Sixth Committee, 39th plenary meeting - General Assembly, 81st session

So I would want to ask if there is any delegation that is opposed to this compromise approach. I see the United States, please.

I’m sorry.

At this point, we would have to reserve on that.

Our instructions are to support taking note, but we will take back this discussion and happy to revisit as soon as we get back in the room next time. Okay. Thank you very much.

I urge other delegates to also reflect on that when you try to review what has been said today.

I don't have any food, but I can bring some, right? Okay.

I call to order the 38th meeting of the Sixth Committee for the 81st session of the General Assembly. Ladies and gentlemen, delegates, this morning, the Sixth Committee, or rather, this afternoon, the Sixth Committee will continue and conclude the debate on agenda item 86, the Law of Transboundary Aquifers. I recall that there is no report issued for this agenda item. I also remind delegations of the decision taken at our first meeting that statements delivered in a 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 of speakers for this afternoon is the distinguished representative of Zambia. Zambia, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. The delegation of Zambia thanks the International Law Commission for its foundational work on the draft articles on the law of transboundary aquifers, which were adopted in 2008. Zambia joins calls for a clear roadmap toward negotiating a framework convention for the proper management of groundwater resources. To achieve Sustainable Development Goal Target 6.5, implementing integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation, our international legal frameworks must be responsive and harmonized. This 81st session meets at an inflection point. The devastating impacts of climate change have not spared any region of the world. Across sub-Saharan Africa, climate change is no longer imminent threat. It is an existing reality. An unprecedented climate-induced region drought has strained surface water systems to their absolute limits. There is an increasing demand for fresh water because of rapid urbanization, as well as for agricultural and industrial use. In this context, groundwater is not merely an environmental asset; it is a lifeline critical for human survival, agricultural resilience, and national stability. For Zambia, which is blessed with shared river basins and vast underground water aquifer networks, water governance is inherently transboundary. At the domestic level, Zambia developed its National Blue Economic Strategy 2024-2030 as a framework to ensure the responsible use of water resources. The Blue Economy Strategy is a comprehensive plan to harness the country's aquatic resources, rivers, lakes, wetlands, and groundwater for sustainable economic growth and environmental stewardship. It is in this spirit that Zambia welcomes global efforts for a harmonized legal framework that is clear and founded on accepted international legal principles. Madam Chair, Zambia maintains a consistent position and firmly supports the evolution of the draft articles into a legally binding framework convention. While non-binding guidelines provide a helpful reference, they are no longer sufficient to address the magnitude of the global water crisis. A formal multilateral system is therefore crucial. It will provide the necessary legal certainty, clarify state responsibilities, and establish structural mechanisms to prevent cross-border water conflicts. The draft articles provide a tailored tool that states can model to negotiate specific bilateral or regional groundwater agreements. Zambia further stresses that international water law must always respect the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources. A global framework should not infringe upon national sovereignty. Instead, it should empower states to exercise that sovereignty responsibly through structured cooperation. the commitment to equitable and reasonable utilization, and the obligation to prevent significant harm. Madam Chair, the articles consist of a preamble and 19 articles divided into four parts. Zambia takes the view that part three of the draft articles, which pertains to protection, preservation, and management of ecosystems, is in furtherance of numerous multilateral treaties that advocate for the conservation of the environment. Article 12 places a duty on aquifer states to take a precautionary approach to prevent, reduce, and control pollution of their transboundary aquifers. Zambia fully endorses the provisions of Article 16 on technical cooperation with developing states. Technological transfer and capacity building in scientific, technical, and legal fields are essential to equip developing countries to sustainably use aquifer systems within their territories. Accordingly, Zambia calls on the international community to scale up technical assistance and capacity building. In conclusion, Madam Chair, Zambia sees value in moving toward a convention that regulates transboundary water aquifers. The draft articles contribute to solving some of today's complex areas in international relations. Zambia remains open to further refinement of the draft articles. and undertakes to work in a constructive spirit towards this aim. Thank you, madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Zambia for that statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Vietnam. Madam, you have the floor.

