Sixth Committee, 36th plenary meeting - General Assembly, 81st session

It was nice.

It was a nice conversation. Will you be ready? We're probably going to finish tomorrow morning.

You can just say a few things at the end.

Just a few brief remarks.

You don't have to summarize anything more than you.

No, it seems like that, of course.

Of course.

Of course.

So I think tomorrow morning.

Yeah.

I mean, I will tell you at lunchtime today, because we have every.

25 speakers, we have 60.

So it tells me more than 50 by the end of the day. But then we had a lot of withdrawals. Which is actually okay, because also. But, it's very...

Thank you.

Mm.

Good morning. Good morning, colleagues. I declare. I call to order the 36th meeting of the Sixth Committee for the 81st session of the General Assembly. Distinguished delegates, the Sixth Committee will continue. the debate on the third cluster of chapters in the International Law Commission's report of 2026. I recall that the International Law Commission Chair, Mr. Andreas Mavroyiannis, introduced those chapters in his statement last week. Before proceeding with the debate on the third cluster of chapters, I wish to recall the recommendation of the Bureau that while there are no time limits per se on interventions on the ILC report, delegations are encouraged to be as succinct as possible and, where possible, to only deliver abridged versions of their statements while providing their full statements for posting on e-statements 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 third cluster of chapters on the Commission's 2026 report this morning is a distinguished representative of Iceland, speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries. You have the floor.

Madam Chair. On a personal note, excellent to see you at the podium, and I am very happy to be back in the Sixth Committee. I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the five Nordic countries, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and my own country, Iceland. Regarding non-legally binding international agreements, the Nordic countries would like to thank the Special Rapporteur Mr. Mathias Fauteux for his excellent work. This topic remains highly relevant given the growing use of non-legally binding instruments. Guidance distinguishing them from treaties can enhance transparency, legal certainty, and a common understanding of the applicable legal framework. We are pleased that the Commission has adopted draft conclusions 1 to 5 together with the commentaries. We also appreciate the efforts made to refine and streamline the draft conclusions in light of views expressed by States in the Sixth Committee. The Nordic countries would like to continue supporting the non-prescriptive nature of the draft conclusions. Their value lies in enhancing legal certainty and providing practical guidance while preserving flexibility. We welcome the simplified formulation of conclusion 1 and the clarification provided regarding the purpose of the draft conclusions. We also welcome conclusion 2, which appropriately recognizes the diversity of national and institutional practices relating to the drafting and adoption of non-legally binding international agreements. Regarding conclusion 3 on the use of terms, we support the pragmatic approach to terminology. We stress that the substance of an instrument and the intention of its participants should take precedence over its formal designation, while States and international organizations should remain free to use their own terminology, including "non-legally binding instrument" as clarified in the commentary. The Nordic countries welcome the emphasis in conclusions 4 and 5 on the intention of participants as a key factor in distinguishing treaties from non-legally binding agreements, while recognizing the need for an overall assessment of relevant circumstances. We look forward to the Commission's work on identifying relevant indicators, which should be assessed holistically and not be applied in a restrictive manner. We consider an express indication of non-legally binding intent to be, in principle, sufficient. We question whether the qualifier normally gives adequate weight to such a clear statement. Conversely, the absence of an express indication should not be determinative of the nature of the agreement. We look forward to the Special Rapporteur's fourth report and the Commission's examination of the possible legal implications of non-legally binding international agreements. In particular, we welcome further clarification of the relevance and implications of these instruments for customary international law, general principles, and interpretation, while noting the importance of careful consideration grounded in state practice and jurisprudence and preserving these distinction between binding and non-binding agreements. Madam Chair, regarding the topic of prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, we express our sincere appreciation to Special Rapporteur Mr. Louis Sebadogo for his comprehensive work, as well as to the members of the working group for their valuable efforts. The security of the global maritime domain continues to be undermined by incidents of piracy and armed robbery at sea. All States have an interest in protecting freedom of navigation and supporting maritime security. We also recall the central role of international law as a basis for the global maritime order. including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which sets out the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out. According to draft article 9, paragraph 1, armed security personnel on board merchant vessels have the right to seize pirate ships or aircraft and to arrest the persons aboard. We believe that this provision requires further reflection. Article 107 of UNCLOS limits seizures on account of piracy to warships, military aircraft, or other government service vessels clearly marked as such. If the term "armed security personnel" includes privately contracted personnel, the provision risks granting extensive powers to private actors beyond the generally recognized right of individual self-defense without a clear legal basis for seizure. According to paragraph 2, coastal state vessels and clearly identified, duly authorized government vessels may seize vessels suspected of armed robbery in internal, archipelagic, or territorial waters. The Nordic countries believe that further reflection is needed on this provision, as it risks unduly limiting coastal state sovereignty without a clear legal basis, and to clarify that only the coastal state may grant authorizations. We also take note of Commission discussions and agree that there could be a need to further distinguish between piracy and armed robbery at sea. Conflating the two offences could risk intrusion into the territorial sovereignty of States. We commend draft article 3 bis for encompassing the new form of pirate activity committed by or against autonomous or remotely operated ships or aircraft. This has become an important topic within maritime security. And we support clear definitions on the matter. Protecting merchant vessels is essential to secure sea lanes, but reliance on private maritime security gives rise to legal issues concerning arms regulation, innocent passage, and the use of force, which we encourage the Commission and Special Rapporteur to address. Madam Chair, On due diligence in international law, the Nordic countries thank the Commission and the Special Rapporteur, Penelope Ridings, for the comprehensive first report on the topic. As the report demonstrates, the concept of due diligence has long formed part of international law and has appeared in a variety of legal contexts and been reflected in state practice, treaty regimes, and the jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals. One of the principal challenges is that due diligence has developed, and continues to do so, across a wide range of areas of international law. While this demonstrates its significance, it also raises the question whether common elements can be identified across different legal contexts. The recent climate-related advisory opinions have made an important contribution to this discussion. In particular, They provide additional guidance regarding factors that might be relevant to the assessment of due diligence, including risk, foreseeability, available knowledge, and state capacities. The Nordic countries support the proposal of the Special Rapporteur to explore the various conceptions of due diligence articulated by states as a standard of conduct under specific primary obligations and as an independent obligation with a view to clarifying its role within the international legal system. We also encourage the Commission to continue examining the legal basis of due diligence, including how it reflects customary international law or general principles and its relationship with the law of state responsibility. The discussion on the application of international law in cyberspace further illustrates the practical relevance of this topic. UN members have unequivocally reaffirmed the applicability of international law in cyberspace. In that vein, the Nordic countries recognize the relevance of due diligence in cyberspace, where ongoing discussions on responsible state behavior underscore the value of the Commission's work in clarifying its application in evolving factual and technological contexts. We support the Special Rapporteur's preliminary view that draft principles would constitute an appropriate final form for the topic. Principles identifying common elements of due diligence, while preserving the flexibility necessary for different legal contexts, could provide useful guidance to States and contribute to greater coherence in this area. We also support the proposal of the Special Rapporteur to focus first on due diligence as a standard of conduct and propose draft principles on that aspect. Madam Chair, regarding compensation for damage caused by internationally wrongful acts. The Nordic countries thank the Commission for selecting such a timely and highly relevant topic, and express our appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Paparinskis, for his thorough and valuable work. We support the approach of the Special Rapporteur in deferring any firm decision on the final form of the topic. We emphasize the strong position enjoyed by the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts in the international legal system. We consider the Articles to generally reflect customary international law, as reinforced by judicial and scholarly references, and therefore welcome draft articles on compensation building upon them. Reparation, including compensation, is an important aspect of accountability and state responsibility. Establishing that an internationally wrongful act has occurred is indispensable, but accountability is generally not complete if those who have suffered harm are left without an avenue for redress. We support the approach of the Special Rapporteur to treat Article 36 as a basic rule on compensation and encourage the Commission to clarify its relationship with other rules, particularly Article 39 on the injured state's contribution to the injury. We also encourage the Commission to examine possible set-off in enforcing compensation claims and any applicable rules on priority between claims under international law. Questions relating to the possible reduction of compensation based on equitable concerns are important to consider in the context of the Commission's work and would benefit from a thorough examination focused on legal sources, not limited to one particular context, such as war reparations. International law has seen quantum leaps both normatively and institutionally in addressing damage, losses, and injuries suffered by civilians and states after armed conflict. The UN Claims Commission demonstrated creative new approaches to reduce the time factor in providing necessary support to the most vulnerable. Other mechanisms include the International Claims Commission for Ukraine, which the Nordic countries have been actively involved in negotiating. Madam Chair, in closing, the Nordic countries would like to reiterate our appreciation for the work done by the ILC on these topics. We look forward to continue to contribute to these discussions in this Committee and engaging with the International Law Commission. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Iceland, speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Austria, speaking on behalf of the Slavkov S3, which is Austria, Czechia, and Slovakia. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, madam Chair. I am honoured to speak on behalf of the three States belonging to the Slavkov format: Czechia, Slovakia, and my own country, Austria. For the sake of time, I will not be reading the full statement. The comprehensive and full version of the Slavkov statement will be submitted in writing to the Secretariat. We welcome this opportunity to comment on the work of the International Law Commission concerning the topic non-legally binding international agreements. We would like to commend the Special Rapporteur, Mathias Forteau, for his work and for the contribution of his third report to the Commission's ongoing consideration of this topic. We encourage the Commission to adopt a pragmatic and practice-oriented approach. which would provide useful clarification while preserving the flexibility that makes non-legally binding instruments valuable tools of international cooperation. Above all, the outcome should clearly preserve and strengthen the fundamental distinction between treaties and non-legally binding instruments and avoid ambiguity or creating any perception of a separate legal regime governing such instruments. We note that the Commission continues to rely on the term "agreements" that raises concerns for many States when referring to non-legally binding instruments. The Slavkov States highlight once again that the use of the term "instrument" throughout the work of the Commission on this topic would more accurately reflect the non-binding nature of documents we are talking about. We support the clarification in draft conclusion 3 on use of terms. that a non-legally binding international instrument is one that does not, as such, create rights or obligations or has other binding legal effects under international law. Nevertheless, the Commission should exercise particular caution when addressing possible legal implications arising from such instruments. The Commission's work should not result in attributing binding legal effect to instruments which the participants deliberately intended not to be legally binding. If the Commission were to continue using the term "agreement" for its work on this topic, paragraph 3 of draft conclusion 3 should first and foremost explicitly state that the draft conclusions do not affect the term being reserved for legally binding international treaties in the practice of individual states. As regards the general orientation of the topic, let me reiterate once again that the Commission should prioritize practical and operational aspects. The ultimate objective should be to assist in resolving the enduring uncertainty surrounding the distinction between legally binding treaties and agreements and non-legally binding instruments. Against this background, the discussions on non-legally binding instruments in international law And the proposed compendium of best practices being prepared by the Council of Europe within the framework of CADE may offer a valuable source of inspiration and guidance for the Special Rapporteur, and also contribute to a more targeted and efficient advancement of the Commission's work on this topic. Madam Chair, allow me to turn now to the topic prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. We are very grateful to the Special Rapporteur, Luis Sabadogo, and the President of the Drafting Committee, Rolf Einar Fife, for elaborating draft articles and presenting the results of the Drafting Committee. In his first report, the Special Rapporteur offers a comprehensive discussion of piracy and armed robbery at sea, on which he intends to base his further work. However, we regret that the proposed draft articles are difficult to identify, as they are only contained in the report of the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, but not in the ILC report itself. Despite the UN’s cost-cutting needs, a text inserted in footnotes in the ILC report would certainly not have led to major expenses. Permit me to offer some general remarks concerning the draft articles that were subject of this year's discussion in the Drafting Committee. Principally, we emphasize the function of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as the constitution of the ocean, which is the basis of the work on this topic and is not to be changed. We therefore welcome that the Special Rapporteur has grounded his work in this framework. We also share the view that the work on this topic can ultimately lead to the elaboration of a treaty, as reflected in the proposed form of draft articles complementing UNCLOS. At the same time, we stress that the future instrument should not duplicate or alter existing legal frameworks, but build upon them and address issues not sufficiently covered by current rules. Madam Chair, the Slavic States welcome the inclusion of the topic due diligence in international law in the Commission's programme of work. Due diligence has surfaced already in the times of the Alabama Award and the pertinent attempts of the League of Nations, and has become especially relevant in recent times. In particular, the two advisory opinions of the ICJ on obligations of states in respect of climate change of 2025 and of ITLOS of 2024 rely extensively on this concept. In this respect, we are very grateful to the Special Rapporteur for the presentation of the use of and reference to due diligence throughout the history of judicial decisions in various fields of international law such as neutrality, protection of property of foreigners, protection of the rights and interests of other states, international investment law, protection of diplomatic and consular personnel and property, international environmental law, international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and the crime of genocide, as well as law of the sea and the law concerning cyber activities. In the later context, Austria and Czechia have already expressed the view in our respective position papers on cyber activities and the application of international law that, in line with the judgment of the ICJ in the Corfu Channel case, also cyber activities have to be conducted in accordance with the rights of other States and that a state has to take all reasonable measures that are appropriate to prevent the violation through a cyber activity emanating from its territory and end such an activity. Although the enumeration of the fields of application shows an extremely broad spectrum, the legal character, the common substance, as well as the scope of due diligence has not yet been established. so that a clarification of these and other questions is absolutely necessary. In any case, we concur with the limitation of this discussion to the international law aspects of due diligence. Finally, we also agree with the Special Rapporteur that the practice of international organizations should be examined in the course of the ILC's consideration of the topic of due diligence. As regards the final form of this work of the ILC, we agree that the draft principles could be the appropriate final form, but believe that this decision should be deferred to a later stage. Madam Chair, the Slavic States also welcome the International Law Commission's decision to include the topic of compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts in its programme of work. This subject is particularly timely and relevant in the current international environment, and we thank the Special Rapporteur for the comprehensive first report and look forward to engaging further on this important topic. Let me begin by recalling that the Slavskov states have been actively involved in the development of the compensation mechanism for Ukraine within the framework of the Council of Europe. We are founding participants in the Register of Damage and engaged in the negotiations of the Convention establishing the International Claims Commission for Ukraine. We all signed the Convention, and the ratification processes are currently underway. We welcome the Special Rapporteur's emphasis on Article 6 of the Articles on State Responsibility, which is identified in the report as the basic rule governing compensation. We are of the opinion that Article 36 should remain the central point of reference for the Commission's future work. Its established customary status in international law provides a solid foundation for the ILC's consideration of questions relating to compensation for damage caused by internationally wrongful acts. We therefore fully agree with the Special Rapporteur that questions of liability for lawful acts or a discussion of primary norms is not covered by the scope ratione materiae of the topic. We also appreciate the Special Rapporteur's approach to the scope ratione personae of the topic, which includes not only compensation owed in the interstate setting, but also the right to compensation accorded to persons or entities other than states. After all, compensation under Article 36 may also be owed to such persons or entities. Contemporary practice shows the growing importance of mechanisms designed to address claims by individuals, legal persons, and other affected entities. In this regard, the Slavkov States suggest that special attention be devoted to the examination of various compensation mechanisms, including compensation commissions and mass claim mechanisms. In our view, the Commission's future work should consider these developments while remaining firmly grounded in the law of state responsibility. In that context, we support the idea that, in addition to identifying general rules and principles of compensation applicable across different areas of international law, the Special Rapporteur should also take into account, ascertain, and elaborate on special rules in this area. Last but not least, we would like to point out that a law of compensation must remain firmly grounded in the principle of full reparation of damage, as stated in the Kortsow factory judgment. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Austria, speaking on behalf of the Slavkov S3. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Belarus. You have the floor, sir.

