a resolution of the draft conclusions on the principle generals of law, as was suggested by the Commission in its report. Chair, lastly, today I'd like to refer briefly to chapter 13 entitled Other Decisions and Conclusions of the Commission. First of all, Chile takes note of the fact that the 77th session took place over 11 weeks, which implies a partial restoration of its duration, although it's still disturbing that we have not yet reached the 12 weeks which were approved by the General Assembly. As we pointed out in previous opportunities, any reduction in the reduction of the session would have considerable repercussions, would undermine the conditions in which the Commission carries out its mandate and weakens the promotion of the rule of law at the international level. We also reiterate our deep concern over the reduction of resources allocated to the Codification Division, in particular due to recent additional cutbacks within the framework of the UNAD initiative, which reduces the staff available to provide services to the Commission. The work of this division in its work as Secretariat is crucial to properly carry out the mandate that the General Assembly has entrusted to the Commission. And so we should make every effort to ensure that we could comply with this task adequately in the best conditions possible. Chair, Chile would like to point out the decision of the Commission to include the topic identification and legal consequences of the obligations erga omnes in international law in its work programme. We'd like to congratulate Mr. Masahiko Asada, who was appointed Special Rapporteur in this area, wishing him every success in carrying out this very important task. We are awaiting with interest the result of this work and will play an active role in the discussions on this. Likewise, in relation to the topics on the long-term work programme, my delegation would like to express its gratitude to Mr. Mario Oyarbazar for drawing up the updated version of the synopsis of the topic, extraterritorial jurisdiction. We are glad the Commission has followed the recommendation of the working group and is including this revised synopsis in its annual report. We value in particular the fact that we will consider the evolution that we have seen in this area since 2006, and that we acknowledge that The prescriptive jurisdiction allows extraterritoriality to a greater degree, since the jurisdiction in executive matters is strictly territorial and subject to the consent of the territorial State. As a result, we agree with Mr. Oryszal that any future work should look at this conceptual framework and revise the categories in order to reach an acceptable framework for all legal traditions. Likewise, we agree that future work should consider the developments that are taking place in areas of extraterritorial jurisdiction with respect to environmental harm, the effects of climate change, and the jurisdictional aspect of new areas such as cyberspace. And lastly, I would like to conclude my statement by saying that Chile welcomes the fact that the Commission would like to include the topic, the right to regulate international investment law. in the long-term work program. We believe that the work of the Commission should not be limited to traditional topics, but should also approach those areas which represent the evolution of international law and which respond to the urgent concerns of the international community as a whole, guaranteeing that the international investment regime would not operate in isolation from global commitments in the area of sustainable development and climate change. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Chile for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Poland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To start, let me congratulate the Chair of the International Law Commission, Mr. Andreas Mavroyiannis, for his presentation yesterday of the Commission's report from the 77th session. My remarks will cover two issues, general principles of the law and other decisions and conclusions of the ILC. Madam Chair, Poland has followed the ILC work on general principles of law very closely. We have supported the Commission's work on this topic due to its potential importance, both in theory and in practice, and we have presented extensive comments to the Sixth Committee and in a written form. We note that last year's conclusions from the Drafting Committee were adopted by the Commission without change this year. Poland is not satisfied with this solution, as last year we provided sound arguments for changing Conclusions 2, 10 and 12, among others. On Conclusion 2, Poland, and many other states, have voiced concerns about the use of the new term "community of nations". Instead, we have proposed using a term better known to the ILC, the international community as a whole. Unfortunately, the commentary does not explain why this more familiar term, which already functions in the Commission's work on state responsibility, was not used in this case. On conclusion seven. We wish to point out that neither the conclusion nor the commentary comprehensively explains how the community of nations can recognize these principles as intrinsic and how the term "intrinsic" should be understood. This point becomes even more crucial because the commentary also refers, without explanation, to general principles of law formed within the international legal system, which are not intrinsic to it. A reading of conclusion seven and the commentary does not appear to give adequate guidance to international and domestic courts on how to identify general principles of law formed within the international legal system. Finally, Poland has consistently favored deleting conclusion 10 on functions of general principles of law for several reasons. Allow me to mention one. There is no obligation under international law to apply general principles in the manner specified in a draft conclusion 10, paragraph 2. Madam Chair. With respect to other decisions and conclusions of the Commission, Poland welcomes the inclusion of the topic identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law in the ALC work program. We see the merit of studying this issue, especially considering the lack of precise parameters on qualifying obligations as having an erga omnes character. As for the ILC long-term work programme, we would like to recall our proposal that the Commission initiate a study of topics concerning the law of the sea, specifically the protection of critical undersea infrastructure and the question of ships without nationality or operating under a false flag. Numerous challenges facing states engaged in cable and pipeline activities require further reflection and clarification of applicable legal regime. At the same time, the growing use of ships flying unauthorized flags or having no nationality at all poses a serious threat to global maritime order, including to other vessels, their crews, the marine environment, and coastal states. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Poland for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Belarus.

Distinguished Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen, delegation of Belarus, I would like to thank the ILC overall for its excellent work during the 77th session on the topic of codifying progressively developing a number of norms of international law, with significant importance for regulating international relations in that area. With regard to the topics under cluster one, we would like to provide a number of general comments. Madam Chair, Belarus appreciates the work of the ILC, especially its study group on the topic of sea level rise in relation to international law. The outcome of that work has been the development of legal conceptual approaches to the continuity of statehood of states that are most affected by sea level rise, delimitation of maritime borders in the context of sea level rise, and protection of persons affected. We note that a great deal of work has been undertaken to seek out, consolidate, and analyze information within the topic’s scope. Belarus is a landlocked country, although despite this, the issue of sea level rise does affect Belarus, although only indirectly. We would like to share our opinions on the international legal regulation of this threat. First of all, Belarus believes that international law has all the necessary tools that it needs to address this issue. We reaffirm the central role of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is the main point of reference for regulating potential issues related to the implementation of maritime zones in the context of sea level rise. At the same time, we believe it's important to apply other applicable rules of general international law, taking into account the principles of equity, good faith, and cooperation to the extent to which they are relevant to this topic. We believe that the development of an international treaty framework on this issue would be more effective if done through bilateral and regional formats. In this regard, the guidelines considered by the ILC on this topic will be useful. In particular, the international technical assistance projects that aim to prepare guidance documents for the authorities of the states affected will contribute significantly to developing strategies for responding to the issue of sea level rise. The development of a universal international legal instrument is something that we consider to be premature currently, despite the seemingly obvious global consequences of sea level rise. effectively overcoming these threats would appear to be more effective within specific regions and groups of states. In general, most regional organizations and associations already have well-established mechanisms for cooperation in the event of emergencies and natural disasters. In addition, as we've seen in practice, regional cooperation is less vulnerable to excessive politicization and to the influence of unilateral, coercive, and restrictive measures, which currently are seriously undermining the effectiveness of global cooperation in these areas. We would like to draw attention to the importance of interpreting existing universal norms of international law cautiously when applying them by analogy to legal consequences of sea level rise. The threat posed by sea level rise has been on the international agenda for a short time only, and the parties involved in negotiating existing international legal treaties containing universal legal norms could not have intended to address this issue when these treaties were drafted. The terminology of most of these international treaties is quite precise in light of their scopes of application, and a broad interpretation of that terminology would not be appropriate. In this regard, we believe it would be helpful to pursue further legal regulation of the consequences of this threat through adopting additional optional protocols to existing international treaties in the fields of refugee protection, migration, and statelessness, as well as law of the sea and environmental protection. With regards to the statehood of countries that may lose a critical amount of habitable territory due to sea level rise, Belarus supports the view that this issue ought to be approached very cautiously, taking into account the specificities of the issue and respecting the principle of sovereign equality and the right of peoples to self-determination. Getting back to the importance of concluding bilateral and regional treaties, I’d like to note that only within such formats can the specific practical conditions for the continuity of statehood and other preconditions for continued functioning of state institutions be effectively determined. Madam Chair, we would like to speak about immunity of state officials from foreign criminal prosecution – jurisdiction. like to thank Special Rapporteur Mr. Claudio Grossman Gillof for his contribution to preparing the draft articles on this topic. The Republic of Belarus views this topic as being of vital importance for maintaining stable and predictable interstate relations. Our country has repeatedly put forward its position on on the development and substance of the provisions of these draft articles in light of the particular importance of the institution of immunity of State officials for ensuring that they can represent their States independently and unhindered, or carry out other functions abroad. And we would like to emphasize that immunity under consideration is based upon State sovereignty. which states exercise in international relations through their officials in accordance with the fundamental principles and norms of the UN Charter, first and foremost of these being the principle of sovereign equality of states. In this regard, any arbitrary or substantial restriction of the immunity of officials in foreign jurisdictions would have a negative effect on the normal conduct of international relations and cooperation, as well as on the stability of the international legal order. The International Law Commission and Special Rapporteurs have done substantial work in preparing these draft articles. They have striven to resolve complex legal questions about the scope of immunity enjoyed by different categories of officials and the provision of procedural safeguards to ensure a balanced determination of their immunity in specific circumstances. At the same time, It seems that the prevailing trend toward restricting the application of this form of immunity, including by extending the principle of universal criminal jurisdiction at the level of national courts to international crimes, by analogy with the provisions of the Rome Statute of the ICC, seems to have prevented the preparation of truly balanced proposals. As a result, certain provisions of the draft articles go well beyond customary international law and contain many new elements of legal regulation. And in some cases, when doubts arise as to the content of the customary rules of international law, these rules are interpreted narrowly, but in other cases, on the contrary, the progressive development methods are applied broadly. A telling example in this case is the establishment of a very limited list of high-ranking officials that enjoy personal immunity. It's only recognized for the big three. Article 3 of the draft articles could provide for a more flexible approach, allowing personal immunity to be extended to certain other high-ranking officials beyond the big three, based on their status and the importance of the international functions that they carry out. This could be a strong argument in favor of developing truly universal norms. In this situation, the shortcomings identified in the draft articles are likely to be addressed by States through bilateral and regional legal arrangements to ensure that the international legal institution of immunity can function effectively. Our delegation made comments previously in the Sixth Committee about the draft articles on procedural aspects of determining immunity for State officials and on establishing certain guarantees of fair treatment for them, and these remain relevant. Indeed, part four of the draft articles has been modified to a certain extent. But it still does not give due consideration to the fact that immunity is granted to officials not for their personal benefit, but rather in the interests of their states as parties to international relations. In the draft articles, the main role in determining whether a state official has immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction lies with the competent authorities of the forum state and its legal system. The ability of the state of the official to defend its sovereign rights and to protect its officials who are being prosecuted are minimized. Preliminary consultations between states on immunity issues, for example, are optional. And subjective exemptions are provided for in the procedure for notifying the state of the official concerned about the intention to launch criminal proceedings in a foreign state. Arbitration procedures for the settlement of disputes are not regulated, which deprives the process of resolving disagreements of the flexibility it needs to address sensitive issues of international relations. The Republic of Belarus places great importance on draft Article 5. Functional immunity applies to acts performed by an official in the exercise of state authority, and this continues after the official has left office. This is in keeping with the very nature of state sovereignty, which means that acts of a state cannot be arbitrarily subjected to the criminal jurisdiction of another state. At the same time, Belarus has grave concerns about Article 6, which provides for the non-applicability of functional immunity to a number of international crimes. We believe that this provision cannot be viewed as reflecting any generally accepted or uniform rule of customary international law. Significant differences remain in international practice with regards to the scope, conditions, and consequences of restricting functional immunity. Some recognition of immunity before the national courts of third states could create major legal uncertainty, complicate interstate relations, and pave the way toward selective and politically motivated enforcement of the law. Belarus emphasizes that combating impunity must be carried out through the competent mechanisms of the state concerned, first and foremost, as well as through international judicial bodies that are established based on the consent of states. It is unacceptable to use the concept of restricting immunity as an instrument for external pressure or interference in internal affairs, or to undermine sovereignty equality of states. All of these aforementioned features of these draft articles, especially in conditions when system for national criminal justice is being manipulated and we're seeing political considerations prevailing, lead to justified concern. At the current stage, we believe discussion of the future form of the draft articles to be premature. We call not to recommend the draft articles for application until the inconsistencies have been resolved and until a balanced text has been prepared that promotes accountability for serious international crimes while at the same time respecting the principles of sovereign equality and non-interference in the internal affairs of States. Madam Chair, Belarus thanks the ILC for its work on the topic of general principles of law and it thanks Special Rapporteur Mr. Marcelo Vasquez Bermudez. for his weighty personal contribution to this topic. The conclusions prepared by the ILC will provide greater clarity in the application of general principles of law as secondary and autonomous sources of international law in relations involving states, international organizations, and other subjects of international law. They will also help to enhance the quality of international arbitration and judicial practice. We welcome the preparation of draft conclusions on two categories of general principles of law: Those that derive from national legal systems and those that are developed within the international legal system. This reflects the doctrinal and practical understanding of general principles of law, as well as their origins and role within the system of international law. The delegation of Belarus supported the use of the term "international community" instead of "civilized nations" in draft conclusion 2. We are convinced of the need to emphasize that all States participate equally, without any distinction, in the formation of general principles of law in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality as enshrined in the UN Charter. The commentary to the draft conclusion attempts to interpret the concept of international community. as well as drawing necessary distinctions between different subjects of international law and parties to international relations in the context of recognizing general principles, and highlights the need for States to recognize these principles. At the same time, additional emphasis about the need to recognize general principles of law by the majority of States in the draft conclusion would help to eliminate any further ambiguity or contradictions in this matter when it comes to applying the law, especially during international legal proceedings. Using methods to address gaps and shortcomings in international legal regulation by drawing on rules from national legal systems should first and foremost be based upon applicable practice and the positions of States, and should objectively take them into account in accordance with the principles of international law. The delegation of Belarus takes an overall positive view of the draft conclusions and hopes they will be applied in good faith when determining the existence of general principles of law and the relationship with the system of customary and treaty laws of international law. as laid out in paragraph 3 of draft conclusion 11, in light of paragraph 7 of the commentary of the ILC to these conclusions. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Belarus, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Slovenia.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We would like to thank the Chair of the International Law Commission, Mr. Mavroyiannis, for presenting the report and commend the members of the Commission for their work during the Commission’s 77th session. Following last year’s shortening of the Commission’s session, we welcome the fact that this year’s session was extended to 11 weeks. This enabled the Commission to make substantial progress across its programme of work. On sea level rise, Slovenia would like to express its appreciation for the final report of the study group adopted by the Commission last year, and we thank the co-chairs, Ms. Galvão Teles, Ms. Oral, and Mr. Ruda Santolaria, as well as the former co-chair, Mr. Aureșcu, for their work. The report's central findings reflect positions that we have expressed in previous years. We share the view that legal stability, certainty, and predictability are cross-cutting principles relevant to this topic. The report notes strong support among states for the continuity of statehood and sovereignty of states particularly affected by sea level rise, and recognizes that such continuity is essential to avoid loss of nationality and statelessness. We also welcome the attention given to the protection of affected persons, with human dignity as a guiding principle, and to the duty of States to cooperate in addressing the adverse effects of sea level rise. Slovenia will continue to contribute to the consideration of the legal aspects of this topic. Madam Chair, as regard chapter 4, Slovenia welcomes the adoption on second reading of the draft articles and commentaries on immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. We thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Grossman-Gulyov, for bringing this topic to a conclusion and recall with deep appreciation the contributions of his predecessors, Mr. Kolotkin and the late Ms. Escobar Hernández. We welcome the Commission's position that immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction is procedural in nature and does not exempt a person from criminal responsibility. Slovenia has a long-standing commitment to fighting impunity and fostering accountability in the international community, including through its work on the Ljubljana-The Hague Convention. We also note, with appreciation, the inclusion of the crime of aggression in draft article 6. The commentary further clarifies that the inclusion of a list of crimes seeks to promote legal certainty without precluding the identification of other crimes through further legal development. We take note of the Commission's recommendation concerning the elaboration of a convention. Slovenia considers that the draft articles can provide a sound basis for the negotiation of an international instrument. Madam Chair, As regard chapter 5, Slovenia aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union, and we would like to add a few remarks in our national capacity. We welcome the adoption on second reading of the draft conclusions and commentaries on general principles of law, and we thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Velasquez Bermudez, for his dedicated work since 2018. We agree with the commentary to the conclusion two that recognition by the community of nations is the essential condition for the emergence of a general principle of law, and that states are the primary subjects through which such recognition is expressed. Slovenia has consistently called for a precise methodology to identify general principles of law formed within the international legal system. one that clearly distinguishes them from customary international law. We therefore welcome the further clarification provided in the commentary to conclusion 7, notably that recognition should be wide and representative, including the different regions of the world. The commentary also marks and makes it clear that the principle must be shown to be intrinsic to the international legal system. We also welcome conclusion 11, which indicates that general principles of law are not in a hierarchical relationship with treaties and customary international law, and conclusion 12, which reflects that such principles might also emerge within regional and subregional legal systems or between a limited number of states. Slovenia supports the Commission's recommendation that the General Assembly take note of the draft conclusions in a resolution, annex them to it, and ensure their widest dissemination. Madam Chair, with regard to chapter 13, Slovenia notes with interest the inclusion of the topic "Identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law" in the Commission's programme of work. and the appointment of Mr. Asada as Special Rapporteur. The topic raises important questions, one of which concerns the relationship between obligations erga omnes, obligations erga omnes partes, and peremptory norms. We look forward to his first report. Last but not least, I have the honour to inform Slovenia has a candidate for membership in the ILC for the period 2028-2032, Ambassador Dr. Ana Polak Petrič. She's a renowned legal expert and an experienced diplomat. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Slovenia for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Jamaica. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Jamaica aligns itself with the statement delivered by the distinguished delegate of Palau on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States. My delegation thanks the International Law Commission for the preparation of the final report of the study group on the topic "Sea-level rise in relation to international law" during its 76th session. We particularly wish to recognize and thank the co-chairs of the study group, who have been instrumental in this process. The completion of this report marks a significant step in furthering the progressive development of international law, and is of marked significance to small island developing states like Jamaica. The importance of this work is already apparent, as noted, for example, by the General Assembly, which took note that the International Court of Justice had engaged with the final report. There is still, however, a need for States to continue to build upon the work of the Study Group. We recall that the General Assembly invited States to reflect on the subject matter in the ongoing work of the General Assembly. and to express further views on the legal aspects of this topic during the 81st session of the Assembly, during the consideration of the report of the Commission on the work of the 77th session. In view of the invitation of the General Assembly to further reflect on the subject matter, my delegation wishes to make the following comments to this debate on the three sub-topics advanced by the ILC: the law of the sea, statehood, and the protection of persons affected by sea-level rise. Each will be discussed in turn. On the law of the sea, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has laid down principles by which States may delimit their boundaries, and my delegation is of the view that those boundaries, once established, must be preserved, acknowledged, and respected, including in the context of sea level rise. This will ensure legal certainty, predictability, and stability under international law, as well as guard against inequities to coastal states, thereby resulting in the fulfillment of the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources. We therefore reiterate the need for cohesiveness and alignment between the application of UNCLOS and the relevant proposed solutions to address climate change-related sea level rise. Further, the principle of fundamental change of circumstances is inapplicable as per the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which expressly states that the principle does not apply in the context of treaties that establish boundaries. Mr. Chair, my delegation is also of the view that States are not obligated to maintain baselines and outer limits of maritime zones under review or update charts or lists of geographic coordinates after depositing the same with the Secretary-General in accordance with UNCLOS. The rationale for this is that international law does not mandate States to update charts to take into account changes which occur due to climate change-related sea level rise. As was expressed in our intervention last year, this perspective was also opined at paragraph 359 of the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion on the obligation of States in respect of climate change. Madam Chair, we now wish to turn to the second subtopic. My delegation wishes to emphasize that the preservation of states' maritime boundaries and the rights attendant thereto is interconnected with the preservation of states' statehood and sovereignty. To this end, my delegation reiterates that the Montevideo Convention is silent on the subject matter of continuity of statehood within the context of climate change-related sea level rise. Nevertheless, silence ought not to be construed as a loss of statehood in the context of climate change-related sea level rise. Rather, the continuity of statehood must be regarded as being critical for the avoidance of loss of nationality and statelessness. Turning to the third subtopic, protection of persons affected by sea level rise. Madam Chair, Jamaica is acutely aware of the importance of international cooperation in protecting and assisting persons affected by natural disasters. Against this background, the Jamaican delegation is still of the view that an appropriate legal framework must be developed to ensure the maintenance of human rights of individuals affected by sea level rise. This framework must underscore the respect for and protection of human dignity. While the study group's final report acknowledges the application of existing law, it provides practical guidance to States to chart a way forward on this issue. In this regard, my delegation agrees with and looks forward to the development of needs-based and rights-based approaches to resolve any human rights-related issues. My delegation also wishes to underscore once more its support for consultation pertaining to persons and communities affected by sea level rise within the context of climate change. We also note the relevance of international cooperation among all relevant stakeholders in order to protect persons and communities involved in the decision-making process, and with a view to preserve culture, cultural heritage, identity, and dignity, as well as ensure the maintenance of critical needs. Finally, we also underline the importance of and the need for international cooperation to strengthen adaptation measures that SIDS need to implement. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Jamaica for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of France.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The French delegation would like to thank the ILC and all of its members for their latest report, which shows the considerable efforts that the Commission is making to fulfil the mandate entrusted to it. France welcomes the fact that this year’s session was, unlike last year’s session, was able to take place in normal conditions. The Commission was able to devote 11 weeks to that work, and thanks to the efforts of its members, the delay from last year was able to be eliminated, and the result is an extremely rich and dense report, and my delegation would like to once again thank the Commission for that. Before formulating comments on the subjects in the report, I would like to begin my statement by making a few general comments with respect to the functioning of the ILC. Madam Chair, as we were already able to point out in this forum, we would like to recall our attachment to the International Law Commission and would like to once again welcome the work done by the Commission, as well as its decisive contribution to the codification and progressive development of international law. Given the crisis of multilateralism that we are experiencing, the Commission is a framework for reference, all the more precious as international law is a common language for all states. France will be vigilant to make sure that the budget difficulties experienced by the United Nations would not lead to arrangements that would undermine the functioning of the Commission. My delegation would also like to recall the importance that it gives to geographic and linguistic diversity within the Commission. This diversity is a necessary condition for the quality of its work, which cannot be and should not reflect just one language or one legal tradition. My delegation would like to warmly thank the Chair of the Commission, Mr. Maroyannis, for the attention that he has given to these matters. Madam Chair, I would now like to make a few comments on the different subjects concerning this first cluster. My delegation points out the subject concerning the sea level rise and international law is on the agenda of this subcommittee, whereas it's only appears in the ICJ report of 2005. With respect to, I'd like to refer to the observations made by France last year. We now have a very precise legal framework with respect to the obligations of states concerning the consequences of climate change. And as well as the final report, the study group of the Commission on the subject, we have advisory opinions which were given by the International Court of Law of the Sea and by the International Court of Justice on the consequences of climate change. The work of recent years has made it possible to come up with a few structural legal principles, such as, on the one hand, the absence of obligations of States to update baselines, the geographic coordinates, maps or external limits of maritime areas in relation to sea level rise once they have been duly deposited with the Secretary-General. Furthermore, the existence of a presumption of the continuity of the sovereignty of states in the territory due to the increase in sea level rise, everyone knows the applicable legal regime, as was pointed out by the recent statement on the sea level rise adopted on the 24th of September 2026 by the General Assembly. We should now move from words to action. I would now like to come to the subject related to the immunity for State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. My delegation would like to warmly thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Claudio Grossman Gilloffa, for the work he has done on this very important matter, extremely sensitive for States. France already had the opportunity to express its position on this draft article. We are pleased, especially when it comes to Article 3, concerning personal immunity, where we feel that it reflects customary international law. Furthermore, the procedural guarantee clause offer a satisfactory balance between the rights of the States where an agent is in question and the State of the form. With respect to the provisions concerning progressive development, we'd like to come back to Article 6, formerly Article 7, concerning the crime of international law, where immunity ratione materiae does not apply. To take up the term of the French court, we should observe customary international matter here, which defines a new balance between immunities and the fight against impunity. The highest criminal jurisdiction of France explicitly recognizes since 2025 an exception to immunity from the functional action of states in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. My delegation, however, would hesitate when it comes to the list of crimes, which could eventually be an exception to immunity from jurisdiction. We think it would be wiser to not get involved in such an exercise, which would not strengthen the authority of this draft article 6. Because of the absence of a consensus on the very principle of such a list, and the lack of practice that the nature of certain crimes that we see here, such as the crime of aggression, we think a more cautious approach would have been appropriate. The adoption of this draft Article 6 also raises an observation when it comes to the method. It was adopted following a vote of 24 against four, we took note of the explanations of vote offered by the members of the Commission, and I can only add my voice to those who have regretted the inability of the Commission to adopt that article by consensus. This observation raises the question of the future that we should give to this draft article. Can we hope that the Sixth Committee find on this subject a consensus, if the members of the Commission themselves haven't managed to do so? In any case, my delegation has taken note of the recommendation of the Commission so that in due time, this draft article would be the basis for the elaboration of a convention for the General Assembly or for an intergovernmental conference of plenipotentiaries. We believe at this stage it's more cautious to not immediately get involved in such a process for three reasons. First of all, for reasons already presented, we are not fully convinced that today it would be possible to reach a consensus on a treaty concerning the immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction for state officials. Furthermore, the urgency of concluding such a treaty could be conditioned by the fact that we are in a legal area which has already been interpreted by different tribunals which apply customary law to immunities. And lastly, the negotiations underway with respect to the Convention for the Prevention and Suppression of Crimes against Humanity and the protection of to protect people in situations of disaster, they already mobilize a certain number of resources, and we think it's not appropriate now to begin a new process of intergovernmental negotiations. To conclude on the question of immunity, I would like to once again thank the International Law Commission as well as its Special Rapporteurs who have spoken on this matter for the scope of the work they have achieved. Madam Chair, I'll be much briefer when it comes to the observations on the general principles of law. First of all, I would like to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Bermudez, for the adoption on the second reading of all of the draft conclusions. My delegation reiterates the goals that was able to express here concerning the category of general principles of law formed in an international legal system. We have taken note of the comment on the draft conclusion number 3, where this category of general principles of law is sometimes subject to debate. We believe that the consecration of this category of principles could provide confusion when it comes to the distinction between the two sources of international law, which are the general principles of law and customary international law. This confusion could lead to real difficulties when it comes to identifying those two sources, which are based on different methodologies. The inventory in the draft conclusion number 6, 7 does not reassure us. It looks at general principles such as the sovereign equality of states or the principle of speciality of international organizations, which could be linked to customary international law. The comment also deals with principles whose legal value is still debatable. The International Court of Justice has said in its opinion on 2025 that it should play a role without replacing the applicable law. Draft conclusion number 11, concerning the relationship between the general principles of law and custom, does not clarify the matter in any way. And in particular, my delegation believes that paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 of the comment on this draft conclusion does not clearly explain how the first would be different from the second. And lastly, to conclude, my delegation has taken note of the registration of the subject determination legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law in the work programme of the Commission, as well as the designation of Mr. Assata as Special Rapporteur. This is a question that France will follow very closely, given the fact that it's a subject which has already been the subject to a certain number of comments on the part of the Commission, for example, in its articles on state responsibility, or more recently on the draft conclusion of the Imperative Rules of International Law. We hope that the Commission will pay particular attention to the overall consistency of that work on that very sensitive matter for States. Madame Chair, thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of France for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Australia.

