Sixth Committee, 31st plenary meeting - General Assembly, 81st session

Good afternoon, colleagues. I call to order the 31st meeting of the Sixth Committee for the 81st session of the General Assembly. Distinguished delegates, let us now continue with the debate on the first cluster of topics concerning agenda item 78, report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 76th and 77th sessions, after which we will turn to the second cluster of topics. The report of the Commission on the work of its 77th 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 4 of the Commission’s 2025 report on the topic of sea-level rise in relation to international law, as contained in document A/80/10, which is also available online. I wish to recall that this meeting will end at approximately 4:30 PM this afternoon and will be followed by the annual interactive dialogue. Before proceeding, I wish to recall the Bureau's recommendation that national statements should be limited to seven minutes and group statements to 12 minutes. Delegations are strongly 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. The first speaker on my list for this afternoon is the distinguished representative of Singapore. You have the floor, sir, ma'am, sorry.

Madam Chair, thank you for giving me the floor. I am pleased to address the chapters in Cluster 1. In the interest of time, I will focus on a few key points. My full statement will be made available online. I begin with sea level rise in relation to international law. Allow me to express Singapore’s further views on the subtopic of the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. Singapore joins other small island states in emphasising the severity of the dangers posed to our populations by sea level rise. We note the ILC Study Group’s conclusion that there is currently no dedicated framework applicable to the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. The effective protection of such persons will require solutions that are specific to each unique context. We look forward to considering with other delegations the possible ways forward presented by the ILC study group, such as developing international instruments and mechanisms specific to climate change-related sea level rise. At the same time, such discussions should not delay practical action and must proceed in parallel with concrete efforts to protect persons affected by sea level rise. Two principles must guide international action to protect persons affected by sea level rise. First, the duty to cooperate. As the ICJ noted in its advisory opinion, cooperation in addressing sea level rise is not a matter of choice for states, but a legal obligation. This requires states, in the context of sea level rise, to work together with a view to achieving equitable solutions. Second, the duty to cooperate is subject to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances. States disproportionately affected by sea level rise should not be left to shoulder the burden of protecting their populations from its adverse effects without international assistance. I now turn to immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Singapore expresses its appreciation to the Commission for completing its work on the topic. The draft articles continue to raise concerns for us. We previously emphasised that the implementation of these draft articles will need to take into consideration practical realities and challenges faced by competent authorities in the exercise of their criminal jurisdiction. This concern runs through a few of the draft articles. For instance, in draft article 9, the Commission identified only two scenarios in which a foreign state need not notify the state of the official before initiating criminal proceedings or taking coercive measures. i.e. when doing so would jeopardise the confidentiality of an ongoing investigation or the proper conduct of criminal proceedings. We further note with some concern that divergences on draft Article 6, previously draft Article 7, remain within the Commission. In particular, the provisional adoption of draft Article 6 was put to a vote, and members of the drafting committee in delivering their explanations of vote, had expressed strong reservations on this draft article in plenary, both in terms of its customary status and to its inclusion. Against this backdrop, draft Article 6 should not be included. I now turn to general principles of law. Singapore wishes to share its views on four of the draft conclusions as adopted on second reading. First, on draft conclusion 7, we are pleased to note that the corresponding commentary refines the methodology for identifying in general principles of law formed within the international legal system. In particular, we support the clarification that recognition by the community of nations should be wide and representative, and include the different regions of the world. However, we reiterate that there remains some difficulty with the term “intrinsic” as defined in the commentary to draft conclusion 7. It remains unclear how the examples other than sovereign equality reflect or regulate the basic features of the international legal system, even if they may enjoy a degree of recognition as a general principle of law. We caution against conflating the recognition of a principle’s existence with recognition of it as being intrinsic to the international legal system. Second, on draft conclusion 10, we support its updated commentary, which provides greater clarity on the examples cited without definitively asserting whether they are indeed general principles of law. Third, on draft conclusion 11, we appreciate the Committee’s The Commission's work in updating the Commentary to delineate the distinction between general principles of law and customary international law, and also articulate the relationship between them. Finally, on draft conclusion 12, we remain concerned. It should be made clear that this is an area in which the law is still developing. We reiterate that creating this new category, which would appear to contradict draft conclusion 5, requiring the general principles be common to the various legal systems of the world. I turn finally to other decisions and conclusions of the Commission. Singapore notes with interest that the topic, the right to regulate in international investment law, has been included in the Commission's long-term programme of work. We agree that the work by the Commission could usefully contribute to greater clarity on the state of the law. We are also heartened that the Working Group on Methods of Work and Procedures of the Commission has made progress on proposals for improving the Commission's working methods. We encourage the Working Group to finalise both its handbook and report at the 78th session of the Commission. Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. At the outset, on behalf of the delegation of Japan, I would like to extend our sincere congratulations on your assumption of the chair of the Sixth Committee. Japan also appreciates the leadership of the Chair of the International Law Commission, Mr. Andreas Mavrommianis, as well as the contribution of all the special rapporteurs and the members of the Commission. At a time when the international community is living through difficult challenges, the necessity of upholding the rule of law is greater than ever. Japan's stance is resolute and unshakable. Establishing the rule of law is of great importance in achieving and maintaining international peace and security, prosperity. Before moving on to specific topics, Japan welcomes the Commission's decision to include the identification and its legal consequence of obligations erga omnes in international law in its programme of work, and to appoint Dr. Asada Masahiko as the Special Rapporteur, which we believe was done in a timely manner. Japan hopes that the Commission will have in-depth discussions on this issue and give awaited clarifications. Now, I would like to turn to immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Japan welcomes the Commission's completion of the second reading with the draft articles adopted. We express our deep respect for the tireless efforts of the Commission, particularly the Special Rapporteur, in reaching this stage. Achieving a common understanding of immunity in international law is extremely important. and the Commission has played a significant role to this end. Regarding the exceptions to immunity rationis materiae, this remains one of the most highly debated issues, drawing significant interest and concern from the international community. Japan notes that a proposal regarding the scope of these exceptions is now present for inclusion in draft Article 6 of the adopted text. With respect to the crimes listed in this article, Japan considers that they represent a mixture of two different legal statuses: those already accepted by many states and reflected in specific treaties, and those that should be properly positioned as the progressive development of international law. Japan believes that this point should be duly taken into account in future relevant discussions. Furthermore, Japan underscores the importance of Part IV of the draft articles, which addresses procedural provisions and safeguards. It is a fundamental principle of international law that immunity, particularly that of the troika, inherently exists and should be respected even without being explicitly invoked by the State concerned. Therefore, The judicial procedures to be followed when such exceptions are applied, as well as the specific processes for waivers, must be clearly and precisely defined to ensure legal certainty and prevent political abuse. Lastly, we have witnessed state practice which may indicate states' current understanding of immunity ratione personae and immunity ratione materiae. Japan stresses the need to search for relevant state practice and jurisprudence relating to the immunity of state officials. Japan expresses its commitment to further efforts to combat impunity for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, and to strengthen the rule of law through building consensus as much as possible. To this end, Japan remains fully committed to actively participating in relevant discussions to ensure balanced, stable, and effective framework that can enjoy the widest possible support among States. As for general principles of law, Japan takes note of the adoption of the entire set of draft conclusions and commentaries thereto. Japan highlights the relevance of draft conclusion 2 and the second commentary to draft conclusion 6. The former states that for a general principle of law to exist, it must be recognized by the community of nations, and the latter states that transposition does not occur in an automatic fashion. With regard to the second category of general principles of law that may be formed within the international legal system, Japan notes the divergence of views in quite a few respects among the members of the Commission or States, as well as the opaque distinction between general principles of law and customary international law, while the wording of draft conclusion 3 seemingly differentiates the legal character of the two categories. Lastly, I would like to address sea level rise in relation to international law. The final report of the study group provides the international community with a useful reference. Regarding issues related to the law of the sea, Japan has officially endorsed the Commission's view that states are under no obligation to update baselines or the outer limits of maritime zones established under the UNCLOS to account for changes as a result of climate change-related sea level rise. Furthermore, Japan remains of the view that it is permissible to preserve the existing baselines and maritime zones established in accordance with UNCLOS, notwithstanding the regression of coastlines caused by climate change. Finally, it is worth mentioning that the final report refers to a degree of flexibility in the interpretation and application of international law regarding statehood. and emphasize its strong support among states for the continuity of statehood. Japan believes that development of state practice and opinio juris on this issue will depend upon member states' wisdom and diplomatic efforts. In addressing these issues, Japan, for its part, is committed to sincerely engaging in further discussions on the subject and in relevant fora, while cooperating with other states and international organizations. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Japan for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Kingdom of the Netherlands would like to sincerely thank the International Law Commission for this year's report. Despite the difficulties encountered last year by the Commission due to the liquidity crisis that led to a reduced annual session, the Commission made substantial progress on a lot of topics this year. The progress is particularly noticeable with the completion of two topics on first and second readings. progress that is necessary for the encouragement of the codification and progressive development of international law. My government wishes to encourage others to submit or continue submitting relevant information that will serve as input for the work of the Commission. The studies of the Commission greatly benefit from a geographically diverse range of practices, perspectives, and positions from States from different parts of this world. This is also in line with this year's message, as delivered by the UN Secretary-General to the International Law Commission when he said that, and I quote, "The world needs rigorous legal thinking, drawing on different legal traditions, diverse points of view, and backgrounds." Chair, please allow me now to turn to the topic immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. The Kingdom of the Netherlands would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Special Rapporteur with the adoption by the Commission of the entire set of draft articles on second reading. This also includes the commentaries to the draft articles. The adoption is an important step, and my government would like to express its appreciation to the Commission for its work. My government is of the view that the second reading of the topic of immunity of state officials addresses the comments and observations made by states to a large extent. My Government notes that some of these comments and observations have been addressed through clarifications in the commentaries instead of modifications of the text of the draft articles themselves. This also relates to part four of the draft articles. My Government's concerns with the procedural provisions and safeguards contained in part four of the draft articles remain. We continue to consider that they do not reflect existing state practice. Chair, with regard to draft article 6, my Government notes that the draft article includes an explicit list of crimes under international law to which immunity rationis materiae shall not apply. The draft article does not include