Sixth Committee, 30th plenary meeting - General Assembly, 81st session

Good morning, everyone. I call to order the 30th meeting of the Sixth Committee for the eighty-first session of the General Assembly. Distinguished delegates, let us now continue the debate on the first cluster of topics concerning agenda item 78, report of the International Law Commission on the work of its seventy-sixth and seventy-seventh sessions. Before proceeding, please permit me again to reiterate the recommendation of the Bureau that national statements 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 statements within the schedule we have set ourselves. The report of the Commission on the work of the seventy-seventh session is contained in document A/81/10, which is available online. Furthermore, in accordance with resolution 80/164, the Sixth Committee will also continue its consideration of chapter IV of the Commission's 2025 report on the topic "Sea-level rise in relation to international law", as contained in document A/80/10, which is also available online. We move to the list of speakers. The first speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Italy. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Since it is the first time Italy is taking the floor, I would like to congratulate you and the other members of the Bureau on your election and thank the Chair of the International Law Commission, Mr. Andreas Mavroyiannis, for his informative briefing. Italy has a long tradition in support of the work of the International Law Commission to pursue its mandate, and in this respect, we are glad that this year the Commission was again allowed sufficient time to conduct its work in light of the crucial importance of its functions. Madam Chair, I will only pronounce the key points of our national statements in order to remain within the time allowance. In any case, we will deposit the text of the whole statement to be published online. I will begin by addressing the topic of sea level rise in relation to international law. First of all, allow me to express Italy's appreciation for the UN Declaration on Sea Level Rise and the recognition of the valuable contribution to the understanding of the legal dimension of sea level rise provided by the advisory opinion of the ICJ on climate change as well as by the final report of the ILC on sea level rise. Regarding the stability of maritime zones, Italy appreciates that the need for stability of maritime zone established in accordance with UNCLOS has been recognized in paragraph 20 of the UN Declaration on Sea Level Rise. As for statehood, Italy shares the conclusion that international law provides for a presumption in favour of continued statehood in cases of land territory changes due to the sea level rise. While reaffirming such presumption, we would also like to recall the practical, future implications relating to both the implementation of the principle of self-determination of peoples and the exercise of sovereignty sovereign rights and obligations by States in this unprecedented context. Finally, we have taken note of the ALOS's proposal to focus discussions on the issue of the protection of persons, and we stand ready to engage further on this important subtopic. Moving to immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, Italy would like to congratulate the Commission for the adoption on second reading of the draft articles together with their commentaries. We commend the Special Rapporteur, Mr Claudio Grossman-Guillev, for his dedication throughout the whole process, leading to such a comprehensive set of rules on this complex and important topic. Madam Chair, Rules of the immunity of state officials have for long been part of customary international law as a result of state sovereignty. Over time, however, the need arose to strike the right balance between such immunity and the fight against impunity for the most serious crimes, while defining a coherent framework of procedural safeguards. Against this backdrop, we welcome the articles recognizing core rules of international law, namely immunity ratione personae, which in no case can be overridden. Conversely, we note the persistent uncertainty over key questions relating to immunity ratione materiae, especially in relation to crimes under international law, an issue on which differing views remain among States. as well within the Commission. Over the past few years, Italy has consistently adopted an open and supportive approach toward former draft Article 7, now Article 6, while calling for greater clarity on whether it reflected an existing customary role or rather a form of progressive development of international law. We take note of the commentary, including both options, proving that the question remains open. In this framework, we note that the question on immunity should be considered in close connection with a careful preliminary assessment of the criteria establishing jurisdiction, which may vary from state to state. From this point of view, Italy recalls its established position that States may resort to universal jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances only, when other prevailing jurisdictions are unable or unwilling to proceed. At the same time, we reiterate our view that draft articles in Part IV, procedural provisions and safeguards, do not represent a codification of customary international law in light of the significant divergence in state practice and opinio juris. In conclusion, we take note of the recommendation to elaborate, at the appropriate time, a convention on the basis of the draft articles. Italy remains open to constructive discussions on the matter, while underlining that a clear, logic and coherent framework for any exception to immunity should always be established. Madame Chair, I will now close with the topic of general principles of law. First of all, I wish to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez, and while referring to our previous statements in this Committee, I will limit myself today to a few final remarks. Starting with terminology, we concur with the recognition of its importance, but such attention should not be confined to the terms necessary to define the subject matter and the scope of the draft conclusion. Other terms, such as recognition, identification, and determination of existence, may deserve greater clarification to better understand their practical implication. We also noted the Commission's decision to address the question of persistent objection. Italy remains ready to work with the Commission should the topic re-emerge in future. Moving to the categories of general principles of law as far as those derived from national legal systems are concerned, We note that we would interest the addition in the commentary of more information on how to perform the compatibility test for their transposition to the international legal system. At the same time, we note the retention of paragraph 7 on implicit recognition, a concept on which we reiterate our doubts and concern. As for general principles of law that may be formed within the international legal system, we thank the Commission for providing in the commentary to conclusion 7 additional examples of general principles falling under this category, whose definition and core features would have deserved further elaboration to avoid uncertainties and divergences in the identification of such principles. To conclude, Madam Chair, we take note of the inclusion of the new topic, the right to regulate in international investment law, as well as of the updated syllabus of the topic, universal jurisdiction. Italy stands ready to constructively engage in the discussions on this topic, should the Commission decide to proceed with them. This concludes, Madam Chair, Italy's statement on cluster one. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Italy for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cote d’Ivoire. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, my delegation would like to thank the International Law Commission For its conclusions following its 76th and 77th sessions, Côte d’Ivoire aligns itself with the statement delivered by Cameron on behalf of the African Group and would like to make the following comments in its national capacity: My country welcomes the return to a duration of work that is similar to the usual format at the 77th session, after the unprecedented shortening of the previous session and its consequences on our five-year programme. We encourage maintaining stable and predictable working conditions, which are crucial for the mandate toward codification and with the development of international law. Madam Chair, On the issue of sea level rise in relation to international law, my delegation takes note of the adoption of the final report of the study group, which concludes the examination of this topic. Cote d'Ivoire, a coastal state directly threatened by climate change, recognizes the importance of this work, which addresses urgent legal challenges linked to maritime zones, statehood, and the protection of affected persons. My country supports the approach of the Study Group, which clarifies existing law without modifying the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The cross-cutting principles used, especially the stability and legal predictability, the protection of existing rights, equity, solidarity, and cooperation, are all vital for addressing the needs of the most affected States, including small island developing States and low-lying coastal States. We encourage States and the General Assembly to continue examining these results, including weighing future options. Madam Chair, Concerning the immunity of State officials to foreign criminal jurisdiction, my delegation congratulates General Rapporteur Mr. Claudio Grossman Gillof for completing his work on this topic with the adoption on the second reading of 17 draft articles and their associated commentaries. Goudouar places particular importance on the balance to be maintained between the principle of immunity, which derives from the sovereign equality of States, and the need to combat impunity for the most serious international crimes, with the requisite procedural safeguards. My delegation takes note of the recommendation on the timely drafting of a convention based upon these draft articles. We believe that States ought to have sufficient time to examine these draft articles in order to achieve the broadest possible consensus at the General Assembly. On general principles of law, my delegation notes the adoption on the second reading of 12 draft conclusions and their associated commentaries. This work helps to clarify the identification and application of general principles of law, which is a source referred to in Article 38, paragraph 1(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. However, we underscore that their identification ought to be based upon rigorous methodology and a high threshold for acceptance by the international community. Côte d’Ivoire calls for caution, especially for principles that are formed within the international legal system, in order to maintain the central role of state consent. We also emphasize the importance of reflecting the diversity of legal systems and traditions. My country supports the recommendation of the Commission regarding a resolution of the General Assembly that would take note of the draft conclusions and further disseminate them. Madam Chair, on the issue of other decisions under chapter 13 of report A/81/10, Côte d'Ivoire welcomes the inclusion of the topic "Determination and legal consequences of erga omnes obligations under international law" in the programme of work, as well as the appointment of Mr. Masahiko Asada as Special Rapporteur. We encourage the Commission to conduct this work in an inclusive and balanced manner, taking into account the diversity of legal traditions and perspectives from all regions. We also take note of the request by the Commission to the Secretariat to conduct a study on the financial capacity of the responsible State under the topic "Compensation for damages caused by an internationally wrongful act". We also welcome the inclusion of the topic "The right to regulate in international investment law" in the long-term programme of work, as well as the approval of a planned updated study on extraterritorial jurisdiction. Côte d’Ivoire encourages the Commission to ensure transparency and inclusiveness in this process by giving due regard to the interests of States, especially developing countries, to contribute to the progressive development of international law. Lastly, with regard to methods of work, my country underscores the importance of building broad consensus within the Commission before finalizing any draft text. And we reaffirm our unwavering support for the International Law Commission. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Cote d'Ivoire for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Timor-Leste.

Madam Chair, Timor-Leste aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States. AOs, and wishes to make the following remarks in its national capacity. My delegation expresses its appreciation to the Chair and members of the International Law Commission, its special rapporteurs, and the Codification Division for their continued work and the significant progress achieved during the Commission's 77th session. Timor-Leste's commitment to international law is rooted in our own history. From the realization of our right to self-determination and the restoration of our independence, to the peaceful settlement of our maritime boundary with Australia through the first compulsory conciliation under UNCLOS. For small states in particular, international law and its dispute settlement mechanisms are a guarantee of sovereign equality and justice. It is in this spirit that Timor-Leste reaffirms its belief in international law and its support for the work of the Commission and its progressive development and codification. Madam Chair, we note with appreciation the Commission's draft conclusions on general principles of law, which help clarify the source of international law under Article 38, paragraph 1c of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. covering both principles derived from national legal systems and those formed within the international legal system, such as uti possidetis juris, respect for human dignity and equity, including its manifestation in the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. We also welcome the Commission's recommendation that the General Assembly take note of the draft conclusions. Madam Chair, Timor-Leste attaches particular importance to the Commission's work on sea level rise in relation to international law. We once again commend the Study Group and its co-chairs for their valuable contribution. The Commission's work has helped advance legal certainty and predictability concerning the preservation of maritime zones, continuity of statehood, and protection of persons affected by sea level rise. These dimensions are closely interconnected. In particular, we recall the study group's conclusion that UNCLOS does not require states to update baselines, geographical coordinates, or outer limits of maritime zones, once duly deposited with the Secretary General, to account for physical changes resulting from sea level rise. The preservation of the rights of affected states is also essential to their capacity to protect their populations safeguard livelihoods, and uphold the rights of their nationals. In this context, Timor-Leste recognizes the significance of United Nations Declaration on Sea Level Rise, adopted by consensus during the present session of the General Assembly. This achievement provides important common ground, but neither defines the full extent of applicable international law nor limits its further development. The legal positions articulated by particularly affected states, including through the Pacific Islands Forum and OSCE's declarations, remain undiminished and continue to inform the interpretation and development of international law. The protection of persons affected by sea level rise requires particular attention. As recognized in the study group's final report, existing international legal frameworks provide essential protections but remain fragmented and insufficiently adapted to the specific circumstances involved. Further work is needed to clarify the application of existing obligations, address gaps in protection, and, where necessary, further develop international law. Human dignity, the effective enjoyment of human rights, and the meaningful participation of affected communities must remain central to these efforts. For those who choose to remain in their homes and communities, the effective protection of their rights requires that affected states have the means to ensure conditions of safety and dignity. International cooperation, including access to adequate and predictable finance, is essential to supporting adaptation and making the choice genuinely viable. For persons displaced within their countries or compelled to cross international borders, important questions remain concerning the applicable legal frameworks, the protection of their rights, and the responsibilities of states. In particular, further consideration is needed concerning admission and residence, the legal status of displaced persons, and safeguards against statelessness. The continuity of statehood is fundamental to the preservation of nationality and the legal relationship between states and their populations. Yet continuity alone cannot guarantee the effective enjoyment of rights by affected persons, particularly those displaced beyond their national territory. Their nationality, identity, family and community ties, and cultural heritage must also be protected. The duty to cooperate must be fulfilled in accordance with equity and solidarity, taking into account the differing responsibilities and respective capacities of States, as well as the particular circumstances and needs of those most affected. Timor-Leste encourages the Sixth Committee to continue its consideration of the legal implications of sea level rise. Building on the Commission's findings and the progress achieved by States, We must continue to clarify and develop international law to respond to the realities faced by affected communities. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Timor-Leste for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea.