Thank you, Chair. Australia wishes to commend the Commission's invaluable contribution to the codification and progressive development of international law, and to express our gratitude for the Commission's latest report. Australia's statement will address three topics. the legal aspects of sea level rise, immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, and general principles of law. Turning first to the legal aspects of sea level rise. Chair, rising seas are no longer a warning for the future. They are a lived reality for millions of people around the world. Sea level rise is a challenge no nation can meet alone. We share the ocean, and we share responsibility for its future. This year, the international community has come together at the United Nations to shoulder this responsibility. With the adoption of the landmark declaration on sea level rise, member states reached a consensus on the legal positions that will underpin our global response to sea level rise. Australia, with Cape Verde, was proud to co-facilitate the UN's new declaration. It's an outcome that was only possible because of the leadership of states, regions, and institutions in recent years. The leadership of the Pacific, the region that has led the way in bringing the world's attention to this issue. The leadership of the ILC Study Group on Sea Level Rise, whose innovative ideas on pathways forward this declaration responds to. And the leadership of the International Court of Justice, whose unanimous advisory opinion on climate change reinforced the importance of legal stability and certainty in relation to maritime zones established in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS. Chair, Australia wishes to make three points regarding international law as it applies to sea level rise. First, we welcome the declaration support for the stability of maritime zones in the face of sea level rise. Our position is that maintaining maritime zones established in accordance with UNCLOS and the rights and entitlements that flow from them, notwithstanding climate change related sea level rise, is supported by both UNCLOS and the legal principles underpinning it. UNCLOS imposes no affirmative obligation to keep baselines and outer limits of maritime zones under review. nor to update charts or lists of geographical coordinates once deposited with the Secretary General of the UN. We are pleased to see widespread support among states for the 2021 Pacific Islands Forum Declaration on preserving maritime zones, as well as state practice consistent with the positions outlined therein. Second. The Declaration on Sea Level Rise reinforces that international law supports a presumption of continuity of statehood in the face of sea level rise. This is a welcome elevation of a position long taken by the Pacific Islands Forum, and a position which was recognised for the first time in a legally binding treaty between Tuvalu and Australia in 2024. That the declaration underscores the continuity of UN membership means the UN remains a place where all countries represented in this room have a voice. Finally, the declaration recognizes that sea level rise has the capacity to drive displacement, with implications for the dignity, future choices, and enjoyment of rights of those affected. As demonstrated by the Pacific's approach, we must answer this challenge consistent with international law. We encourage states and other relevant actors to take cooperative approaches, which center human rights in ensuring the protection of persons and providing pathways for mobility with dignity. The Declaration on Sea Level Rise is the international community's new framework for meeting sea level rise head on. But our next steps must be to put this into action. The UN's Sixth Committee must play its part in ensuring legal stability, certainty, and predictability as we confront this threat. Chair, I now move to the topic of immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Australia welcomes the Commission's conclusion of the work on this topic and the opportunity to exchange views on the Commission's proposal for a new convention. Australia is a strong proponent of accountability for serious international crimes. It is in the interest of all states to ensure these crimes are prevented and perpetrators are prosecuted. As set out in Australia's submission to the Commission in 2023 and our previous statements, we maintain that the legal position expressed in draft Article 6 represents progressive development of international law. That said, we acknowledge there is a trend of the non-applicability of functional immunity for serious international crimes at the national level. Australia maintains any exception to immunity should be limited to serious international crimes as a category, rather than developing in respect of particular crimes. We maintain that procedural safeguards are an important protection for state officials from unsubstantiated and politically motivated prosecutions, and Australia would have liked to have seen additional safeguards reflected in the draft articles. Australia submitted to the Commission, and we maintain that, in cases of competing jurisdiction, the state of nationality or the state in which criminal conduct occurred shall be responsible for investigating and prosecuting serious international crimes, provided it does so in a genuine and independent manner. Australia also considers that procedural safeguards should have brought a clearer distinction between their application to functional immunity and personal immunity. Moving forward, Australia will continue to engage in good faith in any discussions on the draft articles. Chair, I move finally to the topic of general principles of international law. Australia welcomes the conclusion of the Commission's work and conveys its appreciation to the Commission. The Commission's work on this topic complements its existing work on other sources of law under Article 38, paragraph one of the Statute of the ICJ. Australia welcomes the further clarification in the commentaries on the circumstances in which national principles common to various legal systems are compatible with the international legal system. To conclude, Australia would like to reiterate our support for the Commission's work on these and many other topics, noting that Australia's position on these other topics is set out in our previous six committee statements. Australia acknowledges the Commission's continuing contribution to international cooperation, to the strengthening of national legal capabilities, and to the pursuit of a world where differences are resolved not by power and size, but through agreed rules and norms. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Australia for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Romania.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. The delegation of Romania congratulates sincerely the International Law Commission for the activity during its 76th session and for making such good use of the 11 weeks it was allocated, reverting to the tradition of having a two-part session. This year's impressive report reflects important progress on topics that could not be addressed in the previous year due to the lack of time. namely, non-legally binding international agreements, settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties, and piracy and armed robbery at sea, as well as the conclusion of the work on two major topics which were discussed within the Commission for a number of years: immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction and general principles of law. We also note, with appreciation, the visit by the UNSG to the Commission, which underlined not only the fundamental standing of international law as part of the activity and mandate of the UN, but also its essential role in protecting the sovereign equality of States and the international rule of law more broadly. In the same vein, we are happy that the dialogue with the regional formats has been resumed even more interactively, allowing for a genuine exchange of views. I will turn now to chapters 4, 5 and 13 for specific comments. Madam Chair, at the outset, my delegation would like to express its appreciation for the substantial work done on the topic of immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. The adoption, on second reading, by consensus, of the draft articles and of their commentaries represents an important accomplishment for the codification and progressive development of international criminal law. Romania would like to pay tribute to all the three Special Rapporteurs who have contributed to this long-standing endeavor: Mr. Claudio Grossman Gilof, Ms. Concepción Escobar Hernández, and Mr. Roman Kolotkin. Their commitment and honest approach has been instrumental in advancing the Commission's work on the topic over nearly two decades. We particularly welcome the provisions which identify the list of crimes under international law in respect of which immunity ratione materiae shall not apply, as well as the inclusion of the crime of aggression in this list. It has always been the position of this delegation that the crime of aggression should be recognized as a crime for which ratione immunitatis materiae shall not apply. On the procedural part, while Romania underlines the importance of a legal framework which ensures appropriate procedural guarantees to the state of the official, we note that most of the provisions included in this part pertain to treaty making, going in some ways beyond codification or progressive development of the law. Ultimately, it is for the States to find the acute balance in between the interest of fighting impunity and protecting immunity. The basis offered by the Commission for that purpose is sufficiently generous and thoroughly thought through. With respect to the future of the draft articles, we endorse the recommendation of the Commission that the General Assembly embark on the negotiation of a convention on the basis of the draft articles. Turning to chapter 5, general principles of law, on behalf of my delegation, I commend the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez, for his hard work and dedication to this topic, as well for his efforts to engage with and meaningfully address the various comments made by States. We also commend the Commission on the conclusion of its work on this topic, concretizing the adoption of the 12 conclusions which develop a methodology for identifying general principle of law, assessing in this respect the role played by decisions of courts and tribunals, as well as by teachings. Consistent with the remarks we have made when speaking on this topic, we remain unconvinced that the approach followed in the conclusions based on the recognition of a secondary category of general principles, namely those that may be formed within the international legal system, in contrast to those that are derived from national legal systems, is the right one. We continue to believe that, given the paucity of supporting state practice and jurisprudence, as well as the opposing views expressed by a number of states, the Commission should have manifested greater caution and refrained from identifying a distinct group of principles which may be formed within the international legal system as a self-standing category. At the same time, we maintain our reservation as to the usefulness of conclusion 12, which introduces an additional category of general principles, which compounds the risks for the coherence of the structure of the sources of international law. Turning to the last chapter of the ILC report, my delegation would like to make the following three points. First, we salute the introduction of the topic "Identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law" on the active agenda of the ILC and the appointment of Mr. Asada as the Special Rapporteur. Following the previous study of the ILC on the identification and legal consequences of peremptory norms of international law adopted by the ILC in 2022, This new topic will complement it and ensure a comprehensive understanding of this type of international legal obligations by clarifying the concept and the legal consequences. Romania recognizes that the recent state practice has significantly evolved, confirming beyond doubt the interest of states to act in response to violation of erga omnes obligations, be it through judicial avenues or in other manners. including recourse to countermeasures. In this respect, Romania invites the ILC to approach in a comprehensive manner the state practice in relation to erga omnes obligations, including by studying further, in light of this new state practice, the current state of international law and countermeasures taken in the general or collective interest. Second, we welcome the inclusion in the long-term programme of work of the topic, the right to regulate in international investment law. It is opportune that the ILC takes up topics that are niche and look beyond traditional public international law institutions. Third, my delegation is equally grateful to Mr. Mario Oyarzabal for providing a revised syllabus on the extraterritorial jurisdiction, capturing the substantial developments in international law and state practice since 2006, when the topic was included in the long-term programme of work. We acknowledge the complexity of the subject and the considerable challenges involved in addressing, within a single topic, important substantive legal developments occurring across nine distinct areas. Out of the approaches proposed for the way forward, we favour an intermediate, sectoral approach, as it seems to strike the appropriate balance between coherence identification of principles of general application, and flexibility, a more detailed examination of their operation in specific areas and contexts. Madam Chair, I conclude here my intervention on cluster one. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Romania for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Switzerland.