a mere, more general reference to crimes under international law to which immunity rationis materiae does not apply. Draft article 6 therefore appears to contain an exhaustive list of crimes. However, with the enumeration in the commentaries of the criteria used by the Commission to include specific crimes in draft article 6, the possibility is left open that the application of these criteria may lead to the identification of further crimes to which immunity ratione materiae would not apply. My government welcomes such a non-exhaustive approach. With regard to draft article 9, my government regrets that the notification to the state of the official It's included as an obligation for the forum state in the event that criminal proceedings are initiated or coercive measures are taken. In our view, this does not reflect state practice and is conceptually undesirable. Nevertheless, it is noted that there is some flexibility for the forum state by providing for the exception of not having to notify the state of the official. This flexibility exists when such notification would jeopardise the confidentiality of an ongoing investigation or the proper conduct of criminal proceedings. At this point, the Kingdom of the Netherlands reiterates its position that provisions on the procedural rights of the state official as contained in draft article 15 should not have been included in these draft articles, since they are separate from the issue of immunity. Chair, once again, my government wishes to thank the Commission for completing this topic and takes note of the Commission's recommendation of the draft articles to the General Assembly. It also takes note of the Commission's recommendation of the elaboration at an appropriate time of a convention on the basis of the draft articles. The Kingdom of the Netherlands can support a discussion of the topic in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during the 82nd session in 2027. while we note that there should be sufficient room for adjustments of the draft articles if it is decided to take this topic forward. Chair, for the topic General Principles of Law, the Kingdom of the Netherlands would like to congratulate the Special Rapporteur and the Commission for the conclusion of the work on this topic. My delegation welcomes the adoption by the Commission of the 12 draft conclusions, together with the commentaries thereto, on second reading. We also take note of the Commission’s recommendation that the General Assembly takes note of the draft conclusions in a resolution, ensure their widest dissemination, and commend the draft conclusions. My delegation appreciates the extensive range of examples of general principles of law provided in the commentaries. However, we would have welcomed further clarification on a number of issues. This includes the methodology, on the identification of principles as general principles of law formed within the international legal system. In particular, we note the use of the term "intrinsic" in the Commentary to Conclusion 7. My Government understands that the term conveys that the principle reflects and regulates the basic features of the international legal system. Still, it remains somewhat unclear what its precise meaning is and why it would be of decisive significance in the methodology of identifying general principles of international law formed within the international legal system. This question is particularly relevant in relation to the examples of thematic or subject-specific principles discussed in the Commentary. Principles such as sustainable development and intergenerational equity are closely associated with the field of international environmental law, for which they are important. The Kingdom of the Netherlands would therefore have appreciated further clarification as to why it is concluded that such principles reflect or regulate the basic features of the international legal system as a whole, rather than primarily reflecting the particular characteristics and objectives of a specific branch of international law. My delegation is further of the view that such thematic or subject-specific principles may indeed constitute an important and established part of the law applicable within particular branches of international law. As a seafaring nation with a long-standing maritime tradition, my government considers freedom of navigation to be an established general principle of the law of the sea, a view that we have applied in practice and highlighted in our submissions to the Commission. The Kingdom of the Netherlands looks forward to seeing how the ILC's conclusions and commentaries thereto will influence and contribute to the application of the general principles in the practice of States and by international courts and tribunals. Chair, I will now turn to the topic Other decisions and conclusions. My Government welcomes the decision to take up the topic of identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law. For consideration by the Commission, we would like to make some preliminary comments on this topic. First, my Government considers it important to distinguish between the normative hierarchical status of a norm and the scope rationis personae of the norm's application. While all peremptory norms apply erga omnes, not all obligations erga omnes are peremptory norms. The legal consequences applicable to breaches of peremptory norms can therefore not be equated to the legal consequences of obligations erga omnes. Those legal consequences are different in important ways, most pertinently with respect to obligations as a consequence of a breach. In this sense, Article 41 of the Articles on State Responsibility prescribes the legal consequences of serious breaches of a peremptory norm. These consequences follow from the peremptory nature of the norm breached, not because it applies erga omnes. the erga omnes obligation entitles rather than obliges States to act, whereas the peremptory norm nature of the norm obliges States to act. Chair, one of the entitlements flowing from erga omnes obligation is the right to take countermeasures in the collective interest. For my government, it is important for the Commission not to adopt an approach that is too narrow. In particular, my government would like to see the inclusion of the topic of countermeasures in the general interest in the work of the Commission. It is a topic that presently is very much debated, and the views of the Commission would therefore be welcome. In the view of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, it is the erga omnes nature of an obligation that triggers the right to take countermeasures in the general interest. The Kingdom of the Netherlands further notes that the topic, the right to regulate in international investment law, is included in the long-term programme of work, which my government welcomes. Lastly, on possible topics for the Commission to consider, the Kingdom of the Netherlands would like to reiterate its call for an international discussion on the implications under international law of possessing dual nationality and the inability under certain jurisdictions to renounce a second nationality. This also relates to the exercise of diplomatic protection, the provision of consular assistance, and the difficulties encountered when it comes to dual nationals. My government is of the view that the ILC is well equipped to examine issues related to dual nationals and to renunciation of a second nationality. including the scope of the right to nationality. In light of these considerations, we would like to recall our previous invitation to the Commission to include this topic in its programme of work. Chair, let me conclude this statement with the topic sea level rise in relation to international law. As emphasised by the Kingdom of the Netherlands before numerous courts and tribunals, as well as in other fora, a significant part of our population has lived below sea level for centuries. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is not alone in this. Millions of people all over the world are living below or just above sea level. With a rising sea level, threats are multiplied and the implications thereof will become more and more visible. In our statement last year, my Government noted the progress made on the topic of sea level rise by the Commission. However, we also highlighted that several fundamental questions remained unanswered. My Government therefore encouraged all those involved to further deepen the understanding of these topics through, for example, advancing discussions in the Sixth Committee. The Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore supports those who have proposed to continue discussions on sea level rise, including more focused discussions on the outstanding legal issues and questions. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Lebanon.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ladies and gentlemen, representatives, the work of the International Law Commission on the general principles of law are of particular importance for the understanding of the foundations and the functioning of the international legal order. The adoption in second reading of the 12 draft conclusions, together with their comments, is an important step in clarification of this source of international law that is explicitly recognized in Article 38, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Lebanon applauds this contribution to the clarification of the methods for the identification of general principles of law and the understanding of their relationship with international, with treaties and international customary law. This work clearly illustrates the added value of the Commission to clarify essential notions, systematize rules, and offer to States and international jurisdictions useful references for the identification and the application of international norms. Lebanon considers that this contribution is part of a broader mission to make the international legal order more coherent, more intelligible, and more predictable, but through the codification and progressive development of international law. Madam Chair. This same requirement of clarification can be found in the work of the Commission on the Peremptory Norms of General International Law, the Jus Cogens. In 2022, the Commission adopted in the second reading its draft conclusions on the identification and legal consequence of these norms. This work contributed to clarifying criteria, making it possible to identify, as well as the legal consequences of their peremptory character. The general principles of law and jus cogens are different legal categories. is a source of international law, the second designates peremptory norms from which no waiver is allowed. They each contribute nevertheless, according to their character and function, to the understanding of foundations of the international legal order and the conditions of its functioning. The clarification of these notions represents an interest that goes beyond doctrinal systematization. It contributes to the legal security of states, the predictability of their relationship, and the understanding of their obligations that provide structure to the international community. These concerns can also be found in the work of the Commission on the rise of the sea level with regard to international law. In 2025, the Commission adopted the final report of its group of work and concluded its consideration of this topic, which in particular focuses on the law of the sea, statehood, and the protection of persons that are affected. This question illustrates in a particularly concrete way the challenges to which international law is confronted. For small island states and coastal states that are the most exposed, the rise of the sea level raises existential challenges with regard to maritime areas, preservation of the legal status of a state, and protection of its population. The final report is a valuable contribution to the clarification of these issues, Lebanon encourages the continuation of dialogue among States on legal aspects in the framework of the work of the General Assembly. It is with this approach that Lebanon welcomes the inclusion of the principle of non-intervention in the long-term programme of work of the Commission. Closely linked to sovereign equality of States and their political independence, this principle is of particular importance for small states. Respect for rules and principles of international law is essential for the preservation of an order in which the balance of power should not be a substitute for law. Lebanon underscores the importance of preserving, as part of this reflection, the distinction between different legal categories, while taking into account their joint contribution to an international order based on law in which all States, no matter how powerful they are, should be able to benefit from the protection of international rules. Ladies and gentlemen, the quality of international law also depends on taking into consideration the diversity of legal traditions and national experiences. French is not merely one of the official languages of the United Nations, it is also a vehicle of a rich legal and doctrinal tradition which has contributed to the development of international law. Highlighting this tradition certainly does not mean opposing one language to another or one legal tradition to another. It's simply recognizing that linguistic and legal pluralism enriches the analysis and promotes the development of solutions that lead to endorsement by as broad a number of states as possible. Lebanon, which is at the crossroads of several cultural and legal traditions, is deeply attached to dialogue, to multilateralism, and to coexistence. The diversity of national experiences, should be considered not as a constraint, but rather as a resource in the service of the quality and the legitimacy of the work of the Commission. Madam Chair, reflection on the foundations of international law cannot be disassociated from its human dimension. A humanist approach to international law in no way diminishes its legal rigor. It recalls quite to the contrary that legal rules are not some kind of abstract aim. They are essential for the preservation of an international order in which each state must respect international law independently of its power and size. It's in this spirit that Lebanon reaffirms the importance of the mission of the International Law Commission. The codification and the progressive development must continue to be based on scientific rigor, dialogue with states, and respect for the diversity of legal traditions, while remaining attentive to the needs of the international community. Our collective responsibility is to ensure that international law remains a legal order based on rules and principles that are applicable to all states, to which each state can contribute and for which each can claim protection. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Lebanon for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of El Salvador. You have the floor, ma'am.

