Sixth Committee, 38th plenary meeting - General Assembly, 81st session

Good morning. Good morning, colleagues. I call to order the 38th meeting of the Sixth Committee for the 81st session of the General Assembly. Distinguished delegates, this morning, the Sixth Committee will continue and conclude the debate on the third cluster of topics concerning agenda item 78, the report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 76th and 77th sessions. Following which, the Committee will turn to its consideration of agenda item 86, the law of transboundary aquifers. Let us now continue to conclude the debate on the third cluster of topics in the report of the International Law Commission. Before proceeding, I wish to recall the Bureau's recommendation that national statements should be limited to seven minutes and group statements to 12 minutes. Delegations are strongly encouraged to keep their statements within these limits and, where possible, deliver abridged versions of their statements while providing the full statements for posting on eStatements and on the website of the Sixth Committee. This will enable all delegations to deliver their statements within the schedule. The first speaker on my list this morning is the distinguished representative of Indonesia. You have the floor, madam.

Thank you, Chair. Indonesia thanks the International Law Commission and its Special Rapporteur for their continued work on the topics under Cluster 3. We appreciate the Commission's effort to clarify international law while responding to contemporary challenges faced by States. Allow me to offer our observations as follows. First, on non-legally binding international agreements. Indonesia welcomes the Commission's progress and the provisional adoption of five draft conclusions together with their commentaries, and commend Special Rapporteur Mathias Fortu for his work. Non-legally binding arrangements have become important instruments of contemporary diplomacy. In Indonesia's experience, such arrangements are widely used in bilateral and ASEAN cooperation, fostering dialogue, mutual trust, and practical collaboration. In this regard, we wish to underscore that the intention of the participant must remain central in determining whether an international agreement is legally binding. Its legal character should not be presumed merely from its form, terminology, or political significance. Equally important, legal certainty must be preserved. The distinction between legally binding treaties and non-legally binding arrangements is essential to respecting the sovereign choices of states and their respective domestic legal procedures. Accordingly, the Commission should exercise caution in attributing legal consequences to non-legally binding arrangements. While such arrangements may have political or practical significance, they should not be construed as creating international legal obligations contrary to the expressed intention of the participants. Indonesia encourages the Commission to continue examining diverse state practice while preserving the flexibility that makes these arrangements valuable instruments of international cooperation. Second, on prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. As the world's largest archipelagic state, Indonesia has a direct interest in ensuring maritime security and effective suppression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. Indonesia welcomes the Commission's continued consideration of this topic, including the first report of the Special Rapporteur and the progress achieved within the Drafting Committee. In this regard, we wish to raise Three main points. First, Indonesia echoes that the 1982 UNCLOS must remain the fundamental legal framework governing the prevention and repression of piracy, particularly in its provisions under Article 100 to 107 and related jurisdictional rules. It is clear that under UNCLOS, there is clear distinction between piracy and armed robbery at sea. While piracy is subject to specific legal requirements and jurisdictional conditions, armed robbery at sea occurs within waters under national sovereignty and falls within jurisdictions of the coastal state. Any further elaboration to address evolving nature of maritime crimes must avoid blurring this distinction or expanding enforcement jurisdiction beyond what international law permits. Second, any operation to address piracy and armed robbery must adhere to rules of international law, particularly the UN Charter. The development of draft articles by the Commission must also take into account relevant instruments. Indonesia echoes the views of other states that any work on this field must not duplicate existing instruments and forums. Third, Indonesia underscores the indispensable duty to cooperate under UNCLOS in preventing and suppressing piracy and armed robbery at sea. Indonesia views that the development of draft articles by the Commission may build on existing practices in international and regional forums. One of examples that the Commission and the Special Rapporteur may look into is ASEAN Defense Ministers' Meeting and ASEAN Ministers' Meeting on Transnational Crime, among others. Any form of cooperation must accord full respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and jurisdictions of states. Chair, Indonesia stands ready to work constructively with the Commission and member states to advance clear, balanced, and effective international law. In this regard, Indonesia is pleased to announce the candidature of Professor Hikmah Hanto Juwana from membership of the ILC for the term 2028 to 2032. We would greatly appreciate the valuable support of Member States for his candidature. I thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. I'm pleased to see you chairing today's discussions. Madam Chair, Vietnam thanks the International Law Commissions and the Special Rapporteurs for their work. We offer the following comments on cluster three. First, on non-legally binding international agreements, the shortened sessions in 2025 prevented the plenary consideration of the Special Rapporteur's second report. Therefore, we reiterate our call for adequate meeting time, resources, and working conditions commensurate with the Commission's role in codifying and progressively developing international law. Vietnam support a case-by-case approach to assessing the legal character of an international agreement. The intentions of the party is essential. An expression of statement. that an agreement is not legally binding would normally establish that intention. Otherwise, relevant elements must be assessed together: wording, form, titles, content, the authority of those negotiating and adopting the instrument, and the circumstances of its conclusion. The title or form alone should not determine whether an instrument is legally binding. We support the use of the term agreement, which reflects a concurrence of wills without necessarily implying legal force. The distinction from treaties rests on whether the party intend to create legal rights and obligations governed by international law. We should also respect differences in domestic legal terminology. Vietnam's framework include the 2016 law and treaty as amended in 2025, and the 2020 law on international agreements. Under Vietnamese law, an international agreement is a written cooperation agreement concluded by a Vietnamese party with its functions, tasks, and powers with a foreign party. It does not create, modify, or terminate Vietnam's rights and obligations under international law. Authorized Vietnamese parties include central or local state agencies, certain subordinate bodies, and other entities prescribed by law. Foreign parties may include state parliaments, governments, local authorities, organizations established under foreign law, intergovernmental organizations, and individuals. We are now revising our legislation to broaden the range of authorized Vietnamese parties, including certain commune-level administrative units and public service institutions. Madam Chair, now on the prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. We reaffirm the central role of UNCLOS, which sets out the legal framework for all activities in the oceans and seas. The Commission's work must respect this comprehensive and unified legal framework and the fundamental principle of international law. Vietnam favours a cautious, comprehensive, and non-politicized approach. Contested practice should not be presented as customary rules without evidence of a general practice accepted as law. Universal jurisdiction over piracy should not be extended to armed robbery at sea without an independent legal basis. We also would like to offer some specific comments on the draft article proposed by the Special Rapporteur. On draft article 6, provisions on warning and the use of firearms must meet the requirement of legality, necessity, and proportionality, with precaution to protect human life. Force should be avoided wherever possible. Where force is unavoidable, it must remain reasonable and necessary in the circumstances. These provisions should remain limited to piracy and armed robbery at sea, respecting their different jurisdictional basis. On draft article 7, Under article 111, paragraph 3 of UNCLOS, the right of hot pursuit ceases when the ship enters in its own state or a third state territorial sea. Under these proposed provisions, further pursuit in a third state territorial sea must require the express consent of that state, respect the terms of that consent, and comply with international law. Silence must not be treated as consent. Such cooperation is distinct from hot pursuit under UNCLOS. On draft article 9 and 21, we urge cautions in granting coercive powers to armed security personnel on merchant ships, particularly privately contracted personnel. Defensive measures must be distinguished from law enforcement. The restrictions on seizures for piracy under Article 111 of UNCLOS must be respected. Armed guards alone do not confer enforcement authority. The term coastal state in the draft article must not prejudice state positions on sovereignty, sovereign rights, jurisdiction, or maritime delimitations. We stress the duty to cooperate against piracy under UNCLOS and encourage cooperation against armed robbery at sea. Sharing national legislation and practice will strengthen the Commission's work. Stronger regional incorporations and exchanges of national experience can also provide a sound practical basis for codifications. Madam Chair, on due diligence and international law, the standards required depends on applicable primary obligation and circumstances. State capacity and resources must be considered where relevant under that obligations, alongside with the natures and possibility of risk. An obligation to exercise due diligence is an obligation of conduct, not a guarantee against harm. Compliance requires assessing the measures taken and those reasonable available to state. Harm alone do not establish a breach. We further We encourage further study on the relationship between due diligence and CRPD, particularly in the protection of environment and climate actions. Differences in capacity, resources, and contributions to harm should inform the conduct required where relevant under applicable legal framework. This support fairness without assuming identical differentiations across all fields of international law. On compensations for damages caused by international wrongful acts, negotiated settlement may constitute relevant state practice, but require careful assessment. Their terms may reflect political, diplomatic, and practical compromises. Acceptance of a settlement does not by itself establish opinio juris regarding a general rules of compensation. The primary obligation breach and the applicable rules on reparations must be considered, including special rules governing particular disputes. Investment arbitration may offer guidance, but operate within special treaty frameworks and jurisdictional mandates. Its reasoning and valuation matters should not automatically be treated as general rules of international law. The relevance and representativeness must be assessed in light with particular dispute settlement mechanism. We encourage further study of whether the financial capacity of the responsible state may affect the amount and the modalities of compensations. The amount legally due by distinguished must be distinguished from payment arrangement, equity, proportionality, and capacity to pay merit. considerations in light of the principle of full reparations and the applicable law. They do not by themselves establish general rules, general rights to reduce compensations. Flexible payment arrangements should be explored without imposing a rigid ceiling for compensations. Madam Chair, Vietnam remains committed to constructive and sustained engagement with the Commission’s representative state practice and a clear distinction between existing law and progressive development will strengthen the authority and practical value of its work. I thank you, madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Vietnam for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Bahrain, speaking on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council. You have the floor, madam.

Madam President, I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the GCC countries, the United Arab Emirates, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Sultanate of Oman, the State of Qatar, the State of Kuwait, and my country, the Kingdom of Bahrain. At the outset, we would like to thank the Chair of the ILC, its members, and special rapporteurs for their efforts during the 77th session. We took note of the report in document A/81/10, and we support efforts to the codification and progressive development of international law under the mandate given to the Commission. We focus on chapter 12 of the report on compensation for harm as a result of internationally wrongful acts, given the importance of this subject. We took note of the first report of the Special Rapporteur, Madam Chair. We stress that the obligation to compensate for the harm as a result of internationally wrongful act is key principle in international law. The importance of these legal principles are demonstrated in light of the attacks against our countries by Iran, the attacks that targeted our security territories, including residential neighborhoods, vital facilities, in particular energy and water facilities, in addition to merchant ships. These attacks caused human loss and material damage in flagrant violation to international law and principles of the Charter. The impact of these attacks undermined maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz. In light of the measures taken by Iran to obstruct navigation within this strait, this hampers the flow of trade and energy. We stress the provisions of Security Council Resolution 2817, which condemned the Iranian attacks as serious violation to international law and serious threat to international peace and security. The resolution called for immediate cessation of these attacks and fulfill the obligations on Iran by international law, in particular international humanitarian law. Our countries reiterate their inherent right to self-defense individually and collectively, according to Article 51 of the Charter and consistent with provisions of international law. Our countries refer to Human Rights Council decision 61/1 of 2026, in particular operative paragraph 9, which called on Iran to provide immediate and effective reparation to all victims as a result of the damage caused by its attacks on GCC countries and Jordan. In this respect, our countries reiterate the responsibility of on Iran as a result of its attacks, and we call on Iran once again to provide full reparation for these harms, consistent with relevant UN resolutions. Our countries also stress the importance of ceasing the wrongfully international acts and their non-recurrence and compensate for the harm caused by them. according to international law. In conclusion, we support the work of the ILC and stress the importance of the continued cooperation between the Commission and the Sixth Committee, and while taking into consideration the views and practices of States as they continue to examine the causality between the internationally wrongful act and the harm caused by it, while making distinction between the codification and progressive development of law and being based on clear legal basis when considering any further proposals on this matter. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Bahrain, speaking on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Federated States of Micronesia. You have the floor.