Madam Chair, distinguished colleagues, my delegation would like to thank the International Law Commission and the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Matthias Fodor, for the reports and draft conclusions 1 to 5. on non-legally binding international agreements. We also wish to thank you for the detailed commentary on the conclusions. We welcome and support the work on this topic. Belarus has vast experience in concluding non-legally binding international agreements. We are constantly applying such documents and entering such documents with partner states across the world. These international documents genuinely play an important role in implementing, developing, and strengthening international cooperation, as they're flexible and there is a streamlined process for concluding such documents. These documents are adopted at various levels: interstate, intergovernmental, at the level of various ministries, departments, and regions. This is why it's so important for us that the final outcome of the ILC's work Well, it must be strictly practical and guided by state needs. We are particularly interested in this topic as we are going to consider the potential legal consequences of non-legally binding international agreements in light of general principles and norms of international law which relate to the process of establishing international legal obligations. We take a positive view of the rationale the Special Rapporteur gives for using the term "agreement" in this case. However, we reserve the right to revert back to this issue, the issue of what the relevant term should be, as we work on the other conclusions. proceeds. As you know, last year in our statement, we spoke in favor of using the term "understanding." Our position on this issue in substance remains unchanged. As for paragraph one of conclusion two, where it says, "In the absence of an intention of the parties to be legally bound by the agreement, it is not legally binding." My delegation deems it possible to recommend for additional analysis of the situation to be done, a situation whereby one of the participants to a bilateral document views it as an international treaty, whereas the other party sees it as a non-legally binding agreement. This applies, of course, to the drafting or preparation stage. We agree that no participant should unilaterally impose on the other participant his or her assessment of the nature of such an agreement. What matters is not the individual intention of one participant, but the unified intention common to all participants. Having said that, in light of the legal consequences arising from the conclusion of an international agreement and in light of para. 16 of the Commentary to Conclusion 3, perhaps it would be worthwhile, in para. 1 of Conclusion 4, for us to replace the word “participants” with the words “at least one of the participants”. After all, not every dispute or disagreement on the nature of such a document will be referred to the ICJ, which could factor in all of the parameters of Conclusion 4 as a whole. Hence, states need some less ambiguous norm for such instances of disputes. We support replacing non-legally binding international agreements with legally non-binding international agreements. Footnote 1178 to the commentary on para 1 of Conclusion 3. We support the RCI's conclusion in para 7 of Commentary 2 to Conclusion 5 on situations when it becomes blatant that there's a disconnect between the direct reference in the agreement to the fact that it is non-legally binding and other elements which point to the contrary. We've repeatedly come against such situations, but for now, regrettably, we don't have a solution to present to the ILC and to disseminate amongst participating States. Thus, Belarus will be following very closely the Special Rapporteur's work and the ILC's work on this issue, that is, the determination of the legal nature of the document. We hope that the work will continue on this chapter in constructive and open fashion. Next, prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. We read very carefully the report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Louis Savadogo. We agree that maritime security is a global matter. After all, piracy affects all kinds of vessels involved in maritime activities. Yet we believe that when analyzing the problem of piracy and armed robbery at sea, we should also emphasize the sociological causes of these phenomena. We note that the study on piracy and armed robbery at sea was comprehensive. It covered not just international instruments, but regional documents, national legislation, case law, including law enforcement measures, and the prosecution of persons detained for committing these acts. We welcome that the Special Rapporteur did not limit himself to looking at traditional legal issues, but also cast his gaze on contemporary realities, such as the use of UAVs and uncrewed vessels, as well as cybercrime at sea and jurisdictional issues, for instance, hot pursuit in the territorial sea of third States, and the matter of how to dispose of seized property. We hope that further work on this matter will ensure that we uphold the territorial sovereignty of States, setting clear limits between piracy committed on the high seas, where universal jurisdiction applies, and armed robbery at sea, which falls within the national jurisdiction of States. We will continue to follow this topic with a keen interest. Turning now to due diligence in international law, we are grateful to the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Penelope Ratting. for drafting the first report on this topic. My delegation, on the whole, supports this work and further focused discussions on the matter of due diligence. We believe that the materials used should be properly representative, paying due regard for national legislation. Regarding the form of the draft principles, we believe that we need to prepare draft conclusions at every stage. After all, the state practice and opinio juris are not sufficiently unified. They're very vast and diverse. On the basis of the work done on the draft conclusions and with due regard for the customary norms of international law, we could determine the direction of the progressive development of norms as regards due diligence, and then figure out what the form should be. We would like to thank the ILC for beginning work on compensation for damage caused by international wrongful acts. We hope that in further discussions They will focus on the limits of compensation on the basis of general norms of international law on state responsibility. Thus, when the report is considered, we'd like to draw your attention to three factors. First of all, the ILC should look at how to determine compensation for UCMs implemented in violation of international legal obligations, including on the basis of procedures which are in violation of international law. Belarus has unswervingly stated that these Measures are shorn of international legal rationale, are at odds with the fundamental principles of international law, and can result in serious economic and social consequences, not just for the states against which UCMs are imposed, but also for third party states and their populace. Second, we believe we need to further study the issue of compensation for damage caused by internationally wrongful acts committed by international organizations. We believe we need to separate out the limits where general norms on the responsibility of states can serve as our guidance for the crafting of relevant provisions applicable to international organizations, but we should factor in the international legal personality of international organizations, their statutes, and so on and so forth. Third, we believe that when crafting the rules for compensation, we should pay due attention to the nature, scope, and duration of the consequences arising from these violations of international law, for instance, genocide, as the consequences will ripple through further generations, doing long-term damage to their historical, social, and cultural development. We deem it important that we need to analyze the practice of national courts, international judicial bodies, and arbitration tribunals. This should be done critically. It should factor in the circumstances of specific cases, the evidence, and the methodology for calculating the damage. The ILC's conclusions should be underpinned by a legal rationale and the facts. It should not transfer specific approaches steeped in specific circumstances into the final document. Based on the information provided by the ILC and its plans for further activities, it becomes clear to us that the work is related to the study of myriad technical details from various spheres of international law, which will be very difficult to bring together into one unified document. I thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I am pleased to present the Republic of Poland's comments on Chapter 10, Prevention and Repression of Piracy and Armed Robbery at Sea, Chapter 11, Due Diligence in International Law, and Chapter 12, Compensation for the Damage Caused by Internationally Wrongful Acts, in the report of the International Law Commission from its 77th session. With respect to the topic prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, my delegation wishes to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Luis Savadogo, for his first report. We note the 18 draft articles proposed by the Special Rapporteur and would like to make following comments. On maritime cybercrime, we would caution against creating a provision which could go significantly beyond the scope of the topic. As to the issue of exercise by the state of its powers of enforcement, we are of the view that it would be best addressed in the commentary. On draft Article 7, Poland would be against a dedicated provision on hot pursuit in the territorial sea. We are of the view that Article 111 of UNCLOS remains a provision that does not need specification or development. Furthermore, we do not support a proposal that envisages equipping armed security personnel on board merchant ships with the powers that may be carried out only by government ships or aircrafts. Madam Chair, now let me turn to the topic due diligence in international law. Poland notes the first report by the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Penelope Writings, which identified issues and questions to be examined by the Commission. We agree with the Special Rapporteur that due diligence can be approached from two perspectives: firstly, as a standard of conduct associated with specific primary obligations; and secondly, as a specific primary rule of international law obliging States not to allow, knowingly, its territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights or interests of other States, that is, the so-called Corfu Channel case formula. Despite a certain element of overlap on the level of general considerations, we incline to the view that those two perspectives have significantly different theoretical underpinnings and should not be confused. Due diligence as a standard of conduct refers to the theory of international obligations, in particular to the classification of obligations as obligations of result and of conduct. The distinction was accepted by the National Court of Justice, inter alia, in the judgment on the dispute over the status and use of the waters of the Silala case, Chile versus Bolivia. Thus, from this standpoint, due diligence is a standard of performance of obligations of conduct and depends on a concrete primary obligation. Conversely, due diligence in the Corfu Channel case formula is a primary obligation per se. strictly connected to sovereignty and requires autonomous assessment. As we have mentioned last year, the Corfu Channel case formula is still applicable, as we see in States' practice concerning international law in cyberspace. Thus, we are of the view that this aspect of due diligence merits the Commission's special attention. Madam Chair, Poland is following the International Law Commission's work on the topic of compensation with great interest. recognizing its significant practical potential. We note the contribution of Special Rapporteur Martins Pāperinskins on his first report, which provides a foundation for the Commission's future work. Poland will closely follow the manner in which the Special Rapporteur addresses the broader scope ratione personae envisaged for this topic. We note that the broadening of scope is closely related to the answer to question one posed by the Special Rapporteur, which goes to the very framing of the Commission's work. In this context, we know that practice, including that referred to by the Special Rapporteur in his report, demonstrates that compensation regimes are often closely tailored to the nature of the primary obligation breached, and that the applicable rules concerning causation, damage, evaluation, and quantification may vary significantly across different legal contexts. At the same time, we consider that some proposals put forward by delegations Notably, those aimed at examining an individual right to compensation and exploring mechanisms through which such a right could be implemented may extend beyond the topic's appropriate scope. In our view, caution should be exercised to ensure that the Commission's work remains focused and manageable. With regard to the proposed extension of the topic scope to situations referred to in Article 27B of ARSIWA, namely the obligation to provide compensation in circumstances precluding wrongfulness, Poland acknowledges that further clarification of the nature and scope of such obligations could be useful. In particular, it would be beneficial to examine under which circumstances such an obligation arises and whether it differs from the obligation of compensation reflected in Article 36 of ARSIWA. Nevertheless, it should be recalled that when adopting ARSIWA, the Commission itself observed that the variety of situations covered by Chapter V was such that establishing a detailed regime of compensation would not be appropriate. With that in mind, we would encourage the Special Rapporteur to approach this aspect with caution and consider carefully whether a broadening of the scope in this direction would ultimately contribute to, rather than complicate, the Commission's work. As regards the form of the Commission's final output, we believe that it would be premature at this early stage to take a definitive position. While we appreciate the argument that continuity with RC1 may favor the adoption of draft articles, the present topic contains novel elements. The scope ratione materiae remains under development, and its precise contours have yet to be clarified. Moreover, it is already apparent that state practice and the practice of national courts and tribunals concerning the quantification of compensation remain diverse and often vary considerably across different legal regimes. For these reasons, Poland believes that consideration of the final form of the Commission's work should remain open until the topic's substantive contours become clear. I thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. I have the honour to address the Sixth Committee on the work of the ILC under cluster III, namely chapter IX, non-legally binding international agreements, and chapter XI, due diligence in international law. With regard to these two chapters, Slovenia aligns itself with the relevant statements of the European Union and would like to add the following remarks in its national capacity. First, with regard to non-legally binding international agreements, we would like to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Mathias Fortoe, for his third report. in which he updated his second report, as the latter could not be fully considered by the Commission in 2025. He also outlined possible avenues for the Commission's future consideration of the potential legal implications of non-legally binding international agreements. In our intervention, we will focus on draft conclusions as reformulated by the Commission following its consideration of these reports. Madam Chair, with regard to draft conclusion 2 concerning rules or procedures followed by States in relation to the drafting and adoption of non-legally binding international agreements, in particular footnote 1169, we would like to inform the Special Rapporteur and the Commission that, in 2026, Slovenia adopted the new Treaties and Other International Instruments Act, which replaced Chapter 5 of the Foreign Affairs Act cited in that footnote. In Chapter 3, the new act specifically regulates the internal procedures for the conclusion of non-legally binding international agreements. An English translation of the Act is available online, and a link to the relevant website has been provided in the written version of this statement. We also join the EU in welcoming the clarification in the commentary to this draft conclusion that it is supplemented by draft conclusion 3, paragraph 3, concerning the meaning of the term "agreement", which does not affect the meaning that may be attributed to that term in internal law. For the sake of clarity, and depending on future discussion, this draft conclusion could be drafted as a general conclusion relating to internal rules of States and international organizations, including the substance of draft conclusion 3, paragraph 3, and other parts of draft conclusions that already contain references to such rules or will contain them in the future. With regard to the definition of the term "agreement" in draft conclusion 3, we welcome the fact that the Commission has addressed in its commentary one of the issues we raised last year, namely that the term is intended to cover non-legally binding international agreements regardless of whether they are embodied in a single instrument or in multiple instruments. instruments. Regarding draft conclusions 4 and 5, we know that in paragraph 2 of draft conclusion 4, the assessment of the intention of participants by recourse to other relevant elements of the non-legally binding international agreements as a whole is to be made in the absence of an express indication of intention. By contrast, draft conclusion 5 states that the express indication of intention is "normally sufficient to identify such intention". Consequently, draft conclusion 4 seems to suggest that where there is an express indication of intention, the other relevant elements need to be assessed. Whereas the use of the term normally in draft conclusion five suggests that such express indication is not necessarily conclusive. This interpretation is supported by the commentary to draft conclusion five, which notes that where an express provision stating that a non-legally binding international agreement is not binding is at variance with other relevant elements. An assessment of "all relevant elements as a whole" appears to be called for. Madam Chair, secondly, on the work of the ILC under Chapter XI, due diligence in international law. Slovenia welcomes the Commission's work on the topic of due diligence in international law and would like to express its appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Penelope Ridings, for her dedicated work in preparing the first report. Concerning this challenging topic, Slovenia reiterates that the scope of this topic should encompass duties of vigilance and prevention. States may be required to impose such duties on private operators and other non-state actors. Slovenia would like to emphasize that due diligence is an obligation of conduct, requiring states to take reasonable and appropriate measures to prevent or mitigate foreseeable harm. Its content and scope should be assessed in the light of the applicable primary rule and the circumstances of each case. Slovenia welcomes the Commission's view that its work in these areas remains firmly grounded in state practice, relevant jurisprudence, and other sources of international law. In Slovenia's view, the concept of due diligence in international law is particularly relevant to further development and clarification of the law governing the prevention of harm. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to draw the Committee's attention to the full version of the statement available online. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Slovenia for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of South Africa. You have the floor, ma'am.