Madam Chair, groundwater may be out of our sight, but its importance to our communities and economies is clear. Transboundary aquifers sustain livelihoods, support food production, and help meet essential water needs. Their protection and sustainable management require sound science, mutual trust, and sustained cooperation. Vietnam appreciates the International Law Commission's work in preparing the draft article on the law of transboundary aquifers. My delegation wishes to emphasize the following three priorities. First, sustainable management of transboundary aquifers must rest on respect for sovereignty and the relevant principle of international law. Each aquifer state has sovereignty over the part of the transboundary aquifer or the aquifer system within its territory. That sovereignty must be exercised in accordance with international law. Vietnam reaffirms the importance of the principle of equitable, reasonable, utilization and the obligation not to cause significant harm. This requires taking all appropriate measures to prevent significant harm to other States. The needs of the present and future generations, particularly vital human needs, should also guide our efforts. Cooperation should proceed in good faith on the basis of sovereign equality territorial integrity and mutual benefit. We encourage regular exchanges of relevant data and information through arrangement agreed by the state concerned, consistent with their applicable international obligations. Such arrangement can build trust and provide a shared scientific basis for sustainable management. Second, priority should be given to practical cooperation tailored to individual aquifers. Vietnam supports the development and effective implementation of bilateral, sub-regional, and regional arrangements and agreements for particular transboundary aquifers and aquifer systems. These should take into account the specific characteristics of each aquifer or aquifer system and the needs and capacities of the state concerned, while respecting the rights of other aquifer states. The draft articles should continue to serve as valuable guidance for these efforts. States should be encouraged to share their experience in applying them, allowing us to build a fuller body of national practices and better understand practical challenges. In our view, negotiation on a global convention should begin only when a sufficiently developed body of state practice is available and consensus on the next step has been reached in both Sixth Committee and General Assembly. A gradually consensus-based approach would provide a sounder foundation for any future treaty-making process. Madam Chair, third, stronger scientific knowledge and national capacity are essential to effective cooperation. Vietnam call on relevant international organizations and partners to strengthen support for developing countries in accordance with their needs and priorities. Such support should include aquifer mapping and monitoring of groundwater quantity and quality. It should also facilitate access to and sharing of appropriate technology, data collections, and exchange. under agreed arrangement and training for national expert and institutions. This effort would have closed knowledge gaps, strengthens shared understanding of transboundary aquifers, and enable state to cooperate more effectively in managing them sustainably. In conclusion, Vietnam stands ready to work constructively with other delegations in advancing practical cooperation and preserving this essential resource for present and future generations. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the distinguished representative of Vietnam for that statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Philippines. Madam, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We are pleased to see you chairing this meeting. The Philippines thanks the International Law Commission for its work on the law of transboundary aquifers, and we especially pay tribute to the late Special Rapporteur, Ambassador Chusei Yamada, whose contribution laid the foundation for the draft articles. The Philippines has long recognized the importance of developing an international legal framework governing the equitable utilization, protection, and sustainable management of transboundary aquifers. In our earlier observations to the Secretary-General and before this Committee, in 2011, we emphasized the need for such a framework to be informed by sound scientific understanding, including comprehensive mapping and assessment of aquifers, their rates of recharge and depletion, and appropriate management arrangements. These considerations remain relevant today, particularly in light of increasing water demand, groundwater depletion, and the effects of climate change. The Philippines wishes to make the following further points. First, on sovereignty under draft Article 3. We recognize the sovereignty of aquifer states over portions of transboundary aquifers situated within their respective territories, consistent with the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources. At the same time, Article 3 expressly provides that such sovereignty shall be exercised in accordance with international law. This qualification is pertinent to us as sovereignty does not exist outside of international law, nor does it confer an unrestricted right to undertake activities that may cause significant transboundary harm. Hence, Article 3 must be read together with the provisions on equitable utilization, prevention of significant harm, and international cooperation. Second, on equitable and reasonable utilization under draft articles 4 and 5, the Philippines has previously emphasized the importance of equitable sharing, conservation, and sustainable development in the management of transboundary aquifers. These provisions draw upon principles developed in international watercourse law, particularly the 1997 Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. Their application to groundwater nevertheless requires continued careful consideration. Not all aquifers fall within the scope of that convention. Moreover, the recognition of a principle in international watercourse law does not necessarily establish that every aspect of its application to groundwater reflects customary international law. This is relevant to non-recharging aquifers where extraction may result in irreversible depletion. We therefore attach importance to draft Article 4, paragraph D, concerning the effective functioning of recharging aquifers and to Article 5, which accords special regard to vital human needs. Third, on the obligation not to cause significant harm under draft Article 6, the Philippines considers that this provision draws upon well-established principles of customary international law concerning the prevention of significant transboundary harm. The obligation of prevention is one of due diligence, and States need not wait until significant harm has occurred before taking appropriate measures. Where there is sufficiently established risk of such harm, the obligation to exercise due diligence already arises. Further, the occurrence of harm does not by itself establish a breach of international law. The consideration is whether the State concerned exercised the diligence required in the circumstances. We also consider that Article 6, paragraph 3, should be understood without prejudice to the applicable rules of state responsibility, including cessation and reparation, where an internationally wrongful act is established. The Philippines has previously called attention to the importance of comprehensive aquifer mapping. reliable information systems and management arrangements that take into account the physical characteristics of groundwater resources. These considerations currently find expression in draft Articles 8, 13, and 14. We also welcome Articles 10, 12, and 15 on ecosystem protection, pollution prevention, and environmental impact assessment. The International Court of Justice has recognized the obligation under general international law to undertake an environmental impact assessment where there is a risk of significant transboundary harm. Article 15 should be interpreted consistently with this obligation. Its qualification that an assessment be undertaken as far as practicable should not diminish obligations independently established under customary international law. Finally, Madam Chair, the Philippines has previously supported the development of an international legal framework defining the rights and obligations of states sharing transboundary aquifers. We continue to support this objective, and we consider that the question of a future convention should be informed by existing international law, identifiable normative gaps, relevant state practice, and the needs of the states concerned. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Philippines for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Bangladesh. You have the floor, sir.