Chair. My delegation expresses its sincere gratitude for the excellent work done by the Commission at its 76th and 77th session. The Korean Government will keep participating actively in the consideration of the topics and fully cooperate with the Commission. In the interest of time, I will highlight only the key elements of our statement and submit the full text in writing. About sea level rise, once again, my delegation would like to express deep appreciation for the excellent final report of the study group. The Republic of Korea fully shares the concern of the international community and will continue its commitment to address this issue. About immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Madam Chair, my delegation would like to express its gratitude for the excellent work done by the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Claudio Grossman Gillof, and the ILC members on this topic. At the 77th session, the Commission adopted draft article on second reading and recommended the elaboration of a convention at the appropriate time. We hope that the follow-up on the Commission's work in this topic will continue to will contribute to the imperative of preventing immunity, impunity of those committing crimes under international law, while respecting the principles of sovereign equality. At the present session, the Commission considered draft article 7, 8, and 9. Draft article 7, which is renumbered draft article 6 in second reading, addresses the crucial question of exceptions to immunity ratione materiae. My delegation notes that even though the Commission was not able to adopt it by consensus, the number of members who voted against the article has decreased as compared to 2017. In its previous interventions, my delegation supported the retention of draft article 7. Therefore, it welcomes the decision of the Commission to keep the provision in the draft articles adopted on second reading. With regard to this important draft article, my delegation would like to make the following observations. First, one of the biggest changes from the draft articles adopted on first reading is the list of exceptions to immunity rationis materiae has been lengthened by the addition of the crime of aggression, slavery, and slave trading. While fully confirming the extremely heinous nature of these crimes under international law, My delegation believes that the Commission should have provided more convincing reasons for the addition of these crimes to draft article 7. Secondly, another conspicuous difference from the draft article adopted in first reading is the location of the treaties containing the respective definition of crimes under international law to be included in draft article 7. In 2022, the list appears as annexes to the draft articles. In the draft articles adopted on second reading, the list is found in the commentary to the draft article 6. In the light of the importance of this decision, my delegation will carefully follow the discussion on this question at the Sixth Committee. The Commission decided to provide for part four for the purpose of avoiding possible abuse or politicization of the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by one state over an official of another state. In this sense, part four constitutes an essential component of the draft article that stands in a relationship of interlocking integrity with other parts of the draft articles. It is for this reason that my delegation welcomes the retention of those procedural provisions and guarantees as part of the draft articles. In addition, my delegation believes it is essential to secure coherence between the draft articles on crimes against humanity and the present draft articles as regards provisions relating to procedural guarantees. About general principles of law, Madam Chair, My delegation would like to express its gratitude for the excellent work done by the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vasquez Bermudez, and the ILC members on this topic. My delegation welcomes the adoption of draft conclusion on general principles of law in second reading. We hope that the Commission’s work will bring greater clarity to this topic. Concerning the key question of the existence of the second category of general principles of law, my delegation could maintain its openness to the category, subject to the following conditions. First, the existence of the second category need to be proven convincingly by state practice, jurisprudence, and doctrine. Secondly, the second category should be more clearly delineated from the principles of customary international law. Thirdly, my delegation is sympathetic to the often expressed view that the examples adduced as falling under the second category of general principles of law do not appear to fit the relevant prohibitions, such as draft conclusion 3b and draft conclusion 7.1. Next, we would like to address the ramification of the existence of the second category of general principles of law for the other draft conclusions, especially draft conclusion 10 and 11. Given the substantial difference between the first and the second category of general principles of law in terms of their formative process and function, if the existence of the second is admitted, then draft conclusion 10 and 11 needs to be formulated in a way that reflects the differences between the two. Due to time constraints, I will submit the rest of my statement in writing and conclude here. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Canada. You have the floor, madam. Microphone for Canada, please.

Thank you, Chair. Let me begin this intervention on the report of the ILC by reiterating Canada's appreciation for the Commission's historical and ongoing contributions to the codification and progressive development of international law. We thank each Commission member and other staff who support their work for their efforts and dedication. Turning to the cluster one topics, Canada congratulates the ILC and Special Rapporteur Concepción Escobar Hernández for finalizing the draft articles on immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Indeed, this topic has been on the ILC's program of work for the last 21 years, attracting significant interest and vigorous debate in the international community. Debate on this topic is not surprising, as it strikes at the difficult and fundamental questions as to the balance between accountability for crimes and respect for sovereign equality. As many here are aware, draft article 6, formerly draft article 7, which lists the international crimes for which functional immunity shall not apply, has been the subject of considerable debate, even opposition, in the Sixth Committee. Canada continues to be of the view that at least some aspects of what is now draft Article 6 reflect the ILC's mandate for the progressive development of law, and we refer to our statement last year on this point. While relevant state practice indicates that certain serious crimes of international concern, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, may be recognized as customary exceptions to functional immunity. Other crimes more recently added to the draft article do not appear to be supported to the same extent. Because customary law is anchored in state practice and opinio juris, Canada understands these as proposals from the ILC to progressively develop international law on the matter of exceptions to functional immunity. Canada will carefully examine these proposals while noting that a cautious approach is needed that adequately considers views and concerns expressed by states. Canada welcomes the ILC's work in developing procedural provisions and safeguards under Part IV of the draft articles. Safeguards to protect against potential abuse are needed on a matter as delicate as the exercise of criminal jurisdiction over another state's official. While Canada considers that certain procedural provisions outlined are helpful, some articles would benefit from further reflection. For example, Article 13 on determination of immunity. The proposed procedural requirement that the authorities making the immunity determination shall be at an appropriately high level would benefit from further refinement to meaningfully guide state practice. In addition, we must take care to ensure that any procedural provisions can be properly implemented in the principal legal systems of the world, including the common law system. Given these outstanding considerations and the need to consider state feedback on the ILC's proposals, Canada considers that these draft articles are not ripe at this time for elaboration into a convention. A product that is well accepted, based on rules of immunity that are well grounded in state practice, is vital in ensuring the proper functioning of the international legal order. Allow me to once again extend Canada's thanks and appreciation to the ILC for its valuable contribution to this important topic. Chair, turning to the topic of the general principles of law, Canada wishes to express its appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, marcelo Vázquez Bermudez, for his dedication and leadership throughout the Commission's work on this matter. General principles of law are of fundamental importance, as they constitute one of the sources of international law identified in Article 38(1)(c) of the Statute of the ICJ, which the Court is to apply in settling disputes between States. We appreciate the Commission's consideration of the views expressed by States and the additional clarifications reflected in the commentaries adopted on second reading. Madame la Présidente.

Madam.

Taking into account the importance of this for other international legal provisions, when it comes to the importance of the treaty and the identification of international customary law, these must also guide the identification of the general principles of law. Here, Canada continues to attribute a special importance to the role of states in recognizing these principles, and we welcome the details in the commentaries pertaining to the draft conclusions. That general principles be drawn from national legal systems or whether they be formed within international fora and taking into account the different views expressed by states on this second category, Canada remains of the view that Inasmuch as these principles can give rise to binding legal obligations, binding upon states, the recognition by states is vital here. Against this backdrop then, we look at the draft conclusion 6, which provides for a common principle in the various legal systems of the world. being transposed to the international legal order when compatible with that. If compatibility is a key element here, Canada is not wholly convinced that it is sufficient alone to mean recognition, as suggested in paragraph 7 of the commentary. Here, states play an essential role to determine whether principles of law common to the majority of international systems of law are also recognized within the international legal order, particularly when such a transposition brings with it international legal obligations. And then we looking in particular at draft conclusions 8 and 9, dealing with the rulings of courts and tribunals as auxiliary means to determine the existence of legal principles of law. These remain consistent with the work being suggested by the Commission itself in order to avoid any ambiguity or muddle. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Canada for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Israel.

Madam Chair, in order to respect the time limit set by the Bureau, this oral statement will be appropriately brief and will focus on the topic immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. We thank the Commission and the Special Rapporteur for their dedicated efforts and hard work on this important subject. Israel's comprehensive comments on cluster one, which include our detailed views on the topics of general principles of law and obligation, agri omnes and sea level rise, will be submitted to the Secretariat for publication on the Sixth Committee website. Israel attaches great importance to ensuring that perpetrators of crimes are brought to justice. and supports international efforts to combat impunity effectively. Along with many other states, Israel has followed the work of the ILC on this topic closely and has submitted over the years constructive comments aimed at assisting the Commission in preserving the delicate balance long established in international law between combating impunity and safeguarding the fundamental principle of state sovereignty and equality. The balance is essential for ensuring the effective conduct of international relations, preventing serious international friction, and guarding against the political abuse of the law and of legal process. However, the draft articles and commentaries adopted by Commission on second reading this year failed to uphold this balance. They do not address serious concerns repeatedly raised by numerous states, including Israel, throughout the Commission's many years of deliberation, nor do they adequately acknowledge the existence of such concerns. Most worryingly, and despite repeated calls by states, the draft articles and commentaries failed to distinguish between codification of international law and progressive development, and omit material information and disagreement concerning relevant state practice. Consequently, the text risks creating the misleading impression that the draft articles, especially draft article 3 and draft article 6, formerly 7, reflect existing customary international law. As consistently reflected in Israel's view, shared by a considerable number of states, they do not. The disagreement over the draft articles, both among States and within the Commission, was substantial. Israel recalls that draft article 6 was exceptionally put to a vote not once but twice during both readings. Voting records show significant opposition, and even those members who voted in favour did not necessarily consider draft article 6 to reflect existing law. Many States likewise repeatedly made clear that they did not consider the draft article to reflect existing customary international law, while others expressly regarded it as a proposal for progressive development or proposed to deletion. The records also contain serious specific objections regarding the representativeness, legal relevance, and completeness of the practice relied upon by the Commission. States also drew the Commission's attention to the fact that decision by states not to institute proceeding against foreign official constitute highly relevant practice, but this was largely ignored. These submissions are particularly striking because the Commission had repeatedly invited states to provide information on practice concerning immunity, also at the second reading stage, especially where states submitted practice challenging the existence of a customary role. The Commission was required to adequately present the relevant material and the extent of agreement, and to record any divergences and disagreements pursuant to Article 20 of the ILC Statute. This is especially warranted under the circumstances of this project, given the extent and significance of the reservation expressed by members of the Commission and by States. Yet, the Commission neither amended its first reading draft article based on the information presented, nor adequately addressed the concern in the commentaries. Ultimately, a recommendation to the General Assembly, the abolition of the Convention on the basis of the draft article does not detract from the Commission's responsibility to accurately reflect existing law, or at the very least, to identify new law as such. Any misleading impression that the draft article reflects customary international law may lead to a misapplication of the law, which would in return undermine the stability of international law. Indeed, a dangerous circularity of reasoning is already apparent from some of the recent judicial decisions the Commission relies on, which in turn cite the draft article themselves as reflecting existing international law on this issue. This risk undermines the law and might cause serious international tension. Madam Chair, the proposed exception to the functional immunity enjoyed by state officials are not grounded in the general practice and opinio juris. They do not reflect the existing customary international law. The same applies to the proposed limitation of personal immunity to the troika alone, which turns counter to the significant body of practice. Therefore, an international convention is the only way to establish such new rules. Needless to say, any such convention would bind only the states that choose to become parties to it, without implication for third states. However, this is not the time to elaborate on convention on this topic. Moreover, giving the above, Israel considers that the current text and commentaries cannot serve as an appropriate basis for negotiation on a convention. Madam Chair, the precedents have shown: the adoption by the ILC of highly contested outcomes that do not properly address the serious concerns raised by Member States leads to disagreements in the Sixth Committee, a body which has a long-standing history of consensus-driven resolutions. Israel believes that the product at hand cannot be endorsed by the Committee, nor can it be deemed suitable for further action by it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Israel for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Lithuania.

