Sixth Committee Speakers Describe Efforts to Combat Sea-Level Rise’s Disastrous Effects, as International Law Commission’s Second Cluster Review Continues
Against the backdrop of the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, speakers today in the Sixth Committee (Legal) continued their review of the International Law Commission report’s second cluster of topics, offering detailed accounts of both national and regional initiatives to address the urgent and life-threatening crisis posed by rising sea-levels. (For background, see Press Release GA/L/3647.)
The representative of Côte d’Ivoire pointed out that the consequences of rising sea levels have been disastrous for the Ivorian coastline, which has risen an average of two metres each year. To address this catastrophic situation, the Government ‑ signatory to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change ‑ has committed to reducing its CO2 emissions by 28 per cent and increasing its use of renewable energy by 2030. He also noted that local populations severely threatened by rising waters have been relocated to safer sites.
Similarly, Australia’s delegate warned that sea-level rise poses significant development, economic and environmental challenges that will be felt by all States “in one way or another”. He urged countries to take note of the Declaration on Preserving Maritime Zones in the Face of Climate Change-related Sea-level Rise adopted by Pacific Islands Forum leaders in August. While preserving maritime zones to the greatest extent possible, the Declaration is supported by the legal principles underpinning the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, including that of legal stability.
The representative of Papua New Guinea also spotlighted the Declaration, adding that subtopics relating to Statehood and protection of persons are of critical importance to the daily lived reality of Pacific people. Underscoring that the Law of the Sea Convention provides the legal framework under which all activities in the oceans and seas must be conducted, he stressed that preserving the baselines and outer limits of maritime zones is crucial to legal stability.
Latvia’s representative highlighted the importance of questions raised in the Commission’s report regarding the interaction between sea-level rise and key concepts of international law, as well as the impact of navigational peculiarities. Noting that the views of States suggest that the topic of sea-level rise is of great urgency for many, he said that it is “suboptimal” that the Commission does not plan to return to these issues before 2023, at the earliest.
The Committee also continued its deliberations on the other topic within the second cluster ‑ immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction ‑ as speakers grappled with the need to combat impunity for serious crimes while also upholding the principle of sovereign equality among States, to which immunity is corollary.
The representative of Cameroon pointed out that immunity belongs to the State, who then cedes it to its agents to carry out activities of public power. As such, he expressed concern over several provisions within the International Law Commission’s draft articles that give license to certain bodies to oblige States against their will. However, he stressed, that immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction does not nullify responsibility, and those benefitting from immunity remain subject to prosecution according to the legal modalities of each State.
On that point, Senegal’s delegate added his support for the development of an international legal instrument to effectively prevent and punish the most serious crimes. He called on States to join the “MLA Initiative”, which seeks a new multilateral treaty on mutual legal assistance and extradition for the domestic prosecution of the most serious international crimes.
The representative of the Russian Federation underlined the need to clarify certain procedural aspects relating to this topic, also pointing to the rift existing between the Commission and the Sixth Committee on the non-consensus-based draft article pertaining to exceptions to immunity. Given the complexity and controversy of the topic, he urged the Commission not to rush its first reading.
Greece’s representative suggested that the draft article concerning dispute settlement should be formulated as a general recommendation to States to try to resolve any differences of view regarding the determination and application of immunity at an early stage. He also advised against examining the effect that the duty to cooperate with international criminal tribunals has on immunity. Such an exercise would go beyond the draft articles’ scope, he said.
Also speaking were representatives of Thailand, Argentina, Austria, Republic of Korea, Poland, Solomon Islands, Indonesia, Algeria, Cyprus, Spain, Tonga and Lebanon.
The Sixth Committee will next meet at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 2 November, to conclude its debate on the second cluster of topics from the International Law Commission’s report and commence consideration of the third cluster.
Statements on Cluster 2
VILAWAN MANGKLATANAKUL (Thailand), on “Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction”, stressed the importance of striking the right balance between according immunity to State officials and ending impunity. In that regard, procedural safeguards as well as the provision on settlement of disputes are crucial. Also highlighting the importance of ensuring the protection of the interests of the State of the official and those of the forum State, she called for respect for the principle of sovereign equality in determining and applying immunity.
