Sixth Committee, 32nd plenary meeting - General Assembly, 81st session
General Assembly
Date: 29 October 2026
Language: English
Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/en/ga/c6/81/32
Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations.

---

6th Committee · Chair [18:56]:

Good afternoon, everyone. I call to order the 32nd meeting of the Sixth Committee for the 81st session of the General Assembly. Distinguished delegates, let us 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 for 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 IV of the Commission’s 2025 report on the topic “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, as contained in document A/81/11. which is also available online. Before proceeding, I wish to recall the Bureau's recommendation that national statements should be limited to 7 minutes and group statements to 12 minutes. Delegations are strongly encouraged to keep their statements within these 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. And I think I must pause here to congratulate everyone for keeping for the most part within the times that we recommended. So, appreciation on behalf of the Bureau for that, and as you could see, we are making progress on the first cluster. The first speaker on my list for this afternoon is the distinguished representative of Peru. You have the floor.


Peru [21:03]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Peru would like to express its gratitude to the International Law Commission and its Chairperson, Mr. Andreas Mavroyiannis, for the quality and rigor of its work, which contribute to the progressive development and codification of international law and strengthening of an international legal order based on shared norms and institutions. Madam Chair, Peru attaches particular importance to the topic of sea level rise. as it relates to international law. Its implications transcend the environmental dimension and touch upon key aspects of the international legal order. As a country on the Pacific Ocean, whose communities, ecosystems, infrastructure, and economic activities are closely linked to its coastline, we know the challenges that this phenomenon represents. Its effects compromise not only the integrity of coastal areas, but also the life and security of people, their means of subsistence, and prospects for the development of our societies. Due to its cross-border, multidimensional character, this phenomenon requires collective responses that are sustained and on a sound legal grounding, with international cooperation being an essential element of that. Peru recognizes the contribution of the working group of the ILC on sea level rise, which provides clarity, coherence, and predictability to the legal framework applicable and guides the action of states. We'd also like to highlight the United Nations Declaration on the Sea-Level Rise, which was adopted at the high-level meeting on 24 September of this year and reflected in the resolution that the General Assembly adopted by consensus on 12 October. The Declaration recognizes the value of the work of the Commission. Its contribution is fundamental to clarify and interpret essential questions of law. of international law related to the phenomena and to offer states a framework for action that is clear and predictable. Peru reaffirms its support for three aspects of particular importance. Firstly, maintaining statehood, sovereignty, and continuity of membership in international organizations in spite of the consequences of sea level rise. This preserves the international legal personality of the states affected. prevents the physical consequence of phenomena to compromise its legal continuity and helps prevent situations of statelessness. Secondly, preservation of maritime areas and the rights over its resources without sea rise elevation by itself modifying the baselines or the geographic coordinates established in conformity with international law. Thirdly, protection of the persons affected, putting human dignity and respect, protection and promotion of human rights at the heart of legal and political responses. The continuity of statehood is also fundamental to preserve jurisdictional maritime zones, entitlements over these areas, and compliance with the obligation to protect human rights. These aspects that are closely interconnected must be addressed while respecting the fundamental principles of international law, including free determination and through international cooperation that is genuine, effective, and sustained. This is particularly essential for states that, due to their geographic conditions and vulnerability, are more affected, such as small island developing states, or states in low-lying coastal areas. Madam Chair, Peru highlights the adoption in the second reading of the 17 draft articles on immunity from jurisdiction from foreign criminal jurisdiction of State officials and their comments, which clarify the scope of these provisions. And we'd like to express our gratitude to the Special Rapporteur, Professor Claudio Grossman, for his contribution to completion of this work, as well as for those who preceded him on this important task, Professor Concepción Escobar Hernández and Dr. Roman Kolotkin. Peru considers it important that the efforts of the Commission to strike a balance between the fundamental requirements of international legal order avoiding the situation where immunity is an obstacle to the combat against immunity for international crimes that are the most serious ones, and preserving appropriate legal and procedural guarantees that prevent arbitrary abusive action in the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction. This balance is essential for the application of immunities and does not prevent accountability, nor does it ignore guarantees that are applicable to state officials. FARU also acknowledges the completion and second reading of the draft conclusions on the general principles of law and their comments, and the outstanding work of its Special Rapporteur, Ambassador Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez, whose dedication and legal rigor were decisive. I'd like to highlight three aspects. First of all, we reaffirm the nature and the general principles of law as a self-standing source of international law, as conformed by Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. This recognition is essential for the integrity and coherence of the international legal order and for the identification of the applicable norms. Secondly, the general principles do not constitute a source that is subordinate to other sources. There's no general hierarchy that situates them based on their nature in a lower position versus treaties or international customs. Thirdly, Peru supports the approach of the Commission, which recognizes two categories: principles derived from national legal systems and those that have been elaborated within the international legal system itself. Madam Chair, Peru highlights the incorporation to the program of work of the topic of the identification and legal consequences of the obligations ergo omnes. related by their nature to the protection of the fundamental interests of the international community as a whole. We applaud the appointment of Professor Masahiko Asada as Special Rapporteur. This work could complete the contribution of the Commission on the identification and the legal consequences of peremptory norms of international general law and jus cogens. Peru also applauds the incorporation into the programme of work, in the long-term programme of work on the law to regulate international law and financial investments, thanks to the proposal of Madame Vilavan Maglathanakul. We value also the updating of the proposal on extraterritorial jurisdiction, a topic already in the programme presented by Mr. Mario Oyarzabal. Madam Chair, Peru reiterates Profound conviction that respect for international law and its guarantees of effective validity are essential for peaceful coexistence, the protection of human dignity, and the development of an international order that is more just, stable, and predictable. In the face of challenges that are increasingly complex, strengthening multilateralism depends on our collective capacity to preserve and perfect the norms that govern our relations, as well as the will of states to honor their commitments that they have freely undertaken. In this task, the ILC fulfills an irreplaceable function, its work characterized by intellectual rigor, independence of judgment, and the mission to serve to be in the service of international law is one of the pillars of a collective effort to strengthen a legal order based on norms and principles. Peru expresses its sincere gratitude to all the members of the Commission, as well as the Secretariat and Secretary and his team, led by Mr. Arnold Pronto, for his constant and valuable support to the work of the ILC and our deliberations in the Sixth Committee. Allow me to conclude by reaffirming that international law is not only a set of norms that governs the conduct of States. It expresses our shared will to make law prevail over arbitrariness, cooperation over confrontation, and justice over force. This conviction guides the commitment of Peru to multilateralism in the United Nations and the strengthening of international law. Thank you, Madam Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [30:04]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Peru for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished permanent representative of Papua New Guinea for his statement.


Papua New Guinea · Permanent Representative [30:15]:

Distinguished Chair and fellow delegates, all protocols observed, but let me, on my delegation's behalf, recognize and warmly welcome members of the International Law Commission who are in this Committee session and for their valued work. As a large maritime nation, Papua New Guinea recognizes the growing serious concerns over the rising sea levels and its impact on lives and livelihoods, not only on our vulnerable coastal and island communities, but also its wider impact on the country and beyond, including on international law. As one of the nations at the front line of the climate crisis, the rising sea levels are a twin disaster. that seriously compounds an already grave threat for our people, communities, and country, and likewise for our brothers and sisters in the Pacific region. The General Assembly high-level meeting last September on sea level rise and its associated political declaration is a notable starting point for further discourse on this topical issue. Madam Chair, on cluster one, Papua New Guinea will speak on two items: first, sea level rise in relation to international law; second, other decisions and conclusions of the Commission. On sea level rise in relation to international law, Papua New Guinea reiterates its profound appreciation to the International Law Commission, and in particular the Study Group and its co-chairs, for their dedicated commitment and solid ground-breaking work on this topic of critical importance to my country and also our Pacific region and beyond. We particularly welcome the findings of the co-chairs of the study group and their various papers and reports, including as reflected in its 76th session report A/80/10. With regard to the stability of maritime zones and the continuity of statehood, Papua New Guinea reaffirms the Pacific Islands Forum 2021 and 2023 declarations and corresponding AOSIS declarations. The Pacific Islands Forum, legal interpretations of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and relevant international law on these matters have been broadly affirmed by the Commission and the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion on the obligations of states respect of climate change and are supported by an exceptionally large number of States across all regions of the world. On the subtopic of the protection of persons affected by sea level rise, the Pacific Islands Forum held a regional conference on this topic earlier this year in Fiji. A key common theme at this regional conference was that protection of persons affected by sea level rise is fundamentally a human rights issue and that there are possible gaps in the regional human rights context, including the absence of comprehensive regional human rights architecture or institutional mechanisms which would affect the consistent application of human rights obligations in the region. Madam Chair, another key common theme was that the existing international frameworks relevant to the protection of persons form a fragmented network of legal and policy instruments, and that further work is needed to translate this into coherent and practical response in the Pacific context, including building on the work of the ILC. Accordingly, there is interest in a possible process to develop a new regional human rights instrument, potentially adopting a comprehensive or holistic approach which could encompass, among other things, human rights in the context of the protection of persons affected by sea level rise and the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. In view of the importance of sea level rise to the many States affected by it, Papua New Guinea therefore reiterates the call by the Pacific States on the Sixth Committee to decide in this year’s resolution on the report of the Commission to continue its consideration of the legal aspects of sea level rise at the 82nd session, so that the law continues to develop in step with the threat posed by sea level rise. Madam Chair, on my delegation’s second key issue, on other decisions and conclusions of the Commission, Papua New Guinea notes that the Commission has decided to include the topic of identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes and international law in its programme of work and to appoint Mr. Masahiko Asada as Special Rapporteur. This is indeed welcome, and we look forward to engaging constructively with the Commission on this topic. As a preliminary observation, we reviewed with interest Annex III on the identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes. Our delegation emphasizes the need for robust legal analysis that is grounded in the previous work of the Commission and forward-looking in orientation. This is particularly pertinent in the clarification of the relationship with peremptory norms of general international law, jus cogens. Papua New Guinea therefore agrees with the commentary 3 to conclusion 17 of the draft conclusions on identification and legal consequences of peremptory norms of general international law jus cogens that states, and I quote, "Although all peremptory norms of general international law jus cogens give rise to obligation erga omnes, it is widely considered that not all obligations erga omnes arise from peremptory norms of general international law," unquote. We also agree with the statement in the commentary that states, and I quote, "Certain rules relating to common spaces, in particular common heritage regimes, may produce erga omnes obligations independent of whether they have peremptory status," unquote. And we also note the statement that, and I quote, "The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea determined that the obligations of state parties relating to preservation of the environment of the high seas and the deep seabed under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea had an erga omnes character." My delegation is also of the view that Article 48 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts can be applicable in this context. In closing, Madam Chair, we once again thank the members of the ILC and wish to assure the international community of Papua New Guinea's continued constructive commitment and engagement on these important matters going forward. Let me also place on record my delegation's alignment with the respective statements made by Fiji on behalf of the Pacific SEAS and Palau on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States. Finally, let me also wish you, madam Chair, and the Bureau members of this Committee well in the carriage of your respective mandate And you can be rest assured of my delegation's cooperative partnership. Thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [38:06]:

I thank distinguished permanent representative of Papua New Guinea for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Zimbabwe. You have the floor, sir.