Madam Chair, distinguished delegates, Lithuania recognizes the vital contribution of the International Law Commission to the codification and progressive development of international law, both of which are essential to upholding an international order based on the rule of law and international law. Lithuania emphasizes the importance of ensuring that the International Law Commission is provided with sufficient time and resources resources to effectively discharge its mandate. In this regard, we welcome the fact that despite the budgetary constraints that limited the duration of its 76th session, the Commission was able to meet for 11 weeks during its 77th session. We hope that the Commission will be allocated adequate time for its subsequent sessions, allowing it to continue its important work in the codification and progressive development of international law. On the issue of sea level rise, Lithuania fully aligns with the statement delivered by Latvia on behalf of the Baltic States. On immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Madam Chair, Lithuania welcomes the adoption on the second reading of the draft articles on immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction together with the commentaries. This marks the conclusion of an important body of work undertaken by the International Law Commission over nearly two decades. Lithuania especially welcomes the adoption of draft Article 6 and inclusion of the crime of aggression among the crimes under international law in respect of which immunity ratione materiae shall not apply. Lithuania regrets that the Commission was unable to reach consensus and resorted to a vote on this important matter. However, the provision received the support of 23 members of the Commission, compared to 21 who voted in favour of the corresponding article back in 2017. Lithuania notes with appreciation the reference in the commentary to the draft Article 6 to the case decided by the Supreme Court of Lithuania in June 2022. This case holds particular significance for Lithuania, as it concerned the tragic events of January 1991 in Vilnius, when violence by the occupying forces, still present on the territory of an independent state at the time, resulted in the death of 14 people. The Supreme Court of Lithuania found that persons responsible for committing international crimes cannot rely on functional immunity from national or international jurisdiction. even if they committed these crimes while acting as public officials. Viewed in the context of the jurisprudence of other States and the draft articles adopted by the Commission, this case further illustrates the importance of the shared commitment to ensure accountability for international crimes, reflecting what the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Claudio Grossman Gillof, aptly described as a common interest in rejecting immunity impunity, sorry. Madam Chair, furthermore, Lithuania considers that the broad range of state judicial practice cited by the Commission, together with the absence of objections to such practice by other states, confirms that the rule codified in draft Article 6 is a rule of customary international law. Lithuania supports the Commission's recommendation that the General Assembly or an international conference of plenipotentiaries consider elaborating a convention on the basis of the draft articles at an appropriate time. While many of the draft articles reflect existing rules of customary international law, Lithuania considers that a multilateral convention could provide significant added value. In particular, it could strengthen judicial and law enforcement cooperation. facilitate the effective prosecution of perpetrators of international crimes in accordance with international law, and promote greater consistency in the application of rules governing immunities across jurisdictions. Such an approach would also be consistent with the process initiated in relation to the draft articles on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. On general principles of law, Lithuania commends the Commission for the successful completion of its work on the draft conclusions on general principles of law adopted on second reading together with the commentaries. Lithuania considers it valuable that in addition to outlining the methodology for identifying general principles of law as a source of international law, the commentaries also provide a non-exhaustive list of general principles that have been identified as such. Lithuania also appreciates the clarification of the term "international courts and tribunals" in draft conclusion number 8. Madam Chair, on inclusion of a new topic in the programme of work, Lithuania positively notes 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. Masahiko Asada as Special Rapporteur. We are looking forward to further elaboration of this topic. Finally, we express our sincere appreciation to the International Law Commission for its significant work and comprehensive report. Lithuania reaffirms its unwavering support for the ILC and looks forward to continued engagement. I thank you.

Thank the distinguished representative of Lithuania for her statement. Before proceeding to the next speaker on my list, I understand that the Special Rapporteur on the topic, immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, Mr. Claudio Grossman, wishes to make remarks at this juncture, as he will be unable to attend the remainder of the debate on cluster 1. I give the floor to Mr.

Grossman.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much, everybody, for being here. As State representatives, you are principles in the international community. I would like to express my thanks to those who have addressed this previously, Dr. Koloski and Dr. Concepción Escobar Hernández. Their work has served as a valuable foundation for this project. I also thank the Secretariat of the Commission for its professionalism. Finally, I would like to thank the members of the Commission. It has been a privilege to learn from them. Finalizing the Commission's work on the topic of immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction carries tremendous significance. This topic has been before the Commission since 2007, and its timely completion is essential, not only for the credibility of the Commission, but also for demonstrating the international community's commitment to combating impunity, maintaining state sovereignty. Since my appointment, I have submitted two reports, and my responsibility has been to guide the draft articles through the Commission towards completion and to make additional proposals. The Chairperson of the Commission has already covered the topic in detail. On the basis of the comments from States that have been made here, I want to focus principally on the developments that have taken place this year. I will refer first to draft article 6, secondly to the definition of the exercise of criminal jurisdiction; thirdly, to the notification of the State of the official and other procedural safeguards; and then the proposal by the Commission concerning follow-up by the Sixth Committee. I will now jump over certain things that are in my written text. On article 6, One of the major developments in the second reading was the revision of the provision formerly known as draft article 7, now numbered anew as draft article 6, concerning crimes under international law in respect of which immunity ratione materiae shall not apply. The Commission retained the non-exhaustive list-based approach. while clarifying and expanding it through the express inclusion of three additional crimes: the crimes of aggression, slavery, and slave trade. These were added to the original list, which already included genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture, apartheid, and enforced disappearance. Their inclusion was not intended as a merely symbolic gesture. Rather, it reflected the Commission's assessment that these offenses are firmly grounded in international law and satisfy the legal criteria identified for inclusion in draft Article 6. The inclusion of the crime of aggression preserves the development of international criminal law since Nuremberg. It is important to recall that aggression is, by its very nature, a crime committed by individuals acting in an official capacity. It has been recognized as an international crime since the judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. It was included in the Commission's 1996 draft code of crimes against the peace and stability of mankind, and is listed in Article 5 of the Rome Statute. In addition, a significant number of states has incorporated the crime of aggression into their domestic criminal legislation. The comment gives an extensive account of what is involved here. The inclusion of slavery and slave trade is equally significant. It's necessary to say this: through history, slavery, slavery-like practice, and forced labor have caused immense suffering, including in situations of armed conflict and other forms of violence. Treating human beings as property and exploiting them as though they were not persons is amongst the gravest affronts to human dignity. By anchoring these crimes in long-standing treaty and customary international law, including the 1926 Labour Convention and the 1956 Supplementary Convention, The draft articles recognize that slavery and the slave trade may constitute grave international crimes in their own right, irrespective of whether they are committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. I'm now going to skip over several paragraphs that are in my written text. The Commission also identified the legal criteria to include the inclusion to include crimes within draft article 6. Firstly, the most serious crimes concerning the international community. Secondly, they are forms of conduct that give rise to individual criminal responsibility under international law. Thirdly, they are supported by a robust body treaty-based and customary norms that prohibit these acts and, in different ways, require states to prevent, suppress, or punish them. Fourthly, they are crimes which, in practice, are considered as crimes not covered by immunity rationis materiae from foreign criminal jurisdiction. the Commission draw a distinction between customary law and its progressive development. So this draft complies with these requirements. You might disagree with what the Commission says, but it is It is worth emphasizing that the Commission added this list of criteria to underscore that the list of crimes in draft Article 6 is not an exhaustive one, but at the same time, it was necessary to propose criteria establishing the fact that these could be added. From the procedural point of view, it should also be recalled that Article 6 was adopted by a vote of 23 in favor, 4 against, and 3 abstentions. On its first reading, as was indicated, Article 6 did not include the exceptions of aggression, slavery, and the slave trade. Additionally, at the first reading, there were nine votes against, and this was a roll call vote. This was not the case on the second reading. It is important to stress that even one vote against could have a qualitative effect, but we have to indicate that it is important to stress that every article 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 were adopted unanimously. And finally, Again, it must be emphasized that the whole draft was adopted without any vote against it and without any statement from members of the Commission opposing approval. So this expresses a significant degree of consensus that must be taken into account. Perhaps the procedural guarantees established would lead members to vote against without a roll call vote, but the entire draft was approved before. Then, the definition not to define the exercise of criminal jurisdiction in the text, the drafting commission decided ultimately not to include such a definition. And this is important. Particular considerations are of importance. They're all explained at length, and the article was approved without any statement al contrario. In my view, this was a founded decision. It reflects internal legal jurisdiction. In Latin America, this can only be exercised under the legal corpus, there has to be a broad definition respecting the various positions of states, regional sensitivities, and constitutional ones. International law doesn't require the same procedure everywhere. Then thirdly, preserving The balance of the draft articles is important because an overly broad definition could unsettle the careful balance between two essential objectives: protecting the sovereign equality of states and their officials from improper interference, ensuring that immunity does not facilitate impunity. Fourthly, consistency with existing international law and practice. The drafting committee also took into account the fact that key instruments in the field of immunities, including the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations both operate without a formal definition of this concept. It suggests that the best approach is to clarify the concept, for the reasons that I outlined in the commentary. And then I will just skip over further things. Notification to the State of the official, the procedural framework. Draft Article 9 addresses notification to the state of the official. This is a central safeguard, as it enables that state to receive reliable information and to decide whether or not to invoke or waive immunity. This is not an unfamiliar idea in international law. The Commission noted draft article 9 is inspired by part of the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunity of States and their Property. In essence, the state concerned must receive reliable notice before legal steps are taken against it or its representative. The Commission also was attentive to an important concern. This safeguard of notification should not hamper the administration of justice. This is extremely important when an investigation might endanger victims or witnesses, or lead to the destruction of evidence. There is an exception here, however. If there is any arrest, there must be immediate notification of this. It cannot be deferred. This approach preserves both the effectiveness of criminal proceedings and the requirement of timely notification. Concerning all the safeguards, it's not particularly specific, because the Commission improved, strengthened, and streamlined the procedural safeguards. There are three types of provisions: procedural provisions and safeguards that apply to the direct relation between the forum state and the state of the official. This concerns the process that starts with examination of immunity and results in its determination, draft Articles 8 to 13. I won't dwell on this, It has to be read very carefully. Then secondly, a second group of provisions mainly become relevant after criminal procedures have been initiated. This category consists of provisions on the transfer of proceedings, criminal proceedings, and guarantees fair treatment and due process to the official of another state. Then the third group concerns the establishment of mechanisms for facilitating consultations and settlement of any dispute. I would indicate here that there were no comments here on the fact that despite all the safeguards being relevant on Article 14, the state, the forum state, can, on its own initiative or at the request of the state of the official, offer to transfer the criminal proceedings pertaining to the home state of the state official. Is there any better way of preserving the principle of sovereign equality? And here, the official obviously has to bow to the competent authorities for prosecution in good case. I don't think I need to stress where these provisions are relevant. I will now just go on to other safeguards, particularly Article 14. It seems to me to be of sovereign importance. And then, concluding, as we plan the road ahead, two comments are relevant. One, as I mentioned before, is that the commentaries and all the draft articles were approved without any comment or vote against. Secondly, The proposal by the ILC that at the moment the General Assembly considers it to be needed may call a diplomatic conference, this is a political call. Our role is to stay clear from politics. We have to determine the legal basis. It is for the state to deal with political decisions. We haven't provided any limits, we've just provided a logical basis. Then I'd secondly like to indicate that some members in many States, certain States, referred to the progressive development and codification. These are not strictly separate concepts. There are various levels of interaction which are vital. The concept of progressive development does not just by itself mean that just saying a question exists will mean that it's there. Progressive development is that there has to be sufficient practice, state practice, particularly when it comes to Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was adopted as a standard of progressive development and became binding in many of its provisions, because progressive development was not seen by states as a way to end the conversation on the inclusion of a principle, as if progressive development were not to have any consequences. In various legal areas, obligations were established arising from progressive development. I would invite further consideration when it comes to the positions of individual states. And again, when it comes to addressing time, this has to be taken into account. In international law, one of the challenges is to ensure international intercourse while at the same time guaranteeing respect for human rights. And to assert international law provides stability in international relations. The Uruguayan jurist Eduardo Couteau from Latin America referred to the need and duty of jurists to look at a context, stressing that this is important. He's saying that lawyer which only knows about law doesn't even know about law. Allow me to enter on a personal note, finally. The Velasquez Rodriguez case was the first contentious court brought before me in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Here, the victims were object of reprisals for many years. and understandably, they could not control their pain or restrain their emotions. When the decision was going to be read, we considered the possibility of hiring a doctor for the victims, because we could have lost the case on a technicality. However, they were very calm. We learned why. because it was the first time that they were before an independent court that complied with the requirements of due process. As a consequence, whatever the result would have been, it was proof to victims and to the international community how important and relevant the rule of law is. This project has some common features with the Velasques Rodriguez case. Its impact reaches millions, tens of millions, and perhaps even hundreds of millions of people. Rejecting impunity, as well as protecting equal sovereignty by states, where this were to be rejected, this gives legitimacy to international decision making and strengthens the rule of law. Everything can be improved, however, and when a diplomatic conference is called, it is you, the states, the primary actors in the international community, who will be able to provide further norms to ensure that these values be retained and considered what you believe to be necessary.