Thank you very much, Chair. South Africa aligns itself with the statement delivered by Cameroon on behalf of the African Group. South Africa thanks the Special Rapporteur for his third report on the topic of non-legally binding international agreements and welcomes the draft conclusions provisionally adopted by the Commission. We support the inclusion of international organizations and encourage the collection of their relevant practice, as well as consideration of arrangements involving ministries, agencies, and subnational authorities without prejudging their authority to represent or bind the state. Consistent with our written submission, we support an assessment centred on the express intention of the participants. Where this is absent or unclear, the wording, structure, subject matter, and context should be considered together. For the further work, we favour a non-exhaustive list of indicators, broadly grouped for practical use, with commentary explaining how the indicators may carry different weight in particular circumstances. We welcome further work on possible legal implications of non-binding international instruments, particularly for treaty interpretation and customary international law. These must be assessed under the applicable legal rules. We agree with the Special Rapporteur's caution against automatically extending findings concerning decisions taken within a particular treaty or institutional framework to other non-binding agreements. South Africa supports the Special Rapporteur's continued work on the legal questions while preserving the flexibility of non-binding instruments in international cooperation. We look forward to contributing to the Commission's further consideration of this topic. Chair, turning to the topic of due diligence in international law, South Africa wishes to thank the Special Rapporteur for her work and the Commission for its engagement with a topic that is increasing in significance. Due diligence is used across a range of areas in international law, which necessitates careful consideration to guard against any unintended conflation of a concept which operates in diverse contexts. The proposal by the Special Rapporteur to explore both conceptions of due diligence as a standard of conduct and as a general obligation will be useful. South Africa agrees that due diligence is necessarily an in concreto assessment, which must remain responsive to the differing circumstances in which states are required to act. The concepts of knowledge, foreseeability, and risk merit particular attention. Especially given the advances in scientific knowledge and technologies, which may alter foreseeability and consequently state responses. Importantly, due regard must be had for the protection of rights and the prevention of harm. We support the Special Rapporteur's proposal that the final outcome should take the form of draft principles, as well as her intention to proceed incrementally and to draw upon a broad range of legal resources and perspectives. Valuable insights may be gathered from regional jurisprudence. Developments within the African regional human rights system may be of particular relevance. These developments have increasingly emphasized preventive measures aimed at identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks before harm materializes, including through meaningful consultation and participation processes involving affected communities. As the activities of private actors increasingly give rise to trans-boundary and global consequences, questions concerning the scope of State responsibilities to prevent, mitigate, and respond to foreseeable harms warrant careful consideration. As such, we consider that it would be useful to give attention to situations involving the conduct of non-State actors, including business enterprises of a transnational character operating within a State's jurisdiction or control. The Commission's consideration of this topic presents an important opportunity to examine and contribute to a more coherent understanding of due diligence in international law. Chair, lastly, South Africa wishes to welcome the inclusion of the topic compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts in the Commission's program of work, and thanks the Special Rapporteur for his first report and the extensive preparatory work undertaken. This topic has considerable practical importance for securing reparation and supporting the peaceful settlement of disputes. We offer these preliminary observations as we continue to consider the questions raised. Firstly, we support building on the articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts, particularly Article 36. The study should keep the principle of full reparation and the respective roles of compensation, restitution, and satisfaction. Secondly, we agree that care is needed when drawing general rules from specialized regimes, including investment arbitration, given their particular legal basis. The study should also draw on geographically representative practice. Thirdly, South Africa would welcome further consideration of the difficulties of proving and quantifying damage caused by internationally wrongful acts, where harm to individuals and communities are widespread and lasting. We encourage the Commission to consider how to quantify any compensation due in claims arising from historical injustices, including colonialism, slavery, and forced labor. Particular attention should be given to the difficulty of assessing harm that communities have suffered across generations. Fourthly, we await the Secretariat's study on the responsible state's financial capacity before expressing a position on this question. South Africa considers it important to distinguish the determination of compensation from arrangements for its payment, with due regard to full reparation and the rights of those entitled to compensation. Finally, Regarding form, South Africa sees merit in the Special Rapporteur's proposed use of draft articles, given the topic's close relationship with the Commission's earlier work on state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts. The accompanying commentaries could provide practical guidance on assessment and valuation while reflecting differences in the relevant legal contexts. We welcome the questionnaire and the opportunity for states to contribute their practice and views. South Africa will continue to follow this work closely, particularly its implications for effective reparation for those who have suffered harm. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of South Africa for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States of America. You have the floor, ma'am.