Thank.

You very much, Madam Chair. Madam, all protocols observed, and to save time, my delegation would like to make the following comments on cluster 1 of the report from the ILC. On sea level rise, firstly, and in addition to the remarks made by my delegation in previous sessions, the Republic of El Salvador would like to reiterate once again how important it is to maintain statehood, and here our explanation of our position regarding the stability of maritime zones. My delegation states that neither the stability of the maritime zones of States nor statehood as such should be affected by sea level rise. Here, we do not agree with ensuring this stability is only pursuant to UNCLOS. Although this is an instrument that is the applicable framework for its States Party, for those States which are not States Party, such as El Salvador, the stability of maritime zones must be understood in the light of State practice, national normative frameworks, and customary international law. Hence, El Salvador declares that the stability of maritime zones under its sovereignty corresponds to what is set forth in article 84 of its constitution, a provision which has constantly guided state practice in El Salvador, in consonance with customary international law. My delegation trusts that the subsequent examination of this issue, particularly during the high-level meeting for the 84th session, will make it possible to identify larger areas of convergence and to strengthen the mechanisms of international cooperation which are necessary to see the effective implementation of these very important legal elements. Madam, I would now like to refer to Chapter 4 of the report entitled "Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction". Firstly, I would like to express my thanks for the valuable work and contribution of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Claudio Grossman-Guloff, who followed on the extensive and well-reasoned work of Senora Concepción Escobar Hernández, whose memory my delegation recalls with deep respect and gratitude. Likewise, we welcome the recommendation made by the ILC to the effect that, in accordance with Article 23 of its Statute, the General Assembly, at an appropriate time, should convene an international conference of plenipotentiaries and consider drawing up a convention based on draft articles. We believe that arriving at this recommendation is a significant step forward for the Commission, particularly as it achieved an appropriate balance between the various relevant legal elements in order to ensure the respect of the principle of sovereign equality of states, which lies at the very basis of the immunity of state officials when it comes to foreign criminal jurisdiction. The immunity recognized for state officials pursuant to international law is intended to protect the rights and interests of the state. As the ICJ indicated, such immunity is not granted a personum, but rather to ensure the ability to represent the state and discharge state functions. However, we are concerned at the difference based on the list of crimes regarding which immunity ratione materiae would not be applicable. Although this happened during the discussions in April 2026, my delegation appreciates the endeavours carried out subsequently by the IOC to arrive at the text presented today. As Professor Grossman stated, this was wholly approved with its comments without any observations. This was approved by consensus. In this context, although there are still differences of opinion amongst those who favour a closed list of crimes and those preferring an approach based on general criteria, my delegation prizes the security and legal certainty that would come from a clearly defined list, without this excluding the continuing development of international law. We also believe that the inadequacies that exist in state practice at present should not be interpreted necessarily as an obstacle to a provision of this nature gradually being consolidated by means of repeated practice accompanied by opinion juris, possibly generating binding legal effects. When it comes to procedural safeguards, we welcome the balanced strengthening of various elements here. In particular, we would highlight Article 9, paragraph 3, where there is a reference to channels of communication accepted by States involved. This provides a broad and flexible wording, allowing States to determine on a case-by-case basis the most appropriate mechanisms for communication, be it within the framework of general treaties or by means of specific agreements amongst the States involved here. On the other part, it is necessary to acknowledge that the Sixth Committee will require a structured dialogue in order appropriately to examine the recommendation made by the Commission and to consider at the appropriate time the possible use of this draft of articles as the basis for a future instrument. In addressing this process, it might prove useful for delegations to continue to examine in greater detail the procedures pertaining to procedural safeguards, for example, bearing in mind the clarification in the commentaries to draft article 10. Lastly, as is the case with all drafts for international legal instruments, my delegation believes it is important that the dissemination of these articles should be accompanied by initiatives to create and strengthen the capacities to facilitate its understanding and implementation. Madam, on the general principles of law, my delegation is particularly happy at the on the second reading of the draft conclusions on these, and we would like to express our thanks to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez, for his significant contribution here. We particularly prize replacing the anachronistic reference to civilised nations by the concept of the international community, which states again that all states play a part on an equal footing in drawing up these principles, pursuant to the principle of sovereign equality enshrined in Article 2, paragraph 1 of the UN Charter. We also believe it is positive that this inclusive approach will be reflected in the proposed methodology by means of a necessary comparative, broad representative analysis taking into account the various regions and legal traditions throughout the world. Likewise, we acknowledge the value of the treatment given to the general principles which might arise in the international legal system, accompanied by relevant safeguards, as is the case for the clarification of the role here to contribute to the consistency of the system. and also to observe the absence of hierarchy of treaties and customary international law. Therefore, my delegation fully supports the recommendation made by the Commission here. Madam, just to conclude, regarding the long-term work programme, we have taken due note of the issues included in annex 1. My delegation, however, would like to reiterate how important it is that the Commission could continue to develop here work meeting the emerging needs and challenges faced by Member States in the context of international law. it would be possible to explore paths whereby the Commission would contribute to enriching existing multilateral discussions on issues such as the applicability of international law to cyberspace. The strategic relevance of this continues to increase. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of El Salvador for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Saudi Arabia. You have the floor, madam.

Madam Chair, we thank the ILC and the special rapporteurs for their efforts in the codification and progressive development of international law. We underscore the importance of established international law rules. and state practices in order to promote legal certainty and stability of international relations. I will only highlight our key position, and we will submit a written statement, including our detailed legal observations on the items under consideration. On sea level rise in relation to international law, we have taken note of the study group. We underscored the importance of preserving legal stability and established legitimate rights. It's also important to make a distinction between established legal rules and proposals that require further state practices to be accepted as a rule of law. We underscore that international response to climate change must be grounded in the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. accordance with the principles of equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities in light of different national circumstances. The study group had a clear mandate to look into legal issues linked to the law of the sea and the continuity of statehood and protection of persons. The mandate did not include climate change, causality, or legal responsibility or liability or responsibility of states. The report cannot be used as a basis to impute any interpret existing obligations under international agreements on climate change, or to create new primary obligations, or to create obligations to compensation, or to change treaties. On immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, we have taken note of the ILC's adoption of 17 draft articles and the commentaries thereto on second reading. We do not support the outcome of the ILC in its current form. because this is legally problematic with respect to the principle of sovereign equality. We question the extent to which some provisions are grounded in established rules of customary international law. The immunity of state officials is not a mere procedural issue. In addition, it's not appropriate to limit immunity ratione personae to the position of the Troika. Immunity ratione personae must also be extended to cover senior officials. This inclusion does not take into consideration the sovereign and representative nature of functions performed by other senior officials. We express our reservation over draft Article 6 on international crimes to which immunity ratione materiae does not apply. Gravity of crimes does not suffice to prove an exception from immunity under international customary law. The list of crimes proposed is problematic too, in light of limited international practice, the non-universality of some instruments reference, and the risk of politicizing the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction, mainly with respect to crime of aggression. We underscore the importance of strengthening procedural safeguards, including the prior notification to the state of official. Any delay invoking immunity must not be construed to mean a waiver. The state of official must be consulted with before a coercive measure is taken. We underscore that the jurisdiction of international courts must be grounded in state consent. We express our concern because some contentious issues are referred to the commentaries instead of being settled. in these articles themselves. We do not believe that the current draft articles are an appropriate foundation to adopt an international convention. We must further consider these draft articles in full caution. Any such decision must be grounded on consensus among countries. On the general principles of law, we welcome the adoption of the community of nations instead of civilized nations. There must be a broad and representative comparative analysis of all legal regimes when identifying and determining general principles of law. In addition, we must underscore the importance of the transposition to the legal international system. We must continue to make a distinction between the sources of international law, and the commentaries must be clear and consistent, and they must not be used in order to create new legal obligations without recognized basis. On the conclusions and decisions we have taken note of the decision to add identification of legal consequences on the new program of work. There must not be new obligations without any applicable legal basis. In conclusion, Madam Chair, we underscore the importance of pursuing dialogue between the ILC and Member States. There must be further cooperation in order to promote legal certainty and to uphold the principle of sovereign state equality. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Saudi Arabia for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Serbia. You have the floor, sir.

