Legal Committee Hears Reports of Working Groups on Draft Convention Addressing International Terrorism, Universal Jurisdiction Principle
Following Tradition, Resolutions Approved without Vote
Nearing the end of formal deliberations in the sixty-ninth session, the Sixth Committee (Legal) took action today on four draft resolutions and heard oral reports by the Chairs of two working groups.
The Committee approved without a vote draft resolutions on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission, effects of armed conflicts on treaties and responsibility of international organizations.
Prior to that action, the Committee heard oral reports from the Chairs of two of its Working Groups. The representative of Sri Lanka, Chair of the Working Group on Measures to eliminate international terrorism, said in light of the increase in terrorist acts worldwide, delegations had agreed that it was time for compromise on the draft comprehensive convention. Recalling the proposal of the Bureau of the Ad Hoc Committee, he said some representatives deemed it a balanced compromise text, while others saw it only as a basis for further negotiation.
He also noted that while the proposal of the Bureau of the Ad Hoc Committee had been intended to overcome the impasse in negotiations addressing acts of terrorism versus the right of peoples to self-determination, the question had remained a point of contention. Several delegates had underscored the need to make a distinction between the two, while others viewed it improper to draw a dichotomy between them. Whether to include State terrorism in the draft convention also remained a point of divergence.
The representative of Sudan raised concerns during the ensuing discussion that the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) was being singled out as if in opposition to the Bureau, to which he was assured that in fact the reference had just been included as a description of informal deliberations within the Working Group.
Costa Rica’s representative, Chair of the Working Group on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, then introduced that Group’s oral report, including an Informal Working Paper she had prepared following discussions this year. Although that document did not reflect consensus among delegations and remained subject to further discussion, it contained certain elements on which understanding had been reached.
Suggestions made by the Group’s members with respect to the definition, scope and application of universal jurisdiction had been incorporated in the Informal Working Paper, she said. However, difficulties were encountered in addressing the application of the principle due to varying interpretations of its sub-topics. Nonetheless, she said work achieved this year had deepened participants’ understanding of the issues paving the way for continued progress.
The Sixth Committee will reconvene for its final plenary meeting of the session at 10 a.m. on Friday, 14 November, to consider the report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country, revitalization of the work of the General Assembly, and programme planning. It would also take action on outstanding draft resolutions and the election of officers.
Background
The Sixth Committee (Legal) today would hear the oral reports of its working groups on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction and on measures to eliminate international terrorism.
It would also take action on three draft resolutions: Criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission (document A/C.6/69/L.11); Effects of armed conflicts on treaties (document A/C.6/69/L.9); and Responsibility of international organizations (document A/C.6/69/L.10).
In addition, it would hear the introduction to the draft resolution on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction (A/C.6/69/L.8), following which it would also take action on that text.
Reports of Working Groups
ROHAN PERERA (Sri Lanka), Chair, Working Group on Measures to eliminate international terrorism, said that the Group had considered the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism and had discussed outstanding issues. Also considered was the question of convening a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations on the topic. As more time was required to achieve substantive progress on the outstanding issues, it was recommended that a working group be established at the seventieth session of the General Assembly, aimed at finalizing the process on the draft convention as well as on convening a high-level conference. Member States were encouraged to redouble their efforts in the interim.
Summarizing the results of informal consultations on the draft convention, he pointed out that delegations reiterated strong condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. Also stressed was the importance of concluding the draft convention, which would strengthen the collective efforts to combat international terrorism in a globally coordinated manner. Noting the increase in terrorist acts worldwide, and that negotiations had been going on too long, delegations held that it was time to agree on compromise solutions within the text, calling for flexibility on outstanding issues.
Some described the proposal of the Bureau of the Ad Hoc Committee on the topic as a balanced compromise text that sought to address the various concerns raised during negotiations, he said. Others saw that text as a basis for further negotiation. Some stressed that because there was no cause that could legitimize terrorist acts, it was improper to draw a dichotomy between the right to self-determination and terrorism. Others underscored the need to distinguish between acts of terrorism and the legitimate struggle of peoples under foreign occupation and colonial or alien domination in the exercise of that right. It was recalled that the principles of distinction and proportionality underpinned international humanitarian law. The inclusion of State terrorism in the draft convention was also discussed.
The package proposed by the Bureau was intended to overcome the impasse in negotiations resulting from those differing views, he continued. Specifically, the proposed preambular paragraph and paragraphs 1 to 5 of draft article 3, read with draft article 2, aimed at addressing the calls of various delegations to distinguish between acts of terrorism from the right of peoples to self-determination, as well as calls to ensure the integrity of international humanitarian law and to ensure that there would be no impunity for the military forces of States.
The Bureau also proposed that the name of the draft convention be changed to the “United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Suppression of International Terrorism”, he said. While a number of delegations expressed support for the package proposed by the Bureau, others, while agreeing to consider it, also pointed to the 2002 proposal of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
Turning to discussion of convening a high-level meeting on the subject, he said that Egypt, the sponsoring delegation, held that, despite all efforts, there was still a pressing need to set up an action plan within the United Nations containing both legal and procedural aspects that would ensure active international cooperation to eliminate international terrorism. The proposed conference was intended to facilitate negotiations and mobilize the political will necessary to reach agreement on the draft convention, as well as be an opportunity to adopt such an action plan. Other delegations preferred that consideration of such a conference be deferred until completion of negotiations on the draft convention.
Pointing out that the 2005 World Summit had issued an urgent call to conclude a convention on the matter within a year, Mr. Perera urged delegations to generate the necessary momentum to conclude the task, with the tenth anniversary of that call approaching. “Let us use all the available experience and diplomatic skills to find solutions to issues standing in the way of the completion of our work,” he stated.