Turning to “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, she said that the protection of State rights in relation to maritime zones and boundaries as guaranteed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is essential to friendly relations among States. Maritime boundaries already established by treaties or adjudication should be final; they should not be affected by sea-level rise. Highlighting the need for a cautious approach, she noted that sea-level rise affects not only States but also people who may have to migrate or be displaced as a result.
GADJI RABE (Cote d’Ivoire), associating himself with the African Group, said that, in regard to “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, the recurrent rise in sea level for coastal African States, such as Côte d'Ivoire, is a major concern. Exacerbated by the effects of climate change, it is an amplifying factor of coastal erosion; its consequences are disastrous for the Ivorian coastline, which has a rise of two meters on average each year. Faced with this catastrophic situation, the Ivorian Government has put in place mitigation and adaptation measures. As a signatory to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, his country is firmly committed to an ambitious programme to drastically reduce its CO2 emissions by 28 per cent, as well as the introduction of 42 per cent of renewable energies in its energy mix by 2030. He also noted that the local populations severely threatened by the rising waters have been relocated to safer sites.
Turning to the upcoming elections to the International Law Commission, he urged support for the candidacy of Cisse Yacouba, who proposed the topic of maritime piracy, and piracy and armed robbery at sea, which was included in the Commission’s long-term programme of work and adopted as a topic for consideration by the General Assembly. The re-election of Mr. Cisse will enable him to complete his contribution to this issue. He also called on donors to support the efforts of developing countries to combat the effects of rising sea levels and to increase the resilience of communities living in coastal areas.
ZACHARIE SERGE RAOUL NYANID (Cameroon), speaking on “Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction”, underscored his delegation’s commitment to the original vision of immunity ‑ namely, that those who represent a State and express its will cannot be placed under pressure or weakened. Immunity belongs to the State, who then cedes it to its agents to carry out activities of public power. As the State constitutes a legal person acting through these individuals, only the State, as holder of immunity, can waive it. However, that immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction does not nullify application of the principle of responsibility, and those benefitting from immunity remain subject to prosecution according to the legal modalities of each State. Noting the fundamental tenet of par in parem non habet imperium, he expressed concern over certain “cryptic provisions” contained in the draft articles that give license to certain bodies to create obligations for States against their will. Without immunity ratione materiae, foreign courts could exercise indirect control over a State’s acts by prosecuting the representative that acted on its behalf. He added that such immunity plays an important role for senior State officials once immunity ratione personae no longer applies.
Turning to “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, he said that his country takes note of existing legal issues in this area and will follow the Commission’s work on this topic with great interest.
MARTÍN JUAN MAINERO (Argentina), on “Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction”, noted that there is no multilateral treaty of a universal nature that governs all questions relating to this topic. The current treaties cover certain categories of officials, he said, adding that the Commission’s study will help identify customary law and trends in State practice. Despite differing domestic positions, it is possible to identify a trend towards an exception of immunity for international crimes in cases where functional immunity is invoked. Noting that there have been several cases of diplomatic tension around immunity, he added that it is appropriate to contemplate the existence of a peaceful dispute settlement mechanism between States, as noted in the related draft article 17.
Turning to “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, he called it an issue worthy of in-depth analysis. Recalling that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development notes that this phenomenon affects many coastal countries, including least developed countries and small island nations, he added that this prevents such countries from attaining sustainable development. Therefore, the 2030 Agenda urges the intentional community to step up its efforts to tackle this problem, he said, noting that several international law instruments do contain relevant provisions. Once baselines and maritime zone limits have been determined pursuant to the requirements of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, there should be no requirement for adjustments to be made if a sea-level change affects the geographical realities of the coast, he stressed.
FRED SARUFA (Papua New Guinea), aligning himself with the Pacific Islands Forum, the Pacific Small Island Developing States and the Alliance of Small Island States, spoke on “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, noting that chapter 9 of the Commission’s report serves as a useful guide to the issue. Reaffirming that the Convention on the Law of the Sea is the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out, he added that preserving the baselines and outer limits of maritime zones is crucial to legal stability. Drawing attention to the Declaration issued by the Pacific Islands Forum in August on preserving maritime zones in the face of climate change-related sea-level rise, he added that the subtopics relating to Statehood and protection of persons are of critical importance in the context of the daily lived reality of the Pacific people.