Zimbabwe [38:17]:

Thank you, Chair. Zimbabwe thanks the International Law Commission for its work and aligns itself with the statement delivered by Cameroon on behalf of the African Group. I will make the following remarks in my national capacity. Our intervention today is guided by a central consideration: international law must promote accountability while safeguarding legal certainty, sovereign equality, and the proper balance between the rights and obligations of States. On immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdictions, Chair, Zimbabwe notes that the Commission adopted all 17 draft articles on the second reading and recommended that a convention be elaborated at the appropriate time. We recognize the importance of clarifying the law on immunity of state officials. Draft Article 3 confirms that heads of state, heads of government, and ministers of foreign affairs enjoy immunity ratione personae. This reflects the position of customary international law. At the same time, the need to ensure accountability for the gravest crimes under international law remains paramount. However, we must distinguish between the principle of accountability and the legal status of the proposed exceptions to immunity. Support for accountability does not in itself establish that every proposed exception already forms part of customary international law. This distinction is particularly important in relation to draft article 6, which provides that functional immunity does not apply to a specified list of crimes under international law. We note that this provision was contested within the Commission itself. For Zimbabwe, this recorded division is significant. It demonstrates that the provision raised genuine questions within the Commission and that its adoption should not be taken by itself as proof that every listed exception reflects customary international law. We further note the Commission's acknowledgement that criminal jurisdiction over foreign officials may be politically motivated or abusive, and that immunity contributes to stability in international relations. Against this background, Zimbabwe wishes to make the following comments. First, on the legal status of draft Article 6, Zimbabwe supports accountability for grave crimes. However, we encourage the General Assembly to state expressly that draft article 6 contains elements of progressive development and does not prejudge the customary status of any individual crime on the list. The Commission acknowledges that the draft articles contain both codification and progressive development, and that the commentaries identify the character of the provisions as appropriate. We therefore consider that this distinction should be made clear. We should not leave States to infer the legal status of a provision where the Commission has acknowledged that the draft articles serve more than one purpose. Second, Zimbabwe is of the view that the list in draft article 6 should be closed and that any amendments be made by States. The Commentary indicates that further legal development may identify additional crimes to which functional immunity would not apply. While international law can develop, an open-ended list risks creating uncertainty and allowing domestic courts to expand the exceptions unilaterally. In our view, legal certainty is better served by a clearly defined list that can be amended through an agreed process involving States. Third, on procedural safeguards, Zimbabwe welcomes Part IV of the draft articles, However, we believe that these safeguards should apply whenever a forum state denies immunity on any ground, not only under draft article 6. Draft article 13, paragraph 3 provides heightened safeguards where draft article 6 is involved, including determination at a high level and a requirement for substantial grounds to believe that the relevant conditions are met. Yet the commentary also refers to national decisions in which immunity has been denied on other grounds. including corruption, misappropriation of public funds, money laundering, as well as conduct such as murder, espionage, sabotage, or kidnapping committed on the territory of the forum state. The concern, therefore, is straightforward. A state may reach the same practical outcome while avoiding the item safeguards simply by relying on a different legal characterization. Zimbabwe is not defending impunity. Our point is that the safeguards should follow the decision to deny immunity rather than depend solely on the ground invoked by the forum state. Fourth, on challenges to a determination denying immunity, Zimbabwe contends that such challenges should have suspensive effect until they are resolved. Draft Article 13, paragraph 5 provides for a determination that an official does not enjoy immunity to be challenged through judicial proceedings. However, it does not expressly require the underlying proceedings to be suspended in the meantime. The Commission's discussion of the Taylor Appeals Chamber is instructive. As noted in that discussion, requiring an incumbent official to submit to incarceration before being able to raise immunity may defeat the very purpose of that immunity. We believe that the same reasoning supports suspending proceedings while a challenge is pending, and where applicable, while a reference under draft Article 17 is being considered. Fifth, on dispute settlement, Zimbabwe has concerns regarding the compulsory jurisdiction proposed under Article 17. Under this provision, either the forum state or the state of the official may refer a dispute to the ICJ if negotiations fail to produce a mutually acceptable solution within a reasonable time unless both states have agreed on another binding method. In practical terms, this could allow a state to be brought before the court by another state in a dispute concerning its official, without that state having separately consented to the court's jurisdiction over that particular dispute. We therefore recommend that any future convention expressly permits reservations to draft Article 17 or allow states to opt out of its compulsory jurisdiction upon ratification. This would preserve the ability of States to decide whether to accept this mechanism, while allowing those that do accept it to make use of it. Sixth, Zimbabwe supports the elaboration of a convention at an appropriate time. Seventh, Zimbabwe calls for the respect for subsidiarity, prior consultations with the State concerned, the principle of actual presence and the obligation of non-selectivity. While the notification and consultation provisions in the draft articles address some of these concerns, the text does not establish a genuine priority for prosecution by the official's own state, nor does it require the presence of the accused or adequately address the risk of selectivity. Zimbabwe therefore supports consideration of a presumption in favour of prosecution in the official's own state. Chair, I now turn to the Commission's work on general principles of law. Zimbabwe welcomes the adoption of the 12th draft conclusions on the second reading, and we particularly welcome two aspects of this work. First, the replacement of the expression "civilized nations" with "community of nations". Second, the requirement that any comparative analysis of national legal systems be wide and representative, including the different regions of the world. These are important developments. We recognize that general principles of law must be identified through an inclusive process that takes into account the diversity of legal systems and regions. At the same time, we believe that care is needed in applying the second category of general principles, namely those that may be formed within the international legal system. We must also ensure that compatibility test is applied in a way that safeguards legal certainty. Our concern is that an overly flexible approach could allow substantive obligations to be derived without sufficient evidence of recognition by States. In this regard, we wish to make three further comments. Zimbabwe supports draft conclusions 2 and 5. We consider the requirement of recognition by the community of nations, together with the requirement for a wide and representative comparative analysis, to be essential conditions for identifying general principles of law. Accordingly, we consider that anyone relying on a general principle of law should be prepared to explain which legal systems and regions it examined in reaching its conclusions. This is particularly important for developing countries, whose legal traditions and experiences must be properly reflected in the process. Second, Zimbabwe calls for restraint in identifying general principles said to have formed within the international legal system. In our view, these principles must rest on a breadth of state recognition comparable to that required for principles derived from the national legal systems. We see no justification for requiring strong comparative evidence for one category while allowing the other to develop without a similarly convincing evidentiary basis. We also emphasize that the compatibility test in draft conclusion 6 must operate as a joining safeguard. Its purpose should be to exclude principles that are incompatible with the international legal system, not to make their acceptance easier. Third, Zimbabwe welcomes draft conclusion 12 on general principles of law with a limited scope of application. We consider this provision particularly important because it preserves the possibility of recognizing principles that apply within a particular region or legal framework. In this regard, principles developed within the African Union and the SADC should not be dismissed simply because they are not universally applicable. International law must be able to accommodate both principles of general application and principles whose legitimate scope is regional. We believe that this approach better reflects the diversity of the international legal system and the contribution of regional organizations to its development. I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [48:47]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Zimbabwe for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Turkey.


Türkiye [48:57]:

Delegates of the Sixth Committee, I would like to start by commending the International Law Commission for the significant progress made on the work undertaken during the 77th session. My delegation also wishes to thank the Codification Division for their valuable assistance and contribution to our work. I have the pleasure to share the views of Türkiye on the report of the International Law Commission. Unfortunately, I am only able to participate in this week's discussions. Therefore, with your permission, I would like to briefly address the clusters together. We will share the full version of the statement with the Secretariat. I will start to start with the topic sea level rise. As the Secretary General emphasized in his remarks at the visit to the ILC at the current session, rising seas are sinking features. The rapid loss of glaciers contributes to global sea level rise, while melting the permafrost areas leads to high levels of methane emissions, further amplifying global warming. An important part of the rising sea level due to the ice melts emanates from polar regions, given that the Arctic, in particular, is warming four times faster than the global average. Unless we take concrete action now, rising sea levels will most notably threaten cities at the seaside. small island developing states, SIDS, residential areas in the North Pole, as well as their infrastructure. In our action, we need to address two major issues. Firstly, we need to advance the implementation of ocean-related climate goals and integrate ocean-based mitigation and adaptation measures into our national determined contributions. Secondly, we must mobilize financial resources to meet the needs of SIDS and least developed countries, given that both SIDS and LDCs feel these effects of climate change the most, yet they are unable to both mitigate and adapt to those, to these effects due to their financial shortcomings. In the face of these challenges, Through its ocean and seas team, Turkey's COP31 presidency is aiming to raise the status of ocean-based climate solutions under the UNFCCC processes, so that oceans can get a greater share from climate finance and to create a sustainable process that will help mitigate the effects of climate change on oceans and blue economy. This approach will eventually help us make COP31 also a Blue COP. Together with Australia, we will focus on minimizing the effects of rising sea levels on SIDS in the Pacific, while also not neglecting the drought, floods, and forest fires due to the temperature rises above global average in the Mediterranean. We are working with the Union for the Mediterranean to raise the climate included challenges of the Mediterranean Basin countries. With this understanding, Turkey's COP31 presidency organized the Oceans and Seas, the Blue Dialogue Program in September 2026 in Trabzon. On the road to Antalya, A broad support for ocean action will help us advance our COP31 climate action agenda. Before moving to the next topic, I wish to record our position concerning UNCLOS. Türkiye is not a party to the convention and does not share the view that it has a universal and unified character or constitutes the sole legal framework governing all activities in the oceans and seas. While Türkiye agrees with the Convention's general intent and with most of its provisions, the reasons preventing us from becoming a party remain valid. Türkiye supports an equitable regime of the seas acceptable to all states and the resolution of maritime disputes on the basis of equity and in accordance with applicable international law. As regard the topic, immunity of state officials from foreign jurisdiction, we noted that while the Commission adopted the entire set of draft articles together with commentaries, the divergence of views among the member states still remains. This is especially the case with article on the crime under international law in respect of which immunity ratione materiae shall not apply. Indeed, the Commission was only able to adopt the article by voting, and the voting results, namely 23 votes in favour, four votes against, and three abstentions, are another testament to the fragmentation within the Commission. It is all the more striking that the Commission had already taken a vote on the said article at the 69th session in 2017. In our view, it does not appear to be realistic to expect states to reach a consensus on such a highly sensitive issue when the Commission itself has been unable to achieve it. We too find draft article 6 highly problematic. Let me touch upon few points. First, the phrase “Crime under international law, as defined according to the applicable rules of international law” is ambiguous and gives rise to uncertainty. Selection of crimes is another aspect that requires further scrutiny. One of the reasons indicated in the commentary for the inclusion of crimes in draft article 6 was that they are crimes for which There are international treaty-based and customary rules relating to their prohibition, including an obligation to take steps to prevent and punish them. However, some of the treaties referred to in this context do have limited members of parties, number of parties. On the other hand, the preparation for the conventional crimes against humanity is still ongoing. Based on these considerations, the reasoning for their inclusion warrants further elaboration. As regards the topic, subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, Türkiye takes note of the adoption on first reading of the 13th draft conclusion of subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law. With respect to draft conclusion 4, we would suggest review of the external competent for the reception, as foreseen in sub-paragraph (e). The commentary merely describes it as the reaction after the decision is made, without providing additional elements for its clarification. In this context, we wish to highlight two aspects. Firstly, the external competent expects states to give reaction to the decisions. In our view, The absence of a comment or expression of position of any particular decision cannot be construed as endorsement of the content thereof. Second aspect relates to the word “after”. According to the commentary, the reaction is to be made after the decision. Here again, the commentary does not shed much light on the term. In our view, whether the word "after" points out immediate or distant behaviour on the part of States and other entities remains vague. As regards draft conclusion 5, my delegate reiterates its call for caution concerning the decisions of national courts. In addition to the fact that national courts sometimes lack international law expertise, The decision of lower national courts do not become final once rendered. They can be overturned by higher national courts. As it is recalled, my delegation expressed its preference for the exclusion of public expert bodies established at national level on the basis of domestic law as to avoid any misinterpretation or misunderstanding. In this regard, we note that draft conclusion 10 provides that the works of bodies consisting of experts serving in their personal capacity may serve as subsidiary means for the determination of the existence and content of rules of international law. Hence, it is in our view of particular importance to clarify in the commentary that experts serving in their personal capacity be independent and not subject to instructions from their governments when carrying out their work. We also consider the criteria relevant to Assessing the weight of the works of expert bodies, including the general criteria in draft conclusion 4 and the additional criteria set out in draft conclusion 11, is important. In this connection, particular care should be exercised in assessing the independence and representativeness of expert bodies and the reception of their works by States and other relevant entities. On the topic, succession of states in respect of state responsibility, Turkey has already shared its concerns on the previous occasions within the Sixth Committee. In this respect, we are pleased with the decision of the Commission not to pursue consideration of the topic further. Distinguished delegates, The topic of non-legally binding agreements is very much related to our daily work at the legal departments of foreign ministries. I wish to briefly share our views on the draft conclusions provisionally adopted thus far by the Commission. We note that the Commission decided to retain the existing title of topic with the term "agreement" at this stage of work. According to the commentary for draft conclusion 3, concerning the use of terms, one of the grounds for the decision to remain the term "agreement" is that the term has been used by the Commission in its recent work, and this term appears in jurisprudence and writings. By the same token, we encourage the Commission to take also into account the practice by states and international organizations. Indeed, the vast practice of non-legally binding material in international relations indicates that states and international organizations are inclined to prefer the term other than agreements. Moreover, the commentary for draft conclusion 3 states that the term agreement makes it possible to clearly define the scope of the topic by excluding unilateral acts, which would not be possible with the term 'instrument', which is generally used to refer both agreements and unilateral acts of states or unilateral acts of international organizations. Here again, the commentary does not bring much clarity as to why the word "arrangements", which is widely used for non-legally binding materials, could not be considered as an alternative term. We further note that the Commission refers in the work of the Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law of the Council of Europe, in short, CADE, as regards the phrase "non-legally binding," but overlooks the fact that the same work by the CADI also uses instrument for the non-legally binding documents. In this connection, we wish to recall that the original topic of the work by the CADI was non-legally binding arrangements and non-legally binding agreements. But given the difficulties surrounding the terminology, the title was then changed into "non-legally binding instruments". As such, it would be useful to give due consideration to the practice of Qadi as a whole. Distinguished delegates, I would like to move to the topic "Prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea". Turkey takes note of the work undertaken by the International Law Commission at its 77th session on the prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. We recognize the importance of addressing new technological realities, including the use of autonomous and remotely operated vessels in the commission of piracy or armed robbery at sea. At the same time, provisions addressing new technologies should be carefully formulated in a manner consistent with existing international legal instruments and sufficiently flexible to take account of further technological developments. Türkiye considers it important to preserve the legal distinction between piracy and armed robbery at sea, including with regard to the applicable basis of jurisdiction. In particular, measures concerning armed robbery at sea should duly respect the sovereignty and territorial jurisdiction of the coastal state. Any continuation of hot pursuit into the territorial sea of another state should be subject to the consent of the coastal state. Such consent should not be presumed. Effective international cooperation remains indispensable for the prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, with due regard to the applicable jurisdictional framework of the sovereignty of States. Before concluding, I wish to briefly touch upon the following points. International law is an indispensable component of international order and should be diligently developed and strengthened. We recognize the important role of ILC plays in this regard. Cognizant of this fact, Türkiye is pleased to make voluntary contribution to the Trust Fund, the backlog relating to the Yearbook of the International Law Commission. While we maintain our view that the ILC be adequately resourced to carry out its work, we also encourage the ILC to carefully reflect on working methods, including its programme of work, in order to assist its future sessions should the financial restraint persist. In this vein, the new topic selected at the current session, namely “Identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law”, is To a certain extent, related to the earlier work of the Commission to which significant divergence of views and approaches of Member States will remain. We are concerned that the outcome of these newly selected topics would inevitably be affected by this ground. This observation is also valid for the topic compensation for the damage caused by international wrongful acts. The selection of the topics should also be guided by the needs and priorities of States. Furthermore, the topics should be at a sufficiently advanced stage in terms of State practice to permit progressive development and codification. In this sense, the topic extraterritorial jurisdiction does not seem to meet the said criteria. Thank you very much for your attention.


