Sexta Comisión, 30ª sesión plenaria, Asamblea General, 81° período de sesiones
Asamblea General
Date: 28 October 2026
Language: Floor (Original)
Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/es/ga/c6/81/30?lang=floor
Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations.

---

Speaker 1 [0:39]:

Good morning everyone.


6th Committee · Chair [0:49]:

I call to order the 30th meeting of the sixth committee for the eighth of our session of the general assembly distinguished delegates let us now continue the debate on the first cluster of topics concerning agenda item 78 report of the international law commission on the work of its 76th and 77th sessions before proceeding please permit me again to reiterate the recommendation of the bureau that national statements be limited to seven minutes and group statements to 12 minutes. Delegations are encouraged to keep their statements within these time limits and where possible deliver abridged versions of their statements while providing the full statements for posting on e statements and on the website of the sixth committee. This will enable all delegations to deliver the statements within the schedule we've set ourselves. The report of the commission on the work of the 77 session is contained in document a slash 81/10 which is available online. Furthermore, in accordance with resolution 80/164, the sixth committee will also continue its consideration of chapter four of the commission's 2025 report on the topic sea level rise in relation to international law as contained in document A slash 80 slash ten which is also available online. We move to the list of speakers. The first speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Italy. You have the floor.


Italy [2:35]:

Thank you madam chair. Since it is the first time Italy is taking the floor, I would like to congratulate you and the other members of the bureau on your election and thank the chair of the International Law Commission, Mr. Andreas Mavroyiannis for his informative briefing. Italy has a long tradition in support of the work of the international law commission to pursue its mandate. And in this respect, we are glad that this year the Commission was again allowed sufficient time to conduct its work in light of the crucial importance of its functions Madam Chair I will only pronounce. only pronounce the key points of our national statements in order to remain within the time allowance. In any case, we will deposit the text of the whole statement to be published online. I will begin by addressing the topic of sea level rise in relation to international law. First of all, allow me to express Italy's appreciation for the UN declaration on sea level rise and the recognition of the valuable contribution to the understanding of the legal dimension of sea level rise provided by the advisory opinion of the SEJ on climate change, as well as by the final report of the ILC on sea level rise. Regards Regarding the stability of maritime zones, italy appreciates that the need for stability of maritime zone established in accordance with UNCRAS has been recognized in paragraph 20 of the un declaration on sea level rise as for statehood, italy shares the conclusion that international law provide for a presumption in favor of continued statehood in cases of land terrorist challenges changes due to the sea level rise. While reaffirming such presumption, we would also like to recall the practical future implications relating to both the implementation of the principle of self determination of peoples and the exercise of sovereignty, sovereign rights, and obligation by state in this unprecedented context. Finally, we have taken note of the AEOS proposal to focus discussions on the issue of the protection of persons, and we stand ready to engage farther further on this important subtopic. Moving to immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, Italy would like to congratulate the commission for the adoption of secondary reading of the draft articles together with their commentaries we commend the special rapporteur Mr. Claudio Grossman Guilf for his dedication throughout the whole process leading to such a comprehensive set of rules on this complex and important topic. Madam chair rules of the immunity of state officials have for long been part of a custom international law as a result of sovereign state sovereignty. Over time, however, the need arose to strike the right balance between such immunity and the fight against impunity. against impunity for the most serious crimes while defining a coherent framework of procedural safeguards against this backdrop, we welcome the articles recognizing core rules of international law, namely immunity ratione personae, which in no case can be overridden. Conversely, we note the persistent uncertainty over key questions related s relating to immunity, razione materie, especially in relation to crimes under international law, an issue on which differing views remain among states, as well within the commission. Over the past few years Italy has consistently adopted an open and supportive approach toward former draft article seven, now article six, while calling for greater clarity on whether it reflected an existed customary role or rather a form of progressive development of international law. We take note of the commentary, including both options, proving that the question remains open. In this framework, we note that the question on immunity should be considered in close connection with a careful preliminary assessment of the criteria established in jurisdiction, which may vary from state to state. From this point of view, italy recalls its a strawberry its established position that state may resort to universal jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances only when other prevailing jurisdiction are unable or unwilling to proceed. At the same time, we reiterate our view that draft articles in part four procedural provision and safeguards do not represent a codification of customs international law in light of the significant divergence in state practice and opinion juris. In conclusion, we take note of the recommendation to elaborate at the appropriate time a convention on the basis of the draft articles. Italy remains open to constructive discussions on the matter, while underlining that a clear, logic, and coherent framework for any exception to immunity should always be established. Madam Chair will now close with the topic of general principles of law. First of all, I wish to thank the special rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vasquez Bermudez, and while referring to our previous statements in this committee, I will limit myself today to a few final remarks. Starting for with terminology, we concord that with the recognition of its importance, but but such attention should not be confined to the terms necessary to define the subject matter and the scope of the draft conclusion. Other terms such as recognition, identification, and determination of existence may deserve greater clarification to better understand their practical implication. We also noted the commission's decision to address the question of persistent objection. Italy remains ready to work with the commission should the top topic reemerge in future. Moving to the categories of general principles of law as far as those derived from national legal systems are concerned, we know that we would interest the addition in the commentary of more information on how to perform the compatibility test for their transposition to the international legal system. At the same time, we note the retention of paragraph seven on implicit recognition. a concept on which we reiterate our doubts and concern as for general principle of law that may be formed within the international legal system we thank the Commission for providing in the commentary to conclusions. seven additional example of general principle falling under this under this category, whose definition and core feature would have deserved further elaboration to avoid uncertainties and divergences in the identification of such principles. To conclude, Madam chair, we take note of the inclusion of the new topic, the right regulation to regulate in international investment law, as well as of the updated syllabus of the topic universal jurisdiction. Italy stands ready to constructively engage in the discussions of on this topic should the commission decide to proceed with them. This concludes Madam chair Italy Italy statement on cluster one thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [10:35]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Italy for his statement and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cote d'Ivoire. You have the vote.


Côte d’Ivoire · Représentante [10:50]:

Ma délégation voudrait exprimer ses remerciements à la commission du droit international pour ses conclusions issues des 76ᵉ et 77ᵉ sessions. La Côte d'Ivoire souscrit à la déclaration prononcée par le Cameroun au nom du groupe africain et formule à titre national les observations suivantes. Mon pays salue le retour à une durée de travail proche du format habituel lors de la 77ᵉ session après le raccourcissement sans précédent de la session précédente et ses conséquences sur le programme du quinquennat. Nous encourageons le maintien de conditions de travail stables et prévisibles, essentielles au mandat de codification et de développement progressif du droit international. Madame la présidente, sur la question de l'élévation du niveau de la mer au regard du droit international, ma délégation prend note de l'adoption du rapport final du groupe d'étude qui conclut l'examen de ce sujet. La Côte d'Ivoire, pays côtier directement menacé par les changements climatiques, reconnaît l'importance de ces travaux. qui abordent les défis juridiques pressants liés aux zones maritimes, à la qualité d'État et à la protection des personnes affectées. Mon pays souscrit à la démarche du groupe d'étude qui clarifie le droit existant sans modifier la convention des Nations unies sur le droit de la mer. Les principes transversaux dégagés notamment la stabilité et la prévisibilité juridique, la préservation, la préservation des droits existants, l'équité, la solidarité et la coopération sont essentielles pour répondre aux besoins des Etats les plus touchés, notamment les petits Etats insulaires en développement et les Etats côtiers de faible altitude. Nous encourageons les Etats et l'assemblée générale a pour poursuivre l'examen de ses résultats, y compris les options pour l'avenir. Madame la présidente, concernant l'immunité de juridiction pénale étrangère des représentants de l'État, ma délégation félicite le rapporteur général, monsieur Claudio Grossman qui pour l'achèvement des travaux sur ce sujet avec l'adoption en seconde lecture. des 17 projets d'articles et des commentaires y relatifs. La Côte d'Ivoire accorde une importance particulière à l'équilibre entre le principe de l'immunité qui découle de l'égalité souveraine des Etats et l'impératif de lutte contre l'impunité pour les crimes internationaux les plus graves avec les garanties procédurales nécessaires. Ma délégation prend note de la recommandation relative à l'élaboration, en temps opportun, d'une convention sur la base de ces projets d'article. Nous considérons que les États devraient disposer d'un temps suffisant pour l'examen de ces projets en vue du consensus le plus large possible à l'assemblée générale. Sur les principes généraux du droit, ma délégation note la l'adoption en seconde lecture de douze projets de conclusion et des commentaires irrélatifs. Ces travaux contribuent à clarifier l'identification et l'application des principes généraux du droit, source visée à l'article 38 paragraphe un, alinéa C du statut de la Cour internationale de justice. Nous soulignons toutefois que leur identification doit reposer sur une méthodologie rigoureuse et un seuil d'acceptation exigeant de la communauté internationale. La Côte d'Ivoire appelle à la prudence, en particulier pour les principes susceptibles de se former au sein du système juridique international afin de préserver le rôle central du consentement des Etats. Nous soulignons également l'importance de refléter la diversité des systèmes et des traditions juridiques. Mon pays souscrit à la recommandation de la Commission portant sur une résolution de l'assemblée générale qui prenne note du projet de conclusion et à sa plus large diffusion. Madame la présidente, sur la question des autres décisions figurant au chapitre treize du rapport AS barre 81 barre dix, la Côte d'Ivoire, accueille favorablement l'inscription du thème détermination et conséquences juridiques des obligations et en droit international. Au au programme de travail ainsi que la désignation de monsieur Massaiko Assada comme rapporteur spécial. Nous encourageons la commission à mener ses travaux de manière inclusive et équilibrée en tenant compte de la diversité des traditions juridiques et des perspectives de toutes les régions. Nous prenons également note de la demande adressée par la Commission au secrétariat de réaliser une étude sur la capacité financière de l'État responsable dans le cadre du sujet, indemnisation des dommages causés par un fait internationalement illicite. Nous saluons par ailleurs l'inscription du thème, le droit de réglementer en droit international de l'investissement. Au programme de travail à long terme ainsi que l'approbation d'un plan d'étude actualisé sur la compétence extraterritoriale. La Côte d'Ivoire encourage la Commission à veiller à la transparence et à l'inclusivité de ces processus en tenant du dûment compte des intérêts des États, en particulier des pays en développement, afin de contribuer au développement progressif du droit international. Enfin, en ce qui concerne les méthodes de travail, mon pays souligne l'importance de bâtir un large consensus au sein de la Commission avant de finaliser tout projet de test et réaffirme son soutien indéfectible à la commission international.


6th Committee · Chair [17:23]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Cote d'Ivoire for her statement and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Timorless.


Timor-Leste [17:36]:

Madam chair timor leste aligns itself with a statement delivered on behalf of the alliance of small island states, AOS, and wishes to make the following remarks in its national capacity my delegation expresses its appreciation to the chair and members of the international law commission, its special rapporteurs and the codification division for their continued work and the significant progress achieved during the commission's 77th session. timor leste's commitment to international law is rooted in our own history 2020 from the realisation of our right to self determination and the restoration of our independence to the peaceful settlement of our maritime boundary with australia through the first compulsory conciliation under uncleus. for small states in particular international law and its dispute settlement mechanisms are a guarantee of sovereign equality and justice it is in this. spirit that timor leste reaffirms its belief in international law and its support for the work of the commission in its progressive development and codification. We note with appreciation the commission's draft conclusions on general principles of law which help clarify this source of international law under article 38 paragraph one c of the statute of the international court of justice. covering both principles derived from national legal systems and those formed within the international legal system such as uti posiditis juris respect for human dignity and equity. including its manifestation in the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. We also welcome the Commission's recommendation that the general assembly take note of the draft conclusions. Madam president timor leste attaches particular importance to the commission's work on sea level rise in relation to international law we once again commend the study group and its co chairs for their valuable contribution. The commission's work has helped advance legal certainty and predictability concerning the preservation of maritime zones, continuity of statehood and protection of persons affected by sea level rise. These dimensions are closely interconnected. In particular, we recall the study groups conclusion that unclos does not require states to update baselines geographical coordinates or outer limits of maritime zones once duly deposited with the secretary general to account for physical changes. resulting from sea level rise. The preservation of the rights of affected states is also essential to their capacity to protect their populations safeguard livelihoods and uphold the rights of their nationals. In this context, timor leste recognises the significance of the United Nations declaration on sea level rise adopted by consensus during the present session of the general assembly this achievement provides important common ground but neither defines the full extent of applicable international law nor limits its further development the legal position. positions articulated by particularly affected states including through the pacific islands forum and oasis declarations remain undiminished and continue to inform the interpretation and development of international law. the protection of persons affected by sea level rise requires particular attention as recognised in the study group's final report existing international legal frameworks. provide essential protections but remain fragmented and insufficiently adapted to the specific circumstances involved further work is needed to clarify the application of existing obligations. existing obligations, address gaps in protection and where necessary further develop international law. Human dignity, the effective enjoyment of human rights and the meaningful participation participation of affected communities must remain central to these efforts. For those who choose to remain in their homes and communities the affected protection of their rights requires that affected states have the means to ensure conditions of safety and dignity international cooperation including access to adequate and predictable finance is essential to supporting adaptation. adaptation and making a choice genuinely viable. For persons displaced within their countries or compelled to cross international borders important questions remain concerning. the applicable legal frameworks, the protection of their rights and the responsibilities of states. In particular further consideration is needed concerning admission and residence. The legal status of displaced persons and safeguards against statelessness. The continuity of statehood is fundamental to the preservation of nationality and the legal relationship between states and their populations yet continuity alone cannot guarantee the effective enjoyment of rights by affected persons particularly those displaced beyond their national territory. Their nationality identity, family and community ties and cultural heritage must also be protected. The duty to cooperate must be fulfilled in accordance with equity and solidarity. taking into account the deferring responsibilities and respective capacities of states as well as the particular circumstances and needs of those most affected timor leste encourages the sixth committee. to continue its consideration of the legal implications of sea level rise building on the commission's findings and the progress achieved by states we must continue to clarify and develop international law. to respond to the realities faced by affected communities I thank you Madam chair


6th Committee · Chair [23:58]:

I thank the distinguished representative of timor les for her statement and I give the floor to the. distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea.