Thank you, madam Chair. Switzerland would like to reaffirm its unreserved support for the International Law Commission and for its mandate. The Commission's work remains essential to the progressive development and codification of international law, as well as to enhancing the clarity, coherence, and predictability of the international legal order. Switzerland will continue to follow the Commission's work closely. and to participate constructively, in particular by providing comments and observations on its work and by offering its legal expertise where necessary. At a time when the international legal order is facing major challenges, Switzerland considers it particularly important to preserve and strengthen the institutions that contribute to the development and clarification of international law. Switzerland therefore remains committed to supporting the Commission, to preserving the independence necessary for it to fulfill its mandate, and to maintaining a constructive dialogue with the Commission and its members. Switzerland thanks the International Law Commission for its work on the topic of the immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction and welcomes the adoption at its 77th session of the draft articles on this important and complex subject. Switzerland is particularly pleased that, after many years of in-depth deliberation, the Commission has successfully completed its work. Switzerland attaches great importance to the need to strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, the principle of the sovereign equality of States and, on the other, the fight against impunity. The stability and predictability of international relations require that State representatives acting on behalf of their State be able to carry out their duties independently, free from any undue interference by other States. At the same time, our commitment to criminal accountability for the most serious crimes under international law must remain unwavering. Switzerland considers that the Commission's work on this subject makes an important contribution to clarifying the applicable legal framework and to strengthening the rule of law. In this context, Switzerland particularly welcomes the inclusion of the crime of aggression amongst the crimes for which immunity does not apply. Switzerland considers this to be a significant step forward Placing aggression on a par with other most serious crimes under international law reflects the gravity of this crime and helps to ensure that developments in the law of immunities do not undermine efforts to prevent and prosecute impunity for such crimes. Switzerland also welcomes the Commission's efforts to bring greater clarity and legal certainty to an area where the interplay between the immunity of State officials, individual criminal accountability, and the fight against impunity raises particularly delicate legal and practical issues. The adoption of the draft articles constitutes an important step and provides a valuable basis for States' continued consideration of this issue. Switzerland congratulates the Special Rapporteur, the members of the Commission and the drafting committee on the completion of this important work and looks forward to continuing its close cooperation with the Commission on other items on its agenda. With regard to the topic of general principles of law, Switzerland congratulates the Commission on the adoption of all of the draft conclusions and their commentaries. Madam Chair, Switzerland also takes this opportunity to provide commentary on the two annexes to this year's report. With regard to Annex 1, Switzerland takes note of the Commission's decision to include this topic, the topic "The right to regulate in international investment law" in its long-term work programme. Switzerland recognizes the importance of this issue. This issue was already the subject of in-depth discussions in other international fora, bringing together a wide range of States and stakeholders, notably within the OECD on the modernization of investment treaties, as well as within the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. In this context, Switzerland considers it essential to take into account initiatives already underway in order to avoid duplication and to promote a consistent understanding of the right to regulate under international investment law. Lastly, with regard to Annex II, Switzerland warmly welcomes the revised work programme and congratulates Mr. Mario Oyarzabal on his work on the topic of extraterritorial jurisdiction. This topic is particularly relevant to the present, and Switzerland is closely monitoring developments in this area. Switzerland supports the distinction made in paragraph 17 of the work programme between extraterritorial jurisdiction and the extraterritorial scope of human rights and environmental obligations. It also shares the view that the latter issue, while linked to the former, should be examined separately. Switzerland further supports the conclusion of the work programme set out in paragraph 18 that an intermediate approach could prove beneficial, as it would enable the Commission to address specific areas requiring progressive development, in particular such as artificial intelligence, while commencing its work at a general level.

Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Switzerland for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cameroon.

Madam Chair, Cameroon identifies with the statement that it delivered on behalf of the African Group and shares the following in its national capacity. Madam Chair and delegation, I would like to speak about the topics under cluster one. Madam Chair, with regard to sea level rise in relation to international law, my delegation underscores the particular importance of this topic in light of its legal, environmental, economic, and human consequences, especially for coastal states, insular states, island states, and populations. whose livelihoods are directly threatened, Cameron believes that the work of the Study Group on Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law presents an important contribution to the clarification of international legal questions arising from this phenomenon, especially with regard to the maintenance of the continuity and identity of States. maritime spaces, and the protection of affected persons. In light of the scale of this challenge, it is important to pursue efforts to promote an approach based upon international law, multilateralism, and cooperation between States, while taking duly into account the concerns and particular vulnerabilities of developing countries. My delegation, with regard to the topic of immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction would like to note the adoption by the ILC of the draft articles on immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction of state representatives in light of the principle of sovereign equality of states enshrined in the UN Charter, including the immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction of state officials. This is an essential guarantee. It is a tool for the smooth functioning of international relations. This immunity is not a personal privilege for an individual, but rather a state prerogative that aims to allow the state to exercise its sovereign functions without undue interference from a foreign jurisdiction. Fighting impunity for the most serious crimes under international law remains a legitimate goal of the international community, but it cannot justify questioning rules on immunity without a sufficiently sound legal basis. Madam Chair, my delegation remains concerned by the questions raised by draft article 6 on the non-applicability of ratione materiae immunity to certain crimes of international law, including with regard to its conformity with customary international law. representativeness of this practice, of state practice invoked, and the necessary distinction between the established rules of codification and proposals relating to progressive development of international law. We note that determination of exceptions to immunity ought to be based upon precise, objective, and predictable legal criteria to prevent any selective or politicized application of extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction. Disagreements that have been noted within our committee on this provision therefore call for an in-depth intergovernmental consideration of this issue that respects the various positions expressed by States. For my country, it is also important to recall that immunity does not equate to an exoneration of state responsibility, of a criminal responsibility, nor recognition of impunity. It is a procedural obstacle to the exercise of the jurisdiction of another state under conditions set out under international law. The persons concerned are still able to respond for their actions before the competent jurisdictions, including those of the state they represent in accordance with applicable law. The state holding the immunity has the reserves the right to give up that immunity. My delegation insists on the fact that giving up immunity should not be presumed and that it depends on the will of the State that benefits from this right in accordance with relevant rules. Madam Chair, procedural guarantees in the draft articles are of particular importance. My delegation believes that examining the issue of immunity to take place at a sufficiently early stage of the procedure, before the launch of proceedings or adoption of coercive measures that could undermine the inviolability of the official concerned. Notification of the State of the official ought to allow that State to effectively exercise its prerogatives and to put forward its position. It should not be reduced to a simple formality without any practical effect. Kyrgyzstan also underscores the importance of cooperation and judicial legal mutual assistance, as well as the peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the UN Charter, while respecting the freedom of states to choose appropriate methods. With regard to the link between immunity of state officials and international criminal jurisdictions, my delegation underscores the need to clearly distinguish the exercise of national criminal jurisdictions from that of international jurisdictions established based upon specific legal instruments. The effects of these instruments with regard to states not to be assessed in light of the applicable rules, especially those relevant to consent and treaty obligations, without presuming that the provisions to which not all states are parties can, in and of themselves, produce effects toward all. We should also maintain the role of national jurisdictions and take into due account the principle of complementarity whenever applicable. Any language on this issue ought to be sufficiently precise in order to avoid interpretations that could weaken the guarantees recognized under international law. Madam Chair, in light of these considerations, Cameroon believes that The study of these, the continuation of these draft articles ought to focus on in-depth examination of the concerns mentioned by States, especially those related to the customary foundation for exceptions to immunity, the scope of renunciation of immunity, procedural guarantees, and effects of instruments that constitute international criminal jurisdictions. Seeking a consensus on these questions requires an inclusive approach based on dialogue and a balanced assessment of state practice. The choice of the final form of this instrument ought to take into account these concerns and be guided by the need to seek a balance that is legally founded between the preservation of sovereign equality of states, legal certainty, and the need to combat impunity while strictly upholding international law. Madam Chair, with regard to the general principles of law, my delegation takes note of the ILC's work on this issue. This is directly relevant to identifying sources of international law and determination of applicable rules in interstate relations. My delegation believes that a comparative approach toward identifying general principles of law derived from national legal systems is a useful element of the work that has been accomplished. We, however, underscore that this method ought to be based upon a truly representative consideration of the various legal systems in the world, taking into account their historic diversity as well as their institutional and regulatory diversity. Seeking a common principle should not be limited to observing terminological similarities between certain legal systems or legal decisions. It ought to establish real convergences with regard to the content and scope of the principle invoked. Here, my delegation insists on the need to place sufficient attention on practices and legal traditions from all regions of the world, including Africa, to ensure that identifying these principles, that are supposed to be general, is not based on incomplete representation of international legal diversity. My delegation also wants to draw attention to the difficulties mentioned, difficulties caused by recognizing a second category of general principles of law that are formed within the international legal system. We take note of the arguments put forward in favor of this category of general principles of law, but we consider that Its foundation and criteria require a cautious approach. Recognizing a principle as being inherent to an international legal system ought to be supported by sufficiently precise and verifiable evidence to establish its existence, content, and autonomy with regard to treaty and customary rules. Otherwise, there is a risk that this category may confer regulatory power on proposals that are more under the remit of progressive development of international law than the identification of existing law. Cammarone believes that the distinction between codification and progressive development ought to remain a constant concern in the application of these conclusions. Recognition of a general principle of law should not stem from the simple affirmation of its usefulness, its desirability or its recurrence in case law, it ought to be based upon sufficiently robust and objective demonstration of its recognition by the community of nations in accordance with the requirements applicable to this source of international law. Madam Chair, with regard to the role of decisions of jurisdictions and courts as well as doctrine, my delegation recognizes their usefulness as subsidiary means for determining the existence and content of general principles of law. We, however, underscored that these means should not replace the demonstration of the legal recognition of the principle in question. The repetition of the same proposal in several decisions is not sufficient in and of itself to establish its general nature, especially when these decisions are based upon common doctrinal references or do not come from an independent review of its legal grounds. Therefore, it is important for jurisdictions and other bodies that are called upon to apply these conclusions to clearly justify their approach toward identification and distinguish the principles effectively recognized with regard to doctrinal proposals or case law that are still controversial. My delegation notes that the functions recognized for the general principles of law, especially their contribution to interpretation, and in a complementary manner to other international rules, ought to be exercised while respecting the structure of the legal, international legal system. This should not contravene the conditions of formation of international law, customary international law, nor should it lead to contravening applicable treaty provisions or create new obligations. The lack of a general hierarchy between sources of international law does not mean that the rules that stem from them are interchangeable or can be applied independently of their conditions of formation and enforceability. In this regard, Cameroon underscores the importance of respecting the sovereignty of states and that govern their international relations. If the general principles of law are an autonomous source of international law, their identification should not be dissociated from the need for legal recognition that characterizes these principles. We must ensure that this source does not become a means for contributing conditions applicable to other sources or to transform normative guidance into legally binding obligations without sufficient justification. Chair, my delegation believes that the conclusions adopted by the ILC ought to be considered with a great deal of attention and taking full account of doctrinal reservations and divergences that exist on certain aspects. We encourage States, jurisdictions, and other competent authorities to give due regard to the methodology of identification of general principles of law. and to the representativeness of the elements being considered, as well as a distinction between the rules established and proposals related to progressive development. We believe the utility of this work depends, in the end, on its ability to strengthen predictability and coherence in international law while preserving the distinction between its various sources and preventing any uncertainty as to the conditions under which A normative proposal can obtain the status of a rule of law. The clarification of general principles of law ought to contribute to consolidating international legal certainty instead of introducing new ambiguities in the identification of the obligations of States. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Cameroon for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Guatemala.

