Sixth Committee, 33rd plenary meeting - General Assembly, 81st session

Good morning, everyone. I call to order the 33rd meeting of the Sixth Committee for the 81st session of the General Assembly. Distinguished delegates, it is a well-established tradition that the President of the International Court of Justice pays a visit to the Legal Committee whenever the General Assembly considers the annual report of the Court. Today, it gives me great honour and pleasure to welcome to the Sixth Committee the President of the International Court of Justice, His Excellency Judge Iwasawa Yuji. I also welcome Judges Aruzo, Cleveland, Gomez Robledo, and Mahmud, as well as Mr. Santiago Villalpando, Registrar of the Court, who are with us here today. On behalf of the Sixth Committee, I wish to congratulate Mr. Vilal Pandu on his recent election as the Registrar and wish him luck with his new responsibilities. President Iwasawa is well known to all of us. I speak on behalf of the Sixth Committee as a whole in expressing how delighted we all are to see him here once again, especially on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the Court. The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, as we all know. Its activities are essential to the fulfillment of one of the primary purposes of the Organization, which is, and I quote, "to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace." The jurisprudence of the Court has also been and continues to be of the utmost importance for the progressive development of international law and its codification, the mandate of this Committee. Mr. President, the visit Mr. President, distinguished delegates, the visit of the President to New York is always a busy one and full of other engagements, and the current one, as we all have seen, is no different. It is therefore a pleasure that you have, for all of us, that you have reserved some time to be with us this morning and to continue the well-established practice which members of the Committee always look forward to in this International Law Week. Many of us were in the Assembly Hall yesterday when you presented the annual report of the Court. We are keen observers of the Court and always appreciate receiving a description of its activities from the perspective of the Court. It is with pleasure that I give you the floor this morning, Mr. President.

Madam Chair of the Sixth Committee, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. It is a great honour for me to address the Committee. I welcome this opportunity to celebrate and strengthen the ties between this Committee and the International Court of Justice, two institutions that perform complementary duties in upholding and strengthening the rule of law. I would like to begin by congratulating Her Excellency Ms. Richella Persaud on her election. as Chair of the Sixth Committee for the 81st session of the General Assembly. In my remarks to the committee last year, I spoke about what happens after the International Court of Justice has rendered a decision, how judgment and advisory opinions acquire a life beyond the walls of the Peace Palace and assume significance within domestic legal systems. Today, I'd like to turn back the clock and consider what happens before this point. More particularly, I'd like to speak about the many ways in which state engagement helps the Court fulfill its role as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. I know that many of the delegates gathered here today are entrusted by their respective states to provide expert legal advice covering a wide range of issues that arise as part and parcel of international relations. I have therefore deliberately sought to approach my subject today from a practical perspective, covering aspects of the interrelationship between the Court and states, That will no doubt be familiar to you in your professional experience. As a starting point, let me refer to the most common way in which the state interact with the court, namely, in the context of the institutional proceedings, be that as an applicant or as a respondent state. The court's contentious function is, of course, central to its mandate, but it is far from the whole picture. As you are well aware, there are many other circumstances in which legal advisers and other government officials involved in international legal matters may be called upon to consider the role of the Court. They may be asked to advise, as to whether a treaty under negotiation should contain a clause conferring jurisdiction of the court, or to review a state's declaration accepting the court's compulsory jurisdiction. Their guidance may be sought as to whether a dispute should be submitted jointly with another state by special agreement, or whether it may be appropriate to consider options available to a State to intervene in a pending case. They may have received instructions to participate in negotiating requests for an advisory opinion in the General Assembly, or once such a request has reached the Court, to prepare a written statement or to appear as counsel in oral proceedings. It is therefore useful to view the relationship between states and the court as extending beyond individual cases to encompass a much broader range of interactions. In this context, for many governments, the legal advisors play a key role by providing continuity. across these varied forms of engagement. Today, I propose to examine these different forms of state engagement with the Court. Let me begin with a point at which no proceedings have been instituted, and in some instances, no dispute has yet arisen. The relationship between the state and the Court is shaped in important respects by decision taken well before litigation is contemplated, in particular, decisions relating to jurisdiction. As the member of this committee will know, the jurisdiction of the Court in contentious cases rest upon the consent of states. That consent may be expressed in different forms. each reflecting a choice concerning the part that judicial settlement may play in relations between states. One important avenue for expressing such consent is through an express provision in a treaty providing that, should a dispute arise with another state party concerning the interpretation or application of that treaty, the dispute may, subject to the terms of the clause, be submitted to the Court. These are known as compromissory clauses. At present, more than 300 treaties contain such clauses. The precise formulation of these clauses is important. Some provide for direct recourse to the Court. Others establish prior requirements. For example, the compromissory clause contained in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination provides that the court may be seized of a dispute regarding the interpretation or application of the convention, which is not settled by negotiation or by the procedures explicitly provided for in this convention. The formulation of the clause determines in what circumstances and under what conditions jurisdiction is conferred upon the court. It circumscribes the scope of the court's jurisdiction. Compromissory clauses allow states to engage in multilateralism while keeping some control over the jurisdictional reach of the treaty. In the case concerning the application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination between Georgia and the Russian Federation, the Court concluded in its 2011 judgment on preliminary objections that the procedural requirements set out in the compromissory clause had not been fulfilled before the institution of proceedings, and that it therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case. General treaties for the peaceful settlement of disputes contain one particular form of compromissory clause, providing for the submission of a dispute to the court as one of the means of peaceful settlement available to the parties. The 1941 American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, commonly known as the Pact of Bogota, is a prominent example. In Article 31, the state parties recognize the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory without the need for a special agreement in respect of broad categories of legal disputes between them. The pact has provided the jurisdictional basis for a number of cases before the court. A similar clause can be found in the 1957 European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes. A notable characteristic of these general treaties for the peaceful settlement of disputes is that they establish a broader framework through which the States parties accept in advance recourse to the Court as one of various means of resolving a dispute peacefully. What is more, the Statute of the Court provides a powerful tool for States to express their consent to the judicial settlement of their disputes. Under Article 36, paragraph 2 of the Statute, known as the optional clause, states may recognize as compulsory, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court over legal disputes through unilateral declarations. At present, 75 states have such declarations in force. Statutes preserve the freedom of states to define the scope of their acceptance of the court jurisdiction through reservations and conditions. The preparation and the periodic review of such declarations are important steps for states to take before any particular proceedings are instituted. Legal advisors assume significant roles in this regard. Although optional clause declarations are unilateral acts, they form a series of bilateral engagement between states accepting the same obligation. The extent of the court jurisdiction in a particular case may consequently depend upon the interaction between the declaration of the state concerned through the operation of reciprocity. the reservation that the state makes may be used against it in future proceedings. Finally, states may confer jurisdiction of the court in relation to a particular dispute by concluding a special agreement. This option differs from the ways of expressing advanced consent that I've just described. because a special agreement is concluded once a dispute has arisen. A special agreement allows the parties to delineate the exact contours of their disagreement and to formulate the precise questions that they wish the court to determine. An example of this form of consent to the court jurisdiction is the special agreement concluded by Gabon and Equatorial Guinea as a result of negotiations conducted under mediation by the United Nations Secretary-General. These negotiations allowed the parties to carefully define the matters to be settled by the Court concerning the delimitation of their common maritime and land boundaries and sovereignty over certain islands. The Court delivered its judgment in that case in 2025. These various bases of jurisdiction demonstrate that the relationship between states and the Court often begins long before proceedings are instituted. Decisions taken when negotiating treaties, establishing broader mechanisms for peaceful settlement, preparing optional clause declarations, or concluding special agreements all help to shape the framework within which the court may ultimately be called upon to exercise its judicial function. Once a dispute has arisen and the prospect of proceedings become concrete, the nature of a state engagement with the court changes. At this stage, The jurisdictional avenues I have just described must be considered in relation to the particular dispute. A state contemplating the institutional proceedings will need to identify the possible basis for the court jurisdiction and determine whether there are convincing legal grounds to argue that the dispute falls within its scope. The state will need to carefully consider which claims it seeks to advance against the other state and what steps it should take or has already taken in this regard. Procedural requirements may be particularly important. If reliance has been placed on a compromise clause calling for prior negotiations or recourse to another procedure, before the institution of proceedings. A state against which proceedings have been instituted will need to address corresponding questions, including the jurisdictional basis invoked by the applicant, the claims advanced, and any potentially relevant prior exchanges between the parties. Once proceedings have commenced, The relationship between the state and the court also assumes a more structured form. For the sake of completeness, let me run through the salient aspects of the court procedure, which I know will be familiar to members of this committee. Each party appoints an agent who represent the state before the court and serves as the formal channel of communication with the registrar. Agents may be assisted by co-agents and a team of counsel, advocates, advisors, and experts. Constituting and supporting such a team often require substantial coordination across government. In order to define the legal strategy that the state will adopt before the court, the agent may have to engage officials from different ministries. The documentation relevant to the case may further be dispersed among various ministries, diplomatic missions, and national archives. To present a solid case before the court, the legal team must be able to collect and organize the documentation as part of the preparation of the legal submission. Defending a case requires thorough legal expertise, which may be found in different parts of the government or may require the support of external counsel from law firms or academia. The written proceedings require the preparation of pleadings within the time limits fixed by the court after the views of the parties have been ascertained. Incidental procedures may also arise including requests for provisional measures and preliminary objections to jurisdiction or admissibility. This brief survey serves to illustrate the important coordinating role that government legal advisors may be called upon to play throughout proceedings, ensuring continuity in the state's legal position bringing together relevant parts of the government and maintaining a close connection between the conduct of a case and the broader legal interest of the state in question. A case before the court may be of direct interest to states, even when they are not the party to the original proceedings. In this regard, the Statute of the Court provides two principal mechanisms for intervention by third states. Under Article 62 of the Statute, a state which considers that it has an interest of a legal nature that may be affected by the decision in a case may submit a request for permission to intervene. Territorial and maritime disputes provide a useful illustration. In the case concerning the land and maritime boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea was permitted to intervene because of the possibility that the maritime delimitation being requested by the parties may extend into areas over which it claimed sovereign rights and jurisdiction. In the jurisdictional immunities proceedings between Germany and Italy, Greece was permitted to intervene in relation to an aspect of the case regarding the enforceability of judgment rendered by Greek courts. Article 63 allows for a different form of participation based on the right of a state to intervene a case if it is a party to a multilateral convention whose construction is in question before the Court. When such a scenario comes about, the Registrar notifies all State parties to that convention. If a State decides to submit a declaration of intervention, the Court will examine the admissibility of the declaration, and if found admissible, the State may file observations on the interpretation of the given convention with the court. This mechanism is particularly significant in cases involving multilateral conventions, where a dispute may formally concern two states, but raise questions of treaty interpretation that may be relevant to a wider group of states. The current proceedings in the case concerning allegations of genocide under the Genocide Convention between Ukraine and the Russian Federation provide a notable example. At the preliminary objection stage, 33 states sought to intervene under Article 63. The Court found the declarations of intervention submitted by 32 states to be admissible. In the case concerning application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide between the Gambia and Myanmar, in two orders rendered in 2024 and 2025, the Court found the declarations of intervention submitted by 11 states to be admissible. These forms of intervention demonstrate the importance for states of maintaining an awareness of the court's docket, even when they are not parties to pending proceedings. Indeed, it is no surprise that the remit of diplomatic missions in The Hague invariably includes case monitoring of ongoing proceedings before the court. Expertise of government legal advisors is relied upon to navigate the various time limits for intervention established by the rules of court. Under the amendments to Articles 81 and 82, adopted in 2024, interventions must generally be initiated no later than the date fixed for the filing of the counter-memorial. although different time limits may apply where further written pleadings or preliminary objections are involved. In short, the significance of proceeding before the Court may extend well beyond the states whose names appear in the title of the case. Let me now turn to the forms of state engagement that are particular to the Court's advisory function. The members of this Court will know, under Article 96 of the Charter, General Assembly and the Security Council may request an advisory opinion on any legal question. Other United Nations organs and specialized agencies authorized by the General Assembly may request opinions on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities. While states do not themselves submit requests for advisory opinions, they play an important role before a request reaches the Court. When an advisory opinion is contemplated within an intergovernmental organ such as the General Assembly, States will often participate in identifying the legal issue in which clarification is sought, consider whether recourse to the court advisory function is appropriate, and negotiate the resolution by which an opinion is requested, including the formulation of the question to be submitted. The formulation of the question is important. Issues of international concern that capture the attention of the United Nations may have political, institutional, and practical dimensions. A request for an advisory opinion requires the legal dimension to be identified and the question to be formulated as a legal one. The history of the court advisory function provides a font of examples. One early example arose in connection with reservations to the Genocide Convention. Differences had emerged among states concerning the legal consequences of reservations and objections to them. The matter was considered in the General Assembly before it ultimately submitted three questions to the court. More recently, the advisory proceedings concerning obligation of states in respect of climate change followed a different path, but one that nonetheless involved the input of many states. A group of states from various regional groups developed the request, while consultations expanded to the wider United Nations membership. The formulation of the questions formed an important part of that process. The General Assembly ultimately adopted the resolution requesting the advisory opinion by consensus. Although separated by more than 70 years, these examples reveal two common features of the advisory process: state engagement frequently begins well before a request reaches the court, and such engagement is pivotal in terms of assessing whether an advisory opinion should be sought, identifying the legal issue, and formulating the question to be submitted to the court. Once a request for an advisory opinion reaches the court, state participation assumes a different form. Article 66 of the Statute establishes the framework within which states and international organizations may furnish information to the Court. Written statements provide participating states with an opportunity to set out their legal positions. Where the Court provides for a second round of written pleadings, state may also submit written comments on the statement of other participants, allowing them to engage with different positions and further develop their own views. States may also participate in oral proceedings. Oral statements allow them to focus upon the issues they regard as particularly significant, and members of the Court may put questions to participants. Advisory proceedings therefore require decisions within governments as to whether to participate in the written and oral phase, the legal position to be advanced, the aspect of the question of particular relevance to the state, and the kind of supporting materials that may usefully be placed before the court. Recent advisory proceedings demonstrate how states have made use of these possibilities. In the aforementioned proceedings concerning obligation of states in respect of climate change, 91 written statements were submitted, followed by 62 written comments. During the oral proceedings, 96 states and 11 international organizations addressed the court. This unprecedented level of participation is particularly noteworthy. None of those states participated as an applicant or a respondent, as would be the case in contentious proceedings, yet each state was able to put its views before the principal judicial organ of the United Nations on a legal question of global concern. Advisory proceedings thus demonstrate the breadth of engagement between states and the Court. That engagement may begin within the requesting organ as a question is considered and formulated, and then continue in The Hague through written and oral participation in advisory proceedings. Madam Chair, I hope that this overview of the many and varied ways in which States engage with the International Court of Justice and continue to its successful functioning has provided abundant food for thought. My aim has not been to suggest that every government legal adviser should envisage interstate litigation before the Court. The point I have thought to make is that the interaction between states and the court is considerably broader than the institution and conduct of contentious proceedings. Across various forms of engagement that I have discussed, government legal advisers occupy a central and multifaceted position They continue to the jurisdictional arrange, they contribute to the jurisdictional arrangement that state may choose to establish in advance, advise governments when dispute arise, assist in the conduct of proceedings, follow cases that may engage the interest of their states, consider question of intervention, participate in the formulation of a advisory request, and articulate national legal positions in advisory proceedings. These forms of engagement demonstrate that states perform an indispensable role within the system of peaceful settlement of disputes established by the Charter and the Statute. Moreover, the relationship between states and the Court should be understood Neither as episodic nor as confined to occasions on which a state appear as an applicant or respondent. It is a continuing engagement, one that may begin long before a case reaches the Peace Palace and may involve states that never actually become parties to contentious proceedings. But the importance of laying the groundwork for a cohesive system of international dispute settlement through the United Nations family of organizations cannot be overstated. In ensuring that the Court is able to meet the expectations of the international community and deliver on its mandate to contribute toward peaceful outcomes, it relies on the continued engagement of states, and commends the key functions played by government legal advisors in working toward this noble objective. Thank you for your attention.