Chair, in this cluster, Micronesia will comment on the Commission's work on the topics of due diligence in international law and compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts. Micronesia takes emphasizes that they are interconnected issues, as affirmed in the advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice on obligations of states in respect of climate change, A state that does not exercise due diligence in the performance of its primary obligation to prevent significant harm to the environment, including to the climate system, commits an internationally wrongful act entailing its responsibility. On due diligence and international law, Micronesia welcomes the first report of Special Rapporteur, Dr. Penelope Ridings, and takes note of the Commission's consideration of this topic during its 81st session. Micronesia reiterates its view, shared by several Commissioners, that the distinction between obligation of conduct and obligation of result must not be rigid. We also agree that obligations of conduct could require the achievement of specific results and could be as demanding as obligations of result. Micronesia endorses the ICJ's treatment of due diligence as a stringent standard of conduct for assessing compliance with the customary obligation to prevent significant harm to the environment. According to the ICJ, this standard must be assessed objectively against the best available science, the risk of harm, the urgency, and the state's capacities. This cannot be reduced to a duty to take reasonable steps without regard to the outcome. It is Micronesia's view that the diligence owed by states must rise with the risk. That is, the content of this obligation must be shaped by the result it exists to prevent. In the climate context, a rigid reading of due diligence might enable a state to satisfy its obligations through processes alone, without regard to irreversible loss and damage to another state. For instance, States' mitigation obligations should be assessed against the 1.5 degree temperature goal so that national contribution measures are not shielded from scrutiny, even if they are adopted in good faith. Relaxing the distinction between conduct and result means a state's climate plan must be tested against the outcome it exists to deliver. In this circumstance, due diligence would only be satisfied if a state's conduct aligns with the temperature goal. Chair, on compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts, Micronesia thanks Special Rapporteur Martins Papeerenski for his first report and takes note of the Commission's consideration of this topic during its 81st session. We strongly support the Commission's efforts to provide greater clarity on the topic's scope and application, and would be particularly welcome Commission's identification of good practices for determining the compensation owed in the context of climate change and environmental damage. Micronesia supports the focus under this topic in Article 36 of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, as that is the most germane to the matter. However, care must be taken to avoid undermining the careful work undertaken by the Commission in drafting and adopting Article 36. The current work is to unpack and apply Article 36 rather than to recast it. Micronesia agrees that the international community must recognize and have recourse to the full suite of legal consequences for internationally wrongful acts. Micronesia also agrees with the approach of the Special Rapporteur to include non-State entities and private actors in the scope of the topic, as being potentially entitled to compensation for internationally wrongful acts by a State. In response to the potential questions to be examined by the Commission on this topic, we wish to make three points. First, Micronesia notes their Special Rapporteur's suggestion in paragraph 68 of his report that the Commission consider compensation in the form of global sums as a solution to particular institutional challenges. As likewise noted in the report, the ICJ has said that in the climate change context, compensation in the form of a global sum may be most appropriate, stating, where there is uncertainty with respect to the exact extent of the damage caused, compensation in the form of global sum within the range of possibilities indicated by the evidence. and taking into account equitable considerations, may be awarded on an exceptional basis. The Commission's further study of the appropriate use of global sums as compensation for the damage caused by climate change would therefore be welcome. Micronesia does stress, however, that the science of attribution for specific climate change harms has matured greatly in recent years, and so recourse to global sums should not be a default approach in this matter. Second, Micronesia welcomes the Special Rapporteur's focus on the requirement of casualty, as stated in Article 36 of the Articles on State Responsibility, and its specific application in the climate change context. In this regard, we wish to highlight the ICJ's finding that the Articles on State Responsibility are, in principle, capable of addressing a situation in which there exists a plurality of injured or responsible states. and that the fact that the damage was a result of concurrent causes is not sufficient to exempt the State from any obligation to make reparation. Third, we reiterate the ICJ's finding in Costa Rica v. Nicaragua that environmental damage in itself and expenses resulting from such damage are compensable under international law. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Federated States of Micronesia for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Vanuatu. You have the floor, madam.

Thank you, Madam Chair. On cluster three, Vanuatu will primarily address non-legally binding international agreements, due diligence, and compensation of damage caused by internationally wrongful acts. We will also submit a more detailed statement. On chapter 9, Vanuatu emphasizes that in future work by the Commission, examining the possible legal implications of non-legally binding international agreements, it is important to preserve the legal significance they may have on other bases. Declarations adopted by leaders, though not binding as such, may constitute or evidence state practice and opinion juris and inform the interpretation of treaties. For example, the Commission Study Group on Sea Level Rise recorded widespread support among states for the 2021 PIFF declaration on preserving maritime zones in the face of climate change-related sea level rise, and found that general state practices exist on preserving baselines and outer limits of maritime zones. We would therefore welcome clarification of how the draft conclusions apply to declarations adopted by leaders in regional organizations. On due diligence, in international law, we recall that the International Court of Justice confirmed that states must fulfill their duty to prevent significant harm to the environment by acting with due diligence, and that the standard for preventing significant harm to the climate system is stringent. Vanois shares the view reflected in the report that differences in capacity may bear on the conduct reasonably expected of a state, but cannot result in the absence of any meaningful obligation to act. We encourage the Commission to reflect that the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities raises the conduct expected of states with greater historical responsibility and capacity. It does not lower what is required of any state. On Chapter 12, Vanuatu welcomes the Commission's continuing work on compensation. The Court's advisory opinion made clear that breaches of climate obligations are internationally wrongful acts that may trigger duties of compensation as a form of reparation. Vanuatu encourages the Commission to ensure its work confirms rather than qualifies. The application of principle of full reparation articulated by the Court in the form of factory at Choiseul in cases where the injury results from breaches of obligations owed to international community as a whole. On paragraph 314 of the report, any causation standard must account for difficulty of establishing causation in climate and environmental harm, including the important role of attribution science. The sufficiently direct and certain causal nexus test, which the court considered flexible enough to address the challenges of climate change, must be applied so that it neither gives rise to reparation absent an established breach and causal link. nor operates to exclude reparation for injury that can be shown to result from the wrongful conduct of one or more States. Furthermore, we support the compensability of pure environmental damage, non-material harm, including cultural loss, and microeconomic harm, including from climate change impacts. We share the view expressed in the commission that non-material injury should not be treated as residual in this work. Vanuatu also invites further examination of whether international law should permit punitive damages in exceptional cases of grave and irreparable environmental harm. That question must remain distinct from that of full compensation commensurate with the scale of injury, which is not punitive. As paragraph 317 discusses, crippling compensation arguments cannot become an excuse for forcing injured states to absorb the cost of climate change damages. As the report notes, members of the commission have suggested ways to ease financial hardship through equitable consideration and financial mechanism, which Vanuatu believes are more appropriate than a reduction of the amount owed. Additionally, regarding paragraphs 306 and 334, we strongly support addressing historical injustices, including colonialism, and welcome the Special Rapporteur's intention to consider them when the work reaches that substantive stage. Madam Chair, Vanuatu appreciates the work of the Commission and will continue to support its work. in the matters we have discussed during the past weeks. Thank you, Thomas.

I thank the distinguished representative of Vanuatu for her statement and now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ukraine. You have the floor, madam.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will address three topics: compensation for the damage caused by international wrongful acts, non-legally binding international agreements, and due diligence in international law. Regarding chapter 12, compensation for the damage caused by international wrongful acts, Ukraine thanks the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Martins Pāpārinskins, for his first report, which lays a solid foundation for the Commission's work. We consider that the articles on responsibility for States for internationally wrongful acts reflect customary international law, in particular, articles 31 and 36. We support the Special Rapporteur's approach of treating Article 36 as the basis rule on compensation. Establishing that an international wrongful act has occurred is indispensable, but accountability is not complete if those who have suffered harm are left without redress. Without effective mechanisms to assess damage and disburse compensation, the right to compensation risks remaining a dead letter. Such mechanisms should be developed case by case, ranging from quasi-judicial bodies to administrative commissions in full compliance with international law. Following General Assembly resolution ES11/5, Ukraine and its partners have been building a comprehensive compensation mechanism for the damage caused by the Russian Federation's war of aggression. The register is the first of three steps. It records evidence and claims of damage and is expected to receive 6 to 8 million claims in more than 40 categories. The second step is the International Claims Commission for Ukraine under the Convention adopted within the framework of the Council of Europe on 16 December 2025. It is expected to receive 6 to 8 million claims for individuals and legal entities. Building on this experience, Ukraine support the ILC's intention to broaden the scope of the topic by giving greater consideration to individuals. We encourage the Commission to explore whether individuals enjoy a direct and enforceable right to compensation for damage caused by intentionally wrongful acts through existing adjudicative means or new targeted mechanisms. In mass claims, delivering justice requires meaningful compensation based on a fair and just assessment of each claim. One principle runs through this mechanism: the responsible state bears the financial burden of compensation. We thank all partners who took part in the negotiations, and we invite the ILC to draw on this practice. Building on this experience, Ukraine supports the Commission’s intention to address the question of whom the compensation is owed, as envisaged in the syllabus and the first report. Article 33, paragraph 2 of the Articles on State Responsibility left open whether rights may accrue directly to individuals. We also encourage the Commission to examine this question in the light of contemporary practice, including mass claims mechanisms in which individual victims submit claims directly. Regarding chapter 9, non-legally binding international agreements. Madam Chair, Ukraine thanks the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Mathias Furtau, for his third report and welcomes the adoption of five draft conclusions with commentaries. As such instruments are increasingly used, guidance that helps distinguish them from treaties contributes to transparency and legal certainty. We welcome the simplified draft conclusion 1 and support the non-prescriptive nature of the draft conclusions, which should reflect state practice while preserving the flexibility that characterizes these instruments. On terminology, Ukraine takes note of the Commission's choice to retain the term "agreements." We welcome draft conclusion 2, which makes clear that each state remains free to use its own terminology and that the draft conclusions aim to guide on the nature and effects of such agreements, rather than to prescribe this designation. Ukraine supports the emphasis in draft conclusion 4 on the intention of the participants. An explicit indication that a text is not legally binding should in principle suffice as it reveals the clear intention of the participants. Where there is no such indication, all relevant elements should be assessed holistically and case by case, and the absence of an express clause should not in itself determine the nature of the instrument. We look forward to the Commission's work on the possible legal implications of non-legally binding agreements. including the role of good faith, while preserving the fundamental distinction between treaties and non-legally binding instruments. Regarding Chapter 11, regarding due diligence in international law. Madam Chair, Ukraine thanks the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Penelope Bridings, for her first report. Due diligence has long formed part of international law and is reflected in treaties, state practice, and the jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals. The recent climate-related advisory opinions provided further guidance on relevant factors, including risk, foreseeability, available knowledge, and state capacities. We support the proposal to focus first on due diligence as a standard of conduct attached to specific primary obligations, while allowing time for reflections on its possible role as a standalone obligation. We encourage the Commission to examine its legal basis and its relationship with the law of state responsibility. The topic is also relevant to cyberspace, where international law applies. Having faced large-scale malicious cyber operations, Ukraine attaches particular importance to greater clarity in this area. We support draft principles as the appropriate final form for this topic. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Ukraine for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Guatemala. You have the floor.

Sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair. On this cluster, Guatemala will focus its statement on the item non-legally binding international agreements. Guatemala would like to thank the International Law Commission for the progress it made at its 77th session, and in particular we'd like to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Matías Furtó, for his second and third reports. Guatemala takes note of the title of the first section and draft conclusions 1-5, as well as his comments, which were provisionally adopted by the Commission. Guatemala has a broad practice of signing up to non-legally binding international agreements, in particular through the Directorate for International Treaties that falls within the Foreign Affairs Ministry in our country. That's why we understand the importance of this issue and we are committed to continue supporting the Commission in its studies. We are also grateful for the information sent to the Commission being reflected in the comments to draft conclusions 2 and 3. The voluntary and flexible nature of these instruments fosters cooperation, coordination and innovation in international relations. In this regard, Guatemala welcomes the fact that paragraph 12 of the comments to draft conclusion 1 expressly recognizes this function. In our delegation's view, the Commission continues to address or to face two major challenges. The first is to find a balance between the need to ensure greater legal security and the importance of preserving flexibility that characterizes these instruments. The second is to address fragmentation, reconciling regional contributions to the universal vocation of its work. Both challenges require particular sensitivity, which the Special Rapporteur and the Commission have shown in their work to date. Madam Chair, on the second challenge, Guatemala urges the Commission to continue bearing in mind the valuable work that has been done by the Inter-American Legal Committee. set out in the guidelines for non-legally binding agreements, which were approved in August of 2020. Guatemala is pleased to see that the comments refer to these guidelines on several occasions. However, we think it would be useful to have greater clarity on to what extent this work has had an impact on the Commission's work. Paragraph 8 of the comments to draft conclusion one states that, and I quote, "All the necessary attention has been given to this work and these documents, ensuring at the same time that we're not bound solely by the opinions laid out in these regional frameworks." End of quotation. Guatemala believes that the membership would benefit from having greater clarity about on what, on which aspects the Commission has followed this work and where they have deviated from them and why. Madam Chair, I would now like to make some comments on some specific aspects. Guatemala is interested for the Commission to continue reviewing the potential legal repercussions of non-legally binding instruments on international law. This is a matter that the Special Rapporteur intends to look into for the fourth report. Nevertheless, we urge the Commission to address this cautiously, so as to avoid there being a deterrence effect in States and international organizations using these instruments. We believe that the conclusions should not undermine the functions that these instruments can play in international cooperation, and we must always bear in mind the flexibility that characterizes them. On a different tack, Guatemala takes note of the clause in paragraph 3 of draft conclusion 3, according to which the term "agreement" does not affect the meaning that can be given to it in State practice or internal law. However, as some other delegations have already said, both this year and last year, Guatemala maintains its reservation about the use of this term. As, like some members of the Commission, we believe the term instrument is more appropriate. Although in practice both terms have been used on many different occasions to mean the same thing, Guatemala believes that instrument is clearer about the intention not to bring about legally binding obligations. Lastly, on paragraph 3 of draft conclusion 4, Guatemala supports determining in the future the relevant elements or indicators that would make it possible to distinguish treaties from non-legally binding international instruments. The Inter-American Legal Committee has already carried out this exercise successfully, providing guidance, clarity and coherence. Guatemala once again urges the Commission to bear this work in mind as they look into these further issues. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation will briefly make comments on chapter 9, non-legally binding international agreements, chapter 10, prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, and chapter 12, compensation for damage caused by internationally wrongful acts. Turning to the first topic, my delegation expresses its appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Mathias Furtó, for the diligent attention to the topic, non-legally binding international agreements. This topic is one of great practical importance and one my delegation is following closely. At the outset, it is important to recall that since States enjoy wide discretion and flexibility in their practice in this area, the work of the Commission on this topic should not be prescriptive in its approach. My delegation notes that draft conclusions 1 to 5 have been provisionally adopted by the Commission and wishes to comment on two specific points: first, on the issue of terminology. Like most other States, it is not the practice of Jamaica to use the term “agreement” to refer to instruments that are not legally binding under international law. In light of the existing widespread State practice, we would therefore encourage the Commission to reconsider the use of the term “agreement”, as this risks creating confusion rather than promoting clarity in this area. We believe the term “instrument” is more appropriate. Secondly, We are of the view that further consideration should be given to draft conclusion 5. While express intention is an important factor, the binding nature of an instrument is determined by, among other things, the language used throughout the instrument and the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the instrument. Turning to the topic of prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, my delegation thanks the Commission for the work done to date on this topic. Jamaica has great interest in this topic, given our active involvement in promoting the safety and security of maritime navigation. As a small island developing state and the host country of the International Seabed Authority, the law of the sea is also of particular importance to Jamaica. Jamaica played a key role in the negotiation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which was adopted in the city of Montego Bay in Jamaica. For my delegation, it is essential that the work undertaken by the Commission does not undermine the framework established by UNCLOS. We encourage the Commission to give further careful consideration to those draft articles which deal with particularly sensitive issues of State sovereignty. In particular, draft article 9 concerning armed security personnel aboard merchant vessels and draft article 7 on hot pursuit do not appear consistent with the UNCLOS framework with the sovereignty of the coastal State. Turning finally to the topic of compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts, my delegation wishes to express its appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Martins Pāperinsks, for producing a very thorough first report on this topic and his excellent work in setting out the issues. While we continue to study the report, we wish to offer some preliminary views. First, we agree that a decision on the final form of the outcome should be deferred until a later stage. And secondly, we are of the view that colonial reparations, historical injustices, and the perspectives of formerly colonized states should be examined as part of the work on the topic. Madam Chair, in closing, I wish to advise that Jamaica intends to submit its written comments to the Commission by the deadline. Thank you.

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

Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone, and Madam Chair, dear Kika, it's very good to see you up there presiding over this session this morning.

Madam Chair, my delegation would like to make the following comments. Regarding the subject non-legally binding agreements, my delegation would like to thank, of course, the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Forteau, and the Commission for the provisional adoption of draft conclusions 1 to 5 and their commentaries. We underscore the importance of this subject, given the increasing number of legally non-binding instruments concluded over recent years, as the first report of the Special Rapporteur states, Non-legally binding agreements constitute a significant practice in contemporary international relations. Thus, there is a need to clarify the status of international law on the subject in order to strengthen international legal certainty. On draft conclusion 3, use of terms, we've taken note of the different positions expressed in the Sixth Committee. Some delegations shared their concerns regarding the use of the term "agreement" and would prefer instruments judged to be more encompassing. We do understand these concerns. In the light of the explanations of the Special Rapporteur, my delegation is satisfied at this stage of the use of the term "agreement" for this draft. especially because paragraph 3 of draft conclusion 3 preserves a degree of openness. The ILC indeed explains that this paragraph seeks to give states and international organizations the guarantee that their terminological practices will be preserved and are not affected by the use of the expression "non-legally binding agreement". On draft conclusions 4 and 5, on the intention of participants to the agreement, We believe that this is of particular importance. Intention is a key element. We consider, furthermore, that these two draft conclusions, four and five, could be grouped together. In paragraph 3, my delegation appreciates the reference to pertinent elements evaluated, assessed rather, as a whole, to establish the intention of participants to an agreement. We agree with a point raised by the ILC according to which these elements can be used not only in the absence of an express indication, but also in support of or confirmation of the intention that the participants have expressly shown. We agree that these elements, which should not be can provide States and international organizations useful and practical guidelines. To this end, we are very much looking forward to the proposals of text from the Commission. My delegation underscores as well the value of paragraph 4 of draft conclusion 4 and the case-by-case assessment of the legally binding nature of an agreement regarding prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. We would like to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Luis Sabadogo, for his report and the proposals therein. Leebik-Nun considers that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea should be the main legal framework for this work, drawing also from other rules of international law when necessary. We underscore to this end the need to maintain a clear distinction between piracy and armed robbery at sea, given the jurisdictional regime applicable to them. The respect for the sovereignty of the coastal state should guide the consideration of draft Article 7. on hot pursuit in the territorial sea. My delegation underscores that continuing a pursuit in the waters of another State must be subordinate to the consent of that State with respect of its sovereignty. This consent should not be presumed, even if we do recognize that obtaining this consent during a pursuit could raise practical difficulties. My delegation also shares the concern of taking into consideration technological developments, in particular the use of drones and cybernetic means under Article 5. We need to examine the best way of addressing them in the existing framework by appreciating the usefulness of specific definitions, perhaps having a more general formulation that could remain pertinent. if there are future developments. My delegation pays particular importance to Articles 13 and 14 on assistance to victims, respectively, and to rights and guarantees for arrested persons. The effectiveness of prevention and repression must go hand in hand with the protection of victims and the respect of applicable obligations in the area of human rights, including during detention at sea and the surrender of such persons to the relevant authorities. Regarding the subject, compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts, my delegation would like to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Martins Pāperinsks. And as regards the scope of this subject, we are in favor of expanding it to situations involving other stakeholders rather than States mentioned in paragraph 307 of the report. It's also important to examine situations in which the responsibility is incumbent upon such stakeholders, including international organizations, as stipulated in paragraph 310. As regards the role of compensation, we agree with the comment in paragraph 313 of the report, according to which this should not be considered either as the only form of reparation, neither as the principal form. Reparation in its entirety must be full. According to the nature of the harm, the compensation can also be accompanied by readaptation measures, official apologies, or commemorative measures. The question raised in paragraph 317 of the report regarding taking into consideration the financial situation of the responsible State should be studied more carefully. The financial difficulties of this State should nonetheless not sacrifice the rights of the victims to reparation. There's a need to examine possibilities for modifying the terms and conditions of the payment, whilst respecting the principle of full reparation. Regarding the determination of compensation, my delegation agrees with paragraph 319 of the report that equity should contribute to the determination of its amount when the harm is difficult to calculate precisely, in particular in the presence of moral damages or mass damages. It underscores that equity nonetheless must be carried out as part of applicable law It should guide an evaluation that takes into consideration the specific circumstances of each case, without which determination difficulties might lead to insufficient compensation. Regarding the final form of the work, my delegation is not opposed to a hybrid approach. It considers that this policy ability, however, should be further clarified, in particular given the linkage between the different components of the text and their respective scope, in order to preserve the clarity and practical utility of the outcome of the work. On the last subject, due diligence in international law, we are grateful to Ms. Ridings for her first report that's a detailed one. My delegation welcomes the methodological cautious approach taken to this subject. We believe it's a good idea to have this inductive approach on the practice of states and opinio juris, as well as jurisprudence and regional international jurisdictions. We also, as several members of the Committee have said, we welcome the importance of an in concreto analysis, in particular of the means and capabilities of a state that might have an influence on the degree of the expected diligence. We support the examination of two main concepts of due diligence. as a standard of behavior associated with primary obligations, and on the other hand, as a general autonomous obligation, as stipulated in the Corfu Channel case. My delegation finally remains flexible at this stage regarding the final form, and we support the approach of the Special Rapporteur. regarding the need to maintain legal certainty and flexibility, Lebanon will continue to closely follow the work of the ILC on these topics. And the longer version will be available on eStatements. Thank you very much indeed.

I thank the distinguished representative of Lebanon for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Arab Emirates. You have the floor, madam.

The UAE would like to thank the International Law Commission for the work carried out on topics on these issues. We will tackle chapters 9, 10 and 11 of the Commission's annual report. We will also provide the full version of its statement to the Secretariat in English and Arabic for publication online. Turning first to non-legally binding international agreements, the UAE reiterates its appreciation to the Special Rapporteur and the Commission, as well as its agreement with the general orientation of their work. Non-prescriptive elements of clarification are helpful to enhance legal certainty around these agreements. We would like to address four specific aspects of the Commission's work on this topic. First, The UAE considers that additional clarification may be necessary concerning agreements adopted by sub-state, local or sectoral entities. The current framing of draft conclusion 3, paragraph 2, does not sufficiently account for what is and what is not authorized under internal laws of states. Second, the UAE wishes to address the assessment of the nature of an agreement. The UAE believes the identification of indicators to determine whether an agreement is binding or non-binding can be useful. However, given the diversity of state practice, building an open-ended list of indicators may lead to endless discussions. Instead, identifying categories of indicators could prove more efficient. In our view, the categories used, or rather, we would like to address a specific concern we have with respect to draft conclusion 5 as provisionally adopted. Express indications of intention provide legal certainty to the participants to an agreement. However, as currently drafted, draft conclusion 5 undermines legal certainty. as it opens the possibility of re-characterizing agreements the participants have expressly identified as non-binding. The United Arab Emirates would instead rather support the Special Rapporteur’s proposal that the text of draft Conclusion 5 be left unqualified. Fourth, the UAE welcomes the Special Rapporteur’s caution as to the potential legal implications of non-legally binding agreements. We agree that by definition, these agreements do not produce binding legal effects, whether direct or indirect. The UAE would support a draft conclusion dispelling any ambiguity in this regard. The Commission should also make clear that provisions of non-binding agreements cannot be transformed into binding obligations through the application of principles such as good faith or estoppel. Finally, the UAE invites the Commission to pay particular attention to the importance of the intention of the participants to an agreement as regards its possible legal implications. In English.