Guatemala would like to thank the chair of the ILC, Mr. Mavriannis, for presenting the report, and we'd like to express our gratitude to the International Law Commission for the work done during its 77th session once again. The Sixth Committee is facing a situation which is similar to that of last year, with limited time for the exchange and discussion on topics of particular importance for humankind and for relations among States. The scope and the complexity of the agenda, along with the time available for statements by every delegation, makes it difficult to have substantive exchange which would contribute fully to the exercise of codification and progressive development of international law. And that is why the delegation of Guatemala would like to refer initially to a few considerations contained in the section Other Decisions and Conclusions before looking at the substantive issues which are part of the discussion. We should recall this Sixth Committee is not only limited to receiving the results of the work concluded by the IOC. The process of codification and progressive development requires a substantive exchange between both authorities, where the positions of states could contribute to the analysis of the topics sub- Similarly, the topic centre study should not be seen as the exclusive scopes of every member of the commission, but rather it should allow the exchange of points of view, as well as a collective search for legal responses to the phenomena which affect all of our societies. We are particularly interested in the work done by Charles Turner-Jello, designed to prepare a text of working methods for the Commission. We hope that this text will make it possible to clarify the criteria for selection of new topics of study and would motivate a search for the careful review of work which is done and the work which should be updated and developed gradually. Likewise, the new text would promote collective work, as happened with the working group on the sea-level rise with respect to international law. that not all the topics should be looked at exclusively by every Commissioner. The Commission has examples of every culture and legal traditions throughout the world, and its wealth resides precisely in its pluralism. Furthermore, we observe the limited exercise Commission with this Committee during the Week of International Law, and we would like to explore new methods of interaction with regional committees of progressive development of international law to promote an authentic and pluralistic dialogue when it comes to codification. With respect to the time available, we'd like to focus our intervention on two topics: the sea level rise in respect to international law, and immunity for state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Chair, with respect to the sea level rise in relation to international law, as we mentioned last year, we welcome the final report of the study group. Guatemala voted in favor of the declaration on sea level rise adopted recently by the General Assembly, which acknowledges the dimensions and pillars upon which we should base this phenomenon of sea level rise. After analyzing the opinion on climate change of the International Court of Justice, the work of the study group, and the recent resolution adopted by the General Assembly on this area, Guatemala reiterates the concerns expressed in the previous session. Specifically, due to the precarity of the protection of the rights of people and the exercise of their self-determination and the lack of clarity around the international responsibility for harm caused by states which are most affected by sea level rise. This is a problem that no state can resolve on its own, and so we need international cooperation. in the direction contemplated by Article 1 of the UN Charter. In this context, the obligations of prevention and cooperation take on particular importance, especially when it comes to the eventual loss of elements of a state's territory. We reiterate that the condition that the statehood does not simply imply recognition of the sovereignty of a country, but also its institutions, functions, mechanisms, and processes through which sovereignty is exercised. As well as the legal regime that supports it, including governments, parliaments, and courts, we should be prepared to have a universal legal system which is able to recognize the exercise of sovereignty in the context of human mobility, avoid situations of… of mistaken nationality derived from the lack of physical facilities, and to ensure that the protection of people will be reflected equally in the continuity of its institutions. Given the fragmentary nature of existing legal frameworks for legal protection, people affected by sea level rise and other disasters, Guatemala feels it's necessary to continue developing an international legal regime in a more specific way. Madam Chair, now I would like to talk about immunity for State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Guatemala recognizes the work done by Commissioners Kolodkin, Escobar Hernández, and Grossman to make progress in this area. Guatemala would like to raise a concern with respect to article 13 related to the determination of immunity and the scope of its practical meaning. In within the framework of the Organization of American States, there are uh precedents related to the non-recognition of heads of government and the arrest of uh and transfer of heads of government and state to other countries, and the prosecution of people captured abroad. This raises questions for transnational justice, when there is no sufficiently robust standards for protection and legal certainty in order to begin a trial against an official on the basis of substantial reasons to believe that a crime has been committed. Guatemala believes that Article 13 should offer sufficiently robust guarantees to prevent situations such as the ones we have seen among states of the OAS, which could lead to violations of the due process for state officials and, as a result, a discresional exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Guatemala for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Slovakia. You have the floor, madam.

Madam Chair, at the outset, I wish to express our sincere congratulations to Mr. Andreas Mavroyiannis on being elected as the chair of this year's session and thank for his diligent leadership throughout the session. We know the conclusion of consideration of three topics, as well as the initial consideration of two new topics added to the Commission's programme of work last year. Madam Chair, in my statement, I will focus on chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 13 of this year's report, namely on the topics immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction and general principles of law, as well as make some comments on other decisions and conclusions. With regard to chapter 5 of last year's report, namely sea level rise, in relation to international law, I refer to our intervention at the previous session. Madam Chair, Slovakia welcomes the conclusion of work on the immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction after a very extensive elaboration and comments, the Special Rapporteur Mr. Claudio Grossman Gillof, as well as the previous Special Rapporteurs. We further welcome the draft articles, which we consider to be the appropriate final outcome, and express our support for the eventual elaboration of a draft convention on the basis of the draft articles. We will give due consideration to the timing of the proposed conference. drawing upon experience from similar processes applied to other outcomes of the Commission's work, which aim at the progressive development and codification of international law in the form of an international convention. Turning to specific provisions, we welcome draft article 6 on crimes under international law, in respect of which immunity ratione materiae shall not apply. We welcome the inclusion of a list of crimes in this draft article, including the crime of aggression, which enhances the comprehensiveness and legal certainty of the provision, without prejudice to possible future identification of other crimes, reflecting further development of international law. We know that progressive development is particularly prominent in this draft article. The degree to which the non-applicability of immunity ratione materiae reflects existing customary international law may not necessarily be identical in respect of every crime included in the list. Madam Chair, Slovakia welcomes the adoption of the draft conclusions on general principles of law and thanks the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vasquez Bermudez, for his work on the topic. Having analysed the final outcome, we continue to opine that the practical benefit of the work on this topic is rather limited. Moreover, while the draft conclusions have undoubtedly been adopted with the aim of bringing clarity to the issue, we believe that some concepts do the opposite. Specifically, We have consistently supported the view whereby general principles of law can only be derived from national legal systems and expressed our principled concern about the notion of their formation within international legal system. Our position is supported by the text, historical context, and drafting history of Article 38. paragraph 1 of the Statute of the ICJ, which provides strong support for the identification of general principles through comparative examination of national legal systems. While we agree with paragraph 3 of the commentary to draft conclusion 7, whereby the international legal system is subject to evolution and development, the Commission doesn't provide any evidence that such development or evolution has indeed taken place. The list of principles supposedly formed within the international legal system, included in the commentary, has only exacerbated our doubts, as, in our view, several examples are not general principles of law, but principles of international law, rather general laws contained in customary international law and treaties. Turning to draft conclusion 10, we considered that the gap-filling function of general principles of law may, in practice, often be the primary one. Having regard to the primary function of general principles of law, as well as to their high degree of abstraction, it is difficult to conceive a situation where a general principle of law would be the basis of substantive rights and obligations without any corresponding treaty or customary rules. Madam Chair, I now wish to comment on the other decision of the Commission. We take note of the inclusion of the topic "Identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law" in the programme of work. The topic should be addressed in a way that offers practical usefulness to States and, at the same time, is not prescriptive for international judicial institutions that may make final decisions on disputes involving erga omnes obligations. Furthermore, the Commission should clearly distinguish between the substantive characterization of an obligation as erga omnes, the entitlement of states to invoke responsibility, questions of standing before particular courts and tribunals, and the legal consequences of a breach. It should also avoid assuming that all obligations erga omnes necessarily arise from peremptory norms or vice versa. We take note of the inclusion of the topic, the right to regulate in international investment law, in the long-term programme of work. Investment law is characterised by considerable treaty diversity and ongoing reform process. The Commission should, therefore, identify more clearly the legal question to be addressed. the representative practice on which the work would be based, and the added value of the project in relation to existing treaty practice and work undertaken in other fora. Specifically, we do not see merit in analyzing the right to regulate. States, as the primary subjects of international law, inherently process and exercise that right, while any limits thereto stem from their sovereign decisions. freely enter into international obligations by becoming party to treaties. The central issue is therefore not the existence of regulatory authority in the abstract, but the interpretation and application of the international obligations by which States have consented to limit or structured its exercise. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Slovakia for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of India. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. At the outset, India would like to thank the Chair of the 77th session of the International Law Commission for his comprehensive introduction to the Commission’s report and for guiding its work during the session. We also extend our appreciation to all members of the Commission for their valuable contribution. India attaches great importance to the International Law Commission as an institution that brings together highly qualified experts from diverse legal traditions to advance the progressive development and codification of international law. We deeply appreciate its achievements over more than seven decades in strengthening the international legal order. In accordance with the clusters outlined, India’s intervention focuses on the topics of sea level rise in relation to international law, immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, and general principles of law. Madam Chair, on sea level rise in relation to international law, India acknowledges the valuable work undertaken by the Commission on this topic and commends the co-chairs of the study group for their sustained efforts and comprehensive analysis of the legal implications of sea level rise. India notes the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on Sea Level Rise, which recognizes the accelerating nature of this phenomenon and its far-reaching consequences, and underscores the importance of science-based action and international cooperation. As a country with an extensive coastline, India is acutely conscious of the adverse impacts of sea level rise on coastal communities, livelihood, and ecosystems. We recognize the complex legal and technical challenges it presents, particularly under the Law of the Sea and international law more broadly. An effective response requires comprehensive adaptation measures, including coastal protection, disaster risk reduction, ecosystem-based adaptation, and resilient infrastructure, alongside strategies tailored to national circumstances. Small island developing states are particularly prone to consequences of sea level rise. Their concerns warrant sustained attention and meaningful international cooperation, including through capacity building, access to technology, and appropriate support for adaptation. India has taken note of the final consolidated paper prepared by the co-chairs of the study group, including its analysis of the law of the sea, statehood, and protection of persons, as well as the cross-cutting consideration of legal certainty, stability, and predictability. India considers that the legal implications of sea level rise for maritime zones established in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea require careful consideration. Preserving stability and legal certainty in relation to maritime zones has important implications for the exercise of sovereign rights and access to marine resources. Further, consideration of these questions should be guided by international law, including UNCLOS, and should take into account of the views and interests of all States. On the question of statehood, India recognizes the profound implications that sea-level rise may have for the territory, population, and continuity of States, particularly SIDS. These issues merit careful legal examination with due regard to the principles of sovereign equality, legal certainty, and stability in international relations. Regarding the protection of persons affected by sea level rise, India emphasizes the importance of international cooperation in addressing displacement and cross-border movement arising from environmental factors. Existing legal frameworks provide relevant protection in certain circumstances, while other situations may require further consideration. The possible development of non-binding guidelines or other cooperative frameworks could be explored, taking into account the needs, capacities and national circumstances of States. Madam Chair, as regards the immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, India appreciates the Commission’s work on this important topic, including the adoption of the second reading of the draft articles at its 77th session. We also acknowledge the contributions of the successive Special Rapporteurs and the members of the Commission. India has taken note of the Commission's recommendation that the General Assembly consider the elaboration at the appropriate time of a convention on the basis of the draft articles. India attaches considerable importance to this topic, which lies at the intersection of sovereign equality, the exercise of criminal jurisdiction, and maintenance of friendly relations among States. We reiterate that the need for a balanced and legally sound approach that respects the sovereign equality of states while addressing accountability for serious crimes under international law. Such an approach must be firmly grounded in applicable international law and supported by state practice and opinion juries. With regard to draft article 3 on persons enjoying immunity, ratione personae, India notes the broad recognition of the personal immunity of heads of states, heads of government, and ministers for foreign affairs under customary international law. We consider that any extension of such immunity to other State officials must be supported by sufficiently established legal criteria. In this regard, the existing formulation of draft article 3 merits retention in the absence of sufficient legal grounds for a broader or different formulation. Further clarification on exceptional situations involving officials who, although not formally holding these offices, exercise comparable functions or authority may be useful, provided that it does not introduce uncertainty into the applicable rules. On draft article 6 concerning the non-applicability of immunity ratione materiae in respect of certain crimes under international law, India continues to have concerns regarding the adequacy of the state practice and opinio juris supporting the proposed exceptions. The question of whether immunity is inapplicable in respect of each listed crime must be examined carefully on its own legal basis, rather than assumed to reflect an established general rule of customary international law. India emphasized the importance of clearly distinguishing the codification of existing international law from proposals for its progressive development. Any departure from established rules of immunity must be supported by a sufficiently sound legal basis and must take due account of the implications for inter-state relations. India also