Mr. President, on behalf of the Committee, I thank you most sincerely for your important statement. We appreciated your comprehensive overview of the many ways in which State engagement with the Court can occur, and understand, I think, better how this helps the Court to fulfil its role as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Distinguished delegates, as in the past, the President has kindly agreed to take a few questions and comments. You can indicate your wish to speak by pressing your microphone button. I urge you to keep your interventions short and focused so that we can hear from as many of you as may wish to take the floor. I see the distinguished representative of Cameroon. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. I would like to welcome the presence of the President of the ICJ and the judges who are with us today, I think that this initiative is something that should be welcomed. Those interventions allow us to interact with the judges of the Court. And now I have a question for the President. At a time when the Court is commemorating its 80 years of existence and activity, It's increasingly dealing with global questions and problems and intergenerational problems. For example, the recent consultative procedure, which took place a few months ago, concerning the obligations of states when it comes to climate change. My question is to know How is the Court adapting, how does it adapt its working methods to those new challenges, given the fact that we are in a context where there's a whole slew of statements on the part of states and experts on those new problems? How is the Court adopting its working methods to take into account those aspects, but also keeping in mind the rigor of its jurisprudence? Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Cameroon, and I invite President of the Court to respond to the comments.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We are reviewing our work and methods constantly. As the President, I'm very much interested in making the work of the Court efficient. So we have a committee which is tasked to review our working methods, and we have adopted some changes in our working methods, and we are also discussing other possible ideas. And so we are constantly reviewing our working methods to make our work efficient. In fact, we have a side event at 3:00 today organized by the court. with three judges speaking as a panelist, and the working methods is one of the issues to be discussed. So for details, I invite you to come to our side event at 3:00, but I can assure you that we are reviewing our working methods constantly to make our work efficient. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. President, and I'm sure I can speak for all of us in saying that we have taken note of your invitation for the side event. I see the distinguished representative of Lebanon. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning, everyone. Thank you, President, for that very useful summary. And as my colleague from Cameroon said, As a legal advisor here in New York, we, of course, welcome this type of dialogue and interaction. I would like to make a comment on what you have said at the beginning of your presentation on the compromissory clauses which are called for in the treaties. As you know, we are going to enter into a negotiating phase now. on the Convention on the Prevention and Repression of Crimes against Humankind, and one of the points, one of the slight obstacles in this matter, is the draft Article 15 and the recourse to the International Court of Justice in the case of disputes whether there be a prerequisite for negotiation or not, that's something that's going to be raised as well in the coming years within the context of that negotiation. But I'd like to remain on that subject, and in the light of what you said in your presentation and this cooperation that exists between states and the ICJ, do you think that it would be relevant and useful to have a type of dialogue, more structured or institutionalized dialogue between the legal advisors, one can ask which ones, but between the legal advisors and the International Court of Justice, of course, respecting the, totally respecting the independence of the Court. Thank you. That would be my question. And then thank you as well to the other judges for being present and to the members of the ILC. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Lebanon. Can I turn the floor over to you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I stressed in my remarks, I explained the different forms of engagement of states with the Court, and one of the form of engagement is to negotiate compromissory clause. And I explained the importance of the formulation of compromise clauses, and this is one aspect of the engagement of states with the court. And on this issue, I leave it there. And with regard to the possible dialogues, in The Hague, we have different opportunities to talk to states. And, I mean, it's difficult for the Court to come to New York frequently, but in The Hague, we have a conversation with States and their legal advisors in The Hague, so we have opportunities to exchange views on different matters in The Hague. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. I see no further requests for the floor, Mr. President. On behalf of the Committee, I would once again like to thank you for visiting the Committee. We extend to you and the other members of the Court who are with us this morning, as well as the Registrar, our best wishes for the continued good functioning of the Court. It is a mark of trust and confidence in the Court that we have witnessed its workload increase over the years. I know that this puts pressure and gives extra workload to the Court, but I think Its value is clear for all of us to see. Best wishes to all of you.

Mr. President.

Thank you. I thank Madam Chair, and I thank all of you. Thank you very much.

We take a brief pause just to change the podium over before we continue with the debate. Distinguished delegates, let us resume. We will now continue with the debate on the first cluster of topics concerning agenda item 78, report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 76th and 77th sessions, after which we will turn to the second cluster of topics. The report of the Commission on the work of its 77th session is contained in document A/801/10, which is available online. Furthermore, in accordance with resolution A/10/164, 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/10/10, which is also available online. Before proceeding, I wish to recall the Bureau’s recommendation that national statements should be limited to seven minutes and group statements to 12 minutes. Delegations are encouraged to keep their statements within these time limits and, where possible, deliver abridged versions of their statements while providing the full statements for posting on eStatements. and on the website of the Sixth Committee. This will enable all delegations to deliver their statements within the schedule. The first speaker on my list for this morning is the distinguished representative of the State of Palestine. You have the floor, madam.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation would like to thank the ILC for its report on the 77th session and its continued service of international law. The ILC is a story of progress, development, and codification of international law. It is a story of a world based on common language, the rule of law, and peaceful relations, a world guided by the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter. The State of Palestine reiterates that the ILC is uniquely and authoritatively placed as a universal body tasked with analyzing international law. Its direct institutional relations with the Sixth Committee must be protected and advanced. On the topic of immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, the State of Palestine has been consistent and clear in its firm position that accountability for the most serious crimes of concern for international community is essential for the integrity and sustainability of our international law-based order. At this moment in history, impunity for international crimes is the most significant threat to international peace and security. It undermines relations amongst nation and erodes the universality and efficacy of international law. Impunity for international crimes has long haunted both our peoples and the development of international law, and putting an end to it is a collective obligation. The State of Palestine affirms that accountability is the indispensable corollary to criminalization and deterrence of international crimes. Impunity is rooted in a false sense of immunity of officials. This is why international criminal law, from the early stages in Nuremberg to the International Criminal Court, outlawed international crimes, especially those of jus cogens nature, and provided an exception to immunity for perpetrators of official position. The ILC, in three different positions and three different products, also did not hesitate in affirming that the official position of an individual cannot be invoked to relieve them of their criminal responsibility. In this regard, the State of Palestine attaches importance for the ILC's work on immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction and their commentaries as they help further the rule of international law. We welcome the completion by the ILC of the second reading of its work. We recognize that this was the longest standing topic on the ILC agenda and appreciate that the ILC and its draft articles is ensuring procedural provisions and safeguards aimed at promoting trust, mutual understanding, and cooperation between states. We have the following comments. On Article 1, the State of Palestine as a State Party to the Rome Statute is appreciative of the ILC's commentaries and clarification, and reiterates that the rights and obligations of States Parties under the Rome Statute cannot be affected by the draft articles. Indeed, as regards to immunity before the ICC, all States Parties have accepted Article 27 of the Rome Statute, which establishes the irrelevance of immunities and special procedure rules of official persons under national and international law to prosecution before the ICC. We agree with the commentaries that while the terms immunity and impunity are neither equivalent nor interchangeable, it is important to avoid the immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction results in impunity for the most serious crimes under international law. This is why the State of Palestine supports the ILC's approach that immunity should not be available in relation to certain serious crimes under international law. And we welcome the retention of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, the crime of apartheid, torture, enforced disappearance, as well as the inclusion of the crime of aggression, slavery, and slave trade. We are particularly pleased with the addition of the crime of aggression and appreciate the clarification that the list seeks to promote legal certainty, but does not exclude the possibility that the application of the criteria may lead to the identification of other crimes to which are the result of further legal development. On sea level rise in relation to international law, the State of Palestine reiterates its appreciation to the co-chairs of the study group on sea level rise in relation to international law. The State of Palestine recognizes that the ILC is responding to unprecedented challenges and filling gaps that will determine the very source of life in an inclusive and shared framework. We reiterate that the right to self-determination is foundational, unassailable, and inalienable, including through statehood, so is the sovereignty over natural resources. Self-determination is a fundamental aspect of our understanding of the impact of sea level rise on the continuation of statehood and on the peoples. The State of Palestine agrees with the assertion contained in the second issue report that it's essential to preserve the right to self-determination of the populations. of any small island developing state whose land territory is completely covered by the sea or becomes uninhabitable. The State of Palestine is of the view that discretion in how peoples express their right to self-determination must remain in their hands and should be one of the main pillars of the work of the ILC. The work by the ILC on sea-level rise embody our historical responsibility, obligations towards humanity, future generations, the Earth we inhabit. It is about justice underpinned by the principle of common heritage of humankind, and we look forward to their development. Very briefly on the general principle of law, this topic is of importance to the State of Palestine. We welcome the successful completion of the general principles of law topic and the adoption of the draft conclusions. We remain of the view that general principles of law are expressions of both national legal systems and international rules and principles. They are a core of legal ideas and the essence of all legal systems. They represent the common denominator of community of nations and ensure the evolutionary character of international law. We believe that general principles are not limited to gap filling. They are intrinsic to the international legal systems. They do not supplant customary law, they complement them. And finally, the State of Palestine welcomes the addition of a new topic, identification of legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law, to the program of work, and congratulate the Special Rapporteur for his appointment, and assure him of our support. These obligations have been much cited in recent years, including by the ICJ, and we welcome their examination to ensure a comprehensive understanding of international legal obligations and legal consequences. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the State of Palestine for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. You have the floor.