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Madam Chair, Bangladesh welcomes the return of this item to the agenda and thanks the Secretariat for its work. For my delegation, the law of transboundary aquifers is not a technical footnote to the law of international watercourses. It concerns the water that most of our people drink and on which our farmers depend to grow their dry season rice. Bangladesh lies at the lower end of the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna basin. Beneath our land lies one of the great groundwater systems of the world, the aquifers of the Bengal basin, which do not stop at the border. Hydrogeologists on both sides of the border have observed that the shallow aquifers continue from West Bengal into Bangladesh, and that groundwater flows across the border towards the southeast. They have recommended joint assessment and joint monitoring. Bangladesh agrees. The stakes are high. Our National Hydrochemical Survey, carried out with the British Geological Survey, estimated that some 35 million people were exposed to arsenic in groundwater above our national standard. and 57 million above the guideline of the World Health Organization. The arsenic is natural in origin, and it does not respect boundaries either. At the same time, rising seas are pushing salt water into the coastal aquifers of the delta. How an aquifer is pumped on one side of a border can change the quality and quantity of water on the other, is precisely the situation the draft articles were written for. Madam Chair, the draft articles adopted by the International Law Commission in 2008 remain, in our view, a sound and balanced framework. They recognize the sovereignty of each aquifer state over its portion of an aquifer, but require that it be exercised in accordance with international law. They set out the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization, the obligation to take all appropriate measures to prevent the causing of significant harm, to other aquifer states, the general obligation to cooperate in good faith, the regular exchange of data and information, and notification of planned activities. These are not new ideas. Almost a century ago, in the River Order case, the Permanent Court of International Justice spoke of a community of interest among riparian states, founded on the perfect equality of all riparian states. In 2022, in the Silala case between Chile and Bolivia, the ICJ held that the Silala, whether its waters flow on the surface or underground, is an international watercourse subject in its entirety to customary international law. The Court confirmed that every riparian state has a basic right to an equitable and reasonable sharing of the resources. that riparian states must prevent significant transboundary harm and must notify and consult one another on planned activities that pose a risk of such harm, and that a shared resource can only be protected through close and continuous cooperation. The core of the draft articles is therefore anchored in the jurisprudence of the Court. Madam Chair, practice is following: the Guarani Aquifer Agreement between Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay in 2010 draws on the draft articles, as do the model provisions on transboundary groundwaters adopted in 2012 under the Water Convention. Bangladesh, for its part, has given domestic legal footing to the cooperation of this kind. Our Water Act of 2013 provides for joint surveys of international rivers and for cooperation on shared water resources. A few steps deserve emphasis, and data comes first. Article 8 requires aquifer states to exchange readily available data, and where knowledge of an aquifer is inadequate, to use their best efforts to generate it. In South Asia, groundwater data across borders remains scarce. Joint monitoring of water levels and water quality near our borders would be a practical first step, and one that serves both sides. Then there is capacity. Article 16 calls on States to promote scientific, technical and legal cooperation with developing States. We thank UNESCO's Intergovernmental Hydrological Programme for its training courses and its inventory of the world's transboundary aquifers, and we encourage it to extend that support to South Asia, where the need is great. And there is the question of form. We have heard the suggestions that the Committee should now end its consideration of this item. Bangladesh would not support that. Groundwater is under greater pressure than ever, and the draft articles remain the only global framework we have. We are encouraged by the proposal of the Guarani States for a declaration of principles and by Mexico's call for an analytical report by the Secretary-General. Bangladesh would support keeping the item on the agenda with a view to deciding the future form of the draft articles. Madam Chair, groundwater is invisible, but its importance is not. For a lower riparian and delta country, the law of transboundary aquifers is a matter of everyday necessity. Bangladesh stands ready to work with all delegations to give these principles a practical effect. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Bangladesh for that statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. You have the floor, madam.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have studied the most recent report of the Secretary General on this topic. We commend the quality of the draft articles on the law of transboundary aquifers adopted by the International Law Commission in 2008. We see this product of the ILC first and foremost as a useful support for countries considering concluding bilateral or regional international treaties to settle matters pertaining to the proper use of transboundary aquifers. We believe the provisions of Article 3 to be important, namely that each aquifer state has sovereignty over the portion of a transboundary aquifer or aquifer system located within its territory. We support the mention in draft Article 4 of the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization of aquifers. We believe it correct when determining various different types of use of transboundary aquifers or aquifer systems, we believe it right to pay attention to the real human needs as provided for in draft Article 5. Despite the fact that the draft articles, in our view, represent a completely balanced document, we are still not convinced of the expediency of using them as a basis to draft a multilateral international treaty. We believe in the need to take into consideration the individual characteristics of each aquifer or aquifer system, which is only possible as part of bilateral or regional treaties. Such characteristics include geophysical and hydrological specifics of aquifers, and also social, economic, and other needs of states, their intergovernmental relations, as well to use, protect, and maintain aquifers or aquifer systems. We believe that the Committee should once again take note of the ILC draft articles on the law of transboundary aquifers and recommend that states actively use the principles therein when concluding bilateral or regional agreements. If ultimately, at some point, the Committee does decide it to be a good idea to start drafting a universal convention, It primarily is necessary to clearly point out its relationship with existing multilateral international treaties pertaining to this topic. The New York Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses of 1997. and the Helsinki Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes of 1992. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation for her statement. And I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sir, you have the floor.