Delegates, it is an honour to address you today on behalf of the Republic of Serbia on several topics falling under cluster one. Those topics concern some of the most sensitive issues of contemporary international law. With regard to the immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, the International Law Commission has completed the second reading. Nevertheless, certain issues remain controversial among states. Draft Article 7. concerning crimes under international law in respect to which immunity ratione materiae shall not apply, is particularly contentious and appears to reflect progressive development of international law rather than a codification of existing customary rules. Given the sensitive nature of this topic and the possibility that the proposed draft articles incorporate elements of progressive development, the Republic of Serbia considers that an international conference of plenipotentiaries would provide an appropriate forum for further consideration of the draft articles and for the thorough reassessment of certain key aspects of immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Such a convention could also address the question of immunity before international courts and tribunals, while ensuring that any general rules adopted in this regard would be without prejudice to the specific legal regime established by the, for example, Rome Statute concerning relations between its State parties. Distinguished delegates, the second issue concerns general principles of law. It remains necessary to clarify whether International Law Commission's work in this area constitutes a codification of existing international law or also involve its progressive development. The Commission has completed the second reading of the relevant conclusions, yet certain question remains unresolved and have not been sufficiently addressed in the commentaries. This is particularly significant given that the general principles of law constitute a source of international law whose precise nature and scope have long been the subject of debate. One of the most controversial issues concerns draft conclusion 3, which distinguishes between two categories of general principles of law. The first category, comprising principles derived from national legal systems, has received broad support from States. The second category, comprising principles that may be formed within the international legal system, remain contested. While some states accept the existence of this second category, the other continue to express serious reservations. As I emphasized during the previous session, it is important to distinguish between general principles of law as a formal source of international law and the principles of international law that derive from treaties, customary international law, or general principles of law recognized as a source under Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Such principles may be understood as principles inherent in law as a social phenomenon, existing in both national and international legal system. In this sense, they form an integral part of law and tend to reflect its more enduring and conservative features. What is described as the second category in the Commission's work should not, in our view, be treated as an independent source of international law. Such principles may constitute principles of international law, but that does not necessarily mean that they can be qualified as a separate formal source within the meaning of Article 38. Rather, they may derive their legal force from other sources of international law. Time constraints do not permit me to examine comprehensively all the examples discussed in the commentaries to the relevant draft conclusions. Nevertheless, I would like to emphasize that principles described as intrinsic to the international legal system may indeed be principles of international law without necessarily constituting independent source of law under Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Just for example, the principle of uti possidentis, as applied in the context of decolonization, constitutes a principle of international law with a customary character. Its application is also closely associated with political considerations of stability and the preservation of peace. However, recognizing this principle as a principle of international law does not in itself establish that it constitutes an independent formal source of law under Article 38. Similarly, the principles listed in the commentary to draft conclusion 7 may have different legal foundations. A principle does not become an independent source of law merely because it is regarded as a principle of international law. Its legal status must be assessed in the light of the relevant law-making process and the applicable rules governing the formation and identification of international law. Domestic legal systems provide a useful illustration. Constitutional principles, principles established by legislation, and general principles of law may coexist, and the single principle may be reflected in several legal sources. General principles of law, understood as the principles inherent in law as a social phenomenon. must therefore be distinguished from principles of international law that derive their binding force primarily from treaties or customary international law in combination with general principles of law. To conclude, at the present stage, the progressive development of general principles of law through the work of the International Law Commission or the Sixth Committee is not warranted. Thank you for your attention.

I thank the distinguished representative of Serbia for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished permanent representative of Sierra Leone. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I must admit that it's really good to see you leading the work of the Committee at this point in time and chairing these proceedings. I know we are very pressed for time. And we've dispensed with the full statement. I also have dispensed with some of the diplomatic protocols. Well, what I think I will do is to acknowledge, particularly the hard work of the chair of the commission, special rapporteurs, and the members of the commission. And indeed, our substantive comments will be included in our long statement. So, Madam Chair, Sierra Leone aligns itself with the statement delivered by Cameroon on behalf of the African Group. I take this opportunity to welcome the members of the International Law Commission and legal advisers from capitals to New York. We congratulate Ambassador Andreas Mavroyiannis, it's good to see you in New York, Ambassador, on your leadership of the 77th session of the Commission. We thank the Bureau, the Special Rapporteurs, and the Codification Division for a demanding yet very productive session. SALN reiterated its call for the restoration of the Commission's full session. The Commission completed two second readings this year, and that achievement should not mask the cost of compressed calendars for careful consideration. We welcome the election to the Commission of Dr. Olufemi Elias of Nigeria, an international jurist of high repute and distinction. Sri Lanka also takes particular pride in the work of its national, Professor Dr. Charles Charnock Jalloh, as Special Rapporteur on Subsidiary Means for the Determination of Rules of International Law. He steered the adoption this year on first reading of 13 draft conclusions with commentaries. Professor Jalloh also chaired the Working Group on Methods of Work and Procedures. We will comment in detail on subsidiary means in the appropriate cluster. Sri Lanka welcomes the excellent progress made by the Working Group on Methods of Work in preparing the Handbook. In view of the conclusion of the current members’ mandate next year, Sri Lanka encourages the Commission to allocate sufficient time for the Working Group to complete its work, thereby ensuring that the incoming members in 2028 and indeed the delegations in the Sixth Committee can benefit from this valuable institutional resource. Today, in acknowledging his stellar contribution to the work of the Commission, we are pleased to further state that Professor Jalloh is Sierra Leone's candidate for the position of Judge of the International Court of Justice, endorsed by the Economic Community of West African States, the African Union, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. We are also grateful to the 12 other national groups and their governments for co-nomination of Professor Jalloh. His record of service to the Commission is, we believe, the best testimony to the contribution he would make to the court. On the topics for consideration in cluster one, allow me first to address sea level rise in relation to international law. As a coastal state in West Africa, Sierra Leone has low-lying communities, islands, and a coastline undergoing pressure from rising seas. We therefore welcome the final report of the study group and support its central legal findings. We congratulate and commend the co-chairs and members of the study group, and indeed represented by Professor Nolifor Oral on the podium. Congratulations and thank you for your work. In this regard, the UN welcomes also the adoption by consensus on 24th September 2026, during the high-level week of the 81st session of the political declaration of the high-level meeting to address the existential threat posed by sea level rise. The Declaration also takes note of the advisory opinion of the Court, ICJ, and the final report of the study group. The legal analysis of the Commission, the jurisprudence of the Court, and the political will of Member States now point in the same direction. Our task is to consolidate that convergence into settled law and to give practical effect to the Declaration's commitment on science, adaptation, finance, and the protection of affected persons. On general principles of law, Sierra Leone welcomes the adoption on second reading of the 12th draft conclusions and commentaries. We commend the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vasquez Bermudez, and support the Commission's recommendation that the General Assembly take note of the conclusions, annex them to a resolution, and commend them to States and to all who may be called upon to apply them. Sierra Leone has had the opportunity to address the draft conclusions as adopted on first reading. Our detailed comments are in a longer version of our statement. With respect to the new draft conclusion 12 on general principles, with a limited scope of application, it recognizes that regional legal orders, including our own continental system, may give rise to such principles. We note the coherence between draft conclusions eight and nine on decisions of courts and teachings, and the Commission's prior work on subsidiary means. To ensure harmonization for the users of the Commission's work, Sierra Leone would have preferred a closer alignment between the conclusions and teachings and decisions under the topic of general principles of law and those adopted by the Commission on subsidiary means. We, however, understand that the decisions taken by the Commission this year in the general principle of law topic carried no implications for the equivalent conclusions on subsidiary means. Turning to immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, Sweden congratulates the Special Rapporteur, Professor Claudio Grossman, on the adoption of 17 draft articles with commentaries on second reading. We honour the memory of Professor Concepción Escobar Hernández, whose foundational work made the outcome possible. Sierra Leone's position on this topic is shaped by our history. Through the Special Court for Sierra Leone, our country demonstrated that official position, even at the highest level, is no bar to accountability for the gravest crimes. Immunity, in our view, is procedural; it is not impunity. We therefore welcome draft article 6 and the Commission's decision to retain it. We particularly welcome the inclusion on second reading of slavery and the slave trade. Sierra Leone proposes its inclusion in its written comment to the Commission. Sierra Leone likewise supported the inclusion of the crime of aggression and welcome its addition to the list. On chapter 13, Sierra Leone welcomed the inclusion of the topic, identification and legal consequences of obligations and their onus in international law, in the program of work and the appointment of Professor Masahiko Asada as Special Rapporteur. We also welcome the inclusion of the right to regulate international investment law in a long-term program of work. This topic should be immediately added to the current program of work of the commission. giving its relevance to States and to achieving sustainable development. Finally, we affirm our support for the International Law Seminar and for the Trust Fund assisting Special Rapporteurs, and we encourage contributions to both. Both are essential to broadening the participation of developing countries, and of Africa in particular, in the progressive development and codification of international law. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Czechia. You have the floor.