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Thank you, Madam Chair. At the outset, I would like to express our appreciation and gratitude to the International Law Commission for the significant work it has accomplished during its 77th session. In our statement under cluster one, my delegation will share its observations on the topics: sea level rise in relation to international law; immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, general principles of law, as well as other decisions and conclusions. And for the sake of brevity, we will submit a full version of our statement to the Secretariat. Madam Chair, regarding the topic sea level rise in relation to international law, we take note of the final consolidated report of the study group co-chaired by Ms. Tellez and Mr. Santolaria on issues related to the law of the sea statehood, and the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. Concerning the law of the sea aspect of sea level rise, we concur in principle with the view of the study group that the principle of res sic stantibus does not apply to maritime delimitation lines. as they are subject to the exclusion set forth in Article 62, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph a, of the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties, 1969. It is essential that the approach to this topic remain strictly aligned with facts on the ground and well-established principles of international law. In this context, my delegation wishes to reaffirm a fundamental legal observation regarding the general reference in paragraph 3 of the report to the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea, UNCLOS 1982. This unqualified and blanket formulation runs counter to the cardinal principle of relativity of treaties. Broadly phrasing this reference risks creating the erroneous impression that the entirety of the provision of 1982 Convention has passed into the corpus of customary international law. However, The consistent state practice and interpretive declarations of the Islamic Republic of Iran explicitly demonstrate that various parts of UNCLOS, most notably the conventional regime of transit passage, lack customary status and are binding exclusively upon state parties to the Convention. It is imperative to reiterate that the 1982 Convention is binding solely upon its parties, and its non-customary provisions cannot be extrapolated to third parties, to third states. Furthermore, given that the foundational requirement for maintaining the status of a persistent objector is consistency, continuity, and coherence in both practical and legal positions, We reject any assumption of acquiescence or implicit acceptance of the customary status of UNCLOS provisions, particularly the regime of transit passage. Our legal reservation has precluded unintended legal obligation. It also has consolidated the documented practice of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a persistent objector in case some may view certain provisions of the UNCLOS convention as customary. Consequently, any measure addressing sea level rise must be interpreted and implemented strictly within the framework of general international law and with full respect for the sovereignty and consent of non-party states. Turning to the issue of statehood, divergent views persist. While the International Court of Justice, in its recent advisory opinion on obligation of states in respect of climate change, stated that once a state established, disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood, Judge Tomka, in his declaration, cast serious doubt on the validity of this proposition. As Judge Tomka observed, the classical notion of statehood under Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, which reflects customary international law, is virtually inseparable from a land and a people, conveying an ongoing normative condition. He rightly noted that while the ILC Study Group documents a recent tendency favoring the survival of statehood, these developments do not yet permit an unqualified conclusion that a customary rule has crystallized, especially as many states have maintained a distinction between partial and total loss of territory or reserved their positions. Indeed, the Study Group's own suggestion that the states consider new binding or non-binding instruments, demonstrates that the issue is far from settled. This highlights the complexity of navigating between objective legal reasoning and equity, reflecting that international recognition, institutional practice, and political will remain decisive. Regarding the protection of persons affected by sea level rise, the study group's work presents a balanced combination of existing frameworks under international human rights law, refugee law, humanitarian law, and disaster law. Nevertheless, practicality remains central to implementation, which heavily depends on interstate cooperation and voluntary contributions. Madam Chair, with respect to the topic, immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, we take note of the report of the Special Rapporteur and the Commission's latest deliberations. Since its inclusion on the Commission's agenda in 2007, this topic has remained fraught with deep divisions among Member States regarding the scope of both immunity rationis personae and immunity rationis materiae. Given the absence of consensus, it remains premature for the Commission's work to take the form of a binding convention or definitive draft articles. As my delegation has consistently maintained, designating the state officials entitled to immunity must reflect the actual realities of modern international relations. Limiting immunity ratione personae strictly to the so-called troika is inconsistent with contemporary diplomacy, wherein other high-ranking officials are frequently mandated to perform sovereign functions equivalent to those of heads of states, heads of government, and ministers for foreign affairs. The nature of modern international relations necessitates robust immunities to ensure the smooth conduct of interstate relations. Therefore, any political or legal figure exercising sovereign functions should be encompassed within the scope of these immunities. Adopting a restrictive instrument that disregards this reality could severely disrupt modern international relations. While we believe that immunity should not be equated with impunity, any limitation on its scope in favour of accountability must be grounded in widespread, representative and consistent State practice coupled with opinio juris. Madam Chair, on general principles of law, we take note of the fourth report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Vázquez Bermúdez, and the Commission’s adoption on second reading of the 12th draft conclusions and commentaries. General principles of law have made important contributions to the development of international law during past century, as international courts and tribunals have utilized principles derived from municipal law, including estoppel, acquiescence, good faith, res judicata, nemo iudex in res sua, and ex inuriis ius non oritur, to fill the lacunae in the international legal system. These principles are common to the various legal systems of the world, providing strong evidence of the centrality of states in the formation and recognition of general principles of law. While there is no hierarchy among the main sources of international law, general principles are far less frequently invoked in international jurisprudence, particularly due to their relative opacity compared to treaties and custom, though this does not mean they are ancillary or subsidiary by nature. My delegation reiterates its consistent position that neither general principles of law purported to be formed within the international legal system, as stipulated in sub-paragraph (b) of draft conclusion 3 and elaborated in draft conclusion 7, nor general principles of international law fall within the ambit of Article 38, paragraph 1(c) of the ICJ Statute. Article 38, paragraph 1(c) does not encompass a second category of general principles formed within the international legal system. And the very use of the phrase "may be formed" in draft conclusion 3B indicates persistent uncertainty as to the existence of such a category. As regards draft conclusion 8 and 9, decision of courts and tribunals and teachings cannot be placed on an equal footing regarding their ancillary role in determining general principles of law. As supported by state practice, judicial decisions carry greater weight provided they are compatible with established rules of international law and are widespread, reflecting the various legal systems of the world. While the ICJ has rarely invoked teachings, we welcome the qualifier referring to the coinciding views of persons with competence in international law from the various legal systems and regions of the world. Madame Chair. Regarding other decisions and conclusions, my delegation notes the Commission's decision to include the topic "The right to regulate in international investment law" in the long-term programme of its work. We also note the inclusion of 10 other topics in the long-term programme of the Commission's work, in particular, topic "Extraterritorial jurisdiction, reparation to individuals for gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of humanitarian law", as well as the principle of non-intervention in international law. Recalling the criteria endorsed in General Assembly resolution 52/156, any topic selected by the Commission must reflect the genuine needs of States, be sufficiently supported by advanced State practice and be concrete and feasible for progressive development and codification. The recent heightened recourse by certain States to unilateral coercive measures under diverse terms warrant serious legal scrutiny and fall within the ambit of some of the topics on the agenda of the Commission. Such acts that have appeared in total disregard for the rule of law and have normalized undermining fundamental principles of international law could be studied under topics including the right to regulate in international investment law, extraterritorial jurisdiction, and the principle of non-intervention in international law. Gross violations of international humanitarian law by the aggressors against the Iranian nation during the past two years also highlight the importance of the topic Reparation to individuals for gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law. We hope that the Commission's work on the topic in its programme may contribute to a better understanding of the rule of law at the international level. And to conclude, I am obliged to once again draw the kind attention of the Sixth Committee to a serious situation concerning the continuing failure of the host country to issue visa for the Iranian representatives despite our repeated efforts and having exhausted appropriate avenues to resolve this matter, which unfortunately were of no avail. The non-issuance of visas has prevented our legal team and legal advisor from traveling to the United Nations, and consequently from exercising their independent functions in connection with the UN, including in the International Law Week. To date, no visa have been issued to our representatives for the Sixth Committee or any other main committee. That being said, the host country is therefore required to fulfil its obligations and immediately issue visas to members of all Iranian delegations. The Secretariat should also take all necessary steps in that regard. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Iran for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Philippines.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Philippines thanks the International Law Commission for its reports on the work of its 76th and 77th sessions. We thank President Andreas Mavriannis for presenting the report, and we commend the Commission, its members, special rapporteurs, and study groups for their continued contribution to the codification and progressive development of international law. We wish to provide preliminary views on some of the topics under cluster one. First, on sea level rise in relation to international law. For an archipelagic state of more than 7,000 islands, sea level rise raises fundamental questions on international law. We welcome the Commission's work and the recent adoption by consensus of the United Nations Declaration on Sea Level Rise, which reinforces the growing convergence of State positions on the preservation of maritime zones, continuity of statehood, and the protection of affected persons. Legal stability and predictability must remain central to the treatment of maritime zones and entitlements in the face of sea level rise. In its 2025 Advisory Opinion on Climate Change, the International Court of Justice affirmed that States Parties to UNCLOS are not obliged to update their charts or lists of geographical coordinates as a consequence of climate change-related sea level rise. This provides an important legal foundation for the preservation of duly established maritime zones. At the same time, legal stability must remain anchored in the rights and entitlements established under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. It cannot serve as an independent basis for creating maritime claims beyond those recognized by the Convention. UNCLOS establishes a comprehensive framework governing maritime zones, rights, and jurisdictions of states. Historical considerations by themselves do not provide an alternative legal basis for maritime claims and cannot subvert the Convention's comprehensive allocation of maritime rights and entitlements. This approach is consistent with the need to preserve the integrity of UNCLOS while addressing the exceptional circumstances presented by climate change. The Philippines likewise welcomes the recognition of continuity of statehood and international legal personality of states affected by sea level rise. The loss or alteration of physical territory resulting from climate change should not in itself deprive affected states of their rights, legal personality, or participation in the international community. The rights of affected peoples must remain central. Protection must address displacement, statelessness, risks, livelihoods, and cultural identity. The forthcoming Diplomatic Conference on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters in Bangkok offers, to an extent, an opportunity to discuss some of these and to strengthen disaster risk reduction, human dignity, human rights, and international cooperation, building on the relevant ILC draft articles. We also recall the advisory opinions of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the International Court of Justice concerning States' obligations in relation to climate change. These developments reinforce the importance of due diligence, international cooperation, and the protection of the marine environment. In particular, the obligation to cooperate must be understood in light of the applicable treaty obligations and the rules of international law. Second, briefly, on immunities of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. The Philippines congratulates Special Rapporteur Claudio Grossman and the Commission on the adoption on second reading of the draft articles on immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. We recognize the importance of immunities in safeguarding sovereign equality and the effective performance of official functions. At the same time, immunity must be considered within the broader international legal framework governing accountability for serious international crimes. Immunity from jurisdiction is procedural in character and must be distinguished from the substantive question of individual criminal responsibility. The recognition of immunity does not in itself determine whether an internationally wrongful or criminal act has occurred. As the International Court of Justice recognized in the arrest warrant case, immunity from jurisdiction does not mean impunity. It is important to preserve an appropriate balance between the protection of immunities recognized under international law and the imperative of combating impunity. And this balance requires a careful distinction between immunity ratione personae, which attaches to certain incumbent office holders by virtue of their status, and immunity ratione materiae, which concerns acts performed in an official capacity. Particular attention shall also be given to procedural safeguards accompanying the determination of immunity, including the identification of competent authorities, the rights of persons concerned, communication between States, and the integrity of criminal proceedings. Such safeguards should protect legitimate sovereign interests without unnecessarily foreclosing access to justice. We take note of the Commission’s recommendation concerning the possible elaboration of a convention. The completed draft articles provides a basis for further consideration by States. Although views still differ, this should not foreclose structured intergovernmental engagement. Third, on general principles of law, the Philippines welcomes the adoption in second reading of the 12 draft conclusions on general principles of law and congratulates the Special Rapporteur, Marcelo Vasquez Bermudez. General principles of law recognized under Article 38, paragraph 1(c) of the Statute of the ICJ serves an important function in maintaining the coherence and completeness of the international legal system. Their identification must, however, follow a rigorous and sufficiently representative methodology. We recognize the Commission's distinction between general principles derived from national legal systems and those formed within the international legal system. Article 38, paragraph 1c, to us, does not expressly confine general principles to those originating in domestic legal systems, nor does its text establish that general principles must invariably be derived from municipal law before they can be recognized as a source of international law. Such a limitation would risk overlooking principles whose content and operation are inherent in the structure and functioning of the international legal system itself. The Philippines supports bringing the draft conclusions and their commentaries to the attention of States, courts, practitioners, and other relevant institutions. Finally, on other decisions and conclusions, the Philippines welcomes the Commission’s decision to include the identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in its programme of work. Further work should clarify the relationship between the identification of such obligations and its legal consequences arising from their breach, including the invocation of responsibility by States other than an injured State, consistent with article 42 and 48 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility. The Philippines also welcomes the Commission’s continuing attention to compensation to damage caused by internationally wrongful acts. Its work would benefit from a careful examination of State practice and judicial and arbitral decisions concerning the establishment of injury, causation, reparation, and the assessment of compensation, while taking into account the circumstances of differently situated States. We further encourage the Commission to remain attentive to contemporary legal challenges and to maintain cooperation with regional legal organizations, including the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization, which marks its 70 years and whose experience can contribute to more representative consideration of legal issues. The Philippines recalls that under Article 13, paragraph 1(a) of the Charter and Article 1 of the Commission’s Statute, The Commission is entrusted with both codification and progressive development of international law. The fact that any proposition does not yet command universal acceptance as customary international law does not by itself preclude its consideration as a proposal for progressive development. What is essential is that the Commission clearly distinguishes existing law from the proposed legal development, and that States retain the opportunity to assess and determine the appropriate outcome. This would be in line with this mandate. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Philippines for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Council of Europe.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Allow me to begin by congratulating the International Law Commission for its excellent report prepared during its 77th session. We would like, in particular, to thank the Chair of the ILC, Mr. Andreas Mavroyiannis, for having presented the main themes of this report earlier this week and for his participation at the 71st meeting of the Council of Europe's Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law, CADI, held last September in Tallinn, Estonia. On the same occasion, the CADI benefited from a presentation by Professor Masahiko Asada, member of the ILC and Special Rapporteur on the identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law. We have found the tradition of CADI inviting the ILC Chair prior to the meetings of the Sixth Committee to be an excellent facilitator of cooperation and dialogue. In this spirit, We welcome the resumption this year of the ILC exchanges with regional bodies, including the CADI, and thank the Commission and the Secretariat for making this possible. These exchanges help strengthen dialogue and cooperation in international law. And one of the CADIS particular contributions is its compilation of a state practice in various areas of public international law, providing a practical resource that can also inform the Commission's work. Turning to the ILC report, and with regard to chapter four on immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, the Council of Europe notes the adoption on second reading of the draft articles and the inclusion of the crime of aggression among the crimes in respect of which immunity ratione materiae shall not apply under draft article 6. In this respect, The draft article is consistent with the Statute of the Special Tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine, annexed to the agreement between the Council of Europe and Ukraine, which provides that immunity ratione materiae shall not apply before the Special Tribunal. Thank you for your kind attention.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Council of Europe for her statement, and I now give the floor to the representative of the Legal Advisory of the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization. You have the floor.

