Sixth Committee Speakers, Concluding Cluster 1 of International Law Commission Report, Stress Need for Legal Framework Protecting States from Sea-Level Rise

Delegates Debate General Principles, Other Decisions Before Commencing Cluster 2

As the Sixth Committee (Legal) concluded its review of the first cluster of topics from the International Law Commission’s annual report, many speakers highlighted the need for an international framework that protects States from being threatened by sea-level rise, especially in light of how climate change was not on the horizon when the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was put into force.  (For background, see Press Release GA/L/3698).

Samoa’s delegate, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States, underlined the urgency of addressing the topic, stressing:  “The special needs and interests of our small island developing States, given our acute vulnerabilities to sea-level rise, caused largely by the conduct of other States, must not be forgotten as the Committee continues to determine how that Convention should be interpreted.”

Building on that, the delegate of Tonga underlined the need to preserve baselines and outer limits of maritime zones — and their entitlements.  Such zones of Pacific States that are delineated pursuant to the Convention on the Law of the Sea should not be challenged or reduced due to that phenomenon that “poses an existential threat”.

Preservation of States’ maritime rights is deeply connected to the preservation of their Statehood, the representative of Jamaica emphasized, reporting that her country is at risk of losing parts of its territory, cultural and heritage sites, as well as human mobility through displacement.

However, the delegate of the Federated States of Micronesia urged caution when characterizing the issue as an “existential threat”.  Sea-level rise is a threat in the physical sense but is separate from whether legal considerations are truly threatened.  A growing body of State practice shows that international law protects States from being threatened in a legal sense, he said, encouraging the international community and the Commission to maintain a distinction in this regard.

The Sixth Committee also addressed the topic “General principles of law”, with speakers welcoming the decision to replace the term “civilized nations” with “community of nations”.  However, many also called for diversity and adequate representation of the world’s different regions and national legal systems in the Commission’s consideration of the matter.

Argentina’s delegate, while welcoming the methodology proposed to identify general principles of law deriving from national legal systems, emphasized that the comparative analysis contemplated in draft articles must include different regions of the world.

Similarly, Uganda’s representative underscored that the legislation and practice of African States — often underrepresented in international law discussions — should be considered when evaluating such principles, also noting the need to account for diverse national legal systems.

In this vein, the representative of Algeria called for adopting an approach comparing national legal systems, including legislations by national courts, with due regard given to linguistic diversity and characteristics of each national legal system in determining common denominators.

Ensuring the diversity of legal systems is essential for a more representative and more just international legal system, Lebanon’s delegate said.  The draft conclusions will not only provide useful guidance to States, international organizations and jurisdictions, but also to anyone called upon to use the principles as a source of international law, he added.

Speakers also tackled the topic “Other decisions and conclusions”, deliberating on the Commission’s programme of work as well as its interaction with States.

The carefully outlined work programme for the quinquennium, said the Republic of Korea’s delegate, is a testament to the Commission’s thoroughness in addressing complex legal issues.  Further, the inclusion of the topic “Non-legally binding international agreements” demonstrates its dedication to addressing emerging areas of international law.

In this regard, the representative of Sierra Leone highlighted topics still in the long-term programme of work that should be considered, including the codification of the universal jurisdiction practice to address a critical gap in the exercise of jurisdictions or lack thereof on sexual and gender-based crimes.

Stressing that the Commission cannot make progress without sufficient input from States, Slovenia’s delegate expressed hope that a greater interaction will enable States to be less reluctant to access the findings of the Commission and the Sixth Committee.

The Sixth Committee also commenced its consideration of the second cluster of the International Law Commission’s annual report, including the chapters on “Settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties” and “Prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea”.

The Sixth Committee will next meet at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 31 October, to continue its discussion of the second cluster of topics from the International Law Commission’s report on the work of its seventy-fourth session.

Cluster 1 Statements

FATUMANAVA-O-UPOLU III PA’OLELEI LUTERU (Samoa), speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States, noted that, on “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, the Alliance member States are specially affected by the impact of that phenomenon.  They depend on international law to secure their rights in a constantly changing world. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not obligate States to keep baselines and outer limits of maritime zones under review, nor does it oblige them to update charts or lists of geographical coordinates once they are deposited with the Secretary-General.  Such maritime zones and the rights and entitlements that flow from them shall continue to apply, notwithstanding any physical changes connected to climate change-related sea-level rise.  Also important is to guarantee legal stability and reduce the risk of potential conflict arising out of sea-level rise by not changing borders and maritime zones.  

The principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources is significant to preserve the maritime rights and entitlements of the Alliance’s members, he continued.  More so, such preservation is a matter of equity, a principle also enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. “The special needs and interests of our small island developing States, given our acute vulnerabilities to sea-level rise, caused largely by the conduct of other States, must not be forgotten as the Committee continues to determine how that Convention should be interpreted,” he stressed.  Sea-level rise related to anthropogenic climate change does not threaten the sovereignty and Statehood of those States.  Noting that the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States is not relevant to the question of continuity of Statehood once established, he said:  “Change to our sovereignty will only happen if we as individual States freely decide it.” 