ABDOU NDOYE (Senegal), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, said that the Commission’s work cannot be based on a single doctrinal conception, stemming from a single legal culture and carried by a single language. The Commission’s future and the appropriation of its work by Member States will depend on its ability to make the diversity of practices, opinions and different legal systems a basic tool of its mode of operation. He called on the Commission to better reflect geographical diversity in its composition.
Turning to “Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction”, he welcomed the role of the International Court of Justice, which explicitly enshrined the principle of immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction of State officials in its judgment of 11 April 2000. He also welcomed the codification of the Court’s jurisprudence in the draft article which confers personal immunity on the Head of State, the Head of Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs insofar as they act on behalf of the State. However, there has been no significant progress on this draft article, he observed, calling on the Commission to clarify some points. He reiterated his support for the development of an international legal instrument to effectively prevent and punish the most serious crimes. He also called on States to join the “MLA Initiative”, which aims for a new multilateral treaty on mutual legal assistance and extradition for the domestic prosecution of the most serious international crimes. It is necessary to continue the debate on the text of these draft articles in order to remove all ambiguities on the issue, he said.
HELMUT TICHY (Austria), speaking on “Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction”, noted his support for the proposed inclusion of a dispute-settlement clause in the draft articles. In addition, more guidance on deadlines for rapid dispute settlement would be helpful. Further, the term “international criminal tribunals” should be defined in the draft articles to clarify to what extent this term encompasses hybrid or internationalized criminal courts. As issues of immunity from criminal jurisdiction may arise in the context of administrative acts and proceedings, he pointed out that the terminology used in draft article 8 ante and draft article 8 must encompass administrative criminal proceedings. Among comments on other specific draft articles, he noted that the Commission did not specify in draft article 11 the content necessary for a waiver of immunity and suggested that such a normative determination be included.
Turning to “Sea-level rise in relation to international law” and aligning himself with the European Union’s comments on this topic, he expressed concern that the Study Group’s work might be mistaken for that of the Commission as a whole, along with hope that the Commission takes action to prevent such confusion in the future. He also welcomed further study on several germane issues, including the ambulatory or permanent character of maritime baselines, the effects of sea-level rise on exclusive economic zones and the role of article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties concerning a fundamental change of circumstances. The Commission should clarify the purpose of its output in this area and specify whether it is studying lex lata or proposing changes to the existing legal framework, he noted.
DOH KWANGHEON (Republic of Korea), on “Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction”, welcomed the provisional adoption of draft articles 8 ante, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 but said it is important for the Commission to address States’ concerns and find an appropriate consensus among diverse views before completing its first reading. He also welcomed the decision by the Drafting Committee to use, in draft articles 8 and 9, general terminology such as “initiation of criminal proceedings” or “coercive measures” - instead of legal terminology specific to the legal systems of the respective countries - and the decision not to identify the authorities with the competence to make decisions relating to the waiver of immunity. Taking into account the diverse range of procedural systems among States, he also urged the Commission to clarify key terms used in the draft articles, such as “criminal jurisdiction” and “criminal proceedings”. It should also engage in further review and discussions on whether the adopted article 8 ante is fully apt as it stands.
Turning to the topic “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, he voiced his delegation’s appreciation for the fruitful discussion by the Study Group. Given the sensitivity and complexity of the matter, he requested the Study Group to engage in further deliberations on the themes presented by the Co-Chairs.
MITCHELL FIFIELD (Australia), on “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, expressed support for the Law of the Sea Convention and warned that sea-level rise poses significant development, economic and environmental challenges which will be felt by all States “in one way or another”. He urged countries to take note of the Declaration on Preserving Maritime Zones in the Face of Climate Change-related Sea-level Rise, adopted by Pacific Islands Forum leaders in August. While preserving maritime zones to the greatest extent possible, the Declaration upholds the integrity of the Convention and is supported by the legal principles underpinning it, including legal stability, security, certainty and predictability.
