Sixth Committee’s Tradition of Consensus Paves Way for Joint Decision-Making, Speakers Stress, in Annual Debate on Revitalizing General Assembly Work
Delegates Take Action on Draft Resolution, Requests for Observer Status
After taking action on eight requests for observer status and one draft resolution, the Sixth Committee (Legal) heard oral reports of four Working Groups and took up the “Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly”, with delegates underscoring the paramount importance of consensus in the Committee’s aims and presenting suggestions on improving its work during the upcoming sessions.
At the outset of the meeting, the Committee approved, without a vote, the draft resolution, “The law of transboundary aquifers” (document A/C.6/77/L.12), previously introduced on 7 November. (For background, see Press Release GA/L/3676).
Eight requests for observer status in the General Assembly were deferred to the seventy-eighth session, including the Cooperation Council of Turkic-speaking States; Eurasian Economic Union; Community of Democracies; Ramsar Convention on Wetlands Secretariat; Global Environment Facility; International Organization of Employers; International Trade Union Confederation; and Boao Forum for Asia.
Anna Pála Sverrisdotti, the Vice-Chair of the Sixth Committee, opening the debate on the “Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly”, recalled that the agenda item was allocated to all the Main Committees for the purpose of considering their working methods and to take action on their respective tentative work programmes for the following session. Giving an overview of the sixty-eighth session programme of work, she also pointed out that a number of innovations in the Committee’s working methods were introduced on the basis of this annual debate.
The representative of El Salvador, also speaking for Colombia, Italy, Lebanon, Mexico, Portugal and Sierra Leone, said that States continue to have a central role in the codification and progressive development of international law. Recognizing that the Sixth Committee should be the main multilateral forum for such an exercise, she suggested that it create an informal space to focus its discussions on working methods, agenda management and programme procedures. She also pointed out that digital technologies could be used to create forums for dialogue before the start of the Committee’s work.
Cuba’s representative spotlighted the utility of electronic tools and platforms, including the e-deleGATE portal, as an efficient means for distributing important information on the Committee’s work. While supporting the Committee’s practice of decision-making by consensus, she encouraged the Secretariat to avoid overlapping agenda items and fine-tune the Committee’s programme of work.
The representative of Sierra Leone expressed concern over “creeping practices” that may undermine the Sixth Committee’s international law-making process through a growing inconsistency in work methods, challenges to pluralism and inertia owing to lack of good faith. He pointed out that this may lead to the absolute “misuse and abuse” of the consensus practice of the Committee if not addressed.
Similarly, Egypt’s delegate highlighted the Sixth Committee’s tradition of consensus, noting the utility of such an approach, particularly regarding topics of an ergo omnis nature. In this regard, he suggested the Member States abandon maximalist and rigid positions, adding: “For our part, Egypt is committed to continuing working with all delegations in the Sixth Committee with the view of conducting fruitful, result-oriented discussions, premised on consensus.”
The delegate of Algeria stressed that consensus will always be the bedrock for approving resolutions and decisions in the Sixth Committee. It allows for coordinating Member States’ positions, paving the way for joint decision-making and helping to achieve tangible outcomes. He also called for implementation of all relevant resolutions on multilingualism so that all official languages of the United Nations are afforded equal treatment.
The Sixth Committee also heard and took note of presentations by the Chairs of four Working Groups, as they described divergence among delegations on the propriety and timing of future work on these topics.
The Chair of the Working Group on “Measures to eliminate international terrorism” noted that some delegations underscored the need for achieving preliminary understanding of underlying legal principles — including those underpinning the definition of terrorism — before the Working Group could consider any textual proposals.
The Chair of the Working Group on “Criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission” reported that delegations remained divided as to whether and when it was the appropriate time to commence negotiations on a convention in this area.
Similarly, the Chair of the Working Group on “The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction” pointed out that some delegations emphasized divergent notions of the principle and questioned the usefulness of debate in the Working Group and the Sixth Committee without a general understanding of its meaning.
The Chair of the Working Group on “Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts”, along those lines, noted that, while there seemed to be general agreement on the importance of maintaining legal certainty and stability, there continued to be a range of views on whether negotiating a convention on this topic would contribute to attaining that goal.
The representative of Brazil spoke after action on the resolution, “The law of transboundary aquifers”.
The Sixth Committee will next meet at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, 18 November, to take action on draft resolutions and consider programme planning and election of officers.