Republic of Korea [24:08]:

Chair, my delegation expresses sincere gratitude for the excellent work done by the commission at a 76th and 77 777 session, the Korean government will keep participating actively in the consideration of the topics and fully cooperate with the commission. In the interest of time, I will highlight only the key elements of our statement and submit the full text in writing. About sea level rise, once again, my delegation would like to express deep appreciation for the excellent final report of the study group. The Republic of Korea fully shares the consent of the international community and will continue its commitment to address this issue. about immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction Madam chair my delegation would like to express its gratitude for the excellent work done by dispatch rapporteur Mr.. Claudia Grossman Gilloff and the ILC members on this topic. At the 77 session, the commission adopted draft article on second reading and recommended the elaboration of a convention at the appropriate time. We hope that the follow up on the commission's work and this topic will continue to will contribute to the imperative of preventing immunity impunity of those committing crimes under international law while respecting the principles of sovereign equality. At the present session, the commission considered draft articles seven eight and nine draft article seven which is renumbered draft article six and second reading addresses the crucial question of exceptions to immunity. Retione Maturie. My delegation notes that even though the commission was not able to adopt it by consensus, the number of members who voted against the article has decreased as compared to 2017. In its previous interventions my delegation supported the retention of draft article seven therefore it welcomes the decision of the commission to keep the provision and the draft articles adopted on second reading. With regard to this important draft article, my delegation would like to make the following observations. First, one of the biggest changes from the draft articles adopted on first reading is the list of exceptions to amenity right here in the material has been lengthened by the addition of the crime of aggression, slavery and slave trading, while fully confirming the extremely heinous nature of these crimes under international law, my delegation believes that the commission should have provided more convincing reasons for the addition of these crimes to draft article seven. Secondly, another conspicuous difference from the draft article adopted on first reading is the location of the treaties containing the respective definition of crimes under international law to be included in draft article seven in 2022 the list appears as annexes to the draft articles and the draft articles adopted on second reading the list is found in the commentary. to the draft article six in the light of the importance of this decision my delegation will carefully follow the discussion and this question at the sixth committee. The commission decided to provide for part four for the purpose of avoiding possible abuse or politicization of the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by one state over an official. of another state. In this sense, part four constitutes an essential component of the draft article that stands in a relationship of interlocking integrity with other parts of the draft article, articles. It is for this reason that my delegation welcomes the retention of those procedure provisions and guarantees as part of the draft articles. In addition, my delegation believes it is essential to secure coherence between the draft articles on crimes against humanity and the present draft articles as regards provisions relating to procedural guarantees. about general principles of law Madam chair my delegation would like to express its gratitude for the excellent work done by the special rapporteur Mr. Marcelo Vazquez Bermudes and the IOC members on this topic. My delegation welcomes the adoption of draft conclusion and general principles of law and second reading. We hope that the commission's work will bring greater clarity to this topic. Considering the key question of the existence of the second category of general principles of law, my delegation could maintain its openness to the category subject to the following conditions first, the existence of the second category need to be proven convincingly by state practice jurisprudence and doctrine. Secondly, the second category should be more clearly delineated from the principles of customary international law. Thirdly, my delegation is sympathetic to the often expressed view that the examples used as falling under the second category of general principles of law do not appear to fit the relevant provisions such as draft conclusion 3B and draft conclusion 71. Next we would like to address the ramification of the existence of the second category of general principles of law for the other draft conclusions, especially draft conclusion ten and 11 given the substantial difference between the first and the second category of general principles of law in terms of their formative process and function if the existence of the second is admitted then draft conclusion ten and 11 needs to be formulated in a way that reflects these differences between. the two. Due to time constraints, I will submit the rest of my statement in writing and conclude here. Thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [30:56]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea for her statement. And I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Canada. You have the floor.


Speaker 11 [31:13]:

My microphone for Canada,


6th Committee · Chair [31:14]:

Please.


Canada [31:28]:

Thank you Chair. Let me begin this intervention on the report of the ILC by reiterating Canada's appreciation for the commission's historical and ongoing contributions to the codification and progressive development of international law. We thank each commission member and other staff who support their work for their efforts efforts and dedication. Turning to the cluster one topics Canada congratulates the IOC and special rapporteur concepcion escobar Hernandez for finalizing the draft articles on immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Indeed, this topic has been on the ILC's program of work for the last 21 years, attracting significant interest and vigorous debate in the international community. Debate on this topic is not surprising as it strikes at at the difficult and fundamental questions as to the balance between accountability for crimes and respect for sovereign equality. As many here are aware, draft article six, formally draft article seven, which lists the international crimes for which functional immunity shall not apply, has been the subject of considerable debate, even opposition in the sixth committee. Canada continues to be of the view that at least some aspects of what is now drafted draft article six reflect the ILC's mandate for the progressive development of law. And we refer to our statement last year on this point. While relevant state practice indicates that certain serious crimes of international concern, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, may be recognized as customary exceptions to functional immunity. Other crimes more recently added to the draft article do not appear to be supported to the same extent. Because customary law is anchored in state practice and opinio juris, Canada understands these as proposals from the ILC to progressively develop international law on the matter of exceptions to functional immunity. Canada will carefully examine these proposals while noting that a cautious approach is needed that adequately considers views and concerns expressed by states Canada welcomes the ILC's work in developing procedural provisions and safeguards under part four of the draft articles. safeguards to protect against potential abuse are needed on a matter as delicate as the exercise of criminal jurisdiction over another state's official. While Canada considers that certain procedural provisions outlined are helpful, some articles would benefit from further reflection, for example, article 13 on determination of immunity. The proposed procedural requirement that the authority authorities making the immunity determination shall be at an appropriately high level would benefit from further refinement to meaningfully guide state practice. In addition, we must take care to ensure that any procedural provisions can be properly implemented in the principal legal systems of the world, including the common law system. Given these outstanding considerations and the need to consider state feedback on the ILC ILC's proposals, Canada considers that these draft articles are not ripe at this time for elaboration into a convention. A product that is well accepted based on rules of immunity that are well grounded in state practice is vital in ensuring the proper functioning of the international legal order. Allow me to once again extend Canada's thanks and appreciation to the ILC for its valuable contribution to this important topic. Chair Turning to the topic of the general principles of law, Canada wishes to express its appreciation to the special rapporteur Marcelo Vazquez Vasquez Bermudez for his dedication and leadership throughout the commission's work on this matter. General principles of law are funded are of fundamental importance as they constitute one of the sources of international law identified in Article 381c of the statute of the ICJ, which the court is to apply in settling disputes between states. We appreciate the commission's consideration of the views expressed by states and the additional clarifications reflected in the commentaries adopted on second reading Madame la présidente compte tenu de l'importance de ce sujet pour l'ordre juridique internationale La rigueur et le soin apportés à l'interprétation des traités et à l'identification du droit international coutumier devraient également guider l'identification des principes généraux du droit. À cet égard, le Canada continue d'accorder une importance particulière au rôle des États dans la reconnaissance des de ces principes et se félicite des précisions apportées dans les commentaires relatifs au projet de conclusion deux. Que les principes généraux du droit soient tirés d'une des systèmes juridiques nationaux ou qu'ils se forment au sein de l'ordre juridique international, et tout en prenant acte des divergences des vues exprimées par les États à propos de ces cette seconde catégorie, le Canada demeure d'avis que dans la mesure où de tels principes peuvent faire naître des obligations juridiques contraignantes pour les États, leur reconnaissance par ces derniers est essentielle. Dans ce contexte, nous relevons le projet de conclusion six qui prévoit qu'un principe commun aux divers systèmes juridiques du monde peut être transposé dans l'ordre juridique international lorsqu'il est compatible compatible avec celui ci. Si la compatibilité compatibilité constitue un élément clé, le Canada n'est pas convaincu qu'il suffise à un seul à impliquer une reconnaissance comme le suggère le paragraphe sept des commentaires. à notre sens, les États conservent un rôle central pour déterminer si un principe général de droit, comme à la plupart des systèmes juridiques nationaux, est également reconnu au sein de l'ordre juridique international, surtout lorsque cette transposition est susceptible des obligations juridiques internationales. Enfin, nous encourageons à veiller donc particulièrement à ce à ce que les projets de conclusion huit et neuf, qui traitent des décisions des cours et tribunaux, ainsi que la doctrine en tant que moyen auxiliaire pour déterminer l'existence et le contenu des principes généraux du droit demeure cohérent avec les travaux que la Commission même actuellement sur ce sujet, afin d'éviter tout


6th Committee · Chair [38:54]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Canada for her statement and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Canada for her statement and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Canada. of Israel


Israel [39:03]:

Madam

Chair in order to respect the time limit set by the bureau this oral statement will be appropriately brief and will focus on the topic immunity of state officials from far. foreign criminal jurisdiction. We thank the commission and the special rapporteur for their dedicated efforts and hard work on this important subject. Israel's comprehensive comments on cluster one, which include our detailed views on the topics of general principles of law and obligation, agro ominous and sea level rise will be submitted to the secretary secretary for publication on the sixth committee website. Israel attaches great importance to ensuring that preparators preparators of crimes are brought to justice and supports international efforts to combat impunity effectively. Along with many other states, Israel has followed the work of the ILC on this topic closely and has submitted over the years constructive comments aimed at assisting the commission in preserving the delicate balance long established in international law between combating impunity and safeguarding the fundamental principle of state sovereignty and equality. The balance is essential for ensuring the effective conduct of international relations, preventing serious international fraction, and guarding against the political abuse of the law and of legal process. However, the draft articles and commentaries adopted by the Commission on second reading this year failed to uphold this balance. They do not address serious concerns repeatedly raised by numerous states including Israel throughout the Commission's many years of deliberation, nor do they adequately acknowledge the existence of such concerns. Most worryingly, and despite repeated calls by states, the draft articles and commentaries failed to distinguish between codification of international law and progressive development, and omit material information and disagreement concerning relevant state practice. Consequently, the tax risk creating the misleading impression that the draft articles, specially draft articles article three and draft article six formally seven reflect existing customary international law as consistently reflected in israel's view shared by a considerable number of states they do not. The disagreement over the draft articles both among states and within the commission was substantial. Israel recalls that draft article six was exceptionally put to a vote not once but twice during both readings. Voting records show significant opposition and even those members who voted in favour did not necessarily consider draft article six to reflect existing law. Many states, likewise, repeatedly made clear that they did not consider the draft article to reflect existing customary international law, while others expressly regarded it as a proposal for progressive development of proposed delayation. The records also contain serious specific objections regarding the representativeness, legal relevance, and completeness of the practice relied upon by commission states also drew the commission's attention to the fact that decisions by states not to institute proceedings against foreign officials constitute highly relevant practice. but this was largely ignored. These omissions are particularly striking because the commissions had repeatedly invited states to provide information on practice concerning immunity. Also at the second reading stage, especially where states submitted practice challenging the existence of a customary role, the Commission was required to adequately present the relevant material and the extent of agreement and to record any divergence and disagreements presounced to article 20 of the ilc statute this is especially warranted under the circumstances of this project. giving the extent and significance of the reservation expressed by members of the Commission and by states. Yet the Commission neither amended its first reading draft article based on the information presented nor adequately addressed the concern in their commentaries. Ultimately, recommendation to the General Assembly the abaloration of the convention on the basis of the draft article does not detract from the Commission's responsibility. to accurately reflect existing law or at the very last to identify new law as such. Any misleading impression that the draft article reflect customary international law may lead to a misapplication of the law, which would in return undermine the stability of international law. Indeed, the dangerous circularity of reasoning is already apparent from some of the recent judicial decision the commission relies on, which in turn cite the draft article themselves as reflecting existing international law on this issue. This risk this risk undermines the law and might cause serious international tension. Madam chair, the proposed exception to the functional immunity enjoyed by state officials are not ground in the general practice and opinion. opinion juries. They do not reflect the existing customary international law. The same applies to the proposed limitation of personal immunity to the troika alone, which turns counter to the significant body of practice. Therefore, an international convention is the only way to establish such new rules. Needless to say, any such convention would bind only the states that choose to become parties to it without implication for third. states. However, this is not the time to elaborate on convention on this topic. Moreover, given the above, Israel considers that the current text and commentaries cannot serve as an appropriate basis for negotiation on a convention. Madam chair, the presidents the precedents have shown the adoption by the ILC of highly contested outcomes that do not properly address the serious concern raised by member states leads to disagreement in the Sixth Committee, a body which has longstand a history of consensus driven resolutions. Israel believes that the product at hand cannot be endorsed by the committee, nor can it be deemed suitable for further action by it. Thank you, Madam Chair.


6th Committee · Chair [45:51]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Israel for her statement, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Lithuania


Lithuania [46:04]:

Madam chair distinguished delegates Lithuania recognizes the vital contribution of the international law commission to the codification and progressive development of international law, both of which are essential to upholding an international order based on the rule of law and international law. Lithuania emphasizes the importance of ensuring that the International Law Commission is provided with sufficient time and resources to effectively discharge its mandate. In this regard, we welcome the fact that despite the budgetary constraints that limit limited the duration of its 76th session, the commission was able to meet for 11 weeks during its 77th session. We hope that the commission will be allocated adequate time for its subsequent sessions, allowing it to to continue its important work in the codification and progressive development of international law. On the issue of sea level rise, Lithuania fully aligns with the statement delivered by Latvia on behalf of the Baltic states on immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Madam chair, Lithuania welcomes the adoption on the second reading of the draft articles on immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction together with the commentaries. This marks the conclusion of an important body of work undertaken by the International Law Commission over nearly two decades. Lithuania especially welcomes the adoption of draft article six and inclusion of the crime of aggression among the crimes under international law, in respect of which immunity rationa materia shall not apply Lithuania regrets that the commission was unable to reach consensus and resorted to a vote on this important matter. However, the provision received the support of 23 members of the commission compared to 21 who voted in favor of the corresponding article back in 2017. Lithuania notes with appreciation the reference in the commentary to the to the draft article six to the case decided by the Supreme Court of Lithuania in June 2022. This case holds particular significance for Lithuania as it concerned the tragic events of January 1991 in Vilnius, when violence by the occupying occupying forces still present on the territory of an independent state at the time resulted in the death of 14 people. The Supreme Court of Lithuania found that persons responsible for committing international crimes cannot rely on functional immunity from national or international jurisdiction, even if they committed these crimes while acting as public officials viewed in the context of the jurisprudence of other states and the draft articles adopted by the commission, this case further illustrates the importance of the shared commitment to ensure accountability for international crime crimes reflecting what the special rapporteur Mr. Mr. Claudio Grossman Gilov aptly described as a common interest in rejecting immunity impunity sorry. Madam Chair, furthermore Lithuania considers that the broad range of state judicial practice cited by the Commission together with the absence of objections to such practice by other states confirms that the rule codified in draft article six is a rule of customary international law. Lithuania supports the Commission's recommendation that the General Assembly or an international conference of plenipotentiaries consider elaborating a convention on the basis of draft articles at an appropriate time. While many of the draft articles reflect existing rules of customary international law, Lithuania considers that a multilateral convention could provide significant added value. In particular, it could strengthen judicial and law enforcement cooperation, facilitate the effective prosecution of perpetrators of international crimes in accordance with international law and promote greater consistency in the application of rules governing immunities across jurisdiction. Such an approach would also be consistent with the process in initiated in relation to the draft articles on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. On general principles of law, Lithuania commends the Commission for the successful completion of its work on the draft conclusions on general principles of law adopted on second reading together with the commentaries. Lithuania considers it valuable that in addition to outlining the methodology for identifying general principles of law as a source of international law, the commentaries also provide a non exhaustive list of general principles that have been identified as such. Lithuania also appreciates the clarification of the term international courts and tribunals in draft conclusion number eight. Madam chair, on inclusion of a new topic in the program of work, Lithuania positively notes the inclusion of the topic identification and legal consequences of obligations ergo omnis international law in the commission's program of work. And the appointment of Mr. Masahiko Sadas special rapporteur. We are looking forward to further elaboration of this topic. Finally, we express our sincere appreciation to the International Law Commission for its significant work and comprehensive report Lithuania reaffirms its unwavering support for the ILC and looks forward to continued engagement. I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [51:42]:

Thank the distinguished representative of Lithuania for her statement. Before proceeding to the next speaker on my list, I understand that the special rapporteur on the topic, immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, Mr. Claudio Grossman, wishes to make remarks at this juncture as he will be unable to attend the remainder of the debate on cluster one. I give the floor to Mr. Grossman.