Madam Chair, allow me to congratulate you and the members of the on your election. Before turning to the work of the Commission, I wish to remember my dear colleague and friend, Dr. Roy S. Lee, ALCO permanent observer to the United Nations in New York, who sadly passed away in July. For more than 17 years, Dr. Lee served ALCO with exceptional dedication. I had the privilege of working closely with him and greatly value his wisdom, sound judgment, and friendship. His contribution to ALCO and the international legal community will will remain in our memories for many years to come. Madam Chair, it is an honour to address the Committee on behalf of ALCO and its 49 member states from Asia and Africa. I wish to express our appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, its members, and Special Rapporteur for their dedicated work. As ALCO marks its 70th anniversary this year, we are reminded of its founding purpose: to ensure that Asian-African States contribute meaningfully to the development of international law. That purpose remains particularly relevant to the Commission’s work. The identification and development of international legal rules depend upon State practice, judicial decisions, and other legal materials, which are not equally accessible from every region. OPCW can help address this imbalance through closer cooperation with the Commission. Madam Chair, let me begin with the immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, on which the Commission has completed its second reading. Discussions among our Member States have reflected differing views on exceptions to immunity ratione materiae, particularly in relation to serious criminal crimes. Concerns remain regarding the legal basis for such exceptions and the possibility of politically motivated criminal proceedings. We therefore attach importance to procedural safeguards, including notification, consultation, and proper determination of impunity. These safeguards should protect against abuse while preserving the pursuit of accountability for serious crimes. As the General Assembly considers the Commission’s recommendations, the views and practice of States from all regions deserve careful attention. On general principles of law, we welcome the completion of the Commission’s second reading. Identifying principles common to legal systems require a genuinely comparative examination. National jurisprudence, African customary law, and legal traditions across Asia and Africa must be considered, rather than relying primarily on the most readily accessible material. We also see a need for clarity concerning general principles formed within international legal systems. particular evidence required to establish their recognition and their relationship with customary international law. Madam Chair, I would now like to give particular attention to such a means for determination of rules of international law. In February this year, AUCA organized a webinar with Professor Charles C. Charlot, the Commission's Special Rapporteur. The discussion highlighted the importance of assessing judicial decisions and scholarly writing by the quality of their reasoning, methodology, and representativeness, rather than simply how frequently they are cited. It's also emphasized that language barrier and unequal access to legal database should not determine what legal experience receive greater attention. Another issue was the potential uncertainty arising from differing decision of in jail court and tribunal. Professor Jalloh invited consideration of whether further guidance might be useful, including the Commission's commentaries. We welcome the proposed multilingual bibliography and will encourage contribution from our Member States and academic institutions. Another topic of direct practice relevance is non-legally binding international agreements. At our webinar in May, Professor Matthias Vogt, the Commission's Special Rapporteur, discussed the importance of the party's intention, interpretive meaning, and instrument's legal character, expressed indication that an arrangement is not legally binding deserve particular weight, while its title alone cannot determine its status. The discussion also highlighted the difference between the possible legal implication of non-binding instrument and the creation of binding obligation. Such instruments may be relevant to treaty interpretation, said practice or good faith without themselves becoming legally binding. In our view, the Commission should provide legal clarity while preserving the flexibility that make this arrangement useful. Professor Foerter also expressed interest in Asian-African state practice. Our Court can assist by encouraging member states to share national guidance, drafting procedure, and practical experience. Madam Chair, As an intergovernmental organization, ACO has a particular interest in the settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties. A significant question is how dispute involving private person can be resolved effectively while respecting the privilege and immunity necessary for international organization to perform their functions. Given the diversity of their mandate and legal arrangement, we favor practical and flexible guidance informed by national judicial decision institutional practice from different regions. We also follow the Commission's works on compensation for damage caused by intentionally wrongful acts and due diligence in international law. On compensation, challenge arise in establishing causation and assessing environmental damage, loss of natural resource, and harm affecting community. On due diligence, it is important to distinguish obligation under different legal regime and consider the nature of the risk. The information is available and the capacity of state when it meaning what measures are required. Madam Chair, let me conclude with our cooperation with the International Commission. On the 15th July this year, I had the pleasure of participating in a working group meeting with members of the Commission in Geneva. We discussed the role of regional organization in the progressive development and codification of international law, as well as non-legally binding international agreements. It was a valuable exchange, and I hope this working group meeting will continue every year, providing a legal opportunity for direct dialogue between our organization. ACLU is committed to making this cooperation more substantive and facilitating access to national legislation, to share decision and other evidence of said practice from Asia and Africa. We also intend to build on our exchange with special reporter and government legal advisor. An important part of this cooperation is ACLU's role in providing a forum where our member state can examine the commission work, exchange their will, identify matter that deserve further consideration. This discussion can also help bring the legal perspective and state practice of Asian-African countries to the Commission's attention. In this regard, AUCO will hold its 64th session in New Delhi, Republic of India, from 15 to 19 December this year. As in previous years, our Member States will discuss the Commission's report and the topics under its consideration. We would also warmly welcome members of the Commission to participate in our work. meeting, continuing a long-standing practice of direct dialogue and exchange. Madam Chair, as our Commac is 20th anniversary, we remain mindful of the purpose for which it was established to provide Asian-African with a forum to contribute to developments of international law. Today, one of the most meaningful ways to fulfill that purpose is to ensure that the Commission has access to legal experience of other Member States, including their legislation, judicial decision, and state practice. We hope that through our continued cooperation, this contribution will receive the attention it deserves in the Commission’s work. Thank you, madam Chair. Merci beaucoup.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization for his statement and the distinguished representative of the The representative of AALCO was the last speaker inscribed on my list for the first cluster. I understand now that Madam Nilüfer Oral, one of the co-chairs on the topic sea level rise in relation to international law, wishes to make some concluding remarks. I will give the floor now to Madam Oral. You have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Distinguished members of the Sixth Committee, and I will be brief. Today I will speak not only on behalf of myself, but also my dear co-chair, Patricia Gago-Teles, who is not able to be with us today. And as co-chairs, and I know my dear friend and colleague, Ruda Santillana, also made a statement, this will be our last statement on the topic of sea level rise in relation to international law. The work we have done on sea level rise in relation to international law at the Commission, which started in 2019, has been without doubt one of the most meaningful work for us. In this time of doubt and challenges to the international system, the work we have all done together in addressing an issue of profound importance to all States and communities who will be impacted directly or indirectly, we have demonstrated the power of international solidarity through international law and the United Nations. We started in 2019 and within six years concluded our work. Our work has been recognized and affirmed by the International Court of Justice in its historic climate change advisory opinion, and we are very proud to count among the judges our former co-chair, Judge Bogdan Orescu. And as many of you know, on 24 September in 2026, the General Assembly adopted by consensus the first ever sea level rise declaration, and for the first time recognized sea level rise as a global issue and a common concern of humankind. Taken all together, the different parts of the international legal system has worked seamlessly to achieve these landmark outcomes, and it has truly been a collective effort. So while While the Commission has concluded its work, there is still much work that remains for the international community in cooperation, and especially on the vital issues of protection of persons. Of course, the Co-Chairs will remain always prepared to provide our support. Sincere appreciation and thanks to all members of the Sixth Committee, whose input over the years has been essential in guiding and shaping our work. And a special thanks to the small island states who entrusted us with advancing a matter of great and immediate importance to them. We are also extremely grateful to our colleagues at the Commission, whose contribution was absolutely essential to a successful outcome. And a very, very special thanks to our invaluable Commission Secretariat, whose diligence and commitment and excellence, often unseen, was indispensable to our work. And at a very personal level, may I also thank my co-chairs, Patricia Gago Vatelas, Juan José Ruda Santillano, and also Judge Bogdan Orescu. The four of us worked in perfect harmony over the years with mutual respect, deep commitment and a lasting friendship. So, thank you very much.