International law. The UAE welcomes the attention of the Commission on this topic. We thank the Special Rapporteur for her first report, and we will make a few observations. First, the UAE echoes views expressed in the Commission on the importance of presenting state practice in support of work on this topic. The jurisprudence concerning the scope and content of due diligence appears to be composed primarily of decisions in the context of specific treaties or legal regimes. Reliance on them requires careful consideration. Second, the UAE supports a focus on due diligence as a standard of conduct attaching to specific primary obligations, as this is best supported by state practice, jurisprudence, and doctrine. We also invite the Commission to limit its work on this topic to the obligations of states. Third, on the possible existence of an autonomous due diligence obligation under customary law, we align with views within the Commission cautioning against the conflation of obligations of conduct across international legal rules into a global and standalone due diligence obligation. Our final comment pertains to the cross-cutting relevance of due diligence across different areas of international law, as identified by the Special Rapporteur. Several of these areas, such as cyberspace and climate change law, are undergoing active development. This warrants vigilance from the Commission. Madame Chair, On the topic, compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts, the UAE considers that this project should focus on compensation for internationally wrongful acts of states. We welcome the indication in the first report that liability rules do not fall within the scope on this topic. Other aspects of the law of state responsibility should be addressed only insofar as they bear directly on this topic. The UEE considers that the purpose of this project should be to clarify, as far as possible, existing rules of international law and to provide more useful guidance than is currently available, without overgeneralizing the rules and practices followed in specialized contexts. The UE welcomes the extensive review of jurisprudence in the first report. We call on the Commission to exercise care in drawing from jurisprudence, especially in investor-state arbitration. The UE believes that a focused scope of work, grounded in established practice, is most likely to produce an outcome that is both useful to states and achievable within a realistic time frame. Madam Chair, finally, on the topic of prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, the EU thanks the Special Rapporteur for his comprehensive report. This area of international law is an increasingly relevant field of common concern, particularly in view of emerging technologies. We encourage the Commission to approach this topic in a manner that takes into account the multitude of existing rules in this field and balances them with the imperative of keeping pace with international development. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Arab Emirates for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Saudi Arabia. You have the floor, madam.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation expresses appreciation to the ILC and its special rapporteurs for their efforts in international law. As we discuss cluster 3, we would like to make the following remarks on due diligence in international law and compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts. We stress the need to rely on state practices and current frameworks and taking into account the specificities of every country. First, with regards to due diligence in international law, we took note of the efforts made by the ILC on due diligence in international law, and we stress that looking into this issue remains preliminary. We need to reach conclusions that define due diligence and its legal basis. We stress that due diligence should not be considered an independent legal basis that is legally binding. It does not impose new issues. Given the complex nature of international law, we note that different international conventions have imposed different commitments on different countries. We stress the need for being diligent here. We cannot adopt unified a unified view. It is important that we continue focusing on due diligence without focusing on multinational companies or international organizations. There are different views in the committee on multinational companies. This issue remains very preliminary, and it cannot be discussed in a way that imposes any commitments in of international law on these companies. It is important not to explain due diligence in a way that doesn't take into account the sovereignty of states. In light of the different practices of member states and different opinions, we think it is important to adopt a very careful approach that is based on analysis of different practices instead of drafting guidelines. In order to differentiate between the current provisions in international law, we would like to discuss the second item, compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts. We took note of the efforts made by the ILC on this issue. In this vein, we stress the need that studying this issue should be restricted to the damage caused by international wrongful acts without including any issues that are mentioned in paragraph 27(b). Regarding the responsibility of international organizations or new mechanisms, we stress the need that the committee works in a way that does not go beyond the current laws. We cannot adopt new methodologies to analyze the damage or impose new rights for individuals. The use of the term environmental damage is noted in the report, however, the definition is not agreed upon internationally. It is important that the work of the Committee does not impose a new form of commitment to this compensation. We stress the importance of equity and shared but differentiated responsibility and relevant capabilities in terms of environmental rights. We also note the needs of states in terms of sustainable development. International law should not be explained in a way that imposes similar commitments on all states. The commitments need to take into account the specificities of states. In light of the different practices, it is important that the work of this committee at this stage focuses on an analytical study instead of drafting articles that impose new obligations. It is important to continue the constructive dialogue between the ILC and Member States, while taking into account the relevant observations of Member States and their practices, while taking into account different national circumstances, to promote legal jurisprudence and ensure balance between in terms of international law, without pre-empting the results. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Saudi Arabia for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. You have the floor, sir.

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Thank you, Madam Chair. In my statement under cluster 3, my delegation will address chapters of the Commission's report concerning non-legally binding international agreements, prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, due diligence in international law, and compensation for the damage caused by international wrongful acts. Madam Chair, with respect to the topic non-legally binding international agreements, we take note of the reports of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Mathias Voigtel, and the Commission's ongoing deliberations. On draft conclusion 1, particularly paragraph 2, my delegation supports the proposition that the Commission's work is intended solely for clarification and must not be prescriptive. In doing so, we emphasize the primacy of state sovereignty. The fundamental rationale for states entering into non-legally binding instrument is to preserve maximum diplomatic flexibility in drafting, adopting, and implementing mutual arrangements without subjecting themselves to rigid treaty procedures. However, my delegation remains unconvinced that the choice of the term "agreements" in the title and text of the topic is appropriate under international law. Given the established legal connotations of the word "agreement" under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, its use here creates unnecessary conceptual confusion. While the explanations provided in connection with draft conclusion 4 attempt to address this issue, they remain insufficient and fail to dispel the underlying ambiguity. We continue to prefer the generic and legally accurate term "non-legally binding instruments" or "arrangements". Furthermore, from a linguistic and conceptual standpoint, we are not persuaded that the French term "objet" is fully synonymous or coterminous with the English concepts of scope and purpose as employed in the report. Regarding draft conclusion 3 on scope, while we agree with covering instruments concluding between States and international organizations, the inclusion of arrangements entered into by sub-State authorities warrant strict caution, as such entities do not inherently possess international legal capacity to act on behalf of the State, requiring case-by-case scrutiny under domestic law. More fundamentally, regarding draft conclusion 4 and the overarching methodology of the report, the Islamic Republic of Iran maintains that there exists a deliberate hierarchy in a spectrum of international instruments, and sovereign states enjoy complete freedom of choice in selecting the appropriate form to govern their relations. Attempting to standardize, formalize, or assimilate non-legally binding instruments into a uniform legalistic framework amounts to an unwarranted restriction on the sovereign discretion and freedom of action of states. Whether an agreement is binding must be determined primarily by the explicit text of the document and the express intention of the parties, as noted in draft conclusion 5 and 6. We reiterate that the term "guidelines" would be the most suitable format for the final outcome. Finally, the primary emphasis is on the fact that the States, by choosing the form of any type of agreements, regardless of its content, are in effect demonstrating their will with respect to that document and its degree of bindingness. That is, if the criterion for interpreting the agreements pertains to its content, then thorough Then through their prior selection of its title, whether MOU, agreement, or other designation, they have already manifested their will and any expansion or broadening of this would fall outside the scope of sovereign prerogative of states. Madam Chair, turning to the topic prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. We take note of the work of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Sabadogo. Piracy and armed robbery at sea constitute major security challenges in international waterways, threatening maritime security and freedom of navigation while increasing the cost of global maritime trade. While piracy on the high seas is a serious crime against international community, and indeed, in our view, is the only crime over which the exercise of universal jurisdiction is undisputed in customary international law, even without an erga omnes partes treaty basis. Cases of armed robbery at sea occurring within internal waters, territorial seas, or archipelagic waters fall squarely within the exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction of the coastal state. Furthermore, the deployment of military personnel or privately contracted armed security personnel on board commercial vessels raises complex legal questions under general international law and the law of the sea concerning coastal state jurisdiction, state responsibility, liability, and the regime of innocent passage. Madam Chair, concerning the topic due diligence in international law, my delegation wishes to express serious conceptual and methodological reservations. Due diligence already operates effectively within a specific territory regimes and distinct branches of international law, such as environmental law, international humanitarian law, diplomatic protection, and investment law, each governed by fundamentally different primary rules. There is no evidence that a generalized ILC project is necessary. Rather, attempting to construct a single overarching framework risks obscuring existing rules and creating artificial problems in general international law. Second, the terminology itself suffers from inherent ambiguity, being variously described in the report as an obligation, duty, principle, a standard of conduct, or notion. More importantly, there is inadequate state practice and a complete absence of opinio juris to support the existence of due diligence as a general rule of customary international law. Frequent usage of the term by tribunals does not equate to state consent to an autonomous binding obligation. Indeed, a similar attempt to generalize this concept was previously considered and rejected by the Institut du Droit International, underscoring the lack of conviction regarding its autonomous normative status. Third, the report suffers from a flawed inductive methodology, attempting to extrapolate a general obligation from fragmented sector-specific details. In doing so, the Commission appears to be stepping beyond progressive development into the realm of international adjudication. Furthermore, different domestic judicial systems operate on distinct legal traditions. The Commission cannot invoke the municipal jurisprudence of a select group of countries to impose generalized international obligation upon all other states. Fourth, my delegation insists that due diligence is strictly a modality of the conduct of a state attached to and derivative of an existing primary obligation. and never an autonomous source of obligation. Paragraph 181 of the report must not be allowed to evolve into a broader general principle. We are also cautious about trigger words such as "ensure", "prevent", "protect" or "take all necessary measures". Fifth, The strict distinction between obligation of conduct and obligation of result must be rigorously preserved. A state does not incur international responsibility merely because an undesirable event occurred if it took reasonably available measures. In light of these considerations, Madam Chair, since the established primary obligations in fields such as climate change, human rights, and humanitarian law do not require an autonomous doctrine of due diligence to function, my delegation proposes that the Commission's output be strictly limited to non-binding guidelines, serving merely as a practical roadmap for how existing primary obligations are implemented. Finally, turning to the chapter on compensation for the damage caused by international wrongful acts, the Islamic Republic of Iran welcomes the inclusion of this vital topic in the Commission's programme of work and commends the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Pavarinskis, for his thorough and analytical first report. As a State that has suffered extensive human and material damage from wars of aggression, including the eight-year imposed war against my country in 1980s, As well as the unlawful wars of aggression and armed attacks perpetrated by the Israeli regime and the United States against Iranian territory in 2025 and 2026, Iran has a direct and vital interest in the clarification and development of the international law of compensation. While no restitution has been made, massive compensation remains outstanding to countless Iranian families who lost loved ones, as well as for destroyed homes, schools, hospitals, roads, airports, and energy infrastructure in my country. Iran concurs with the Special Rapporteur that Article 36 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts reflects customary international law. We strongly support the Special Rapporteur's intention to move beyond the general framework of 2001 to provide granular, practical guidance on the assessment and quantification of compensation, while cautioning that this exercise must remain faithfully within the boundaries of lex lata. Iran welcomes the recognition that moral damage to individuals, including pain, suffering, and the loss of loved ones, fall squarely within the scope of compensation. The suffering of civilian victims of unlawful attacks, especially children, must never be ignored. In this context, we reiterate our demand for full compensation for all moral and material damages inflicted upon Iranian civilians as a result of the recent acts of aggression. including the families of those martyred in the savagely and unlawful US attack against a primary school in Minab, south of Iran, as well as the victims killed by the US precision strike missiles with intent to commit mass killing of civilians in Lamer, south of Iran. Madam Chair, unfortunately, the aggression against my country was facilitated through the use of territories, aerospace, and facilities of certain states in the region. Article 3 of the definition of aggression, annexed to General Assembly resolution 33/14 expressly identifies as an act of aggression the action of a state in allowing its territory, placed at the disposal of another state, to be used for perpetrating aggression against a third state. As underlined by the International Law Commission in its commentary on a state responsibility, the obligation not to use force is breached when a state permits its territory to be used by another state to carry out armed attacks against a third state. The underlying principle is straightforward: a state cannot do through another what it is prohibited from doing itself. Accordingly, a state facilitating such aggression cannot evade international responsibility, not only for aiding and assisting in international wrongful acts, but also in violation of the prohibition of aggression, a peremptory norm of international law, breach of which constitute an international wrongful act. Such responsibility entails the obligation to cease the wrongful conduct, make full reparation for the injury caused, including through compensation and satisfaction, and provide appropriate assurances and guarantees of non-repetition. In this context, We also wish to underline that measures taken by my country in exercise of its inherent right of self-defence were conducted in accordance with international law, including international humanitarian law. Our position regarding the so-called Security Council resolution 2817 is clear and has been reflected inter alia in documents S/2026/202 and S/2026/389. Any assessment must take due account of the aggression against my country and the circumstances in which our lawful defensive responses were undertaken. We have also underlined our position in relation to the Strait of Hormuz and reaffirmed the obligation of all States to refrain from any form of aid and assistance to aggressors, including through that strait. And we categorically reject all allegations made against my country. Madam Chair, my delegation also highlights the discussions during the drafting of RCWAL concerning crippling compensation and the necessity of considering the socioeconomic survival of a state while ensuring that under Article 39 on contribution to injury, complex or multiple causal factors are not manipulated to weaken the fundamental obligation of aggressors to make full reparation. Crucially, Iran supports examining compensation owed by international organizations. Recalling Article 6 of Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations, the conduct of an organ or agent of an organization in the performance of its function is attributable to that organization under international law. In this respect, we reiterate that the IAEA Director General's erroneous and politically motivated public statements and media interview concerning Iran's exclusively peaceful nuclear facility provided a pretext and ultimately paved the way for unlawful aggression against my country, resulting in the loss of lives of more than 3,000 individuals in Iran, including women and children. and the widespread destruction of Iranian civilian infrastructure entailing international responsibility and obligation to compensate. While encouraging the Commission to survey a broad array of state practice, we caution against relying on domestic court judgments that are themselves predicated upon international wrongful acts. It is deeply regrettable that in recent years, municipal courts of certain countries have purported to award and enforce compensation against sovereign states. In flagrant defiance of the cardinal principle of sovereign equality, parim pare non ab imperio, and state immunity, decision based on politically motivated legislation, fabricated causal links, and the unlawful confiscation of sovereign assets are legally null and void ab initio, constitute international wrongful acts in their own right, and must be entirely excluded as valid practice under this topic. In conclusion, concerning punitive damages, it is our firm conviction that great breaches of peremptory norms, particularly acts of aggression, must be met with robust legal consequences capable of ensuring non-repetition. We look forward to engaging constructively on relevant chapters of the report, including on the question of interest and disproportionate awards, in due course. Hence, my delegation thanks the Special Rapporteur for his preliminary report and looks forward to engaging constructively on the substantive questions identified in the relevant chapters, with the ultimate goal of ensuring that victim States obtain full and effective reparation for the damage they have suffered. We will submit a full version of the statement to the Secretariat. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Republic of Tanzania. You have the floor, sir.