Madam Chair, allow me to begin by extending our congratulations to the newly elected Chair of the International Law Commission, Mr. Andreas Mavroyiannis. We'd like to thank him for introducing the Commission's report and for his able and dedicated leadership of the Commission's Commission throughout its session. At the outset, the Czech Republic would like to briefly comment on the topic sea level rise in relation to international law. We welcome the development following the completion of the Commission's work on the topic, including the adoption of the high-level declaration during the opening of the current session of the General Assembly. We appreciate that the last year’s advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of States in respect of climate change provided authoritative guidance on the applicable rules of international law and clarified a number of outstanding legal questions. In our view, these developments now provide a comprehensive basis for addressing the legal dimensions of sea level rise. Madam Chair, allow me now to turn to the topic immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. The Czech Republic welcomes that the Commission adopted the entire set of draft articles on the topic. We would like to express our appreciation to the Commission and the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Claudio Grossman-Guilof, for their work and the completion on the second reading. We also appreciate substantial contributions of previous Special Rapporteurs, Mr. Roman Kolotkin and Mrs. Concepción Escobar Hernández. Madam Chair, there is no doubt that the draft articles substantially clarify the legal concepts concerning the immunity of State officials, both ratione personae and ratione materiae, from foreign criminal jurisdiction, and their status in respect of other related concepts of international law. At the same time, the adopted set of draft articles will surely be the subject of further study and discussions on intergovernmental as well as academic level. The draft articles provide a substantial, thought-out and elaborate basis for such discussions. The Czech Republic expressed its positions on certain aspects of the draft articles in its previous statements. We appreciate that the Commission confirmed the inclusion of draft article 6 with an expanded list of crimes in respect of which immunity ratione materiae shall not apply. As we already stated, the draft article in principle reflects already existing norms of international law based on the absence of immunity ratione materiae when state officials commit serious crimes defined in relevant criminal law treaties containing the obligation to criminalize those crimes and to prosecute or extradite their perpetrators. As for the inclusion of the crime of aggression in the list under draft article 6, We would like to mention again that an individual crime of aggression is dependent on an act of aggression committed by a state. This connection between a crime of an individual and an act of a state can be reflected by making the prosecution of the crime of aggression in third states dependent on prior determination of an act of aggression by the United Nations Security Council or the United Nations General Assembly, as the case may be. Madam Chair, finally, we would like to turn to the draft procedural provisions and safeguards in Part IV, which we commented on in our previous statements. We appreciate the focus on and elaboration of certain aspects of procedure in these cases, including the emphasis on examination of immunity by the forum state, communication and consultation between the states concerned, and the importance of fair treatment in the proceedings against foreign state officials. On the other hand, we took note of diverging views on certain draft procedural articles expressed in previous discussions by the Commission and the Sixth Committee. We would also like to refer to our concerns with respect to this part of draft articles, what we formulated in previous years. The existing practice in this area is based on national laws on criminal procedure and treaties on international judicial cooperation in criminal matters. which provide for the prosecution of crimes committed by state officials. In our opinion, the relationship of draft procedural provisions to those treaties is not clarified enough and requires further consideration. Therefore, at least at this stage, we maintain our view that the draft articles, namely procedural provisions in Part IV, should rather remain in their non-binding form. Madam Chair, now I would like to present our observations on the topic General principles of law. The Czech Republic welcomes the adoption of draft conclusions by the Commission on second reading and expresses its appreciation and gratitude to the Commission and the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez, for their work over several years. The Czech Republic considers general principles of law to be an established source of international law within the meaning of Article 38, paragraph 1(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. We therefore welcome the Commission's effort to clarify the methodology for their identification and application. In particular, we support the Commission's confirmation that the identification of general principles of law derived from national legal systems requires, first, the ascertainment of a principle common to the various legal systems of the world, and, second, an assessment of its applicability within the international legal system. This two-step approach reflects the traditional understanding of general principles of law and provides useful guidance for practice. At the same time, the Czech Republic would like to reiterate certain observations that it has made throughout the Commission's consideration of this topic. First, with regard to draft conclusion 5, we remain unconvinced that a wide and representative comparative analysis should be regarded as a necessary requirement in every case. A number of well-established general principles of law have long been recognized in international legal practice and jurisprudence. Their identification is not necessarily the result of an ad hoc comparative exercise, but rather of a long and well-established legal development. Second, we note that the Commission has retained the category of general principles of law that may be formed within the international legal system. While we acknowledge the Commission's effort to clarify this concept, The Czech Republic continues to hold the view that general principles of law within the meaning of Article 38, paragraph 1(c) derive from national legal systems and are subsequently transposed to the international legal order. In our view, sufficient state practice, jurisprudence, and doctrinal support haven't been demonstrated to establish the existence of general principles of law formed within the international legal system. We also remain concerned that such an approach may blur the distinction between general principles of law and other sources of international law, in particular, customary international law. With respect to Draft Conclusion 11 concerning the relationship of general principles of law to treaties and customary international law, we would like to point out that general principles, although formally equal to other two sources of international law, have in practice supplementary role and are resorted to only occasionally or exceptionally. This follows from highly general and abstract level of their content, which also means that their primary function is filling possible gaps in international law. The Czech Republic supports the recommendation of the International Law Commission that the General Assembly take note of the draft conclusions and ensure their widest possible dissemination. At the same time, we consider it appropriate to continue the scholarly and intergovernmental discussion on certain aspects of the draft conclusions, in particular with regard to the identification of general principles of law that may be formed within the international legal system and their distinction from other sources of international law. Madam Chair, finally, we would like also to comment briefly on other decisions and conclusions of the Commission. We note with satisfaction that the Commission decided to include the topic "Identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law" in its programme of work, and congratulate Mr. Masahiko Asada for his appointment as Special Rapporteur. This topic is becoming a subject of increased relevance in the practice of States and in case law of international courts. We believe that consideration of this topic will clarify the nature and legal consequences of such obligations. including their relationship with jus cogens and with obligations erga omnes partes. Special attention should be paid to the status of obligations erga omnes in the law of responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts. We also note with interest the inclusion of the topic, the right to regulate in international investment law in the Commission's long-term program of work. The inclusion of this topic reflects the dynamic evolution of the law and practice in international investment law and possible imbalances caused by these developments. Consideration of this topic in the future should clarify uncertainties in the international investment law and provide guidance on how to balance investment protection on one hand and state economic sovereignty on the other. We note that suggested scope of questions and issues the Commission might address is rather extensive and could be further specified if the Commission decides to include these topics in its programme of work. Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Thank you, madam Chair. We thank the chair of the International Law Commission, Mr. Andreas Mavroyiannis, for introducing the report, and every member of the Commission for a year of rare achievement. Madam Chair, I begin with sea level rise. Because for Bangladesh, it is not an abstract topic. The debate on sea level rise has rightly been led by small island states, but the final report of the study group also speaks of low-lying coastal states, and Bangladesh is one of them. Our concern is what will happen to people who live on land that may become uninhabitable long before it disappears. Last month, on 24 September, all member states agreed the first United Nations declaration on sea level rise. It recognizes that sea level rise impedes people living in low-lying deltas, as so many Bangladeshis do, and it affirms the presumption in favor of continued statehood and the stability of maritime zones. Bangladesh welcomes it. As the Secretary-General told that meeting, around 770 million people live less than five meters above the high tide line. We support the Study Group's conclusion that, once states have duly deposited their baselines and the outer limits of their maritime zones, they are under no obligation to update the same as the sea rises. The International Court of Justice reached the same view last year in its advisory opinion on climate change. The part of the Study Group's work that most concerns Bangladesh is the protection of persons the protection of persons. The study group found that there is no dedicated legal framework and that solutions are needed for those who remain in situ and those who are internally or externally displaced. For a country like ours, those affected will not cross a border. They will move within it. The declaration speaks of mobility with dignity. We ask that the protection of persons including the internally displaced, now receive the same legal attention that the Commission and this Assembly have given to maritime zones and statehood. The law is not starting from nothing. The Guiding Principles of Internal Displacement and the African Union’s Kampala Convention already address persons displaced by disasters, including those linked to climate change. In January, the Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters will open. As we were reminded that the work reaches slow-onset disasters, Bangladesh will seek to ensure that the new convention clearly covers them, so that people displaced by the rising sea do not fall between two regimes. Bangladesh, as a low-lying coastal state, stands ready to work with the small island developing States as they take the protection of persons forward next year. And we support keeping sea level rise on the agenda of this Committee. Madam Chair, the next issue I draw your attention to is the immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. We congratulate the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Claudio Grassmann Gieff, and his predecessors, on the completion of 17 draft articles on second reading. Bangladesh knows from its own history that crimes against humanity are almost often committed by those who hold the power of the state. Immunity must never become their shield. We therefore support the principle of draft article 6, that immunity ratione materiae shall not apply to most serious crimes under international law. We also agree with the delegation delegations that asked for a clear line between the law as it stands and the law as it is being developed. It has been observed that, for some of the crimes listed, the exception rests on established practice, while for others, the Commission has relied on coherence with peremptory norms. Clarity on that point is what will allow States to build on the Commission’s work, including in the negotiations on a convention on crimes against humanity, which begins in 2028. We value the procedural safeguards in Part IV, which protect smaller states against prosecutions driven by politics rather than law. And we are open to considering the Commission’s recommendation that a convention on the immunity of state officials be elaborated at an appropriate time. Madam Chair, Then we need to focus on general principles of law. Bangladesh warmly congratulates the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vasquez Bermudez. When the Article 38 of the Statute was drafted in 1920, Lord Filmore, one of its drafters, gave as examples of general principles. He talked about certain principles of procedure, the principle of good faith, and the principles of res judicata. The examples have not changed, but the community of nations has. Today, a principle can be called general only if it is found across legal systems of the world community of nations, including systems like ours. Draft Conclusion 5 requires that comparative analysis of national legal systems be wide and representative, including the different regions of the world. Bangladesh’s own legal order draws on the common law, on religious personal laws and on long traditions of community mediation known in our villages as ‘Shalish’. Systems like ours are rich in principle but poor in translation. We encourage the Secretariat and the Commission to make the materials of such systems more accessible so that the analysis is representative in fact and not only in form. We also note the care the Commission has taken with the questions that have divided opinion in this room. On transposition, draft conclusion 6 reflects the warning of Judge Sir Arnold McNair that principles of national law cannot be imported lock, stock and barrel. On principles formed within the international legal system, the Commission chose the word may. and set a demanding test, the community of nations must have recognized the principles as intrinsic to that system. As Judge Abdulkawi Yusuf told this committee in 2019, when he was president of the court, the question of coherence in international law is an existential one. Madam Chair, finally, we welcome the inclusion of the topic, identification and legal consequences of obligation erga omnes in international law, with Mr. Masahiko Asada as special rapporteur, and of the right to regulate in international investment law in the long-term programme of work, and the updated syllabus on extraterritorial jurisdiction, which matters to countries whose exporters and workers are increasingly bound by laws made elsewhere. Madam Chair, this was a year in which the Commission finished what it started. Our task now is to make sure that what it has finished is used appropriately in international regime. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Bangladesh for his statement. Distinguished delegates, the distinguished representative of Bangladesh was the last speaker for this afternoon. The interactive dialogue will be held in this room immediately following the adjournment of this meeting. There will be no meeting of the Sixth Committee tomorrow morning in order to allow delegates the opportunity to attend the debate on the report of the International Court of Justice in the General Assembly. We will continue the discussion on the first cluster of topics tomorrow afternoon at 3:00 PM, following which we will turn to the second cluster of topics. Before adjourning, I wish to remind those delegations that have not yet submitted their list of participants in this year’s session of the Sixth Committee that they should register the names of their representatives, alternate representatives, and advisers through the e-list of participants module on the e-delegate portal at their earliest convenience. The Secretariat will be circulating a draft of this year’s list of participants next week. The meeting is adjourned.