ILC · Relator especial [52:13]:

Muchas gracias a todos por estar aquí como representantes de los estados, ustedes son los actores desde luego fundamentales de la comunidad internacional. Quiero agradecer a quienes me precedieron en este tema, el doctor Colotken y la doctora Concepción Escobar Hernández, cuyo trabajo ha constituido una valiosa base para este proyecto Agradezco también a la secretaría de la comisión por su profesionalismo. Finalmente quisiera agradecer, expresar mi agradecimiento a los miembros de la comisión, Ha sido un privilegio aprender de ellos. La conclusión de los trabajos de la Comisión sobre el tema de la inmunidad de jurisdicción penal extranjera de los funcionarios de los estados reviste una gran importancia. Este tema ha estado ante la comisión desde el año 2007 y su conclusión oportuna resulta esencial no solo para la credibilidad de la Comisión, sino también para demostrar el compromiso de la comunidad internacional con la lucha contra la impunidad manteniendo la soberanía de los estados. Desde mi nombramiento he presentado dos informes y mi responsabilidad ha consistido en orientar el proyecto artículo a través de los trabajos de la comisión hasta su conclusión y hacer propuestas adicionales. El presidente de la comisión ya ha abordado el tema en detalle y teniendo en cuenta las las observaciones formuladas por los estados aquí quisiera concentrarme principalmente en los avances que tuvieron lugar este año. Me referiré en primer lugar al proyecto de artículo seis, segundo lugar a la definición del ejercicio de la jurisdicción penal, en tercer lugar a la notificación del estado del funcionario, y a otras salvaguardias procesales y posteriormente a la propuesta de la comisión relativa al seguimiento por parte de la 6.ª comisión. Voy a saltarme algunas cosas, dado intento por escrito. por escrito. Sobre el artículo seis, uno de los avances centrales de la segunda lectura fue revisar la disposición anteriormente conocida como proyecto artículo siete, ahora enumerada como proyecto de artículo seis relativa a los crímenes de derecho internacional respecto a los cuales no se aplica la inmunidad a ración en materia. La comisión propuso un enfoque basado en una lista no exhaustiva, al tiempo que aclaró y amplió mediante la inclusión expresa de tres crímenes adicionales el crimen de agresión, la esclavitud y la trata de esclavos. Estos se añadieron a la lista original, que ya incluía el genocidio, los crímenes de lesa humanidad, los crímenes de guerra, la tortura, el apartheid y la desaparición forzada. Su inclusión no tuvo una finalidad meramente simbólica, por el contrario, reflejó la evaluación de que estos delitos están firmemente establecidos en el derecho internacional y satisfacen los criterios jurídicos identificados para su incorporación en el proyecto de, proyecto de artículo seis. La inclusión del crimen de agresión preserva el derecho del desarrollo del derecho penal desde Nuremberg. Es importante recordar que la agresión es por su naturaleza un crimen cometido por personas que actúan en calidad oficial. Ha sido reconocida como crimen internacional desde la sentencia del Tribunal Militar Internacional internacional de Núremberg, fue incluida en el proyecto de código de crímenes contra la paz y la seguridad de la humanidad de la comisión en 1966 y figura en el artículo 5.º del Estatuto de Roma. Además, Además un número significativo de estado ha incorporado el crimen de agresión en la legislación penal interna. El comentario da una extensa eh el relato respecto de la jurisprudencia que existe y lo que se ha efectuado. La inclusión de la esclavitud y la trata de esclavos reviste igual importancia. Casi siento innecesario plantear por qué la esclavitud y la tráfica. El tráfico esclavo es un crimen internacional. A lo largo de la historia, la esclavitud, las prácticas análogas a la esclavitud, el trabajo forzoso han causado un sufrimiento inmenso, incluso en situaciones de conflicto armado y otra forma de violencia. Tratar a seres humanos como propiedad y explotarlos como si no fueran personas constituye una de las afrentas más graves a la dignidad humana. Al fundamentar estos crímenes en normas convencionales y consuetudinarias de larga data, incluidas la Convención sobre la esclavitud en 1926 y la Convención Suplementaria en 1956, el proyecto reconoce que la esclavitud y la trata de esclavos constituyen crímenes internacionales graves por derecho propio, independientemente que se cometan como parte de un ataque generalizado contra la población civil. De nuevo me voy a saltar algunos párrafos, he dado por eh mi texto por escrito. La comisión también identificó los criterios jurídicos para la inclusión de crímenes en el proyecto del artículo seis. En primer lugar, se trata de crímenes identificados entre los delitos más graves que preocupan a la comunidad internacional. Segundo lugar, son conductas que generan responsabilidad penal individual conforme al derecho internacional. En tercer lugar están respaldadas por un sólido conjunto de normas convencionales y consuetudas consuetudinarias que prohíben estos actos y que de distintas maneras exigen a los estados prevenirlos, reprimirlos o sancionarlos. En 4.º lugar son crímenes que en la práctica se consideran no amparados por la inmunidad de raciones en materia frente a la jurisdicción penal extranjera. La comisión hizo una distinción entre lo que era derecho consuetudinario y desarrollo progresivo. Así que este proyecto cumple con ese requisito, se puede estar o no de acuerdo con lo que planteó la comisión, pero sí se hizo la distinción. Cabe destacar que la comisión incorporó esta lista de criterios para subrayar que la enumeración de crímenes contenida en el proyecto del artículo seis no es exhaustiva, pero al mismo tiempo era necesario proponer criterios que establecieran que se puede eh agregar. Desde el punto de vista procesal también debe recordarse que el artículo seis fue aprobado por 23 votos a favor, cuatro en contra y tres abstenciones. En primera lectura, como se señaló, este artículo no incluía las excepciones relativas a la agresión, a la esclavitud, a la trata de esclavos. Además, en primera lectura hubo nueve votos en contra en un voto nominativo que se exigió nombre por nombre, en este caso, no ocurrió en la segunda lectura, los votos no se registraron lo que desde el punto de vista del derecho tiene e un impacto, aunque un voto en contra puede tener un efecto cualitativo, pero hay que señalar esto para que se considere. Es importante destacar que los artículos uno, dos, tres, cuatro, cinco, siete, ocho, nueve, diez, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 se aprobaron sin ningún voto en contra y que finalmente algo que importante destacar que el proyecto fue aceptado aceptado sin ni un voto en contra y sin ni una declaración de miembros de la comisión que se opusiera a la aprobación. De modo que esto expresa un grado de consenso muy importante y que hay que tomar en cuenta. Quizás las garantías que se establecieron procesales llevaron a los miembros que votaron en contra, sin un voto nominativo aprobar el proyecto en su conjunto. No basta de modo solo señalar que antes de que se apoyara el proyecto hubo algunos votos en contra. Decisión de no definir el ejercicio de la jurisdicción penal. El comité de reacción examinó esto de no incluir la decisión, la definición de la del ejercicio de la jurisdicción penal. Diversas consideraciones resultaron importantes, todas ellas se explican ampliamente en los comentarios y nadie se opuso a este artículo. Se trató de una decisión sólida. Voy a dar de nuevo algunos detalles razones la diversidad de los sistemas jurídicos internos en Latinoamérica el ejercicio de la jurisdicción penal es solo efectuada por el poder judicial, En otros países no es el caso, entonces para proteger a los estados había que tener una definición amplia de modo de respetar las distintas posiciones que tenían y que tienen los estados. Las sensibilidades regionales y constitucionales. El derecho internacional no exige que los estados organicen sus procesos penales de la misma manera. Tercero, la necesidad de preservar el equilibrio del proyecto de artículos. Por qué? Porque una vez que se ejercita la jurisdicción penal se ponen en movimiento diversas disposiciones y salvaguardias procesales que están establecidos en 1/4. Es una protección para los estados que no haya esa definición. En 4.º lugar, la coherencia con el derecho internacional y la práctica. El Comité Reacción tuvo en cuenta que instrumentos fundamentales en materia de inmunidades, incluido la Convención de Viena sobre relaciones diplomáticas y la Convención de Viena sobre relaciones consulares, tampoco incluyó incluyera una definición formal de este concepto. Ello sugiere que el enfoque más adecuado era aclarar esto por los motivos que yo dije en los comentarios. Voy a saltarme algunas cosas. Notificación al estado al funcionario, el marco procesal, el proyecto de artículo que aborda la notificación al estado funcionario señala que se trata de una salvaguardia fundamental, pues permite que dicho estado reciba información viable y decida si invoca o no la inmunidad. Esta idea no es desconocida El proyecto de este artículo se se inspira en el enfoque adoptado por la Convención de Naciones Unidas sobre las inmunidades jurisdiccionales de los estados y de su propiedad. El estado interesado debe recibir una notificación fiable e inmediata antes de que se adopten medidas jurídicas contra él o sus representantes. La comisión también sobre la base y la reacción de los estados señaló algo, que esta salvaguardia de notificación no debe obstaculizar la administración de justicia. Esto es muy relevante y cuando compromete compromete una investigación, pone en peligro a víctima o testigo o provoca la distribución de prueba o que se eluda la justicia, en ese caso hay una una excepción, pero pero si hay una detención se debe notificar inmediatamente, no se puede aplazar. Este enfoque preserva la eficacia de las actuaciones como la existencia de una notificación oportuna. He escuchado comentarios en la salvaguardia pero no muy concreto sobre lo que dice en la salvaguardia y yo quisiera señalar algo sobre esto porque mejoramos, reforzamos y simplificamos las las esas disposiciones sobre la base de los estados. Hay tres tipos de exposiciones. Disposiciones salvaguardias procesales aplicables a las relaciones directas entre el estado del foro y el estado del funcionario. A saber, examen, notificación, invocación, renuncia, solicitud, información y determinación de la inmunidad. Proyecto artículo 8 a 13, No me voy a expandir sobre ello. Hay que leerlo cuidadosamente. Dos, disposiciones que de especial relevancia una vez iniciadas las actuaciones penales. Esto comprende disposiciones relativas a la transferencia de las actuaciones penales y las garantías de debido proceso para el funcionario. Tres disposiciones relativas al establecimiento de mecanismos para facilitar consulta y solución de controversia. Voy a señalar que no ha habido comentarios aquí sobre el hecho de que a pesar de que todas las salvaguardias son pertinentes, sobre el artículo 14, quisiera enfocarme en que el estado del foro podrá por iniciativa propia o a solicitud de del estado del funcionario ofrecer transferir las actuaciones penales relativas al funcionario al estado de origen de este último. qué manera más grande hay de preservar el principio de igualdad soberana? En tal caso el Estado del funcionario, desde luego, tendrá la obligación de someter el asunto a sus a sus autoridades competentes a efectos de enjuiciamiento, de buena fe por supuesto. No hemos tenido el beneficio de escuchar comentarios sobre esto. Me voy a saltar otra salvaguardia, salvaguardias, que me parece que habría que comentar, pero sobre todo el artículo 14 me parece de gran importancia. A modo de conclusión, camino por delante, dos observaciones los comentarios y todos los proyectos artículos fueron aprobados sin observaciones ni votos en contra en su conjunto. Segundo, eh la propuesta de la Comisión Derecho Internacional según la cual la asamblea general cuando lo considere necesario poderá convocar una conferencia diplomática. Esto es una decisión política. La comisión no está para decisiones políticas, sino para fundamentar las cosas sobre base jurídica, corresponde a los estados, no hemos puesto límites ni hemos eh solamente dado una base lógica. Eh en segundo lugar eh, eh, quisiera señalar que algunos miembros antes de la aprobación final hablaron y muchos estados, algunos estados sobre desarrollo progresivo y codificación, Es importante señalar que desarrollo progresivo y codificación no son conceptos estrictamente separados, existen distintos niveles de interacción que resultan esenciales. El concepto de desarrollo progresivo no significa, por el solo hecho de calificar una cuestión como tal, que se resolvió el problema. El desarrollo progresivo exige que se desarrolle progresivamente y un criterio del desarrollo progresivo es que haya práctica suficiente de los estados. Importante ver la reflexión de Tomás Burgental sobre el significado del desarrollo progresivo de la declaración universal de derechos humanos, que fue adoptada como desarrollo progresivo, pero ese estándar implicó ciertas obligaciones y llegó a tener carácter vinculante porque los estados no entendieron desarrollo progresivo como una forma de poner fin al debate sobre simplemente decir es desarrollo progresivo no tiene consecuencia. En varias áreas del derecho se establecen las obligaciones que surgen del desarrollo progresivo. Nos beneficiaríamos de escuchar cuál es la opinión de distintos estados de qué significa que sea de desarrollo progresivo. También eh la idea es adaptar la tradición jurídica y resolver problemas del tiempo tomándola en cuenta. Los jueces Higgins, Coimans y Wurgenthal plantearon que uno de los desafíos del derecho internacional consiste en proporcionar esta estabilidad en las relaciones internacionales, asegurando al mismo tiempo el respeto a los derechos humanos y que la tarea que confrenta el derecho internacional es proporcionar esa estabilidad por medio distintos distinto de la impunidad de los responsables de violaciones. El jurista uruguayo Eduardo Coutur padre del derecho procesal en América Latina se refirió a la necesidad y al deber de los juristas de comprender el contexto con el objeto de provocar, de promover el desarrollo progresivo. Dijo los juristas, los juristas que solo saben derecho, no saben ni siquiera derecho. Concluyo con una reflexión personal. Junto con Jos Juan Méndez y José Miguel Vivanco fui el abogado en el caso Velázquez Rodríguez, el primer caso contencioso ante la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Era un caso desapariciones. En este caso desaparición formal las víctimas sufrieron represalia, agravio y un dolor inmenso durante muchos años. Comprensiblemente era muy difícil para ellos controlar su sufrimiento, contener sus emociones. Cuando se iba a dictar la sentencia de la Corte Interamericana consideramos la posibilidad de contratar a un médico para que asistiera a las víctimas. pues existía la posibilidad de que perdiéramos el caso por alguna cuestión técnica. Sin embargo, las víctimas estaban muy tranquilas, comprendimos la razón, era la primera vez que se encontraban ante un tribunal independiente que cumplía con todas las garantías del debido proceso. Cualquiera que hubiera sido el resultado, el caso demostró a las víctimas de la comunidad internacional la importancia, relevancia del estado de derecho y proporcionar posibilidades de acción. Este proyecto comparte algunas características con el caso Velázquez Rodrigo, su impacto a alcanza millones, decenas de millones, e incluso 100 millones de personas. Resachar la impunidad y al y proteger la y no proteger la igualdad soberana a los estados o eh justamente rechazar esto y al mismo tiempo proteger la igualdad soberana de los estados otorga legitimidad a la toma de decisiones internacionales y fortalece al estado de derecho. Todo puede mejorarse. Cuando se convoque una conferencia diplomática, ustedes, los actores principales de la comunidad internacional, podrán desarrollar nuevas formas para garantizar estos valores y cambiar lo que consideren necesario, muchas gracias.