Working Group Reports
MICHAEL IMRAN KANU (Sierra Leone) presented the oral report of the Working Group on “Measures to eliminate international terrorism” on behalf of the Working Group’s Chair, Rohan Perera of Sri Lanka. The Working Group held two meetings on 14 and 21 October devoted to discussing outstanding issues of the draft comprehensive convention. Informal consultations concerning the question of convening a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations were held on 14 and 20 October. During these consultations delegations reiterated positions on the draft comprehensive convention and on the convening of the high-level conference, while expressing support for the convention’s conclusion. The Working Group followed the understanding that further consideration would be given to all written amendments and proposals, including on outstanding issues. Particular attention was drawn to the 2013 Ad Hoc Committee report (document A/68/37) and an informal non-paper on a possible way to overcome differences on the outstanding issues.
Turning to the informal non-paper, he noted that delegations were invited to consider the value of examining the description/nomenclature of the proposed convention, with regard to reducing any zero-sum consideration that delegations might have; how the current framework of negotiations could be enhanced; and how to approach the future work with respect to resolving the outstanding issues. Some delegations underscored the need of preliminary understanding on the underlying legal principles, including those underpinning the definition of terrorism, before the Working Group could consider any textual proposals. Regarding convening a high-level conference to formulate a joint organized response of the international community to terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, some delegations reiterated their support and emphasized that discussions on the outstanding issues surrounding the draft comprehensive convention could be taken in parallel to that conference. Other delegations pointed out that without first achieving consensus on the draft comprehensive convention, holding a high-level conference would be premature.
AAHDE LAHMIRI (Morocco), Chair of the Working Group on “Criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission”, noted that the Working Group, at its meetings on 11 and 20 October, saw an exchange of views among delegations on whether this topic should be addressed in the form of a convention; on which substantive issues such a convention should cover; and on any matters that could be included in this year’s resolution to further enhance the mechanisms of accountability initially developed in certain previous General Assembly resolutions. She noted that delegations’ views remain divided as to whether and when it was the appropriate time to commence negotiations on such a convention. Further, questions were raised about the scope of immunity ratione personae in such a convention, what crimes the instrument would cover and how it would interact with national legislation.
She also reported that delegates highlighted that a potential convention in this area would only apply to those States that would become parties thereto. However, it was also suggested that a convention would be important to establish a harmonized standard as to the jurisdiction of State parties and would fill a legal vacuum. Additionally, some delegations said that the work of the Group of Legal Experts could be a basis for work on a draft convention, and that procedural modalities for such work should be explored. The importance of ensuring accountability was emphasized, she added. Thanking delegations for their cooperation and assistance, she said she remains available to work with the same to ensure that there is no impunity for criminal activity committed by United Nations officials and experts on mission.
GUSTAVO ADOLFO RAMÍREZ BACA (Costa Rica), presenting the report of the Working Group on “The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction”, noted that the Working Group held two informal consultations on 14 and 21 October, with a focus on the question, “What should the role and purpose of universal jurisdiction be?” The Working Group also held a discussion on the way forward and conducted the plenary debate. While the informal working paper did not reflect consensus among delegations and was expected to be subject to further deliberation, no further modifications were made to that 2016 working text. Turning to the question of “what the role and purpose of universal jurisdiction should be”, some delegations noted that its main role was to fight impunity in the context of the most serious crimes under international law and the avoidance of safe havens for perpetrators of such crimes. While some delegations justified the establishment of universal jurisdiction on the basis of the international character or dimension of a number of crimes, other delegations pointed towards a principle of effectiveness in the prosecution of specific crimes or expressed that universal jurisdiction should be restricted to the prosecution of piracy on the high seas.
In this regard, some delegations expressed concern about the possible misuse or political abuse of universal jurisdiction, and their potential to tamper with fundamental principles of international law, such as sovereign equality, he continued. Some delegations reiterated that there was no consensus on the principle of universal jurisdiction under international law; some emphasized the divergent notions of the principle by Member States. They thus questioned the usefulness of the debate in the Working Group and in the Sixth Committee without a general understanding of what it meant. It was suggested that the work of the Committee on universal jurisdiction could focus on the negative aspects of universal jurisdiction, such as its potential conflict with other principles of international law. Delegations also shared their views on how to better achieve the mandate entrusted to the Working Group, noting the importance and usefulness of the dialogue. Due to the lack of a common understanding on the concept of universal jurisdiction, it was suggested that the topic be addressed under agenda item “Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly”.
VINÍCIUS FOX DRUMMOND CANÇADO TRINDADE (Brazil), Chair of the Working Group on “Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts”, reported that the Working Group held three meetings, on 18 and 31 October and on 7 November. After a general exchange of views at the first meeting, subsequent discussions were structured around several issues and questions. He then provided an overview of the views expressed under each issue — namely, procedural options, possible procedural safeguards, criteria for ascertaining the necessary “critical mass” of opinion, the structure of the Working Group, frequency of consideration of this agenda item and future work. Among other positions expressed during the meetings, he noted that, while there seemed to be general agreement on the importance of maintaining legal certainty and stability, there continued to be a range of views on whether negotiating a convention on this topic would contribute to attaining this goal.