Turning to the Commission’s work on the “Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction”, he invited members to further elaborate and clarify the rationale for the new draft article 18 — proposed by the Special Rapporteur — while noting that the commentary to that draft article 1 makes clear that immunities enjoyed before international criminal tribunals remain outside the scope of the draft articles. Welcoming the Commission’s efforts in drafting commentaries to drafts articles 8 ante, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, he said it would be helpful if the commentaries more clearly distinguished between where the Commission seeks to codify an existing rule of customary international law or where it is engaged in progressive development of the law. “Where the Commission’s intention is codification, Australia recommends that the commentaries more clearly identify the relevant State practice and opinio juris in support of the draft article,” he said.
MATEUSZ SAKOWICZ (Poland), on “Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction”, took note of articles 8 ante, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 and considered part 4 of the draft articles as providing an important procedural guarantee and safeguards to help ensure genuine, good-faith consultation and cooperation between the State of the official and the forum State. Taking note of the draft articles 17 and 18 he noted that both provisions proposed by the Special Rapporteur are useful and have merit. Acknowledging the connection between the immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction and the rules governing the functioning of international criminal tribunals need not be prejudicial to the topic per se, he noted that declaring the autonomy of the applicable legal regimes seems reasonable in that case.
Turning to “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, he noted that unavoidable sea-level rise and the necessity of understanding its consequences raise a number of questions relevant to international law, in particular, the interpretation of several provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and possible identification of customary law in this respect. He also underscored that the purpose of article 62(2) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is to ensure the certainty and stability of treaties delimiting areas under some kind of State authority, speaks for the application of this provision to maritime boundaries.
ANDREJS PILDEGOVIČS (Latvia), on “Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction”, encouraged the Commission to adopt the draft articles on first reading next year. Much is likely to depend upon the final form of the Commission's work, he said, adding that if the articles were to be used as the basis for a convention, the Commission must adopt rules on dispute settlement that recognize the leading role played by the International Court of Justice. In that regard, he highlighted the so-called opt-out procedure provided for in article 15 of the Commission’s articles on prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity.
Turning to “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, he noted the importance of this topic to his coastal State. Chapter nine of the Commission’s report raises important questions regarding sources and interpretation of international law, the interaction between sea-level rise and key concepts of international law as well as the impact of navigational particularities. It is “suboptimal” that the Commission, having raised these key issues and stimulated a broader discussion, does not seem to plan to return to them before 2023, at the earliest, he said, adding that the views of States suggest that this topic is of great urgency for many actors.
NOEL MARTIN MATEA (Solomon Islands), aligning himself with the Pacific Islands Forum, Pacific Small Island Developing States and the Alliance of Small Island States, emphasized how critically important the issue of protecting people affected by sea-level rise is for his country, which is experiencing a new normal. He called for an international solution and the application of the principles of international cooperation to deal with it, with consideration for the applicable legal regimes and human rights. He highlighted, among other things, the obligation imposed on States to exchange information and provide technical assistance to those States most in need. Regarding measures taken by States responding sea-level rise, such as evacuations, he also stressed the importance of disaster risk reduction, and he called on the Commission to consider the many international frameworks related to risk and risk reduction, such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. He also expressed his support for the study of issues related to Statehood and called on the Commission to continue studying the specific condition of small island developing States affected by the phenomenon of rising sea levels and its consequences.
MUHAMMAD TAUFAN (Indonesia), speaking on “Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction”, welcomed the Commission’s cautious work on this topic and its attempt to strike a balance between the fight against impunity and the need to foster inter-State relations through the principle of sovereign equality. However, differing observations on several important subjects make the draft articles worth revisiting, including those concerning definitions, dispute settlement, and relationships with internationalized tribunals and specialized treaty regimes. Given these divergent views and the interconnectedness of this topic among varied national legal systems, he called for more extensive study and analysis of the draft articles.