6th Committee · Chair [1:12:21]:

For his remarks and conveyed the gratitude of the sixth committee for his work on the topic immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. We will now resume our list, go back to our speakers list and the next speaker on the list is the distinguished representative of Estonia, you have the floor.


Estonia [1:12:51]:

Thank you Madam chair, thank you for giving me the floor and I will give the statement

In shortened version. Madam president estonia would like to express its continuing appreciation for the work of the international law commission and wishes to thank all the members of the commission for their contribution. Madam president today i start with addressing the topic of immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction estonia express expresses its appreciation for the Commission's sustained and balanced work on this sensitive topic. The draft articles together with the commentaries constitute a good overview of customary international law and a useful document for states and their authorities to consult with. We fully agree with the general comments noting the important developments of international criminal law in defining and punishing punishing the most serious crimes under international law. defining the principle of accountability as one of its constituent elements, and consolidating the fight against impunity as a goal of the international community. We appreciate the clarification that the draft articles do not affect the rights and obligations of states in relation to the jurisdiction of international criminal courts and tribunals established and operating under specific agreements. This is important to ensure that the draft articles do not impair the achievements of such such special legal regimes. Estonia has long emphasised that there can be no impunity for the most serious international crimes. Therefore, we continue to support the inclusion of the list of the crimes to which impunity does not apply and welcome the list for formulated in draft article six. We reiterate our support for the inclusion of the crime of aggression to the list. We appreciate the explanation in the commentary that although the draft article six concerns the immunity from the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction, racione materia, this does not mean that the troika can enjoy absolute immunity from criminal jurisdiction because 12 article six is applicable to a former head of state, a former head of government or a former minister for foreign affairs for the acts performed in an official capacity during the period of office. We would also like to emphasise the importance of including procedural safeguards to provide clarity for the communication between relevant states and to ensure the protection of the rights of the persons concerned. Turning to the topic other decisions and conclusions estonia welcomes the inclusion of the identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law in the Commission's programme of work. We would also like to share some thought about the revised syllabus on extraterritorial jurisdiction estonia attaches particular importance to the clear and consistently applied general international rules governing relations between states. In our view, the Commission's work could help to build a shared understanding of the grounds and limits of jurisdiction, strengthen legal certainty and support cooperation between states. Regarding the possible approaches to the work, we favour the intermediate approach under which the Commission could produce a set of general draft provisions on the principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction, combining a general framework with considerations of specific fields to be agreed upon during its substantive work. This approach would support would support coherency consistency and predictability while allowing the commission to account for the differences in sectoral practice this approach builds on the 2006 proposal the outline presented at that time already combined general principles, rules on the exercise of jurisdiction and its limitations, with the provisions addressing specific fields of law. so in conclusion we support the continuing work on extraterritorial extraterritorial jurisdiction building on the 2006 proposal while keeping the project focused and manageable. Thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [1:18:30]:

Thank the distinguished representative of Estonia for her statement and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Croatia.


Croatia [1:18:42]:

Madam president distinguished colleagues i will present a shortened version of the statement at the outset croatia would like to thank the chair of the international law commission. Ms.. Andreas mavroyiannis for the comprehensive introduction of the report of the Commission we also extend our appreciation to all members of the Commission the special rapporteurs and secretariat for the dedicated work. Croatia reaffirms its support for the ILC. We attach great importance to the work of the ILC and its continued dialogue with the Sixth Committee. beginning with the topic immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction we would like to thank Mr. claudio grossman and the previous special rapporteurs who worked on this topic on their tremendous efforts in producing the reports that contributed to these draft articles. We also congratulate the Commission on the adoption on second reading of the full set of 17 draft articles with commentaries. We are particularly pleased that the draft articles in their final form also include the crime of aggression as one of the exceptions to the immunity ratione materie listed in draft article six as we have indicated before this matter is of great importance to croatia which suffered aggression during the 1990s. As an umbrella crime, aggression is often accompanied by numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity attributed to the leadership, and the consequences of all of these severe crimes burdened societies for decades. We know this too well ourselves. Considering the almost two decades long but meticulous and fruitful process of drafting, whether this topic becomes elaborated in the future in form of our convention, we hope that even these draft articles will lead to more legal certainty and clarity on this sensitive issue Madam president croatia wishes to thank the international law commission and particular the special rapporteur Mr. marcelo vazquez bermudes for the work carried out on the topic of general principles of law regarding draft conclusion 11 we note that it rightly affirms that there is no hierarchy between general principles of law and treaties or customer international law. Where treaties or customer international law applied first, this follows from lex specialis, not from hierarchy. Croatia takes note of the draft conclusions and will follow with interest their reception in future practice. With regard to the other decisions and conclusions of the Commission, Croatia welcomes the inclusion of the new topic identification and legal consequences of erga omnis obligations in international law. into the Commission's programme of work. Croatia takes note of the inclusion of the new topic The right to regulate international investment law in the long term programme of work. With regard to this new topic, Croatia recommends that its substantive consideration be deferred to a later stage, especially since the complex issues surrounding international investment law are currently being actively addressed and debated within UNCITRA. Finally, the topic of sea level rise in relation to international law remains one of the most pressing and multifaced issues of the international community. We therefore think it is important to keep this topic alive in various multilateral fora including the UN General Assembly. In relation to the subtopic of protection of persons affected by sea level rise, it is necessary to remain conscious of the dangers that steam from sea level rise consequences. The resulting deterioration of living conditions impacts the safety and well being of affected populations and may also contribute to increased migratory pressures. In that sense, as the final report pointed out, it is key to have in focus the principle of protection of human dignity, guiding the actions to be taken in relation to the protection of these persons. Additionally, addressing this aspect of sea level rights will certainly require international cooperation in the development of practical solutions, and such cooperation has the potential to further contribute to the protection of human dignity. Finally, anchoring the discussions and work on potential future instruments for protection of persons affected by sea level rise firmly in the framework of international law will ensure that the overarching principles of legal stability, certainty and predictability are preserved. As a coastal state, we are particularly aware of the gravity of sea level rise, and we will follow with interest the future developments regarding this topic. I thank you for your attention.


6th Committee · Chair [1:23:57]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Croatia for her statement and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Indonesia you have the floor


Indonesia [1:24:10]:

Thank you chair Indonesia extends its appreciation to the ILC Mr. Martins Papriskis as the chair of the 77 session and its member for the continued contribution to the codification and progressive development of international law. We welcome the progress achieved during its 77 session, including the completion of its work on state official immunity and general principles of law. For Indonesia, the strength of international law must not stop in the development of new rules. It needs to be manifested in their consistent application, universal legitimacy, and respect for the sovereign equality of states, particularly amid growing global challenges. Allow me to address three substantive issues followed by some observations on the commission work. First, on sea level rise in relations to international law. Indonesia applauds the adoption of the UN Declaration on sea level rise through resolution A 81 L3 couple of weeks ago. We also commend the completion of the commission's study group and its comprehensive examination of the interrelated questions of the law of the sea, statehood and protection of persons affected by sea level rise. As underscored by our foreign minister last September, sea level rise must not create legal uncertainty. Unclass 1982 remains the fundamental legal framework governing the oceans including sea level rise hence changes caused by the sea level rise should not diminish lawfully established baselines maritime entitlements, and outer limits. Building on the continued development of of deliberations on this issue which will further address protection of persons affected by sea level rise, my delegation wishes to emphasize the following considerations Human dignity and the protection of affected communities must remain at the heart of our legal response. Behind every threatened coastline are people whose homes livelihoods, culture, and fundamental rights are at risk. Indonesia underscores that states bear primary responsibility to protect persons within their jurisdiction, complemented by international cooperation, international cooperation, particularly where national capacities are limited. In this regard, Indonesia calls for a stronger international cooperation on climate finance, technology transfer and capacity building consistent with the UN trip UNF CCC and Paris agreement. Second, on immunity of state officials, Indonesia acknowledged the commission's completion of the second reading of the draft articles and appreciates the sustained efforts of the special rapporteurs and members of the commission. This critical issue requires a careful balance between combating impunity for the gravest international crimes and respecting the sovereign equality of states. Indonesia reaffirms that immunity is not intended to justify impunity. At the same time, immunity constitutes an important safeguard for effective sovereign state functions and the stability of international relations. In this regard, we underline that distinctions between immunity rationale personae and immunity rationale materie must be preserved, their respective legal foundations, scope, and consequences cannot be treated interchangeably. Equally important limitations and exceptions to immunity must be firmly grounded in international law. While acknowledging the commission's work on draft article six, Indonesia emphasized the need to distinguish existing customary law from its progressive development. Combating impunity must not validate or rationalize selective jurisdiction, politically motivated proceedings, or interference in the sovereign functions of states. Regarding a future convention, Indonesia underscores that the process must be member state driven, inclusive and based on broad agreement. My delegation will carefully examine the draft text, taking into account all relevant legal considerations. Third on general principles of law, Indonesia welcomes the adoption on second reading of the draft conclusions on general principles of law, which constitute an important contribution to clarifying article 30 38 paragraph 1c of the ICJ statute. We are of the view that general principles of law must be identified through representative methodologies that encompasses diverse legal traditions, regions and national legal systems including those of developing countries. General principles of law should also reinforce rather than circumvent the established source and rules of international law. Their application must respect the role of treaties and customary international law. International courts and tribunals play an important role in identifying and applying international law. Nevertheless, judicial reasoning must not substitute for the rigorous identification of applicable legal rules and principles. We therefore believe that the draft conclusions are a valuable reference for state practice while underscoring the importance of their careful and context sensitive applications. Finally, on other decisions and conclusions of the commission, Indonesia welcomes the commission's continued attention to emerging and complex legal questions including due diligence, piracy and armed robbery at sea, and the identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes. We encourage the commission to maintain a clear distinction between codification and progressive development, and to give appropriate weight to state practice, especially from developing countries and different legal traditions. Indonesia remains committed to supporting the commission's work and engaging constructively with all delegations. Our shared objective must be an international legal order that is not only more predictable but also more just and not only more ambitious but consistently upheld by all states. I thank you very much chair.


6th Committee · Chair [1:30:33]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Indonesia and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cyprus.


Cyprus [1:30:45]:

Thank you Madam Chair. Allow me on behalf of the Republic of Cyprus to express our gratitude to the ILC chair, Doctor Andreas Mavroyiannis, and to all members of the commission and the special rapporteurs for their commendable work. As per your recommendation, this is an abridged version of the Cyprus statement, the full text of which will be submitted for publication. Cyprus welcomes the inclusion of the new topic identification and legal consequences of obligations, erga omnets in international law in the commission's program of work. And we look forward to a study addressing, inter alia, the conceptual distinctions between obligations or erga omnets and peremptory norms of international law, as well as the invocation of state responsibility in this context. My delegation wishes firstly to comment on sea level rise in relation to international law of last year's report and on the possible ways forward recommended therein also in light of developments since its issuance. The severe consequences of climate induced sea level rise on states have been underscored by the recent advisory opinions and were further addressed by the international community. Importantly, the General Assembly this year adopted a landmark resolution welcoming the ICJ's findings and calling upon all states to comply with their obligations to ensure the protection of the climate system. In addition, the recent adoption by consensus of the first ever UN declaration on sea level rise reflects the concerns shared by all states regarding the impacts of sea level rise. With regard to the possible ways forward identified by the ILC, Cyprus reiterates that the existing law of the framework can effectively address sea level rise through a contemporary interpretation that considers the fundamental principles of international law, including the preservation of existing rights and legal stability, certainty and predictability as per paragraph 58 a of the final report. This approach is reinforced by the advisory opinions both of the ICJ and it clause, which emphasize the fundamental importance of upholding unclose, the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out and whose provisions reflect customer international law. As underscored by all, states in the UN declaration on sea level rise, legal stability and certainty are vital for the preservation of the rights of states, including as to the preservation of their baselines and maritime zones, the continuity of statehood and international peace and security. The un declaration took note of the findings of the ICJ's advisory opinion and of the ILC's final report and further affirmed that states can maintain their maritime zones once established in accordance with unclose in the face of physical changes resulting from sea level rise without prejudice to their ability to update them. Accordingly, Cyprus reiterates that UNCLOS does not require states to update baselines on nautical charts due to sea level rise, as confirmed by the ICJ in paragraph 362 of its advisory opinion. in light of the overwhelming consensus in state practice and especially in light of the ICJ advisory opinion, the General Assembly resolution and the UN declaration on sea level rights, all of which followed the ILC's final report on sea level rise, Cyprus is of the view that there is no necessity of either an interpretive statement or a subsequent agreement regarding the preservation of baselines and maritime zones as suggested. On the doctrine of statehood, Cyprus would like to refer to the ICJ's advisory opinion and the relevant UN General Assembly resolution, as well as the UN declaration on sea level rise, which affers affirm that once a state is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood. Cyprus also welcomes the study group's conclusion that states may take all necessary measures in order to preserve their statehood sovereignty and maritime entitlements. Finally, Cyprus considers that the ILC's final report, as well as the subsequent developments, provide a sufficient basis for addressing the issue of continuity of statehood and the preservation of maritime entitlements. However, the protection of persons affected by sea level rise and the application of the existing legal framework in this context remain unresolved. Against this backdrop, Cyprus supports the view expressed by the alliance of small island states that discussions should now focus on the rights and protection of persons affected by sea level rise. May I now turn to the commission's work at the 77th session and my delegation will now address general principles of law. we thank the special rapporteur for his valuable contribution to the commission's work and his work on the draft conclusions. we welcome the adoption by the commission of the entire set of 12 draft conclusions and their commentaries. Cyprus aligns itself with the statement delivered by the european union and wishes to further highlight the following points we welcome the adoption of draft conclusion 11 which recognizes the general principle principles of law as an autonomous source of international law and establishes no hierarchy among the principal sources in accordance with article 381 of the statute of the ICJ. Cyprus supports the view that the same norm can coexist in different sources of international law. In that context, general principles of law can be applied independently or simultaneously with other rules of international law derived from treaties or custom to interpret or complement them. Such parallel existence, however, should not blur the conceptual distinction between the general principles of law and custom or international law, and thus we appreciate the effort made by the Commission to clarify that distinction in the draft commentaries. In this regard, Cyprus also welcomes the Commission's decision not to address the question regarding the application of the persistence persistent objector doctrine to general principles of law, particularly in view of the limited state practice and jurisprudence. We would like to reiterate that the possible application of the persistent objector to general principles of law, has no basis in state practice or in the jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals, and would unnecessarily risk conflating two distinct sources of international law, which are subject to different criteria for their identification. We conclude our intervention by congratulating again the ILC for its excellent work and we look forward to continued constructive dialogue. I thank you for your attention.