I thank Mr. Grossman for his remarks and convey the gratitude of the Sixth Committee for his work on the topic, immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. We will now resume our list, go back to our speakers list, and the next speaker on the list is the distinguished representative of Estonia. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor. And I will give the statement in shortened version. Madam Chair, Estonia would like to express its continuing appreciation for the work of the International Law Commission and wishes to thank all the members of the Commission for their contribution. Madam Chair, Today I start with addressing the topic of immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Estonia expresses its appreciation for the Commission’s sustained and balanced work on this sensitive topic. The draft articles, together with the commentaries, constitute a good overview of customary international law and a useful document for States and their authorities to consult with. We fully agree with the general comments noting the important developments of international criminal law in defining and punishing the most serious crimes under international law, defining the principle of accountability as one of its constituent elements and consolidating the fight against impunity as a goal of the international community. We appreciate the clarification that the draft articles do not affect the rights and obligations of States in relation to the jurisdiction of international criminal courts and tribunals established and operating under specific agreements. This is important to ensure that the draft articles do not impair the achievements of such special legal regimes. Estonia has long emphasized that there can be no impunity for the most serious international crimes. Therefore, we continue to support the inclusion of the list of the crimes to which impunity does not apply and welcome the list formulated in draft article 6. We reiterate our support for the inclusion of the crime of aggression to the list. We appreciate the explanation in the commentary that although the draft article 6 concerns the immunity from the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction ratione materiae, This does not mean that the Troika can enjoy absolute immunity from criminal jurisdiction, because Charta Article 6 is applicable to a former head of state, a former head of government, or a former minister for foreign affairs, for the acts performed in an official capacity during their period of office. We would also like to emphasize the importance of including procedural safeguards to provide clarity for the communication between relevant States and to ensure the protection of the rights of the persons concerned. Turning to the topic, other decisions and conclusions, Estonia welcomes the inclusion of the identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law in Commission's programme of work. We would also like to share some thought about the revised syllabus on extraterritorial jurisdiction. Estonia attaches particular importance to the clear and consistently applied general international rules governing relations between States. In our view, the Commission’s work could help to build a shared understanding of the grounds and limits of jurisdiction, strengthen legal certainty, and support cooperation between States. Regarding the possible approaches to the work, We favour the intermediate approach under which the Commission could produce a set of general draft provisions on the principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction, combining a general framework with considerations of specific fields to be agreed upon during its substantive work. This approach would support coherency, consistency and predictability, while allowing the Commission to account for the differences in sectoral practice. This approach builds on the 2006 proposal. The outline presented at that time already combined general principles, rules on the exercise of jurisdiction and its limitations, with the provisions addressing specific fields of law. So, in conclusion, we support the continuing work on extraterritorial jurisdiction, building on the 2006 proposal, while keeping the project focused and manageable. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Estonia for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Croatia.

Madam Chair, distinguished colleagues, I will present a shortened version of the statement. At the outset, Croatia would like to thank the Chair of the International Law Commission, Mr. Andreas Mavrommianis, for the comprehensive introduction of the report of the Commission. We also extend our appreciation to all members of the Commission, the Special Rapporteurs, and Secretariat for their dedicated work. Croatia reaffirms its support for the ILC. We attach great importance to the work of the ILC and its continued dialogue with the Sixth Committee. Beginning with the topic immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, we would like to thank Mr. Claudio Grosman-Gürov and the previous Special Rapporteurs who worked on this topic and their tremendous efforts in producing the reports that contributed to these draft articles. We also congratulate the Commission on the adoption on second reading of the full set of 17 draft articles with commentaries. We are particularly pleased that the draft articles in their final form also include the crime of aggression as one of the exceptions to the immunity ratione materiae listed in draft article 6. As we have indicated before, this matter is of great importance to Croatia, which suffered aggression during the 1990s. As an umbrella crime, aggression is often accompanied by numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity attributed to the leadership, and the consequences of all of these severe crimes burden societies for decades. We know this too well ourselves. Considering the almost two decades long but meticulous and fruitful process of drafting, whether this topic become elaborated in the future in form of a convention, we hope that even these draft articles will lead to more legal certainty and clarity on this sensitive issue. Madam Chair, Croatia wishes to thank the International Law Commission, in particular the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vasquez Bermudez, for the work carried out on the topic of general principles of law. Regarding draft conclusion 11, we note that it rightly affirms that there is no hierarchy between general principles of law and treaties or customary international law. Where treaties or customary international law are applied first, this follows from lex specialis, not from hierarchy. Croatia takes note of the draft conclusions and will follow with interest their reception in future practice. With regard to the other decisions and conclusions of the Commission, Croatia welcomes the inclusion of the new topic "Identification and legal consequences of erga omnes obligations in international law" into the Commission's programme of work. Croatia takes note of the inclusion of the new topic, the right to regulate in international investment law, in the long-term programme of work. With regard to this new topic, Croatia recommends that its substantive consideration be deferred to a later stage, especially since the complex issues surrounding international investment law are currently being actively addressed and debated within UNCITRAL. Finally, the topic of sea level rise in relation to international law remains one of the most pressing and multi-phased issues of the international community. We therefore think it is important to keep this topic alive in various multilateral fora, including the UN General Assembly. In relation to the subtopic of protection of persons affected by sea level rise, it is necessary to remain cautious the dangers that stem from sea level rise consequences. The resulting deterioration of living conditions impacts the safety and well-being of affected populations and may also contribute to increased migratory pressures. In that sense, as the final report pointed out, it is key to have in focus the principle of protection of human dignity, guiding the actions to be taken in relation to the protection of these persons. Additionally, addressing this aspect of sea level rise will certainly require international cooperation in the development of practical solutions, and such cooperation has the potential to further contribute to the protection of human dignity. Finally, anchoring the discussions and work on potential future instruments for protection of persons affected by sea level rise firmly in the framework of international law will ensure that the overarching principles of legal stability, certainty, and predictability are preserved. As a coastal state, we are particularly aware of the gravity of sea level rise, and we will follow with interest the future developments regarding this topic. I thank you for your attention.

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

Thank you, Chair. Indonesia extends its appreciation to the ILC, Mr. Martiņš Pāperskis, as the chair of the 77th session, and its members for their continued contribution to the codification and progressive development of international law. We welcome the progress achieved during its 77th session, including the completion of its work on State official immunity and general principles of law. For Indonesia, the strength of international law must not stop in the development of new rules. It needs to be manifested in their consistent application, universal legitimacy, and respect for the sovereign equality of States, particularly amid growing global challenges. Allow me to address three substantive issues, followed by some observations on the Commission work. First, on sea level rise in relations to international law. In initial plots, the adoption of the UN Declaration on Sea Level Rise through resolution A/81/L3 a couple of weeks ago. We also commend the completion of the Commission study group and its comprehensive examination of the interrelated questions of the Law of the Sea, statehood, and protection of persons affected by sea level rise. As underscored by our Foreign Minister last September, sea level rise must not create legal uncertainty. UNCLOS 1982 remains the fundamental legal framework governing the oceans, including sea level rise. Hence, changes caused by the sea level rise should not diminish lawfully established baselines, maritime entitlements, and outer limits. Building on the continued development of deliberations on this issue, which will further address protection of persons affected by sea level rise, my delegation wishes to emphasize the following considerations. Human dignity and the protection of affected communities must remain at the heart of our legal response. Behind every threatened coastline are people whose homes, livelihoods, culture, and fundamental rights are at risk. Indonesia underscores that States bear primary responsibility to protect persons within their jurisdiction, complemented by international cooperation, particularly where national capacities are limited. In this regard, Indonesia calls for a stronger international cooperation on climate finance, technology transfer, and capacity building, consistent with the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement. Second, on immunity of State officials. Indonesia acknowledges the Commission's completion of the second reading of the draft articles and appreciates the sustained efforts of the Special Rapporteurs and members of the Commission. This critical issue requires a careful balance between combating impunity for the gravest international crimes and respecting the sovereign equality of States. Indonesia reaffirms that immunity is not intended to justify impunity. At the same time, immunity constitutes an important safeguard for effective sovereign state functions and the stability of international relations. In this regard, we underline that distinctions between immunity rationis personae and immunity rationis materiae must be preserved. Their respective legal foundations, scope, and consequences cannot be treated interchangeably. Equally important, limitations and exceptions to immunity must be firmly grounded in international law. While acknowledging the Commission's work on draft Article 6, Indonesia emphasized the need to distinguish existing customary law from its progressive development. Combating impunity must not validate or rationalize selective jurisdiction, politically motivated proceedings, or interference in the sovereign functions of states. Regarding a future convention, Indonesia underscores that the process must be member state driven. inclusive and based on broad agreement. My delegation will carefully examine the draft text, taking into account all relevant legal considerations. Third, on general principles of law. Indonesia welcomes the adoption on second reading of the draft conclusions on general principles of law, which constitute an important contribution to clarifying Article 38, paragraph 1c of the ICJ Statute. We are of the view that general principles of law must be identified through representative methodologies that encompasses diverse legal traditions, regions, and national legal systems, including those of developing countries. General principles of law should also reinforce, rather than circumvent, the established source and rules of international law. Their application must respect the role of treaties and customary international law. International courts and tribunals play an important role in identifying and applying international law. Nevertheless, judicial reasoning must not substitute for a rigorous identification of applicable legal rules and principles. We therefore believe that the draft conclusions are a valuable reference for state practice, while underscoring the importance of their careful and context-sensitive application. Finally, on other decisions and conclusions of the Commission, Indonesia welcomes the Commission's continued attention to emerging and complex legal questions, including due diligence, piracy and armed robbery at sea, and the identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes. We encourage the Commission to maintain a clear distinction between codification and progressive development, and to give appropriate weight to state practice, especially from developing countries and different legal traditions. Indonesia remains committed to supporting the Commission’s work and engaging constructively with all delegations. Our shared objective must be an international legal order that is not only more predictable, but also more just, and not only more ambitious, but consistently upheld by all States. Thank you very much, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Indonesia, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cyprus.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Allow me, on behalf of the Republic of Cyprus, to express our gratitude to the ILC Chair, Dr. Andreas Mavroyiannis, and to all members of the Commission and the Special Rapporteurs for their commendable work. For your recommendation, this is an abridged version of the Cyprus statement, the full text of which will be submitted for publication. Cyprus welcomes the inclusion of the new topic identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law in the Commission's program of work. And we look forward to a study addressing inter alia the conceptual distinctions between obligations or erga omnes and peremptory norms of international law. as well as the invocation of state responsibility in this context. My delegation wishes firstly to comment on sea level rise in relation to international law of last year's report, and on the possible ways forward recommended therein, also in light of developments since its issuance. The severe consequences of climate-induced sea level rise on states have been underscored by the recent advisory opinions, and were further addressed by the international community. Importantly, the General Assembly this year adopted a landmark resolution welcoming the ICJ's findings and calling upon all states to comply with their obligations to ensure the protection of the climate system. In addition, the recent adoption by consensus of the first ever UN declaration on sea level rise reflects the concerns shared by all states regarding the impacts of sea level rise. With regard to the possible ways forward identified by the ILC, Cyprus reiterates that the existing law of the sea framework can effectively address sea level rise through a contemporary interpretation that considers the fundamental principles of international law, including the preservation of existing rights and legal stability, certainty, and predictability, as per paragraph 58A of the final report. This approach is reinforced by the advisory opinions, both of the ICJ and ITLOS, which emphasize the fundamental importance of upholding UNCLOS, the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out and whose provisions reflect customary international law. As underscored by all states in the UN Declaration on Sea Level Rise. Legal stability and certainty are vital for the preservation of the rights of states, including as to the preservation of their baselines and maritime zones, the continuity of statehood, and international peace and security. The UN declaration took note of the findings of the ICJ's advisory opinion and of the ILC's final report, and further affirmed that states can maintain their maritime zones once established in accordance with UNCLOS in the face of physical changes resulting from sea level rise without prejudice to their ability to update them. Accordingly, Cyprus reiterates that UNCLOS does not require states to update baselines on nautical charts due to sea level rise, as confirmed by the ICJ in paragraph 362 of its advisory opinion. In light of the overwhelming consensus in state practice, and especially in light of the ICJ advisory opinion, the General Assembly resolution, and the UN declaration on sea level rise, all of which followed the ILC's final report on sea level rise, Cyprus is of the view that there is no necessity of either an interpretive statement or a subsequent agreement regarding the preservation of baselines and maritime zones as suggested. On the doctrine of statehood, Cyprus would like to refer to the ICJ's advisory opinion and the relevant UN General Assembly resolution, as well as the UN Declaration on Sea Level Rise, which affirm that once a state is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood. Cyprus also welcomes the Study Group’s conclusion that states may take all necessary measures in order to preserve their statehood, sovereignty, and maritime entitlements. Finally, Cyprus considers that the ILC’s final report, as well as the subsequent developments, provide a sufficient basis for addressing the issue of continuity of statehood and the preservation of maritime entitlements. However, The protection of persons affected by sea level rise and the application of the existing legal framework in this context remain unresolved. Against this backdrop, Cyprus supports the view expressed by the Alliance of Small Island States that discussions should now focus on the rights and protection of persons affected by sea level rise. May I now turn to the Commission's work at the 77th session, and my delegation will now address general principles of law. We thank the Special Rapporteur for his valuable contribution to the Commission's work and his work on the draft conclusions. We welcome the adoption by the Commission of the entire set of 12 draft conclusions and their commentaries. Cyprus aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union and wishes to further highlight the following points. We welcome the adoption of Draft Conclusion 11, which recognizes the general principles of law as an autonomous source of international law and establishes no hierarchy among the principal sources in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Statute of the ICJ. Cyprus supports the view that the same norm can coexist in different sources of international law. In that context, general principles of law can be applied independently or simultaneously with other rules of international law derived from treaties or custom to interpret or complement them. Such parallel existence, however, should not blur the conceptual distinction between the general principles of law and customary international law, and thus, we appreciate the effort made by the Commission to clarify that distinction in the draft commentaries. In this regard, Cyprus also welcomes the Commission's decision not to address the question regarding the application of the persistent objector doctrine to general principles of law, particularly in view of the limited state practice and jurisprudence. We would like to reiterate that the possible application of the persistent objector to general principles of law has no basis in state practice or in the jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals, and would unnecessarily risk conflating two distinct sources of international law, which are subject to different criteria for their identification. We conclude our intervention by congratulating again the ILC for its excellent work, and we look forward to continued constructive dialogue. I thank you for your attention.