Madam Chair, I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the United Republic of Tanzania on cluster 3 of the International Law Commission's report on the work of its 77th session, as contained in document A/81/10. We commend the Commission for fulfilling its vital mandate to advance the progressive development and codification of international law since its establishment. Equally important, Tanzania commends all the rapporteurs on the topic under active consideration for their tireless efforts in preparing and presenting their reports to the Sixth Committee. Tanzania aligns with the statement delivered by Cameroon on behalf of the African Group and would like to add remarks on its national capacity. While welcoming the progress achieved so far on the topic under cluster 3, Tanzania would like to comment on chapter 10, on prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. Madam Chair, as a maritime state in the Western Indian Ocean with several large ports in Dar es Salaam, Zanzibar, Mtwara, and Tanga, supporting maritime transport to almost eight landlocked countries in the region. Tanzania pays close attention to the prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. Piracy and armed robbery significantly affect international trade, which depends heavily on safe and secure maritime transport. As such, preventing and repressing them requires a strong legal framework at the national and international levels. At the national level, Tanzania has undertaken significant measures to enhance enforcement through robust legal framework and regimes that provide clear criminalization through the penal code. Under Tanzanian law, Any person who commits or participates in piracy is liable, on conviction, to life imprisonment. This demonstrates Tanzania's commitment to effective jurisdiction, due process, and international cooperation in combating, preventing, and repressing piracy and armed robbery at sea. Tanzania continues to reinforce its maritime governance through the Merchant Shipping Act, which provides comprehensive regulation for maritime safety, security, and administration. Madam Chair, while appreciating the Commission's draft articles, Tanzania would like to comment on draft Article 7, hot pursuit in the territorial sea. Article 11 of UNCLOS allows a coastal state to pursue and arrest a foreign vessel beyond its territorial sea when it has reasonable grounds to believe that the vessel has violated its laws within its maritime zones. The pursuit must remain continuous and uninterrupted, and cease when the vessel enters another state's territorial sea. The draft articles propose continuing the pursuit into a third state's territorial waters, subject to that state's consent. Tanzania recognizes that effectiveness of maritime law enforcement may be affected by delays in obtaining consent from a coastal state where a vessel under pursuit enters its territorial sea. Therefore, any mechanism designed to address this challenge of delay must fully respect the sovereignty and territorial jurisdiction of the coastal state concerned. Tanzania therefore encourages the Commission to consider practical arrangements for expedited consent, prompt notification, and enhanced cooperation between States concerned in accordance with UNCLOS and the applicable rules of international law. Madam Chair, in conclusion, the International Law Commission draft articles should complement rather than undermine or duplicate the existing international and regional legal framework, while addressing the legal gaps concerning armed robbery within national maritime jurisdiction. And particular attention should be given to cooperation among states, criminalization, and domestic law capacity building, information sharing, and respect for state sovereignty and jurisdiction over the maritime zones. Tanzania urges the Special Rapporteur to further address the existing jurisprudence established by various national jurisdictions and taking into account relevant international jurisprudence and the specific challenges faced by developing costate in preventing and repressing pirates. Tanzania, therefore, looks forward to engaging constructively with the Commission within the framework of the sixth committee deliberations. I thank you for your kind attention.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Republic of Tanzania for his statement. The distinguished representative of the United Republic of Tanzania was the last speaker on the list of speakers for cluster three. It is my understanding that the delegation of the Russian Federation wishes to exercise the right of reply. Before we proceed further, I remind the Committee that, in accordance with paragraphs 9 and 10 of Annex V of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, the number of interventions in exercise of the right of reply for any delegation at a given meeting is limited to two per item. The first intervention should be limited to 10 minutes, and the second intervention should be limited to five minutes. I encourage any delegations exercising a right of reply to please be as brief as possible and to remain well within these time limits. I therefore give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation in exercise of a right of reply. You have the floor, madam.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, We regret the fact that the delegation of Ukraine used the Sixth Committee to make baseless, politicized accusations against my country. We would like therefore to say that the European states are using the Committee and other legal mechanisms.

In violation of international law and their own fundamental documents of the Council of Europe, which do not confer upon it such competencies. These mechanisms are broad for the EU country, but it is to do with the Russian assets. and which there's a gross impinging on Russian property and is a gross violation of international law. It's norm about the immunities of foreign states and their property. Expanding such interference creates critical risks for the sustainability of global financial and economic systems. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ukraine in exercise of a right of reply. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm compelled to use my right to reply for the statement just made by the representative of the Russian Federation. But let me be clear here. The Russian Federation's obligation to make reparation does not depend on its consent or any other resolution. This country is always commenting here in the Sixth Committee, at the General Assembly, other forums, about the respect of international law. But it's like picking cherries, making comfortable one norms and violating the others. So it's a basic rule of international law: the state that commits an international wrongful act must repair the harm it causes, whether it's about the satisfaction, compensation, restitution, or existing norms. So, the aggression is no exception in this case. The General Assembly has recognized this aggression for what it is. And the register of damage and the international claim commission create no new obligations for the Russian Federation, just simply make sure that an existing obligation does not remain on paper, and that the million of victims are not forgotten, and the aggressor must not bear the full responsibility for the actions done. And the door is open. The Russian Federation can join the convention and do what international law already requires, and to stop aggression and repair the damage. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Ukraine. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Bahrain in exercise of a right of reply. You have the floor, madam.

Thank you, Madam Chair. On behalf of member states of the GCC, the State of Kuwait, the Sultanate of Oman, the State of Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and my country, the Kingdom of Bahrain, in response to the statement by one country which contained claims we would like to refute as follows: Our country’s reject the allegations that they facilitated attacks against Iran or they made their territories under the disposal of any country to launch attacks against Iran. We reiterate that we are not party in this dispute, and those allegations are baseless, and they cannot be a pretext to undermine our sovereignty or interfere in our internal affairs or to target our territories. The sovereign decisions by our countries, including our relations to other countries, are purely internal affair, and no other state has the right to interfere, whether directly or indirectly, for any reason whatsoever, or to take these decisions as a pretext to use force against our countries. As to invoking Article 3 in the definition of aggression, It's baseless. The definition of aggression states that the establishment of aggression is left to the Security Council according to Article 39 of the Charter and is not a license to use force. The mere allegation or taking self-defense cannot be a justification to use force against our countries and the Security Council in its resolution 2817 of 2026. stressed our natural right to self-defense against these armed attacks, and this allegation does not absolve anyone under international humanitarian law to be applied in all conditions, irrespective of the reasons behind the attacks. We would like to recall Article 25 of the Charter that states that member states of the UN should oblige to accept and implement the Security Council resolutions. What we stress today, madam, are based on resolutions from the UN, and there is no way to twist the fact those resolutions should be respected and implemented according to the resolution. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Bahrain for his statement in exercise of a right of reply. We have another request for exercise of a right of reply from the Islamic Republic of Iran. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. We're really disappointed that this agenda item has been politicized by a particular delegation. This is a cluster on ILC work, and its technicality is always important for all Member States and also the Commission itself and using this agenda, temporal leveling, unfounded allegations against my country is something that we reject and express our disappointed on. The facts could not be twisted. We were subjected to an act of aggression, which was also facilitated through the aerospace and territory of certain countries in the region. And the definition of aggression is also clear, includes the placement at disposal of a third state, the territory of one, for act of aggression against another state. What I understand from the statement of the previous speaker is that they're simply saying that we place our territory at disposal of any other country, and it's not important for us if they use it for aggression against any other country or not. That is really not consistent with international law. As ICJ has mentioned in several important cases and its jurisprudence points out, territory of states should not be used to violate the rights of third states. And there is an obligation for states to ensure that their territories are not used for acts by another state contrary to international law against other states. So we could not simply say that we place our territory at the disposal of the aggressors, and it's not important whether this territory is used for aggression against Iran, whether this aggression kills Iranian people. This is not legally sound. It is also not morally acceptable. In relation to the so-called Resolution 2817, we have consistently maintained, including before the Sixth Committee, that the Security Council is neither above international law nor vested with unlimited authority. Under the Charter of the UN, the Council is required to act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN. Foremost among these is prohibition of aggression. The action of a state in allowing its territory placed at disposal of another for aggression, as we mentioned, is definitely a violation of the peremptory norm of prohibition of aggression. Accordingly, the Security Council is duty-bound to uphold this fundamental prohibition unequivocally, reject acts of aggression against Iran, and refrain from disregarding or normalizing violation of this peremptory norm of international law. Any Council output that overlooks such aggression and obscures the responsibility of the aggressors and those who facilitated that undermines the prohibition of aggression and tarnishes the Security Council's credibility. We reiterate our categorical rejection of the so-called resolution 28/17, which is fundamentally flawed, legally indefensible, and irreconcilable with the purposes and principles of the Charter. The resolution, the so-called resolution, by obscuring the responsibility of those involved and the aggressors, turns the fundamental logic of the Charter on its head. Such a double standard and ultra vires act is unacceptable and must be rejected. I thank you so much.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I have a request for a second round on exercise of a right of reply by the distinguished representative of Bahrain. You have the floor, madam.