On “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, he highlighted that Indonesia was the largest archipelagic State. In that regard, he said that, while the oceans sustain numerous facets of life, they also pose considerable risks due to climate change, including loss of territory and resources, which could lead to loss of sovereignty and jurisdictional rights. He welcomed further study on this topic ‑ including through the Commission’s long-term programme of work ‑ but emphasized that this issue must be approached with caution, particularly as it relates to maritime borders and delimitations. Further, such deliberation must not undermine the Law of the Sea Convention and relevant international law. Recommending that the principles of certainty, security and predictability be maintained and the balance of rights and obligations be preserved, he stressed that the stability of boundary agreements should be upheld regardless of rising sea levels.
EVGENY A. SKACHKOV (Russian Federation), on “Immunity of State officials from foreign jurisdiction”, said that some procedural aspects need clarification. In particular, he questioned which specific actions fall under the “exercise of criminal jurisdiction”. He further pointed to the non-consensus-based draft article 7 on exceptions to immunity, noting that the rift that occurred in the Commission and the Sixth Committee over this article must be overcome before the second reading. Underlining his opposition to any consideration of international criminal jurisdiction brought up by the Special Rapporteur, he said that questions related to dispute settlement between a State’s court and the State of the official should be resolved between the States involved. Given the complexity and controversy of the topic, he urged the Commission not to rush through the first reading. He also urged them to include in the draft articles a provision on the responsibility for violating the immunity of a foreign official.
Turning to “Sea-level rise in the context of international law”, he drew attention to issues of baselines, which are not governed by any relevant rules of customary law. In this context, he said it was important to find a practical solution that is consistent with the Law of Sea Convention on the one hand and with the concerns of States affected by sea-level rise on the other. He further voiced support for the approach based on the prevalence of the Convention, including its goals and principles as well as the balance of interests.
MOHAMED FAIZ BOUCHEDOUB (Algeria) said that “Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction” is one of the most legally complex topics that the Commission has examined. The Commission must consider the important principle of sovereignty of States, he said, stressing the need for a balance between the draft articles and that principle. Further, the Commission must take note of applicable national laws from the major legal systems of the world, State practice and relevant precedents, he said, calling for an integrated approach that considers procedural guarantees to ensure that the use of foreign legal jurisdiction would not be misused for political purposes. Welcoming draft article 17, he added that a system for settlement of disputes is a useful instrument with which States might defend their rights and interests.
On “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, he took note of the study plan established in 2018, adding that the international community must deal with the legal repercussion of sea-level rise. International law supports static baselines and permanent marine boundaries as part of the inviolability of inherited borders, he said, referring to article 62, paragraph 2, of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Therefore, treaties on borders cannot be affected by a fundamental change in conditions. Welcoming the Study Group’s continued examination of protection of the rights of coastal States and the concept of permanent sovereignty over natural resources, he said it must offer practical, legal solutions to the States affected by sea-level rise.
HARIS CHRYSOSTOMOU (Cyprus), speaking on “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, said that, as an island State, Cyprus has experienced directly the grave consequences of climate change, including sea-level rise. Such States face threats to their very existence through partial or even total deterritorialization. This grave prospect may also mean that affected States could lose their permanent population. While efforts to curb emissions and practical remedial measures should continue to be enforced as a priority, legal clarification as to the possible effects of rising sea levels may provide some assistance. To address coastal erosion, affected coastal States should be entitled to designate permanent baselines pursuant to article 16 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Moreover, baselines must be permanent and not ambulatory so as to achieve greater predictability on maritime boundaries. This position is in line with the Convention and international jurisprudence. On the question of Statehood, he quoted the late Judge James Crawford, who, in his work The Creation of States in International Law, noted: “A State is not necessarily extinguished by substantial changes in territory, population or Government, or even, in some cases, by a combination of all three.”
AGUSTÍN SANTOS MARAVER (Spain), praising the Commission for its work on “Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction”, underlined that draft article 8 ante would ensure a balance between the interests of the various States concerned while responding to the legitimate concerns of several States over the risks of politicization. Regarding draft articles 8, 9 and 12, he expressed support for their adoption, stating that they represent a clear innovation in the field of immunities. Observing that draft articles of a procedural nature are still pending consideration by the Commission, he encouraged the adoption of articles 13, 14, 15 and 16 and, in particular, provisions on the determination of immunity for the most serious crimes. He also said he agreed with the inclusion of a clause on dispute settlement and a reference to international criminal tribunals, noting that the wording will depend on the forthcoming discussions.