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation wishes to express its appreciation to the International Law Commission for its efforts in discussing the topic of the law of transboundary aquifers. We believe that consideration of this item should take due account of the views and wider membership and the relevant principles of international law. The International Law Commission in its 2008 draft articles on the law of transboundary aquifers has reflected its views on including utilization, protection, preservation, and management of transboundary aquifers, international cooperation, and exchange of data and information. The commission also considered the special situation of developing countries and the protection of information vital to national defense or security. These considerations, as reflected in the draft articles and their commentaries, may need careful attention. We continue to analyze the draft articles and its commentaries, consistent with our sovereign rights and prerogatives. Madam Chair, the Commission's work underscored the importance of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, and good faith. These principles are not confined to the management of transboundary aquifers. They are fundamental to the international legal order underpinned by the Charter of the United Nations. Genuine respect for the fundamental principles of international law must therefore guide not only the substance of our discussion, but also the manner in which they are conducted, particularly within the Sixth Committee, which bears a special role in promoting international law. Against this backdrop, my delegation expresses its deep concern that over past several years, the coordination of this agenda item has not been in appropriate hands. falling short of the standard of credibility, integrity, and genuine respect for international law expected of the Sixth Committee. In this regard, we reaffirm our objection and rejection of the so-called coordinator role of the Israeli regime under this agenda item. A child-killing regime that is committing genocide against Palestinian people, has perpetrated brutal aggression against Iran, including deliberate attacks against civilians, killed more than 20,000 children in three years, cannot be entrusted with this role. even under this agenda item. Rather, the regime must be actually held accountable for gross violations of international law and commission of egregious crimes. We request that our rejection and objection be reflected in the records and report of the Sixth Committee. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Iran for his statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of El Salvador. Madam, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In French. Now in Spanish.