I thank the distinguished representative of Cyprus for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Brazil.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Brazil thanks the Chair of the International Law Commission for the report. And we express our appreciation to the members of the Commission for their continued contribution to the codification and progressive development of international law. We welcome that the Commission was able to meet for the full duration of its session this year, as mandated by the General Assembly. The comprehensive report before us and successful conclusion of work on important topics demonstrate the value of providing the Commission with sufficient time and resources to discharge its mandate. The full duration of its sessions should continue to be preserved in the years ahead. At a time when international law faces significant challenges, the work of the Commission remains particularly relevant. Brazil values the dialogue between the Sixth Committee and the ILC, which helps ensure that the Commission’s outputs are both legally sound and politically viable. Madam Chair, Brazil welcomes the adoption on second reading of the draft articles, immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. We express our appreciation to the Special Rapporteur and to all Commission members for their efforts to bring this sensitive topic to completion. We commend the Commission for concluding its work on part four of the draft articles on procedural safeguards. They are essential to prevent abusive or politically motivated exercise of criminal jurisdiction, while preserving accountability. Brazil also welcomes the Commission's resolution of the complex question of exceptions to immunity ratione materiae. Identifying the crimes under international law in which respect of which such immunity shall not apply provides greater legal certainty and predictability. This provision also sends an important message. Immunity from jurisdiction should not mean impunity for the most serious international crimes. as the ICJ emphasized in the arrest warrant case. We note that the Commission ultimately resorted to a vote on this provision, departing from its practice of decision-making by consensus. Brazil attaches great importance to the Commission's tradition of consensus. Voting should remain exceptional. At the same time, consensus cannot become an indefinite obstacle to progress, nor should its absence prevent the Commission from completing its work on a topic of such importance. This outcome may also be seen as an invitation for political guidance from the General Assembly on the way forward. Brazil concurs with the Commission's recommendations on the elaboration of a convention on the basis of the draft articles. Future negotiations should build on the Commission's work, particularly the balance achieved between state sovereignty and the fight against impunity. On the commentaries to the draft articles, we note that the case cited predominantly originate from developed countries. This limits the extent to which they reflect the diversity of state practice. Brazil encourages the Commission to draw on a more balanced range of national judicial decisions and legislation, reflecting different regions and legal systems. Madam Chair, turning to the topic of general principles of law, Brazil thanks the Special Rapporteur and the members of the Commission for their work and commends the adoption of the draft conclusions on second reading. Brazil understands that the principles of international law are reflected in treaty and customary law. While acknowledging the divergent views among states and among members of the Commission on this topic, my delegation would not be opposed in principle to considering them as general principles of law, given their distinctive nature and their interpretative and systemic value. General principles of law perform a crucial function in international law, whether derived from national legal systems or formed within the international legal system, they contribute to its cohesion and coherence. As the Brazilian jurist and former judge of the International Court of Justice, Antonio Augusto Cansado Trindade, once observed, "Without principles, there is truly no legal system." Brazil supports the Commission's recommendation that the draft conclusions and commentaries be taken note of by the General Assembly and annexed to a future resolution. The draft conclusions provide useful guidance on the identification and application of general principles of law, and are likely to serve as an important point of reference for states, international courts and tribunals, and other practitioners of international law. General principles not only guide interpretation and application of other rules of international law. As recognized by the Commission, they may also inform and in some cases help determine the content of customary international law. We particularly appreciate the reference in the report to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. This example illustrates how general principles may shape the development and application of international law. This brings us to another topic under this cluster, sea level rise. Brazil attaches particular importance to this issue and reiterates its appreciation to the members of the study group for their work on this complex and consequential topic. As Brazil has emphasized in previous debates, the legal challenges arising from sea level rise must be addressed in accordance with the fundamental principles of sovereign equality, self-determination, non-intervention, and international cooperation. Given the close relation between sea level rise and climate change, Brazil also highlights the importance of the principles of equity and of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. As affirmed by the ICJ in its advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change, the CBDRRC is a core guiding principle for the implementation of climate treaties. It ensures that equitable distribution of burdens and acknowledges the historical responsibility of developed states, in particular for climate finance. Brazil notes with regret that despite the efforts of a significant number of delegations, it was not possible to reflect in the High-Level Declaration on Sea Level Rise an explicit reference to the principle of CBDRRC. This omission does not diminish this principle's status as a foundational principle of international environmental law, nor does it weaken Brazil's commitment to uphold it in all relevant fora. We trust that future deliberations will allow for more comprehensive and equitable articulation of the responsibilities at stake. Brazil reiterates the views it has expressed in previous years on questions relating to the law of the sea, statehood, and the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. Those views are based on the understanding that the relevant legal framework already exists, and the challenge lies in applying it to specific circumstances arising from sea level rise. In that regard, general principles of law may offer valuable guidance. Madam Chair, turning to other decisions, Brazil welcomes the initiative to update the study plan on extraterritorial jurisdiction, taking into account the significant legal developments that have taken place since the topic was first included in the Commission's long-term program of work. This topic is both timely and important, given the growing recourse to extraterritorial jurisdiction. We consider promising the possibility of a staggered approach, combining the identification of general principles with the examination of sector-specific issues. We also welcome the emphasis placed on the views of States in the Sixth Committee as an essential element in determining the future scope and direction on this topic. In conclusion, Brazil thanks the International Law Commission for another productive session and reaffirms its strong support for its mandate. We look forward to continuing our engagement with the Commission and with all delegations in advancing the development of international law on the basis of dialogue, inclusiveness, and a firm commitment to the fundamental principles of the international legal order. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.

Madam Chair, as I begin my statement on the report of the International Law Commission.

I would like to speak about the organization of work of the Sixth Committee. As we know, at the beginning of the session, a proposal was made to limit delegations' speaking time. including for statements on the ILC report, to seven minutes. My delegation opposed this idea, pointing to the unique mandate of the Sixth Committee and the need to ensure a complete, thorough, and well-reasoned discussion of the complex legal issues that are addressed in the Commission’s reports. This time restriction is all the more inappropriate Given the fact that the report sessions are gathered into clusters, with all due respect to you, Madam Chair, and to other delegations, commenting on sea level rise and immunities of state officials and principles of law and all the other decisions of the Commission in just seven minutes or even 15 minutes would be impossible. So I ask that you understand this position. which I'm sure is shared by many delegations that have a great deal to say about these extremely important topics.

Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the Chair of the ILC, Mr. Mavroyiannis, for presenting the outcomes of the ILC 77th session. To begin with, sea level rise in relation to international law, in light of the final report of the ILC's study group presented at the 2025 session. Sea level rise is a global phenomenon, although its effects can be felt in various regions to varying degrees. The consideration of this topic concerns sensitive issues, which makes it especially important to take meticulous account of the positions of all states. The mandate established did not envisage identifying a cause and effect relationship underlying this phenomenon or limiting analysis solely to the consequences of human activity, rather than as a natural phenomenon. The United States has widely varying approaches toward this topic. With regard to law of the sea, we agree with those who support preserving the integrity of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. Its provisions must be interpreted together with other treaty rules and rules of customary law. We do not support dismissing the principle that land dominates the sea, which is a rule of customary law. It's important to understand that maritime entitlements derive not from land. in and of itself, from the sovereignty exercised by states over their own territory, which includes, inter alia, the state's coastline. As a general rule, UNCLOS provides for the use of normal baselines and, under certain conditions, of straight baselines, and states often combine those two methods. The Convention does not contain any prescriptive time frames after which Parties to the Convention must review the position of their normal or straight baselines. Despite the constant and unavoidable changes in the configuration of these coastlines, we have not seen any established practice emerge under which states would regularly have to review the baselines that they have drawn up. However, we find it difficult to agree with the assertion that the Convention contains no obligations at all in this regard. This position is difficult to reconcile with the criteria for drawing baselines set out in the Convention in Articles 5 to 7 and 10, as well as the principle of good faith implementation of international treaties. As for the possibility of maintaining baselines and other outer limits of maritime zones in the context of sea level rise, there is no such rule of customary international law at this point, and that is because The relevant practice has not been recognized as legal norms, and the practice in this area remains inadequate. As for the possibility of maintaining baselines and maritime limits, the study group has referred to the principles of legal stability and certainty. We believe that the established interpretation of these principles in the context under consideration means that the mechanism for determining limits of maritime zones must be clear and stable and be based upon the uniform application of legal norms, but this does not necessarily mean the limits themselves must remain the same. The interpretation proposed by the study group to maintain the limits of maritime zones could be an example of the present development of international law in the quest for a practically acceptable solution. Of course, this would be on the understanding that it would apply not only to sea level rise, but also to other natural phenomena that might raise similar questions. As for the question of statehood, here, the guideline should be the equality of all sovereign states and the right of states to maintain their existence. The principle of international cooperation is especially important, especially when establishing sui generis arrangements. to protect the full statehood of affected states. Section 5 of the study group's final report lays out possible further steps. It rightly identifies the possibility of agreeing on an interpretation of existing instruments, first and foremost, UNCLOS. We believe that this kind of interpretation would be based on, or should be based on, broad consensus, otherwise its binding force would be highly questionable. Madam Chair, now I will turn to the topic of the immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. The Commission’s draft articles contain valuable elements that deserve to be reflected in the relevant convention, and we thank the Special Rapporteur for taking into account a number of Russia’s comments on certain provisions of the draft articles and the commentaries to them. At the same time, overall, we must note that The draft articles adopted on second reading give rise to more concern than satisfaction. We have repeatedly expressed our concern about the path the Commission's work on this topic took at a certain point in its development. Between Commission members and States in the Sixth Committee, there were lengthy debates, especially about the key article number 6. which concerns the purported exceptions to the functional immunity of State officials. Up until the last moment, we hoped that these discussions would persuade Special Rapporteur Grossman of the need to correct certain provisions, or at least to ensure that the commentaries accurately portrayed the situation. However, the firm positions of many countries, including our position, were ignored. In the end, the entire set of 17 draft articles with their commentaries was adopted by the Commission without consensus. The use of two votes in May, the last one being in May this year, during the preparation of the draft articles could establish a very negative and unnecessary precedent. I will not waste time repeating the detailed comments that we made during previous sessions, but I will focus on the main points. Russia remains firmly committed to maintaining the institution of immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction without any exception. But the draft appears to have as one of its main goals the formulation of so-called exceptions to immunity. Attempts to present such exceptions as rules of existing customary law do not stand up to legal scrutiny. The state practice mentioned in the commentary to Article 6, in fact, reflects the position of only a small group of countries. These judicial decisions do not establish a new rule of international law; instead, they are examples of violations of existing rules. At the same time, the practice of the overwhelming majority of states is being entirely ignored, as is the lack of judicial proceedings in those states that would confirm the existence of exceptions to immunity. This short-sighted decision on the part of the Commission on this article is disappointing. Accepting exceptions to immunity would mean legitimizing politically motivated prosecutions as well as abuses of the criminal justice system. In addition, practice shows that such prosecutions make no contribution at all to the so-called fight against impunity and would always lead to deterioration in international relations. Our country is not alone in this position. Last year, I already spoke about the bilateral agreements Russia had concluded with a number of countries to guarantee compliance with international legal rules about immunity. Some of these agreements have already entered into force and are being applied. The UN Secretariat received a joint declaration signed by Russia and China this year on compliance with rules concerning the immunity of state officials and strengthening the mutual protection of citizens against abuses in criminal justice systems. It reflects the parties' belief that international rules on immunity must always be complied with by all states, Any measure that violates these violations violates the principle of the sovereign equality of States and may contribute to an escalation of tension. Violations of international law with regard to immunity entail international responsibility and provide grounds for taking countermeasures. I would like to once again state, in the clearest possible terms, that States insisting on the existence of exceptions to immunity are essentially declaring their willingness to violate the immunity of foreign state officials. These states cannot, therefore, expect their own officials' immunity to be respected, and must be prepared to bear responsibility for their violations. This also applies to cases when immunity is violated not by an individual state, but by a multilateral body established by states, such as the so-called International Criminal Court. Madam Chair, Russia also has many questions about other provisions of this draft articles. For example, we disagree with the strict limitation of the category of persons entitled to personal immunity to the traditional troika. As for part four of the draft articles, we believe that its provisions represent the progressive development of international law, and they are useful only as guiding principles. In light of all of this, the Russian Federation believes that the draft articles adopted by the ILC in their current form cannot serve as an appropriate basis for an international convention. But in principle, a convention is needed on this topic. This convention could be achieved if it were based on a commitment to consensus, based on existing rules of international law. States wanting to introduce new provisions are free to do so in their relations with each other. without imposing them on other States. Therefore, we propose that in its resolution on this topic, the General Assembly should allow States enough time to study the draft articles and to submit comments on them. In view of established practice, it would be reasonable to postpone further steps and return to this issue in a few years to allow for a comprehensive exchange of views. Madam Chair, we have carefully read the final version of the Commission’s draft conclusions on general principles of law, as well as the commentaries, and our reaction to them is a mixed one-on-one hand, Special Rapporteur and the Commission as a whole have undertaken extensive and substantial work. On the other hand, this work has revealed a large number of internal contradictions that appear to be inherent to the concept of general principles of law, which the Commission has, we believe, not yet been able to resolve. For example, we once again have doubts about the concept of transposition of general principles from national legal systems to the international legal system. We agree with the ILC that such transposition does not require a formalized procedure. and that it does not occur automatically either. However, the proposition that establishing the compatibility of a principle with the international legal system is sufficient to confirm that transposition has happened does not strike us as very convincing. Objective compatibility alone is clearly not enough. Some type of expression of the will of states is also necessary. As for the concept of general principles of law that may emerge within the international legal system itself, this remains a controversial one, but we are open to further discussion on this topic. In this context, it is also to note that the Russian legal tradition has historically placed great importance on the principles of international law. in the sense in which that term is used in the well-known 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law. Unfortunately, the ILC's materials have not clarified for us the relationship between these principles and the concept of general principles of law. We believe that at this stage, the General Assembly ought to take note of the Commission's conclusions. However, it would be appropriate for the Commission itself to revisit this topic in five or 10 years and reconsider it in light of relevant practice. Madam Chair, a few words about the ILC's other decisions and the organization of its work.