Madam Chair. Today I will deliver a slightly abridged version of our remarks, touching on all the topics in this cluster. Our full statement will be submitted for the record. I turn first to the topic of non-legally binding international agreements and the provisional adoption of draft conclusions 1 through 5. As an initial matter, we appreciate the commentary's acknowledgment that States and international organizations have considerable freedom and variety of practice in this area. and the Special Rapporteur's objective that the draft conclusions be indicative rather than prescriptive in nature. Our overarching concern continues to be that the term "agreement" should not be used for this topic. We have explained that, like many other states, the United States does not use and expressly refrains from using the term "agreement" to refer to documents or exchanges that do not give rise to legally binding rights or obligations. Use of the phrase "non-legally binding international agreements" in the ILC's work would undermine this state practice and create the kind of legal uncertainty the ILC's work should be aimed at reducing. We continue to believe that an alternative term, such as instruments, should be used. Any questions about the scope of that term could be addressed without creating the potential harm that the use of agreements generates. We urge the Commission to revisit its decision to retain this terminology. In our view, updates to all the draft conclusions are needed in light of the terminology problem. There are also other drafting issues to consider, including one that we will highlight with respect to draft conclusion 4. While we generally agree that whether an international instrument is legally binding or not depends on the participants' intentions, We are concerned that this draft conclusion places too much emphasis on expressed statements about an instrument's legal effect. In the ordinary course, the legal character of an instrument is established by consideration of the terminology used to draft the text, and that should be reflected in how draft conclusion 4 is structured. I will turn next to the topic of prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, taking note of the provisional adoption by the drafting committee of the draft articles. As a general matter, we agree with those members of the commission noting the need to distinguish between piracy and armed robbery at sea. Given that armed robbery at sea occurs within the internal waters, archipelagic waters, or territorial sea of a state, Conflating these offenses can risk intrusion into the territorial sovereignty of States, as well as on States' bilateral or multilateral practices and arrangements in addressing armed robbery at sea. As we noted last year, we think the form of output should be revisited. One concern we have with draft articles is that in addressing armed robbery at sea, They could threaten to undermine state sovereignty and territorial waters by adding requirements, possibly one-size-fits-all requirements, that do not suit the range of circumstances and types of cooperation that are appropriate in areas of national sovereignty. This contrasts with piracy on the high seas, where UNCLOS and the customary international law reflects already provide sufficient rules and reflect the universal jurisdiction states have exercised for centuries. Finally, on this topic, we agree with those Commission members who called for further examination of state practice and for clarification as to whether the draft articles reflect codification or proposals for a progressive development. I turn next to the topic of due diligence in international law and the first report of the Special Rapporteur. The report indicates that two conceptions of due diligence will be explored in future work. Due diligence as a standard of conduct associated with a given primary obligation on a state against which compliance will be assessed, and as a general obligation on a state not to knowingly allow its territory to be used for acts that harm the rights or interests of other states. As the United States has previously made clear, we do not believe there is sufficient support under customary international law for a general or autonomous obligation of due diligence. We agree with members of the Commission who cautioned against imposing obligations upon States without their consent, and we underscore the importance of ensuring any future work is precisely scoped so as not to create new obligations outside of specific primary rules. I turn finally to the topic of compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts. The United States concurs with the Special Rapporteur's approach, as indicated in his first report, that the scope of the topic be limited, consistent with the approach to the articles on state responsibility more generally, to secondary rules on compensation. It would be highly inappropriate for this work, specific to compensation, to revisit more general and longstanding primary rules of responsibility. Similarly, we note that any analysis of causality, including in the context of varied primary obligations, must recognize the foundational principle that a party seeking compensation must prove the existence of a causal nexus between any internationally wrongful act and the injury suffered. We concur with the Special Rapporteur's and the Commission's recognition of the importance of state practice. At the same time, we agree that such practice should be treated with caution, because negotiated settlements, lump sum agreements, and voluntary payments often reflect political, diplomatic, and practical compromises rather than evidence of opinio iuris. Similar caution should be applied to the examination of any General Assembly resolutions. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United States of America for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Switzerland. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In the interest of time, we're going to read an abridged version of our statement and we'll submit the full version to the Secretariat. Non-legally binding international agreements. Switzerland welcomes the remarkable progress made by the Commission following the second and third reports of Mr. Matthias Faltow, the Special Rapporteur, whom it thanks and congratulates for his valuable commitment and significant work. With regard to the initial draft conclusions, Switzerland fully supports conclusions 1, 2, 4 and 5. It particularly welcomes the last two. which specify that the legally binding or non-binding nature of an agreement is determined on a case-by-case basis and that the indicators for making the distinction must be assessed as a whole. These conclusions give due weight to the intention of the participants. The third report sets out the possible criteria in paragraph 105, pending the Commission’s more detailed views and the incorporation of these criteria into new draw conclusions, Switzerland wishes to comment on two of them. First, sub-paragraph (e) sets out the criterion of the subject matter governed. Switzerland hopes that the Commission will examine in greater depth the question of whether it is possible to regulate any subject matter through a non-legally binding instrument, or whether there are limits. In its practice, Switzerland does not categorically exclude any subject matter, provided that it is appropriately formulated. However, certain matters generally require legal safeguards. judicial dispute resolution, protection of information that may be classified, staff status, fixed time limits, financial obligations, detailed financial plans, precise procedures, liabilities, etc. Secondly, Subparagraph (i) refers to the subsequent conduct of the participants. This criterion has been recently recognized by the International Court of Justice. However, the perspective of a court called upon to rule retrospectively on the nature of a text is not the same as that of a state which must determine this before signing. Indicators can therefore for assessing the participants’ common intention may therefore evolve over time. Regarding draft conclusion 3, Switzerland reiterates its significant reservation regarding the use of the term “agreement” in the title of the topic. It considers that the term “agreement” should be avoided and reserved for treaties. This has already been raised on several occasions, including within the Commission and by numerous States. Choosing a different term would simplify draft conclusion 3, which is rather complex for an introduction. and allow the third paragraph to be deleted. The reasons put forward for retaining the term 'agreement' are not convincing. How can this term be justified when the majority of case law, legal doctrine and state practice avoid it both in titles and throughout any non-legally binding text? How can we continue in practice to avoid this misleading term in a non-legally binding text if the Commission itself enshrines it in the title of this study? The Commission should therefore replace it with another term. There are better options. The Commission discussed the term ‘instrument’ at length. It ultimately did not adopt it for reasons that are only partially convincing. The term ‘instrument’ is indeed used, in particular by the ICJ, and could be clearly defined. However, if a consensus cannot be reached on the term ‘instrument’, which admittedly does not include the notion of meeting of minds, then the Commission should at least give further consideration to the term ‘understanding’. In any event, the terms ‘understanding’ or ‘instrument’ would be better alternatives, as ‘agreement’ is a term specific to the law of treaties, which is indeed important to avoid here. In the same vein, The Commission has, moreover, already opted for the terms ‘adopt’ rather than ‘conclude’ and ‘participant’ rather than ‘party’ in order to avoid, to quote footnote 1152 of the Commission’s report, “any confusion and any terminological parallelism with treaty law”. Switzerland therefore concludes on this issue by proposing that the title be changed to ‘legally non-binding international understandings’. Now, due diligence in international law. Madam Chair, Switzerland thanks the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Penelope Ridings, for her first report on due diligence in international law. With regard to the future programme of work, Switzerland supports the approach adopted by the Special Rapporteur, which is to focus her next report on due diligence as a standard of conduct, whilst remaining open to the possibility of an autonomous obligation and to further research in this regard. In viewing due diligence as a standard of conduct, Switzerland wishes to emphasize the importance of identifying common criteria for determining the applicable standard. In this context, Switzerland would also welcome a debate on the relevance of the different levels of requirements that may apply to due diligence as a standard of conduct, depending on the content and nature of the relevant primary obligation. With regard to the Special Rapporteur’s work in her second report, Switzerland welcomes her decision to examine State practice on opinio juris. In terms of reparation for injury caused by an internationally wrongful act, Madam Chair, please allow me to turn briefly to the issue of compensation for harm caused by an internationally wrongful act. Switzerland thanks the Special Rapporteur, Martyns Pabarinskis, for his report on this subject, and we underscore the importance of ensuring that violations of international law lead to effective reparation, in particular through redress. We believe that causality is not merely a preliminary issue; it determines the delimitation of the harm that needs to be compensated for. eligible for compensation. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. My delegation would like to express its high appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Mathias Forteau, for another excellent, well-structured report on the subject of non-legally binding international agreements. We are also grateful to the Commission for the progress made on the topic and the adoption of the five draft conclusions. As a general remark, we reiterate that the Commission should not develop an international legal regime for non-binding international agreements and should not affect the flexibility that generally characterizes this type of documents and the freedom of choice states have in their design. We also welcome the approach of the Commission to assist States without interfering with the rules in place at national level to guide the participation of States and of their governmental authorities in such agreements. We continue to believe that limiting the scope of the analysis to non-legally binding international agreements rather than instruments is the correct approach, leaving outside documents which are not reflective of a mutual understanding or are emanations of international organizations. Romania is also content to see the circumstances in which the agreements concluded by different territorial units of a state fall within the purview of the draft conclusions if the national legal order of that state allow those territorial units to enter into legally binding agreements. We are also in agreement with the sequencing in draft conclusions 4 and 5. The express intention is, in our opinion, the strongest indicator that a document lacks legal force. The very purpose of including a provision to that end into an agreement is to clarify its legal nature, and, in absence of such express intention, other elements should be taken into account in order to distill the legal nature of the agreement. We will follow with great interest the future substantive work of the Commission on this topic. Turning to chapter 10, my delegation welcomes the International Law Commission's timely progress on the prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. We express our sincere appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Louis Savadogo, for his rigorous and comprehensive work. As we engage with the rich outcomes of the Commission's plenary debates, my delegation wishes to highlight three critical elements that must guide our upcoming deliberations in the Sixth Committee. First, the absolute primacy of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea must be maintained. UNCLOS remains the constitutions of the oceans. The ILC's work should be strictly lex ferenda, aimed at filling operational gaps, not altering the delicate jurisdictional balance already established. In this regard, we concur with the Commission's plenary consensus regarding the strict two-ship requirement under Article 101. Second, we must vigorously guard the legal distinction between piracy and armed robbery at sea. Piracy on the high seas triggers universal jurisdiction. Because armed robbery falls squarely under national sovereignty, any provision on cross-border enforcement, such as hot pursuit into territorial seas, must strictly require the explicit and presumed consent of the coastal state. Cooperation mechanisms must respect rather than infringe upon domestic law enforcement and state sovereignty. Third, my delegation advocates for conciseness and flexibility. The 18 highly detailed draft articles initially proposed risk becoming over granular and quickly obsolete. We echo the views expressed during the ILC plenary that the draft text should focus on broad, enduring principles. My delegation looks forward to a constructive debate on the topic, ensuring that the final output offer clear, practical guidance for multinational naval operations while preserving the integrity of established international law. With regard to chapter 11, we congratulate the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Penelope Ridings, for her comprehensive first report. We also welcome the rich debate on the topic in the ILC, which highlighted the challenges it raises when trying to identify a general approach to due diligence that should be able to accommodate all of its manifestations. While due diligence is deeply rooted in the principle of state sovereignty, it operates today as a flexible standard central to cross-cutting global challenges such as cyberspace and climate change, where states must ensure their territory is not used to cause transboundary harm. To guide the Commission's future framework, Romaina emphasizes three foundational pillars. A clear legal distinction must be maintained between due diligence as a standalone primary obligation and due diligence serving as a standard of conduct. The level of vigilance required of a state cannot be static. While maintaining a demanding standard of conduct, the final framework must account for the varying economic realities and technical capacities of states, ensuring that obligations remain realistic, fair, and universally applicable. In conclusion, Romania believes that clarifying the scope and content of due diligence is a necessity to ensure predictability and prevent conflict in our highly interconnected world. Turning to chapter 12, Romania congratulates the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Martins Pāpārinskis, and welcomes his first report on the topic of compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts, and commends the Commission for the debate and direction given to its further study. At this point, Romania would like to make the following remarks in what concerns the approach to the topic, picking up on some of the elements in the first report. The quantification of compensation should be subject to equitable adjustments in order to avoid crippling compensations. Investment disputes should not be the central pillar when discussing compensation matters. Non-material damage deserves equal attention. Moral suffering, violations of human dignity, harm to communities, and environmental damage should not be treated as secondary concerns simply because they cannot be valued like commercial assets. Caution is recommended when including international organizations, as combining their responsibility rules with state responsibility could complicate an already broad project. The Commission should address the issue of having both a state and an individual claim compensation for the same conduct. In line with the EU position, Romania supports the possibility for individuals to have a direct and enforceable right to a compensation for damage caused by internationally wrongful acts. While exploring the possible ways of doing so, Romania would refer, as an example, to the International Claims Commission for Ukraine. Developing a clear, in-depth method of establishing the quantum for compensation is very much needed, both when it represents the only reparation measure that has been used, but also when compensation comes as a complementary measure to restitution, when the latter was not sufficient to cover the damages. To conclude, we commend again the ILC and the Special Rapporteur on their work on the topic and remain interested in the future work. Madam Chair, this concludes my intervention on cluster III. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation will speak mainly on chapter 10 of the report, on the prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. Madam Chair, We will address, first of all, the prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, which is a matter of particular importance for the Kingdom of Morocco, which is a coastal country that has coasts on the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. We thank the ILC. for their work on this issue, and we congratulate the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Louis Savadogo, as well as his predecessor, Mr. Yakouba Cissé, for their commitment and the quality of their work. My delegation welcomes the presentation in the first report of the Special Rapporteur of 18 draft articles on this essential issue for the security of our seas. Current international events acutely recall that the safety of maritime spaces and the protection of commercial shipping routes still face complex challenges. We note with regret the persistence of acts of criminality on the high seas, characterized by the emergence of asymmetric modus operandi and an uptick in attacks targeting freedom of navigation and maritime security. Regional cooperation is the extension of the draft articles, and it is at this level that we can engage in prevention, information exchange, capacity building, making them fully effective and in line with the rules of international law. The process of the African Atlantic States, launched under the initiative of His Majesty King Mohammed VI, may God assist him, is fully part of this logic. Since the first ministerial meeting that took place in Rabat in June 2022, he's made a political dialogue and security one of the three pillars dealing with maritime piracy and transnational organized crime. It's in the framework of the meeting that Morocco brought together in Rabat in January 2025, the UN Counterterrorism Office, the states of the process to discuss maritime security and the contribution of emerging technologies. voicing concerns under Article 5, my delegation invites the Commission to take account of these regional initiatives as it progresses in its work. The response of the international community must be based on a rigorous balance between efficacy and respect for international law. Implementation measures cannot give rise to arbitrary or unilateral interventions. The actions to fight against these offences must be in line with the guarantees of the UNCLOS, preserving the freedom of navigation, the competencies of the Convention recognizes respectively the flag state and the coastal state. Now, we wish to underscore five points. First of all, in terms of Article 5, Morocco welcomes the taking account of the contemporary reality, such as the use of uncrewed aircraft, autonomous maritime drones, or acts of maritime cybercriminality. These must be defined precisely in order to preserve their coherence with existing instruments on the law of the sea. Second, in terms of the exercise of law enforcement and police powers under article 6, and the role of the authorized vessel subject to draft article 9, my delegation underscores the need to strictly govern the rules of engagement. The use of force must remain a measure of exception governed by the principles of legality, necessity, proportionality and precaution. The power to seize due to piracy that Article 11 reserves to warships and military vessels and aircraft, or those run by public services and law enforcement, must not be extended to private security firms operating on board merchant vessels. Thirdly, in terms of draft article 7, on the pursuit in the territorial seas of another state, Morocco reaffirms that any pursuit or coercive action in the waters under national sovereignty is subject to the prior and express consent of the coastal state. The continuity of the pursuit must not justify any attack against the sovereignty of the coastal State. Fourth, my delegation supports draft article 13 and the obligation to provide relief and rescue to victims, as well as draft article 14. Fifthly, Morocco supports the reaffirmation of the primacy of the Convention, which is the constitution of the oceans, and in this regard it remains essential to preserve the distinction between piracy and armed robbery at sea. The Kingdom of Morocco notes with interest the invitation extended to the States by the Commission in its report, and reaffirms the fact that we stand ready to contribute to a safe, stable maritime space that's respectful of the sovereignty of all. Madam Chair, moving on now to the diligence required in international law. due diligence and international law, we thank the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Penelope Ridings, and support the emphasis on due diligence as a standard of behavior, and efforts of a state must be appreciated in light of the real situation. We cannot expect the same of a country with limited means that we can expect of a country with significant resources. My delegation underscores the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between primary rules that determine what due diligence requires and secondary rules on the responsibility of states in cases of lackings. We call for more prudence in terms of the idea of the general autonomous idea, in particular in new areas such as cyberspace and artificial intelligence. We prioritize a central and pragmatic approach where efficacy of due diligence is based on international cooperation and capacity building, far from being an instrument of constraint. Due diligence must serve as a tool for mutual confidence, trust, and cooperation. In terms now of non-legally binding international agreements, which are more and more present in the diplomatic practice of States, my delegation wishes to make a brief observation. My delegation thanks the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Mathias Fortuyn, and takes note of the provisional adoption of draft conclusions 1 to 5. We share the approach according to which the intention of participants is key for establishing the legal nature of an instrument, and we invite the Commission to not attribute to these instruments legal effects that their drafters did not intend to. By way of conclusion, Madam Chair, my delegation thanks Mr. Mangianis for the quality with which he headed up the work of the Commission this year, and we thank the Special Rapporteur as well as the Codification Division for a particularly productive meeting. While the Commission is reaching the last weeks of its session, we hope that the next session will be crowned with success. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation would like to offer brief remarks on four topics under cluster 3 of the work of the International Law Commission. On non-legally binding international agreements, we thank the Commission and the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Mathias Furtu, for their work on this topic. and for the presentation of the third report. Non-legally binding international agreements are an important feature of contemporary international relations. Their non-binding character does not necessarily mean that international law is irrelevant to them or that they cannot have legal implications. Given their growing use and the questions they raise concerning their nature, interpretation and potential effects, clarifying the applicable international law is important for enhancing legal certainty. The third report usefully examines three key issues: the possible role of non-legally binding international agreements in the formation or identification of customary international law and general principles of law, their potential interpretative role, and the possible application of general principles and rules of international law, including good faith, the duty to cooperate, acquiescence, and estoppel in this context. We note the proposal to consider a draft conclusion recognizing that the identification of possible legal implications of a non-legally binding international agreement depends primarily on the intention of its authors, as reflected in particular in the agreement itself. At the same time, the Commission’s work should not result in creation of a separate legal regime parallel to the law of treaties. Further views and information from States would be useful before proceeding with a detailed examination of the topic. On prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, we appreciate the work of Special Rapporteur Mr. Louis Savadogo. His first report reviews international legal instruments on cooperation in combating piracy and armed robbery at sea, as well as relevant national legislation and State practice concerning enforcement measures. The report proposes 18 draft articles, of which draft articles 5 to 14 have been referred to the Drafting Committee. The proposed consideration of the use of new technologies, including autonomous and remotely operated vessels, in the commission of acts of piracy or armed robbery at sea is welcome. The Commission's work should complement and clarify the existing legal framework, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, without undermining its established principles and provisions. Addressing armed robbery at sea also requires due consideration of relevant international law, regional cooperation arrangements, state practice, and domestic legislative and judicial frameworks. On due diligence in international law, the inclusion of due diligence in international law in the Commission's programme of work and the appointment of Ms Penelope Readings as Special Rapporteur are welcome. Her first report is preliminary in nature and seeks the views of States and Commission members on the scope, approach and possible form of the topic. The examination of due diligence should begin with the specific primary obligation concerned, as its content and scope vary across different areas of international law. It is therefore important to distinguish between obligations of conduct and obligations of result, and to recognize that an obligation of due diligence does not in itself guarantee the prevention of harm in every circumstance. Any conclusions should be firmly grounded in established treaty and customary international law, supported by relevant state practice and judicial decisions. An expansive interpretation that creates new obligations unsupported by existing international law should be avoided. We look forward to contributing to the Commission's deliberations to promote conceptual clarity and legal certainty while respecting the sovereign equality of States. Madam Chair, on compensation for damage caused by international wrongful acts, we thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Martins Pēperins, for his first report. The proposed focus on Article 36 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, alongside related issues necessary to identify the applicable rules on compensation, provides a useful basis for the Commission’s work. The topic is confined to compensation and is without prejudice to other forms of reparation, including restitution and satisfaction. The Commission's work should remain consistent with the applicable rules of customary international law and should not prejudge questions falling outside the topic's scope. Coherence with related work in other forums is also important. This includes the Institute of International Law's work on the determination of quantum in international adjudication. Working Group III of the UNCITRAL on Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform, and the work of the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law on international investment contracts. I thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Madam Chair, Thailand expresses its sincere appreciation to the International Law Commission, its Special Rapporteur, and the Secretariat for their dedicated work, and we welcome the progress achieved on the four topics under consideration. Turning first to non-legally binding international agreements, Thailand welcomes the provisional adoption of draft conclusions together with their commentaries. These agreements offer states a flexible means of cooperation, making it important to provide legal clarity without creating a parallel regime to the law of treaties. Thailand welcomes the emphasis in draft conclusion 4 and 5 on the intention of the participants, while an express indication of non-binding intention is normally sufficient, its relationship with other relevant elements merits further consideration, particularly where the terms or context of an agreement suggest a different understanding. A coherent assessment of intention is essential to legal certainty and respect for the autonomy of the participants. Thailand also looks forward to the examination of the possible legal implication of such agreements. Although they do not create binding obligation under international law, they may nevertheless be relevant to treaty interpretation or identification of customary international law. This distinction between their non-binding character and possible legal relevance could provide valuable practical guidance to states. Madam Chair, turning to the prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, Thailand appreciates the Special Rapporteur's examination of national practice and regional cooperation frameworks, including those in Southeast Asia. Thailand attaches great importance to maintaining coherence with the existing legal framework, particularly on clause The distinction between piracy and armed robbery at sea, which are governed by different jurisdictional regimes, has significant implications for enforcement powers and international cooperation. We would welcome further consideration of the legal basis for any proposed obligations extending beyond existing rule while respecting the sovereignty and jurisdiction of coastal states. In this context, another important distinction is that between prevention and repression. Article 100 of UNCLOS addresses cooperation in the repression of piracy, whereas extending comparable obligations to prevention or armed robbery at sea raises distinct legal considerations. Thailand also welcome attention to emerging technologies, including electronic tools and uncrewed vessels, as well as to humanitarian dimension of this topic, particularly cooperation in the rescue, protection, and assistance of victims consistent with the applicable international law. Madam Chair, turning to due diligence in international law, Thailand welcomes the Special Rapporteur's first report. A central question is whether due diligence constitutes an autonomous obligation or a standard of conduct associated with particular primary obligations. While the notion or the concept of due diligence arises across different fields of international law, its content and function may vary according to the applicable rules and circumstances. We therefore welcome the Commission's examination of whether due diligence operates as an autonomous obligation or as a standard of conduct associated with specific primary obligations. In our view, any broader conclusion concerning a general obligation would benefit from a careful assessment of respective state practice and opinio juris. while preserving the distinction between primary obligations and the secondary rules of state responsibility. Thailand also see practical value in identifying relevant criteria for assessing due diligence, including the nature and gravity of risk, knowledge, and foreseeability, and the state's capacity and means of act. Such an assessment is necessarily contextual, but this does not diminish the legal significance of due diligence. In this context, while due diligence concerns states' obligations and conduct of non-state actors may also be relevant to assessing state compliance, we further recognize the importance of drawing on geographically diverse state practice, including that of Asia-Pacific and developing countries. Madam Chair, lastly, on compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful act, Thailand welcomes the Special Rapporteur's first report and his examination of Article 36 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. While the principle of full reparation is well established, determining compensation raises complex question of causation, valuation, and equitable considerations. Thailand sees particular value in greater clarity on these issues. In this regard, Thailand attaches importance to the relationship between effective reparation and equitable considerations. Compensation serves to address injury rather than impose punishment. We therefore welcome the Commission's request for a Secretariat study on the relevance of a responsible state's financial capacity, without prejudging its possible legal implications. Thailand also considers that negotiated settlements between states may offer valuable insight alongside judicial and arbitral decisions, while specialized regime including investor-state dispute settlement, provide useful experience, their particular legal context deserve careful consideration when identifying general secondary rules of state responsibility. Madam Chair, in closing, Thailand reiterate its appreciation for the Commission's contribution to codification and progressive development of international law, and look forward to its continued work. Thank you, madam Chair.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and it is good to see you chairing our meeting this morning. At the outset, Nigeria aligns itself with the statement delivered by the delegation of Cameroon earlier. on behalf of the Africa Group and makes the following remarks on chapters 9 to 12 of the report in its national capacity.

