Approving Two Draft Texts on Treaties, Observer Status, Sixth Committee Delegates Call for Improved Working Methods in Seventy-Third Session
After approving two draft resolutions addressing the effects of armed conflicts on treaties and a request for observer status for a fund supporting indigenous matters, the Sixth Committee (Legal) capped off its penultimate meeting of the current session with delegates reflecting on how best to improve the Committee’s working methods, especially its scheduling.
Approved without a vote, the terms of the draft resolution, “Effects of armed conflicts on treaties”, would have the General Assembly emphasize the value of the relevant articles in providing guidance to States, and invite States to use the articles as a reference whenever appropriate.
Also approved without a vote, the second draft resolution, “Observer status for the Fund for the Development of the Indigenous Peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean in the General Assembly”, would have the Assembly invite the Fund to participate in its sessions and work in the capacity of observer.
The representative of Ecuador, highlighting how his country guaranteed the preservation of various groups that lived there, stressed that granting observer status to the Fund would enable the international community to listen to the voices of indigenous peoples.
As the Committee took up the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly, El Salvador’s delegate, speaking for the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), emphasized the need for multilingualism and equal treatment for the Organization’s six official languages. Cautioning that it should not be hampered by budgetary excuses, he also called for better coordination of schedules which would, in turn, improve the attendance and quality of the debates.
Another point of concern, especially for small delegations, that speakers discussed was that of the programme of work for the seventy‑third session. Several representatives pointed out that the first week of the Sixth Committee’s meetings would immediately follow the General Assembly high‑level debate.
Togo’s representative reminded delegates that their highest State representatives would be at the United Nations during the general debate week. That would affect the preparations for the Committee’s work.
Belarus’s delegate also drew attention to the schedule for reviewing the International Law Commission report, underscoring that smaller delegations could not afford to have their legal advisers present for two weeks. His country’s legal advisers would be present only for the week following the discussion on the first cluster of topics, he said, requesting that speakers make shorter statements to optimize the allotted time.
Austria’s representative, while also echoing scheduling concerns, highlighted ongoing improvements to the Sixth Committee’s working methods, including the use of the e‑deleGATE portal. By having speakers’ lists in advance and the ability to co‑sponsor resolutions online, delegates were able to optimize their time, she said.
Also speaking today were representatives of Paraguay, Kenya and Slovenia.
The Sixth Committee will next meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, 10 November to take action on the remaining draft resolutions.
Action on Draft Texts
The Sixth Committee approved without a vote the resolution on “Effects of armed conflicts on treaties” (A/C.6/72/L.15).
Also approved without a vote was the resolution requesting observer status for the Fund for the Development of the Indigenous Peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean in the General Assembly (A/C.6/72/L.16).
The representative of Ecuador, expressing support for the resolution, said that his country guaranteed the preservation of cultures and traditions of various indigenous groups that lived there. The voice of indigenous peoples and their life experiences must be listened to, he stressed. (For background on both texts, see Press Release GA/L/3562.)
Revitalization of General Assembly
HECTOR ENRIQUE JAIME CALDERÓN (El Salvador), speaking for the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), stressed that a stronger, more effective and transparent United Nations could only be achieved through the harmonious work of its constituent parts. The General Assembly was central to that pursuit. It was necessary to fully respect the Assembly’s competence and authority, including its role in setting standards in the administrative and budgetary matters of the Organization, he said, voicing support for the Assembly’s continued improvement and the importance of its thematic debates. The General Committee and the Secretariat should also improve coordination in order to avoid scheduling conflicts, among other things, as well as help improve the attendance and quality of its substantive debates.
Emphasizing, as in previous years, the need for the full and effective implementation of the Assembly’s relevant resolutions on multilingualism — and for the Organization’s six official languages to be treated equally — he warned that that task should not be hampered by excuses related to budgetary matters. Some of the Assembly’s working methods also required updating. Further discussion was needed on the issue of intersessional work on an agenda item aimed at reviewing the regulations for registering treaties under Article 102 of the United Nations Charter — a matter of “low‑hanging fruit” for the Committee. In addition, he encouraged the Secretary‑General to take measures to ensure the fair and equitable distribution of United Nations posts based both on gender and geographical balance.