Regarding “Sea level rise in relation to international law”, he expressed his support to the small island developing States while recognizing the efforts made by the "Pacific Islands Forum". It is essential to respect the integrity of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, which should be recognized as "the Constitution of the Oceans", he said. Small island developing States should be given special consideration in these discussions. He invited the Commission to offer solutions that take into account legal stability and justice. He also drew attention to the gender composition within the Commission, noting it did not reflect the reality of jurists specializing in international law. Urging Member States to promote the participation of more women, he presented Spain’s candidate, Concepción Escobar Hernández.
JEANETT VEA (Tonga), associating herself with the Pacific Islands Forum, Pacific Small Island Developing States and Alliance of Small Island States, spoke on the topic “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”. Pacific Island leaders are committed to ensuring maritime zones of Pacific member States are delineated in accordance with the Law of the Sea Convention, which should not be challenged or reduced due to climate change-induced sea-level rise. Due to Tonga’s geographical, geological, and socioeconomic characteristics, its sea levels have already risen well above the global average and are accompanied by coastal erosion and the frequent occurrence of natural disasters. Yet, a defined territory and population are key indicators of Statehood under international law, she pointed out. “For small island States, this is a question of survival”. As such, she stressed the need to quickly address the international law implications of those emerging issues.
MICHAEL STELLAKATOS LOVERDOS (Greece), on the matter of “Immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction”, proposed that in draft article 8, the phrases “may be affected by the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction” and “may affect an official of another State” in paragraphs 1 and 2 are too broad and general. Regarding draft articles 17 and 18, he expressed doubt as to the advisability of examining the effect that the duty to cooperate with an international criminal tribunal may have on the immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Not only would such an exercise go beyond the scope of the present draft articles, but there is also much diversity in existing international criminal tribunals, which govern the relevant duty of States and the procedural treatment of these cases. Draft article 17 should be formulated as a general recommendation to States to try to resolve any differences of view, regarding the determination and application of immunity at an early stage, using the means for dispute settlement set forth in Article 33 of the United Nations Charter.
Turning to “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, he said the Convention on the Law of the Sea sets the legal basis for settling and regulating any relevant issue which may arise. The Convention therefore provides the answers to the questions raised, within their proper context, on sea-level rise. Warning that generalized interpretations that could lead to unpredictable and uncertain situations should be avoided, he said the Convention imposes no obligation to review or recalculate baselines or the outer limits of maritime zones. In that vein, he underlined the importance of safeguarding the stability of maritime boundaries, confirmed by State practice and international jurisprudence. Such sensitive questions should be dealt with cautiously within the Commission, as they touch upon a carefully balanced legal regime for activities at sea whose integrity needs to be always maintained.
Mr. HITTI (Lebanon), noted that the difficulties presented by the pandemic resulted in the Commission making much greater use of electronic means for distribution of materials to members and their assistants. He also pointed out that the new format presented some limits, such as time zones, internet connectivity or reduced hours of interpretation. He called for an enhanced relationship, through constant dialogue, between the Commission and the Sixth Committee. Keeping a limit on the number of the Commission’s topics, providing executive summary of the annual report and holding informal virtual briefings to be presented by the Special Rapporteurs of each topic ahead of the report’s publication will result in the active participation of Member States, he said.
He expressed his support for the inclusion of “Sea‑level rise in relation to international law”. By clarifying the international legal framework of such topics, the Commission can help States develop practicable solutions to respond effectively. Moreover, he stressed the centrality of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and the importance of preserving its integrity and the stability provided by its rules, while drawing on the practice of States when needed. He added that he was looking forward to the Study Group’s second Issues Paper next year which will focus on the human dimension of sea‑level rise. Noting the Commission’s upcoming elections, he said that Lebanon, along with Bahrain, has nominated Nassib G. Ziade for the term 2023‑2027.