I thank Madame Aural for her comments. I'd like to recall that Mr. Santoladia, who is also a co-chair, took the floor yesterday afternoon. I would like to thank the co-chairs of the study group for their remarks. And once again, I would like to convey the gratitude of the Sixth Committee for their efforts and for their hard work. Delegates, the Sixth Committee is now going to consider the second cluster of chapters in the Commission's 2026 report, namely chapter 6. subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law; Chapter VII, settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties; and Chapter VIII, succession of States in respect of State responsibility. I recall that the Chair of the International Law Commission, Mr. Andreas Mavroyiannis, introduced those chapters in his statement on Monday. I wish to acknowledge the presence of Mr. Charles Ngello, Special Rapporteur of the topic "Subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law", who will be joining us shortly. Distinguished delegates, I wish to recall the Bureau's recommendation that national statements should be limited to seven minutes and group statements to 12 minutes. Delegations are strongly encouraged to keep their statements within these limits and, where possible, to deliver abridged versions of their statements while providing the full statements for posting on eStatements and on the website of the Sixth Committee. This will enable all delegations to deliver their statements within the schedule. The first speaker on my list for the debate on the second cluster of chapters of the Commission's 2026 report this afternoon is the distinguished representative of Cameroon on behalf of the African Group. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have the honour to deliver a statement on behalf of the African Group on Cluster 2 of the report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 77th session. The African Group reiterates its appreciation to the Chair of the Commission, the Special Rapporteur, and the Chair of Working Groups, as well as to the Qualification Division of the Office of Legal Counsel, Legal Affairs, for their work during the session. On the topic of subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, the African Group congratulates the Special Rapporteur, Professor Charles Jalloh, on the progress achieved on this topic. The African Group takes note of the adoption on first reading of 13 draft conclusions and commentaries on the topic, which have been transmitted to governments for comments and observation by 1 December 2027. The Group recognizes the importance of this work in providing clarity on the role and evidentiary value of judicial decisions and the teaching of the most highly qualified publicists, as well as other subsidiary means in the determination of rule of international law. The African Group looks forward to the further consideration of the topic in light of comments and observation from State, and encourages continued attention to the diversity of legal tradition and approaches reflected in State practice and international jurisprudence. The African Group also takes note of the progress made on the topic of settlement of dispute to which international organizations are parties. The Group notes with appreciation the adoption by the Commission on first reading of 12 draft guidelines and commentaries thereto, which have been transmitted to governments and relevant international organizations for comment and observation by 1 December 2027, and its effort to clarify the applicable legal framework governing the settlement of such disputes. The Group considers this work particularly relevant in view of the growing role and activities of international organizations, and looks forward to the continuing development of the topic with due regard to the perspective and practice of States and international organizations from all regions. On the topic "Succession of States in respect of State responsibility", The African Group takes note of the adoption by the Commission of the report of the Working Group of the Whole, chaired by Mr. Bimal Patel, and of its decision not to pursue further consideration of the topic. The group thanks the chair of the Working Group as well as the former Special Rapporteur for their work. The Group notes that the report prepared on the work carried out on this topic since 2017 constitutes a useful body of analysis of state practice, jurisprudence, and doctrine, which may serve as a reference for state courts and tribunals. The Group also notes that the limit and diverse practice in this area call for caution and it respects the decision of the Commission in this regard. African Group reiterates its continued support for the work of the Commission. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Cameroon for his statement on behalf of the African Group, and I now give the floor to the representative of the European Union. On behalf of the EU and its member states, you have the floor.

Thanks, Chairperson. On subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, we welcome the form of draft conclusions. We have one observation on the drafting of conclusion 2. The chapeau uses the word "include". This choice of word could indicate that the list in points (a) to (c) is not a closed one and that there are other subsidiary means than those listed below. At the same time, point C refers to "any other means generally used". In view of this catch-all phrase, we wonder how the word "include" should be understood in the chapeau. On substance, the Union welcomes that the commentaries to draft Conclusion 2 explicitly refer to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Indeed, the Court in Luxembourg and its jurisprudence could be an instructive subsidiary means for the determination of international law. Second, draft conclusion 2 includes criteria how to define courts and tribunals, and we refer to our comments on the previous years in that effect. Third, draft conclusion number 4 lists six criteria how to assess subsidiary means. it's not possible to rank them in a hierarchical way. However, the EU welcomes paragraph 7 of the commentary, according to which the quality of reasoning is mentioned as probably the most important consideration. Fourth, concerning paragraph 10 of the commentary to conclusion number six, We would like to draw the attention of the ILA to the fact that the Luxembourg Court is also competent to provide binding decisions in reply to preliminary rulings, requests coming from national courts. Finally, the EU welcomes the definition of "teachings" in a modernised and more encompassing interpretation. It is important to ensure that teachings of scholars are resorted to in a way that ensures universality and representativeness of diverse legal traditions. In conclusion, the EU and its Member States wish to once again express appreciation for the work done by the ILC and Special Rapporteur. I now pass the floor to my colleague to talk on the second item.

Madam Chair, on the issue of the settlement of disputes to which international organisations are parties, the EU welcomes the adoption by the ILC of the draft guidelines together with commentaries thereto on first reading. The EU may decide to submit comments and observations on the draft guidelines by 1 December 2027. Therefore, today, I will limit myself to a few observations. First, the EU welcomes the particularly thorough analysis of the available practice of the settlement of disputes between international organizations and private parties, including the references to the law and practice of regional economic integration organizations. Second, the EU takes note of the carefully calibrated approach contained in draft guidelines 9 to 11 which balances the immunity of international organizations on one hand with the requirement of access to justice on the other hand. Draft guideline 9 provides that immunity of international organizations is to be respected without implying that such immunity would prevail in every case. While this clarification is welcome, draft guideline 9 could also address the possibility of an exception to immunity in cases where the judicial proceedings at issue clearly do not impair the independent and effective performance of the function of the international organization concerned. At the same time, draft guideline 10 contains an obligation for international organizations enjoying immunity to endeavor to settle disputes with private parties and to make provision for appropriate modes of settlement of disputes. This provision constitutes an important building block in promoting access to justice in the event of disputes involving international organizations which enjoy immunity. While the expression "modes of settlement of disputes" is used in various treaties on privileges and immunities, it is only used in draft guideline 10, while the remainder of the draft guidelines consistently refer to "means of dispute settlement". The latter notion is defined in draft guideline 2(d) in a broad manner, but the draft guidelines do not provide for a definition of the term "modes of settlement of disputes". On the relationship between these two notions, the commentary states that modes, as well as methods, broadly overlap with means of dispute settlement. At the same time, for the purpose of the draft guidelines, the use of the term "modes of settlement of dispute" only in draft guideline 10 creates a degree of avoidable terminological uncertainty in a guideline of considerable importance. Third, Draft Guideline 12 provides that means of dispute settlement of an adjudicatory character shall conform to the procedural rule of law as well as human rights requirements, including the independence and impartiality of adjudicators and due process. As confirmed by the commentary, the references to independence and impartiality, as well as due process in Draft Guideline 12 are illustrative. These references relate to core rule of law and human rights requirements and do not constitute an exhaustive list. And finally, the illustrative nature of the references in draft guideline 12 ensures that other rule of law and human rights requirements of a procedural nature are also within the scope of draft guideline 12. In the interest of clarity and legal certainty, the ILC could seek to expand on these other rules of law and human rights requirements in the commentary. This would appear to be particularly useful in view of the normative language used in draft guideline 12. In conclusion, the European Union and its Member States wish to express their appreciation for the work done by the ILC on this topic leading up to the adoption of the draft guidelines on first reading. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of the European Union on behalf of the EU and its member states, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Finland on behalf of Nordic countries. You have the floor, madam.

Madam Chair, I have the honour to deliver the statement on behalf of the five Nordic countries, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and my own country, Finland. I will start with the topic subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law. First, we would like to thank the Commission and the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Charles C. Jalloh, for the work done and the adoption of the entire set of draft conclusions with commentaries on first reading. We have noted the request for comments and observations before 1 December 2027, and we will provide such comments in written form. At present, we limit our comments to a few general points building on the statements the Nordic countries have earlier made on this topic. We support the approach of working towards a set of draft conclusions. First of all, we recall our support for the important contributions made by the Commission in promoting conceptual clarity and consistency in the application of the term "source of law" in the context of the Commission's engagement with Article 37 38 of the ICJ Statute thus far. It is, in our view, clear that subsidiary means referred to in Article 38, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (d) of the Statute are of a different nature than sources of international law, insofar as this term is applied as a reference to formal sources of law. We are pleased that the draft conclusion on the nature and function of subsidiary means stipulates in clear language that subsidiary means are not a source of international law and that their function is to assist in the determination of the existence and content of rules of international law. We take note of the list of criteria for assessing subsidiary means contained in draft conclusion 4. and we will reflect further on the extent to which such criteria can provide a helpful tool for the assessment of subsidiary means. We also appreciate in draft conclusion 8 the modernizing of the definition of teachings found in article 38 to a more inclusive and representative concept, such as in terms of gender and linguistic diversity. Before turning to the next topic in this cluster, we wish to reiterate our appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Charles C. Jalloh, and the Commission for their work on this topic and for the adoption of the draft conclusions on first reading. We look forward to continuing our engagement with the Commission as the topic advances towards second reading. Madam Chair, let me now turn to the topic of settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties. We express our appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. August Reinich, for his work and continued dedication to this important topic. We welcome the adoption by the Commission of the draft guidelines together with commentaries on first reading, and take note of the decision of the Commission to invite comments and observations of governments and relevant international organizations. The Nordic countries believe that the guidelines could constitute a valuable reference for international organizations in promoting access to justice while respecting legitimate interest in maintaining jurisdictional immunity. Given their non-binding nature, the draft guidelines should be formulated in recommendatory rather than mandatory terms. Accordingly, the use of shall in RAV guidelines 10, 11, and 12 should be reconsidered with a view to replacing it with should. We welcome the annex to the third report of the Special Rapporteur providing sample dispute settlement clauses used in the practice of international organizations. This information could assist the efforts of international organizations towards identifying practical solutions to disputes. While we acknowledge the potential value of providing practical guidance, we also recognize the need for careful consideration given the diversity of organizations, relevant practices, and dispute contexts. The Nordic countries welcome the focus on disputes between international organizations and private parties. We note the observation made in the Working Group, reflected in the commentaries, that such disputes represent a significant part of the dispute settlement practice of international organizations. We consider the Commission's attention to this question a valuable development in its work. As regards the scope of the work, the Nordic countries reiterate the position expressed in previous years, welcoming the broadening of the scope from settlement of international disputes to which organizations are parties to settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties. We welcome the attention given the notion of good faith and cooperation in the settlement of disputes. We recognize the sensitivity of achieving the right balance between jurisdictional immunity and access to justice, and we believe that the draft guidelines provide a useful basis for further clarification of this relationship. We welcome in this regard the attention given to procedural rule of law and applicable human rights in the context of disputes involving private parties in draft guidelines 11 and 12. We note in particular the relevance of labour standards and other protections, as highlighted in the working group. Furthermore, the Nordic countries note the view that it would be most useful for states and international organizations to identify examples of effective and reasonable alternative to judicial and arbitral dispute settlements. We believe that it could be beneficial for both individuals and international organizations to resort to alternative dispute resolutions, such as mediation, conciliation, or perhaps the use of ombudsmen or complaint boards. To conclude on this topic, allow me to reiterate our appreciation to the Special Rapporteur and the Commission for the progress made on this topic, leading to the adoption of draft guidelines. We look forward to continuing our engagement with the Commission on this important topic. Madam Chair, let me finally address the topic of succession of states in respect of state responsibility. We wish to express our sincere appreciation for the nearly decade-long efforts of the International Law Commission and the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Pavel Sturma, in examining the complex question of succession of States in respect of State responsibility. Through five reports, the Special Rapporteur examined the implications of State succession for obligations, rights, and claims arising from State responsibility, including questions relating to different forms of responsibility, reparation, and succession, plurality of successor States, continuing and composite wrongful acts, and the role of agreements and negotiated settlements. We also wish to thank the working groups and their chairs, Mr. August Reinich and Mr. Bimal N. Patel, for their careful assessment of the work undertaken on this topic and for guiding the Commission's consideration towards its final conclusion. We further appreciate the working group's final report, which provides a clear and thoughtful account of the Commission's work and explains the legal and methodological challenges encountered in the course of the topic's considerations. As the final report demonstrates, international law in the area of succession of states in respect of state responsibility remains unsettled. The Commission's work highlighted persistent challenges concerning the available state practice, the identification of general rules, and the extent to which particular solutions depend on negotiated agreements and the circumstances of individual cases of state responsibility and succession. Nevertheless, we commend the Commission, the Special Rapporteur, the working groups and their chairs for their careful and comprehensive examination of the topic. The work undertaken has identified and examined the principal legal questions arising in this field, while also demonstrating the limits of the existing state practice and the difficulties of further codification. Sometimes, Recognizing that the law does not yet permit a clear general conclusion is itself the most appropriate conclusion. We therefore appreciate the Commission's candor and thoroughness in bringing its consideration of this topic to a close. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Finland on behalf of the Nordic countries, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of China. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. With regard to part two of the report of the work of the ILC on its 77th session, China would like to make the following comments. On subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, China welcomes the Commission's adoption at first reading of all 13 draft conclusions and commentaries. and thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Jalow, for his contributions. China supports the Commission's continued work on this topic, on this basis, and wishes to highlight the following three points. First, on decisions of courts or tribunals, the draft narrows their scope. which China generally supports, China wishes to clarify that such decisions are binding only on the parties to the case and do not constitute generally applicable legal precedents. References to such decisions should be strictly limited to supporting arguments on points of law and not serve as conclusive grounds. In assessing the weight of such decisions, the scope of authority criterion should apply, namely whether the court or tribunal is expressly authorized by the state to apply the relevant rules, decisions exceeding that authority should have no legal effect. Second, on the opinions and conclusions of human rights treaty bodies, which are mandated to monitor treaty compliance, such opinions and conclusions should not constitute judicial precedents, subsidiary means for determining rules of international law, or a basis for identifying general rules of international law. Third, the draft’s inclusion of a representativeness criterion is a positive step. Western scholars’ views have long been widely disseminated, while Global South scholarship on international law remains less visible. The representativeness criterion can help address this imbalance. However, the assessment of geographical, legal and civilizational factors remains unclear and should be clarified in a draft commentary. Second, settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties. China welcomes the Commission's completion of the first reading and adoption of the full set of draft guidelines and commentaries, and thanks Special Rapporteur Professor Renisch for his contributions. China generally supports the Commission's further work on this topic. and wishes to highlight the following points. First, on the means of dispute settlement between international organizations and states, draft article 5, accessibility of means of dispute settlement, specifically highlights arbitration and judicial settlement as means of dispute settlement. Draft article 11, access to justice. follows similar wording and logic, prioritizing litigation and arbitration. China understands the rationale behind these provisions, but emphasizes that international organizations and states alike are free to choose their means of dispute settlement, and that no hierarchy exists among them. Any implication that a particular means takes precedence should be avoided. The draft should therefore refrain from prioritizing specific means of dispute settlement, with appropriate clarification provided in a commentary. Second, on dispute settlement between international organizations and private parties, draft Article 8, "Resort to means of dispute settlement", provides that such disputes should be settled in good faith. spirit of cooperation, in a manner appropriate to their circumstances and nature, and with due regard to the parties' respective status and possible differences. China agrees in principle with this provision. However, "private parties" covers a broad range of entities, and powerful multinational conglomerates are not necessarily disadvantaged in dispute settlement. Such disputes should respect the mutual consent of both parties, rather than the unilateral choice of either. This should be appropriately reflected in a draft. Third, on the requirements for adjudicative dispute settlement, draft Article 12 requires such mechanisms to comply with procedural rule of law and human rights standards. China considers the concept of procedural rule of law and human rights requirements unclear. It also considers that the latter should not be limited to general references to relevant provisions of international human rights instruments, and calls for further clarification in the Commission's subsequent work. Lastly, succession of states in respect to state responsibility. China notes the Commission's decision to discontinue its consideration of the topic succession of state in respect of state responsibility. We thank the Commission, the Special Rapporteur, and the Working Group for their contributions to this topic over the past decade. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of China for her intervention and now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I turn first to Chapter 6 of the Commission's annual report on subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law. The United Kingdom welcomes the completion of the first reading of the draft conclusions and commentaries. We are grateful for the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Charles Tchanour Djellal, and to the Commission as a whole for the considerable thought and care that has gone into this work. First reading is an important moment in any project. It gives states an opportunity to step back, consider the draft conclusions as a whole, and reflect on the approach the Commission has taken. Questions concerning sources of international law are particularly suitable ones for the consideration of the Commission, which can be of direct practical relevance and use to states and other practitioners. We look forward to submitting our detailed written comments by the December 2027 deadline. Chair, I turn to the topic of settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties. Here, too, we welcome the completion of the first reading of the draft guidelines and commentaries. We thank the Special Rapporteur, August Reineke, and his colleagues for bringing this work to this stage. The subject raises important and sometimes difficult questions, such as in relation to the immunity of international organizations and access to justice. In particular, we remain interested in how the key principle of equality of arms may feature in disputes of this character. We support the availability of appropriate redress while recognizing the need for a context-specific approach that balances effective remedy with the proper functioning of international organizations. Again, we welcome the Commission's request for comments by 1 December 2027 and look forward to considering the text further in this regard. Finally, Chair, I turn to succession of states in respect of state responsibility. We are grateful to the working group, chaired by Mr. Bimal Patel, for its careful examination of this topic, and in particular for setting out clearly the difficulties it has presented. The United Kingdom has previously encouraged the Commission to look carefully at its programme of work. Against that background, we welcome the decision not to pursue this topic further. We believe that it is a sensible response to the difficulties identified in the working group's report. When embarking on any topic, it may emerge that the substance or scope of the work does not evolve as originally envisaged. This is not at all a reflection on the quality of the work of the Commission. We commend the Commission for adapting in a pragmatic way and for showing its willingness to reprioritise its efforts given its demanding overall workload. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Portugal. You have the floor.