On that point, he reported that some delegations held that a consensus among States on the content of the articles could contribute to legal certainty. Others suggested that reopening the text for an eventual negotiation could pose risks to the delicate balance achieved at the International Law Commission – and undermine the content of the draft articles — without necessarily resulting in a convention that enjoys wide ratification. He also pointed out that, both in the Working Group and during the debate in the Sixth Committee, the view was expressed that after more than 20 years since their adoption, there had not yet been sufficient convergence of opinion as to the status of the articles as customary international law to justify proceeding to the conclusion of an international convention. While some delegations supported the position that a “critical mass” of opinion has been achieved in this regard, others expressed strong opposition to such a view. He suggested that at this stage, delegations continue inter-sessional consultations to exchange views on the themes discussed in the Working Group this year.
Action on Draft Resolution
The Sixth Committee then took up the draft resolution, “The law of transboundary aquifers” (document A/C.6/77/L.12). (For background, see Press Release GA/L/3676.)
By the text, the General Assembly would call the attention of Governments to the draft articles on the law of transboundary aquifers annexed to its resolution 68/118 as guidance for bilateral or regional agreements and arrangements for the proper management of transboundary aquifers. Further to the draft, it would encourage the Intergovernmental Hydrological Programme of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization to continue its contribution by providing further scientific and technical assistance upon the consent of the recipient State and within its mandate.
The Sixth Committee approved the draft resolution without a vote.
The representative of Brazil, in explanation of position after action, said that his delegation preferred the Sixth Committee achieve a concrete follow-up on the agenda item, rather than its pattern of “deadlocked discussions followed by technical rollovers of resolutions”. In that regard, if, in the upcoming four years, negotiations remain stalled, his delegation will reserve the right to periodically revisit its position, rethink strategies and use another solution to move the topic forward. Observing that similar discussions arose in regard to other agenda items, he said that his delegation will monitor how the deferral of one year affects the ability to decide on appropriate actions to be taken on the subject.
Requests for Observer Status
The Sixth Committee next considered draft resolutions concerning requests for observer status in the General Assembly, deferring to the seventy-eighth session of the General Assembly requests for observer status for the Cooperation Council of Turkic-speaking States (document A/66/141); the Eurasian Economic Union (document A/70/141); the Community of Democracies (document A/70/142); the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands Secretariat (document A/72/194); the Global Environment Facility (document A/72/195); the International Organization of Employers (document A/74/291); the International Trade Union Confederation (document A/74/292); and the Boao Forum for Asia (document A/74/293).
Revitalization of Work of General Assembly
ANNA PÁLA SVERRISDOTTI (Iceland), Vice-Chair of the Sixth Committee, recalled that the agenda item “Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly” was allocated to all the Main Committees for the purpose of considering their working methods and in order to take action on their respective tentative work programmes for the following session. Over the years, a number of innovations in the Committee’s working methods have been introduced on the basis of recommendations made during the annual debate. A paper on “lessons learned” was developed to include new suggestions for improvement based on the respective recommendations.
She further drew attention to the draft provisional programme of work for the Sixth Committee during its seventy-eighth session, noting it is intended to help delegations and the Secretariat plan, prepare and organize the next session. The programme would be applied flexibly, taking into account the rhythm of the debate in the Committee and any needs that may arise. She also noted that next year’s programme has little room for modification.
LIGIA LORENA FLORES SOTO (El Salvador), also speaking for Colombia, Italy, Lebanon, Mexico, Portugal and Sierra Leone, expressed concern over the Sixth Committee’s inertia in meaningfully following up on the work of the International Law Commission. Despite what the Sixth Committee’s recent record might suggest, States continue to have a central role in the codification and progressive development of international law. Further, the Committee should be the main multilateral forum where such an exercise should occur. She stressed that the increased complexity of international relations and global phenomena require more international law, not less. Therefore, more and better discussions are required to address old and emerging challenges — not a “sustained decline in our ability to make progress on those debates”. The state of the Committee’s work and its approach to that of the Commission is concerning and challenging, and risks undermining the relationship between those two bodies; impairing the General Assembly’s role in the progressive development and codification of international law; and creating a situation where States might be tempted to consider bypassing the United Nations altogether when developing international law.