Yeah.

Yes, I know.

Good afternoon, Excellencies, distinguished delegates. Welcome to the annual interactive dialogue between the Sixth Committee and the International Law Commission. The dialogue has become a valued tradition of the International Law Week and is a joint initiative of Austria and Sweden. Last year, Sweden organized and conducted the dialogue, and this year, Austria is organizing and conducting it. It provides a platform for an informal exchange between delegates attending the International Law Week of the Sixth Committee and the members of the International Law Commission. We think that the dialogue fills a gap. The statements of State representatives on the report of the ILC are very elaborate and they are legally highly refined. What lacks is the opportunity to have an open, frank discussion of States' representatives with members of the International Law Commission on the topics which are being discussed in the ILC and the work of the ILC. This is exactly where the interactive dialogue comes in. It aims to fill this gap and aims to provide an opportunity for an informal dialogue with distinguished members of the ILC. It is a great pleasure that today we will be able to profit from the presence of three distinguished members of the International Law Commission: Professor Charles Tjallow, on the topic of subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, sitting to my right, to your left, thank you very much, Professor Ciallo. To my left and to your right, Professor August Reinisch, also Special Rapporteur for the topic of settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties. Thank you very much, Professor Reinisch. And on my right again, Professor Masahiko Asada, who is Special Rapporteur on the topic of identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law. So thank you very much to the three distinguished members of the ILC. I think I should make a remark at this point. We tried very hard to find a female member of the ILC and a female panellist. It was not only difficult, it was impossible for us. This was mainly due, and I think the main reason is that the gender balance in the ILC is not very good, not to say it's non-existent. So I would speak of an unbalance when it comes to members of the ILC. Before I will ask the three professors and members of the ILC to give a short presentation of their topic, let me introduce the three distinguished members of the ILC, great international lawyers and special rapporteurs on their topics. Professor Charles Challot. He has over 25 years of experience in the study, in the teaching, and in the practice of international law. He is currently full professor of international law at the University of the Miami School of Law and the founder of the Center for International Law and Policy in Africa, which is based in Sierra Leone, as I understand. He was first elected to the ILC in 2016. where he is currently Special Rapporteur for topic we are going to hear about today, subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law. Trained in the common law and also in the civil law legal system, he has been counsel advocate at the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Criminal Court, and also the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Professor August Reinisch has been professor of international and European law at the University of Vienna for over 20 years. He is a member of the ILC since 2017. He is also a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration since 2014. In addition, he is an associate member of the Institut du Droit International, member of the Austrian delegation to the Sixth Committee for several years, And he's also adjunct professor at the Bologna Center of the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, the Johns Hopkins University in Bologna. And may I mention that he also has an admission to the bar of the state of New York and Connecticut. Professor Masaiko Asada is professor of international law at the Graduate School of Law in Kyoto, Kyoto University in Japan. In 2009, he was appointed by the UN Secretary General as one of only seven members of the panel of experts, which was established pursuant to a Security Council resolution. And in a similar capacity, he had also served as a member of the UN panel of government experts on the issue of verification. In Japan, Professor Asada is a member of the International Relations Committee. of the Atomic Energy Commission of the Cabinet Office, also a member of the Subcommittee on Security and Trade Control of the Industrial Structure Advisory Council. This is METI, the Ministry of Economy and Trade. In international treaty-related forums, Professor Asada served as legal advisor to the Japanese delegations in many different conferences, such as the Conference on Disarmament, in Geneva, the Biological Weapons Convention, and he also participated in the preparatory committee for the 2005 NPT review conference. May I now ask the professors and ILC members to give us a short presentation of their respective topic? And after we've heard these presentations, I think we can enter into what is the objective of today, the interactive dialogue. Maybe I start with Professor Ciallo. Professor Ciallo, may I ask you for your presentation, please?

Thank you very much, Ambassador, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. Let me begin by thanking the Permanent Missions of Austria and Sweden for organizing this important and timely dialogue. I particularly welcome its interactive character. The relationship between the International Law Commission and Member States is fundamental to the Commission's mandate of codification and progressive development of international law. Indeed, during my tenure as Chair of the Commission's Working Group on Methods of Work, we sought to strengthen this engagement, including through the introduction of a standing agenda item devoted to improving the dialogue with States, in particular the Sixth Committee. In other words, the Commission takes very seriously the comments made by States annually in the Sixth Committee. These comments and observations inform our deliberations throughout the first reading. And speaking personally as a rapporteur, I devote quite a few pages of my reports examining State comments. Going directly to the Ambassador's point, because the idea was to be brief. Let me just say a couple of words about the Commission's efforts this year, which led to the successful conclusion upon first reading of a set of draft conclusions on the topic of subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law. This marks an important milestone in the work of the International Law Commission, because it basically builds on the prior work of the Commission on the sources of international law, following, for example, its completion of a set of conclusions on the identification of customary international law in 2018, and just this year, as you know, the topic you've been debating, general principles of law. A word about the form and the normative character of our work, I know this is an issue of great interest to the Sixth Committee, has been also a great interest for me personally as a member, is what we mean when we say conclusions. The Commission doesn't have a one-size-fits-all definition, as we pointed out in the commentary, but it deliberately chose that form of output in this topic. The idea is not to propose a new treaty or create new rules of international law. Rather, it is to clarify existing law and on the basis of a study of state practice. So these draft conclusions that have been presented by the Commission are intended to articulate through the careful examination of practice and reasoned legal analysis, the principles governing the use of subsidiary means in determining rules of international law. Of course, as you all know, the topic itself is rooted in Article 38(1)(d) of the ICJ Statute, which the Commission takes as a starting point. You will recall that this provision directs the judges to look at judicial decisions and the teachings of publicists as subsidiary means for determining rules of law. So the central contribution, if I can capture the big picture of this, is methodological. The aim of the Commission is to clarify not merely what constitutes the category of subsidiary means, but how such materials should be used and how you assess their weight. Allow me to highlight very briefly on the substance five points. First, it's a set of conclusions, draft conclusions 1 to 3, that established the overarching conceptual framework for the topic. The fundamental proposition appears in draft conclusion three, which basically says that subsidiary means are not a source of international law. A judicial decision does not, for example, merely by its existence, create a generally applicable rule, nor does a scholarly article or material have a normative authority simply because the author is a distinguished author. The legal authority of the rule must ultimately be established through the applicable sources of law, and at the same time, conclusion two recognizes that the categories of subsidiary means are not necessarily closed. Alongside judicial decisions and teachings, other means generally used to assist in determining rules of law may qualify. The requirement of general use guards against unlimited expansion while accommodating developments in international legal practice. The Commission thus preserves the distinction between the sources of law and the means by which one could determine the law without imposing an artificially rigid classification of legal materials. Second substantive point, how you assess weight. Draft conclusion 4 provides the methodological outline for the entire project. It identifies a set of general criteria for assessing weight of subsidiary means, including the elements of representativeness, quality of the reasoning, expertise, degree of agreement among those involved, reception by states and other entities, and, where relevant, the mandate of the body concerned. These criteria are neither cumulative requirements nor a mechanical checklist. Their application depends on the nature of the material and legal question under examination. Of particular importance in the Commission's work and in the commentary is clarifying the importance of the quality of the legal reasoning contained in the document. Third point, judicial decisions and the absence of binding precedent. So draft conclusions 5 to 7 address decisions of international courts and tribunals. Conclusion 5 recognizes a particular place of decisions of international courts. especially of the International Court of Justice, giving its position as a principal judicial organ of the United Nations, and on top of that, the only court with general jurisdiction. National court decisions may also serve as subsidiary means with due regard to the particularities of domestic legal systems. Conclusion six addresses a fundamental feature of international adjudication. International law has no general system of binding precedent. So Article 59 of the ICJ Statute confirms that decisions are only binding on the parties to the case. Yet, the absence of a rule concerning stare decisis does not render earlier decisions legally insignificant. International courts in practice regularly rely on prior decisions in the interest of consistency, security, and legal certainty. There are a number of examples that the Commission point to in the commentary. For example, the Cameroon and Nigeria case, where the court said it has to find compelling reasons to depart from its earlier reasoning. Fourth point, just to be brief again, teachings and representativeness. You have conclusions eight and nine, which address those two matters. The Commission adopts a broad understanding of this category, encompassing written scholarship, recorded lectures, audiovisual materials, and collective scholarly work. Importantly, it emphasizes representativeness across legal systems, regions, and traditions with due regard to linguistic and gender diversity. This is not merely an institutional aspiration, it has some methodological consequences. So, for example, an assessment of international law that systematically overlooks scholarship from particular regions or legal traditions risks presenting a partial account of a universal legal system. So the Commission therefore combines expertise on the one hand and quality of reasoning with genuine representativeness. The objective is not geographical balance at the expense of legal rigor, but greater rigor through a more representative assessment of international legal thought. One question that I would pose now is whether the general criteria in conclusion four as presented by the Commission are sufficient for evaluating teachings or whether additional criteria specific to this category, the teachings category, should be added. Fifth and last point, expert bodies, resolutions, and other texts. The final part of the conclusions address these two categories of materials whose practical significance the Commission found has gained considerably since 1945. So, for example, draft conclusions 10 and 11 concern the work of expert bodies whose members serve in their personal capacity. A good example, of course, is International Law Commission itself. It's not the only example. Such work may assist in determining rules of international law. Its weight depends on the general criteria in conclusion 4, supplemented by considerations including methodology, normative value, and the competence and selection of experts. Draft conclusions 12 and 13 address resolutions and other texts produced by international organizations or at intergovernmental conferences. And here's a crucial distinction that must be maintained. The adoption of a resolution does not, in the view of the Commission, without more, establish the existence of a rule of international law. Its significance depend on its content, the circumstances of its adoption, voting patterns, explanations of positions, and subsequent reception, including by states. And there are a number of examples given in the commentary. So the Commission's approach basically tries to avoid two extremes. treating resolutions as automatically authoritative or dismissing them as legally irrelevant because they are non-binding. Instead, it requires careful assessment of their legal, actual legal significance, having reference both to the general criteria and the more specific criteria on weight concerning each of the categories. Mr. Chairperson, let me leave it at that because I know we have a lot to get to. Thank you very much.