6th Committee · Chair [1:37:45]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Cyprus for her statement and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Brazil.


Brazil [1:37:54]:

Thank you very much madam chair

Brazil

Thanks the chair of the International Law Commission for the report, and we express our appreciation to the members of the commission for their continued contribution to the codification and progressive development of international law. We welcome that the Commission was able to meet for the full duration of its session this year, as mandated by the General Assembly. The comprehensive report before us and successful conclusion of work on important topics, then demonstrate the value providing the commission of providing the Commission with sufficient time and resources to discharge its mandate. The full duration of its sessions should continue to be preserved in the years. ahead. At a time when international law faces significant challenges, the work of the Commission remains particularly relevant. Brazil values the dialogue between the sixth committee and the IOC, which helps ensure that the commission's outputs are both legally sound and politically viable. Madam chair, Brazil welcomes the adoption on second reading of the draft articles immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. We express our appreciation to the special rapporteur and to all commission members for their efforts to bring the sensitive topic to completion. We commend the Commission for concluding its work on part four of the draft articles on procedural safeguards. They are essential to prevent abusive or politically motivated exercise of criminal jurisdiction while preserving accountability. Brazil also welcomes the Commission's resolution of the complex question of exceptions to immunity, ratione materi, identifying the crimes under international law in which respect of which such immunity shall not apply, provides greater legal certainty and predictability. This provision also sends an important message immunity from jurisdiction should not mean impunity for the most serious international crimes, as the ICJ emphasized in the arrest warrant case. We note that the commission ultimately resorted to a vote on this provision departing from its practice of decision making by consensus. Brazil attaches great importance to the commission's tradition of consensus voting should remain exceptional. At the same time, consensus cannot become an indefinite obstacle to progress, nor should its absence prevent the Commission from completing its work on a topic of such importance. This outcome may also be seen as an invitation for political guidance from the General Assembly on the way forward. Brazil concurs with the Commission's recommendations on the elaboration of a convention on the basis of the draft articles. Future negotiations should build on the Commission's work, particularly the balance achieved between state sovereignty and the fight against impunity. On the commentaries to the draft articles, we note that the cases cited predominantly originate from developed countries. This limits the extent to which they reflect the diversity of state practice. Brazil encouraged the Commission to draw on a more balanced range of national judicial decisions and legislation reflecting different regions and legal systems Madam chair turning to the topic of general principles principles of law, Brazil thanks the special rapporteur and the members of the Commission for their work and commends the adoption of the draft conclusions on second reading. Brazil understands that the principles of international law are reflected in treaty and customer law. While acknowledging the divergent views among states and among members of the commission on this topic, my delegation would not be opposed in principle to consider them as general principles of law, given their distinctive nature and their interpretative and systemic value. General principles of law perform a crucial function in international law, whether derived from national legal systems or formed within the international legal system, they contribute to its cohesion and coherence. As the Brazilian jurist and former judge of the International Court of Justice, Antonio Cansado Angus Augusto Cansado Trindade, once observed without principles, there is truly no legal system. Brazil supports the commission's recommendation that the draft conclusions and commentaries be taken note of by the General Assembly and annexed to a future. a future resolution. The draft conclusions provide useful guidance on the identification and application of general principles of law and are likely to serve as an important point of reference for states, international courts and tribunals and other practitioners of international law. General principles not only guide the interpretation and application of other rules of international law, as recognized by the Commission, they may also inform and in some cases help determine the content of customary international law. We particularly appreciate the reference in the report to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. This example illustrates how general principles may shape the development and application of international law. This brings us to another topic under this cluster, sea level rise. Brazil attaches particular importance to this issue and reiterates its appreciation to the members of the study group study group for their work on this complex and consequential topic. As Brazil has emphasized in previous debates, the legal challenges arising from civil from sea level rise must be addressed in accordance with the fundamental principles of sovereign equality, self determination, non intervention and international cooperation. Given the close relation between sea level rise and climate change, Brazil also highlights the importance of the principles of equity and of common but different differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities as affirmed by the ICJ in its advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change, the CBDRC is a core guiding principle for the implementation of climate treaties. It ensures that equitable distribution of burdens and acknowledges the historical responsibility of developers. developed states of developed states, in particular for climate finance. Brazil notes with regret that despite the efforts of a significant number of delegations, it was not possible to reflect in the high level declaration on sea level rise, an explicit reference to the principle of CBDRC. This omission does not diminish this principle status as a foundational principle of international environmental law, nor does weaken Brazil's commitment to uphold it in all relevant fora. We trust that future deliberations will allow for more comprehensive and equitable articulation of the responsibilities at stake. Brazil reiterates the views it has expressed in previous years on questions relating to the law of the sea, statehood, and the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. Those views are based on the understanding that the relevant legal framework already exists, and the challenge lies in applying it to specific circumstances arising from sea level rise. In that regard, general principles of law may offer valuable guidance. Madam chair, turning to other decisions, Brazil welcomes the initiative to update the study plan on extraterritorial jurisdiction, taking into account the significant legal developments that have taken place since the topic was first included in the Commission's long term programme of work. This this topic is both timely and important, given the growing recourse to extraterritorial jurisdiction. We consider promising the possibility of a staggered approach combining the identification of general principles with the examination of set sector specific issues. We also welcome the emphasis placed on the views of states in the sixth committee as an essential element in determining the future scope and direction on this topic. In conclusion, Brazil thanks the International Law Commission for another productive session and reaffirms its strong support for its mandate. We look forward to continuing our engagement with the Commission and with all delegations in advancing the development of international law on the basis of dialogue inclusiveness and a firm commitment to the fundamental principles of the international legal order I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [1:46:09]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil for her statement and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.


Russian Federation · Представитель [1:46:23]:

Начиная выступление по докладу комиссии международного права, хотел бы затронуть вопрос об организации работы. Насколько нам известно, в начале сессии было высказано предложение ограничить выступление делегаций в том числе и по докладу КМП 7 минутами. Наша делегация выступила против идеи, указавшись на уникальность мандата 6го комитета, необходимость обеспечения полноценного, обязательного, аргументованного обсуждения сложных юридических вопросов, которые затрагиваются в докладах комиссии. Такое ограничение тем более не неуместно, если учесть распределение разделов доклада по кластерам. При всем уважении к вам, госпожа председатель, к другим делегациям, по Прокоментировать и подвещение моря, и имунитеты, и общие принципы права, и прочие решения мы физически не сможем не за 7, не боюсь за 15 минут. Прошу с пониманием отнестись к этой позиции, которую уверен разделяют многие делегации, которым есть что сказать по этим важным темам. Госпожа председатель, выражаем благодарность председателю КМП господину Мавроянису за предоставление итогов 77 сессии. Начнем с темы повышения уровня моря в контексте международного права. В сведение итогового отчета исследовательской группы, представленного на сессии 2025 года. Повышение уровня моря является глобальным явлением, хотя его последствия могут проявляться в различных регионах мира в различной степени. При смотрении данной темы затрагиваются чувствительные вопросы, что обосновывает необходимость особенно тщательно тщательного учета позиции всех государств. Встановленный мандат не предполагал выявление причинно следственных связей изучаемого явления или их ограничения исключительно последствий последствиями деятельности человека в ущерб значение повышения уровня как природного явления. Отмечаю, что по целому ряду аспектов данной темы подходы государства подходы государств разнятся. В части вопросов морского права солидарны с теми, кто выступает за сохранение целостности Конвенции ООН 1982 года. ее нормы должны толковаться вместе с иными договорными нормами и нормами обычного права. Не готовы поддержать исключение из дискуссии принципа суша господствует над морем. являющаяся нормой обычного права. Важно понимать, что права на морские пространства вытекают не из суши как таковой, а из суверенитета. осуществляемого государством в отношении своей территории, который включает в том числе береговую линию. По общему правилу Конвенции 1982 года подразумевает проведение нормальных исходных линий, а при наличии определенных условий прямых исходных линий. Государство зачастую комбинирует оба эти метода. Конвенция не содержит каких либо нормативных сроков, по истечении которых ее учасники обязаны пересматривать положение нормальных и прямых исходных линий. Невзирая на постойные и неизбежные изменения конфигурации береговой линии, Практика регулярного присмотра установленных государством исходных линий также не сложилась. Несмотря на это нам сложно согласиться с тезисом о полном отсутствии конвенции каких либо обязательств на этот счет. Эту идею сложно соотнести с критериями проведения исходных линий установленными конвенцией статьи 5,7 и 10. И принцип принципов добросовестного выполнения международных договоров. Что касается возможности сохранения исходных линий и внешних пределов морских пространств в условиях повышения уровня моря, то на данном этапе такой нормы обычного права не существует. Причина кроется в отсутствии признания соответствующей практики в качестве нормы права и недостаточности самой самой практики. В качестве обоснования возможности сохранения исходных линий и пределов морских пространств, сельская група опирается на принципы, на принцип правовой стабильности и определенности. Мы полагаем, что устоявшееся толкование этих принципов в рассматриваемом контексте означает понятность и неизменность механизма определения пределов морских пространств на основе единообразного применения правовых норм но не обязательно самих пределов. Предложенные исследовательской группой толкования в пользу сохранения пределов морских пространств могло бы стать примером прогрессивного развития международного права для поиска практически приемлемого решения. Разумеется, при том понимании, что оно будет применимо не только к повышению уровня моря, но и к другим природным явлениям, которые могли бы ставить аналогичный вопросы. Что касается вопроса государственности, то здесь следует основываться на равенстве всех суверенных государств и праве государств поддерживать свое существования. Важное значение имеет принцип международного сотрудничества, особенно при создании режиму режимов сью дженес для сохранения полноценной государственности государственности затронутых государств. В разделе пять итогового отчета исследовательской группы представлены возможные дальнейшие действия. Справедливо отмечена возможность согласовать толкования толкувание действующих инструментов. Прежде всего конвенции ООН по морскому праву. Мы рассчитываем, что такое толкувание будет опираться на широкий консенсус, в противном случае его обязательность будет под большим сомнением. Госпожа председатель, перейти теперь к теме иммунитет должностных лиц государства. В подготовленных комиссией проектах статей и есть ценные элементы, которые заслуживали бы отражения в соответствующей Конвенции. Признательность спецдокладчику изучит ряда замечаний России к тем или иным положениям статей и комментариев к ним. Вместе с тем в общем и целом вынуждены констатировать что принятые во втором чтении проекта статей вызывают больше озабоченности, нежели удовлетворение. Мы ранее неоднократно выражали обеспокоенность в связи с тем, по какому пути в определенный момент пошла разработка комиссии проекта статей по данной теме. Как среди членов комиссии, так и государственном комитете шли долгие дебаты, особенно вокруг ключевой статьи 6, касающейся якобы существующих исключений из функционального иммунитета должностных лиц. Мы до последнего надеялись, что эти дискуссии убедят специального докладчика господина Гроссмана в необходимости корректировки некоторых положений или, по крайней мере, отражение действительной картины происходящего в комментариях. Однако твердые позиции многих стран, в том числе наша позиция, были проигнорированы. В итоге весь свод из 17 проектов статей с комментариями был принят комиссией без достижения консенсуса. Задействование двух голосований. Последний мае нынешнего года в ходе подготовки проектов статей может создать весьма негативный и ненужный прецедент. Я стану тратить время, повторяя подробные замечания, которые мы высказывали на предыдущих сессиях. Отмечу главное Россия остается неизменно приверженной сохранению института иммунитетов должностных лиц государства от иностранной уголовной юрисдикции без каких либо изъятий. Подготовленный же проект едва ли не главной своей целью ставит формулирование так называемых исключений. Попытки выдать исключение за норму действующего международного права не выдерживают юридической критики. Приведенные комментарии к статье шесть практика государства в действительности отражает позицию лишь малой группы стран. Эти судебные решения не формируют новые нормы международного права, а являются примерами порушений соответствующих норм. При этом полностью игноруется практика абсолютного большинства государств, а именно отсутствие у них судебных дел, подтверждающих наличие исключений из иммунитета. Недальновидное решение комиссии относительно этой статьи разочаровано разочаровывают. Согласиться с исключением из иммунитета означало бы легитимизировать политически мотивированные преследования и злоупотребления уголовной юстицией. Между тем практика показывает, что такие преследования не вносят никакого вклада в так называемую борьбу с безнаказанностью и всегда приводят к деградации международных отношений. Такой позиции придерживается не только наша страна. В прошлом году я уже говорил о заключенных к России двусторонних соглашениях с рядом стран, гарантирующих соблюдение международно правовых норм об иммунитетах. Некоторые из них уже вступили в силу и применяются на практике. На днях секретариат ООН передано для распространения подписанное в этом году россией и Китаем совместное декларация о соблюдении норм, касающихся иммунитета должностных лиц и усиление взаимной защиты граждан от злоупотреблений в области уголовной юстиции. В ней отражается убежденность сторон в том, что международные нормы, касающиеся иммунитета, всегда должны соблюдаться всеми государствами. Любая мера, нарушающая такие обязательства, противоречит принципу суверенного равенства государств и может способствовать эскалации напряженности. Парушения норм международного права, касающихся иммунитета, влекут за собой международную ответственность и дают основания для принятия ответных мер. Хотя бы вновь со всей определенностью заявить государства, которые настаивают на существовании исключения из иммунитета, фактически декларируют готовность нарушать иммунитет иностранных должностных лиц. Такие государства не вправе рассчитывать на уважение иммунитета их собственных представителей и должны быть готовы понести ответственность за свои нарушения. Это касается тех случаев, когда иммунитет нарушает не отдельная государства, а создана государственная многосторонняя структура, такая как так званый Международный уголовный суд. Панове председатель, в России есть немало вопросов и к другим положениям проектов статей, так мы не согласны с жестким ограничением круга лиц, пользующихся персональным иммунитетом традиционной тройкой. Что касается четвертой части проектов статей, полагаем, что содержащиеся в ней положения представляют собой прогрессивное развитие международного права и полезно лишь в качестве руководящих принципов. В свете изложенного Россия твердо убеждена, что принятые комиссией проекты статей в их нынешнем виде не могут служить подходящей основой для разработки международной конвенции. Однако в принципе конвенция на эту тему востребована. Она могла бы состояться, если в основу ее разработки было бы положено стремление к консенсусу на базе действующих норм международного права. Будь и нововведения желающего государства вправе предусмотреть предусматривать отношениях между собой, не навязывая остальным. Поэтому предлагаем, чтобы в резолюции на данную тему Генеральная Ассамблея дала бы государствам достаточно времени для изучения проектов статей, и направление комментариев. С учетом сложившейся практики было бы разумным отложить дальнейшие шаги и вернуться к рассмотрению вопроса через несколько лет для всестороннего обмена мнениями. Госпожа председатель ознакомились с окончательной версией проекта выводов комиссии по теме Общие принципы права испытываем в этой связи смешанные чувства. С одной стороны спецдокладчиком и комиссией в целом проделана масштабная, добротная работа. С другой, эта работа вскрыла значительный объем внутренних противоречий, которые, видимо, присущи явлению общих принципов права, но которые комиссия, на наш взгляд, пока не смогла разрешить. Так вновь вынуждена высказать сомнения относительно концепции транспонирования общих принципов из национальных правовых систем. Согласно с комиссией, что для такого транспонирования не требуется формализованной процедуры, что с другой стороны оно не происходит автоматически. Однако идея о том, что для констатации состоявшегося транспонирования достаточно установить совместимость принципа с международной правовой системой, кажется нам недостаточно убедительной. Одной лишь объективной совместимости здесь явно мало требуется в той или иной форме проявление воли государства. Спорной остается концепция общих принципов, которые могут быть сформированы в самой международно правовой системе. Впрочем, мы открыты к дальнейшему обсуждению. В этом контексте хотелось бы также отметить, что российская юридическая школа традиционно уделяет большое внимание принципам международного права в том смысле, в каком это понятие фигурирует в известной декларации 1970 года. К сожалению, из материала комиссии мы так и не уяснили соотношение этих принципов с понятием общих принципов права. Полагаем, что на нынешнем этапе Генеральная Ассамблея могла бы принять выводы комиссии к сведению, но, как видится, было бы правильно, чтобы сама комиссия вернулась к этой теме через 5 10 лет, и смотрел ее снова в свете соответствующей практики. Госпожа представитель, позвольте несколько слов прочих решений комиссии об организации работы. Обратили внимание на постановку текущего программу темы обязательства эргообнос. С интересом будем следить за ее разработкой. Важно обеспечить баланс между объективным существованием таких обязательств и не нежелательностью недобросовестной практики использования этих обязательств. На них слишком часто ссылаются в качестве процессуального повода к возбуждению политизированных судебных и иных разбирательств, не имеющих никакого отношения отношение к разрешению подлинных споров. Мы признали господину Марио Аярсабалю за подготовку присмотренного плана разработки темы экстерриториальная юрисдикция. В связи с возрастающим объемом применения отдельными государствами и группами государств односторонних принудительных мер, включая так называемые вторичные санкции, принимаемые в обход устава ООН, считаем эту тему totally is a slider of the humanity. So, a study of the. Эта тема конечно интересная. Предложили бы в данном вопросе придерживаться осторожного подхода, учитывать опыт организаций уже занимающихся данной темой. 1. Так комиссия ООН по праву международной торговли, юниситрал при определении своего мандата в данной сфере сознательно отказался от разработки универсального материального правового регулирования ключевым фактором послужило то, что материально правовые стандарты согласовываются на двостороннем уровне, единого подхода не требуется. В предварительном обзоре упоминается разработка юниситрал варианта реформирования системы урегулирования споров между инвесторами и государствами посредством создания многостороннего инвестиционного суда. Это предложение отдельных делегаций по нему пока не достигнут консенсус, и поэтому эта тема требует дальнейшего обсуждения с учетом работы профильных организаций. В целом, организация работы комиссии удовлетворением отмечаем, что в текущем году ей удалось вернуться к штатному графику. Тем не менее проблема перегруженности работы не решается. Прослеживается тенденция практически каждый год в списке тем долгосрочной и текущей программе работы пополняются. За последние пять лет долгосрочные программы были переделены семь тем. В долгосрочной появилось шесть новых. Вновь напоминаю, что исторически эффективность работы комиссии достигалась не количеством тем, а глубиной их проработки. Призываем временно приостановить практику ежегодной ежегодного перевода тем в текущую повестку дня. При таком подходе в случае повторного появления финансовых проблем можно было бы сократить продолжение сессии, не внося ущерб рассматриваемым темам. Кроме того, очевидно, что приток новых сложнейших вопросов рассеивает внимание комиссии, а скорость приобретает первостепенное значение, оказывая плохое влияние на качество ее итогов итоговых продуктов достижения консенсуса. В этой связи призываем комиссию привлекать сдержанность и следовать практике компромиссных решений. Госпожа председатель резолюции 80/ 80/295 Генассамблея провозгласила 2028 год году международного права. В Туркменистане, одном из немногих государств, соблюдающих настоящий фальшивый нейтралитет, планируется проведение глобального форума по международному праву. Россия с большим интересом длится на эту перспективу. Полагаю, что шестому комитету, так и комиссии международного права, есть над чем подумать в передверие этого мероприятия. Призываем комиссию в ходе сессии 27 28 годов рассмотреть вопрос своего возможного вклада в эту инициативу. Предлагаем свежим взглядом посмотреть на имеющуюся практику кодификации прогрессивного развития международного права. Все ли мы делаем правильно? Почему одни проекты статей быстро превращаются в конвенцию, другие годами лежат без движения? Не пролезли заново поглянуть на давние, на, наработки комиссии, такие как статьи об ответственности государств, дипломатической защите, ответственности международных организаций. Не стоит ли их обновить, переосмыслить, оживить? Мы предлагаем комиссии уделить время и внимание этим и другим подобным важным вопросам. Благодарю за внимание.