We've noted the inclusion in the.

Program of work of the Commission of the topic of erga omnes obligations, and we will follow its development with keen interest. It's important to maintain a balance between recognizing the objective existence of such obligations and avoiding the undesirable practice of invoking them in bad faith. They are too often invoked as a procedural pretext for politicized judicial or other proceedings that are not related to resolving genuine interstate disputes. We thank Mr. Mario Oyarzabal for preparing the revised plan on the topic of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Given the increasing use by individual states and groups of states of unilateral coercive measures, including so-called secondary sanctions that are imposed in violation of the UN Charter, we believe this topic is timely and deserves the Commission's close attention. As for the inclusion of a new topic in the program of work, that is the right to regulate international investment law, this is a quite interesting topic. And we would suggest adopting a very cautious approach and taking into account the experience of bodies that already are working on this topic. For example, the UN Commission on International Trade Law, UNCITRAL, when defining its mandate in this area, deliberately refrained from developing universal substantive rules. The key factor in consideration was that substantive standards are agreed upon at the bilateral level and that states do not need a uniform approach. A preliminary examination of the topic refers to UNCTRAL's work on possible reform of the investor-state dispute settlement system through the establishment of a multilateral investment court. However, this is simply a proposal by certain delegations, and we have not yet reached consensus in this regard. Therefore, this topic requires further discussion taking into account the work of the relevant organizations. Overall, with regard to the ILC’s organization of work, we are pleased to note that this year it was able to return to its regular schedule. Nevertheless, the issue of the overloaded programme of work remains unresolved. There is a clear trend that is emerging: the list of topics in the long-term and current programmes of work of the ILC growing every year. Over the past five years, there have been seven topics transferred from the long-term to the current program, while six new topics have been added to the long-term program. Historically, the ILC's effectiveness has been determined not by the number of topics it addresses, but by the depth of its examination of them. We call for a temporary suspension of the practice of transferring topics to the current program of work every year. This approach would make it possible to shorten the duration of sessions, in the event of renewed financial problems without compromising the topics that are under consideration already. Furthermore, it's clear that the influx of new topics means that speed becomes the overriding priority, and this has a negative effect on the quality of the final outputs of the Commission and on achieving consensus. We therefore call on the Commission to exercise restraint and to follow the practice of reaching compromise solutions. Madam Chair. Resolution 80/295, the General Assembly proclaimed 2028 to be the International Year of International Law. In Turkmenistan, one of the few states that observes true and not sham neutrality, a global forum on international law will take place. Russia views this forum with great interest. We believe that the Sixth Committee and the ILC have matters to consider to prepare for this event. We call on the Commission to consider during its 2027-2028 sessions how it might contribute to this initiative. We propose taking a new look at existing practice and the codification and present development of international law. Are we doing everything the right way? Why do certain draft articles quickly become conventions while others languish for years? Is it time to revisit the Commission's longstanding work, such as its articles on state responsibility, diplomatic protection, and the responsibility of international organizations? Should they be updated, reconsidered, and revitalized? I propose that the Commission should devote time and attention to these and other important issues.