Madam Chair, Nigeria expresses its appreciation to the Special

Rapporteur, Mr. Mathias Fortu, and notes the provisional adoption of draft conclusions 1 to

5 on the topic of non-legally binding international agreements.

The distinction between treaties and non-binding instruments has direct constitutional consequences for Nigeria. The Treaties-Making Procedure Act of Nigeria sets out how agreements are concluded and approved. Ministries and agencies regularly conclude memoranda of understanding that are not intended to create legal obligations. As we make necessary arrangements to submit written comments ahead of the deadline of 1st December 2026, we underscore this preliminary feedback. The Commission's work should confirm that intention of parties as shown by the terms and circumstances of an instrument is clear and unambiguous, so that non-binding instruments cannot be used to create legal obligations without the consent of states expressed through their constitutional procedures. Madam Chair, the topic of prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea is of particular importance to Nigeria and the Gulf of Guinea. We congratulate the Special Rapporteur, our own Professor Louis Savadogo, on his first report. We also welcome the referral of draft articles 5 to 14 to the drafting committee. In 2019, Nigeria enacted the Suppression of Acts and Other Maritime Offences Act, the first standalone anti-piracy law in Western Central Africa. The law criminalizes piracy and armed robbery at sea, provides for jurisdiction over such offenses, and has led to successful prosecutions before the Federal High Court in Nigeria. Nigeria has also invested in maritime security through the Integrated National Security and Waterways Protection Infrastructure, known as the Deep Blue Project, and cooperates with its neighbors under the Yaoundé Code of Conduct of 2013. These efforts have contributed to a significant fall in piracy incidents in the Gulf of Guinea. Nigeria asks the Commission to maintain the distinction between piracy on the high seas, which is subject of universal jurisdiction under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and armed robbery at sea, which occurs within the territorial sea and falls under the sovereignty of the coastal state. The draft article should call for and emphasize the importance of strengthening the capacity of coastal states to prosecute, support regional arrangements such as the Yaoundé architecture, and address the evidentiary and procedural challenges that national courts face in the piracy trials. Nigeria will share its legislation and relevant decisions of its courts in response to the Commission's request. Madam Chair, turning to the topic of due diligence in international law, Nigeria expresses its gratitude to the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Penelope Ridings, for her first report. Nigeria welcomes the Commission’s focus on due diligence in the performance of specific primary obligations and urges caution in the identification of any general obligation.

It is our view

that the standard of due diligence should take account of the means and capacity available to States concerned. The Commission's reflections on the conduct of business enterprises and transnational corporations are of direct interest to Nigeria, whose experience of environmental harm in the Niger Delta shows the importance of the responsibilities of the states in which such enterprises are based. Furthermore, we welcome the first report and request for a Secretariat memorandum on the topic of compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts, and expresses Nigeria's appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Martin's The Commission is further persuaded to give due attention to compensation for environmental damage and take into consideration the views expressed in the Sixth Committee, including by the African Group and echoed by many African States, on reparation for historical injustices. This should be viewed in the context of the African Union Declaration of 2026-2035 as a decade of justice for Africans and peoples. people of African descent through reparations. In conclusion, Madam Chair, Nigeria reaffirms its support for the Commission and will continue to engage with its work, including by providing information on its national law and practice, with a view towards strengthening the progressive.

Codification of international law.

I thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair. New Zealand again expresses its deep appreciation to the International Law Commission for its report on the work of the 77th session. New Zealand wishes to make observations on two important areas of the Commission’s ongoing work under cluster III. in particular, non-legally binding international agreements and due diligence in international law. New Zealand commends Special Rapporteur Mathias Forteau for his progress on his report on non-legally binding international agreements. The Commission’s efforts to clarify the nature and operation of non-legally binding international agreements will assist States in navigating an area of growing significance on the international stage. Non-legally binding international instruments play an important role in international cooperation. They provide states with valuable flexibility to address evolving circumstances, to pursue practical cooperation, and to respond to emerging challenges where legally binding commitments may be unnecessary or inappropriate. Preserving that flexibility is therefore essential. At the same time, New Zealand considers that a clear understanding of the distinction between legally binding and non-legally binding instruments promotes transparency, predictability, and legal certainty in international relations. We therefore welcome the special rapporteur's approach, which seeks to clarify existing practice without constraining the diverse ways in which states choose to engage internationally. New Zealand's own practice maintains a clear distinction between treaties, which create rights and obligations under international law, and non-legally binding arrangements. Whether an instrument is intended to be legally binding turns on the intention of the participants, assessed in light of the text of the instrument and all relevant circumstances. New Zealand's own practice is to avoid referring to non-legally binding instruments as agreements, as we reserve that term for legally binding instruments. In New Zealand's view, the Commission's work should continue to focus on identifying practical indicators that assist in determining the intended legal character of an instrument, while avoiding the development of prescriptive criteria that could inadvertently limit state practice. New Zealand agrees with draft conclusion five that the intention of the parties is a key element. when determining whether an agreement is binding, and that the assessment of an agreement's binding nature should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Regarding draft conclusion 6, we also consider that an express indication of intention is one of many important factors that should be assessed together with all relevant elements bearing on the intentions of the participants. We would welcome further clarification that the absence of any express indication is without prejudice to the nature of the agreement, and we look forward to further consideration of the relevant indicators in the absence of any expressed indication. Chair, New Zealand also welcomes the Commission’s continued consideration of due diligence in international law and commends Special Rapporteur Dr. Penelope Writings for her comprehensive and thoughtful first report. Dr. Writings’ report provides a strong foundation for the Commission’s future consideration of this important and evolving area of international law. New Zealand particularly welcomes the Special Rapporteur's inductive methodology, grounded firmly in state practice and opinio juris. This approach is especially important given the diverse ways in which due diligence arises across different fields of international law, and, of course, the need to ensure that the Commission's work remains closely connected to the realities of state practice. We consider the report strikes an appropriate balance between recognising the growing prominence of due diligence in international legal discourse and acknowledging the significant differences in how the concept is understood and applied across various legal regimes. We are therefore particularly encouraged by the Special Rapporteur's clear commitment to drawing upon diverse state practice and legal traditions. A broad evidentiary base will be essential to ensuring the Commission's work remains inclusive, relevant, and useful to states. New Zealand supports the future direction of the programme of work outlined in the report. We see value in examining the legal basis of due diligence, including whether aspects of due diligence may be reflected in customary international law or general principles of law. New Zealand's view is that due diligence operates primarily as a standard of conduct, attaching to relevant primary obligations, rather than as a freestanding obligation. We look forward to the Commission's analysis of this issue as grounded in state practice and opinio juris. New Zealand again commends Dr. Penelope Rawlings for her leadership on this topic and her comprehensive first report. We look forward to the Commission's continued work under her guidance. Chair, in conclusion, New Zealand thanks the Commission for its continued work on these important topics and its work overall. Taken together, the Commission's work demonstrates its continuing value in bringing greater clarity and coherence to areas of international law and of growing practical relevance to States, addressing some key issues of the day. I thank you.