Portugal aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the European Union and its member states, and would like to offer a few additional remarks in its national capacity. Regarding the topic subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, Portugal wishes to congratulate the ILC on the progress made, which has allowed for the adoption on first reading of the entire set of draft conclusions and commentaries. Portugal attaches particular importance to the guidance provided by the draft conclusions, since it is important that States and other relevant actors have common understanding of the role and use of subsidiary means. At the same time, we believe that such guidance should allow for sufficient flexibility in the approach taken by States and courts. Portugal welcomes the clear formulation of the draft conclusion 3 on the nature and function of subsidiary means. In particular, we welcome the fact that it expressly states that subsidiary means are not a source of international law and that their function is to assist in the determination of the existence and content of rules of international law. Portugal also considers useful the use, in draft conclusion 4, of a set of general criteria for assessing the reach of subsidiary means. At the same time, we wonder whether the overall framework could benefit from further simplification. In particular, consideration could be given to avoiding, where possible, the introduction of additional criteria specific to individual categories of subsidiary means, such as those contained in draft conclusions 9 and 13, and relying instead on the general criteria set out in draft conclusion 4. Madam Chair. The question of whether resolutions of international organizations can be considered subsidiary means for the dissemination of rules of international law is one that warrants careful consideration. Portugal recognizes the important role that such resolutions may play in the codification and progressive development of international law. We also recall the role already recognized by the Commission in the context of customary international law, where resolutions may provide evidence for determining the existence and content of rule of customary international law or contribute to its development. In our view, particular care should be taken to maintain a clear distinction between these different functions and to avoid blurring the distinction between the sources of international law and the subsidiary means used for their determination. Madam Chair, regarding the topic settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties, Portugal agrees that the definition of a private party is pivotal for the fully understanding of the draft guideline scope to determine with precision the scope of part three relating to the disputes between international organizations and private parties. We note that in our intervention last year, Portugal expressed its support for including draft guideline seven. Parties will agree that the best criterion to determine the applicable regime to disputes in question should concern the nature of the parties involved, rather than the subject matter or the applicable law to the dispute. Madam Chair, let me now turn to Draft Guideline 9, Immunity of International Organizations. Portugal supports the Commission's decision to replace the term "jurisdictional immunity" with "immunity". This decision reflects the importance of expanding the scope of the draft guideline as much as possible to include the jurisdictional immunity of international organizations and the immunity from execution or enforcement measures against their assets as part of such privilege and immunities. Madam Chair, regarding draft guideline 10, Portugal believes that it achieves the intended objective of balancing the immunity of international organizations with the recognition of the other side of the coin, namely the right of private parties to assess justice. In particular, Portugal considers that the use of shell endeavor provides a sufficiently flexible solution. Madam Chair, let me address a cross-cutting issue, namely the prescriptive degree to be used across the draft guidelines, in particular in relation to the use of the verbs shall, should, and any other derivative. First, it should be emphasised that the recommendatory nature of the final work of the Commission on this topic should not preclude the use of the term "shell" where appropriate, as seen in similar previous Commission's guidelines. Second, we do not share the view raised in connection with draft guideline 8 that the term "shell" should be avoided where there is a risk that other terms in the Guideline might be interpreted too broadly. We believe that these concerns should instead prompt us to eventually reconsider the definition in draft guideline 2. Finally, regarding the preferred verb form for draft guideline 9, Portugal advocates the use of "should" in line with the Special Rapporteur's proposal. In our view, draft guideline 9 ought to be less prescriptive. This is because, on the one hand, the scope of non-conventional immunities based on customary international law has remained controversial, and on the other, that the balance between the privilege and immunities of international organizations and private parties' right of access to justice is delicate. And, as I have argued earlier, such immunities should not prevail in all cases. Madam Chair, Regarding the topic of succession of States in respect of State responsibility, Portugal would like to acknowledge the report prepared by the Working Group, which brings the work of the Commission on the topic to an end, and to associate itself the reasons provided for the discontinuance of this work. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Portugal for her statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ireland. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to address the topic of subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, and then briefly settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties. In relation to subsidiary means, Ireland welcomes the progress that has been made on this topic through the adoption on first reading of the entire set of draft conclusions with commentaries. We wish to thank the Special Rapporteur, Professor Charles Jalloh, as well as the members of the drafting group, for their considered approach to this topic. Ireland welcomes the opportunity that has been extended to governments to submit comments and observations to the Commission in advance of next year's deadline, and intends to provide written comments on the conclusions and their commentaries in advance of that. In the meantime, we offer the following brief remarks. In respect of draft conclusion 4 on the general criteria for the assessment of subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, we note that these criteria are not listed hierarchically. We agree with the view of the Commission expressed at paragraph 7 of its commentary on this conclusion. that the quality of reasoning is probably the most important criterion in considering what authority should be given to a particular judicial or arbitral decision, or to teachings as subsidiary means in any given case. Similarly, we welcome the commentary on draft conclusion 9, where the Commission notes at paragraph 5 that the quality of the reasoning and the scientific rigour of the work should be the most important criteria. We are carefully considering the content of draft conclusion 6 on the absence of legally binding precedent in international law and its commentary, having regard to our previous suggestion to the effect that the Commission might elaborate the reasons that decisions of international courts or tribunals may or may not be followed on points of law. Regarding draft conclusion 8 on teachings, We suggest again that the Commission elaborate in the commentary as to how a person's competence in international law should be assessed. We note in this regard the information provided in the commentary to draft conclusion 11 in relation to determining the extent to which the expert body is comprised of experts with competence in international law. Ireland will continue its detailed consideration of the draft con- conclusions and commentaries, and expects to submit written comments on this topic to the commission in the near future. In relation to settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties, Ireland would like to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. August Reinisch, for his work and his three reports on this important topic, which has enabled the Commission to adopt the draft guidelines and the commentaries thereto. on first reading and to transmit the draft guidelines through the Secretary General to governments and relevant international organizations for comments and written observations, with a request that these be submitted to the Secretary General by 1 December next year. I can confirm that we intend to submit our comments and observations in writing shortly. Thank you, madam Chair.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. With regard to the second cluster of topics, Malaysia will focus its statement on the topic of succession of states in respect of state responsibility. As for the other two topics, Malaysia remains committed to contributing to the Commission's work through the submission of written comments and observations on the draft conclusions on subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law and the draft guidelines on settlements of dispute to which international organizations are parties, both of which were recently adopted by the Commission on its first reading. Malaysia intends to submit its comments and observations to the Secretary-General by the stipulated deadline, as requested by the Commission. Madam Chair, with regard to the topic of succession of States in respect of State responsibility, Malaysia wishes to express its appreciation to the Commission for establishing the Working Group of the Whole to examine the topic. Malaysia also wishes to place on record its sincere appreciation to Mr. Bimal N. Patel, Chair of the Working Group for preparing the draft report. The report provides a comprehensive summary of the work undertaken on this topic since 2017 and identifies possible directions for its future directions. Madam Chair, Malaysia acknowledge the difficulties that would arise should the Commission decide to continue its work on this topic. In particular, Malaysia shares the view expressed by numerous States that the available State practice remains insufficient, inconclusive, and unevenly distributed to support the formulation of generally applicable rules or guidelines. The scarcity and inconsistency of the practice, together with its limited geographical representations, make it difficult to identify clear rules of customary international law or to establish a broad consensus among States. Malaysia further notes that significant divergence persists on several substantive issues central to the topic. This includes the applicability of the clean slate principle as opposed to automatic succession, the distinction between the transfer of responsibility and the transfer of rights and obligations arising from responsibility, and the broader question of whether the topic is suitable for codification, or rather, constitutes an exercise in the progressive development of international law. These methodological and substantive challenges have significantly limited the prospect of achieving a satisfactory and widely supported outcome. Madam Chair, in light of these considerations, and given the limited likelihood of securing broad acceptance of any future product, Malaysia supports the Commission’s decision not to pursue further work on this topic. Finally, Malaysia wishes to express its sincere appreciation to the former Special Rapporteur, Mr. Pavel Starmach, and to the Chair of the previous working group, Mr. August Reinich, for their valuable contribution and dedicated efforts in advancing the Commission's work on this topic. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Malaysia for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mexico.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good afternoon to all of the colleagues, and my delegation is very pleased to see you chairing our work this morning. With respect to the second cluster, my delegation would like to share with you the following comments. Mexico acknowledges the work of the ILC in the study on the subsidiary means for the determination of the rules in international law, and we greatly value the finalization on first reading of the 12 draft conclusions. Our delegation will continue to examine the text and its comments, and will make observations before the 1st of December of 2027. We'd like to point out the importance of assessing every subsidiary mean in accordance with the general criteria and specific criteria which are called for in the draft conclusions, bearing in mind the circumstances of every case. This approach allows us to prevent general classifications on the weight that should be given to these means, which makes it possible to grant appropriate value to the circumstances of every case. In particular, we value the fact that the draft conclusion 4 includes, among the general criteria, acceptance by States and other entities. As Mexico has pointed out previously, the use or acceptance of these means is an important element to determine their weight, and acknowledges the importance of States in forming international law. With respect to the expert bodies, we feel it's important that draft conclusions 10 and 11 require an assessment of their work, addressing, among other factors, its mandate, nature, normative value, methodology, validity, specialization, and the selection procedure. The advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the right to strike in the light of Convention 87 of the ILO reveals the need to have clear directions on the value that should be given to expert bodies. Although the court decided to attribute a significant weight to the supervisory bodies of the ILO, as they did with the Human Rights Committee in the case of the Diallo case. Individual opinions of the judges emphasized the different points of view on the criteria which should be borne into, should be taken into account. The different approaches confirms that it's suitable to avoid general presumptions and to carry out a case-by-case assessment. Furthermore, we value the inclusion in the resolutions and other texts drawn up by international organizations or intergovernmental conferences. We feel it's appropriate that their weight be determined on the basis of the circumstances of their development and of their later use. These draft conclusions are a very useful basis to continue to develop a clear and consistent methodology on the use of the subsidiary means to determine the rules in international law. With respect to the next item in chapter 7, Mexico would like to thank the Commission and the Special Rapporteur, August Reinisch, for his work on the topic, the settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties. We welcome the fact that the third report includes the revised bibliography on the topic and the document with the dispute settlement clauses. The draft is a legally solid text, which reflects a very detailed study of the item. Subject to sending detailed comments in writing and in due course, my delegation would like to make the following points. Generally speaking, we view positively the inclusive approach adopted by the document. because it incorporates disputes between international organizations, between international organizations and states, and between international organizations and private actors, including definitions which make it possible to clarify the scope of the guidelines, such as is the case with the definition of private parties, give more precision to the text. Similarly, we welcome the inclusion of the rule of law, independence and impartiality, and respect for due process as requirements for the means to settle disputes. With respect to Guideline 10, we underscore the need to go further in the relationship between jurisdictional immunity and effective access to justice. Of course, we have to respect the immunities that are enjoyed by international organizations in keeping with international law. But nonetheless, we feel that it's important to achieve an adequate balance between both principles and prevent the implementation of immunities leading to a situation of a lack of defense for individuals who are participating in the process and whose rights could be affected. We reiterate our willingness to continue to make contributions to this item, which is extremely important from a practical point of view for international law. And lastly, with respect to chapter 8, Mexico welcomes the work of the Commission on the topic succession of States in respect of State responsibility. And here we welcome the discussions within the ILC, including the establishment of a working group with a view to concluding in an orderly fashion the work related to this item. We take note of the fact that the working group was not able to examine or adopt the final report proposed by its chair, which includes a summary of the development of the draft provisions, and it shifted to draft guidelines, and the decision of the Commission at the recommendation of the working group to not continue with the study of this matter. My delegation believes that this decision is appropriate and invites the ILC to take advantage of this space to include on its agenda new items of particular importance and of a topical nature for the international community. Thank you very much.