Thank you for your attention.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of The Gambia. You have the floor, ma'am.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Gambia aligns with the statement delivered by the distinguished representative of Cameroon, speaking on behalf of the African Group, and wish to make the following remarks in its national capacity. We thank the International Law Commission for its report and commend the Chair of the Commission, the Bureau, and the Special Rapporteurs for their dedication towards the codification and progressive development of international law, as set out in the ILC’s 1947 Statute, derived from Article 13(1) of the United Nations Charter. In this spirit, we continue to recall the important efforts of the Commission in the contemporary development of the present multilateral system. The Gambia notes that the report of the International Law Commission constitutes special importance and development in international law. First, on the substantive issues to address on cluster one, on sea level rise in relation to international law, The Gambia wishes to clearly express its support to the study group's final report adopted by the commission last year, which has been instrumental in providing the requisite analysis in the evolution of rules governing sea level rise. As a low-lying coastal country, The Gambia is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise, coastal erosion, flooding, and saltwater intrusion. These impacts increasingly threaten coastal communities, infrastructure, tourism, agriculture, fisheries, and livelihoods. We welcome and endorse the United Nations Declaration on Sea Level Rise adopted in September this year and view it as complementary to the findings of the study group. To The Gambia, this declaration is an important expression of global solidarity and a renewed commitment to addressing one of the defining challenges facing vulnerable coastal and low-lying countries. And as such, we acknowledge that maritime zones and baselines, particularly EEZs, once established in accordance with the principles set out in the UNCLOS, should be maintained and remain unaffected by physical changes resulting from sea level rise. We view this as essential in maintaining the natural rights of States to their resources and uphold the territorial integrity of States. We welcome the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion on the obligations of States in respect of climate change, which provided legal clarity on issues related to sea level rise, particularly also on the continuity of statehood, as well as the sovereignty, sovereign rights, and responsibilities of States consistent with international law. We also note that the United Nations Human Rights Council affirmed that climate change related sea level rise is, quote, a serious threat to the full and effective enjoyment of human rights, including inter alia, the rights of all peoples to self-determination, the rights to life, health, and adequate standard of living, including food, water, sanitation, and housing, and the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. While we take note of the Commission's report regarding the absence of a comprehensive, dedicated legal framework addressing sea level rise, We emphasize the need for States to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights in addressing the protection of persons affected. We continue to maintain that persons affected by sea level rise remain right holders, and we look forward to dedicated commitments of the study group's findings and the implementation of the declaration adopted this year. On immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, the Gambia thanks Special Rapporteur Claudio Grossman Gullo for his efforts and the Commission for its progress in this important topic and its completion on second reading. The Gambia remains committed to the fight against impunity and attaches great importance to the substantial role of the Commission. We take note of the delicate and complex nature of the immunities topic, and we know that the key challenge in this process is the need to strike a balance between the foundational principles of sovereign equality of states, of which immunity is derived, and the fight against impunity by ensuring accountability for crimes of international concern. The Gambia therefore notes the provisions on draft article 6 detailing the grounds of exception for which immunity does not apply. As others indicated, we are also of the considered view that Article 6 includes progressive development of international law. The Gambia welcomes the Commission’s codification of procedural safeguards, including notification, consultation and review. These safeguards are essential to preventing abuse and ensuring that the draft articles are applied consistently with their object and purpose. We support the application of rigorous thresholds informed by international criminal practice when determining whether sufficient grounds exist to override immunity in cases involving serious crimes. My delegation considers that the draft articles reflect a shared understanding of the applicable rules of international law. We also take note of the Commission's recommendation that at an appropriate stage, the draft articles are to be considered to serve as a basis for future treaty negotiations. The Gambia maintains that as the General Assembly deliberates on such proposition in the future, States should continue to harness the clarity of the draft articles regarding the respective rights and duties of forum States while preserving the principles of sovereign equality and the rules governing accountability of serious crimes in accordance with applicable rules of international law. We further commend the Commission on retaining genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in the text as well. The Gambia also particularly welcomes the inclusion of slavery and the slave trade amongst the crimes for which immunity does not apply, highlighting the gravity of the crime. The inclusion, we believe, will contribute positively to the proposal submitted for the recognition of slavery and slave trading as crimes against humanity in the ongoing process for the negotiation of a future convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. On general principles of law, the Gambi takes note of the considerable strides made by the Commission on the topic of general principles of law and notes the adoption on second reading of the 12 draft conclusions and recommendations. We thank Ambassador Bemudes for his work on this important topic. We note that the study builds on the Commission's earlier work on the sources of international law, including its 2018 conclusions on identifying customary international law. We further note that the conclusion seeks to clarify the practice relating to general principles of law under Article 38(1) of the Statute of the ICJ, which directs the Court when resolving disputes between States to apply the general principles of law. The Gambia considers it essential that the identification of general principles of law reflects the legal traditions and systems of the world. Any framework adopted should promote geographical and substantive diversity and ensure equitable consideration of the different legal systems represented within the international community. We further urge that the applicability of the general principles of law be subject to the participation of developing countries, including Africa, ensuring that the identification is transparent, consistent, inclusive, and representative. We also value the fact that the conclusions of the comments contain methodological approach to identify general principles of law derived from national legal system. And we commend that general principles of law can ensure consistency in the international legal system, and therefore its consideration is vital. The Gambia also welcomes the inclusion of the topics related to the identification and legal consequences of obligation erga omnes into the programme of work of the International Law Commission and looks forward to the Commission’s deliberations. In conclusion, The Gambia reaffirms its support to the International Law Commission in the codification and progressive development of international law and encourages the requisite support towards the dispensation of the Commission’s important mandate as stipulated under the UN Charter. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of The Gambia for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States of America. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I begin my remarks, I want to thank the Bureau of the Committee and the Secretariat for commemorating Judge Stephen Schwebel at the outset of our session. Judge Schwebel was born here in New York City, and his passion for international law was first spurred during high school through a United Nations conference for youth. His accomplishments as a jurist are too many to mention here, but of course include being president and vice president of the ICJ, serving on numerous tribunals, working as an attorney at my own offices of the State Department legal advisor, and teaching at Harvard Law and Johns Hopkins. We are so fortunate to have his example and legacy. Turning to today's topic, I will deliver an abbreviated version of our remarks. Our full statement will be submitted for the record. and touch on three general areas: sea level rise, immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, and general principles of law. While the United States continues to have broad concerns about the work of the ILC, in particular its increasing tendency to blur the line between codification and progressive development despite an absence of sufficient or even consistent State practice, it remains the case that the United States has strong views about the topics on the Commission’s programme of work. I am grateful for the opportunity to express those here. On the topic of sea level rise, the United States notes the High-Level Declaration on Sea Level Rise adopted by consensus. We join others in supporting the declaration’s efforts to provide for stability of maritime zones. As noted in our explanation of position, the declaration includes no new legal principle on statehood; rather, it restates the existing general presumption of the continuity of statehood and the rights and responsibilities that flow from it. We note last year's ILC resolution invited states, without setting a precedent, to reflect on the final report of the study group on sea level rise and express any further views on the legal aspects of this topic. We emphasize that this invitation was exceptional. Nonetheless, we repeat two points we raised last year. First, any solution relating to sea level rise must be consistent with customary state practice and treaty law of the sea. We appreciate the efforts of the ILC and study group to identify an approach grounded in the text of the Law of the Sea Convention. The United States will work with other countries toward the goal of lawfully establishing and maintaining baselines and maritime zone limits, and will not challenge such baselines and maritime zone limits that are not subsequently updated despite sea level rise. We urge other countries to do the same, including by supporting positions on the maintenance of maritime zones such as the one articulated in the High-Level Declaration. Second, on statehood, we continue to believe that sea level rise should not cause a country to lose its statehood, but it is better to allow states to develop law on this matter as particular issues arise, rather than try to pursue policy preferences in the abstract. I turn now to the second topic of immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. The United States had urged the Commission not to rush the second reading of the draft articles in light of unresolved substantive disagreements, and we echoed the concerns of members that the Commission should strive for a more consensus-based or unified approach to what is now draft Article 6. A more useful and legally supportable approach to draft article six would have been to replace the list with criteria or considerations that states could reference in determining, based on the totality of circumstances in a particular case, whether there was a basis for not applying immunity ratione materiae. Nonetheless, draft article six now contains an expanded list of crimes to which immunity ratione materiae should not apply. We continue to believe that any list of crimes in draft article six does not reflect a codification of customary international law, and we note that a number of other states share this view. In prior comments, we urged the commission to clearly identify draft article six as a proposed progressive development of the law to enhance transparency and minimize the risk that it will be viewed by states, domestic or international courts, or others, as a codification of customary international law. We echoed the calls of other states and commissions members on this point, noting that the widespread, long-standing controversy around draft Article 6 warranted this measure. It was this type of controversy that animated the Committee's call in last year's ILC resolution for the Commission to include in its commentaries, where relevant and practicable, indications of the extent to which the Commission views draft provisions as representing the codification or progressive development of international law. We were disappointed that the Commission did not do so here. Instead, the commentary to draft article 6 only acknowledges that the ILC would pursue its mandate of promoting the progressive development of international law and its codification, then goes on to assert that legal developments have taken place limiting the applicability of immunity from jurisdiction ratione materiae in respect of certain acts that constitute crimes under international law. This pronouncement might be incorrectly interpreted by some to suggest that draft article 6 reflects customary international law. As an initial matter, we recognize that the Special Rapporteur removed references to certain U.S. cases that we explained were not evidence of per se exceptions to functional immunity. The state practice now referenced in the commentaries is comprised, however, of case law exclusively from one region and does not reflect sufficiently widespread and representative state practice. In these circumstances, the commentary should have included an unambiguous statement that draft Article 6 represents a proposal for progressive development. Without such a caveat, the draft articles could be misinterpreted in ways that lead to an unwarranted erosion of official acts immunity that could create instability and conflict. Finally, given the divergence of states' views and practice, especially with respect to draft article 6, there is unlikely to be sufficient consensus to elaborate a convention based on the draft articles, as the Commission recommends. We believe states should give serious consideration to how best to address these significant concerns. At the very least, it will be important to reflect States' divergent views and practices in the resolution addressing these draft articles. Turning to the third topic of general principles of law, we recognize that the Commission addressed some of our concerns in the final draft conclusions and commentaries. Regrettably, however, we continue to disagree with several of the draft conclusions. I will highlight a few of our remaining concerns. Regarding draft conclusion 3, we continue to disagree with the inclusion of subparagraph B, which includes a category of general principles, to quote, that "we may be formed within the international" excuse me, that "may be formed within the international legal system." There is insufficient state practice to support this category. As the Commission recognizes in draft conclusion 2, state recognition must be a cornerstone in any determination that a general principle of law exists. The Commission attempts to address this concern through the general methodology laid out in draft conclusion seven, which not only requires a principle to be intrinsic to the international legal system, but also that the community of nations has recognized it as such. That is a helpful clarification, but we remain concerned that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the test has been met in any instance. In particular, with respect to the putative general principles that the Commission includes in paragraphs 6 to 17 of the commentaries to draft conclusion seven. We believe many of those examples either arose from domestic systems or simply lack recognition by states as general principles of law. With respect to the first category of general principles derived from national legal systems, we again appreciate the reference to draft conclusion two in the commentaries. which reiterates that for a general principle to have been transposed to the international legal system, the transposition must be recognized as such by the community of nations. However, we maintain our concerns that the compatibility test adopted by the Commission in the context of draft conclusion 6 infers this recognition apparently without any need for outward manifestation of consent by States. We therefore disagree with the Commentary's explanation that once the compatibility test is met, It can be inferred that the community of nations has recognized the general principles to its position without any formal act by states. Rather, consistent with the consent required with respect to conventional and customary international law, we maintain there must be evidence that states have themselves reached this conclusion. On draft conclusions 10 and 11, we note that the commentaries to draft conclusion 10 correctly emphasize that general principles are mainly resorted to when other rules of international law do not resolve a particular issue. Draft conclusion 11, however, still maintains that general principles are not in a hierarchical relationship with treaties and customary international law. As we have noted, Viewing the various sources of international law equally belies the fact that the application of general principles of law is interstitial. This may cause confusion as to when and how general principles could take precedence over other sources of international law binding on States. Finally, on draft conclusion 11, we refer to the debate whether to include the concept of persistent objector in the draft conclusions, as suggested by the United States. We note that some members of the Commission acknowledged that it was hard to understand how, if a State could object to the formation of a customary rule, a State could not also object to a general principle of law with the same content. We are therefore disappointed that the ILC declined to address the applicability of the persistent objector doctrine to general principles. The United States maintains that persistent objection to the recognition of a general principle of law should be treated as it would in the context of a rule of customary international law. For these reasons, it will be important to include references to the varied views of states in any resolution addressing the draft conclusions on general principles of law. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United States of America for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Costa Rica. You have the floor.