underscores the need for robust procedural safeguards governing the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by the courts of a foreign state or officials of another state. Such safeguards are essential to prevent the misuse or politicization of criminal proceedings and the potential harassment of foreign state officials through domestic judicial processes. In this regard, part four of the draft articles merits particular attention. It is important that the framework provide for timely notification to the state of the official, early and meaningful judicial examination of immunity, appropriate recognition of the role of the state of the official in invoking immunity, and clear parameters governing the exercise of jurisdiction by the forum state. The provisions on request for information, determination of immunity, fair treatment, and consultation should operate together to ensure procedural fairness, legal certainty, and effective interstate engagement. India considers that a framework on immunity must be based on a sufficiently broad understanding of state practice and must command the confidence of states across legal systems and regions. An approach that does not adequately reflect established international law or fails to secure broad acceptance may risk undermining mutual trust and friendly relations among states, while also complicating international cooperation in addressing serious crimes. We therefore reiterate that the draft articles should not as a whole be treated as automatically reflecting existing customary international law. Madam Chair, as regards on general principles of law, India appreciates the work of the Commission and efforts of the Special Rapporteur in presenting the fourth report and advancing the draft conclusions on general principles of law. India recognizes the importance of this topic and the potential contribution of the Commission in providing useful guidance on the identification and functions of general principles of law and their relationship with other sources of international law. At the same time, a careful and methodologically rigorous approach is required, given the fundamental importance of Article 38, paragraph 1 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. India considers that the identification of general principles of law must be firmly anchored in Article 38, paragraph 1 of the ICJ Statute. We also reiterate that there is no hierarchy among the three principal sources of international law identified in Article 38, paragraph 1. General principles of law should not be characterized as inherently subordinate to treaties or customary international law. Their distinct role within the framework of sources should be appropriately recognized and articulated. We welcome the emphasis on comparative analysis in determining whether a principle is common to the various legal systems of the world. Such an analysis must be sufficiently broad and representative, taking account of the different legal traditions and regions, rather than relying disproportionately on selected national systems. In this context, India emphasized the importance of a two-stage methodology. First, establishing that a principle is common to the principal legal systems of the world through a representative comparative analysis, and second, determining whether and how that principle can be transposed to the international legal system, taking into account its particular characteristics and the requirements of international law. These stages should be clearly distinguished to ensure methodological rigor and legal certainty. India looks forward to the Commission's continued work on the functions of general principles of law, their relationship with other sources of international law, and the methods for their identification and transposition into the international legal system. Madam Chair, India reaffirms its support for the important work of the International Law Commission and looks forward to constructive deliberations on this topic in the Sixth Committee. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of India for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Maldives. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. The Maldives aligns itself with the statement delivered by Palau on behalf of AOSIS. The Maldives comments the International Law Commission and thanks the co-chairs of the study group for six years of rigorous work on sea level rise in relation to international law. For the Maldives, sea level rise tests a basic proposition of international law. Physical changes to territory must not strip a state of its sovereignty, maritime rights, or the legal protection of its people. In November 1989, small island states gathered in Male, the capital of the Maldives, for the first conference dedicated to climate change related sea level rise. The purpose was simple, to bring international attention to a threat that could alter the physical foundation of our states. Nearly four decades later, that concern has moved from the margins to the center of international law and policy. On 12th October, the General Assembly adopted the UN Declaration on Sea Level Rise. It is also recognized the enduring significance of the 1989 Malé Declaration. What began as a call for political recognition must now become a lasting commitment to legal certainty, international cooperation, and protection of our peoples. The ILC’s work is important to that task. Its final report addresses the three questions that matter most to affected States: the law of the sea, continuity of statehood, and protection of persons affected by sea level rise. The Maldives therefore makes three calls to action. First, we must safeguard the continuity of statehood, sovereignty, and maritime zones. Rising seas must not diminish a state's maritime zones or end its statehood. The physical transformation of territory must not become a pretext for legal disappearance. The recent declaration gives political expression to that certainty. It affirms the stability of established maritime zones and the presumption of continued statehood and sovereignty, including continued membership of the United Nations. The ILC's work provides important legal grounding. The study group recorded a convergence of views that UNCLOS does not prohibit the preservation of baselines and maritime zones and that states are not obliged to update baselines because of sea level rise. Legal certainty must also be usable in practice. Affected states need the hydrographic data, coastal mapping, scientific monitoring, and legal expertise required to document and protect their maritime rights over the long term. Second, we must prevent statelessness and protect the rights and dignity of persons affected by sea level rise. The Maldives supports the global principles for addressing climate mobility. Strengthening resilience must remain the first priority, so that displacement can be prevented wherever possible. Where movements become unavoidable, people must retain their nationality, identity, rights, and connections to their state. Existing international and regional frameworks provide important protections, but they do not yet offer a comprehensive response. Cooperation must therefore prepare before displacement occurs. Third, we must strengthen international and regional cooperation, including through capacity building and technical assistance. The duty to cooperate must be reflected in practical support. Affected states need sustained access to legal, scientific, and technical expertise, stronger national institutions, and the capacity to maintain essential government functions and plan for the long-term needs for their populations. This is also a question of sovereign choice. International cooperation should leave affected states more capable of protecting their rights, serving their people, and determining their own future. In Malé in 1989, small island states asked the international community to recognize the danger. Today, the task is more precise: ensure that change in geography does not erase legal identity, diminish sovereign rights, or reduce the capacity of any state to shape its future. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Maldives for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Liechtenstein. You have the floor, madam.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The International Law Commission plays a crucial role in the development and codification of international law, and Liechtenstein comments the publication of the Commission's 2026 report. Regarding the progress made by the Commission on the immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, We are pleased to see that the Commission adopted on the second reading the entire set of draft articles. The immunity of State officials is grounded on the principle of sovereign equality of States. As established by the International Court of Justice and outlined in the Commission's report, state officials enjoy immunities not only for their personal benefit, but also to ensure the ability to represent their state or to exercise state functions. The draft articles ensure that the immunity of state officials do not result in impunity for the most serious crimes under international law. And in doing so, they strike a careful balance between the principle of sovereign equality and the imperative of accountability, while preserving the coherence and consistency of the international legal framework. Draft Article 6 in that regard, which includes the list of crimes in which respect of immunity ratione materiae should not apply, is an important achievement. It is supported by the Nuremberg and the Tokyo trials. the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and the International Court of Justice. It also reflects the jurisprudence of national jurisdictions on the prosecution of foreign state officials for international crimes during the Second World War. The inclusion of the crime of aggression in draft Article 6 is a significant contribution to the fight against impunity. As a leadership crime, its prosecution necessarily involves the immunity of state officials. Recognizing an exception to immunity in such cases is consistent with both customary international law and contemporary international criminal law. Moreover, aggression is amongst the four core crimes listed in the Rome Statute and reflects the enduring legacy of Nuremberg, which remains a cornerstone of the contemporary international legal order, as embodied in the Nuremberg principles. The adoption of the draft articles is a significant step towards a more consistent implementation of the law towards the immunity of state officials. However, Liechtenstein believes that the recommendation of the Commission to elaborate at the appropriate time a convention by the General Assembly or an international conference of plenipotentiaries on the basis of the draft articles is at this stage premature. In our view, a dedicated convention on immunities will not necessarily provide a significant added value beyond the framework that is already provided by the ILC draft articles, and rather, we would encourage States to focus on drawing up from those articles when negotiating future instruments, including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity. Madame Chair, Another important milestone that demonstrates the impact of the Commission's work is the adoption by consensus of the Political Declaration on Sea Level Rise this year. The declaration reflects key elements of the work of the ISU Study Group on Sea Level Rise in relation to international law. Its legal dimensions underscore states' commitments to the continuity of statehood in the face of sea level rise, including the important presumption of the continuity of membership in the United Nations. This provides a practical safeguard to ensure that states affected by the loss of territory can continue to participate in multilateral institutions and exercise their sovereign voice. Madam Chair, this year, states were invited to reflect on the relationship between the International Law Commission and the Sixth Committee. The two examples that we've discussed today provide a competing answer. Whether clarifying the rules governing the immunity of state officials or helping states address the unprecedented legal consequences of sea level rise, the Commission demonstrates its unique capacity to combine legal vigor with practical relevance. Liechtenstein therefore remains committed to strengthening this partnership and ensuring that the Commission's work continues to serve the needs of the international community. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Liechtenstein for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Thailand. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thailand expresses its appreciation to the International Law Commission for its important contributions to the codification and progressive development of international law. We thank President Andreas Marbranis for the comprehensive introduction of the paper. yesterday. Turning first to the sea level rise in relation to international law, Chair, Thailand welcomes the final report of the study group, which addresses important questions of international law, including the preservation of maritime entitlements, the continuity of statehood, and the protection of persons affected by sea level rise, particularly in low-lying coastal states and small island developing states. We welcome the emphasis on legal stability, certainty and predictability, which is consistent with International Court of Justice advisory opinion on obligations of States in respect of climate change. According to the Court, UNCLOS does not require States Parties in the context of physical changes resulting from climate change related sea level rise to update their charts or list of geographical coordinates showing the baseline and outer limit lines of their maritime zones once duly established. While recognising that State practice has not conclusively established a corresponding customary rule, Thailand maintains that maritime boundaries established by treaty or judicial decision should likewise remain final and unaffected by sea level rise. We also welcome the Court's recognition that once a state is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood. Equally important is the protection of affected persons, including those facing displacement. The Commission's work on the protection of persons in the event of disasters offers useful guidance here, including the situations of slow onset disasters. Thailand is proud to contribute to the advancement of this important legal framework, including through its chairmanship of the PrepCom and the forthcoming hosting of the Conference of the Plenipotentiaries in January next year in Bangkok. I will now move on to immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Madam Chair, my delegation congratulates the Commission on completing the second reading of the draft articles. Thailand recognizes the importance of a careful balance between combating impunity for serious crimes under international law and respecting the sovereign equality of states. Regarding exceptions to immunity ratione materiae, particularly caution is warranted for the crime of aggression, given its inherently interstate character and the fundamental principle of sovereign equality. This meaning that an official has committed this crime presupposes a finding that the state of the official has committed an act of aggression which would require the forum state to pass judgment on the conduct of another state. Thailand therefore proposes that the non-application of immunity in cases involving the crime of aggression should be subject to appropriate safeguards. It may require a prior determination by the competent international court, tribunal, or organ that the state of the official concerned has committed the relevant act of aggression. Such safeguard would help prevent politicization and unilateral determinations by national authorities while preserving accountability under international law. More broadly, we attach importance to the procedural provisions and safeguards that ensure fairness and legal certainty and stand ready to engage constructively on the draft articles and the way forward. Madam Chair, turning to other decisions and conclusions of the Commission, CHAI LAN welcomes the inclusion of identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law in its programme of work and the appointment of Mr Masahiko Asada as Special Rapporteur. This work could clarify obligations owed to the international community as a whole and their legal consequences. We also welcome Mr. Mario Oyarzabal's updated syllabus on extraterritorial jurisdiction, which could clarify the scope and limits of state jurisdiction. Thailand also welcomes the inclusion of the right to regulate in international investment law proposed by Dr. Wilawan Mangkalathanakun in the Commission's long-term programme of work. Amid challenges including climate change, public health, and sustainable development, states must balance investment protection with their legitimate right to regulate in the public interest. Due regard should be given to the common understanding and intentions of treaty parties when interpreting and applying investment treaties. We look forward to Dr. Mankalathanakul's further contributions as the Commission advances on this topic. Beyond these substantive developments, Thailand also welcomes the Commission's continued efforts to improve its working methods and strengthen cooperation with other bodies, particularly regional legal organizations, to reflect diverse legal perspectives and practical needs of States. In addition, timely documentation and access through digital resources, including the website, webcasting, and the UN Audiovisual Library of International Law, remain important. We emphasize the indispensable role of the Codification Division in assisting the Commission and Chair, the Commission's concern about the recent further reductions in its resources, including under the UNAT initiative. We hope that the Division can continue providing its invaluable support. Mindful of the United Nations' financial challenges, Thailand encourages prudent use of resources without compromising the work of the Commission. We value capacity-building, through the Trust Fund for Assistance to Special Rapporteurs and the International Law Seminar, and encourage equitable support based on merit, diversity, and need, particularly for young professionals and scholars from developing countries. We will also continue to support the UN Regional Course on International Law, to be held this year in Bangkok again for the twelfth time. Madam Chair, in closing, Thailand reaffirms its full support for the Commission. At a time when international law faces growing challenges, the Commission’s independent legal expertise, grounded in state practice and informed by the diverse perspectives of Member States, remains indispensable to strengthening the rule of law and maintaining confidence in the international legal order. I thank you, Madam.