Professor Ciallo, thank you very much. Thank you for so succinctly summing up in five points the results and the main results of the draft conclusions on your topic. May I now ask Professor Reinisch to give us his presentation on the topic of settlement of disputes? Please, Professor Reinisch, you have the floor.

Thank you very much for inviting me to be here, and my particular thanks go to the Austrian and the Swedish delegation for organizing these interactive dialogues now for quite a number of years, and I've always enjoyed very much the different format. Indeed, I'm very grateful for all the discussions that I had already in an informal way with many of you individually, and I'm looking forward to the questions that will be posed this afternoon. Now, unfortunately, I will have to return tomorrow night, so I will not be able to be here during the entire cluster two session, but all the more, this is a fantastic opportunity. And since Ambassador Lloyd reminded me that I was admitted as a lawyer here in this state. I know that everything that I'm saying can be used against me, or to just paraphrase that a little bit, the more I'm saying, the less time there will be for you asking questions, which is, of course, what I'm most interested here. Let me make a few comments on the guidelines on settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties, the topic on which I had the honor to serve as a special rapporteur and which was adopted on first reading this summer. In order to beat my good friend Charles, I just make three points very quickly, and then I leave it to you to ask maybe 100 questions in regard to this. And I should also say that I I am particularly grateful for the past responses in the last years on the topic, which, and I should also want to underline what we have just heard, for the Commission in general, but in particular for the Special Rapporteurs, the feedback we receive, feedback in a very broad sense, the directions, the responses, but also the criticism. And the words of caution in regard to many of the projects we are pursuing are highly important and make this Commission such a very special place as compared to many other institutions that deal with the codification and development of international law. Now, some of you may remember 10 years ago, was it 10 years ago? Maybe not. There was a lot of talks in the corridors here at the UN about the Haiti cholera cases. There was talk about the Srebrenica cases. There were talks about claims against international organizations, claims that may be raised by private parties, but they may be also raised on the international level. And initially, when the topic was proposed, the topic had a slightly different name. It was called the settlement of international disputes to which international organizations are parties. And as you may remember, this was a very deliberate choice by the Commission, and I would also submit a choice supported by the delegations here in the room. to actually not confine our considerations to what might be, and probably might with some difficulty, be defined as international disputes, but rather to talk about any form of potential disputes, whether it's a private employment contract claim, whether it is a host country having a disagreement with an international organization, or whether it is any other form of dispute. So the guidelines really try to cover those in a very broad sense. I'm not going to carry you through all the entire set of the 12 guidelines, because this exercise has been done. We will be listening to your concerns. Let me emphasize the three points. the complex nature of guidelines. Second, the scope of the guidelines, as I mentioned, not limited to international ones. And third, the question to what extent certain adjudicatory forms of dispute settlement might receive preference or whether the guidelines are neutral in this regard. Those are three topics that have been intensely discussed both within the Commission and also, I understand, here in the Sixth Committee. Now, these are guidelines, and guidelines are a fairly new instrument developed by the International Law Commission and not draft articles. They are also not conclusions, and the idea is to really combine, to some extent, a restatement of existing law, but to combine this with recommendations. So most of the guidelines as formulated really should be understood as recommendations given both to states, to international organizations, but also to other parties, to disputes in the field. And in that sense, They are not meant to be binding law. They will not be turned into any instruments that are binding, but they should be used as interpretation tools in regard to maybe existing treaties, evolving custom, et cetera. Let me turn to the second point, and also here, I think the fact that this is not limited to international dispute. is a point that has been raised by various delegations in this room that remarked that the most pressing issue in regards to disputes involving international organizations is the question of immunity, the relationship between immunity that is necessary for the fulfillment of the tasks and the independent performance of the functions of organizations on the one hand, and access to justice by private parties. And this is something that the guidelines 9 to 11 try to address in a balanced way. And I'm happy to look to hear your reactions, both in the formal statements, but also in this interactive dialogue. And the third question, which I think is also very important, in regard to both the disputes with states, but also with private parties. There is a careful balancing ensuring that adjudication or arbitration should be not the priority, but rather the priority is to find those means of dispute settlement which are most adequate, appropriate, and in most situations, according to the type of dispute. And those disputes, as I indicated at the beginning of my explanations, can be very different. Nevertheless, saying so, the availability, and this is also something that we have learned from the reactions both of international organizations and states, shows that the availability and accessibility of adjudicatory forms of dispute settlement may be helpful also if ultimately pursuing negotiated, amicable dispute settlement forms. And with that in mind, I'm very much looking forward to the questions.

Thank you very much, Professor Reinisch. You touched upon very pertinent and important questions of international organizations in relation to dispute settlement. Austria and Vienna is host country, host city of dozens of international organizations. And please let me assure you that just from my own experience, the question of immunity is a very important one for international organizations. But with that, I would ask our third panelist, Professor Asada, to give his presentation on the third topic, on the obligations erga omnes. Please, Professor Sala, you have the floor.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for giving me the opportunity to present some of my thoughts on the topic, identification and legal consequences of obligation erga omnes in international law. My particular thanks goes to the organizing delegations, Sweden and Austria, for this important event. Since this topic was included in the ILCS program work only in July this year, I have little to report to you what is happening to this topic in the Commission. I will therefore limit myself to sharing with you some background to this to this topic and certain issues to be addressed under the topic. Since 2010, the concept of obligation erga omnes has significantly transformed proceedings before the International Court of Justice. Beginning with 2012, Belgium versus Senegal case, a series of cases have involved applications brought before the ICJ by non-injured states. In these cases, the standing of the applicant states has largely been recognized, including at the provisional measures stage. Advisory opinions have likewise referred to obligations erga omnes and legal consequences arising from their breach, including war, Chagoss, occupied Palestinian territory, and climate change. In considering this concept of obligations erga omnes, their relations with two closely related neighboring concepts should also be examined. They are pre-emptory norms and interdependent obligations. The close relationship between pre-emptory norms and obligations erga omnes is illustrated by the drafting history of articles 40 and 41 of ASUA. on serious breaches of preemptive norms of general international law, which originally referred to serious breaches of obligations erga omnes. Article 41 of ASILA provides for obligations incumbent upon all states in the case of serious breaches of preemptive norms, namely the triple obligations of cooperation, non-recognition, and non-assistance. However, the ICJ in its advisory opinions has referred to comparable obligations for all states in connection with breaches of obligations erga omnes. This raises the question of how the apparent divergence between the position adopted by the ILC's articles on state responsibility and that reflected in the Court's advisory opinions should be understood. In this regard, another complicating issue concerns the 2025 Climate Change Advisory Opinion, which referred to breaches of obligations aere communis, but, unlike previous advisory opinions, made no mention of treaty obligations incumbent upon all states. With respect to interdependent obligations, such as disarmament obligations, Article 42 of ASUA provides that in the event of the breach, all the other states are to be regarded as injured states. At first sight, this may appear unrelated to the invocation of responsibility by non-injured states under Article 48. Yet this is not necessarily the case. Article 42 applies only where the breach radically changes the position of all the other states with respect to the performance of the obligation, in which case those other states are regarded as injured states. On the other hand, where the breach of the same obligation is less serious and does not radically alter the position of all the other states, those states would not qualify as injured states. and would instead fall into the category of non-injured states. As such, they would be unable to invoke responsibility. However, they could nevertheless invoke responsibility in their capacity as non-injured states under Article 48 if interdependent obligations are regarded as forming part of obligations erga omnes. Thus, the relationship between interdependent obligations and obligations erga omnes also requires careful examination. In the context of state responsibility, the term legal consequences essentially refers to the consequences arising from a breach of an obligation. In this regard, Article 48(1) of ASILA provides that non-injured states are entitled to invoke responsibility of the wrongdoing state in the event of a breach of obligations erga omnes. However, the provision does not elaborate further. It is therefore necessary to clarify the details by reference to subsequent case law, particularly that of ICJ. Some of the principal issues may be illustrated as follows. Since breaches of obligations erga omnes permit invocation of responsibility by non-injured states, it is conceivable that multiple, potentially numerous non-injured states may bring cases concerning the same breach. This gives rise to several possible issues. First, A question may arise whether multiple non-UN states can institute proceedings successively in relation to the same situation. In this context, the claims advanced may either identical or differ in substance. Where the claim is identical, the question arises whether doctrine of res judicata applies. Under traditional understanding of res judicata, which requires identity of the dispute, the claims, and parties, the doctrine would not apply as the parties are different. Yet, purely mechanical application of this principle would imply that breaches of obligations erga omnes could generate an unlimited number of proceedings. Perhaps rules regarding the abuse of rights could resolve the problem. Where the claims differ, res judicata would apparently not apply. Nevertheless, another issue then arises. If the initial applicant state is satisfied merely with cessation of the wrongful conduct, whether the subsequent applicant state may seek additional remedies, including compensation. According to the traditionally understood res judicata doctrine, this should be possible. In this context, it may also be necessary to consider the possibility that initial applicant state may collude with the responsible state and deliberately pursue only limited claims. A more difficult issue may arise where there exist an injured state. in addition to non-injured state invoking responsibility, such as in the case of aggression. In such an injured state, if such an injured state has already brought claims, the question may arise whether non-injured state could nevertheless invoke responsibility additionally and independently. From the perspective of the concept of obligation erga omnes, the answer would be affirmative. Yet, an additional question that may arise would be whether non-injured state can continue to invoke responsibility even after the injured state has reached a settlement with the responsible state. Probably the answer to this question is also in the affirmative, because non-injured state is invoking responsibility on behalf of the international community as a whole. A related and even more serious issue concerns the situation in which the injured state waives its claims altogether. The question is whether the non-injured state would still be entitled to invoke responsibility in that case. This raises a broader question whether the wishes or positions of injured states can affect the independent right of non-injured states to invoke responsibility for breaches of obligations erga omnes. The ICJ judgment in the Gambia versus Namibia case suggests that the answer to this question should be that non-injured states' rights would not be affected. In this respect, it is necessary to consider the question of relationship with Article 45 of ASIBA, which provides that and in that state may lose the right to invoke responsibility through waiver or acquiescence in the lapse of claims. It remains to be examined whether this provision should also apply where the breach implicates the interests of the international community as a whole, such as pre-emptive norms or obligation erga omnes. An additional point to be considered is that where consent has been given in advance, one might argue that no wrongful act arises at all, and as a consequence, there would be no question of international responsibility. However, according to Article 18 of ILC's draft conclusions on preemptive norms of 2022, no circumstances precluding wrongfulness, including consent, may be invoked with regard to breaches of obligations arising from peremptory norms. Again, the question is whether the same rule applies to breaches of obligations erga omnes. Finally, at present, I emphasize that my first report will focus primarily on the identification aspect of the topic, particularly the conceptual issues involved. A substantial part of the report will be devoted to an analysis of the drafting history of relevant provisions of articles on state responsibility, as well as analysis of the relevant jurisprudence of the ICJ. The report also seek to clarify what appears to be a slight difference in approach between ICJ and ILC concerning the definition of obligations erga omnes and obligations erga omnes partes. Thank you very much.