She underlined the need to reflect and implement necessary changes to ensure continued revitalization and ever-improving methods for the Sixth Committee to perform its mandate. It is also time to examine more closely how the Committee engages with such a wide variety of topics, and whether its goals could be more effectively achieved with enhanced procedural engagement. On this point, she suggested that the Committee create an informal space where it could focus its discussions on working methods, agenda management and programme procedures, while maintaining close interaction with the Commission. Additionally, digital technologies could be leveraged to create forums for dialogue before the start of the Committee’s work. Holding regular sessions of the Commission in New York could be conducive to a more substantive exchange between the Commission and Member States. She added that the Committee’s efficiency, efficacy and integrity, and its vital role within the United Nations and the world of international law, may be undermined if delegations utilize the consensus approach as a “veto power brought forth without good-faith engagement”.
AHMED ABDELAZIZ AHMED ELGHARIB (Egypt), noting that consensus-building is not an easy task, highlighted the tradition of consensus in the Sixth Committee. Only 228 resolutions out of 1,039 were voted on, he said, pointing out that the Committee has managed to maintain its consensus tradition since its sixtieth session. Consensus is still a good way of working in the Sixth Committee, particularly regarding topics of ergo omnis nature. Therefore, he suggested abandoning maximalist and rigid positions. “For our part, Egypt is committed to continuing working with all delegations in the Sixth Committee with the view of conducting fruitful, result-oriented discussions, premised on consensus,” he added. He also underlined the International Law Commission’s products and their paramount value for the codification and progressive development of international law. Equally important was improving communication between the Commission and the Committee and ensuring representation of Member States’ views, as it is Member States who craft international law. He called on the International Law Commission to develop clear criteria for the types of its products and the exact legal consequences attached to each of them. He also noted that the Sixth Committee needs to address the products in a consistent manner. Underscoring the need to revitalize the work of the Working Groups, he suggested holding meetings in resumed sessions of the Sixth Committee outside of the “peak” meeting times, which might allow for conducting in-depth action-oriented discussions.
ARIANNA CARRAL CASTELO (Cuba) said that revitalizing the work of the General Assembly is crucial to reforming the United Nations, as that body is genuinely democratic and representative in nature, and is where the principle of sovereign equality amongst States materializes. On the Sixth Committee’s work, she said that the practice of decision-making by consensus should continue, also welcoming the Secretariat’s work to avoid overlapping agenda items and fine-tune the Committee’s programme of work. She underlined the utility of electronic tools and platforms, noting that the e-deleGATE portal is an efficient means with which to distribute important information on the Committee’s work. She also acknowledged that it has been several years since the Committee has agreed on the need to convene treaty-adopting conferences on particularly relevant issues, including international terrorism, the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts and diplomatic protection. Nonetheless, certain agenda items cannot be prioritized over others, particularly the International Law Commission’s work, where a lack of consensus on substantive matters is clear.
MICHAEL IMRAN KANU (Sierra Leone), associating himself with the statement made by El Salvador for a group of countries, reiterated his concern over “creeping practices” that may undermine the Sixth Committee’s international law-making process, through “growing inconsistency in our work methods, challenges to pluralism and inertia owing to lack of good faith”. He pointed out that this may lead to the absolute “misuse and abuse” of the consensus practice of the Committee if not addressed. In this regard, he suggested that the Committee examines its working methods. Turning to the challenges related to the products and recommendations of the International Law Commission, he called for rationalization of relevant topics and underscored the need to examine the utility of the frequency of meetings on respective topics to ensure sufficient processing time. He also called for consistency and legitimacy in the Committee’s work, and underlined the need of ensuring sufficient time for informal consultations, including an early election of the Bureau and appointment of facilitators and coordinators.
MOHAMED FAIZ BOUCHEDOUB (Algeria) stressed that consensus will always be the bedrock for approving resolutions and decisions in the Sixth Committee. Given the special nature of the Committee’s focus on legal matters, consensus is not just about garnering unanimity; it also allows for coordinating Member States’ positions and paving the way for joint decision-making without exclusion. This can help achieve not just theoretical outcomes, but tangible ones that will have an impact on the ground. He expressed hope that future discussions in the Sixth Committee will be positive and constructive, shorn of any politicization or the pursuit of narrow interests. On the relationship between the Committee and the International Law Commission, he welcomed the fact that, at the current session, more time was set aside for interactive discussion between the Commission’s Chair and the Committee, noting that this provided a direct channel of communication between the two bodies. He also requested the Secretary-General to publish a report regarding best practices and precedents established in the Committee, and called for all relevant resolutions on multilingualism to be implemented so that all official languages of the United Nations are afforded equal treatment.