I thank the distinguished representative of Thailand for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Nigeria. You have the floor, sir.

Madam Chair, Nigeria aligns itself with the statement delivered by Cameroon on behalf of the African Group and wishes to make the following remarks on the first cluster in its national capacity. We thank the Chair of the Commission, Mr. Andreas De Vayronis, for introducing the report contained in document A/81/10, and we also commend the members of the Commission, the Special Rapporteurs, and the Codification Division for their valuable contributions. We welcome the return of the Commission's 77th session to a duration close to its usual format. and support the provision of stable and predictable working conditions for future sessions. Nigeria warmly congratulates Mr. Olufemi Elias on his election to the Commission on 5th May 2026. We are proud that a Nigerian national has the opportunity to contribute and hopefully will continue to contribute to the Commission's work and express our sincere appreciation to Member States for their continued support. Madam Chair, turning to this topic, sea level rise in relation to international law, A/10/10, 80/10, chapter 5, Nigeria welcomes the final report of the study group adopted in 2025. As a coastal state whose populations and economic activity are concentrated along the Atlantic coast and in the Niger Delta, Nigeria has a direct and substantial interest in the topic. We support the legal stability and certainty in respect of maritime zones, including the preservation of baselines and maritime entitlements established in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as well as the presumption of the continuity of statehood. We further emphasize that the protection of persons affected by sea level rise should be addressed through strengthened international cooperation and appropriate support for the most severely affected developing States. Madam Chair, on the topic Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction, chapter IV, Nigeria takes note of the adoption on the second reading of the 17 draft articles and commentaries, and of the Commission’s recommendation that a convention be elaborated on their basis at the appropriate time. Nigeria’s position on this topic remains consistent. Immunity derives from sovereign equality of states and remain essential for orderly conduct as well as stability in international relations. Immunity ratione personae of heads of state, heads of government, and ministers for foreign affairs is firmly established in customary international law and must be fully respected. At the same time, Nigeria is equally committed to combating impunity for the most serious crimes. We believe that accountability is best secured through national courts and where states have consented to international jurisdictions. Nigeria continues to have concerns about draft article 7, which identifies crimes in respect of which immunity ratione materiae will not apply. We note that the provision was adopted by a recorded vote of 23 in favour four against and three abstentions. In Nigeria's view, it does not reflect a settled rule of customary international law and should be regarded as a proposal for the progressive development of international law. Its application would expose officials to politically motivated proceedings. Accordingly, The procedural safeguards contained in the draft articles, including notification, consultation, and consideration of immunity by the competent authorities at the highest level, are therefore indispensable to ensuring fairness, legal certainty, and the prevention of abuse. Given these differences, Nigeria considers that a decision on a convention at this session would be premature at this session. States should be afforded adequate time to examine the draft articles and commentaries, and any future instruments should be negotiated with a view to achieving the broadest possible consensus. Madam Chair, on other decisions and conclusions of the Commission, chapter 13, Nigeria takes note of takes note of the inclusion of the topic identification and legal consequences of obligation erga omnes in international law in its programme of work, and congratulates Mr. Masahiko Asada on his appointment as a Special Rapporteur. The topic should build on the Commission's previous work, including on peremptory norms of general international law, and be grounded in State practice. Nigeria also welcomes the inclusion of the right to regulate in international investment law in the long-term programme of work. The topic is of direct relevance to developing countries that seek to attract investment while preserving the policy space to regulate in the public interest. We also note the updated syllabus on extraterritorial jurisdiction. Any work on that topic should give full weight to the sovereign equality of states and non-interference in their internal affairs. Nigeria welcomes the establishment of the working group on cooperation with regional legal bodies and the resumption of exchanges with the Asian African Legal Consultative Organization, of which Nigeria is a member. We encourage the commission to include the African Union Commission on International Law in these exchanges, so that African practice and perspectives are more fully reflected in its work. Nigeria also shares the Commission’s concern about the discontinuation of the live webcast of its plenary meetings, which allowed smaller delegations to follow its work, and supports the provision of resources for its restoration. Nigeria affirms its support for the Commission and will continue to contribute to its work, including by responding to its requests for information. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Nigeria for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of New Zealand. You have the floor, ma'am.

Thank you, Chair. New Zealand thanks the International Law Commission for its report on the work of its 77th session. We appreciate the Commission's continued contributions to the progressive development and codification of international law, and we also record our gratitude to the Secretariat for its support of the Commission's work. Today, New Zealand wishes to comment on two topics under this cluster of work: sea level rise in relation to international law, and general principles of law. Firstly, New Zealand reiterates its appreciation to the co-chairs of the Study Group on Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law for their final report, which helped to identify broad areas of legal convergence that have emerged in recent years. New Zealand again wishes to highlight the report's observation that general state practice exists, as evidenced by statements expressing widespread and consistent support regarding the preservation of baselines and the outer limits of maritime zones, notwithstanding sea level rise. We also wish to reaffirm the report's conclusion that, in the context of the preservation of statehood, the principle of cooperation implies a duty for all states to cooperate to address the adverse effects of sea level rise. In this regard, New Zealand recalls the long-standing leadership and cooperation of Pacific Island Forum's members and the Alliance of Small Island States in advancing consideration of the legal dimensions of sea level rise. We were pleased that the 2025 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice affirmed an approach consistent with the Pacific Islands Forum members' Declaration on Preserving Maritime Zones in the Face of Climate Change-Related Sea Level Rise. In addition to these developments, New Zealand was pleased that the UN member states have adopted the recent UN political declaration on sea level rise by consensus. This landmark declaration affirms the preservation of maritime zones and the presumption of continued statehood, notwithstanding sea level rise. The declaration also emphasises the need for states to respect, protect, and fulfil human rights in the context of protection of persons affected by sea level rise. This echoes the acknowledgement by Pacific Island Forum leaders in 2023 that protecting persons and communities affected by climate change-related sea level rise involves protecting, promoting, and fulfilling their human rights and meeting their essential needs, including through international cooperation. We encourage all states to continue engaging constructively with Pacific-led efforts and to ensure sea level rise continues to be considered across all relevant UN processes. This includes during the fourth UN Ocean Conference, the open-ended informal consultative process on oceans and law of the sea, and through implementation of the declaration's commitment to convene a further high-level meeting ahead of the General Assembly's 84th session. While international consensus on this topic continues to solidify, the Sixth Committee remains an important forum for consideration of its legal dimensions. New Zealand welcomes continued discussion of the Commission's work on sea level rise in relation to international law. Chair, New Zealand welcomes the successful completion of the general principles of law topic. We thank the Special Rapporteur for his work and commend the Commission on its adoption of the draft conclusions. New Zealand welcomes the confirmation that recognition by the community of nations is essential to the existence of a general principle of law. We support the retention of a two-step methodology for identifying general principles of law derived from the national legal systems. First, determining the existence of a principle common to the principal legal systems of the world, and second, ascertaining its transposition to the international legal system. New Zealand further welcomes the requirement that principles derived from national legal systems must be compatible with the international legal system before they be transposed. We consider that compatibility should be assessed carefully and consistently, with due regard to the distinctive structure of the international legal system, including its consensual basis and the principle of sovereign equality. Lastly, New Zealand continues to attach importance to maintaining a clear distinction between general principles of law and customary international law, particularly in relation to principles formed within the international legal system. Chair, New Zealand thanks the Commission for its valuable work on these topics. Each topic is of significant relevance to states and will assist in the progressive development and application of international law. Additionally, New Zealand commends the work of the Commission in presenting the draft articles on the protection of persons in the event of disasters in 2016. New Zealand has engaged constructively in the preparatory committee recently held in New York, and we look forward to working with all member states to elaborate and conclude a legally binding instrument on this topic by the end of next year. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of New Zealand for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Spain. You have the floor, sir.

Madam Chair, it's an honor to speak to the Sixth Committee to tackle the work of the ILC in its 77th session. We will refer, first of all, to the draft articles on the immunity for State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction in order to congratulate the Commission, and in particular the Special Rapporteur, Dr. Claudio Grossman Gillof, for the adoption of its conclusions and its comments on a very crucial topic for public international law. We believe that we find ourselves with a text which is called upon to exert great influence. and hence Spain, who has spoken on different opportunities on this topic and presented observations on it when requested to do so, we would like to express the fact that we agree with the recommendation of the ILC that at the right time, the General Assembly or an international conference of plenipotentiaries would draw up a convention based on the draft articles. Madam Chair, Spain, secondly, would like to thank the ILC, and in particular Mr. Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez, for the adoption on the second reading of all of the draft conclusions on the general principles of law, which is made-up of 12 draft conclusions and their comments. The draft conclusions are added to the relevant work done by the Commission thus far when it comes to customary international law, and especially on treaty law. From this point of view, the draft conclusion is an important contribution by the Commission to the codification and progressive development of the sources of international law mentioned in Article 38, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. This work is complemented by that which is devoted to the subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, where the Kingdom of Spain would like to confirm that, according to what was requested by the Commission, Spain will submit it to the Secretary General of the Committee and his observations on the draft conclusions adopted on the first reading, and we will make these observations before 1 December 2027. Chair, my delegation, who previously expressed its general agreement with the text of the draft conclusions adopted on the first reading, my delegation would like to reiterate its agreement in particular with the categorization of general principles of law, which appears in draft conclusion 3. That is to say, the distinction between the general principle of law which derive from the national legal systems on the one hand, and those which can be formed in the international legal system. And also, we'd like to express our endorsement of the two-step methodology envisaged for the identification, determination, and transposition of a general principle of law derived from national legal systems. And specifically, Spain also feels it's correct that the method to determine the existence and content of a general principle of law formed in an international legal system That method would lie in ascertaining its recognition by the international community, such that we avoid any reference to acceptance or consent, which would be more typical of other sources of international law, such as custom and treaties. Unlike those two, the general principles of law are not the result of an agreement between states. and they do not impose concrete obligations in their mutual relationships, nor do they recognize subjective rights. The general principles of law and expression of legal values must indeed be recognized by the international community. And lastly, Madam Chair, the Kingdom of Spain would like to agree with the Commission when it comes to the last three draft conclusions. First of all, conclusion number 10. with respect to the functions of the general principles of law. Indeed, Article 38(1)(c) of the Statute of the ICJ considers the general principles of law as a tool to facilitate the work of judges, such that they can find criteria for decision-making. and avoid non-liquid and difficult cases. And secondly, Spain welcomes the fact that the conclusions refer to the relationship between the general principles of law with other sources of international law. Conclusion number 11. And lastly, Spain agrees with the inclusion of draft conclusion 12, the general principles of law, with a limited material scope. since a practice certainly reflects the existence of principles which are applicable only to relations between certain subjects of international law or in a specific number of states, but also the existence of principles which exist in certain regimes of international law or which have a limited material scope. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Spain for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Germany. You have the floor, ma'am. Microphone for Germany, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Regarding the first cluster, Germany would like to address the topic of immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. First of all, Germany would like to take this opportunity to warmly congratulate the Commission on the adoption of the draft articles on second reading. We thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Claudio Grossman, as well as his predecessors, Mr. Roman Kolotkin and Ms. Concepción Escobar Hernández, and the Commission for their dedicated work on this topic, which remains highly relevant to Germany. Germany welcomes the clarification provided by the draft articles on the scope of the immunities of State officials from criminal jurisdiction. We take note of the Commission's recommendation to the General Assembly to consider the elaboration of a new international convention on the basis of these draft articles. We are convinced that this topic should continue to be approached cautiously. It is of great importance to strike a careful balance between the need for legal accountability and the need to ensure the stability of official international relations. On the question of exceptions from immunity ratione materiae reflected in draft Article 6, Germany would like to reiterate its unwavering commitment to combating legal impunity and its strong support for international criminal law. Germany clearly recognizes the existence of exceptions to the principle of functional immunity. The German Bundestag, our national parliament, has adopted legislation to the effect that functional immunity cannot prevent the prosecution of core international crimes in Germany. Such crimes are of concern to the international community as a whole. We are pleased to see these developments reflected in the Commission’s commentary. We concur with the observation that there is a significant trend in the practice of states towards exceptions to the principle of functional immunity. Germany therefore welcomes the inclusion of the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, the crime of apartheid, torture and enforced disappearance in draft Article 6. We consider these exceptions to reflect customary law. Regarding the additional inclusion of the crime of aggression, slavery and slave trade, we take note of the Commission's reasoning based on the nature of these crimes as jus cogens norms and the need for coherence with other provisions of international law. Germany notes that draft Article 6 was adopted by a vote rather than by consensus. Given the sensitive nature of this topic and the divergent views among States, We remain of the view that a consensus-based and unified approach is generally preferable to ensure the broadest possible acceptance of the Commission's work. In this context, we would also like to reiterate the importance of a clear distinction between the codification of existing customary law and the progressive development of international law. We believe that the difference between what the law is and what the law ought to be should be clearly reflected in the Commission's work. Madam Chair, finally, I would like to briefly comment on other decisions and conclusions of the Commission as noted under Chapter 13 of this year's report. Germany welcomes the decision by the Commission to establish a working group on cooperation with regional legal bodies. The Commission exchanged views with the Committee of Legal Advisors on Public International Law of the Council of Europe, the Inter-American Juridical Committee and the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization. Dialogue with regional legal bodies facilitates mutual exchange on the development of international law and strengthens its acceptance, and Germany will continue to support such dialogue. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Germany for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ecuador. You have the floor, ma'am.