Apologies, Madam Chair, for requesting the floor for the second time in response to a country. It's enough to remind that the Security Council, by its resolution 2817, has condemned attacks on countries of the region and called for their immediate cessation. Any attempt to deny these facts or twisting them will not change what That has been established by the Security Council clearly and explicitly. We recall Article 25 of the Charter. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Iran – excuse me, of Bahrain. I don’t see any more requests for the floor. I would like to give the floor to Mr. Mathias Furtioux, Special Rapporteur for the topic non-legally binding international agreements, who is appearing online, to make some brief remarks. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like sincerely to thank the different delegations who spoke on the issue of non-legally binding international agreements and who have spoken about the work that was carried out by the ILC during their work on it at the 2026 session. I was in New York last week for the International Law Week, but I had to be in Paris this week because of my university obligations. But rest assured that I have been able to follow the full discussions in the Sixth Committee this week. About 60 delegations took the floor, and I'd like to thank them all very sincerely for the clarity relevance and very constructive nature of the comments that they made, and more broadly for the support that members of the Sixth Committee continue to provide to the ILC's work on the issue of non-legally binding international agreements. The level of commitment to this subject bears witness to the importance that States attach to this subject. Rest assured that the Commission intends to bear in mind fully all of the views that were expressed during the sixth committee meeting. I would just limit myself at this point to three points. First of all, there were several constructive suggestions and remarks made about the five draft conclusions that were adopted, and all of these comments and suggestions, of course, will be duly borne in mind when it comes to finalizing the draft conclusions, both at the end of the first reading or either at the end of the first reading or at the end of the second reading. Secondly, comments made on the indicators or indices, which allow for one to distinguish between the different treaties. All of those comments, of course, have also been borne in mind and will be reflected in my next report so that we can allow members of the Commission to draft conclusions on this very important issue, on the issue of distinguishing between legally binding and non-legally binding instruments. Thirdly, I have also taken due note of the comments made on very sensitive issues, the legal, the potential legal obligations of non-legally binding agreements. In my fourth report, I will summarise the views expressed on this issue in the sixth committee, so as to make sure that members of the committee Committee, Commission are able to speak about these issues in full knowledge of what was said. To conclude, Madam Chair, I would recall that it is critical for the Commission to receive as much information as possible about State practice and the practice of international organizations, particularly on the issue of the potential legal repercussions of non-legally binding instruments. A request for information was made to this end in the Commission's report this year. This request for information was addressed not just to States, but also to international organizations. I am to submit my fourth report by the 13th of January so that it can be translated into the official languages before the next session. so that I can include in that fourth report all the information. It's critical that that information be sent to me by the beginning of December, so that I can include it. So I would kindly request States and international organizations to submit this information, therefore, in a timely manner, to ensure that that reaches me in good time so that I'm able to feed it into the fourth report, which, as I say, is to be submitted by mid-January. Madam Chair, distinguished delegates, I would like to thank you once again for your attention, for all of your constructive comments and suggestions which I have taken to note of, including in the written form. And once again, I would like to thank you very much indeed.

I thank you, Special Rapporteur, Mr. Mathias Fortoe. I now give the floor to Mr. Louis Savadogo, Special Rapporteur for the topic Prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, to also make some brief remarks. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you very much, madam. I would like to express my sincere thanks to the distinguished delegates for their very constructive statements, and I am going to take significant them into significant account in 2027. Right now, I'd like to ensure you that my study and the draft articles on that remain solidly enshrined in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. flexible. The Convention stipulates in PP9 that the questions that are not regulated by the Convention continue to be governed by rules and principles of general international law. Such a stipulation provides a basis for attempts to regulate emergent issues linked to piracy and armed robbery at sea. such as maritime cybercrime and also the use of maritime drones to commit infractions. As regards access to a area of jurisdiction of a third country in order to repress piracy, let's repeat ourselves. This can only be exercised with the express consent of that state, and the Special Rapporteur completely agrees here with those delegations who took the floor on that point. Numerous regional conventions in Africa and the Caribbean have provisions regarding this. We're not talking about revising the right of hot pursuit as stipulated in Article 111 of the Convention, neither to allege the establishment of a customary norm, but to take into consideration the reality. Here, a reference can be made to Article 319, para 3 of the Convention that stipulates Two or more States parties can conclude agreements that modify or suspend the application of provisions of the Convention and that uniquely apply or solely apply to their mutual application, as long as these agreements do not impinge upon a provision of the Convention whose non-respect would be incompatible with the implementation or achievement of those aims. As regards the powers of security forces boarding the vessel, first, there's a need to have police or military personnel embark who are from the state under article four of the draft article of the ILC on the state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts. So when exercising their mission to protect the vessel, these agents might not only push back the pirates, but also to arrest them, to surrender them to the affected state of the flag state. Secondly, So, private contractor agents could be used with a contract established between a private company and the state, and that company would have public powers, and their actions are considered as state actions pursuant to Article 5 of this ILC draft article. When the private security company does not exercise public prerogatives, there is a real problem in their mission to protect the vessel, if the private contractors push back the assailants and arrest some or all of them, are they going to release them? Pursuant to Article 107 of the Convention, only the vessel or aircraft or aircraft carrier can carry this out, so I don't think so. We could imagine that the armed guards can arrest the presumed pirates and surrender them to the nearest state or to a warship that they encounter at sea. These are complex issues, in other words, that your statements raise and that really need to be looked at in more depth. I'd like to reiterate, madam, In conclusion, my sincere gratitude to the distinguished delegates for their constructive comments. As the previous speaker, I'd like to draw the attention of the distinguished delegates to the need to send me as soon as possible the documents requested by the Secretariat regarding the practice of different States in the area of the prevention and repression of piracy, in particular, most recent legislation, the regulation of the use of drones and remote-operated apparatuses. Thank you.

I thank you, Mr. Savadogo. I recall that Mr. Martins Pabarinskas, Special Rapporteur for the topic compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts, and Ms. Penelope Ridings, Special Rapporteur for the topic due diligence in international law, addressed the Sixth Committee on their respective topics earlier in the session. On behalf of the Sixth Committee, I wish to thank all the Special Rapporteurs for their hard work and dedication. Finally, I understand that the Chair of the ILC, Mr. Andreas Mavroyiannis, wishes to make some concluding remarks. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, distinguished Delegates, distinguished colleagues, it is for us a very significant moment that we complete this very important exchange with the Sixth Committee on the report of the ILC. You know, this International Law Week, which involves all of you and the legal advisors from capitals and the members of the ILC, of course, is growing up. Now it's 10 days. We don't know if it will become even wider, but anyway, I have to say that As far as we are concerned, we wouldn't complain. It has been really an honor and a pleasure. And thank you very much for committing and engaging with all of us and for all the interventions, very fruitful and very constructive. And, you know, for us, as the ILC, it is of utmost importance. We are not learned society or in debating society. We are a subsidiary body of the General Assembly of the United Nations, and we are at your service. Of course, we gather in the ILC some of the best, you know, legal minds, and I don't want to make advertisement of my colleagues, but this is what it is. And you have seen over the last 10 days that this engagement was of, if you like, very, very high quality. We had this year the honor and the pleasure to have almost all colleagues that are special rapporteurs or are going to become Special Rapporteurs, I need to say a particular word to our colleague Masahiko Asada who sits up there and who has taken over, you know, to prepare the report on obligations erga omnes. The only colleague who didn't manage to be present among, I mean, the special rapporteurs is our colleague Bimal Patel, who for reasons that have nothing to do with the fact that he wanted to be here, but he has been elected in IDLOS. They have a case in the coming days, and he was not able to join us. Other than that, you have seen that we, in this exchange, we talked at the end of the day of 12 topics. We talked about four topics for which the work of the ILC has been completed and is now in your hands, starting from immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, going to general principles of law, or the topic of succession of states for internationally wrongful acts where the Commission has completed its consideration, and of course, the topic we completed last year on sea level rise in international law. So, and we had the pleasure to continue the exchange on also on the sea level rise, though we completed the consideration last year, but this is a very crucial topic, and we will, all of us, continue to work on seeing what will be possible. Then, we had also the topics of that we considered in cluster 2 and cluster 3, with, if you like, first and foremost, we had the subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law. We had also the settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties, and, of course, we had the prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. And we still have here our distinguished colleague, Luis Abadoco. And of course, the two new topics that the commission started considering, which is due diligence in international law and Penelope Writings was with us last week, and compensation for damage caused by international wrongful acts. And Martis Pabarins was with us also last week. As I was saying, we have then the obligations ERCA Omnus that is starting, and Masahiko Asada will be very happy to engage with all of you. And then we had, of course, the reception that was very positive, both on the updated syllabus on extraterritorial jurisdiction and also on the syllabus which will be now in the long-term programme of work of the Commission, the right to regulate in international investment law. So, a lot of things on our plate, but I want just to mention that, you know, we are all going through very tough times for the international community, for the United Nations, and of course, the ILC is also affected. the liquidity crisis continues. And for us, it was a balm in our hearts, the fact that we received your overwhelming support for the work of the International Law Commission. And we believe that, as in the previous years, the resolution concerning the ILC will be adopted in a way that will call for the work of the ILC to continue and for the financial means to be made available. If you wish, the problem has never been the budget or the support by the membership. The problem has been the liquidity, and as a result, last year, the ILC was not in a position to conduct a normal session, and instead of having 12 weeks, we only had five. This year, thanks to your efforts and your support, we went back to a quasi-normal situation, and we had a session of 11 weeks, which is in line with what was in decision of the General Assembly to reduce everything, if you like, but we were able to do our job and also to recover from what happened last year and to advance and to deal with some of the backlog. And this is one of the reasons why we gave you more work this year, because our report was a bit more lengthy than usual. But thank you very much because you managed to work on it and to come up with so important and constructive comments. We hope that, again, all together, we will manage to have in the upcoming session, the 78th session of the ILC starting next April, your support in order to, if you like, to be as this year, higher in the hierarchy of priorities of the United Nations in order to have the necessary funding for a normal session. And we are, of course, very grateful to you for that. I finish, distinguished delegates, Madam Chair, by saying that more than ever, All of us, we need more perseverance, more persistence, more resilience in these hard times, in this adversity, and because it is absolutely necessary. for the prevalence of international law and effective multilateralism, which are the greatest mitigating factors to the reign of the arbitrary, and it was also the refusal of the idea that might can make right. Humane and human civilization is the negation of the Hobbesian assertion, bellum omnium contra omnes. We deserve much better. And thank you very, very much.