For the Republic of El Salvador, this agenda item reflects how important international environmental law is for relationships between States and the need to ensure for present and future generations a reasonable and adequate management of natural resources through international cooperation. El Salvador wishes to reiterate its position that The analysis of the draft articles in Annex to Resolution A/RES/68/118 are important legal background that could serve as guidance for bilateral and regional arrangements or agreements to adequately manage cross-border aquifers. As a whole, the use of the above-mentioned draft articles could contribute to better use, conservation, and management of our transboundary aquifers. Madam Chair, the draft defines a set of basic principles and norms to harmonize the use of underground groundwater deposits. that are crossed by international borders and also to establish cooperation mechanisms for the responsible management of aquifers on the part of bordering states in order to avoid disputes and to preserve these vital reserves of fresh water for present and future generations. And this is why, given the significant added value of this draft of articles, we have also listened very closely to comments made here in the room, and we'd like to echo the comments made by the delegation of Paraguay, speaking on behalf of a group of States. And echoing that, my delegation believes also that, bearing in mind the evolving practice of States, that perhaps on this occasion, the Sixth Committee may consider it the right time to weigh up the adoption of an approach where we revisit the draft articles in the form of a political declaration of principles that would serve as a benchmark of a reference for bilateral or regional agreements on the appropriate management of cross-boundary aquifers and promote mechanisms of cooperation in this area. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of El Salvador for her statement. Distinguished delegates, The distinguished representative of El Salvador was the last speaker on the list of speakers for this agenda item. We have thus concluded our debate on agenda item 86, the law of transboundary aquifers. I take it that Mr. Noam Kapon of Israel will serve as coordinator for the draft resolution on this agenda item. 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. As such, could I ask Mr. Noam Capon please to take the floor on this agenda item? Sir, you have the floor. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor. Madam Chair, distinguished delegates, I have the honour of having been appointed by the Bureau of the Sixth Committee to coordinate on its behalf the informal consultation on the resolution on the agenda item, the law of transboundary aquifers. I've taken note of the views expressed by delegations during this debate. I look forward to the exchange of views between delegations in the informal consultations. In view of the fact that the deadline to submit draft resolution for processing is on November 13, I circulated ahead of the debate a zero draft for the consideration of the delegations. The zero draft is based on the text of resolution 77/122 adopted by the General Assembly 12 December 2022, with updates of a technical nature. I have the pleasure to inform you that the informal consultation on this topic has been scheduled tomorrow, Friday, November 6, 2026, from 2:00 to 2:45 in conference room 1. In the interest of time, I encourage interested parties to send written proposals and comments to the zero draft by e-mail before the informal consultation tomorrow, and I remind you that the informant will take place tomorrow in conference room 1 and not here. See you there, all of you, also the Islamic Republic of Iran colleague. Thank you.

I thank the coordinator for his statement. Thank you. And I encourage you to use the eSponsorship module in the eWGA portal for the circulation of the draft resolution as early as possible and to submit it for processing in good time. Distinguished delegates, we've just finished our debate, but I do see that the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran has asked to take the floor. Sir, can you tell us the reason that you're asking for the floor? Thank you.