Professor Asada, thank you very much for your presentation. You mentioned that the topic of erga omnes obligations was only put on the work and on the work list of the ILC last July. So this is the first opportunity to hear from you on your ideas of how to take this topic forward. And for you, distinguished delegates, it's probably an insight or gave you some insights of what to expect from the first report, on which comments will come at the next year's ILC session. I do think that the topic of erga omnes obligations really complements very well also the work of the ILC on the question of peremptory norms of general international law on jus cogens obligations, and I think we all hope from your topic and from your report a clarification of the legal consequences of breaches of erga omnes. But I should stop to speak, because now I would like to open the floor. We have three very interesting presentations. I open the floor for you to ask questions. Please indicate to which panelist you would direct your question. Please, the floor is open. Sweden, please, Sweden, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Excellencies and dear colleagues. First of all, let me thank Austria very much for organizing this year's interactive dialogue between the Sixth Committee and the ILC. And a big thank you to the three members of the ILC participating here today. It is very appreciated, Professor Diallo, Professor Reinisch, and Professor Asada. Thank you also for your very interesting presentations. First of all, I'd just like to express the appreciation of my government to the work of the International Law Commission. Sweden was happy that the ILC was able to meet for an 11-week session this year and also to bring several topics to completion. So that said, let me just jump into a couple questions for Professor Jalloh on subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law. We note that draft conclusions were successfully adopted on first reading. We find the list of criteria in the draft conclusion 4 interesting on how to assess subsidiary means, and we will look further into it and reflect on how these criteria can provide a helpful tool in assessing subsidiary means. We see it as something that could be really of practical use for legal practitioners, for academia, and for others. Could you perhaps share some more insights about the Commission's reasoning and analysis when it comes to this list of criteria, and perhaps also on how it can come to practical use, if I may ask? And for Professor Reinisch, on settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties, and the guidelines that were adopted on first reading, these guidelines provide useful basis for the further clarifications, we think, on the relationship between or the tension between immunity and access to justice in this type of disputes. Could you elaborate on whether there are possible roles here also for non-judicial settlement of such disputes and what that could perhaps entail? Thank you.

Thank you very much, the representative of Sweden, for your questions to two delegates. Let's collect some more questions. I do see that the representative of Italy has asked for the floor. Italy, please, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor, and many thanks to Austria and Sweden for organizing this year too, this important moment. of dialogue between delegations and members of the International Commission on the ongoing work. Many thanks to the presenters, to the panelists for their very informative presentations. A short comment on the topic that was introduced by August Reinisch, obviously, this is a topic that, like Austria, we're also following with great interest. It is very relevant for us, being Italy host of several international organizations and UN agencies, and among others, we are following with particular attention. the work conducted by you and by the LC on the issue of immunities and access to justice, which is always the kind of balancing act that domestic judges tend to undertake when dealing with this kind of disputes, dealing with private parties. Professor Azada, thank you for your presentation. We welcome the very robust conceptual framework that you are employing to approach this important topic and also this preliminary initial effort to make it coherent with the previous work of the LC that dates back to the early work on the law of state of state responsibility, clearly, we are aware of the fact that, for instance, the conclusion, identification of parenteral nodes have a specific conclusion, which is conclusion 17 on the relationship within peremptory norms and erga omnes obligations. Conclusion 17 says that peremptory norms gives rise to erga omnes obligations, and any state is entitled to invoke the breach of a peremptory norm. So we think it's very important that this aspect and this relationship between erga omnes and parentalism is further explored in your work, at the same time also highlighting distinctive aspects and features between the two categories. I have two questions for you. You mentioned the consequences of breaches of our government's obligations and the bringing of claims before international courts and tribunals between injured parties, non-directly injured or non-injured parties, however we want to call them. My first question would be on the issue of remedies, including before international courts and tribunal, where there is A further dimension and aspect relate to the remedies that directly injured parties can seek, uh, before an international court on tribunal, say, for example, compensation, you mentioned the issue of- of- of aggression, but we can think also, for instance, of cases of diplomatic protection where human rights violations are, uh, are involved. And at the same time, the remedies can be sought by third parties, the parties that are invoking the violation of the erga omnes obligation as protecting an interest of the international community as a whole. So that's a question I would like to ask you and see whether this is an aspect that you have already started to explore. And then, the big elephant in the room, where we deal with consequences over obligations, are the reactions of third parties, the famous Article 54 of the LC Articles on State Responsibility, and our question would be whether you are intending to explore this aspect, which is very delicate, but at the same time very relevant and current. Thank you.

Thank you very much, the representative of Italy. for your questions. I would like to collect some more questions, maybe one more speaker, and then we come to the first round of answers. And while the questions come, the panelists have time to think about their answer. Colombia has asked for the floor. Please, the representative of Colombia has the floor.

Thank you, Ambassador. Thank you to Austria. for creating this opportunity that we, Member States, have been asking for for some time, this meeting between the ILC and the Sixth Committee. It's very important for us, and this is why I'd just like to thank the members of the Commission for their availability, for being here ready to answer questions, some of them were complicated ones that colleagues who just spoke asked. And I also share some of those questions. You have no doubt been following the discussions in the framework of the Sixth Committee regarding the products of the Sixth Committee, also discussions within the topic of the agenda on the rule of law and the specific emphasis between the relationship between the Sixth Committee and the ILC. And so, bearing that in mind, I have a couple of questions. For Professor Sala, I want to ask you, perhaps recent jurisprudence, or maybe not so recent, on ICJ, of the ICJ. It seems that there's some confusion regarding jus cogens and erga omnes obligations. Do you think that with your with your output, the ILC can help establish more clarity between these concepts? And along these same lines, what lessons can you learn, given the discussions we've had on this topic of jus cogens, and what lessons you draw in connection with this topic? And on this point also, How can we, Member States, make practical use of the products that you are offering us? Obviously, from our perspective, this is a topic that once it reaches the Sixth Committee, that is how the discussion is conducted. To Professor Reinisch, I want to ask you on the current reality regarding the responsibility of international organizations. In this sphere, you also have had discussions. We've heard, we've had discussions several years in the same room regarding the responsibility of international organizations and different visions of states regarding the future of this aspect. What lessons have you learned from this discussion in the Sixth Committee, and how have you incorporated in the product that you are putting together? Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, the representative of Colombia. I do see that the representative of the European Union has asked for the floor. I will immediately give you the floor in the second round of questions. I think we have already collected quite a number of questions. Professor Ciallo, as the first question coming from the floor was directed towards you, may I give you the floor for an answer? Professor Ciallo, please.

Okay, very well. Thank you very much to the distinguished delegates that have participated in the dialogue so far. Now going very directly to the question from the representative of Sweden, I would like to make three points concerning the general criteria in draft conclusion 4. The first point, which I hope is a practical point, is the Commission is seeking to offer guidance to users, to international lawyers who encounter subsidiary means. So the Commission felt that having some general criteria for the assessment of subsidiary means will play a role in that, which is what explains why it's in the general part of the project, but it also anchors all the other assessments of weight for the specific subsidiary means in question. In other words, the general criteria meant to apply generally to every subsidiary means, including aspects of subsidiary means not covered by this project. Because the Commission is very clear, and you see this in the general commentary, that the intention was not to, if you will, address in an exhaustive manner all possible candidates for subsidiary means. There may be candidates for subsidiary means now that have not quite become used generally. But maybe in the future. So the Commission's intention was to give some kind of guidance by identifying these factors that one could use both for the existing categories, decisions of courts and tribunals, teachings, the works of expert bodies, resolutions of international organizations, plus anything else. So that would be a first point that I think is a practical one in terms of how the intention of the Commission could be reflected. Second point is that, of course, when it comes to the specific elements, you see representativeness, quality of the reasoning, the expertise of those involved, the level of agreement among them, the reception by states, which is