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

Madam Chair, given the time, we will point out the main points of our comments on cluster 2, which were submitted in writing. With respect to the first item, my delegation would like to begin by congratulating the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Charles Jalloh, as well as the members of the ILC, for the conclusion of first reading of the draft conclusions on the subsidiary means for the determination of rules in international law. This achievement reflects a rigorous, exhaustive, and extremely constructive work which offers practical guidelines for States, tribunals, international organizations, and practitioners of law are called upon to identify and specify the existence and content of the rules of international law. Madam Chair, we fully support draft conclusion 3, which clarifies the fundamental distinction between the sources of international law and the subsidiary means. As my delegation has always maintained, subsidiary means are secondary material whose principal aim is to assist in the determination of the existence and the content of the rules of international law without being autonomous sources of rights or obligations per se, establishing This distinction of the outside increases the legal stability, predictability, and systemic coherence in the legal international order with respect to the weight given to subsidiary means. We value the inclusion of sub-paragraph (e) referring to the welcome by States and other entities. We recognize that the measure, the degree to which the judicial sentence is Welcomed by the international community, this is a very decisive element to determine its persuasive value and its practical use in determining international law. As for the third part, the draw conclusions concerning the decisions of courts and tribunals, Chile welcomes the distinction between courts and international tribunals, recognizing the special authority of the International Court of Justice as a principal judicial body of the United Nations. and national tribunals whose decisions operate as subsidiary means only in specific circumstances, and taking into account the influence of the ICTs and the automated analytical tools in legal investigations, we emphasize that the rigorous implementation of the general criteria included in draft conclusion 4 is crucial in order to assess the weight of doctrinal work. And lastly, the settlement of disputes, we believe that. And now I will refer to the chapter on the settlement of disputes to which international organizations are party. My delegation would like to begin by congratulating the Special Rapporteur, Mr. August Reinisch, as well as the members of the International Law Commission. for the valuable work that they have done during this session and for the successful conclusion of the first reading of the 12 draft guidelines and their comments. This delegation will focus its comments on the third part of the draft. Chile believes that this section is one of the most important contributions to the draft. First of all, we value the methodological decision of the Commission in draft guideline 7, consisting on looking at the disputes based on the nature of the parties involved and not on the basis of the applicable legal regime. And this reflects a contemporary practice and recognizes the growing importance of the controversies between international organizations and private individuals. It expands considerably the practical scope of the draft and facilitates a more appropriate response to the specific challenges which are raised by these legal relations. My delegation would also like to point out the balance which was achieved between the preservation of immunities which are necessary for international organizations to carry out their functions independently, and the guarantee of justice for private parties. This balance makes it possible to safeguard both the functional autonomy of the international organizations as well as the effective protection of the legitimate rights and interests of individuals. In this context, we believe that the Principle in draft guideline 10 is especially important, where international organizations who have immunities should have appropriate mechanisms to deal with disputes with private individuals. My delegation believes that the existence of such a mechanism is an essential element in order to ensure that the recognition of immunities does not lead to a denial of justice. We find it valuable that the mechanism to settlement disputes of a jurisdictional nature is adjusted to standards which apply to human rights, and this is a very important safeguard to ensure a fair treatment for the private parties. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Chile for her statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Belarus. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Distinguished Chair, ladies and gentlemen, the delegation of Belarus would like to express its gratitude to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Charles Charlot for his work on the topic of subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, leading to the Commission's adoption in 2026 of the draft conclusions on the same topic. And from this, this topic is a very important and a theoretical and practical front to support the integrity of the whole system of international law, ensuring standard practice with application interpretation of norms of international law. in addressing potential contradictions between decisions of international legal institutions and also preventing and minimizing undesirable consequences of fragmentation and regionalization of international law. Our delegation supports the decision of the Commission to send the draft conclusions to Member States to receive comments from them and also provide sufficient time for the questions to be discussed on the national level. Belarus supports the majority of the draft conclusions prepared by the Commission, which are mainly sound and fully cover the legal nature of subsidiary means and their functional significance to determining the existence and content of norms of international law, as stems from paragraph 1(d) Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. We also share the general conclusion of conclusion seven, that decisions of the international courts and tribunals are not legally binding precedents. In international law, there is no obligation of international legal institutions in resolving disputes to follow the approaches and interpretation and application of norms contained in previously from international legal and arbitration decisions. At the same time, we clear legal practice as a whole allowed to have an impact on proceedings in any specific case, allowing for consistency in interpretation and application of a given norm of international laws in similar situations. We welcome the attempt in conclusion seven to address the weight of the decision of international courts and tribunals as subsidiary means. At the same time, we believe that the criteria in this conclusion are not exhaustive and require further work. Thus, we are convinced that the decision of some international courts, primarily the International Court of Justice as the main judicial body of the UN, enjoys authority in stating the existence of norms of international law and existing practice of their interpretation if they're adopted by the majority of judges who represent different social and legal systems and groups of states, and as a result of a fair and comprehensive legal process. However, in any situation, the norm of international law identified in previous decisions of the Court should be analysed carefully in each new case, based on how previous decisions have a qualitative and argumentative established existence of norms of international law in line with the criteria applicable for this. It's also important to define how often states refer to these norms in their relations after the issuance of a given international legal decision. Sometimes inconsistency in interpretation of international legal norms and their definition, and then in general, common special international legal bodies leads to fragmentation of the norms of some sections of international law. This problem requires further study and at an international expert level to address, to develop effective measures to harmonize international legal practice, including as part of the commission. Our side was very cautious in how it approaches to paragraph 2 of conclusion 5, the idea whereby decisions of national courts in some circumstances can be used as subsidiary means to determine the existence and content of norms of international law. As a rule, the decisions of national courts are not significant regarding international legal problems, and in general, the problems of application of provisions of international treaties and other norms of international law in national legal systems is only characteristic for these specific legal systems. Moreover, judges of national legal bodies, as a rule, have more deeper understanding of national legal systems, and on the other hand, they don't always have the equal experience of international legal specificities. And this connection, as you see from paragraph 2 of conclusion 5, a selective approach to the use of decisions of national courts to determine international legal norms, depending on the circumstances of a specific case and other factors which characterize the argumented nature and the quality of decision-making is important. Decisions from national courts should depend on the importance of the case for international law as such, and the status, competence, and authority of the court itself in the national legal system. Regarding the conclusions pertaining to doctrines, we are convinced that when using them, they need to be balanced as much as possible, including bearing in mind that these doctrines sometimes reflect an effort not only to have lex lata, but also create grounds for its development, lex ferenda, particularly in situations when the aim of this study is to address academic disputes. At the same time, application of some criteria as a conclusion 4, representativeness as quality of argumentation and expert knowledge, and conclusion 8, gender and language diversity in the draft conclusions, is subjective and could lead to inconsistent and imbalanced practice. At the same time, there's no doubt that the doctrines in its broader sense play a key role in determining, interpreting, and applying norms of international law. In decisions of international legal bodies, it's important that a detailed comparative analysis of the work of different studies is carried out from different regions and legal systems with an indication of their specific jobs. This would also make the conclusions of these international courts more convincing. Chair, the delegation of Belarus also welcomes the work done by the Commission on settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties. We thank Special Rapporteur Mr. Augustin Reinisch and also the chair of the drafting committee, Mr. Robert Fifa. We interested to read the second report from the drafting committee in the document of the text and titles of the drafts guiding principles. and which was primarily adopted by the drafting committee on the first reading. We believe that the work done has been very important from the point of view of structuring the document and making the terminology clear. This pertains to the definitions which are in Guiding Principle 2. We welcome the definition that has been on guidance 7 to 12, including those pertaining to the immunity of international organizations and how that corresponds to dispute resolutions with private parties. In this connection, we reiterate our position on importance of the issue of disputes between international organizations and private parties in the context of the work of the Commission on the topic, because these disputes are the bulk of the practice of dispute resolution with the participation of international organizations. We'd underscore that it's important in this connection to identify the scope of these guiding principles and carry out a clear delineation between disputes stemming from, as part of international law, or from international, which all having international legal aspects or non-international private disputes. As we've said earlier, it would be wise for the ILC to prepare recommendations on how internal mechanisms of international organizations and other means could be appropriate and admissible for resolving this kind of dispute, and in what circumstances they could be used, and also what mechanisms could be created as part of international organizations. It's important also to address the issue of the applicability of the principles of exhausting internal means if there is a dispute between international organizations and private individuals before putting this to international legal mechanisms according to the contract and other obligations. We also support the inclusion in the guidance 11 on the use of non-judicial mechanisms for dispute resolution, including the procedure for dispute resolution, we also believe that separate focus could be made based on some means as a mediation of reconciliation. We also invite the Commission to reflect on other categories of dispute which are appropriate for addressing non-judicial and judicial means, and reflect this in the comments and all the texts of the Guiding Principles. Our delegation welcomes the Commission's intention to carry out analysis of all possible categories of disputes, parties to which could be, an international organisation could be. Primary work on identifying the types of dispute has been done by the Commission in a very careful way, which lays the foundation to its further successful work on this topic. We took note of the decision of the Commission on preparing the draft guiding principles and given the difficulties on achieving consensus on more significant results of its work. At the same time, we call once again thought to be given about preparing model provisions on dispute resolution, primarily applicable to disputes between international organizations and private individuals. There are quite a lot of current international organizations, we have a mixture of public legal and private law nature in place or relatively recently created according to their statute documents and that kind of commercial activity. This underscores the relevance of having effective provisions in the agreements reached with them and also overall having specialist mechanisms for dispute resolution ensuring due process. respect for the immunity of these organizations and at the same time the rights of private individuals to access to justice. Chair, Belarus read the report prepared by the Chair of the Working Group of the Commission on the Succession of States in Respect of State Responsibility and express our gratitude to them for the work done. Bela Brus shares the view that existing diversity and the contextual nature of the practice of states cast doubt on the possibility of establishing general norms and shows that the question of the succession of states regarding state responsibility is addressed for each concrete, specific situation and is not uniform in nature. Many problems of succession are addressed through bilateral and multilateral negotiations on the basis of the free choice of interested parties and bearing in mind applicable norms of international law, including general legal ones. Of course, succession of states remains a politically sensitive topic. State practice on this issue is not established enough, and therefore it's difficult to identify which draft guidelines are based on state practice and which reflect the progressive development of international law. In this connection, once again, we call for caution and to not move this question to the progressive development of international law. Belarus reaffirms its commitment its position, how it's not wise to develop at this stage any guiding articles, principles, or other documents, and shares the view that work should be stopped on this topic at this stage. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to present Poland's comments to the following chapters from the ILC reports from its 77th sessions: Chapter VI on Subsidiary Means for the Determination of Rules of International Law; Chapter VII, Statements of Disputes to Which International Organizations are Parties; and Chapter VIII, Succession of States in Respect of State Responsibility. With respect to subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, Poland notes the Commission adoption on first reading of 13 draft conclusions, together with commentaries, and wishes to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr Charles Jaloh, for his commitment and work. Determining rules is a fundamental element in the functioning of international law. For that reason, Poland has always supported the Commission's work in this respect. We share the basic idea behind this project that greater clarity on the use of subsidiary means and their relationship with the source of international law can contribute to its consistency and predictability. With respect to draft conclusion 2, although prima facie the first two categories listed in this provision are rooted in article 38, paragraph 1(d), Poland notes that in practice they play different roles and they have different values ascribed to them. This is perfectly demonstrated by the ILC’s own approach. The Commission’s commentary to 2018 conclusions on identification of customary international law, for example, is almost entirely based on ICJ decisions. It would be therefore useful to explain this practice in commentary, as without such clarification, readers of conclusion two may assign an unreal value to categories of subsidiary means for determining rules of international law. Furthermore, Poland favors changing the order of criteria mentioned in draft conclusion three. Especially, we think that reception by states and other entities should be listed first, followed by the quality of reasoning criterion. As to the term “other entities” mentioned in the conclusion, we consider it to be too general and would advise replacing it with the formulation “other subjects of international law”. We also would like to point out a potential inconsistency between Conclusion 5, para. 2 and Conclusion 6. While the former states that decisions of national courts may be used in certain circumstances as a subsidiary means, the latter indicates that only decisions of international courts or tribunals may be followed on points of law. As for conclusion 8 on teachings, we would advise deleting the second sentence. As it is impossible to list all the factors that could decide the criterion of representativeness, it would seem reasonable to refrain from listing only a few arbitrarily chosen ones. Madam Chair, Allow me now to turn to the topic settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties. We note that the Commission adopted on the first reading 12 draft guidelines, together with commentaries, and wish to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. August Reinisch, for the commitment and work. We support including in the commentary to Draft Guideline 1 an explanation on the ILC choice of the guideline's format. We believe this practice should be applied to the Commission's work on all topics. Furthermore, we support the general objective of Draft Guideline 10 as protecting the rights of private parties. Still, we are of the view that there is no need to formulate a separate conclusion on the immunities of international organizations with this project or make additional reference in this respect in conclusion 10. It should be remembered that the jurisdictional immunity of international organization is a separate topic which remains on the Commission's long-term program of work. Furthermore, the language of draft guideline 9 seems not to correspond to the nature of the instrument being prepared by the Commission. On draft guideline 11, we again would like to point out that the text juxtaposes procedural rule of law with a human rights requirement. This formula is rather unclear, especially considering the term "procedural rule of law" is not elaborated. Thus, in Poland's view, the draft guidelines should refer to general international law, including human rights law. Finally, on the topic succession of states in respect of state responsibility, Poland notes the adoption of the Working Group report and Commission's decision not to pursue further consideration of the topic. Against this background, we would like to thank the Chair of the Working Group, Mr. Bimal Patel, as well as the former Special Rapporteur, Mr. Paweł Sturma, and the Chair of the previous Working Group, Mr. August Reinisch, for their work on the topic. The Commission's work in this respect illustrates the importance of vigilance and careful consideration in determining the final form of work on a given topic. The present topic has demonstrated that such consideration should not be confined to the initial stages of the Commission's work, but should be revised as work progresses. This allows for a careful assessment of whether the form selected at the outset remains suitable as a more developed and nuanced understanding of the subject matter emerges. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Poland for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Slovenia. You have the floor.