Madam Chair, distinguished colleagues, Costa Rica thanks the International Law Commission for presenting the report on its 77th session. Again, pursuant to operative paragraph 4 of General Assembly resolution A/RES/80/164, our delegation wishes to offer some observations on sea-level rise in relation to international law. Drawing on chapter IV of the report of the 77th session of the International Law Commission and the consolidated final report of the co-chairs of the study group, whose work provides a technical and legal contribution of immense value to States. Our country, as in previous years, reiterates the need to preserve the legal stability of maritime boundaries and the outer limits of maritime zones, including exclusive economic zones, in order to safeguard maritime entitlements lawfully established in accordance with international law. Sea level rise must not undermine state sovereignty or sovereign rights over marine resources. Instead, full respect for the principles of security, stability, certainty, and predictability must prevail, preserving territorial integrity, statehood, self-determination, and the protection of persons. In this regard, Costa Rica welcomes the conclusions reached by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion on obligations of states in respect of climate change, that States Parties to UNCLOS are under no obligation to update the charts or coordinates of their duly established baselines and the outer limits of their maritime zones in response to physical changes resulting from sea level rise. This finding reinforces stability and legal certainty, thereby supporting the preservation of the maritime entitlements of affected states. No country can or should lose its statehood as a result of the effects of climate change on its territorial integrity. Accordingly, our country advocates applying, in any extreme scenario, a presumption of state continuity that would enable affected states to retain their sovereignty and self-determination. since once a state has been established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood. Furthermore, With regard to the protection of persons and the exercise of their human rights, Costa Rica reiterates the importance of respect for human dignity and its establishment as a guiding principle in the future development by states of normative instruments on this issue. Madam Chair, in conclusion, Costa Rica welcomes the recent adoption by consensus of the United Nations Declaration on Sea Level Rise at the high-level meeting. on Addressing the Existential Threat Posed by Sea Level Rise, held on 24 September 2026 during the High-Level Week of the UN General Assembly. This declaration represents an initial common understanding within the United Nations on how collectively to address this threat, which affects us all. For Costa Rica, for example, an assessment carried out by NASA in 2021 using its sea level projection tool projects a rise of 1.25 meters over the next 100 years for the city of Puntarenas on Costa Rica's central Pacific coast. With a rise of one meter estimated to occur by 2100, water at high tide would inundate approximately 300 hectares. affecting 90% of the residential area. Serious impacts are also anticipated in the province of Limón, on Costa Rica’s Caribbean coast. Sea level rise is one of the gravest and most evident manifestations of the climate crisis, its consequences already being felt. The loss of territory, changes to ecosystems, and mounting pressures on communities and their livelihoods, including fishing and tourism, reveal a reality that demands immediate attention. We therefore invite all States to continue working on this issue with a view to promoting international cooperation in pursuit of joint solutions. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Costa Rica for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Paraguay. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. May I commence by expressing our gratitude to the ILC for the valuable work carried out during its 77th session. We welcome report A/81/10, and we emphasize the important contribution of the Commission to the progressive development of international law and its codification. and we extend our acknowledgement to all its members on this count. We believe it is vital that the dialogue between the ILC and the Sixth Committee should allow States to make effective contributions to the definition of balanced legal solutions which are broadly acceptable. Here, The observations made by delegations are an important contribution to assess the results of the Commission reaches and examine those questions which require greater legal clarity. Madam. Regarding the draft articles on the immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, my delegation notes its approval on a second reading and the recommendation by the Commission to the effect that at the appropriate time a convention should be drawn up based on this draft. We believe that this issue is relevant to relations among States. Immunity must be scrutinized, taking into account the need both to guarantee the effective exercise of state roles and its representatives, as well as the importance of combating impunity. The challenge lies in ensuring that the applicable rules provide protection for the discharge of state functions without becoming an obstacle to accountability pursuant to international law. In our view, this balance must be achieved with full respect of the sovereign equality of states and the applicable provisions of international law. Here, we believe it is important to pay particular attention to Article 6 on those crimes to which ratione materiae immunity would not apply. The various positions voiced during discussions emphasize the importance of the legal basis of interpretation and its scope, as well as the relation between the codification of international law and its progressive development. We believe that these matters should be observed, taking into account a state practice and the legal arguments rolled out during the discussions in the Commission and the Sixth Committee. Likewise, the procedural guarantees in Part IV of the draft are of particular importance when it comes to implementation here. The determination of immunity, the notification of the home state of the official, and the other guarantees in the draft must be considered as a whole. remembering how important it is to avoid both the undue application of immunity and also the exercise of a jurisdiction without due consideration of relevant international rules. Therefore, the constructive approach and observations put forward by states will be vital in the decision-making process on the possible drawing up of a convention to achieve the necessary consensus for broadly approved adoption. Madam, my delegation would also like to highlight the approval in the second reading of the draft conclusions on the general principles of law. We believe that these constitute a greater understanding of one of the sources of international law pursuant to Article 38. paragraph 1 of the ICJ Statute. Particularly, we consider it's relevant to look at the draft conclusions 2 and 4 to 6 pertaining to the acknowledgment of the general principles of law and the identification of those derived from national legal systems. The identification of these principles required a sufficiently broad identification, representing the legal systems throughout the world, making it possible to determine the existence of a principle, a common principle, without failing to recognize specificities and without requiring identity amongst national legal solutions. Here, we believe it is important that identifying a common principle and transposing it to the international legal system should be carried out in accordance with established methodology and the draft conclusions with a sufficient legal basis. Clarity of these criteria contributes to distinguish between general principles of law and other sources of international law and fostering a consistent implementation of this legal category. Here, we believe The comments by the Commission are a useful reference to guide States, tribunals, and other actors whose task it is to identify and implement these principles. Finally, regarding sea level rise in relation to international law, my delegation recognizes how important the work done by the Commission is and how it has contributed to understanding the legal consequences of this phenomenon. In particular, we believe to be significant the analysis of questions pertaining to the law of the sea, the statehood, and the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. These are both matters which give rise to major questions for international law. When it comes to respecting the law of the sea, we believe that stability and legal certainty must be center stage. In particular, it is important to maintain legal zones and maritime entitlements duly established in accordance with international law in the appropriate legal framework. Predictability here contributes to avoiding uncertainty on entitlements and states' obligation when it comes to the physical changes arising from sea level rise. For Paraguay, as a landlocked developing state, this is a question of great importance when it comes to connectivity with international markets and the continuity of rules of transit routes and maritime transport, our foreign trade is dependent on these. Without putting on an equal footing the circumstances of landlocked states with the position of states directly affected by sea level rise, we believe it is important that possible economic and logistical repercussions should be duly considered in international cooperation. To conclude, the Republic of Paraguay once again acknowledges and thanks the ILC for its contribution to the development progressive development and codification of international law. We urge that the dialogue between the Commission and States continue to enhance the legal clarity, legitimacy, and the outcome of results. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. For the interest of time, I will deliver a shorter version of the statement. Madam Chair, Distinguished Delegates, My delegation would like to express our sincere appreciation to the members of the International Law Commission for their dedicated efforts, professional expertise, and strong sense of responsibility. In this regard, Vietnam wishes to emphasize the importance of providing the Commission with sufficient time and adequate working conditions to enable the Commission to fulfill its mandate. As to the topic, sea level rise in relation to international law, Vietnam wishes to express its sincere appreciation to the co-chairs of the study group and to the Commission for the completion of the final report. Vietnam considers the final report both timely and valuable. On the law of the sea, Vietnam attaches great importance to legal stability, predictability and certainty. Vietnam therefore supports the view that baseline, the outer limits of maritime zones, and maritime rights and entitlements, once established in accordance with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, should be preserved notwithstanding the physical effects of sea level rise. Vietnam also supports the continued study of the mechanism to ensure the continuity of statehood, as well as the legitimate rights of the state affected by C-11 rise, in particular small islands developing state. With regard to the protection of persons affected by C-11 rise, Vietnam believes that dignity and rights of persons affected by C-11 rise deserve due attention. Vietnam supports further study of appropriate protective measures on the basis of existing international law, including applicable human rights law. Madam Chair, turning to the topic immunity of state officers from foreign criminal jurisdiction, Vietnam thanks all special rapporteurs for their outstanding contribution to the draft articles and take note of the Commission's recommendation that a convention be elaborated. In this regard, Vietnam wishes to highlight two points. First, with respect to the draft article 6, Vietnam is committed to the fight against impunity. for the most serious crimes under international law, and recalls that immunity is procedural in nature and distinct from the individual criminal responsibility. At the same time, Vietnam is of the view that recognition of exception to immunity as provided in TRAP article 6 calls for careful consideration, where state practice is not yet sufficiently clear and consistent. Second, with respect to immunity ratione personae, Vietnam notes that draft article 3 confirms the prevailing state practice of affording such immunity to heads of state, head of government, and minister for foreign affairs. However, diversity of state practice regarding representatives officer should be taken into account. Madam Chair, now I turn to the topic general principle of law. Vietnam warmly welcomes the Commission’s adoption of the 12 draft conclusions on the general principles of law, together with the commentaries. The general principles of law within the meaning of Article 38, paragraph 1(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, play a supplementary role in the system of sources of international law. Recourse to general principles of law should be considered only where there is no applicable conventional or customary rule in place. They should not alter the international obligations that have already been established. We encourage reading the draft conclusion 10 and 11 in this light. With respect to the transposition principle from national legal system to the international legal system, as addressed in TRAPS conclusion 6, Vietnam calls for a cautious approach given the diversity of national legal systems. We also note that the TRAPS conclusion 3 recognizes the possibility of general principles of law may be formed within the international legal system. In this context, Vietnam draws attention to the practice of ASEAN in a number of documents referring to the universally recognized principle of international law. Such reasonable practice should also be taken into consideration. I thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Greece would like first to commend Ambassador Andreas Mavroyiannis for the presentation of the ILC's report and to thank the International Law Commission for its work. In the interest of time, I will present an abridged version of our statements on cluster one. I will start with sea level rise. Madam Chair, Greece welcomes the progress achieved on this important issue. In particular, the recent adoption by the General Assembly of the Declaration on Sea Level Rise represents an important milestone in the international community's collective response to one of the most pressing challenges of our time. This declaration followed the completion of the work of the ILC on the topic in 2025. In this connection, we commend the work of the co-chairs and thank them for their final report, as well as the study group for its final report. The work of the ILC and the relevant discussions on the matter have highlighted the importance of legal stability, certainty, and predictability in relation to sea level rise. Which are inherent to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and guide its application, require the preservation of baselines and of the outer limits of maritime zones, as well as of maritime entitlements deriving therefrom. The Convention, which sets out the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out, promotes the maintenance of international peace and security and aims at preserving legal certainty in all matters, including those of maritime entitlements and maritime boundaries. Moreover, as was also affirmed by the ICJ, the Convention imposes no obligation of reviewing or recalculating baselines or the outer limits of maritime zones established in accordance with its provisions. In this respect, we stress the important contribution of the advisory opinion of the ICJ on the obligation of States in respect of climate change, which provides clarity on these issues, especially regarding maritime entitlements and the continuity of statehood. My country would also like to note that the efforts building on the longstanding engagement of small island developing states have contributed to maintaining international attention on the need for legal certainty and stability in addressing the consequences of sea level rise. International cooperation is of paramount importance in order to face the adverse effects of climate change and sea level rise. Concerning the possible ways forward referred to in the final report, we believe that caution is required, especially as regards subsequent agreements and interpretative statements. Reference to them has been in any case included in the final report before the ICJ rendered its advisory opinion and the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on Sea-Labour Rights. Continuing on immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, I would like at the outset to express our gratitude to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Grossman-Wilof, for his tireless efforts to accommodate, during the second reading of the draft articles, the comments and concerns of Member States and promote consensus within the Commission. Let me also commend the ILC for the completion this year of the long-awaited second reading of the draft articles. For the reasons explained in previous years, we welcome the retention of draft Article 6 on the crimes under international law in respect of which immunity ratione materiae shall not apply, whose importance cannot be overemphasized. We also support the inclusion of the crime of aggression in the list of such- such crimes. We regret, however, that this draft article has once again triggered repetitive debates within the Commission and that its retention was secured only by a vote for the second time in a decade. We appreciate the improvements made to paragraph 1 of draft Article 9 in order to ensure that the notification would not compromise the confidentiality of an ongoing investigation or the proper conduct of criminal proceedings in the forum state. Similarly, we believe that the reformulation of paragraph 2 of this draft article accommodates the interest of the state of the official in receiving the information it needs to preserve its rights while allowing a degree of flexibility to the forum state. We also welcome the removal of references to applicable international cooperation and mutual legal assistance treaties from draft articles 9 to 12. In our view, these treaties serve a different purpose, and their practical application to situations envisaged by the said draft articles has not been demonstrated. Finally, with regard to draft Article 17 on the settlement of disputes, we would like to reiterate our view that the dispute settlement clause will only be relevant if the draft articles take the form of a convention. Continuing and concluding with general principles of law, Madam Chair, Greece would like to express its appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez, for his important work on general principles of law, as well as to the Commission for the successful conclusion of the second reading of the draft conclusions on this topic. Greece looks forward to their consideration by the General Assembly. We consider the present study as a useful complement to the previous and ongoing work of the Commission on the sources of international law, and take this opportunity to underline the importance of coherence between the present set of conclusions and the Commission's ongoing work on subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, given the close relationship between the two topics. We trust that this coherence will continue to guide the Commission's work. In concluding, Madam Chair, Greece would like to reiterate its support to the Commission's work. Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In the interest of time, I will summarize our contribution. Firstly, Colombia would like to express its thanks to the ILC for presenting this report. in its 77th session, and we wish to commend the work done in complying with its mandate pursuant to Article 13 of the Charter on the codification of progressive development of international law. We also welcome the reports from President Amaro Yanes and extend our thanks to all of those in the ILC in their endeavours to make as much progress as possible, in the most efficient way possible. I would also like to thank the Committee for its excellent work here. Now, on sea level rise, Madam, Colombia notes the outcome report of the ILC adopted in 2025. and we thank its co-chairs for their commitment in guiding this. We acknowledge this final report as a valuable contribution to the clarification of international law on law of the sea, statehood, and the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. We underline how important it is to preserve stability and the preservation of maritime areas regarding the rise of the law of the sea. We believe that the ILC has helped to guide the positions here, taking into account the positions expressed by many States on baselines, marine entitlements, and effects to coastlines from sea level rise. We are not a party to UNCLOS, and we recognize only as binding only those provisions which reflect standards of customary law accepted by the State of Colombia. We find major challenges when it comes to protecting persons affected by climate change and sea level rise. Here, we believe it's important to enhance international cooperation and explore legal alternatives ensuring that rights are This means diplomacy in order to arrive at a legally binding instrument to protect those affected by disaster. In the discussions here, Colombia believes that both processes provide an opportunity to strengthen the international protection of persons affected by sea level rise and provide legal proposals looking at current vulnerability. Regarding immunity of state officials, to foreign jurisdiction, we thank Senior Grossman and the ILC here. We believe that the principle of sovereign equality of states in exercising criminal jurisdiction should be retained, and we must avoid impunity for the most heinous crimes here. Here, we believe it is important to look at immunity ratione personae and ratione materiae. Here, we emphasize that immunity is of procedural nature and it must not be confused with individual criminal accountability. Pertaining to Article 6 on international crimes to which ratione materiae immunity applies, Colombia emphasizes how important it is that the draft should continue to reflect no impunity for those crimes which seriously affect international law, we need to look at the provisions here and the positions of States and opinio juris, carefully distinguishing the codification of customary international law and its progressive development. Colombia, moreover, emphasizes that the determination of the applicability of immunity must go hand in hand with procedural guarantees. We appreciate Article 3 of the draft, which requires competent authorities to be of sufficient seniority. There are substantive reasons when it comes to considering the official committed the crimes, and we should consider also the roles of other officials when it comes to the exercise of criminal jurisdiction. On general principles of law, we congratulate Mr. Alo Vasquez Mufus, the rapporteur, on his work here, and also the ILC for the adoption on the second reading of this draft together with the commentaries. Colombia recognizes the value of the work done by the Commission to clarify the nature, identification, and functions of the general principles of law as a source of international law pursuant to Article 38 of the ICJ Statute. Colombia voices again its concerns about distinguishing the two general principles of law in the draft conclusion number three. In particular, we believe that the identification of the principles are formed in the international legal system here requires sufficiently stringent principles, looking at the distinction between a customary law here. We have a constructive view of the work of the Sixth Committee when it comes to clarifying the general principles of law and their role in the international legal systems. Madam, on other conclusions and decisions, my delegation welcomes the inclusion in the Commission's working programme the matter of erga omnes obligations. Moreover, we note the inclusion of issues on regulating international financial investments in the long-term programme for the Commission. We believe it important that new issues should meet the needs of States when it comes to progressive development and the codification of international law, and that we should take duly into account the practices of States concerned in proposed work. So therefore, it is important for there to be substantive dialogue between states and the ILC by means of the Sixth Committee. Here, Colombia emphasizes how important it is to retain and strengthen training and dissemination of international law, for example, here the International Law Seminary, and also the work of the Hague Academy for Colombia and Latin America. Work here was will be concluded in 2027, and we will contribute to the work here and the identification of new issues for development. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Colombia for his statement. Distinguished delegates, the distinguished representative of Colombia was the last speaker for this morning. According to our program of work, we will continue discussion the first cluster of topics this afternoon at 3:00 PM, following which we will turn to the second cluster of topics. Please be informed that this afternoon we will end at approximately 4:30 PM, after which the interactive dialogue on the report of the ILC will be held in this room, in accordance with paragraph 12 of General Assembly resolution 59/313. The Dialogue provides delegations with an opportunity to discuss, in an informal setting, any issue with respect to the ILC report among colleagues, as well as with the members of the Commission present. This year, the Dialogue will be moderated by the delegation of Austria and will focus on the following topics: subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law; Topic number two, settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties. And the third one, identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law. You are encouraged to attend, and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.