Thank you so much. As this is the end of this agenda item, we wish to exercise our right of reply. We have mentioned in our statement that we have rejected and objected the so-called coordinatorship of this resolution for the Israeli regime, and we want to see that being fully taken into account by the Bureau. We believe that the Israeli regime not only does not deserve to be a coordinator in this process, but also has never had any merit for being a UN member. In accordance with the UN Charter, Becoming a member to the UN needs first to be a state. The occupying regime is not a state. Needs to be peace-loving. The genocidal regime is not peace-loving. Needs to be willing and able to carry out obligation assumed under the Charter. Throughout these three years, horrific crimes, genocide, war crime, and crimes against humanity of the Israeli regime clearly demonstrate that they lack any merit or credibility. By the same token, they are not deserved to coordinate this process. We do not recognize the so-called coordinatorship of the Israeli regime, and we want that to be reflected in the report and records of the Committee.

Thank you.

Okay.

I understand that you have exercised your right of reply, and I thank you for your statement. I take it now that the delegation of Israel would also like to exercise their right of reply. Before we continue with that, I’d like to remind the Committee that pursuant to paragraphs 9 and 10 of Annex V of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, the number of statements under right of reply for any delegation during any given meeting is limited to two per item. The first statement must be restricted to 10 minutes and the second, five minutes. I invite delegations exercising their right of reply to be as concise as possible and to strictly respect these time limits. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Israel, so you have the floor.

Chair, actually, I want to have a point of order and not a right of reply, because I think that we just finished our discussion in this under this agenda item. And when you ask our colleague from the Islamic Republic of Iran what is the purpose of his request from the floor, according to the rules of procedure, he should request from you the right or like to ask about the procedure or to ask if he has the opportunity to has a right of reply, although according to the rules of procedure, he cannot because we finished our debate. And then you should give him the floor. And just because I'm respecting everyone in the room, even these that are not respecting me, I didn't stop them in the middle with my point of order. Anyways, as I said, I don't think that the accusation, the empty accusation, all this, I will hold myself without using any adjectives for these accusations, but I think that they don't deserve any comment, and I'm inviting everyone to the informal tomorrow at 2:00, including our colleague from the Islamic Republic of Iran. If he asks the floor, he will get the floor, and I respect him and everyone in the room as it should be. Everyone are member states in this room, and we should respect everyone. And if he talks about peace-loving or who needs to be a member of the United States, I think that, first of all, he should look on himself and his regime and think about what he is doing before accusing or naming or blaming everyone. So he will, of course, also invited to the informal tomorrow. Thank.

You.

I thank the distinguished representative of Israel for your statement and we take note of your comments. Thank you. I see that the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran has asked for the floor for a second time in order to exercise their second right of reply. That's their second and final right of reply. So, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is not actually a right of reply, which we, of course, reserve that. It's a point of order as per the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, which is applicable to the present Committee. During the course of the debate, the President may announce the list of speakers with the consent of the General Assembly. In this case, the Sixth Committee declared the list closed. The President may, however, accord the right of reply to any member if a speech is delivered after the President has declared the list closed. So the list has not been closed, and even if the list had been closed, we had the right to reply to the baseless statement of the Israeli regime delegation. The only reason maybe I exercised my right of reply in our previous intervention was to actually demonstrate the true nature of the Israeli regime. You see how a so-called coordinator is trying to whitewash genocide its regime is committing by disguising itself as a coordinator. Of course, everyone knows the true nature of the Israeli regime. Thank you.

I take note of your comments. And I give the floor for the second and final time to the distinguished representative of Israel. So you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As I just, you think, I think that, you know, when quoting the rules of procedure, so it's exactly what I, what this is my point. Our colleague from the Islamic Republic of Iran should request the floor. from the chair, and the chair should give him the floor or should not give him the floor. This is in the discretion of the chair. I think that if we want to respect each other, we cannot just like to say that we want to talk and start to talk. This is, I think, a very basic lesson that all of us needs to learn here at the UN. Anyways, I also invite everyone in this room, including our colleague from the Islamic of Iran, to the meeting tomorrow that will be coordinated by me as a representative of the State of Israel. Thank you.

I take note of your comments also, and the debate is closed. Ladies and gentlemen, the working group on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction will hold its final meeting immediately after the adjournment of this meeting. The Sixth Committee will hold its next meeting tomorrow morning at 10:00 AM, at which time it will undertake its scheduled debate on agenda item 165, which is the report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country. That meeting will be followed by the final meeting of the Working Group on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism. The meeting is adjourned.