I have the honor to address the Sixth Committee on chapters 6, 7, and 8 of the report of the International Law Commission. With regard to chapters 6 and 7, Slovenia aligns itself with the relevant statements of the European Union and would like to add the following remarks in its national capacity. Madam Chair, As regards chapter 6, subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, Slovenia congratulates the Commission on the adoption on first reading of the draft conclusions and commentaries. We would like to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Charles Chernor Djalow, for his outstanding contribution to this topic since 2022. The draft conclusions complement the Commission's work on the identification of customary international law and on general principles of law. and provide practical guidance to States and practitioners. Slovenia welcomes the clarification in draft conclusion 3 that subsidiary means are not a source of international law. Their function is to assist in determining the existence and content of rules of international law. We also welcome draft conclusion 6 on the absence of legally binding precedent in international law. We recall, however, that decisions of international courts remain binding on the parties to the cause. Slovenia is pleased to note the broad understanding of international courts and tribunals adopted in the commentaries, encompassing any international body exercising judicial powers. We also welcome that the commentaries address the decisions and other outputs of human rights treaty bodies in line with views Slovenia has expressed. At the same time, we agree that the weight of the decisions and other outputs of such bodies should be assessed case by case in light of the criteria identified by the Commission, such as the methodology used, the normative value of the works, and the process and basis of selection of the experts. We further welcome the general criteria for assessing the weight of subsidiary means set out in draft conclusion 4, particularly the quality of the reasoning and the reception by states and other entities. As noted in the commentary, the value of the Commission's own output depends above all upon States' reception of its output. This underscores the importance of an active dialogue between the Commission and this Committee. Slovenia welcomes the inclusion in draft conclusion 8 of a call to give due regard to gender and linguistic diversity when assessing the representativeness of teachings. Drawing on teachings that reflect a broader range of legal systems, regions, and viewpoints strengthens the determination of rules of international law. Madam Chair, as regards Chapter VII, settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties, Slovenia welcomes the adoption on first reading of the draft guidelines and commentaries. We would like to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. August Reinisch, for his three reports and his consistent efforts to ground the topic in practice. International organizations are playing an increasingly active role, and their disputes with states, other organizations, or private parties call for clear and effective means of settlement. We welcome the fact that the list of means of dispute settlement in draft guideline 2 is inspired by Article 33 of the Charter, and that draft guidelines 4 and 5 do not establish a hierarchy among the various means of dispute settlement. We also welcome the inclusion in draft guideline 8 of a call to give due regard to the respective positions of the parties and to any possible disparity between them. Last year, Slovenia drew attention to the imbalance between international organizations and private parties, and we consider this addition an important improvement. The central issue in part three remains the need to strike a balance between the immunity of international organizations and the right of access to justice of private parties. Draft guidelines 9 to 11 reflect this balance. Immunity serves to ensure the independent and effective performance of the functions of international organizations and needs to be respected. At the same time, organizations enjoying immunity must provide for effective means of dispute settlement that in no circumstances amount to arbitrariness or denial of justice. We note the clarification in the commentaries to draft guideline 6 and 12 that their focus on arbitration and judicial settlement does not affect the requirement of independence and impartiality for some other means, such as conciliation or mediation, media- mediation. Slovenia would nevertheless prefer this requirement to be reflected in the draft guidelines in relation to all third-party means of dispute settlement and would welcome further reflection on this point on second reading. Madam Chair, as regards Chapter 8, Succession of State in Respect of State Responsibility, Slovenia would like to express its deep appreciation to the Commission for its work on this topic, particularly to the former Special Rapporteur, Mr. Pavel Šturma, and to the chairs of the working groups, Mr. August Reinisch and Mr. Bimal N. Patel. We regard the work undertaken since 2017 as a valuable contribution to the understanding of the legal questions arising at the intersection of state succession and state responsibility for international wrongful acts. Slovenia takes note of the Commission's decision not to pursue it further and regrets that the difficulties encountered prevented the work from being completed. The topic remains highly relevant in contemporary international law and is of particular importance to Slovenia as one of the successor states of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We acknowledge the difficulties identified in the report of the working group, some of which Slovenia also highlighted last year, in particular, the limited and geographically uneven state practice. At the same time, we note the report's finding that the inconclusive results of the Commission's examination of state practice do not imply that a rule of non-succession applies by default. As the question remains open, we would welcome the Commission's reconsideration of the topic should state practice be developed further. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Slovenia for his statement and now give the floor to the distinguished representative of South Africa. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. South Africa aligns itself with the statement delivered by Cameroon on behalf of the African Group. My delegation wishes to thank the Special Rapporteur, Professor Charles Jalloh, for the draft conclusions on subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law and the commentaries thereto. The work is not only well-researched and comprehensive, but it carries extremely useful practical value. particularly to us as practitioners of international law, and will also aid greatly in the context of national courts. Madam Chair, South Africa's constitution obliges courts to consider international law when interpreting the Bill of Rights, and when interpreting legislation, courts must prefer any reasonable interpretation which accords with international law over one which does not. In South Africa, we are witnessing a tremendous increase in international law featuring in national court cases. As such, this work will certainly assist our judiciary in its interpretation and application of international law. Madam Chair, as concerns the draft conclusions, we wish to underscore a few aspects. We especially wish to highlight our support for references to advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice in draft conclusion two. Whilst we note that ICJ advisory opinions are not legally binding, they are regarded as authoritative and certainly serve as a useful means for the determination of rules of international law. Importantly, we see a growing number of states and international organizations participating in advisory opinions, which allows the Court to consider a broader array of views when formulating an opinion. Therefore, Advisory opinions benefit from a broad participatory process that enables the court to consider a wide range of perspectives, thereby enhancing their value as an authoritative subsidiary means for determining rules of international law. As regards the commentary relating to teachings, we appreciate the emphasis that weight should be placed on the quality of work rather than the reputation of the person that produced it. This is particularly important in the context of teachings from developing countries, where persons may not necessarily have access to reputable publishers. Their value may thus be overlooked. In relation to draft Conclusion 4, we very much welcome the reference to “external component” referred to in paragraph (e). This approach acknowledges the realities of ensuring wider acceptance and application of the determination of rules of international law. The consideration of whether reasoning remains relevant in draft conclusion 7 is of particular importance as international law should not become stagnant and must remain cognizant of changing times and realities. Conclusions 12 and 13 are very important, as resolutions and other texts produced by international organizations and intergovernmental conferences are often a reflection of how States and international organizations consider that their rights and obligations arising from sources of international law should be implemented. It will therefore be useful in interpreting the scope of a particular right or obligation. Madam Chair, in conclusion, we wish to reiterate our appreciation for the invaluable work of the Commission, and particularly as regards its work on the Draft Conclusions on Subsidiary Means for the Determination of Rules of International Law. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of South Africa for her intervention. Distinguished delegates, the distinguished representative of South Africa was the last speaker on the list for this morning. The Sixth Committee will meet again this afternoon at 3 PM. to continue its debate on the second cluster of topics of the 2025 report of the Commission under agenda item 78, report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 76th and 77th sessions. Please also recall that, as was decided at the first meeting of the Committee, deadline to inscribe for the debate on the third cluster of topics under agenda item 78, report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 76th and 77th sessions, as well as the debates on agenda items 86, the law of transboundary aquifers, and 165, Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country, is this afternoon at 5 PM. I would also like to thank the interpreters who've stayed a bit later with us, and the meeting is adjourned.