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

Thank you, madam Chair. Distinguished delegates, Germany welcomes the opportunity to present its statement on the topic of non-legally binding international agreements. Germany commends the Commission and the Special Rapporteur, Monsieur Mathias Fautaux, for their valuable work on this topic. In its capacity as the Chair of CADE Working Group on non-legally binding instruments, Germany appreciates the Special Rapporteur's consideration of the group's work, which contributes to a coherent and harmonized approach in this area. Germany fully supports the Commission's objective of providing "elements of clarification" to enhance legal certainty. Germany observes a rapidly increasing number of non-legally binding instruments in international practice and considers them as essential tools for international cooperation. Given this increased importance, clarification and legal certainty is of paramount importance to simplify negotiations over non-legally binding instruments and to prevent the unintended assumption of legal commitments. At the same time, the value of non-legally binding instruments lies in their flexibility, which must be preserved. Against this background, Germany appreciates the Commission's focus on identifying indicators for determining whether an instrument is legally binding or not. This distinction is a crucial challenge in practice, so that we would appreciate a comprehensive compilation of indicators. It should be indicative rather than exhaustive. to preserve flexibility and reflect divergent practices. We emphasize that the presence of certain clauses, such as final commitments and final provisions, is not necessarily a decisive factor for a binding nature. Such clauses are often practically required in non-legally binding instruments. Their significance should be assessed in light of their wording and context on a case-by-case basis. Regarding the title of the project, Germany suggests replacing the term "non-legally binding agreement" with "non-legally binding instrument". The term "agreement" is typically associated with treaties. Regarding the scope of draft conclusion 2, Germany is of the view that the interpretation, application, and potential legal implications of non-legally binding instruments must be governed by international standards and cannot be subject to domestic law. We thank the Commission and the Special Rapporteur for their diligent work on this topic and look forward to its further development. to support the Commission’s work with further information on its practice or the work of the CADE Working Group. I thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the African Group. We would like to add the following remarks in our national capacity. Algeria's comments will focus on chapter 4, entitled "Non-legally binding international agreements", and chapter 12, entitled "Compensation for damage caused by international wrongful acts". We will also make a brief observation on the topic of prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. With regard to the topic of non-legally binding international agreements, we welcome the progress made by the International Law Commission during its 77th session. We also express our appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Mathias Fortu, for his second and third reports, as well as for the Drafting Committee for its work on the draft conclusions. We recognize the growing use of such instruments in international relations and acknowledge the importance of clarifying their scope, purpose, and legal nature. In this regard, we concur with the approach reflected in draft conclusion 3, which establishes that non-legally binding international agreements do not create do not create rights or obligations, nor do they produce other binding legal effects under international law. We wish to emphasize, in particular, the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between legally binding treaties and instruments that do not, as such, give rise to binding legal obligations under international law, while duly taking into account relevant state practice. Such a distinction is essential to safeguarding legal certainty, ensuring consistency in state practice, and preserving stability in international relations. Second, turning to the topic of compensation for damage caused by internationally wrongful acts, we welcome the Commission's decision to include this topic in its programme of work in 2025 and express our appreciation to the Special Rapporteur for his first report. Algeria attaches particular importance to this topic, especially in view of its potential contribution to addressing historical injustices and advancing the principles of justice, accountability, and reparation. In this regard, we consider it essential that the Commission's work duly take into account the question of compensation and reparation for historical injustices arising particularly from colonialism, the transatlantic slave trade, deportation, and apartheid. We concur with the Special Rapporteur's approach of situating this study within the framework of Article 36 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, which addresses compensation for damage caused by internationally wrongful acts. At the same time, we encourage the Commission to ensure that its work takes due account of regional perspectives and historical experiences. Particular consideration should be given to the relevant work undertaken within the African Union, including the Algeas Declaration on the Crimes of Colonialism in Africa, titled Towards Redressing the Historical Injustices through the Criminalization of Colonialism, which was adopted by the African Union's Commission during its 39th session in February 2026. The Commission should also consider the study by the African Union Commission on International Law, AUCIL, concerning the implications of characterizing colonialism as a crime against humanity, as well as certain acts committed during the period of slavery, deportation, and colonialism as acts of genocide against the peoples of Africa. We further stress the importance of ensuring geographically balanced and inclusive participation in the Commission's work. including the comments made in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly and the meaningful contribution of States from all regions, particularly those whose historical experiences are directly relevant to the subject under consideration. Third and finally, with regard to the topic of prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, my delegation reiterates that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is widely recognized as the constitution of the oceans, remains the principal international legal framework governing activities at sea, including the prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. We consider that the Commission's work on this topic can make a valuable contribution to the strengthening of the international legal framework governing maritime security, particularly in light of rapid technological developments and emerging challenges. I thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Observing all protocol and thanking the special rapporteurs for their important work at the Commission, If I may, I'd like to give you our comments on non-legally binding agreements to start with. Madam Chair, my delegation takes note of the provisional approval of the draft conclusions 1 to 5 and their commentaries. We particularly appreciate the non-prescriptive nature of the exercise reflected in the expression "elements of clarification" of draft conclusion 1 and draft conclusion 2 that preserves the norms and the internal norms and procedures of States for the drafting and adoption of these instruments. For El Salvador, it's common practice to sign up to memoranda of understanding and other non-binding legal instruments as essential tools of cooperation, including South-South cooperation. Signing up to these instruments is done not only with other States, but also with other relevant stakeholders, such as diplomatic academies and prestigious institutions in the academic sector. Given the above, my delegation warmly welcomes the fact that the elements provided in the draft conclusions, in particular in number 2, do not affect the norms or procedures followed by States or international organizations. in terms of the drafting and adoption of non-binding legal instruments. This respects not only national, but also regional practices, such as those developed by the Inter-American Legal Committee of the OAS, that engaged in work that led to the adoption of the Guidelines for Binding and Non-Binding Agreements in August 2020. In terms of draft conclusion 3, my delegation also supports that the commentary clarifies that even if they are not binding, the participants in these agreements remain subject to the fundamental principles of international law, including peremptory norms. On draft conclusions 4 and 5, my delegation agrees that their common intention is the determining factor that must be addressed case by case and considering all elements as a whole, in line with the recent jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. We support the wording according to which an express indication of an agreement not being binding is normally sufficient. This solution provides legal certainty, the legal certainty that States require, without creating a presumption that it could be used to undermine the content of genuinely assumed obligations. We urge the Commission to, in its future work on indicators, bear in mind elements such as the modalities that parties to an agreement plans to address disputes in the interpretation of the instrument, including largely the state practice of my delegation, engaging in direct consultations or using good offices, and also the need to ensure equality and technical capacities in negotiations so that the classification of an instrument does not only depend on the party that has the most significant legal resources. Lastly, we invite the Commission to carefully address the possible legal effects of these agreements in order to ensure that they are not turned, due to their interpretation, into binding agreements that States wanted to maintain in the political, social or economic realms. Madam Chair, In terms of due diligence in international law, we are grateful to Ms. Penelope Ridings for her first report that deals rigorously with the historic evolution of concepts and their development in environmental, human rights, international humanitarian and cyberspace law. We take note of the fact that in 2027, the Commission will focus on due diligence and the fulfilment of primary concrete obligations. in the same time, laying the groundwork to address a possible general obligation. We support that the departure point are specific primary obligations, and we call for a precautionary approach with regards to the eventual affirmation of a general autonomous obligation of due diligence. Any conclusion in this regard must be strongly based on State practice and opinio juris, and not be derived by extrapolation of special regimes. On the method, my delegation shares the assessments of Mr. Oyarzabal in the statement made on 6 June 2026. We note that indeed, environmental and climate law provide the most developed practice, but should not be automatically turned into the model for principles of general scope. The Commission should clarify its comparative method to identify what elements are really common to the others and can be transposed to general international law and which belong to specific regimes. This exercise must be geographically diverse and include the practice of different legal systems, including from our region, that has adapted the notion to our own legal traditions. In terms of the nature of due diligence, we believe that it is premature to adopt a categorical position. However, we do observe that the majority of states that participated in the consultative procedures on climate change before the International Court of Justice linked due diligence to primary obligations. We therefore support the departure point being these obligations, and we call for caution before we affirm a general autonomous obligation that must be based strongly on state practice and opinio juris. What's more, the Commission should distinguish clearly between due diligence as a standard of conduct, the principle of prevention, and the rule to not cause harm and articulate its work with the Articles of 2001 on the prevention of cross-border harm without watering down its authority. Madam Chair, now, on the study on due diligence in the context of the applicability of international law to cyberspace, my delegation invites the ILC and this Sixth Committee to ensure that our discussions are interrelated with one another, with the recommendations approved by States following the open-ended working group's work on the security and safety of ICTs during the 2021 to 2025 period. It's recommended that States in the global permanent mechanism on the use of ICTs, that my delegation currently has the high honour of presiding over, that they continued debates focused on the way that international law is applicable to the use of ICTs. States agreed to continue to voluntarily share their points of view and their national positions that can include national statements and state practice on the applicability of international law to cyberspace. The compendium of practices will be very useful for the ILC. in order to identify how states interpret this applicability in the specialized regime of cyberspace. Lastly, we call for these discussions to feed within the United Nations more initiatives to develop capacities in the sphere of international law so that all states can contribute to Common understandings on the applicability of international law to the use of ICTs. My delegation will send the information requested in Chapter III of the report before 1 December on this topic. Finally, on compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts, We thank Mr. Paparinskas for his report, and preliminarily, we'd like to voice some thoughts. First of all, the work must bear in mind that compensation cannot be totally decoupled from the nature of the non-fulfilled primary obligation. It's not the same as compensation in human rights, the environment, or investment. The Commission should be critical when it comes to the assessment methods of arbitration, investment arbitrations, and we support the inclusion of a safeguard for compensation that gravely compromise the capacity of a state to meet the basic needs of its population, and that the Commission look at if the legitimate goal of public interest pursued by the state must include quantification. And so therefore we urge the Commission to consider due compensation for persons and state entities drawing on the broad jurisprudence of the Inter-American System. We also wish to echo, just to conclude, that this draft should adopt the formula of conclusions echoing what has been stated in the room by other delegations. At this stage, it would be premature to give this work binding nature when there are still different specialized regimes based on which we must identify the opinio juris in this area. And that concludes my statement. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you for giving me the floor, Madam Chair. I will deliver an abridged version of the statement of the Kingdom of the Netherlands during this morning session, even though it's already afternoon by now, but our entire statement will be submitted for record purposes. Chair, please allow me to start with the topic of non-legally binding international agreements. The Kingdom of the Netherlands would like to thank the Special Rapporteur for his third report. My Government notes that in the provisionally adopted draft conclusions, the Commission succeeded in finding a balance between, on the one hand, the need to ensure legal security, and, on the other hand, maintaining flexibility. Both elements are explicitly referred to in the text of the draft conclusions. In general, my Government is of the view that draft conclusions may be suitable to serve the Commission's objective to reflect current practice of States and international organizations. When it comes to the interpretation, application and possible legal implications of non-legally binding international agreements, the form of draft conclusions might, however, be less suitable. My Government is of the view that a study can be considered to address these aspects of non-legally binding international agreements. The draft conclusions can then be limited to drafting and adoption of such agreements. In respect of the clarification provided in the commentary to draft conclusion 3 on the term "agreement", my Government would like to suggest to the Commission to consider whether any consequences should be drawn from the fact that an agreement, whatever its designation or form, is either signed by two or more persons or is adopted by proclamation. Would this mode of adoption have any bearings on the commitment and/or the possibility for the text to fall under the draft conclusions? Perhaps this is an element that could be further clarified by the ILC. Chair, let me now continue to the topic prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. First, let me thank the Special Rapporteur for his significant work on this topic. The Kingdom of the Netherlands wishes to reiterate the need for consistency with UNCLOS, transnational criminal law instruments, and customary international law. My government also wishes to emphasize the need to preserve a clear distinction between piracy on the one hand and armed robbery at sea on the other hand. Regarding the latter, my government does not deem it appropriate to extend universal jurisdiction to armed robbery at sea, as this is subject to national jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Kingdom of the Netherlands still considers that the added value of addressing this topic in the form of draft articles has yet to be established. A report of the Commission, possibly with draft conclusions, but without any draft articles or draft guidelines, would probably be best and the most suitable outcome. Chair, I will now turn to due diligence in international law. Let me first express my gratitude and congratulations to the Special Rapporteur on her work regarding the first report on due diligence in international law. This report and the further work of the Commission on this topic are valuable contributions to a better understanding of the role and operation of the concept of due diligence in international law. The Kingdom of the Netherlands considers due diligence to be a concept that arises in a variety of fields of international law, which may take different forms depending on the nature and the content of the underlying primary obligation. It is best understood as a quality or standard of conduct that may be inherent in, or required for the proper performance of, a particular international legal obligation. It should not, however, be understood as constituting an autonomous obligation under international law. The applicable standard of due diligence will depend on the nature, content and context of the underlying obligation. In this regard, the Kingdom of the Netherlands also considers it important to reflect on the appropriate form of the final outcome of this study. Given the broad and evolving nature of due diligence, my Government would see greater value in an analytical report, similar to the Commission’s work on fragmentation of international law, rather than having draft principles. Chair, please allow me to now turn to the topic “Compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts”. The Kingdom of the Netherlands would like to extend its congratulations to the Special Rapporteur on the conclusion of his first report on compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts. The report provides a comprehensive analysis of the scope of this topic, including the scope and content of Article 36 of the Articles on Responsibility of States. The Kingdom of the Netherlands considers the topic to be of considerable practical importance. Questions relating to compensation arise in a wide range of circumstances, and the relevant practice of States and international courts and tribunals is diverse. My Government therefore welcomes the Special Rapporteur's emphasis on the examination of relevant State practice and decisions of international bodies. In our view, it is essential that the Commission's work on this topic remain closely anchored in the law of state responsibility, as reflected in the Articles on State Responsibility, or ARSIVA. In that regard, this topic should primarily concern the further elaboration and application of these existing rules, rather than a development of new substantive rules. It is of great importance to the Kingdom of the Netherlands that the Commission's work does not alter or detract from the rules and principles of the articles of state responsibility. Against this background, my government would consider a set of draft conclusions to be a more suitable form of outcome than draft articles. Draft conclusions can provide valuable clarification of the existing rules on compensation, while preserving the broader framework of State responsibility as established by the Articles on State Responsibility. I thank you, Chair.