6th Committee · Chair [1:06:49]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Türkiye, and I give the floor to the distinguished Permanent Representative of Belize.


Belize · Permanent Representative [1:07:04]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Belize aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States and wishes to add the following remarks in our national capacity, focusing specifically on sea level rise. Maldives welcomes the final report of the Study Group on Sea Level Rise in relation to international law, and we wish to thank the Commission and the co-chairs of the Study Group for their very careful and consultative work. Madam Chair, for small island and low-lying coastal developing states, clarity in the international law governing sea level rise bears directly on our security, our statehood, and the protection of our people. Sea level rise is accelerating and will continue for centuries. The Secretary-General has reported that average global sea level rise rose by almost 6 millimeters in 2024, the largest annual increase on record. For the Caribbean, this reality is consequential. In many parts of the Caribbean, inhabited land is scarcely one meter above sea level. population, infrastructure, and economic activity are concentrated along the coast. Belize is no exception. Our coast, our cays, and our barrier reef are the foundation of our economy and our identity. The sea is not merely approaching our doorsteps; it is already there. Belize reaffirms the position that AOSIS has set out in this Committee, which the report’s conclusions confirm: First, maritime zones established in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the rights and entitlements that flow from them shall continue to apply without reduction, notwithstanding physical changes resulting from climate change-related sea level rise. Second, statehood and sovereignty continue. Turning to the issue of protection of persons, the report is candid. The work has only begun. It finds that applicable frameworks are fragmented and not specific to sea level rise. It also finds that affected persons remain rights holders, and that legal and practical solutions are needed for those who remain in situ and those who are displaced, guided by their safety, essential needs, and human dignity. The report's chapter on possible ways forward offers states a range of options from interpretive interpretative statements to new instruments. It is now up to Member States and for this Committee to decide. Madam Chair, two developments since the report's adoption reinforce its conclusions. The first is the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice relating to climate change, which lends the authority of the principal judicial organ of the United Nations to the report's conclusions on baselines and maritime zones. and it speaks directly to the continuity of statehood. On the protection of persons, the Court confirmed that states have obligations under the principle of non-refoulement where the effects of climate change pose a real risk of irreparable harm to the right to life. That affirms the report’s starting point, but it addresses only movement across borders and leaves the wider protection gap open. The second development is the UN Declaration on Sea Level Rise, adopted by consensus, the first declaration of the General Assembly devoted to the subject. In affirming the stability of maritime zones and the continuity of statehood, the Declaration adopts conclusions that the Commission drew from the state practice and regional declarations into a position of the UN and regional declarations into a position of the UN membership as a whole. Its language on the protection of persons and on cooperation, however, remains general and requires further elaboration on quantified financial commitments. Madam Chair, what these developments help to reinforce is that there are two specific areas that call for further clarification. The first is the protection of persons. The report identifies the need to delineate the obligations of the affected State and of host States, including support for adaptation and resilience measures. Belize recalls that the Caribbean Community has called for a framework that defines the responsibilities of affected and receiving States, creates pathways for cross-border movement, supports those who remain, and guarantees self-determination. AOSIS and the Pacific Small Island Developing States have made the same call. The second area for further clarification is the duty to cooperate. The report, the Court, and the Declaration all affirm it, but none yet specifies its content in the context of sea level rise. What cooperation is owed, by whom, and to what standard? and what measures are required, including technical, financial, and capacity support. That question should not be left to inference. We recall the suggestion of IOSCE that obligations of cooperation, prevention, and reparation could merit the Commission's future attention. The conclusion of the Commission's work is not the end of this Committee's task. Belize supports the call for the Sixth Committee to decide in this year's resolution on the report of the Commission to continue its consideration of the legal aspects of sea level rise at the 82nd session. In closing, Belize wishes to commend the work of the International Law Commission and of this Committee. We wish also to thank you, Madam Chair, for your able stewardship of the Committee. Thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [1:13:26]:

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Belize for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cuba.


Cuba [1:13:42]:

Madam Chair, Cuba is grateful for the work of the International Law Commission and its commitment to contribute to the progressive development of international law and its codification. We are also grateful for the reports and the work carried out by the Special Rapporteur with regard to the topic immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Cuba approves the adoption, second reading of the draft. This is a result that is an important step in the process of codification and progressive codification of international law in this area, which should continue to be examined with due attention by Member States. With regard to the topic of general principles of law, Cuba takes note of the adoption in the second reading of the draft conclusions. Cuba recognizes the importance of continuing to further deepen this topic, given the importance of maintaining the universal character of international law and that any development in this area should take place in strict compliance with the principles and purposes of the Charter, avoiding its reinterpretation. As far as the topic of the sea level rise in connection with international law, Cuba takes note of the approval of the final report of the working group and the conclusion of the consideration of this topic. On this issue, we think that UNCLOS does not provide responses to some of the issues raised in connection with sea level rise. We must defend strict compliance with the provisions of UNCLOS with regard to maritime borders and delimitations. We consider that the baseline regarding maritime borders should not be changed due to sea level rise. This would require additional expenditures that would be very difficult to take on by small island developing states, in addition to the legal uncertainty that this would generate. On the possible extension of the condition of statehood in connection with sea level rise due to loss of territory, we need to be very careful and maintain the principle that if such an effect would occur in small island states, they should not lose their condition of a subject under international law. With this in mind, this is a topic where international cooperation plays a key role. has various national plans to confront and adapt to loss of coastal surface due to increase of sea level. The Cuban plan to confront climate change envisions as one of its components displacement of 41,000 people who live in coastal areas that could disappear due to an increase rise in the sea level. It also includes actions of mitigation and adaptation in the face of this phenomena. that has an impact on our archipelago. We express our full readiness to share our experiences in protection of people who live in coastal areas. International cooperation must become fundamental premise to address this matter. The priority should be given to adaptation, resilience, and a timely response to loss and damage related to climate change. Madam Chair, Cuba urges to maintain a balance regarding the main principles such as sovereign equality of states, the need to combat impunity when crimes against international law are committed, and protection of state officials against politically motivated spurious exercise of jurisdiction. It will be very important to take into account national legislation, which will determine who enjoys immunity and the scope of this. Cuba considers it essential, furthermore, to defend the principle that any attempt to exercise jurisdiction over a foreign citizen who enjoys immunity must be communicated well in advance to the State in question. The obligation to notify should be considered as an initial guarantee by a State to safeguard its interests. We believe that the principle of universal jurisdiction should not be applied or the obligation to extradite an official that enjoys immunity, nor should the regime established by international conventions with an impact on immunity should be changed, in particular the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic and Consular Relations. Lastly, Cuba considers that a just and necessary balance should be reached between national legality and the procedural guarantees required. Thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [1:18:46]:

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


Uganda [1:19:07]:

Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to commend you on the way you are conducting our affairs and see you there particularly presiding over this meeting. I have the honour to deliver this statement on the agenda item, report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 76th and 77th sessions. My delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by the distinguished representative of Cameroon on behalf of the African Group. I take this opportunity to welcome members of the Commission and legal advisers from capitals to this year's International Law Week in New York. We appreciate the opportunity for optimal extensive engagement between the Sixth Committee and members of the Commission, following a very rich tradition to actualize the symbiosis between IOC and Member States in the Sixth Committee. At the outset, let me pay a special tribute to the Chair of the Commission of the 77th session, Mr. Andreas Mavroyiannis, the Bureau, the Special Rapporteurs, the Chairs of working groups for conducting a successful session of the Commission. We appreciate the Chair's comprehensive introduction of the report on the work of the Commission contained in document A/81/10, and look forward to a rich debate on it. We appreciate the Chair for conducting the work of the Commission, as well as for introducing the report. I congratulate the Commission on the progress made on several items as detailed in the report. We appreciate the efforts of the Codification Division of the Office of Legal Affairs, acting in the capacity of Secretariat of the Sixth Committee and the Commission, for the extended briefing in September to the Sixth Committee, covering, among other things, the report of the Commission on the work of the 76th and 77th sessions. Allow me, Madam Chair, to also appreciate the special rapporteurs of the IOC topics for the tremendous work done on the topics. My delegation takes note of the online briefing by the Special Rapporteurs of the ILC, as well as by the Chair of the Working Group on Succession of States in respect of State Responsibility on the outcome of the Commission’s 77th session. I take this opportunity to thank the members of the Commission for their devoted service. to the codification and progressive development of international law. Madam Chair, efforts must be redoubled in order to draw inspiration from the main principle legal systems reflective of our contemporary world, including African customary law. Uganda's increasing engagement with the work of the commission is to ensure these important aspects are duly realized. We are committed to multilateralism and the rules-based international legal system founded on the Charter of the United Nations, and we value the effective contribution of the Commission in maintaining this multilateral system, taking into account the views of all Member States. We further stress the importance for inscribed topics to bring an added value and be of interest and relevance to the international community as a whole. We welcome the final report of the study group on sea level rise in relation to international law in the context of Annex 1 document A/8/10. The comprehensive examination of the topic across the three sub-themes, namely, the law of the sea, statehood, and the protection of persons affected by sea level rise provides a solid conceptual framework for the international community. For landlocked developing countries like Uganda, the stability and predictability of international law on this topic is vital. Madam Chair, Uganda attaches great importance to the work to the topic of the immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, which represents a delicate balance between the sovereignty and equality of states on the one hand, and the fight against impunity for the most serious crimes under international law on the other. We note with appreciation the conclusion of the second reading of the draft articles and commentaries There too, during the 76th session, we underscored that rules governing immunity rationis personae and rationis materiae must reflect customary international law while offering clear safeguards against politically motivated prosecutions. State officials must be able to perform their official functions effectively and without undue interference from foreign judicial organs, while ensuring that accountability remains preserved for crimes of universal concern where exceptions are recognized under international law. We will carefully study the provisional adopted draft articles and their commentaries, specifically regarding the scope of immunity, that is, articles 1, 3, 4, and 5, to ensure they achieve a balanced and stable framework acceptable to the wider international community. My delegation welcomes the progress made by the Commission on the topic general principles of law following the consideration of the fourth report of the Special Rapporteur. General principles of law serve as a vital subsidiary subsidiary source to international law under Article 38, paragraph 1c of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, filling gaps where treaties and customary international law are silent. As mentioned by the African group, we reiterate the identification of general principles derived from national legal systems and must be rigorous, objective, and reflective of a wide and representative cross-section of the world's principal legal systems. Furthermore, regarding the second category of the general principles, those that may be formed within the international legal system, we emphasize the need for cautious and precise methodology to ensure legal certainty and prevent subjective expansion of international obligations without the clear consent of States. On other decisions and conclusions of the Commission, that is chapter 12, 13 of the IOC report, we note that the decisions and the conclusions reached by the Commission concerning its future program of work Working methods and cooperation with other bodies, that is chapter 12 and 13, as aforementioned. The efficiency of the Commission depends heavily on its working methods and the timely availability of documentation. Uganda commends the Commission's ongoing efforts to streamline its procedures and maintain constructive engagement with states through the Sixth Committee. In conclusion, Madam Chair, Uganda wishes to thank the Commission and the Secretariat for their tireless work, particularly in ensuring the meetings of the Commission were held using the in-person format and the plenaries webcasted, thereby increasing accessibility to the work of the Commission. Uganda assures the Commission of its unwavering support. I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [1:28:07]:

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


Algeria [1:28:18]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the African Group. We thank the Chair of the International Law Commission, Mr. Andreas Deem of Uranus, for presenting the report contained in document A/81/10. We also commend the members of the Commission, the Special Rapporteurs, and the Codification Division for their valuable contributions to the Commission's work. Despite the ongoing financial constraints facing the Organization, we welcome the efforts undertaken to enable the Commission, during its 77th session, to resume a working schedule closer to its usual format, thereby allowing it to carry out its mandate more effectively. In this regard, ensuring stable, predictable and adequate working conditions for future sessions, including live webcasts, remains of paramount importance to the proper and effective conduct of the Commission's work. Madam Chair, Algeria reiterates its firm conviction that the International Law Commission constitutes a fundamental pillar of the international legal order. Accordingly, we reaffirm that the codification and progressive development of international law must be pursued in a manner that guarantees full inclusivity and ensures balanced geographical, linguistic, and legal systems representation. It is essential to ensure the effective participation of diverse legal systems in the Commission's work, while giving full consideration to the comments and observations expressed by Member States in the Sixth Committee. Madam Chair, with regard to the topic "Sea Law Arises in Relation to International Law", Algeria welcomes the final report of the Study Group adopted in 2025 and commends the efforts undertaken by the members of the Study Group. My delegation reiterates that any approach to addressing the legal implications of sea level rise must be fully consistent with international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is widely regarded as the constitution of the oceans. We emphasize the importance of preserving legal certainty and stability with respect to maritime baselines and maritime entitlements, without prejudice to States' rights under international law. In this regard, we reiterate that States are under no obligation to update baselines, geographical coordinates, or the outer limits of maritime zones to account for changes as a result of sea level rise. Algeria further reiterates its support for the continuity of statehood and sovereignty in full accordance with the right of peoples to self-determination, therefore preserving the maritime entitlements of States and protecting the rights and interests of affected people, in accordance with international law. We also stress that the response to climate change must be firmly grounded in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the UNFCCC, and the Paris Agreement, and guided by the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in light of different national circumstances. Madam Chair, regarding the topic immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, my delegation takes note of the adoption on second reading of the 17 draft articles and their commentaries thereto, as well as the Commission's recommendation that a convention be elaborated on their basis at the appropriate time. Algeria underscores that the immunity of State officials is rooted in the principles of State sovereignty and sovereign equality. Respect for these principles remains essential to the orderly conduct of international relations and constitutes one of the foundations of the international legal order. In particular, immunity ratione personae enjoyed by heads of state, heads of government, and ministers for foreign affairs is firmly established in customary international law and must be fully respected. At the same time, Algeria reaffirms its unequivocal commitment to combating impunity for the most serious crimes. Such efforts, however, must not be pursued in a manner that undermines the fundamental principles of international law or allows immunity-related questions to be instrumentalized for politically motivated processes. All relevant measures must be consistent with international law and the UN Charter, while respecting the procedural guarantees necessary to ensure fairness and legal certainty. In this regard, the procedural safeguards protected in the draft articles, including notification, consultation, and the examination of immunity by the competent authorities at the highest level, are indispensable to ensuring due process, preventing abuse, and safeguarding against arbitrary or politically motivated procedures. With respect to the Commission’s recommendation that a convention be elaborated at the appropriate time on the basis of the draft articles, Algeria considers that this recommendation should be approached with due caution, and that initiating work on a convention at this stage would be premature. Given the complexity and sensitivity of this subject matter, as well as the divergent views expressed by numerous Member States, States must be afforded sufficient time to thoroughly examine the draft articles and their commentaries, and to assess their implications. Certain provisions of the draft articles appear to unduly restrict the scope of immunity afforded to heads of state and other state officials, raising concerns regarding their compatibility with the principle of sovereign equality of states. Such matters warrant further careful consideration that take fully into account the views and concerns expressed by Member States. We consider, in particular with respect to draft article 7, which was adopted by a recorded vote, that this provision, lacking the consensus of the Commission's members, does not reflect a settled rule of customary international law and should be instead viewed as a proposal for the progressive development of international law. Madam Chair, turning to the other decisions and conclusions of the Commission, we take note of the inclusion of the topic “Identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law” in its programme of work, as well as the inclusion of the right to regulate in international investment in the long-term programme of work of the Commission. We echo the call for the Commission to ensure the meaningful participation of the African Union Commission on International Law, AUCIL, in its engagements with regional legal bodies, including the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization, so that African regional perspectives are fully reflected in its work. Such engagement would strengthen regional perspectives and promote a more inclusive dialogue among legal systems. Madam Chair, in conclusion, Algeria reaffirms its unwavering commitment to upholding the principles and purposes of the UN Charter and its support, its full support for the work undertaken by the International Law Commission in the progressive development and codification of international law. I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [1:34:54]:

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


Kyrgyzstan [1:35:08]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, distinguished delegates, it's an honor for me to address the Sixth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly on behalf of the Kyrgyz Republic. At the outset, my delegation would like to express its appreciation to the International Law Commission for its continued contribution to the progressive development and codification of international law. and to the Secretariat for the support of the Commission's work. The Kyrgyz Republic reaffirms its commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and to the fundamental role of international law in maintaining peaceful relations among States, strengthening mutual trust, and promoting international cooperation. International law provides a common framework within which all States regardless of size or capacity, can exercise their rights, fulfill their obligations, and settle international disputes by peaceful means. This commitment is also reflected in the priorities of Kyrgyz Republic following its election as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council for the 1997-1998 2027-2028 term. Against this background, my delegation welcomes the opportunity to exchange views on the topics considered under the Commission's report. The Kyrgyz Republic is a small, mountainous, landlocked country. However, in the context of the global impact for climate change, protecting people, and other questions, the issues of sea level rise are also in a focus of my country. We are ensure that sea level rise is a test of for the international community's availability to act together despite our geographical differences. The topic of sea level rise in relation to international law also demonstrates the importance and the importance of sustained international legal cooperation in addressing complex and involving challenges. We recognize the value of the Commission's work in examining the legal implications of this phenomenon and in facilitating dialogue among states on the relevant questions of international law. Such discussions benefit from careful legal analysis, the exchange of information, and due consideration of the different circumstances of States. We believe that particular attention should be paid to ensuring legal certainty, preserving the legitimate rights of States, and protecting individuals affected by sea level rise. Madam Chair, with regard to the immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, the Kyrgyz Republic recognizes the importance of a careful and balanced examination of this complex subject. The topic involves important questions concerning the exercise of state jurisdiction, the status and functions of state officials, and the conduct of international relations. Clarity regarding the applicable rules contributes to legal certainty and predictability in the relation between States. We consider it essential that the further development of this topic be guided by rigorous legal analysis and constructive dialogue among Member States. In this regard, we support the continuation of intergovernmental discussions and emphasize the need to achieve a broad consensus as well as upholding the principle of sovereign equality of States, preventing the arbitrary exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction and inviolability of punishment for the most serious international crimes, and ensuring effective procedural safeguards. As for the Commission's work on general principles of law, my delegation also attaches importance to this work. A clear understanding of the sources of international law is essential for its coherent interpretation and application. In this regard, the identification of general principles of law requires a careful and methodologically sound approach, taking into account the relevant legal systems and the particular characteristics of the international legal order. We welcome the Commission's work in this field, emphasizing to take into account the diversity of legal systems, the representative practice of states, and rigorous criteria for the recognition of general principles. A prudent approach is needed to ensure legal certainty of the sources of international law. Madam Chair, at the end of my address, I would like to once again emphasize the work of the International Law Commission, which remains an important contribution to the progress of development and codification of international law. Thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [1:40:34]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Kyrgyz Republic. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Federated States of Micronesia. You have the floor.


Micronesia (Federated States of) [1:40:48]:

Madam Chair, as this is the first time that Micronesia is taking the floor in this committee, this session, we congratulate you and your bureau on your elections, and we pledge our support to you in your endeavors. Micronesia aligns itself with the statements delivered under this cluster by Palau on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States. and by Fiji on behalf of the Pacific Small Island Developing States. We thank Andreas Mavriannis for his summary of the work of the International Law Commission over the past year. Madam Chair, for this cluster, Micronesia will address the topics of sea level rise in relations to international law and general principles of law, as well as the decision of the Commission to include in its current program of work the topic of identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law. On sea level rise in relation to international law, Micronesia continues to celebrate the final report of the Commission's study group on the matter. It is a landmark achievement both in substance as well as in terms of the cooperative and responsive relationship between the Commission and this Committee. While international law on the element of maritime zones and statehood in connection with sea level rise has greatly matured, the community of nations has yet to coalesce around a comprehensive and consistent approach to the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. This is not a criticism, but is instead a call to action to all states. The final report has identified major principles that could guide this effort, including as appropriate in the development of new global, regional, and sub-regional legally binding instruments to address the matter, such as human rights or mobility instruments. A permanent state and its stable maritime zones are ultimately meaningless if the person inhabiting the state cannot, in a practical and physical sense, enjoy the right and entitlements flowing therefrom. Micronesia also acknowledges the recent adoption of the United Nations Declaration on Sea Level Rise. This political document is an important outcome, but it must not be the final act by the United Nations on the matter, including on legal elements. Micronesia supports future efforts to progressively develop or codify international law on these elements in a targeted fashion, building on the initial work done by the New Declaration as well as by the Pacific Islands Forum and AOSIS in our various normative declarations over the last several years, and capturing in an accurate way the prevailing, even overwhelming, views of the community of nations. Madam Chair, on the general principles of law, Micronesia acknowledges the adoption on second and final reading of the draft conclusions and associated commentaries on the subject. We wish to make five points in this regard. First, Micronesia supports the reference to the community of nations in draft conclusion 2. We find this phrase to be clearer and more inclusive than the phrase "international community", as "nations" foregrounds the key actors in international lawmaking, whereas "international" could include a wider constellation of actors who might not be particularly relevant to the development of international law. Second, the references to various legal systems of the world in the draft conclusions, including in draft conclusions 4, 5, and 6, should not be read to refer to principal legal systems or imply any sort of hierarchy between the legal systems of all nations. Each nation's legal system has equivalent value as any other nation's legal system when determining the existence of a principle common to the various legal systems of the world. Third, Micronesia supports the requirements in draft conclusion five that the comparative analysis must include different regions of the world. In this connection, we stress that the term regions should not be bound by the concept of the five regions commonly recognized by the United Nations, but should instead be more fluid and inclusive, recognizing that there are large groupings within each of the five UN regions that have their own vibrant legal systems of direct relevance to such a comparative analysis, including the Pacific Islands. Fourth, Micronesia supports the notion, as indicated by draft conclusion seven, that a general principle of law may be formed within the international legal system based on an analysis of existing rules in the international legal system to find principles reflected in these rules or underlying them and having an autonomous status including in international instruments, reflecting the principle resolutions adopted by international organizations or at intergovernmental conferences and statements made by States and international organizations. The Commentary to draft Conclusion 7 helpfully identifies a number of general principles of law formed within the international legal system including the duty to cooperate, such as in international environmental law, in order to address the common problem of environmental degradation caused by human activities, equity and intergenerational equity. Micronesia supports the approach taken in this draft conclusion 7, as well as the illustrative examples in the commentary to the draft conclusion. Finally, with respect to the draft conclusion 12, Micronesia supports the reference in its commentary to the possible emergence of general principles of law within regional and sub-regional legal systems or between a limited number of States. We further support the commentary's point that such general principles of law would be limited only in terms of who they would apply to, rather than by their legally binding content. This means that between those states and legal systems bound by these general principles, the effect would be similar to that of general principles of law applicable to international legal system as a whole. We also stress that the Pacific Islands regions, inclusive of the Pacific Islands Forum and PICES, is an instructive region of sub-region or sub-region for the development and application of such general principles of law, including those pertaining to stewardship of marine and terrestrial resources, peaceful use of the ocean, and the prominent role played by indigenous peoples, local communities, and their respective knowledge system in various governance approaches throughout the Pacific. Madam Chair, to conclude, Micronesia welcomes the inclusion of the topic identification and legal consequences of obligations, erga omnes, and international law in the Commission's current program of work. We encourage the Commission, when undertaking its studies of this topic, to pay particular attention to overlaps, if any, between these legal consequences and these flowing out of jus cogens obligations as well as obligations erga omnes parties, We also encourage the Commission to scrutinize our obligations erga omnes arising in the context of common problems of global environmental degradation caused by human activities, including those pertaining to the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution, and what the legal consequences are for such obligations, including whether such legal consequences are heightened or are triggered more readily because of the degree of harm that is associated with such human activities. Thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [1:49:54]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the Federated States of Micronesia for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Eritrea. You have the floor, ma'am.


Eritrea [1:50:10]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Eritrea expresses its appreciation to the Chair of the International Law Commission, to all the distinguished members of the Commission, and to the Secretariat for their hard work during the 77th session, which resulted in an extensive report on the work of the ILC. We thank members of the ILC for encouraging constructive dialogue with Member States and for their positive contribution to the progressive development and codification of international law. My delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by Cameroon on behalf of the African Group. We echo the importance of regional perspectives, including those of African States, on the topics discussed by the ILC. Allow me to share in my national capacity the following observations on the work of the Commission, specifically on chapter IV of the report of its 77th session concerning immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, and on the corresponding chapter of the report of the 76th session concerning sea level rise in relation to international law. Madam Chair, my delegation acknowledges the legal complexity and contentious nature of the topic of immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, as well as the adversarial dynamics within the Commission. These dynamics resulted in a vote on draft article 7 to provisionally adopt a set of draft articles, followed by the adoption of the entire set of draft articles on second reading. We understand that navigating the boundary between legal technality and the progressive development is not an easy task for the Commission. However, my delegation stresses that the ILC should draw a clear distinction between identifying issues where codification of lex lata is adequate and those where progressive development through suggested improvements to the lex lata is preferable. In this regard, unambiguously identifying customary international law is a precondition. as opposed to shaping relevant law through a semantic process of meaning construction and conditioned by preferences and delivered justifications. Noting a discernible trend towards limiting the applicability of immunity ratione materiae in respect of certain types of conduct that constitute crimes under international law, we observe that the Commission consulted the laws of only a few States. Eritrea notes that the ILC failed to give adequate and equal consideration to the views of States from all regions. This raises the question of the standard the ILC uses to divine prevailing trends. My delegation suggests that we proceed with caution, taking into account the overwhelming divergence of views on the key elements of the ILC draft articles, and urges the Six Committee to proceed prudently. I now turn to the topic of sea level rise. We acknowledge the co-chair's identification and critical cross-cutting issues, particularly the interlinkages between stability, predictability, and the preservation of existing rights, alongside crucial principles such as self-determination, permanent sovereignty over natural resources, and equity. In this context, Eritrea stands in solidarity with the most vulnerable nations whose very survival is threatened by sea level rise. Small island developing states, low-lying coastal countries, and delta regions tend to lose the most from the adverse consequences of climate change and sea level rise. The need of these states and populations should therefore be met and their futures secured. My country is among those affected. With more than 350 islands, an extensive Red Sea coastline, and a maritime domain roughly equal to size of half our land mass, Eritrea approaches sea level rise as a matter of major national significance. As we grapple with the challenges of sea level rise, my delegation emphasizes the need for stable maritime zones. and guarantees for the sovereign rights of coastal states over their maritime spaces. Parts of Eritrea's territory consist of low-lying and sandy coastal areas at constant risk of erosion. We therefore stress that baselines and maritime boundaries must be preserved, and that the sovereign and jurisdictional rights of the coastal states over their maritime spaces in accordance with international law must be protected. Littoral States have a vital, indispensable role in securing and promoting a sustainable and stable maritime ecosystem. Madam Chair, in conclusion, Eritrea extends its gratitude once again to the Commission for its valuable work on these topics. We look forward to engaging constructively with all delegations as the General Assembly considers the Commission's recommendations and the future of these draft articles. I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [1:55:48]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Eritrea for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Dominican Republic. You have the floor.


Dominican Republic [1:56:03]:

Madam Chair, the Dominican Republic aligns with the statements delivered by Palau on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States, AOSIS, and is delivering the present statement in its national capacity. We are grateful to the ILC President, Mr. Andrius Matrejanis, for introducing the report in relation to its 77th session. We recognize the work of its members. and the technical support of the Codification Division of the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations. The Dominican Republic attaches particular importance to the work of codifying and gradually developing international law. In this context, we recognize the conclusion at the second reading of the work on immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Madam Chair, the elevation of rising sea levels is of particular importance for the Dominican Republic as a small island developing state. The consequences of this affect our coastal communities, their means of livelihood and our outlook for sustainable development and represent an existential threat for the most vulnerable states, we reiterate our appreciation to the study group and to its co-chairs for the final report that was approved in 2025. We value its comprehensive approach that addresses the law of the sea, statehood, and the protection of affected persons while addressing stability, legal predictability, equity, solidarity, and international cooperation. We also welcome with satisfaction the recent adoption of the consensus resolution A/RES/81/3 of the General Assembly that contains the United Nations Declaration on Sea Level Rise. This outcome represents a major step forward in the recognition of the consequences of this phenomenon and of the need for a coordinated international response. We in particular highlight the favourable presumption as regards the maintenance of statehood and the possibility of preserving established maritime zones in accordance with UNCLOS. My delegation reiterates the importance of preserving the integrity of maritime zones and rights that derive from the Convention against the effects of sea-level rise. In this regard, we highlight the conclusions from the study group relating to the absence of an obligation to update baselines, geographical coordinates, and the outer limits of maritime zones once duly submitted in accordance with the Convention in order to reflect the changes stemming from this phenomenon. The stability and legal certainty should guide responses to these challenges. We also recognize the contributions of the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea, it laws the ICJ and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Their advisory opinions on climate change have contributed from their respective areas to clarifying the international obligations that states have and to recognizing the gravity of the consequences of climate change. for the marine environment and for human rights. We also value the efforts of AOSIS and States who have promoted these consultative procedures and regional bodies to also the contributions of the scientific community. Their work has contributed to situating the concerns of the coastal and island states at the core of the international legal debate. The Dominican Republic underscores the need to strengthen the protection of persons and communities affected by sea level rise, with those who remain in their places of residence and also those who are forced to move elsewhere. should guide our responses together with human rights, the protection of identity and cultural heritage for these communities. International cooperation is thus indispensable to supporting affected states when it comes to fulfilling their obligations and providing for the needs of their populations. In the regional environment, we recognize the contribution of the Inter-American Legal Committee of the Organization of American States, and we value the exchange that was held in July of this year, including the legal implications of sea level rise. In this context, we reiterate the candidacy of Dr. Julio José Rojas Baez presented by the Dominican Republic to join the ILC for the session 2028-2032 as the President of the Inter-American Legal Commission and the author of the topic, implications of sea level rise in the Inter-American context. He has contributed to considering the issues and challenges raised by this forum for our region. We trust that this experience will allow him to make a substantive contribution to the work of the Commission. Madam Chair, As regards immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, we recognize the work of Mr. Claudio Grosman, Special Rapporteur, and the other Special Rapporteurs. We take note of the approval of the draft articles at the second reading and of the recommendations. to develop in a timely manner a convention based on this text. We believe it is essential for this to be examined in a way that addresses the sovereign equality of states and the fight against impunity. We highlight the importance of the provisions and procedural guarantees, including consultation between interested states and the jurisdictional review of decisions that negate immunity in order to prevent abusive or politically motivated use of foreign jurisdiction. We recognize also the work of Marcelo Vasquez Bermudez, Special Rapporteur, and also the 11 meetings. We reaffirm our commitment to international law. Thank you once again.


6th Committee · Chair [2:03:04]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the Dominican Republic for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Bulgaria. You have the floor.


Bulgaria [2:03:18]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Republic of Bulgaria and to address the Sixth Committee on the report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 77th session. My remarks will focus on the immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, general principles of law, sea level rise in relation to international law, and other decisions and conclusions of the Commission. Bulgaria aligns itself with the relevant statements delivered on behalf of the European Union and would like to offer some additional observations in its national capacity. At the outset, we congratulate the members of the Commission on their continued efforts to advance the codification and progressive development of international law. Madam Chair, the immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdictions remains particularly pertinent in light of the developments in international criminal law and the challenges faced by State officials in the performance of their duties. We acknowledge the extensive work undertaken by the Commission on this topic since 2007. In this context, it is important to recall the existing rules of international law governing immunities. We call upon all States to respect the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which established specific protections for persons connected with diplomatic missions and consular posts. Bulgaria welcomes the Commission's adoption, on second reading, of the draft articles on the immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. The distinction between immunity ratione personae and immunity ratione materiae is of fundamental importance. The cessation of temporary personal immunity is without prejudice to the applicable rules governing immunities of acts performed in an official capacity. where the criminal jurisdiction of the forum state is exercised, essential procedural guarantees, including the right to a fair trial and fair treatment, must be upheld, together with other rights applicable under international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law. Given the importance of the topic, Bulgaria takes careful note of the Commission's recommendation concerning the possible elaboration, at the appropriate time, of a convention based on the draft articles, either by the General Assembly or by an international conference of plenipotentiaries. Madam Chair, turning to general principles of law, we congratulate the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vasquez Bermudez, on his extensive work. Bulgaria commends the Commission's adoption on second reading of the draft conclusions and their commentaries, and reiterates its alignment with the position expressed by the European Union on this topic. General principles of law make an essential contribution to the coherence of the international legal system. Their significance is reflected in the practice of States and in the jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals. Fundamental principles, including pacta sunt servanda, good faith, respect for human dignity, and the obligation to make reparation for internationally wrongful acts, must remain central to international relations. Treaties must be concluded and performed in good faith. binding force cannot be disregarded merely because their obligations have become politically inconvenient, nor may a State generally invoke its internal laws as justification for failing to perform a treaty. Also, we welcome the detailed commentaries accompanying the draft conclusions, including their references to the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Bulgaria encourages the widest possible dissemination of the draft conclusions and their careful consideration by all States. Madam Chair, we would like to address the topic of sea level rise in relation to international law. Bulgaria expresses its appreciation to the Commission and its study group for their rigorous work over the past years, culminating in the final consolidated report. This analysis is a valuable contribution to the assessment of state practice and to legal certainty and predictability. Bulgaria notes the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on Sea Level Rise during the High-Level Week of the 81st session of the General Assembly. The declaration is an important contribution to the legal clarity sought through the Commission's work. For Bulgaria, as a coastal state, clear and predictable international rules are particularly important for regional stability and economic security. We also highlight the close relationship between the Commission's findings, the declaration, and the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on climate change. Bulgaria reaffirms its strong commitment to international law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which remain the cornerstone of global ocean governance. We consider the existing framework of UNCLOS sufficient to address the legal challenges posed by sea level rise and do not see a need for a new treaty on this specific matter. Any legal responses should preserve the integrity of the Convention and respect the careful balance of rights and obligations. Alongside questions of state sovereignty and maritime boundaries, the human dimension must remain at the forefront of our efforts, addressing legal gaps affecting displaced populations and preventing statelessness call for sustained, balanced international cooperation. Madam Chair, as regards our other decisions and conclusions of the Commission, Bulgaria welcomes the inclusion of the topic “Identification of legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law” in the programme of work and congratulates Mr. Masahito Asada on his appointment as the Special Rapporteur. We believe that further clarification would be particularly useful concerning the obligation of injured States and States other than an injured State. Bulgaria also supports efforts to improve the Commission’s work methods and procedures to enhance its effectiveness and ensure efficient use of available resources. We look forward to the finalization of the Handbook on the Commission’s methods of work. In conclusion, Bulgaria reiterates its appreciation for the Commission's report and reaffirms its strong support for the ILC's indispensable role for the codification and progressive development of international law. We remain committed to an international order based on the United Nations Charter and international law, and look forward to continuing constructive engagement on these issues. Thank you, Madam Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [2:11:22]:

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


Morocco [2:11:35]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation notes with satisfaction that since the opening of this session of the Sixth Committee, the conduct of our work has been led only by women who have guided our work in several official languages, an example of parity and the role of women in responsibility and multilingualism to which our organization is attached. We congratulate you for this. Madam Chair, my delegation. We congratulate the President of the ILC, Mr. Andreas Mauriannis, for presenting the report of the Commission. We congratulate the members of the Commission, special rapporteurs, and the Codification Division for a particularly productive session, concluding with two second readings and one first reading. We also have returned to an 11-week session, which is a condition for in-depth work. My delegation also aligns itself to the tributes paid to the four members of the Commission, and we will address the matters before us. The issue of sea level rise is a highly complex one that gets to the very root of sovereignty, maritime space, and the protection of populations. My delegation thanks the Commission and also the co-chair of the study group for their efforts concluding with the adoption of the final report. We also hail the adoption by consensus on 24 September of the United Nations Declaration on Sea-Level Rise. This marks a major stage in the collective response to this challenge. On maritime areas, my delegation believes that Any response to sea level rise should be fully coherent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS. Morocco attaches particular importance in this regard to the stability of baselines and to establish maritime zones in accordance with the Convention, which should not be updated because of a rise in sea level. As during previous discussions on this subject, my delegation continues to call for prudence in discussing the question of statehood. The principles that the final report of the IACJ in its advisory opinion on climate change gives to the continuity of statehood go hand in hand, and this should be assessed together in the context of sea level rise. Finally, protection of persons affected depends on the primary responsibility of the state concerned, respect for human dignity, and international cooperation. The Kingdom of Morocco considers that collective action should be coordinated around three priorities: anticipation of risks, mobilization of predictable financing, structured partnerships, and the protection of populations. The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration adopted in Marrakech could, in this regard, offer a framework reference for addressing the human dimension of migration linked to climate. Madam Chair. As regards the subject relating to immunity of officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, the special rapporteur's work, including the adoption of 17 draft articles, this represents a major stage in the examination of a particularly complex issue situated at the intersection of sovereign equality of states, international coordination and individual criminal responsibility. Immunity does not represent a personal privilege granted to state officials. As the Kingdom highlighted in its written contributions, immunity allows state officials to act on its behalf. It is essential that we maintain a clear distinction between immunity ratione personae and immunity ratione materiae. The former benefit heads of state and ministers of foreign affairs and others, and covers their official acts and also private acts. The second covers official acts and may subsist after the conclusion of their functions. This distinction is understood without prejudice to special regimes set up by customary and conventional international law, notably for the benefit of diplomatic missions, consular posts and special missions. As regards immunity ratione personae, we recall our position expressed at the 69th session whereby this immunity should not be limited exclusively to the Troika, because such a restriction risks compromising the global functioning of this State. Under Article 6, a particularly prudent approach remains necessary. The inscription of a crime in this list should not lead to the automatic presumption of the existence of criminal competency. We stipulate the inapplicability of immunity is a distinct question from competency, where the existence and foundation should be established separately in accordance with international law. It is further appropriate to clearly distinguish the laws reflecting existing international law from those participating to its gradual, progressive development. The adoption of draft articles by the Commission should not be interpreted as establishing the customary nature of each of their provisions. The procedural guarantees represent an essential part of this. We give particular importance to the examination of the question of immunity before considering prosecutions or coercive measures, the notification of state representative or consultations between the states concerned. We also highlight the importance of the state invoking immunity and the weight that needs to be given to the information communicated and also the quality and function of representative. essential in order to prevent unfounded prosecutions and proper administration of justice. Respect for immunities should not be described as a form of impunity. We should give priority to cooperation between states, and when the conditions are met, resorting to these mechanisms allows competent authorities of the state to effectively exercise legal power. There is a pathway for coherent cooperation. Our delegation highlights the need to also ensure coherence between this work and the negotiations underway on a convention on repression of crimes against humanity, notably in the question of immunities. Finally, we take note of the recommendation of the Commission. The draft articles should continue with an inclusive intergovernmental process to give us time to consider the legal scope of each and to achieve the broadest possible consensus. Madam Chair, my delegation thanks the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Vasilo Vazquez Bermudez, and we take note of the adoption at the second reading of the second draft conclusions, and we will We will now skip to the next section, methods of work and send a full statement for publication later. Madam Chair, we take note of the listing of the subject, identifying the consequences erga omnes, and we congratulate Ms. Said Arsat for her appointment as Special Rapporteur. We would like the study to cover the methodology of identification based on the practice of States and opinio juris rather than the establishment of lists. As many other delegations have said, today, this extends the work on peremptory norms, jus cogens, and we should take full account of the observations of states to the ILC and their interventions in the Sixth Committee, as the GA noted in resolution 78/109. Madam Chair. By way of conclusion, my delegation notes that international jurisdictions are increasingly referring to the work of the Commission, and we're delighted by this. Nonetheless, we note that international jurisdictions are increasingly referring to the work of the ICJ. Four states have been able to express their view on this, and so it will be important for us to be able in this debate to distinguish between codification and progressive development and take the time necessary to examine each subject and not forget about the central role of practices and observations of States, and to give States more time in order to formulate their remarks. I thank you for your attention.


6th Committee · Chair [2:20:49]:

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


Kenya [2:21:00]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, Kenya aligns itself with the statements delivered by Cameroon on behalf of the African Group, and in thanking the International Law Commission for its work and report, and congratulates Mr. Olufemi Elias on his election to fill the vacancy in the Commission following the election of Judge Phoebe Okowa to the International Court of Justice. While expressing its gratitude for Judge Okoa's valuable contribution to the work of the Commission, Kenya thanks Member States for her election to the ICJ and requests members for their invaluable support in our bid for re-election to the ICJ for the full term 2027-2036. Madam Chair, my delegation shall comment on the topic of sea level rise in relation to international law and also deliver, send a detailed statement later. Madam Chair, the adoption by consensus of the resolution on sea level rise on September 14, 2026, was monumental. The resolution calls for stronger international cooperation, faster emission reduction, greater adaptation and resilience, financing, and increased support for small island developing states and low-lying coastal countries. Sea level rise is a multi-dimensional global phenomenon that varies from one region to another, but is of an existential nature for low-lying states. keep a logic states, small island states, and the small island developing states whose land territory may become absolutely or partially submerged by the sea or become uninhabitable. Although there is a general presumption under international law for that a state, once established, will continue to exist and endure, and Kenya supported this principle, and maintain its status and effectiveness, and that international law does not contemplate the demise of a state in the context of climate change related sea level rise. But I'm sure intertwined with this problem, the rights to self-determination, protection of the territorial integrity of the state, sovereign equality of states, and their permanent sovereignty over their natural resources. the maintenance of international peace and security, and the stability of international relation and cooperation. In addressing these situations from the perspective of statehood, it is important to be cognizant of both legal and practical ways to address the impacts of sea level rise. We must first address the root causes of climate change, which engender sea level rise. Climate change affects all of us, but It affects some states more than others. Madam Chair, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which establishes rules governing maritime zones measured from coastal baselines, including territorial seas and exclusive economic zones, as well as continental shelf entitlements, does not require States to update baseline geographical coordinates or other limits of maritime zones once they are duly deposited with the Secretary-General to account for changes caused by climate-related sea level rise. Kenya therefore supports the 2023 Pacific Island Forum Declaration on the Continuity of Statehood and the Protection of Persons in the Face of Climate Change-Related Sea Level Rise, which presumes the continuity of statehood regardless of the impact of sea level rise. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea did not, of course, address sea level rise as it was not an issue that had been discussed at the time of its negotiation. Conversely, it did not prohibit the preservation of baselines and maritime zones, and therefore, there is no obligation for states to update baseline on nautical charts to account for changes as a result of sea level rise, and that the principle fundamental change of circumstances, as provided for under Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, did not apply to maritime boundaries. Kenya believes that UNCLOS, the Constitution of the Sea, oceans rather, is a living document, and like all constitutions, is adaptable to developments that are not envisaged under the negotiation, during the negotiation of the convention. The UNCLOS cannot therefore possibly be expected to contain all that can be envisaged and every evolution in the law of the sea. This is the reason why the BBNJ Treaty was negotiated in the past and is now on its way to implementation. Kenya has signed and ratified this agreement. Madam Chair, on the protection of persons in the event of sea level rise, it is disconcerting to know that there is currently no uniform international legal framework applicable to the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. other than sporadic, fragmented, mostly non-specific sea level rise responses, which are generally applicable in the context of disasters and climate change, mainly localized to individual states. Madam Chair, currently, reaction to these challenges is left to international organizations and other bodies with relevant mandates in the field of human rights. displacement, migration, labor, climate change, and finance to take both a proactive and reactive approach in order to address the effects of such disasters. Thankfully, Madam Chair, the General Assembly, via Resolution 79/128, did decide on 4 December 2024 to elaborate and conclude a legally binding instrument on the protection of persons in the event of disaster, which is the basis upon which the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disaster is being held in Thailand, Bangkok, Thailand, next year. The study group has made important observations and proposals on the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. which forms useful basis for formulating the measures to contain sea level rise in the context of international law. In addressing the effect of sea level rise, existing international law should be interpreted and applied in a way to meet the needs of states and the population that might be affected by the possible adverse consequences of climate change and sea level rise in order to ensure legal stability, predictability, certainty, equality, and the preservation of existing life. Finally, Madam Chair, Kenya recognizes there is no binding international legal instrument that can specifically address climate change-related displacement. Several states have called for new bilateral and multilateral legal instruments to strengthen protection for climate-displaced individuals. Kenya therefore urges the Commission to continue its work in this topic and support efforts to develop a framework to address this existential threat. Thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [2:28:56]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Kenya for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Arab Emirates. You have the floor, ma'am.