6th Committee · Chair [2:06:18]:

Statement, I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Gambia. You have the floor ma'am.


Gambia [2:06:27]:

Thank you madam chair. The Gambia aligns with the statement delivered by the distinguished representative of Cameroon speaking on behalf of the African group and wish to make the following remarks in its national capacity. We thank the international law commission for its report and commend the chair of the commission, the bureau and the special rapporteurs for their dedication towards the codification and progressive development of international law as set out in the ILC's 1947 statute derived from article 13 sub one of the United Nations charter. In this spirit, we continue to recall the important efforts of the commission in the contemporary development of the present multilateral system. The Gambia notes that the report of the International Law Commission constitutes special importance and development in international law. First, on the substantive issues to address on cluster one, on sea level rise in relation to international law, the Gambia wish to clearly express its support to the study group's final report adopted by the commission last year, which has been instrumental in providing the requisite analysis in the evolution of rules governing sea level rise. As a low lying coastal country, the Gambia is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise, coastal erosion, flooding, and saltwater intrusion. These impacts increasingly threaten coastal communities, infrastructure, tourism, agriculture, fisheries, and livelihoods. We welcome and endorse the United Nations declaration on sea level rise adopted in September this year and view it as complementary to the findings of the study group. To the Gambia, this declaration as an important is an important expression of global solidarity and a renewed commitment to addressing one of the defining challenges facing vulnerable coastal and low line countries. And as such, we acknowledge that maritime zones and baselines, particularly is that once established in accordance with the principles set out in the enclause, should be maintained and remain unaffected by physical changes resulting from sea level rise. We view this as essential in maintaining the natural rights of states to their resources and uphold the territory integrity of states. We welcome the international court of justice's advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change, which provided legal clarity on issues related to sea level rise, particularly also on the continuity of statehood, as well as the sovereignty sovereign rights and responsibilities of states consistent with international. law. We also note that the United Nations Human Rights Council affirmed that climate change related sea level rise is a serious threat to the full and effective enjoyment of human rights, including inter aliaj the rights of all peoples to self determination, the rights to life, health, and adequate standard of living, including food, water, sanitation, and housing, and the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. While we take note of the commission's report regarding the absence of a comprehensive dedicated legal framework addressing sea level rise. We emphasize the need for states to respect, protect and fulfill human rights in addressing the protection of persons affected. We continue to maintain that persons affected by sea level rise remain right holders and we look forward to dedicated commitments of the study group's findings and the implementation of the declaration adopted this year on immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, the Gambia thanks for the rapporteur Claudio Grossman Gullo for his efforts and the commission for its progress in this important topic and its completion on second reading. The Gambia remains committed to the fight against impunity and attaches great importance to the substantial role of the commission. We take note of the delicate and complex nature of the immunity's topic. And we know that the key challenge in this process is the need to strike a balance between the foundational principles of sovereign equality of states of which immunity is derived and the fight against impunity by ensuring accountability. for crimes of international concern. The Gambia therefore knows the provisions on draft article six detailing the grounds of exception for which immunity does not apply. As others indicated, we are also of the considered view that article six includes progressive development of international law. The Gambia welcomes the commission's codification of procedural safeguards including notification, consultation, and review. These safeguards are essential to preventing abuse and ensuring that the draft articles are applied consistently with their object and purpose. We support the application of rigorous thresholds informed by international criminal practice when determining whether sufficient ground exists to override immunity in cases involving serious crimes. My delegation considers that the draft articles reflect a shared understanding of the applicable rules of international law. We also take note of the commission's recommendation that at an appropriate stage the draft articles are to be considered to serve as a basis for future. treaty negotiations. The Gambian maintains that as the General Assembly deliberates on such proposition in the future, states should continue to earnest the clarity of the draft articles regarding the respective rights and duties of forum states while preserving the principles of sovereign equality and the rules governing accountability of serious crimes in accordance with applicable rules of international law. We further commend the commission on retaining genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in the text as well. The Gambia also particularly welcomes the inclusion of slavery and the slave trade amongst the crimes for which immunity does not apply, highlighting the gravity of the crime. The inclusion, we believe, will prove contribute positively to the proposals submitted for the recognition of slavery and slave trading as crimes against humanity in the ongoing process for the negotiation of a future convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. On general principles of law, the Gambit takes notes of the considerable strides made by the commission on the topic of general principles of law and knows the adoption on second reading of the 12 draft conclusions and recommendations. We thank Ambassador Bermudes for his work on this important topic. We know that the study builds on the commission's earlier work on the source of international law, including its 2018 conclusions on identifying customary international law. We further note that the conclusion seeks to clarify the practice relating to general principles of law under article 38 of sub one of the statute of the ICJ, which directs the court when resolving disputes between states to apply the general principles of law. The Gambia considers it essential that the identification of general principles of law reflects the legal traditions and systems of the world. Any framework adopted should promote geographical and substantive diversity and ensure equitable consideration of the different legal system represented within the international community. We further urge that the applicability of the general principles of law be subject to the participation of developing countries including Africa, ensuring that the identification is transparent, consistent, inclusive, and representative. We also value the fact that the conclusions of the comments contain methodological approach to identify general principles of law derived from national legal system. And we recommend that general principles of law can ensure consistency in the international legal system, and therefore its consideration is vital. The Gambia also welcomes the inclusion of the topics related to the identification and legal consequences of obligation erga omnis into the program of work of the International Law Commission and looks forward to the commission's deliberations. In conclusion, the Gambia reaffirms its supported international law commission in the codification and progressive development of international law and encourages the requisite support towards the dispensation of the commission's important mandate as stipulated under the UN charter. I thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [2:13:31]:

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


United States of America [2:13:40]:

Thank you madam chair. Before I begin my remarks, I want to thank the bureau of the committee and the secretariat for commemorating Judge Stephen Schwabel at the outset of our session. Judge Schwabel was born here in New York City, and his passion for international law was first spurred during high school through a United Nations conference for youth. His accomplishments as a jurist are too many to mention here, but of course include being president and vice president of the ICJ, serving on numerous tribunals, working as an attorney at my own offices of the State Department legal advisor, and teaching at Harvard Law and Johns Hopkins. We are so fortunate to have his example and legacy. Turning to today's topic, I will deliver in a abbreviated version of our remarks. Our full statement will be submitted for the record and touch on three general areas sea level rise, immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, and general principles of law. While the United States continues to have broad concerns about the work of the ILC, in particular its increasing tendency to blur the line between codification and progressive development, despite an absence of sufficient or even consistent state practice, it remains the case that the United States has strong views about the topics on the commission's program of work. I am grateful for the opportunity to express those here. On the topic of sea level rise, the United States notes the high level declaration on sea level rise adopted by consensus. We join others in supporting the declaration's efforts to provide for stability of maritime zones, as noted in our explanation. of position, the declaration includes no new legal principle on statehood, rather it restates the existing general presumption of the continuity of statehood and the rights and responsibilities that flow from it. We note last year's ILC resolution invited states, without setting a precedent, to reflect on the final report of the study group on sea level rise and express any further views on the legal aspects of this topic. We emphasize that this invitation was exceptional. Nonetheless, we repeat two points we raised last year. First, any solution relating to sea level rise must be consistent with customary state practice and treaty law of the sea. We appreciate the efforts of the ILC and study group to identify an approach grounded in the text of the law of the sea convention. The United States will work with other countries toward the goal of lawfully establishing and maintaining baselines and maritime zone limits, limits and will not challenge such baselines and maritime zone limits that are not subsequently updated despite sea level rise. We urge other countries to do the same, including by supporting positions on the maintenance of maritime zones such as the one articulated in the high level declaration. Second on statehood, we continue to believe that sea level rise should not cause a cause a country to lose its statehood, but it is better to allow states to develop law on this matter as particular issues arise rather than try to pursue policy preferences in the abstract. I turn now to the second topic of immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. The United States had urged the Commission not to rush the second reading of the draft articles in light of unresolved substantive disagreements, and we echoed the concerns of members that the Commission should strive for a more consensus based or unified approach to what is now draft article six. A more useful and legally supportable approach to draft article six would have been to replace the list with criteria or considerations that states could reference in determining based on the totality of circumstances in a particular case whether there was a basis for not applying immunity ratione materiae nonetheless, draft article six now contains an expanded list of crimes to which immunity ratione materiae should not apply. We continue to believe that any list of crimes in draft article six does not reflect a codification of customary international law. And we note that a number of other states share this view. In prior comments, we urge the commission to clearly identify draft article six as a proposed progressive development of the law to enhance transparency and minimize the risk that it will be viewed by states, domestic or international courts or others as a codification of customary international law. We echoed the calls of other states and commissions members on this point, noting that the widespread longstanding controversy around draft article six warranted this measure. It was this type of controversy that animated the committee's call in last year's ILC resolution for the commission to include in its common commentaries where relevant and practicable indications of the extent to which the commission views draft provision draft provisions as representing the codification or progressive development of international law. We were disappointed that the commission did not do so here. Instead, the commentary to draft article six only acknowledges that the ILC would pursue its mandate of promoting the progressive development of international law and its codification, then goes on to assert that legal developments have taken place limiting the applicability of immunity from jurisdiction ratione materiae in respect of certain acts that constitute crimes under international law. This pronouncement might be incorrectly interpreted by some to suggest that draft article six reflects customary international law. As an initial matter, we recognize that the special rapporteur removed references to certain US cases that we explained were not evidence of per se exceptions to functional immunity. The state practice now referenced in the commentaries is comprised, however, of case law exclusively from one region and does not reflect sufficient sufficiently widespread and representative state practice. In these circumstances, the commentary should have included an unambiguous statement that draft article six represents a proposal for progressive development. Without such a caveat, the draft articles could be misinterpreted in ways that lead to an unwarranted erosion of official acts immunity that could create instability and conflict. Finally, given the divergence of states views and practice, especially with respect to draft, article six, there is unlikely to be sufficient consensus to elaborate a convention based on the draft articles, as the commission recommends. We believe states should give serious consideration to how best to address these significant concerns. concerns. At the very least, it will be important to reflect states divergent views and practices in the resolution addressing these draft articles. Turning to the third topic of general principles of law, we recognize that the commission addressed some of our concerns in the final draft conclusions and commentaries regrettably, however, we continue to disagree with several of the draft conclusions. I will highlight a few of our remaining concerns regarding draft conclusions conclusion three, we continue to disagree with the inclusion of sub paragraph B, which includes a category of general principles to quote that we may be formed with within the international excuse me that may be formed within the international legal system. There is insufficient state practice to support this category. As the commission recognizes in draft conclusion to state recognition must be a cornerstone in any determination that a general principle of law exists. The commission attempts to address this concern through the general methodology laid out in draft conclusion seven, which not only requires a principle to be intrinsic to the international legal system, but also that the community of nations has recognized it as such. That is a helpful clarification, but we remain concerned that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the test has been met in any instance, in particular with respect to the putative general principles that the commission includes in paragraphs 6 to 17 of the commentaries to draft conclusion seven. We believe many of those examples either arose from domestic systems or simply lack recognition by states. as general principles of law. With respect to the first category of general principles derived from national legal systems, we again appreciate the reference to draft conclusion two in the commentaries, which reiterates that for a general principle to have been transposed to the international legal system, the transposition must be recognized as such by the community of nations. However, we maintain our concerns that the compatibility test adopted by the commission in the context of draft conclusion six infers this recognition apparently without any need for outward manifestation of consent by states. We therefore disagree with the commentary's explanation that once the compatibility test is met, it can be inferred that the community of nations has recognized a general principle's transposition without any formal act by states. Rather, consistent with the consent required with respect to conventional and customary international law, we maintain there must be evidence that states have themselves reached this conclusion. On draft conclusions ten and 11, we note that the commentaries to draft conclusion ten correctly emphasize that general principles are mainly resorted to when other rules of international law do not resolve a particular issue. Draft conclusion 11, however, still maintains that general principles are not in a hierarchical relationship with treaties and customary international law. As we have noted, viewing the various sources of international law equally belies the fact that the application of general principles of law is interstitial. This may cause confusion as to when and how general principles could take precedence over other sources of international law binding on states. Finally, on draft conclusion 11, we refer to the debate whether to include the concept of persistent objector in the draft conclusions, as suggested by the United States. We note that some members of the commission acknowledged that it was hard to understand how, if a state could object to the formation of a, customary rule, a state could not also object to a general principle of law with the same content. We are therefore disappointed that the ILC declined to address the applicability of the persistent objector doctrine to general principles. The United States maintains that persistent objection to the recognition of a general principle of law should be treated as it would in the context of a rule of customary international law. For these, reasons, it will be important to include references to the varied views of states in any resolution addressing the draft conclusions on general principles of law. Thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [2:24:04]:

I think that Distinguished Representative of the United States of America for his statement. I now give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Costa Rica. You have the floor.


Costa Rica · Representante [2:24:18]:

Señora presidenta, distinguidos colegas, Costa Rica agradece la presentación del informe del 77 periodo de sesiones por parte de la Comisión de Derecho Internacional, así mismo en seguimiento al párrafo operativo cuatro de la resolución a barra res barra 80 barra 164 de la asamblea general nuestra delegación desea formular algunas consideraciones sobre la elevación del nivel del mar en relación con el derecho internacional. derecho internacional, a partir del capítulo 4.º del informe del 76 periodo de sesiones de la comisión de derecho internacional y el informe final consolidado de los copresidentes del grupo de estudio, cuyos trabajos ofrece una contribución técnica y jurídica de de enorme valor para los estados. Nuestro país reitera al igual que en años anteriores la necesidad de preservar la estabilidad jurídica de las fronteras marítimas y los límites exteriores de las zonas marítimas incluidas las zonas económicas exclusivas. A fin de garantizar los derechos marítimos legítimamente establecidos conforme al derecho internacional. El aumento del nivel del mar no debe menoscabar la soberanía estatal ni sus derechos soberanos sobre los recursos marinos. En vez de ello debe prevalecer el respeto irrestricto de los principios de seguridad, estabilidad, certidumbre y previsibilidad preservando la integridad territorial, la condición de estado, la libre determinación y la protección de las. personas. En este sentido, Costa Rica acoge con satisfacción la conclusión de la Corte Internacional de Justicia en la opinión consultiva sobre las obligaciones de los estados con respecto al cambio climático, De que los estados parte de la CONBEMAR no están obligados a actualizar las cartas o coordenadas de sus líneas de base y límites exteriores de sus zonas marítimas. Debidamente establecidos ante los cambios físicos derivados de la evaluación del nivel del mar. Este pronunciamiento refuerza la estabilidad y la certidumbre jurídica respaldando así la preservación de los derechos marítimos de los estados afectados. Ningún país puede ni debe perder su condición de estado a causa de los efectos del cambio climático que afecten su integridad territorial. Ante esto nuestro país aboga porque ante cualquier caso extremo se aplique la presunción de continuidad estatal que les permita mantener su soberanía y autodeterminación ya que una vez establecido un estado la desaparición de uno de sus elementos constitutivos no implicaría necesariamente la pérdida de su condición de estado. Por otro lado, en relación con la protección de las personas y el ejercicio de sus derechos humanos, Costa Rica reitera la importancia del respeto de la dignidad humana y su establecimiento como principio rector en la futura confección de instrumentos normativos sobre esta temática por parte de los estados. Señora presidente, en conclusión, Costa Rica celebra la reciente adopción por consenso de la declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre el aumento del nivel del mar. En la pasada reunión de alto nivel sobre cómo afrentar las amenazas existenciales que plantea el aumento del nivel del mar celebrada el pasado 24 de septiembre de 2026, durante la semana de alto nivel de la asamblea general de las Naciones Unidas. Esta declaración constituye un primer entendimiento común en las Naciones Unidas sobre cómo abordar de manera colectiva esta amenaza que nos afecta a todos. Así por ejemplo, para Costa Rica una medición realizada por la NASA en 2021 mediante su herramienta de proyección del nivel del mar pronostica un aumento de 1,25 metros en los próximos 100 años para la ciudad de Puntarenas en el Pacífico medio costarricense. Con un aumento de un metro estimado para el año 2100. Del agua durante la marea alta inundaría unas 300 hectáreas afectando al 90% del sector residencial. Se prevén así mismo serios impactos en la provincia de Limón en el Caribe costarricense. La elevación del nivel del mar constituye una de las manifestaciones más graves y evidentes de la crisis climática. Sus consecuencias ya se hacen sentir la pérdida de territorio, la alteración de los ecosistemas y las crecientes presiones sobre las comunidades y sus medios de subsistencia como la pesca y el turismo, evidencian una realidad que que exige atención inmediata. Ante esto invitamos a todos los estados a continuar trabajando sobre esta temática con el objetivo de promover la cooperación internacional en busca de soluciones conjuntas. Muchas gracias.


6th Committee · Chair [2:29:05]:

I thank the Distinguished Representative of Costa Rica for his statement. I now give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Paraguay. You have the floor sir.


Paraguay · Representante [2:29:18]:

Muchas gracias señora presidenta. Permítame expresar en primer lugar nuestro reconocimiento a la Comisión de Derecho Internacional por la valiosa labor realizada durante su 77.º periodo de sesiones. Agradecemos el informe A barra 81 barra 10 y destacamos el importante aporte de la comisión al desarrollo progresivo del derecho internacional y su codificación. En este sentido hacemos extensivo nuestro reconocimiento a todos sus miembros. Consideramos fundamental que el diálogo entre la Comisión de Derecho Internacional y la 6.ª Comisión permita a los estados contribuir efectivamente a la definición de soluciones jurídicas equilibradas y ampliamente aceptables. En este particular las observaciones formuladas por las delegaciones constituyen un aporte importante para evaluar los resultados de la Comisión y examinar las cuestiones que requieren mayor claridad jurídica. Señora Presidenta con relación al proyecto de artículos sobre inmunidad de jurisdicción penal extranjera de los funcionarios del estado. Mi delegación toma nota de su aprobación en segunda lectura así como de la recomendación de la comisión de que en el momento oportuno se elabore una convención basada en dicho proyecto. Consideramos que este tema es relevante para las relaciones entre los estados. La inmunidad debe examinarse teniendo en consideración tanto la necesidad de garantizar el ejercicio efectivo de las funciones del Estado y de sus representantes. Como la importancia de combatir la impunidad. El desafío consiste en asegurar que las reglas aplicables protejan al desempeño de las funciones estatales sin convertirse en un obstáculo para la rendición de cuentas conforme al derecho internacional. En nuestro opinión este equilibrio debe alcanzarse con pleno respeto de la igualdad soberana de los Estados y de las normas aplicables del derecho internacional. En este sentido consideramos importante prestar especial atención al artículo six relativo a los crímenes respecto de los cuales no se aplica la inmunidad a ciudad en materia. Las distintas posiciones expresadas durante su examen ponen de relieve la importancia de la interpretación de su fundamento jurídico y alcance así como la relación entre la codificación del derecho internacional vigente y su desarrollo progresivo. Estimamos que estas cuestiones deben ser observadas atendiendo a la práctica de los estados. Y a los argumentos jurídicos expuestos durante los trabajos de la Comisión y los debates de la 6.ª Comisión. Asimismo las garantías procesales previstas en la parte 4.ª del proyecto revisten especial importancia para su aplicación. La determinación de la inmunidad la notificación al estado del funcionario y las demás garantías contempladas en el proyecto deben ser consideradas en su conjunto. Teniendo presente la necesidad de evitar tanto la aplicación indebida de la inmunidad como el ejercicio de la jurisdicción sin la debida consideración de las normas internacionales aplicables. Por ello el enfoque constructivo y las observaciones formuladas por los estados serán fundamentales en el proceso de decisión sobre la eventual elaboración de una convención que alcance el consenso necesario para una adopción amplia. Señora presidenta mi delegación también desea destacar la aprobación en segunda lectura del proyecto de conclusiones sobre los principios generales del derecho. Consideramos que este trabajo contribuye a una mejor comprensión de una de las fuentes del derecho internacional contempladas en el artículo 38 del estatuto de la Corte Internacional de Justicia. Sobre lo particular consideramos relevantes los proyectos de conclusión 24 a 6 relativos al reconocimiento de los principios generales del derecho y a la identificación de aquellos derivados de los sistemas jurídicos nacionales. La identificación de estos principios requiere una comparación suficientemente amplia y representativa de los sistemas jurídicos del mundo. Que permita determinar la existencia de un principio común sin desconocer sus particularidades ni exigir una identidad absoluta entre las soluciones jurídicas nacionales. A este respecto estimamos importante que la identificación de un principio común y su transposición al sistema jurídico internacional se realicen conforme a la metodología establecida en el proyecto de conclusión conclusiones con una fundamentación jurídica suficiente. La claridad de estos criterios contribuye a distinguir los principios generales del derecho de otras fuentes del derecho internacional y a favorecer una aplicación coherente de esta categoría jurídica. En ese sentido consideramos que los comentarios de la Comisión constituyen una referencia útil para orientar a los estados los tribunales y los demás actores que deban identificar o aplicar estos principios. Finalmente con relación a la elevación del nivel del mar en relación con el derecho internacional mi delegación reconoce la importancia del trabajo realizado por la Comisión y de su contribución a la comprensión de las consecuencias jurídicas de este fenómeno. En particular consideramos relevante el análisis de las cuestiones relativas al derecho del mar la condición de estado y la protección de las personas afectadas. Ámbitos en los que se plantean importantes interrogantes para el derecho internacional. En lo que respecta al derecho al mar consideramos que la estabilidad y la seguridad jurídica deben ocupar un lugar central. En particular resulta importante preservar las zonas marítimas y los derechos marítimos válidamente establecidos conforme al derecho internacional. La previsibilidad en esta materia contribuye a evitar incertidumbres sobre los derechos y las obligaciones de los estados frente a las transformaciones físicas derivadas de la elevación del nivel del mar. Para el Paraguay como país en desarrollo sin litoral marítimo esta cuestión también pone de relieve la importancia de la conectividad con los mercados internacionales y de la continuidad de las rutas de tránsito y del. transporte marítimo de las que depende nuestro comercio exterior sin equiparar las circunstancias de los países y litoral con la de los estados directamente afectados por la elevación del nivel del mar. Consideramos importante que sus posibles repercusiones económicas y logísticas sean debidamente consideradas en los esfuerzos de cooperación internacional. Para concluir la República del Paraguay reitera su reconocimiento a la Comisión de Derecho Internacional por su contribución al desarrollo progresivo y la codificación del derecho internacional. Alentamos a que el intercambio entre la Comisión y los estados continúe fortaleciendo la claridad jurídica legitimate, and the result of


6th Committee · Chair [2:36:34]:

I think the distinguished representative of Paraguay for his statement and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Vietnam. You have the floor, sir.