Ecuador expresses its gratitude to the Chair of the International Law Commission, Mr. Andreas Maroyanes, for the submission of the report on the work carried out by the Commission during its 77th session. This has been a particularly productive session, where we have adopted two items on the second reading, as well as a final report on another topic. We have adopted on the first reading another two topics and made progress in the treatment of others. The IAC has thus been complying very successfully with its important work of codification and progressive development of international law. Chair, I would like to begin by congratulating the Commission for the work accomplished in 2025 on the sea level rise in relation to international law. Ecuador values and supports the conclusions of the Study Group of the Commission. Likewise, we like to express our gratitude for the recent adoption of the UN Declaration on Sea Level Rise. The protection of people affected by a sea level rise as a consequence of climate change is an important aspect which must be taken into account. In this context, We recall that Ecuador, along with the Dominican Republic, Bahamas, Cabo Verde, Cyprus, Maldives, and Malta, as members of the core group, we led negotiations and the adoption by the Human Rights Council on 7 October 2025, the adoption of resolution 60/20 on sea level rise and its effects on the full and effective enjoyment of human rights. Madam Chair, Ecuador would like to express its gratitude to the Commission, and in particular to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Claudio Grossman, for the adoption on the second reading of the set of articles on immunity for State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. This is a particularly sensitive topic, which has been on the Commission’s work programme for many years and which has finally reached a successful conclusion. State practice is, will be crucial for its strengthening. We believe that these articles could serve as a basis for the negotiation of a convention. Ecuador expresses as well its gratitude to the ILC for the adoption on the second reading of a set of 12 conclusions accompanied by comments on the general principles of law. and in particular our gratitude to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vasquez Bermudez, for his valuable contribution since this item was included on the work programme of the Commission in 2018. The conclusions and comments offer an authoritative clarification of the nature of the general principles of law as a source of international law. its scope and/or categories on the basis of where they arise, where the principles arise, their functions, and their relationship with other sources of international law, treaties, and international custom. It's useful that they have included in the comments to draft conclusion one that the expression "source of international law" refers to the legal process through which arises a rule of international law and the way in which it was done. The rules of international law effectively are developed in the international legal system through treaties, international custom, and through general principles of law. Though states are the main actors when it comes to acknowledging the general principles of law, the comments in conclusion two correctly reflect the contribution to the recognition of general principles on the part of international organizations through their internal instruments, arguments, and statements presented in judicial proceedings, as well as through the practice of holding treaties with other international organizations and with states. We value the fact that the conclusions and the comments contain a methodology to identify the general principles of law derived from national legal systems and the general principles of law formed in the international legal system. We believe it's extremely useful that in the comments to the conclusions, they have included, for purposes of illustration, examples of general principles of each of the two categories of general principles. Conclusion 10. appropriately tackles the functions of the general principles of law. We agree that the general principles of law could contribute to the consistency of the international legal system and which serve, inter alia, as a basis for rights and substantive obligations, as well as secondary rules and procedural rules, and can be used to interpret and complement other rules of international law. We agree with the assertion in conclusion number 11 that the general principles of law are not hierarchically subordinated to the treaties, nor to customary international law, which could coexist with customary rules and content and treaties of a similar nature, and that any conflict between the sources of international law can be resolved through different methods of interpretation and a conflict resolution which are generally accepted. We also support the fact that we have included in conclusion 12, by way of a non-providential clause, in order to take into account account general principles of law with a limited material scope, res ius personae, whether it be regional, sub-regional, or other, in order to reflect the existence of this category of principles within the legal system in which they arise and are applied. Madam Chair. Ecuador supports the recommendation of the Commission in accordance with Article 23 of its Statute that the General Assembly: a) take note in a resolution of the draft conclusions on the general principles of law, and add the draft conclusions to the resolution, and ensure that it has the widest dissemination possible; b) points out the draft conclusions with his comments to the attention of the States and all those who can be called upon to identify and apply general principles of law, and c) take note of the bibliography prepared by the Special Rapporteur and presented in his fourth report. We welcome the fact that they have included in the current work programme of the Commission the topic “Identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law”. And we also welcome the appointment of Mr. Masahiko Asada as Special Rapporteur. And we also welcome the fact that, on the basis of the recommendation of the Working Group on the long-term work programme of the Commission, chaired by Mr. Marcelo Vasquez Bermudez, they have included in the programme the topic, the right to regulate international investment law proposed by Madame Villarroel Maglata de Kool, as well as an updated version drawn up by Mr. Mario Oyarzabal of the topic extraterritorial jurisdiction, which was already included in the work programme of the Commission in 2006. We believe that both of these topics will make a very useful contribution to the codification and progressive development of international law. Before concluding, allow me to recall that the National Group of Ecuador in the Permanent Court of Arbitration, as well as other national groups from other countries, have submitted the candidacy of Ambassador Marcelo Vázquez Bermudez to the International Court of Justice for the period 2027-2036. His broad experience of more than 35 years as an academic and practitioner of international law, his contribution as a member of the ILC for two decades, And his proven capacity for collaborative legal work with jurists from all regions would make him an exceptionally qualified candidate to serve on the Court with professionalism, deep legal knowledge, impartiality, and independence. I would like to respectfully invite the distinguished delegations to support this candidacy, which furthermore aims to preserve the representation of Latin America and the Caribbean on the Court. I would like to conclude my statement by expressing my gratitude to the International Law Commission for the laudable work that they have accomplished during this most recent session. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Ecuador for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Austria. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, let me begin my statement by commending the Commission on the adoption of the draft articles on immunity of States from foreign criminal jurisdiction on second reading. The set of draft articles and the commentaries thereto are a significant step towards bringing more clarity into an increasingly important area of international law. Austria particularly approves the procedural provisions and safeguards in Part IV, which ensure a balancing between the interests of the state of the official concerned and those of the forum state. Part 4 thus enhances legal clarity and compliance with the rule of law. However, for some issues, we would have preferred different solutions. As regards the definition of the terms "state official" and "act performed in an official capacity", Austria would have favoured aligning the terminology used to that resorted to by the Commission in the articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts, which refer to state organ and exercise of governmental authority. For reasons of consistency, it is advisable to use the same terminology in comparable situations. Furthermore, draft Article 2 raises the question whether the person seemingly acting as a state official must be entitled under the domestic law to exercise state functions, or whether it suffices that the person does so as a matter of fact. The latter variant has, after all, become highly relevant in international proceedings involving the commission of serious crimes, particularly at the International Court of Justice, as for instance in the Bosnian genocide case. Finally, the phrase "who represents the state" is unfortunate, as any state official who acts in that capacity will automatically represent the state. According to the Commentary, whether a de facto official is covered or not depends on national legislation and the practice of each state. but then explains that the definition would not cover all de facto officials. Austria would like to emphasize that it considers Article 6 of great significance and commends the Commission for its diligent drafting of this crucial provision. As regards the future of the draft articles, Austria supports the recommendation of the Commission to elaborate a convention preferably by a diplomatic codification conference. The Austrian Government would be willing to consider the possibility of hosting such a conference in Vienna. It has always been our assessment that a binding treaty based on the draft articles can be the only feasible outcome of the Commission's work on this topic. We have taken note of the cautious wording in the ILC's recommendation namely the addition “at the appropriate time”. We agree with such an approach insofar as we also see a need for further discussion on the relationship of a future convention, and in particular the procedural provisions and safeguards, with existing international treaties, and for the development of a provision addressing this relationship appropriately. To this end, the Sixth Committee should mandate a structured process allowing for the necessary deliberation by States. Madam President, the Austrian delegation wishes to congratulate the Special Rapporteur, Marcelo Vasquez Bermudez, on the topic of general principles of law for his successful work. The draft conclusions now adopted on second reading at the Commission's 77th session provide a highly useful instrument on fundamental aspects of this source of international law. They are concise and well formulated. Allow me to add a few remarks on some of the conclusions. As OSCE has said in the past, we would have preferred the expression "international community" over the term "community of nations" in draft conclusion 2. This would not only have aligned better with the Spanish equivalent, Comunidad Internacional, and earlier outcome texts of the ILC, like for instance, the articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts. It would have avoided complicated explanations, as in paragraph 5 of the commentary to draft conclusion 2, which make clear that international organizations may also contribute to the formation of general principles of law. In this regard, we appreciate the examples provided in paragraph 6 of the commentary to draft conclusion 2. However, these examples are exclusively drawn from the practice of the United Nations. Austria considers that also the practice of regional or other organizations would have been worth mentioning. In regard to draft conclusion 7, which specifies the methodology of identifying the controversial category of general principles of law formed within the international legal system, Austria remains sceptical as to their existence. We appreciate the Special Rapporteur's and the Commission's effort in providing examples for such category. ranging, for instance, from sovereign equality, uti possidetis, the duty to cooperate, and human dignity to intergenerational equity. While highly useful as illustrations, it remains questionable to what extent their legal existence can be shown by the method advocated in Draft Conclusion 7, namely for the following reasons. Paragraph 4 of the commentaries to draft conclusion 7 suggests that the necessity to ascertain that the community of nations has recognized a principle as intrinsic to that system is to be achieved by analyzing all available evidence of the recognition of such principle. It then continues to characterize as available evidence international instruments reflecting the principle, resolutions adopted by international organizations, and statements made by states and international organizations. The Commentary does not provide any examples for instruments that would recognize a principle as a principle intrinsic to the international legal order or a resolution that would similarly do so. It rather appears that binding and non-binding instruments, as well as resolutions, may invoke certain principles, but that they hardly ever contain any indication of recognizing them as intrinsic to the international legal order and thus as constituting general principles of law formed within the international legal system. Even more fundamentally, we question the reasons provided in paragraph 2 of the Commentary to draft Conclusion 7 in favour of the existence of general principles of law formed within the international legal system. The fact that traditional and state practice may support the existence of these principles of law is hardly a convincing and sufficient reason. In particular, if the examples do not prove the intrinsic nature, Similarly, the suggestion that the international legal system must be able to generate general principles of law that are specific to it does not seem to be a cogent reason. And finally, the fact that the wording of Article 38, paragraph one, literacy of the Statute of the International Court of Justice does not expressly limit general principles of law to those derived from the national legal system. In our view, there is in any event no scope of application in practice for such general principles as the relevant rules are already contained either in treaties or in customary international law. For the sake of time, Madam President, I will cut short my statement. I would have had some more comments on the identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law, but those are submitted in writing to you. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Austria for his statement. Distinguished delegates, the distinguished representative of Austria was the last speaker for this morning. According to our program of work, we will continue the discussion on the first cluster of topics tomorrow morning at 10:00 AM. This afternoon at 3:00 PM, the legal advisors will continue their customary meeting. Please note that the meeting will take place next door on the side in the ECOSOC chamber. The meeting is adjourned.