United Arab Emirates [2:29:06]:

Madam Chair, the United Arab Emirates expresses its sincere thanks to the International Law Commission for its work during this session. In the interest of time, I will be as brief as possible. The UAE will provide the full version of its statement to the Secretariat in English and Arabic for publication online. I turn first to the topic of the immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. The UAE thanks the three Special Rapporteurs and all Commission members who have dedicated nearly two decades of work to this topic. Bearing in mind the Commission's recommendation in paragraph 44 of its report, we will underline our position on a few of the most consequential draft articles. First, the EU continues to have concerns regarding draft Article 2. The EU welcomes a clarification in the commentary that an act does not fall outside immunity ratione materiae simply because it is ultra vires. We regret, however, that overall, the draft article and commentary still do not provide sufficient clarity, and in particular, do not expressly recognize that ultra vires acts should be understood in the same manner as in Article 7 of the Articles on State Responsibility. The UAE also reiterates its regrets at the adoption of a formulation for draft Article 3 that limits the scope of immunity ratione personae to the members of the Troika. The comments of States and members of the Commission itself evidence disagreement with this overly restrictive approach. In the UAE’s view, it does not reflect customary law under which personal immunity is not confined to the members of the Troika. Nor does it reflect the ICJ’s jurisprudence in the Arasbaran case, reaffirmed in Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. The UAE further reiterates its strong reservations regarding draft Article 6. The misgivings of numerous States and Commission members regarding draft Article 6 are well known. The existence of exceptions to immunity ratione materiae is not supported by state practice sufficient to establish a rule of customary international law, and the views of states remains too divided for such exceptions to be proposed as progressive development. That the Commission has exceptionally opted for votes, the second vote on this draft article, is also telling. Last year, in resolution 80/164, the General Assembly by consensus encouraged the Commission to indicate in its commentaries the extent to which draft provisions represent the codification or the progressive development of international law. The commentary to draft article 6 does not do so. It also represents a one-sided catalogue of practice drawn largely from the courts of a limited number of States. It omits the position expressed by many States in opposition, and it also omits the practice that points the other way, including the absence of prosecutions. Madame Chair, in conclusion, we do not believe that the elaboration of a convention on the basis of these draft articles is an appropriate outcome at this stage. The UAE would instead support a resolution by which the General Assembly takes note of the draft articles, invite governments to submit further written comments on the text adopted on second reading, and defers any decision on the final form of the Commission's work to a later session. This would be in line with the stage approach the Assembly has taken on other topics. Madam Chair, turning now to the topic of general principles of law, the UE takes note of the 12 draft conclusions adopted by the Commission on second reading. We are grateful to the Commission and the Special Rapporteur for their hard work. We welcome the progress that the present draft conclusions make in clarifying various aspects of general principles of law derived from national legal systems. My delegation, however, remains unconvinced that a second category of general principles, namely those formed within the international legal system, finds sufficient support in state practice, jurisprudence, or doctrine. We wish to emphasize here that the Commission itself acknowledges the existence of this second category is debated. Regrettably, And contrary to the understanding expressed in the report of the Drafting Committee in 2025, the Commission does not provide guidance on how this second category of general principles should be distinguished from customary international law. Nor does it address the risks noted in the Commission and in this Committee regarding the second category of general principles operating as custom light. The examples in the commentaries, some of which can be characterised as customary, further reinforce our concerns. Without repeating our previous comments on draft conclusions 10 and 11, we note that these draft conclusions apply to both categories of general principles. Their logic may follow more naturally for principles derived from national legal systems, which have an origin independent of, and could therefore fill gaps in, treaty and custom. It is less clear how these derived conclusions apply to the second category of general principles. These principles, in many cases, seem to have been identified through their footprint in treaties and customary law. Such principles can hardly fill the gaps left by the rules from which they seem to have been derived. In conclusion, given the continued divergence among states and critical parts of this project, my delegation considers that acknowledging the existence of such divergence is important as the Committee takes this work forward. Madam Chair, on sea level rise in relation to international law, we thank the Commission for its work on this topic, and we welcome the adoption by the General Assembly of the UN Declaration on Sea Level Rise. The UAE remains committed to working with partners to address the impacts of sea level rise and support the communities most affected. Finally, we take note of the Commission's decision to include the topic "Identification and legal consequences of obligation erga omnes in international law" in its programme of work. We congratulate Mr. Masahiko Asada on his appointment as Special Rapporteur, and we look forward to discussing this topic with the Commission in due course. Thank you, Madam Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [2:36:19]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Arab Emirates for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the State of Kuwait. You have the floor.


Kuwait [2:36:33]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, we are pleased to deliver this statement before the Sixth Committee. as we address the agenda item, the report of the ILC on its 76th and 67th session. We express our appreciation to the ILC for the efforts made in the codification and progressive development of international law to ensure legal certainty and respect for international law globally. We reiterate the importance of continuing this interaction between the ILC and the Sixth Committee. Careful attention must be drawn to the remarks and proposals of States during these discussions. We stress the need to distinguish the rules of progressive development from codifications, and recommendations must be based on clear assessment of legal justifications and rules, as expressed by Member States. Madam Chair, regarding sea level rise in relation to international law, we express our appreciation to the co-chairs of the study group on this issue for their contributions to the clarity of sea level rise effects, considering the dire consequences on SIDS, including economic, legal, and social adverse effects. International cooperation must continue to alleviate and adapt to climate change. We take note of the work of the ILC on this topic, and we stress the need to align our actions with the UN Declaration on Sea Level Rise. while paying special attention to the challenges faced by all parties, including or especially affected States. Discussions must be based on relevant international law rules and principles, including the provisions of the UNCLOS. Madam Chair, regarding the general principles of law, we commend the efforts by the ILC to address this topic. We stress the need to ensure a precise legal analysis that is based on the practices of Member States. Particular attention must be paid to determining general principles of law that are generated from national court decisions and their interaction with international law. while identifying the scope of their applicability without prejudice to other principles of international law. As for the immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, we commend efforts to address this delicate topic. Sovereign equality must be respected. including respect for relevant international conventions and treaties. We reiterate the need to pay close attention to procedural measures that prevent the misuse of judicial settlement and proceedings in order to ensure non-selectivity. We reiterate our appreciation to the ILC and we stress the need to continue constructive dialogue with Member States to ensure the progressive development and codification of international law, as well as respect for the rules of international law. I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [2:40:37]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the State of Kuwait for his statement. I now give the floor to the representative of Vanuatu. You have the floor, madam.


Vanuatu [2:40:55]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Vanuatu thanks the Chair of the International Law Commission for introducing the report and for the Commission's work this year. Madam Chair, as my other colleagues have reiterated, a longer detailed version of our statement will be uploaded, but on cluster one, We will try to swiftly address sea level rise in relation to international law, immunity of state officials, general principles of law, and other decisions and conclusions. On sea level rise in relation to international law, Vanuatu aligns itself with the statements delivered by Palau on behalf of AOSIS and by Fiji on behalf of the Pacific SIDS. We thank the study group, co-chairs, and welcome the UN Declaration on Sea Level Rise, which is the first common text on this issue agreed by all member states. For Vanuatu, sea level rise goes to the heart of our maritime zones, our statehood, and the protection of our people. Madam Chair, Vanuatu reaffirms the position of Pacific leaders in the 2021 PIF Declaration and the ALOSIS Declaration that maritime zones established in accordance with UNCLOS and the rights and entitlements that flow from them shall continue to apply without reduction, notwithstanding physical changes resulting from sea level rise. The study groups conclusions confirm that states are under no obligation to update their baselines or the outer limits of their maritime zones once deposited, and that state practice supports preserving them. The ICJ reached the same view in its advisory opinion as well. We also reaffirm that as Pacific leaders declared in 2023 that our statehood and sovereignty will continue. We emphasize the duty to cooperate, which must rest on respect for the sovereignty of affected states and on equity, including common but differentiated responsibilities. SIDS are among those that have contributed least to climate change, yet suffer its impacts disproportionately. Vanuatu supports the call by the Pacific SIDS for this Committee to decide in this year’s resolution to continue consideration of the legal aspects of sea level rise at the 82nd session. On chapter 4, FONATU welcomes the draft articles and stresses the Commission's own point that immunity must not result in impunity for the most serious crimes under international law. We welcome that the list of crimes in draft article 6 for which immunity ratione materiae does not apply yet remains open to further legal development. In our view, those crimes must include ecocide. Vanuatu has led on this question since 2019, and in 2024, with Fiji and Samoa, proposed amending the Rome Statute to add an independent crime of ecocide. Ecocide is already criminalized under various national and regional laws, and there is increasing evidence that its prohibition is emerging as a customary norm. Should the General Assembly elaborate on a convention on the basis of the draft articles Vanuatu calls for ecocide to be considered in that process. On general principles of law, Vanuatu welcomes the adoption on second reading of the draft conclusions and supports the Commission's recommendation. We welcome the commentary to draft conclusion 7, which recognizes that the duty to cooperate may be intrinsic to the international legal system. including to prevent climate change. In our view, the same duty extends to addressing its adverse effects, including sea level rise. We also welcome the replacement of “civilized nations” with “community of nations.” The comparative analysis required by draft Conclusion 5 must be wide and representative of all regions, including the Pacific, where customary law is part of most of our national laws, whereas in Vanuatu, we have it under our constitution. Finally, on chapter 13, Vanuatu welcomes the inclusion of identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law, in the programme of work, and the appointment of Mr. Masahiko Asada as Special Rapporteur. The Court found that obligations to protect the climate system, including the customary obligations to prevent significant transboundary harm, are obligations erga omnes. and that obligations under the climate treaties are obligations erga omnes partes. We encourage the Special Rapporteur to take full account of these findings and to address the entitlement of States other than injured States to invoke responsibility and the remedies available to them. On paragraph 398, we welcome the 2027 Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters to be held in Thailand. As a State highly exposed to disasters, Vanuatu strongly supports a legally binding instrument. On paragraph 404, We note that the working group on cooperation with regional legal bodies includes no Pacific interlocutor, and no commission member is from a Pacific SIDS. We invite the commission to consider how Pacific perspectives might be included. We also share the commission's concern at the discontinuance of its webcast, which matters particularly to small delegations such as ours. Thank you, Madam Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [2:49:08]:

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


Argentina [2:49:20]:

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. First of all, the delegation of Argentina wishes to align itself with the tribute to the Commissioners paid at this session to the memory of Professor Concepción Escobar Hernández, Justice Stephen Schwebel, Ambassador Julio Barbosa, and also Justice Kenneth Keith. In particular, Argentina wishes to recall the Argentine legal scholar, Julio Barbosa, a member of the Commission for almost two decades and Special Rapporteur on the topic of international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, whose work in the prevention of transboundary harm is still an inescapable benchmark for both the ILC and states. Chair Argentina highlights that the ILC has now concluded its consideration of the topic, immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, following almost 20 years on the Commission's programme of work, and we extend special thanks to the Special Rapporteur on the subject, Mr. Claudio Grossman Gillof, and his predecessors, Mr. Kolodkin and Ms. Hernandez, for their work. Argentina takes note of the draft articles and will study them in depth. Madam Chair, with regard to chapter 5 of the report devoted to the topic general principles of law, Argentina wishes to reiterate its appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vázquez Bermudez, and through him also to all of the members of the Commission for having completed their study of the topic. My delegation welcomes the adoption at the second reading of the draft conclusions and the commentaries thereto. during the 77th session. This output complements the Commission's prior work on the identification of customary international law. It also provides clarity on a source of Article 38, paragraph one of the Statute of the ICJ that has traditionally been less studied: its scope, the method for identifying it, its functions and relations with other sources. This is one of the main sources of international law, and as stated in the commentaries, Pactus et Servantur ex iuria ius non reitur, and others contribute to the coherence of the international legal system. We particularly appreciate the fact that the draft reaffirms that general principles of law must be recognized by the international community. We agree with the replacement of the expression "civilized nations" with a formulation that, in line with Article 15, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, reflects the fact that all nations participate equally in the formation of these principles in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality. As this delegation has pointed out in the past, draft conclusion 3 introduces one of the most delicate issues under this topic, in respect of which there is a need to proceed with the utmost prudence and caution, given the lack of consensus on the subject. The aforementioned conclusion entitled "Categories of general principles of law" states that these include those that derive from national legal systems and those that may be formed within the international legal system. In other words, in addition to principles flowing from national legal systems, which represent the most traditional position on the subject, there are others that may be formed inside the international legal system. In this regard, this delegation reiterates the advisability of proceeding with caution in relation to the second category. At past meetings, several members of the Commission themselves stated there was not enough state practice, jurisprudence, or doctrine to fully support the existence of this category. We note that the commentaries themselves recognize this situation. Noting that the use of the verb may in draft conclusions 3 and 7 seeks to reflect that the formation general principles of the law in the international legal system is sometimes questioned. As regards the principles derived from national legal systems, we consider the two-stage methodology to be correct, requiring a broad and representative comparative analysis, including different regions of the world and not just certain legal traditions, together with a verification of compatibility with the international legal system, offers a guarantee of rigor and objectivity. Without prejudice to what has been said as regards to the second category, the Argentine Republic welcomes, as regards to draft conclusion 7, the deletion of the second paragraph contained in the text adopted at the first reading, which, as has been duly pointed out, was not entirely clear. We also understand that the requirement for such principles to be recognized by the international community as being intrinsic to the international legal system constitutes a safeguard that should be applied with particular rigour. My delegation also agrees with what is stated in draft conclusion 11: general principles of law do not have a hierarchical relationship to treaties or to customary international law and may coexist with rules of the same or similar content. Finally, The Argentine Republic supports the Commission's recommendation that the General Assembly take note of the draft conclusions in a resolution, annex them to it, and ensure their widest possible dissemination. We also support your bringing them, together with your comments, to the attention of States and all those called upon to identify general principles of law. Madam Chair's regards, chapter 13 of the report on other decisions and conclusions of the Commission. The delegation of Argentina has noted with interest the inclusion in the programme of work of the topic identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law, and also the appointment of Mr. Masai Coetzee as Special Rapporteur. Argentina also notes with interest the inclusion in the long-term programme of work of the topic the right to regulate. international investment law, an issue of unquestionable relevance to States which has been under consideration in other fora, in particular in Working Group III of UNCITRAL on the reform of investor-state dispute settlement system. This delegation will be closely monitoring its potential treatment. This delegation takes note of the updating of the outline on extraterritorial jurisdiction, including in Annex II to the report, a subject in which Argentina has repeatedly expressed its interest, particularly in view of the proliferation of extraterritorial measures. Finally, Madam Chair, the delegation of Argentina wishes to highlight the holding of the 60th session of the Seminar on International Law, which brought together 23 participants, and we congratulate the Commission and the Secretariat On the 60th anniversary of this important initiative, we wish to underscore the importance that the seminar has for the training of young jurists, especially from developing countries, and we support the Commission's recommendation that the GA should issue a new appeal for voluntary contributions so that more young people from Latin America can participate in this. We also appreciate the fact that the seminar enjoyed interpretation services in English, French, and Spanish. I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [2:57:08]:

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


Qatar [2:57:32]:

Madam Chair, we would like to express our gratitude to the International Law Commission for their efforts. We thank Mr. Andreas Mavroyiannis, the Chair of the Committee during its 77th session, for presenting the report, and for the members for their valuable contributions as reflected in the reports presented before us. In light of our support to the work of the Committee, we are pleased to be one of the countries whereby the ILC has expressed gratitude for the contributions to the Committee, and we also have And we thank the Committee for early translation of the documents before the meetings of the Sixth Committee to allow careful consideration by the States and to express informed opinions thereof. have great appreciation of the work of ILC in the progressive development and codification of international law and stress the importance of collaboration with the Sixth Committee, which gives a forum for the Member States to look into the work of the ILC and express their opinions thereof. In this regard, we stress that the works of the Commission should continue to be informed by the States' positions and views as well as their different traditions, and to take and to ensure the adoption of its conclusions by consensus so that they garner the widest consensus possible. Madam Chair, in terms of topics in the report, we took note of these topics, and we see that they reflect the interest of the ILC members and a number of States. Competent authorities in Qatar are studying the findings of the report in light of our national jurisdiction as well as our obligations internationally. We also reiterate the positions that we have made in the past, and that any legally binding instrument should not restrict the national judiciary and should respect the sovereignty and the constitutions of state and should be based on agreed upon definitions in line of international conventions and should complement existing legal instruments and that to have procedural safeguards to prevent abuse of these measures and should garner and seek to garner the widest consensus possible. The Commission in codifying and progressive development of international law is based on the practices of state. We would like to enrich these efforts by strengthening international law and its implementation at the national and international level. Qatar has established the National Commission for International Humanitarian Law, which has a primary responsibility to coordinate national efforts to implement international humanitarian law and spread awareness of its rules, as well as the legal qualification and harmonization of national legislations with international conventions that are relevant to international humanitarian law. As for the regional and international levels, we are elected as the chair of the Permanent and Standing Committee on International Maintaining Law at the Arab level, and we are the first chair of the committee that was established in 2025. In the context of the League of Arab States to coordinate efforts of Arab states interested in this topic, we also joined the International Initiative to Renew Commitment to International Humanitarian Law in 2025. We co-chair the third track of the global initiative regarding international humanitarian law that is focused on international humanitarian law and peace. This reflects our keen interest in strengthening international law in support of international peace and security. Qatar believes that such national, regional, and international efforts are part and parcel of state practices that aim at the progressive development of international law and provide new perspectives that the ILC should take into consideration. Madam Chair, in conclusion, Qatar renews its support to ILC and its mandate, and we stress our readiness to continue to engage constructively in the works of the ILC and in the Sixth Committee to strengthen a legal and international legal framework that is based on the purposes and principles of UN Charter. Thank you, Madam Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [3:02:34]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Qatar for her statement. Distinguished delegates, I plead for your indulgence to give the floor to the observer delegation of the International Development Law Organization. The representative of this organization is about to depart New York tonight, and we have therefore been requested to give them preference on the list of speakers. You have the floor, the observer delegation of IDLO.


IDLO · Observer Representative [3:03:05]:

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Mr. Chair of the Commission, distinguished delegates. IDLO appreciates the opportunity to contribute to this discussion on the report of the Commission and to have benefited from the expertise of so many in this room. As the only global intergovernmental organization exclusively devoted to promoting the rule of law to advance peace and sustainable development, IDILLO draws on more than four decades of experience working with governments, justice institutions, civil society, academia, and communities across diverse legal systems in all regions. The debate in the Committee has highlighted the growing pushback against international law, which is a matter of grave concern. But at the same time, it is also important to celebrate the strong support for it as well. And one such recent moment is the award of the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize to our longtime colleague and friend Navi Pillay. Her lifetime dedication to the development of international law, the promotion of human rights, and access to justice for all is an inspiring example. At a time when respect for international law is under pressure, the Commission's work remains essential. The progressive development and codification of international law provides a foundation for cooperation and accountability, and effective implementation gives these commitments practical meaning. IDLO welcomes the Commission's reaffirmation in Chapter 13 of its report of the centrality of the rule of law to its work as well as its recognition of the importance of sharing national practices to advance the progressive development and codification of international law. Drawing on our experience, allow me to highlight briefly three ways to strengthen this connection. First, We must strengthen the link between international law and national implementation, and the relationship between the Sixth Committee and the Commission provides an important opportunity to bridge the gap between the development of international legal standards and their implementation at national level. We know that the realization of international law and norms requires appropriate national legislation, capable institutions, and effective enforcement to translate legal commitments into practice. IDLO works with partners to connect international standards to local realities. In the Bahamas, for instance, we supported IDLO's newest member party in the development of legislation on the smuggling of migrants. The new national framework is tailored to specific national needs and aligned with the Protocol against Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea, and Air, which supplements the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. And this link between international law and national implementation needs to be a two-way street. National experiences can help identify where greater clarity is needed in international law and norms, what institutional support is required for implementation, and which approaches are most effective across different legal contexts. Second, we must place people's justice needs more firmly within the international rule of law conversation. International law establishes important standards for the protection of human rights and must concern itself also with the pathways needed for people to realize their rights. IDLO takes a people-centered approach, putting the rights and needs of individuals and communities at the center of justice systems. Last week, I was in Mongolia, where I met a herder family in the South Gobi for whom the nearest court or lawyer is a long and costly journey away. For them, a right that exists only in a distant office is not yet a right they can use. That is why IDLO is partnering with local authorities and civil society to expand mobile services that bring legal and psychosocial support to remote communities. I also participated in the opening of Mongolia's first family and children's court, developed with our support. The specialized court is built around the needs of families and children, with faster procedures, trained judges, and social services that put the safety and dignity of children first. Ensuring adequate resources for the needs of underrepresented groups, and in particular, women and girls, is essential. IDLO's research with UN Women, the World Bank, and other partners on financing women's justice needs has highlighted persistent gaps between legal commitments and women's ability to access justice, including in financing for responses to violence against women. Ultimately, the rule of law is strengthened when people can exercise their rights, obtain effective remedies, and experience justice in their daily lives. Third, international legal development must draw on diverse legal systems and national experiences. IDILO supports the Commission's commitment to grounding its work in practical realities and responding to the needs expressed by states. And this commitment is strongest when it includes and reflects the full range of legal traditions. Customary and informal justice systems, officially recognized as law in many jurisdictions, are an important, if often overlooked, aspect of justice systems. For the majority of people around the world, they are the first point of recourse for addressing a dispute or legal challenge. IDLO has spent more than a decade learning from and working with these diverse systems. We help to build coherence between formal and informal systems by establishing referral pathways, promoting respect for human rights, and the inclusion of underrepresented groups. In Kenya, for example, we support the judiciary to link community-based and customary mechanisms to the courts through alternative justice systems. And in the Sahel, Cadres de Concertation bring formal and traditional justice actors around the same table. Understanding and engaging with these systems can help reinforce the legitimacy, relevancy, and effectiveness of international legal standards. In conclusion, Madam Chair, IDLO remains committed to supporting the Commission, the Sixth Committee, and all Member States in strengthening the international legal system through practical rule of law solutions that make a tangible difference in people's lives. Thank you, Madam Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [3:09:27]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the observer delegation of IDLO. Distinguished delegates, I also ask for your indulgence again to give the floor to Mr. Juan José Ruda Sandolaria, who is the co-chair of the ILC Study Group on Sea Level Rise in International Law. He is also departing New York tonight, and we would like to have a few words from him. You have the floor. You have the floor, sir.


ILC · Co-Chair of the Study Group on Sea Level Rise [3:10:00]:

Thank you.

Muchas gracias, senora presidenta.


ILC · Co-chairs of the ILC Study Group on Sea Level Rise · Co-Chair of the Study Group on Sea Level Rise [3:10:07]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I want to start by expressing on behalf of my colleagues, co-chairs Patricia Algotel and others who could not be here today, And on my own behalf, our gratitude to the Member States and Secretariat for their constant and valuable support, as well as their support for the work of the Working Group of the ILC on the rising sea level. We are very grateful that the work of this Working Group of International Law and the final report of this group as well as the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice regarding the obligation of states in the area of climate change, have contributed to provide more clarity on relevant aspects of international law related to this topic. At the same time, I would like to underscore different developments that have occurred in the past few months, referring to the final report of the working group of the International Law Commission and the the aforementioned advisory opinion of the ICJ. In particular, I want to highlight the importance of the recent declaration of the United Nations on the rise in the sea level and the fact that it was adopted by consensus. The central aspect that I want to really stress is that in addressing this topic, it's important to consider the close relationship between maintaining the condition of statehood, sovereignty, the legal personality and international organizations, as well as preservation of jurisdictional areas, marine areas, and other aspects. as well as the protection of persons based on the principle of human dignity, avoiding situations of statelessness. All this based on fundamental principles of international law, including the principle of free determination. And this is very important to continue promoting new developments in this area, both the United Nations and other international organizations and regional organizations regarding various aspects, such as those related to the protection of persons, inter alia. And international cooperation is very important in this area as well. Thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [3:12:40]:

I thank the distinguished co-chair of the Study Group on the Sea Level Rise in International Law of the ILC. Distinguished delegates, that concludes the list of speakers for this agenda item this afternoon. The Sixth Committee will meet again tomorrow morning at 10:00 AM to continue its debate on the first cluster of topics under the agenda item 78, the report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 76th and 77th sessions. We will also receive the annual visit of the President of the International Court of Justice. Please also recall that, as we decided at the first meeting of the Committee, the deadline for inscription for the debate on the third cluster of topics under agenda item 78, the report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 76th and 77th sessions, as well as the debates on agenda item 86, the law of transboundary aquifers, and 165, report of the committee on relations with the host country, will be tomorrow at 5:00 PM. The meeting is adjourned.