I thank you, Mr. Chair, for those comments, observations, and remarks, and just to I assure you that the work that the ILC is doing is being noticed by the Member States, and we really appreciate your efforts in that regard. Throughout the debate on this agenda item, I have been encouraged by the richness of the exchanges on all topics, and I am confident that the comments and observations made, particularly on the topics that are still continuing, will be of great value and guidance to the Commission. Furthermore, delegations have had an opportunity on many occasions and in different settings to interact and exchange views with the Special Rapporteurs and members of the Commission who were present in New York. I thank them all once again for their availability and for their valuable comments and observations. I would also wish to echo the words of gratitude and praise expressed by the delegations to the Commission and for the successful outcome of its work this year. The important contribution of the International Law Commission to the progressive development of international law and its codification speaks for itself. I wish the Commission every success in all its future endeavours. And I thank you. We have thus concluded the debate on agenda item 78, the report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 76th and 77th sessions. Distinguished delegates, this year, Ms. Lucia Solano from Colombia has agreed to coordinate the preparation of the omnibus draft resolution under this agenda item. There are also two further draft resolutions being prepared this year under this agenda item. The first concerns the topic immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. which is being co-coordinated by Mr. Volodymyr Pavlichenko of Ukraine and Ms. Meron Habte Esayas of Eritrea. The second draft resolution concerns the topic “General principles of law”, which is being coordinated by Mr. Emmanuel Mweke of Nigeria. As agreed at our first meeting, we will provide the coordinators assigned to each agenda item the opportunity to take the floor to give a brief indication of their plans and, if possible, to already introduce the initial draft of their proposals for draft resolutions where applicable. I will now give the floor to the various coordinators to give a brief indication of their plans for the negotiation of the draft resolutions, starting with Ms. Lucia Solano of Colombia. You have the floor, madam.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, thank you very much for giving me the floor. Madam Chair, distinguished colleagues, I have followed the discussions from delegations on the three clusters of our agenda very closely, and also from the Chair, Mr. Mavriannis. I would like to thank him for being with us this week. As coordinator of the draft resolution on the report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 76th and 77th sessions, I now have the honour to speak about the draft resolution on this matter and on the informal consultations. The initial draft was distributed to delegations last Friday. I'd like to thank all delegations very much for their participation and their constructive attitude during these informal consultations yesterday during the lunch hour. Please remember that the deadline for sending language is tomorrow, Friday, at 2:00 PM. I hope to continue working with all delegations, and I hope that we will swiftly conclude our work on this draft resolution. If necessary, we can have other informal consultations, and we'll inform you in due time if they are necessary. Thank you.

Thank you, madam. I would now like to ask Mr. Volodymyr Pavlyshenko of Ukraine to take the floor on the draft resolution concerning the topic “Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction.” Also, on behalf of the coordinator, Ms. Meron Habte-Isaias of Eritrea. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, madam Chair. Distinguished colleagues, at the outset, on behalf of Eritrea and Ukraine, we are deeply honoured to be entrusted with co-facilitating the negotiations on the draft resolution on immunity of State officials from the foreign criminal jurisdiction. On 30 October, the Secretariat circulated the zero-draft resolution on this matter for the consideration of the Sixth Committee. It was modelled on the previous precedent, the General Assembly resolution on protection of persons in the event of disaster 71/141. On the 4th November, we held first round of informal consultations, and we wish to express our sincere gratitude to all delegations for their active and constructive engagement. To keep our negotiations moving forward smoothly, please note that the deadline for submitting further written proposals is this Friday at 2:00 PM. And our next informal consultations will take place on Tuesday at 11:30 AM on 10th November. So we look forward to working closely with all delegations in days ahead as we work together toward reaching a consensus. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, sir. Finally, I give the floor to Mr. Emmanuel Nwuke of Nigeria on the draft resolution concerning the topic General Principles of Law. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Dear colleagues, I followed with interest the debates and insightful statements of Member States on the topic featured in cluster 1 of the ILC’s report. As coordinator for the draft resolution on general principles of law, I circulated a zero-draft resolution on 30 October 2026. As mentioned in my message, the zero draft is largely based on a resolution adopted by the General Assembly in respect of a similar ILC topic on sources of international law titled “Identification of custom or international law”. I would like to remind that our formal consultations on the zero draft will take place today in this room at 2:00 PM. As head of the informal consultations, interested colleagues and delegates are encouraged to reach out to me with any question or for consultation. Also, feel free to submit any comments or amendment proposals. Madam Chair, allow me at this point to thank most sincerely the delegations in advance for their cooperation and support on this item. Permit me also to express my appreciation to the Secretariat for their kind support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I encourage the coordinators of the various draft resolutions to use the e-sponsorship module on e-delegate portal for the circulation of the draft resolutions as early as possible and to submit it for processing in good time. Let us now commence the debate on agenda item 86, the law of transboundary aquifers. There is no report issued for this agenda item. I wish to recall the decision taken at our first meeting that statements delivered in national capacity should be limited to seven minutes, while statements by groups of States will be limited to 12 minutes. The first speaker on the list for this morning's session is a distinguished delegate of Paraguay, speaking on behalf of a group of States. You have the floor, madam.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The delegations of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay welcome the fact that in six sessions over the last 20 years, since 2008, the General Assembly has considered the issue of the right to transborder aquifers, and this taking note of the draft articles of the ILC, and it has been recommended to States for their attention. In the current session, once again, we reiterate our appreciation for the work of the ILC, and in particular the work of the Special Rapporteur on this item, Ambassador Tsuruse Yamada, who, in the 63rd session of the General Assembly, presented the draft articles on the right to transboundary aquifers with the comments attached. We welcome the work of Ambassador Yamada, who has addressed the issue with diligence, seeking the advice of experts in hydrogeology and other related issues to achieve greater understanding of the nature and the functioning of aquifers, and therefore duly to be able to assess aspects that could pertain to legal regulations. The UNESCO Hydrological Programme, working with other institutions, in particular the International Hydrogeological Association, also played an important role in this domain. We reiterate our appreciation to the work of the working group, which was chaired over various years by Ambassador Candiotti. We also welcome the fact that the ILC has recognized the specificity of transboundary aquifers that exist in the world, including the Guarani Aquifer System, which is located within the respective national jurisdictions of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. The Commission's draft is the first systematic global formulation of international law applicable to this kind of aquifers. The draft defines a range of principles and basic standards to harmonize the use of subterranean deposits which are intersected by international boundaries. It indicates mechanisms for cooperation for the responsible management of aquifers by states to avoid disputes and to preserve the vital reserves for present and future generations. Delegations of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay agree with the approach that the Commission has taken in setting general applicable rules in this domain. The draft starts by recognizing that States in whose territories aquifers are located have the sovereignty over the part of the aquifer or system that is located within their territory. This sovereignty has to be exercised pursuant to international law, and in particular to the norms and principles that have been developed in the draft articles. This provision confirms that aquifers and their resources belong to States in which they are located, without prejudice to their being obligations of cooperation for their rational use and their preservation, obligations that are incumbent upon all States who exercise sovereignty over the different parts of an aquifer or a transboundary aquifer system. Pursuant to the draft articles, States in this domain have the responsibility to develop appropriate, effective cooperation mechanisms for the equitable use of these resources. Another important issue here is environmental obligations, such as the obligation not to cause substantive harm, to prevent pollution and to preserve ecosystems, and to provide notification about planned activities that could affect an aquifer. Environmental studies, therefore, have to be submitted in this regard. There is also the need for appropriate international cooperation involving states in this position, particularly for developing countries. Madam Chair, on 2 August 2010, the four countries signed the agreement on the Guarani Aquifer as a joint declaration, which set out the need for further cooperation in this area and the need to effectively implement the agreement. The agreement entered into force on 26 November 2020. The agreement has as a precedent the progress achieved in the harmonious development of water resources pursuant to the goals set out in the Cuenca del Plata Treaty of 1969, and it aims to be faithful to the principles on the protection of natural resources and the sovereign responsibility that states have when it comes to their rational use. pursuance to the Declaration of the UN Conference on Human Environment from 1972 and the responsibility to promote sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations, pursuant to the Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development from 1992. The Agreement on the Guarani Aquifer constitutes for our four countries an instrument of high political and technical relevance, given that it aims It has as a goal to strengthen cooperation and integration between the four countries and to broaden the scope of measures to sustainably use transboundary water resources pertaining to the Guarani Aquifer System, which is located in the different territories. In this regard, we are pleased to share some of the progress that has been made in strengthening regional cooperation for the sustainable management of the Guarani Aquifer System, particularly through the program implementation of the Strategic Program of Action for the Guarani Aquifer System, which has been rolled out by the Latin American and Caribbean Development Bank and working with UNESCO. During the years where the project was rolled out, we have consolidated a regional architecture for sustainable management of the aquifer, particularly through the regional monitoring network, which is located in our region. We have also given the green light to the Strategic Plan of Action 2025, which was built up through a broad technical process between the four countries. This sets out a regional roadmap with eight strategic programs to guide cooperation between the four countries to strengthen governments, the production of scientific knowledge, monitoring, social participation, and the sustainable management of the strategic water resource.

The four countries will

continue to move forward joint initiatives for the aquifer. We are also moving forward the review process for a new proposal, also within the framework of the Global Environment Fund, which is geared towards supporting support for the system and to following up the outcomes from the previous project, principally through implementation of the 2025 plan, which has been updated, and to strengthen regional cooperation within the context of the Guadiana Aquifer Agreement. We are convinced that it also represents a significant contribution from our region to this issue. It is the first multinational agreement in South America on the activities as are specifically linked to a transboundary aquifer. The four countries have also been the first to implement resolution 63/124, through which the General Assembly took note of the draft articles and encouraged interested States to agree on bilateral or regional arrangements for the suitable management of aquifers, bearing in mind the provisions of the draft articles which are mentioned in the preamble of the agreement. This information is laid out in the Secretary-General's report A/66/116. and a copy of the agreement was sent to the Secretariat at the time. On the next work on this issue, our four delegations support the General Assembly adopting draft articles contained in the annex to resolution 63/124 on the declaration of principles on the right to transboundary aquifers. This should therefore be borne in mind through bilateral or regional agreements for the appropriate management of transboundary aquifers in due time. Madam Chair, We reiterate our commitment to work with the Bureau and with other delegations with a view ultimately to moving forward in the consideration of this issue during the current session. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Paraguay, speaking on behalf of a group of States. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States of America. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We will be brief and to the point in discussing this agenda item, as the United States position has not changed since its last statement in 2022. The issues arising from transboundary aquifers are highly context specific, and state practices vary widely. The United States continues to believe that context specific arrangements provide the best way to address pressures on transboundary groundwaters and aquifers. States concerned can continue to take into account the provisions of these draft articles when negotiating appropriate bilateral or regional arrangements for the proper management of transboundary aquifers. The United States does not believe there is a further need to examine what form might be given to

the draft articles in the future.

Finally, this topic has been a separate agenda item in the Sixth Committee since 2009. The United States respectfully suggests now is an appropriate time to sunset the committee's consideration of this item, consistent with ongoing efforts to strengthen and improve the working methods of the committee and streamline the committee's agenda.

Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United States of America for his statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of India. You have the floor. I would now like to give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. You have the floor, madam.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands continues to value the draft articles on the law of transboundary aquifers. A great part of them reflects customary international law and existing international law on water. Examples are the 1992 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, and the 1997 Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. For the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the international regulation of the uses and impacts of transboundary aquifers is of high significance. as it shares many water and other natural resources with other States, and within areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. These include mineral deposits such as oil, gas, migratory species on land, in the air and in the sea, and groundwater, including transboundary aquifers. Since our last consideration of this item in 2022, the pressure on these aquifers has not eased. Droughts are increasing, as is the demand for water. Unsustainable abstraction threatens the groundwater reserves and puts ecosystems and life-sustaining water supplies at risk. This risk is especially serious because there are no substitutes for transboundary aquifers. We therefore reiterate our agreement with the Commission's observation in its commentaries that there is an urgent need for proper management of groundwater resources. We furthermore recall the discussion of the 2023 UN Water Conference, co-hosted by the Netherlands and Tajikistan. As a part of the 2023 Water Conference, the Global Commission on the Economics of Water published a report which calls for a system approach for water, taking into account all aspects of the hydrological cycle, including groundwater contained in aquifers. We see value in this more holistic approach, that shows that the different aspects of water are connected and are affected by different uses. On the future form of the draft articles, our position remains as we have previously stated: it would be preferable to consider a convention on the law of transboundary aquifers only after the ILC has completed its work on other shared natural resources. Pending that work, The adoption of a non-legally binding instrument may merit consideration as a step towards an adequate legal regime for shared natural resources. In their current form, the draft articles are valuable guiding principles for States concerned in bilateral or regional frameworks, agreements and arrangements. We commend the States that have concluded such agreements, and we encourage others to do so. Kingdom of the Netherlands remains fully committed to continued discussions on the law of transboundary aquifers. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Chile. You have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. On the item on transboundary aquifers, as we have previously stated, my delegation reaffirms its commitment to the customary principles of the equal reasonable use here, the obligation not to cause harm, and the general obligation of States to engage in international cooperation. which is applicable to all shared water resources, including transboundary subterranean waters. In this context, we recognize that the principle of sovereignty that is referred to in draft article 3 applies to the portion of the aquifer in the territory of a State. This State in question must therefore exercise its sovereignty in line with international law and abiding by the relevant principles to the use of transboundary waters. Consequently, sovereignty, as is understood in the terms laid out in the draft articles, means that the territorial state is free to determine the use that it wishes to make of the aquifer, bearing in mind the effects of its policies vis-à-vis other states with whom it shares that aquifer. exercising its sovereignty, it must respect the principle of equitable and reasonable and rational use. It must ensure international cooperation and the duty not to cause significant harm, and also bear in mind the relevant factors that are indicated in Article 5 of the draft articles. Madam Chair, to exercise these rights and duties, it is critical to define an aquifer in terms of its its size, and also to consider hydrogeological and hydrological criteria, because aquifers are part of complex systems in which one could be directly linked to another aquifer located in another state or with a river that feeds into it, which could also be located in another state. That is why we must incentivize support for scientific knowledge by states and the exchange of information on transboundary aquifers. This is a very pertinent issue because there is a lack of technical capacity and scientific knowledge on how aquifers actually work. This means that Subterranean waters are often those that are most exposed to pollution and overexploitation. Madam Chair, my delegation also wishes to underscore the importance of the obligation to engage in cooperation with other States who share a transboundary aquifer. We stress draft article 9 that incentivizes States of a transboundary aquifer to sign bilateral or regional agreements. In this regard, the draft articles can be a foundation for these agreements to be negotiated. They must bear in mind the specificities of the aquifer in question, and they should be adopted fully respecting the customary norms that are applicable to this area. I thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The progressive development of law applicable to transboundary aquifers is of particular importance. These resources are critical for human supplies for economic activities and for the preservation of ecosystems. At the same time, their shared nature, the increasing pressure on their availability, and the effects of climate change means that it is critical to strengthen international cooperation in this area to ensure that they are used equally and sustainably. The draft articles that were adopted by the ILC in the annex to Resolution 63/124 provides a balanced foundation to reconcile state sovereignty with the equitable, rational use of aquifers, preventing harm, protecting ecosystems, and achieving cooperation through the exchange of information, monitoring, and holding consultations. Since its adoption in 2008, the General Assembly has encouraged states to use the draft articles as a guidance to agree on bilateral and regional arrangements. However, the practice that has been developed since then has not been subjected to updates and systematic and further work, while the issue of the future form of the draft articles remains outstanding. Bearing in mind that almost 20 years have elapsed since the initial resolutions and that it is important to attend to the needs of the current context on how to use this fundamental resource, my delegation believes that this Commission should make progress in a substantive way on this issue, and it must be based on a sufficiently informed foundation. Mexico maintains its support for the development of an internationally binding instrument based on the draft articles. That is why it's important to assess the evolution of state practice and the extent to which the articles have been reflected in bilateral and regional agreements. We should also assess the interaction between the draft articles and the existing international instruments applicable to transboundary waters, so that we can pinpoint potential complementarities, overlaps, or shortcomings. We thus suggest asking the Secretary-General to prepare an analytical report based principally on the information that's already available, which can break down state practice and the relevant regional and bilateral agreements, can assess the extent to which these reflect the principles contained in the draft articles, and analyze their link to existing international instruments. The report could also identify the substantive issues and the options that the General Assembly could consider for future developments on this issue. This exercise should not be something that is postponed forever. The time frame needs to be defined. The mandate should be precise, and the outcomes could be a foundation for the General Assembly to once again review the issue and take an informed decision on the next steps to be taken and the modalities of a legally binding instrument. We are ready to work on a roadmap to achieve that end. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Colombia is grateful for this opportunity to refer to the item on transboundary aquifers. which is included on the programme for this 81st session. Pursuant to resolution 77/112, first and foremost, Colombia recognizes the work of the International Law Commission in this domain. In 2008, the Commission approved the draft articles on the right to transboundary aquifers, and we welcome that since resolution 68/118, the General Assembly has raised this for the attention of Governments as guidance for bilateral or regional agreements and arrangements. Aquifers are non-renewable nature resources upon which humans depend for our well-being. That is why my delegation believes that the draft articles are a useful reference point to guide their equitable use, their protection and preservation, as well as to prevent harm to other States involved. I would like, first of all, to refer to the sovereignty of States in this domain. Colombia welcomes the fact that Article 3 of the draft reaffirms the sovereignty of each aquifer State on the part situated in their territory, pursuance to resolution 1803 on permanent sovereignty on natural resources, which is laid out in the preamble. For Colombia, this premise is the foundation upon which any cooperation in this domain should be built. This principle is also linked to our legal order in Colombia. The political constitution provides that the state is the, that the, the, the natural resources are property of the state, and our legislation recognizes the. the public ownership of the waters involved, including subterranean waters. This is also reflected in the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the jurisprudence of the ICJ. In this regard, Colombia agrees that any regulatory framework on transboundary aquifers should be built on the foundation of recognizing state sovereignty on the portion of the aquifer that is situated in their territory. Without prejudice to that, the exercise of this sovereignty should be tailored to international law and also to the internal legal order in each State. We also believe that the principles of sovereignty and cooperation should be interpreted complementarily. aquifer states is a mechanism to coordinate the exercise of their respective competencies and to promote the protection and adequate management of the resources, without undermining the sovereignty that each state has on the portion located in its territory, and this must all be pursuant to international law. I now refer to cooperation between aquifer states. Colombia attaches particular importance to cooperation on the basis of sovereign equality, territorial integrity and good faith, and this should be adapted both to the needs of the States who share the aquifer and also to the characteristics of the aquifer itself. That is why I welcome the fact that Article 9 of the draft promotes signing regional or bilateral arrangements or agreements, with particular attention to the specificities of each aquifer. These instruments should preserve the rights and interests of States to the aquifer, and they should not adversely or significantly affect their use without their express consent to that end. In terms of the relevant factors for the equal use set out in Article 5, Colombia believes that this should be defined by States concerned through consultations. Bearing in mind the specific circumstances and characteristics of each aquifer, this understanding will make it possible to reconcile the different assessment that states give to these different factors and will facilitate the determination of rational use. In addition to this, Colombia underscores the technical assistance of international organizations should be provided with the consent of the state involved and within the mandate of the respective organization. Lastly, I will refer to the draft articles. Colombia believes that any reference to drafting a convention on the basis of the draft articles should be addressed cautiously and carefully. In this regard, we need to assess the way in which this could be done. We need to assess how a legally binding instrument would apply in the international domain. Consequently, my delegation believes we need to maintain open the discussions on the definitive form of the draft articles, including the potential drafting of an internationally of a legally binding instrument. In this regard, we are pleased to hear what Mexico had to say, and we will be open to discussing this matter further with them and with all delegations. That concludes my intervention. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Colombia for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished Permanent Representative of Angola. You have the floor, sir.

Madam Chair, Angola attaches great importance to sustainable management of transboundary aquifers as a vital contribution to water security, climate resilience, regional cooperation, and achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 6. Shared groundwater resources require effective governance grounded in international law, scientific cooperation, mutual trust, and respect for national sovereignty. Their equitable and sustainable utilization can prevent disputes, strengthen good neighborly relations, and advance peace and development. Madame Chair, Angola's commitment to water diplomacy was reaffirmed at the fourth Luanda Biennial, Pan-African Forum for Culture of Peace and Nonviolence, held on 22nd and 23rd October 2026, under the theme "Strengthening Water Governance in Africa as an Instrument for Conflict Prevention, Mediation, and Resolution." Under the leadership of His Excellency João Manuel Gonçalves Lourenço, President of the Republic of Angola and the African Union Champion for Peace and Reconciliation, the forum culminated in the adoption of the Luanda Declaration on Water Governance, establishing a strategic framework for cooperation during 2026-2036. The declaration called for strengthened transboundary water governance, improved information sharing, early warning mechanisms, inclusive decision-making, and greater investment in climate resilience. This commitment reinforces Angola's conviction that water must serve as an instrument of cooperation rather than a source of conflict. The principles underlined the declaration are equally relevant to transboundary aquifers, whose sustainable management requires coordinated action among neighboring states. Madam Chair, Angola welcomes the International Law Commission contribution through the draft articles on the law of transboundary aquifers, which provide an important reference for international cooperation. We particularly emphasize equitable and reasonable utilization, prevention, and significant arm cooperation in good faith and regular exchange of scientific and technical information. In this regard, Angola advocates three priorities. First, strengthening bilateral and regional cooperation through joint aquifer assessments, monitoring mechanisms, and agreement adapted to specific hydrogeological conditions. Second, expanding technical assistance, technology transfer, and predictable financing to enable developing countries to map, protect, and sustainably manage groundwater resources. Third, integrating groundwater governance into climate adaptation, conflict prevention, and sustainable development strategies, ensuring meaningful participation by women, young people, and local communities. Angola supports continued consideration of the possible legally binding international instrument through an inclusive, consensus-based process that respects state sovereignty and takes account of regional experience and national circumstances without prejudging the outcome or creating new obligations. Madam Chair, Angola’s national and regional experience demonstrate the importance of translating these principles into practical cooperation in managing aquifer systems shared with neighboring states, including those associated with the Cubango, Okavango, Kalahari, Karoo, Kavali, Etosha, Kunene, and Kong basins. Our participation in Southern Africa Development Community, SADC, and the Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission, OKACOM, Reflects our commitment to integrate management of shared water resources, including groundwater. Joint assessment, information sharing, and coordinated monitoring are essential to ensuring sustainable use, preventing disputes, and strengthening good neighborly relations. Furthermore, Angola's investment in addressing recurrent drought in southern Angola, notably the Cafue Canal and the Duwe and Kalakuve Dam projects, demonstrates the importance of resilient water infrastructure, integrated planning, and improved access to water for vulnerable communities. This experience highlighted the need to strengthen the relationship between surface water and groundwater management, food security, climate adaptation, and the protection of livelihoods. The Luanda Declarations provide additional political momentum to deepen such cooperation, including through scientific partnership, capacity building, and regional confidence-building measures. Madam Chair, in conclusion, Angolans call for calls upon Member States and international partners to translate the principles governing transboundary aquifers into concrete cooperation, stronger institutions, adequate financing, and measurable results. As reaffirmed at the Luanda Biennial, sustainable water governance must combine political commitment, scientific knowledge, and shared responsibility. Angola remains committed to advancing water diplomacy, convinced that equitable and sustainable management of transboundary aquifers can strengthen regional integration, prevent conflicts, and contribute to lasting peace and sustainable development. Thank you, madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Angola for his statement. Distinguished delegates, the distinguished Permanent Representative of Angola was the last speaker on the list of this agenda item this morning. We will continue and conclude our debate on agenda item 86, the law of transboundary aquifers, at our next meeting, which will be held this afternoon. Please be reminded that the meeting of the Working Group on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism initially planned for today, has been rescheduled for tomorrow morning after the conclusion of the plenary. Instead, the Working Group on the Scope and Application of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction will now hold its final meeting after the adjournment of the plenary meeting this afternoon. Finally, I wish to remind delegations that informal consultations on agenda item 112 measures to eliminate international terrorism, followed by informal consultations on the draft resolution on general principles of law issued under agenda item 78. The report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 76th and 77th sessions will take place during the lunch break in this room. The meeting is adjourned.