Viet Nam [2:36:43]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. For the interest of time, I will deliver the shorter version of the statement. Madam Chair, distinguished delegate, my delegation would like to express our sincere appreciation to the members of the International Law Commission for their dedicated efforts, professional expertise, and strong sense of responsibility. In this regard, Vietnam wishes to emphasize the importance of providing the commission with sufficient time and adequate working conditions to enable the commission to fulfil its mandate. as to the topic, see Lemon rice in relation to international law, Vietnam wishes to express its sincere appreciation to the co chairs of the study group and to the commission for the completion of the final report. Vietnam consider the final report both timely and valuable on the law of the sea Vietnam attaches great importance to legal stability, predictability, and certainty. Vietnam therefore supports the views that baseline the outer limits of maritime zones and maritime. rights and entitlements, once established in accordance with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the law of the sea, should be preserved, notwithstanding the physical effects of sea level rise. Vietnam also supports the continued study of the mechanism to ensure the continuity of statehood as well as the legitimate rise of the state affected by sea level rise, in particular small islands developing state. With regard to the protection of persons affected by sea level rise, Vietnam believes that dignity and rights of persons affected by C 11 rise deserve due attention. Vietnam supports further study of appropriate protective measures on the basis of existing international law including applicable human rights law. Madam chair turning to the topic immunity of state officers from foreign criminal jurisdiction Vietnam thanks all special reporters for their outstanding contribution to the draft articles and take notes of the commission recommendation that a convention, a convention be elaborated in this regard, Vietnam wishes to highlight two points. First, with respect to the draft article six, Vietnam is committed to the fight against impunity for the most serious crimes under international law and recalls that immunity is procedural in nature and distinct from the individual criminal responsibility. At the same time, Vietnam is of the view that recognition of exception to immunity, as provided in draft article six, goes for careful consideration where state practice is not yet sufficiently clear and consistent. Second, with respect to immunity, ration, person I, Vietnam notes that draft article three confirms the prevailing state practice practice of affording such immunity to heads of state, head of government, and minister for foreign affairs. However, diversity of state practice regarding representatives officer should be taken into account. Madam chair now I turn to the topic general principle of law. Vietnam warmly welcomes the commission adoption of the 12 draft conclusions on the general principle of law together with the commentaries, the general principle of law within the meaning of article 38, paragraph one c of the statue of the international International Court of Justice plays a supplementary role in the system of sources of international law. Recourse to general principle of law should be considered only where there is no applicable conventional or customary rule in place, they should not alter the international obligations that have already been established. We encounter encourage reading the draft conclusion ten and 11 in this light. With respect to the transposition principle from national legal system to the international legal system as a threat in draft conclusion six, Vietnam calls for causes approach, given the diversity of national legal system. We also note that the draft conclusion three recognized the possibility of general principle of law may be formed within the international legal system. In this context, Vietnam's draw attention to the practice of ASEAN in a number of documents referring to the universally recognized principle of international law. Such reasonable practice should be also taken into consideration. I thank you, Madam chair.


6th Committee · Chair [2:42:08]:

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


Greece [2:42:16]:

Thank you. Madam Chair. Greece would like first to commend Ambassador Andreas Mavrogiannis for the presentation of the ILC's report and to thank the International Law Commission for its work. In the, interest of time, I will present an abridged version of our statements on cluster one. I will start with sea level rise. Madam chair, Greece welcomes the progress achieved on this important issue, in particular the recent adoption by the General Assembly of the declaration on sea level rise represents an important milestone in the international community's collect collective response to one of the most pressing challenges of our time. This declaration followed the completion of the work of the ILC on the topic in 2025. In this connection, we commend the work of the co chairs and thank them for their final report, as well as the study group for its final report. The work of the ILC and the relevant discussions on the matter have highlighted the importance of legal stability, certainty and predictability in relation to to sea level rise, which are inherent to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and guide its application, require the preservation of baselines and of the outer limits of maritime zones, as well as of maritime entitlements deriving therefrom. The convention which sets out the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out promotes the maintenance of international peace and security and aims at preserving legal certainty in all matters, including those of maritime entitlements and maritime boundaries. Moreover, as was also affirmed by the ICJ, the convention imposes no obligation of reviewing or calculating baselines or the other limits of maritime zones established in accordance with its provisions. In this respect, we stress the important contribution of the advisory opinion of the ICJ on the obligation of states in respect of climate change, which provides clarity on these issues, especially regarding maritime entitlements and the continuity of statehood. My country would also like to note that the efforts building on the longstanding engagement of small island developing states have contributed to maintaining international attention on the need for legal certainty and stability in addressing the consequences of sea level rise. In, International cooperation of the is of paramount importance in order to face the adverse effects effects of climate change and sea level rise. Concerning the possible ways forward referred to in the final report, we believe that caution is required, especially as regards subsequent agreements and interpretative statements. Reference to them has been in any case included in the final report before the ICJ rendered its advisory opinion and the General Assembly adopted the declaration on civil labor rights. Continuing on immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, I would like at the outset to express our gratitude to the special rapporteur, Mr. Grossman Wilow, for his tireless efforts to accommodate during the second reading of the draft articles the comments and concerns of member states and promote consensus within the commission. Let me also commend the ILC for the completion this year of the long awaited second reading of the draft articles. For the reasons explained in previous years, we welcome the retention of draft article six on the crimes under international law in respect of which immunity ratione materia shall not apply, whose importance cannot be overemphasized. We also support the inclusion of the crime of aggression in the list of such such crimes. We regret, however, that this draft article has once again triggered repetitive debates within the commission and that its retention was secured only by a vote for the second time in a decade. We appreciate the improvements made to paragraph one of draft article nine in order to ensure that the notification would not compromise the confidentiality of an ongoing investigation of the proper conduct of criminal proceedings in the forum state. Similarly, we believe that the reformulation of paragraph two of this draft article accommodates the interest of the state of the official in receiving the information it needs to preserve its rights while allowing a degree of of flexibility to the form state. We also welcome the removal of references to applicable international cooperation and mutual legal assistance treaties from draft articles 9 to 12. In our view these treaties serve a different purpose and their practical application to situations envisaged by the said draft articles has not been demonstrated. Finally, with regard to draft article 17 on the settlement of disputes, we would like to reiterate our view that the dispute settlement clause will only be relevant if the draft articles take the form of a convention. Continuing and concluding with general principles of law, Madam Chair, Greece would like to express its appreciation to the special rapporteur, Mr. Marcelo Vasquez Bermúdez, for his important work on general principles of law, as well as to the Commission for the successful conclusion of the second reading of the draft conclusions on this topic. Greece looks forward to their consideration by the General Assembly. We consider the present study as a useful complement to the previous and ongoing work of the Commission on the sources of international law, and take this opportunity to underline the importance of coherence between the present set of conclusions and the commission's ongoing work on subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, given the close relationship between the two topics. We trust that this coherence will continue to guide the Commission's work In concluding Madam Chair Greece would like to reiterate its support to the Commission's work Thank you.


6th Committee · Chair [2:48:20]:

I think that distinguished representative of Greece for her statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Colombia. You have the floor madam.


Colombia · Representante [2:48:33]:

De tiempo, haré la intervención corta de nuestra intervención. Señora presidente, Colombia desea en primer término expresar su reconocimiento a la Comisión de Derecho Internacional por la presentación de su informe correspondiente al periodo de sesiones 60 67. Y saludar la labor desarrollada en cumplimiento de su mandato de promover el desarrollo progresivo y la codificación del derecho internacional conforme al artículo 13 de la carta. Agradecemos igualmente la presentación del informe por el presidente de la comisión, el profesor Mauro Yanis y por intermedio suyo agradecemos a todos los miembros de la CDI no solo por su trabajo sino por hacer sus mejores esfuerzos, por lograr mayor eficiencia y avanzar en cuanto fuera posible. También permítame agradecer al presidente del comité de redacción por su excelente labor. Señora presidente, sobre la elevación del nivel del mar, Colombia toma nota del informe final del grupo de estudio de la CDI adoptado en 2025 y agradece a sus copresidentes por la seriedad y el compromiso con que condujeron esta labor. Reconocemos este informe final como un aporte valioso para la clarificación del derecho internacional en materia de derecho del mar, condición de estado y protección de personas afectadas. Subrayamos la importancia de preservar la estabilidad, la seguridad jurídica y la previsibilidad de los espacios marítimos frente a los efectos físicos derivados de la elevación del nivel del mar. En este sentido, la opinión consultiva de la Corte Internacional de Justicia aporta elementos de orientación jurídica tomando nota de la preocupación expresada por numerosos estados respecto a la necesidad de preservar las líneas base, los títulos marítimos, las delimitaciones marítimas y los derechos correspondientes frente a la agresión costera y otros efectos asociados a la elevación. del mar. Si bien Colombia no es estado parte de la CONBEMAR ha sostenido de manera consistente que únicamente reconoce como vinculantes aquellas disposiciones que reflejan normas de derecho consuetudinario. Aceptadas por el estado colombiano. Colombia advierte que persisten desafíos en la protección internacional de las personas afectadas por el cambio climático y la elevación del nivel del mar. Por lo que destaca la necesidad de fortalecer la cooperación internacional y explorar alternativas jurídicas que garanticen sus derechos. Este debate se relaciona directamente con el proceso de negociación diplomática para elaborar un instrumento jurídicamente vinculante sobre protección de las personas en casos de desastre. En su calidad de delegación líder en esta discusión, Colombia considera que ambos procesos ofrecen una oportunidad para fortalecer la protección internacional de las personas afectadas y promover respuestas jurídicas frente a situaciones de vulnerabilidad creciente. Señora presidente, sobre el tema de inmunidad de los funcionarios estatales frente a jurisdicción penal extranjera, Colombia agradece a la CDI y al relator especial señor Claudio Grossman por su labor. Consideramos que el régimen de inmunidades debe preservar el equilibrio entre el principio de igualdad soberana de los estados, el ejercicio legítimo de la jurisdicción penal y la necesidad de evitar la impunidad por los crímenes más graves de trascendencia internacional. En este sentido reiteramos la importancia de distinguir entre inmunidad, racione persona y la humanidad, ración en materia. Así mismo subrayamos que la inmunidad tiene carácter procesal y no debe confundirse con la responsabilidad penal individual. En relación con el artículo seis relativo a los crímenes de derecho internacional respecto a los cuales se le aplica la humanidad, ración y materia Colombia destaca la importancia que el proyecto contribuye a prevenir la impunidad por conductas que afectan gravemente a la comunidad internacional. Consideramos fundamental que el alcance de la disposición examine a la luz de las normas de derecho internacional aplicables la práctica de los estados y la opinión iuris. Distinguiendo cuidadosamente la codificación del derecho internacional consuetudinario y su desarrollo progresivo. Colombia destaca además que la determinación de la aplicabilidad de la inmunidad debe estar acompañada de garantías procesales. Valoramos el artículo 13 del proyecto el cual exige que las autoridades competentes tengan un nivel suficientemente alto, que exista razones sustanciales para creer que el funcionario cometió alguno de los crímenes enumerados y que se consideren las actuaciones o intenciones de otras autoridades o tribunales respecto al ejercicio de la jurisdicción penal. Señora presidente, sobre el tema de principios generales del derecho Colombia felicita al relator especial señor Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez por su labor y la y a la CDI por la adopción de la segunda lectura de los 12 proyectos de conclusión junto con sus comentarios. La delegación colombiana reconoce el trabajo de sistematización realizado por la comisión que contribuya a clarificar la naturaleza, la identificación y las funciones de los principios generales del derecho como fuente del derecho internacional de conformidad con el artículo 38 del estatuto de la Corte Internacional de Justicia. Colombia reitera sus inquietudes respecto a la distinción entre las dos categorías de principios generales del derecho en el proyecto de conclusión tres. En particular consideramos que la identificación de los principios se forman en el sistema jurídico internacional requiere criterios suficientemente claros y rigurosos que permitan delimitar su alcance y distinguirlos del derecho internacional consuetudinario. Colombia reitera su disposición a contribuir constructivamente a los trabajos de la 6.ª comisión con miras a favorecer una comprensión rigurosa de los principios generales del derecho y de su función en el ordenamiento jurídico internacional. Señora presidente, sobre las otras decisiones y conclusiones mi delegación acoge favorablemente la inclusión en el programa de trabajo de la comisión, el tema sobre las obligaciones erga ovnes. De igual manera toma nota de la inclusión del tema sobre la regulación del derecho internacional de las inversiones en el programa de trabajo a largo plazo de la comisión. Reconocemos la importancia de que la selección de nuevos temas responda a las necesidades de los estados en materia de desarrollo progresivo y codificación del derecho internacional y tenga debidamente en cuenta la práctica estatal pertinente así como la viabilidad y el alcance de los trabajos propuestos. Por ello reiteramos la importancia de mantener un diálogo sustantivo entre la CDI y los estados a través de la 6.ª comisión. En ese sentido Colombia destaca la importancia de preservar y fortalecer los espacios de formación y difusión del derecho internacional como el seminario de derecho internacional y se permite hacer alusión a los cursos de la academia de derecho internacional de la haya para América Latina y el Caribe, desarrollados en Cartagena de Indias Colombia y cuya edición se llevará a cabo en 2027. Estos espacios contribuyen a la formación de nuevas generaciones y a la identificación de nuevos temas para su desarrollo. Muchas gracias señora presidenta.


6th Committee · Chair [2:55:42]:

Distinguished representative of Colombia was the last speaker for this morning. According to our program of work, we will continue discussion on the first last us of topics this afternoon at 3 p.m.. Following which we will turn to the second cluster of topics. Please be informed that this afternoon we will end at approximately 4:30 p.m. after which the interactive dialogue with on the report of the ILC will be held in this room. In accordance with paragraph 12 of General Assembly resolution 59 slash 313. The dialogue provides delegations with an opportunity to discuss in an informal setting any issue with respect to the ILC report among colleagues. As well as with the members of the commission present. This year, the dialogue will be moderated by the delegation of Austria and will focus on the following topics. Subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law. Topic number two, settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties. And the third one, identification and legal consequences of obligations in international law. You are encouraged to attend and the meeting is adjourned.