Speaking after the report’s presentation, Sudan’s representative voiced objection to the singling out of the OIC as if in opposition to the Bureau. He further disagreed that there was a “package” under discussion, noting that there was no agreed package as yet. He cautioned against pitting the OIC against the Bureau by highlighting it as the only group singled out by name in the oral report. That would not help move negotiations forward. He then suggested that, before any action was taken on the report, the situation be corrected.
In response, the Chair of the Sixth Committee explained that the Committee would only be taking note of the report. It would also take note of the Sudan delegate’s observations.
The representative of Sudan then requested clarification from the Chair of the Working Group as to why the OIC had been the only group singled out by name.
Responding, the Working Group’s Chair pointed out that he was only providing an unofficial summary of the discussion. The only reason that had been done was to reflect the discussion on the proposals put forth by the Bureau and by the OIC. In terms of use of the word “package”, it had been used throughout deliberations and was used merely for that reason.
The Sixth Committee Chair expressed hope that the observations of the representative of Sudan had been satisfactorily addressed and, noting that representative’s acquiescence and the agreement of the Committee as a whole, took note of the oral report.
GEORGINA GUILLÉN-GRILLO (Costa Rica), Chair, Working Group on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, said the Group had taken up, among others, the Secretary-General’s annual reports on the topic from 2010 to 2014; oral reports of the Chairman on the work of the Working Group in 2012 and 2013; the Informal Paper of the Working Group, which contained agreements on the methodology; as well as an enumeration of issues for discussion, commonly referred to as the “Roadmap”. It also had before it informal compilations of other materials that might be relevant in relation to the Working Group’s endeavours.
She said the Working Group had held three meetings in October this year in the framework of informal consultations. The Group then discussed each section of an informal working paper; each section corresponded to the sections identified in the Roadmap. Following discussions in the Working Group, she had prepared an Informal Working Paper of this year, which had also been circulated at the present meeting. That document was without prejudice to the positions of delegations, did not reflect consensus among delegations, and was expected to be subject to further discussion. In developing that document, various materials had been taken into account, including the sources set out in the “Agreements on methodology” section of the Roadmap, informal compilations prepared by the Secretariat and the compilations of information shared by Governments. The wording that had been chosen attempted to attain the best possible balance between precision and flexibility, given the stage of discussions.
On the definition of the concept of universal jurisdiction, she said the Working Group had last discussed that aspect of the Roadmap in 2011. On the suggestion of some delegations, “achieving international justice/promoting justice” had been included as an additional aspect. While some had raised the question of whether the Group should include an examination of universal jurisdiction, it was decided to remain focused on criminal matters. Conflicting views had been reiterated concerning the text, which stated that universal jurisdiction was “exercised exceptionally/exceptional character” and, thus, remained subject to further elaboration and clarification. Based on certain representatives’ concerns, the text with respect to the fourth essential element of the principle now embodied the distinctive form of universal jurisdiction with respect to other classical grounds of jurisdiction.
Turning to the scope of universal jurisdiction, she said the discussion of crimes subject to the principle remained a lively and engaging one. The question of the appropriateness of composing a list remained an open one. Furthermore, discussions on the scope were not a matter of preference; they were a matter of rights and/or obligations under treaty law and/or customary international law. Although the content of the preliminary list of crimes had not changed since its distribution at the sixty-eighth session, delegations had provided viewpoints on specific crimes or on the nature of the exercise in general. Questions were raised concerning, among others, the sources of international law that could support inclusion of a crime on that list, and whether certain crimes had the same degree of seriousness as others on the list.
On the application of universal jurisdiction, she stressed the difficulty in placing elements within the respective sub-sections, noting that it had not been sufficiently clarified what the sub-headings, determined several sessions ago, had meant to include and thus remained open to divergent interpretation. Commenting on each of the sub-sections, she said delegations had made several suggestions, raised questions for consideration and engaged in meaningful dialogue. For example, the question on the discretionary or obligatory nature of the principle had been introduced to sub-section (a) “Conditions for application”. As well, the inclusion of examples of “international due process guarantees” in the Informal Working Paper was among the delegations’ suggestions.
During discussions on the way forward, she noted that several delegations had raised the possibility of requesting the International Law Commission to undertake a study of certain aspects of the item to assist the Sixth Committee and its Working Group. However, others had maintained that such a proposal remained premature and that discussion should continue in the Committee exclusively. Because substantial progress had been made since the establishment of the Group in 2011, a further reading of the text developed in previous years had been undertaken this year, modifying and clarifying various elements and consequently deepening understanding of the issues. More could be done to further advance work on the topic given the points of understanding captured in the Informal Working Paper. She hoped that delegations would use the inter-sessional period to exchange views on how to advance the work, as well as to find answers to questions posed in order to contribute to the progressive development of international law and its codification.
Action on Draft Resolutions
The representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo introduced the draft resolution on the scope and application of the principle of the universal jurisdiction (document A/C.6/69/L.8). By the text, the General Assembly would decide that the Sixth Committee continue its consideration of the matter. It would further decide to establish, at its seventieth session, a Working Group of the Committee to continue thorough discussions.
The resolution would also have the Assembly invite Member States and relevant observers to submit information and observations on the topic. The Working Group would also be open to all Member States, and relevant observers to the Assembly would be invited to participate. As well, the topic would be included in the provisional agenda of its seventieth session.
The Committee then took action on that draft resolution, as well as three draft resolutions previously introduced: Criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission (document A/C.6/69/L.11); Effects of armed conflicts on treaties (document A/C.6/69/L.9) and Responsibility of international organizations (document A/C.6/69/L.10).
All four draft resolutions were approved without a vote.