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. For the sake of time, I will present an abridged version of the complete statement on cluster three that has been submitted for publication. I will start by addressing the topic of non-legally binding international agreements. We thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Mathias Forteau, for his third report on the topic and the commission for the provisional adoption of the first five conclusions together with their commentary. We limit ourselves to one aspect today related to terminology. We have taken note of the detailed analysis in the commentary to conclusion 3 of the several reasons which should weigh in favour of the use of the term "agreement" as opposed to "instrument". This notwithstanding, we remain convinced that the term "instrument" would better suit the essence of the topic under consideration, while preserving the coherence with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. For example, it is important to recall that said Convention only uses the term "agreement" in relation to treaties in Article 2, paragraph 1, letter a. At the same time, when referring to other international agreements not covered by the Vienna Convention, Article 3 does not seem to also include instruments with no binding effect. In our view, such considerations militate against the idea of a comprehensive category of agreements, including both legally binding and non-legally binding agreements. Madam Chair, I will now address the topic of prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. First, I would like to express Italy's appreciation for the draft articles provisionally adopted by the International Law Commission and thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Luis Salvado, for the proposed new draft articles. Italy is in favor of a clear distinction between piracy and armed robbery at sea, considered that they need to be treated separately, especially as regard the different applicable jurisdictional regimes. We also support the provision related to criminalization under national law as a specific result of the general obligation for states to take all measures suitable to counter piracy and armed robbery at sea. Moreover, as for piracy, Italy believes that the principle out de iure iudicari should be applied as a corollary of the principle of universal jurisdiction, and accordingly, it should be explicitly mentioned in respect of piracy in order to avoid jurisdictional gaps in the prosecution of the international crime, especially in cases in which the arresting state may then decline its own jurisdiction. As for national law, we would like to recall that Italy has provided for the applicability of its criminal law to piracy committed beyond its territorial sea, in accordance with the principle of universal jurisdiction. For armed robbery at sea, We can support draft article 5bis providing for the national jurisdiction of the coastal state. In the context of the exercise by the state of its power enforcement for the prevention and repression of piracy, Italy welcomes the reference to the possible use of armed security personnel on board merchant vessels in order to seize pirate vessels and their cargo and arrest the alleged offenders. However, Italy consider it essential to clearly distinguish between state military or law enforcement personnel embarked on merchant vessels for protection purposes and privately contracted armed security personnel. In particular, any reference to law enforcement measures should take due account of the legal basis governing such activities and the status and powers of the personnel concerned, in accordance with relevant international law and national law. Madam Chair, moving on to the topic of due diligence in international law, let me start by thanking the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Penelope Ridings, for her first report on the topic. Italy would like to make the following remarks. We agree with the choice to prioritize the study of due diligence with a view to identify its general common features applicable to different primary obligations of conduct, as opposed to obligations of result. while postponing the matter of the possible identification of a general rule in the field at a later stage. In our view, this appears to be in line with the aim of carefully assessing States' opinio juris and practice in the different and often highly specialized fields of international law, based on an inductive methodology. From this illustrative perspective, we encourage the Special Rapporteur to have regard to the due diligence obligations pertaining to new fields of growing relevance, including cyberspace law. In this context, as also reflected in the report by the Special Rapporteur, in its national position paper on international law and cyberspace, Italy has recognized the existence of due diligence obligations applying in this domain, reflecting the ICJ decision in the Kofruch Channel case. Also in this perspective, we note that the first report gives evidence of the progressive intertwining of different fields of application of due diligence, as it has been recognized in recent decisions and opinions, in particular with regard to human rights and international environmental law. While recognizing this trend, as we see it, two factors should be kept in mind. On the one hand, we acknowledge that in fields like international environmental law, the standards of due diligence may increasingly evolve in different bodies of international law through different forms of expression, state practice, and opinion juris, possibly rendering due diligence obligations more precise and even more stringent. On the other hand, the element of relativity and flexibility inherent in the very due diligence character of international obligations couching such terms should be preserved. For example, this finds expression in the principle whereby the level of diligence required is proportionate to degree of risk and to the financial, scientific, technological, and administrative capacity of the state concerned. Madam Chair, I will now address the topic of compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts. We thank the Special Rapporteur, Professor Martis Papeirinskins, for his first report and would like to make the following remarks. From a general perspective, we agree that the work should be based on a thorough analysis of state practice and opinio juris, with Article 36 of our CIWA as a main point of reference. In this respect, we note that while the nature of paragraph one of Article 36 is broadly recognized as reflecting customary international law, this may not fully be the case for paragraph two, whose implications for damage quantification remain deeply contested. At the same time, in commending the selective attention paid to the extensive body of decision by investment arbitral awards, We share the Special Rapporteur's caution in assessing the quality of arbitral decisions as a subsidiary means for the purposes of the identification of custom international law under Article 38 of the ICJ Statute, given the decentralized character of the investor dispute settlement lacking an appellate review system. Moving to the scope of the work, first, we agree with intention to limit the topic to seconded rules of responsibility for international wrongful acts. However, one should consider how blurred the divide with primary rules may be in practice. For example, in investor state arbitration, where primary obligations frequently determine not only liability, but also different issues of compensable loss, including the measure of compensation. Moreover, we welcome the idea to include Article 27, letter B of RCWA within the scope of the analysis, considering how often situations of necessity or emergency are invoked, let alone self-defense, not only to invoke the preclusion of wrongfulness of a disputed conduct, but also to mitigate the quantum of compensation due for the harm caused by the conduct in question. As a last point, namely on the possible final form of the work, we take note of the Special Rapporteur's posture at this stage in favor of draft articles, as well as his acknowledgement that the choice could be dependent on the characterization of the law of compensation as a rule or a general principle, a matter that, according to the Special Rapporteur, will be examined at a later stage. We reserve our position on the points until a later stage. On the other hand, we consider that even if the final output were to take the form of draft articles, this should not be necessarily taken as aiming at a future dedicated convention. This concludes Italy's statement on cluster 3. I thank you, madam Chair.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. We express our appreciation to the Special Rapporteurs whose work informs this cluster: Mr. Mathias Furtau on non-legally binding international agreements; Mr. Luis Sabadogo on the prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea; Ms. Penelope Ridings on the due diligence in international law; and Mr. Martin Spaperinski on compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts. We wish to address preliminarily some points under this cluster of topics. First, on non-legally binding international agreements, we welcome the Commission's consideration of this topic and the provisional adoption of draft conclusions. We note the Commission's emphasis on the intention of the participants in determining the legal character of an agreement, as emphasized in conclusions 4 and 5. In our view, such intention must be assessed objectively, taking into account the terms of the instrument and the circumstances surrounding its conclusion. The designation of an instrument as a memorandum of understanding, declaration or arrangement should not by itself determine whether it is legally binding. Our practice illustrates the importance of this distinction, and our constitutional framework provides for the conclusion and implementation of international agreements, while our jurisprudence has examined extensively the relationship between treaties, executive agreements, and domestic constitutional requirements. The Philippines considers that the Commission's work should preserve the flexibility of States to enter into non-legally binding arrangements while promoting legal certainty and preventing ambiguity concerning their intended effects. We also encourage the careful consideration of whether, and in what circumstances, such arrangements may have legal implications without themselves constituting legally binding international agreements. We appreciate the direction in which the work is going in facilitating particularly the work of practitioners, and see value of the conclusions as possible guidance to treaty offices of foreign ministries. Second, on the prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, we welcome the Commission's examination of this topic as an archipelagic state situated along important international shipping routes. And as a major provider of seafarers to the global maritime industry, we have a direct and substantial interest in the safety and security of navigation. We consider that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea provides the essential legal framework for addressing piracy. Articles 100 to 107 of the UNCLOS establish important obligations and rules concerning cooperation in the repression of piracy, the definition of piracy, and the exercise of enforcement jurisdiction. We emphasize the importance of maintaining the distinction between piracy under international law and armed robbery at sea occurring within waters subject to the coastal state's jurisdiction. This distinction is particularly significant for archipelagic states. Any further development of international rules must respect the jurisdictional framework established by UNCLOS, including the rights and obligations of flag states and coastal states. We also recognize the need to address technological developments, including the use of uncrewed vessels, interference with navigation systems, and other emerging threats. However, the consideration of new technologies should not inadvertently expand established definitions of piracy or enforcement powers beyond what is permitted under international law. We further emphasize that measures to prevent and repress piracy must respect applicable human rights obligations, due process, and the rights of persons arrested or detained. The protection of seafarers, including victims of piracy and armed robbery, must remain central in this regard. We encourage the Commission to pursue an approach that strengthens practical cooperation and accountability while preserving the integrity of UNCLOS. Third, on due diligence in international law, we welcome the Commission's consideration of the first report of the Special Rapporteur on this important topic and note the Special Rapporteur's indication of the preliminary nature of her report and her comment on her efforts at mapping the material on due diligence in international law, including its temporal and thematic presentation. Due diligence is relevant to numerous fields of international law. including environmental protection, human rights, maritime activities, and the prevention of transboundary harm. We note the Special Rapporteur’s observations, including on convergence regarding the importance of due diligence in relation to transboundary environmental harm, as well as the number of factors relevant in the assessment of whether diligence has been exercised by States, including the degree of risk and severity of harm, knowledge of the risk of harm, and the means and capabilities of the State concerned, the degree of control exercised by the State over territory and persons, and the existence of preventive and monitoring measures, which we support. We recognize the importance of distinguishing due diligence as a standard of conduct applicable to particular international obligations from the question of whether a general obligation of due diligence exists under international law. We encourage the Commission to continue to examine this distinction carefully. For the Philippines, due diligence has particular relevance to the protection of marine environment. Articles 192 and 194 of the UNCLOS establish obligations concerning the protection and preservation of marine environment and measures to prevent, reduce, and control marine pollution. In the 2016 South China Sea Arbitration, Tribunal examined the obligations of States under UNCLOS concerning the protection of fragile marine ecosystems and the prevention of environmental damage. We attach particular importance to the effective implementation of these obligations, and our domestic legal framework likewise reflects the importance of prevention and environmental protection. The Philippine Constitution explicitly recognizes the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. In Aposta versus Factoran, the Philippine Supreme Court affirmed the principle of intergenerational responsibility in the protection of the marine environment. We likewise consider that due diligence should be assessed in light of the nature and gravity of the risk, available knowledge, the degree of control exercised by the State, and the measures reasonably available to it, as noted earlier. The standard should be sufficiently rigorous to ensure meaningful prevention, while remaining sensitive to the particular circumstances and capacities of States. For developing countries, the availability of scientific information, technology, financial resources, and institutional capacity may be relevant to their assessment of reasonable conduct. Such considerations should not, however, diminish the importance of cooperation or the protection of states and communities exposed to serious harm. We also encourage the Convention to continue to clarify the relationship between the conduct of non-state actors and the due diligence obligations of states. without conflating failures of regulation or prevention with the attribution of private conduct under the law of state responsibility. Fourth, on compensation for damage caused by internationally wrongful acts, we welcome the Commission's decision to examine the topic and the report of the Special Rapporteur. The obligation to make reparation for internationally wrongful act is a fundamental principle in international law. The principle is reflected in the Commission's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, and Article 31 provides for full reparation for injury caused by an internationally wrongful act, while Article 36 addresses compensation for financially assessable damage insofar as it is not made good by restitution. We support the Commission's examination of the practical application of these principles. particularly the questions of causation, proof of damage, valuation, interest, and the relationship between compensation and other forms of reparation. We, of course, attach particular importance to compensation for environmental damage. Environmental injury may involve the destruction of ecosystems, the loss of biodiversity, and the impairment of environmental goods and services whose value cannot readily be expressed in market terms. In certain activities carried out by Nicaragua in the border area, the ICJ recognized that damage to the environment, including impairment or loss of environmental goods and services, is compensable under international law. And the Court’s judgment in armed activities on the territory of the Congo also illustrates the difficulties of establishing and quantifying damage arising from serious internationally wrongful acts. To us, these questions of particular relevance to the protection of the marine environment and the preservation of marine resources. In the South China Sea Arbitration, the Tribunal found violations of obligations under UNCLOS concerning the protection and preservation of the marine environment, including damage to coral reef ecosystems. The award demonstrates the importance of effective international obligations concerning environmental protection. We consider that the Commission's work should provide greater clarity on the assessment of environmental damage, including injury that is scientifically established but difficult to quantify with precision. We encourage the careful examination of the relationship between compensation, restitution, and satisfaction, as well as the evidentiary standards applicable to different categories of injury. The principle of full reparation must remain central. And the Commission should distinguish rules already established under international law from approaches that may constitute progressive development. We note the Commission's interest in the possible relevance of responsible states' financial capacity to pay compensation. This question deserves careful examination in light of existing jurisprudence, the rights of injured states, and the need to ensure that reparation remains effective. Madam Chair, as the Commission proceeds with its consideration of these topics, meaningful engagement with Member States through the Sixth Committee will remain important, and we look forward to following the developments in the work of the Commission in this regard. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Philippines for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea. You have the floor, madam.