NADIA ALEXANDRA KALB (Austria) thanked the Secretariat for the new information technology changes, highlighting the e‑deleGATE portal. Having speakers’ lists in advance and the ability to co‑sponsor resolutions online was a huge improvement. That and other efforts of the Secretariat had enabled delegates to make the best use of the time available, she said.
ANA EDELMIRA ROLÓN CANDIA (Paraguay) drew attention to the working methods of the Committee concerning the adoption of resolutions. She proposed that adopting all the drafts on one day at the end of the session would help small delegations such as hers to get more organized.
RUSLAN VARONKOV (Belarus), recalling the discussions during International Law Week, said that unfortunately it was difficult to stay on schedule because of extremely long statements by delegations. In future sessions, delegates could use the debate to concentrate on the key points, while using PaperSmart more actively, uploading full statements there. “That would simplify our work,” he said.
The Chair informed the Committee that he took note of those suggestions.
Programme Planning
The Chair drew delegates’ attention to the Sixth Committee draft programme of work for the seventy‑third session in 2018. The goal for the Committee was to adopt a decision on Friday, 10 November. The programme, provisional in nature, was intended to help delegates and the Secretariat prepare and plan for the next session.
He also noted that the programme had been drafted on the assumption that the Sixth Committee would commence on 1 October 2018. The high‑level debate was scheduled to commence on 25 September 2018. The proposed programme was quite similar to the current programme. The schedule for the first week required only a minor change. The item on “Criminal accountability” had been moved slightly earlier in the programme, allowing sufficient time to prepare for its Working Group.
He went on to say that the schedule for the second week had been tweaked to hold debates on the items “Report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization” and on the “Universal Jurisdiction” a bit earlier. The item, “Consideration of effective measures to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives” would take place at the beginning of the third week. The remaining three weeks would follow exactly the pattern of the present session.
As had been done in past sessions, he said, the Bureau had sought to coordinate the meetings of the Sixth Committee with those of other bodies of particular interest to Sixth Committee delegates, including work on the Law of the Sea in the General Assembly plenary. The Bureau had also contacted the respective Presidencies of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals and the International Criminal Court, to seek their views regarding how best to accommodate the dates on which their reports would be considered by the General Assembly with the Committee’s work programme.
NADIA ALEXANDRA KALB (Austria), commenting on the draft work programme, said that the seventy‑third session of the high‑level debate would start in 2018 on 25 September, which was the week preceding the proposed start date for the Sixth Committee. From the perspective of smaller delegations, that would present a challenge.
JAMES NDIRANGU WAWERU (Kenya), underscoring that the draft programme helped delegates plan their time, suggested that the Bureau consider nominating some Friday mornings towards the end of the session and establish a standing date when resolutions that were ready for action could take place. That would enable delegations to better plan.
BARBARA KREMŽAR (Slovenia), echoing her counterpart from Austria, said that the high‑level week was immediately before the proposed start of the Sixth Committee. Some of the smaller delegations only had the week after the high‑level week to prepare for the Sixth Committee, she said.
RUSLAN VARONKOV (Belarus) said that a more pragmatic approach had been taken to planning during the week when legal advisers would be present. The first cluster already had three days allocated, but the week for the presence of the legal advisers was actually the week following those days. If speakers made their statements more concise, it might be possible to allocate one day less for each cluster. In that case, they would be able to speak on two clusters, as smaller delegations could not afford to have their legal advisers present for two weeks.
DEKALEGA FINTAKPA LAMEGA (Togo), thanking the Chair and the Secretariat, observed that the high‑level debate in the General Assembly would take place immediately before the first week of the Committee’s meetings. As a result, there would not be much time during the General Debate week, when the highest State representatives were at the United Nations, to prepare for the Committee’s work. The Committee should reconsider that aspect of the programme of work.
The Chair noted that the Bureau had to consider how best to minimize overlap with other meetings and negotiations when creating the programme of work. Regarding the scheduling of the International Law Commission week, he encouraged delegates to make statements shorter.