Madam Chair, my delegation expresses its sincere gratitude for the excellent work done by the Special Rapporteurs and the Commission. My delegation would like to make some comments which it hopes will be of help in the Commission's future work on the topic. In the interest of time, I will highlight only the key elements of our statement and submit the full text in writing. On non-legally binding international agreements, first, my delegation takes note of the addition of inter-institutional agreements within the purview of the topic and believes the Commission needs to approach the question with all necessary caution. The title of our topic is non-legally binding international agreements. In this connection, it needs to be noted that not all inter-institutional agreements can be regarded as being non-legally binding. In addition, this question is closely connected with the internal law of the parties. Secondly, my delegation welcomes the Special Rapporteur's decision not to use the qualifiers "subjective" and "objective" in discussing the role and weight of intention in the determination of the legally binding character of a given agreement. The use of those qualifiers may give rise to confusion by appearing to place the intention of the parties on the same footing as objective indicators. Turning to the prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. First, while appreciating the Special Rapporteur's efforts, we are concerned that some draft articles seem to be based on outdated notions and practices, such as draft article 9 being an example. In the post-1945 period, the international community seems to have taken a clear position on this question by setting out that the right of hot pursuit ceases as soon as the ship pursued enters the territorial sea of its own state or of a third state in Article 111 of UNCLOS. Secondly, my delegation believes that one should be careful not to be unduly influenced by the family resemblance between piracy and international or transnational crime. In this connection, my delegation would like to invite the Special Rapporteur to consider the advisability of placing substantial reliance on the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime in proposing the draft articles. Thirdly, we hope that the Special Rapporteur will be alert to the importance of clearly marking out the conceptual boundary of piracy jure gentium by distinguishing it from piracy by analogy, that is, piracy under national law or treaties. Fourthly, the Special Rapporteur may need to avoid the pitfall of conflating piracy and armed robbery at sea. The latter being an offense clearly distinct from piracy. In this connection, draft articles 11 and 16 may need to be reconsidered. On due diligence in international law, in the view of the Special Rapporteur, it was clear that there were two main conceptions of due diligence. First, one conception regarded due diligence as a standard of conduct associated with specific primary obligations. Second, the other regarded it as a general obligation of a state not to knowingly allow its territory to be used for acts which harm the rights or interests of other states. The key question is, according to the Special Rapporteur, whether both conceptions could be accommodated with a single concept of due diligence in international law. Concerning this question, my delegation would like to make the following comments. First, concerning the first conception of the due diligence, its content and functions vary according to the relevant primary obligation and the legal and factual context. So the main focus should be placed on identifying those primary obligations to which due diligence is applied. Secondly, turning to the second conception, while the conception of due diligence can be used as a corollary or the obverse of territorial sovereignty, one needs to be cautious in characterizing this conception of due diligence as a general or autonomous legal obligation across the fields of international law. Both conceptions could be accommodated within a single notion of due diligence in international law. However, the two conceptions each having a different legal status and character, operate at different levels of the international legal order. As regards the final form of the outcome, Yama delegation supports the Special Rapporteur's suggestion of draft principles while remaining open to other options depending on the future progress. On compensations for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts, First, concerning the relationship between primary and secondary rules, my delegation welcomes the flexibility shown by the Special Rapporteur in his concluding remarks when he acknowledged that there might be situations where primary rules could play a significant role. It is hoped that the Special Rapporteur and the Commission will remain alert to the interaction between primary and secondary rules in their future work. Secondly, my delegation is of the opinion that one should be wary about the wholesale incorporation of jurisprudence from investor-state arbitration. It is true that there was an increase in diversification of decisions of international courts and tribunals concerning compensation since the adoption of the articles on state responsibility. However, one needs to exercise due caution in assessing the significance and impact of this body of judicial decisions in the broader context of the general law of state responsibility. Thirdly, concerning the scope ratione materiae of the topic, while my delegation appreciates the Special Rapporteur's openness to suggestions coming from the Sixth Committee, It believes that this Commission needs to be cautious about including the situation under Article 27 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts in the current topic. Fourthly, concerning the scope ratione personae, my delegation is open to the Special Rapporteur's proposal that compensation arising under the law of responsibility of international organizations be included. The Special Rapporteur proposes draft articles as a form of the final outcome. However, it is to be pointed out that the compensation regime composed of Article 36, 38, and 39 of the RCWA has several layers of different normative status. For these reasons, the Commission may need to be open to a range of other options and decide on the question at a larger stage. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Canada. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll commence in English and conclude in French. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak today on the cluster 3 topics. Canada welcomes the Commission's decision to include the topic of compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts in its program of work. The need for states to concretize secondary rules to govern compensation is of increasing practical significance across many fields of international law and in proceedings before international courts and tribunals. Greater clarity regarding the content and application of these rules is therefore in the shared interest of all States. Canada supports Special Rapporteur Martyns Paparinskis' proposed approach, endorsed by many members of the Commission, of beginning the work on this topic from where the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts left off. Since these articles' adoption in 2001, a substantial body of international judicial and tribunal decisions concerning the assessment and quantification of compensation has emerged. While this will no doubt be of great assistance to the work of the Commission, Canada wishes to stress the importance of grounding the work in state practice and opinio juris. In terms of scope of the Commission's work, Canada considers that several aspects of the principles governing compensation would benefit from clarification and concretization into secondary rules. This includes, for example, clarification of the causal nexus required for compensation and the role of factors such as directness, foreseeability, and proximity. Other subjects, such as "crippling compensation" and broader equitable considerations, may be less amenable to the formulation of generally applicable rules. In all cases, Canada supports efforts to clearly distinguish between codification of customary international law and its progressive development. Canada thanks the Commission and Special Rapporteur Paparinskis for their work so far on this topic and welcomes the questionnaire recently circulated to States. Madam Chair, turning to due diligence in international law, Canada again welcomes the Commission’s decision to take this topic of growing significance that will benefit from the careful consideration regarding its scope, content, and legal character. Canada thanks Special Rapporteur Penelope Ridings for the prudent and measured approach adopted in the first report. The report provides a helpful survey of existing practice, jurisprudence, and doctrine relating to due diligence in international law. In Canada’s view, a central objective of the Commission’s work should be to draw careful distinctions between the extent to which due diligence exists as a general obligation under international law and the extent to which it operates as a standard of conduct relevant to primary rules in particular fields, such as international environmental law or international human rights law. Canada therefore agrees with those members of the Commission who cautioned against overgeneralization and emphasized the need for careful, rigorous analysis to distinguish between those elements of due diligence that may be capable of cross-cutting application from those that are specific to particular legal regimes. Canada also considers due diligence as being associated principally with obligations of conduct rather than obligations of results. More generally, Canada strongly encourages the Commission to ensure that its work remains firmly grounded in state practice and opinio juris, as some principles may lack sufficient support in existing international law. Canada looks forward to continuing to engage with and closely follow the Commission’s future work in this area.

Madame Chair, turning now to Chapter 9 of the report, Canada would like to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mathias Fautaux, who also serves as Chair of the Working Group of the Whole. We are grateful to him for his work advancing the ILC's work on the topic of non-legally binding international agreements, or instruments, to use the term which Canada favours. Indeed, with respect to the ILC's commentaries on the use of terms, Canada would like to reiterate its position, according to which the term "agreement" should be restricted to legally binding instruments under international law, in accordance with the definition of treaty under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Our position is in keeping with the practice of many states. It aims to avoid any confusion arising when non-legally binding instruments are labeled agreements. Canada supports the International Law Commission's work aimed at developing a non-exhaustive list, crafted through broad-based consultations, a non-exhaustive list of indicative elements of clarification. Such an approach should lead to greater consistency in drafting practice, as well as contribute to ensure instruments are categorized on the basis of whether they're legally binding or not. I thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Lithuania aligns itself with the EU statement. We thank the Special Rapporteurs for their work and would like to offer the following observations on the topics under cluster three. on non-legally binding international agreements. Lithuania's national legal framework distinguishes between international treaties, other international agreements concluded on behalf of the state or government that do not constitute international treaties, and inter-institutional agreements concluded by ministries and other public authorities in their own name and within their respective competences. In this context, clarity regarding the intended legal character of international agreements is particularly important. Lithuania supports the Commission's emphasis on the common intention of the participants as a principal criterion for determining the legal character of an agreement. We also welcome draft conclusion 5, which recognizes that an express indication that an agreement is not legally binding under international law is normally sufficient to establish that intention. Third, the clarification of the circumstances in which such an express indication might be insufficient would be useful, particularly where an agreement uses terminology commonly associated with legally binding treaties. Lithuania would also welcome practical guidance on the use of terminology in interinstitutional agreements intended to be non-legally binding under international law. It would be useful to clarify whether treaty-related terminology should be avoided in such agreements. Lithuania supports the Commission's continued work on this topic and encourages a practical approach that takes into account the diversity of national legal frameworks and institutional practices. On due diligence in international law. We note the distinction between due diligence as a standard of conduct associated with specific primary obligations and due diligence as a general obligation requiring states not to knowingly allow the territory to be used for acts that harm the rights or interests of other states. While both conceptions of due diligence warrant further examination, Lithuania considers that the Commission could make most valuable contribution by focusing, at least initially, on due diligence as a standard of conduct, given that questions concerning its meaning and content of due diligence increasingly arise in the context of specific primary obligations under international law. Lithuania would also see particular practical value in clarifying the content and operation of due diligence in specific legal contexts, thereby providing guidance to states in the implementation and application of their international obligations. In relation to treaty-based primary obligations, an analysis of the language and terminology used in treaties to give rise to due diligence obligations would be particularly useful. Lithuania further expresses its hope that the Commission's future work on this topic will address the conduct of private actors and the obligations of states to regulate such conduct. Lithuania welcomes the references in the first report to state practice and opinio juris in the cyber context and hopes that these will continue to serve as a valuable source for identifying and assessing states' positions on the application and content of due diligence obligations. More generally, Lithuania welcomes a context-specific analysis of due diligence, including in areas such as international human rights law, international environmental law, international humanitarian law, the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, and the law of the sea. We consider that it would be also pertinent to examine the content of due diligence in the context of international aviation law, including under the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation, as well as international space law. We look forward to the Commission's further considerations of this topic and future reports. On compensation for the damage caused by international wrongful acts. We welcome the emphasis placed on the analysis of judicial decisions and state practice, as well as the use of the articles on state responsibility, and article 36 in particular, which reflects customary international law as a methodological starting point. It is important that the Commission's work build upon the existing rules on states' responsibility as codified by the Commission and further develop this body of law in a manner that preserves its coherence and unity. In relation to the scope ratione personae, we also welcome the fact that it includes situations where the right to compensation for an international wrongful act accrues directly to any person or entity other than a State. While recognizing that the topic does not address issues relating to the implementation of State responsibility and that the articles on State responsibility generally do not prescribe particular institutional mechanisms for that purpose, Lithuania wishes to highlight the relevance of the practice developed in the context of the Preparatory Committee for the International Claims Commission for Ukraine and the Register of Damage for Ukraine, as well as other regional and international bodies. As regards the final form of the Commission's work, we consider that draft articles would be the most appropriate outcome, building on the approach taken in the Articles on State Responsibility. Lithuania looks forward to the Commission's continued work on these topics, as well as future reports of the Special Rapporteurs, and will continue to engage constructively in the discussions of these important issues. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Lithuania for his statement. Distinguished delegates, the distinguished representative of Lithuania was the last speaker on the list this morning. The Sixth Committee will meet again this afternoon to continue the debate on the third cluster of chapters. Before adjourning, I wish to remind delegations that informal consultations on the omnibus resolution issued under agenda item 78, report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 76th and 77th sessions, and the draft resolution on immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, issued under the same agenda item, will take place during the lunch break today in this room. The meeting is adjourned.