MARKO RAKOVEC (Slovenia), speaking on “General principles of law”, said he agreed with the terminology "community of nations", since the term "civilized nations" in the Statute of the International Court of Justice is outdated.  However, it should not be confused with the term "international community of States as a whole", which describes jus cogens norms.  Expressing support to the two-step approach for the identification of general principles derived from national legal systems, he called for a more detailed methodology.  He also pointed out that the wording in draft conclusion 7, paragraph 1 — "a general principle of law that may be formed within an international legal system" — does not provide sufficient legal precision to address this issue.  Emphasizing that general principles of law are regarded as lex generalis, he welcomed draft conclusion 11.  He further said that he found useful a list of possible general principles derived from the international legal system, such as uti possidetis or compétence-compétence.

Regarding “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, and aligning with the European Union, he supported the view that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea must be interpreted in such a way that it can address the challenges posed by sea-level rise and provide guidance to affected States.  He also endorsed the Commission’s proposal that the Study Group on sea-level rise in relation to international law should address the sub-topics of Statehood and the protection of persons affected by sea-level rise in 2024. 

Turning to “Other decisions and conclusions of the Commission”, he welcomed the inclusion of “non-legally binding international agreements” in its programme of work, noting that the decision to reconstitute the Working Group on the Working Methods of the International Law Commission may contribute to the development of the rules of procedure for the Commission and draw on the internal practice manual on the Commission’s working methods and procedures. This would be useful for States, international organizations and academia to better understand the Commission’s process and contribute to the transparency of its work.  Stressing that the Commission cannot make progress without sufficient input from States, he expressed hope that a greater interaction will enable States to be less reluctant to access the findings of the Commission and the Sixth Committee.  He also voiced support for gender parity in the Commission’s composition, acknowledging the role of its female members in several areas. Further, spotlighting the Ljubljana–The Hague Convention, which was adopted at the Mutual Legal Assistance Diplomatic Conference in Ljubljana, Slovenia, he announced that the signing ceremony will take place in The Hague in February 2024.

MARVIN IKONDERE (Uganda), on “General principles of law”, emphasized that the legislation and practice of African States — often underrepresented in international law discussions — should be considered when evaluating such principles.  Noting that the process of transposition — contained in draft conclusion 4 — aims to establish whether a principle common to various legal systems can be applied to the international legal system, he pointed out that this “leaves open the possibility” that a principle may be found to exist at the national level that is, in practice, unsuitable for application in the international system. Further, he emphasized the need to account for diverse national legal systems in this context.  Similarly, regarding draft conclusions 5 and 6, he welcomed the approach of comparative analysis of national legal systems and stressed that this process must be wide, representative and include different regions of the world.

Turning to “Other decisions and conclusions of the Commission”, he noted that there are nine topics on the Commission’s current agenda. While expressing hope that a balance can be struck so that such an agenda is not “overloaded”, he said there is a need to highlight topics of interest that are still on the long-term programme of work.  On that, he joined other delegations calling for a comprehensive study on universal jurisdiction, which was added to the programme of work in 2018.  He also said he wondered whether the Sixth Committee should have a standing agenda item on its relationship with the Commission to facilitate an exchange of views on the outcome of the Commission’s work. Recalling his country’s participation in the fifty-seventh session of the International Law Seminar, he underlined the need for inclusivity in international law education.  “It is crucial to ensure that underrepresented groups are given the opportunity to enter and excel in the field of international law,” he stressed.

HAWANATU KEBE (Sierra Leone), aligning herself with the African Group, addressed the “General principles of law”, welcoming the Commission’s adoption, on first reading, of the 11 draft conclusions together with commentaries thereto.  She noted that draft conclusion 1 on “Scope” is clear and requires no further comments or revision, while draft conclusion 2 on “Recognition” addresses the conditions under which a general principle is to be recognized providing that, “for a general principle of law to exist, it must be recognized by the community of nations”.  She further welcomed the reference to “community of nations”, transplanted from article 15(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and replacing the anachronistic term “civilized nations” in article 38(1)(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. “Efforts must be made to replace anachronistic and non-neutral gender terminologies,” she affirmed, as outdated colonial era terms like “civilized nations” no longer have a place in a pluralistic world comprised of equal sovereign States. 

Turning to “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, she noted an array of sub-topics discussed in the meetings of the Study Group, including the issue of “legal stability” in relation to sea-level rise, with a focus on baselines and maritime zones; immutability and intangibility of boundaries; and effects of the potential situation whereby overlapping areas of the exclusive economic zones of opposite coastal States, delimited by bilateral agreement, no longer overlap, and the issue of objective regimes. She further cited the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) case; and the principle that “the land dominates the sea”.  She welcomed the suggested preparation of an interpretative declaration on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which could serve as a basis for future negotiations between States parties, when appropriate. 

On “Other Decisions and conclusions”, she noted the Commission’s decision to include the topic “Non-legally binding international agreements” in its current agenda.  She highlighted topics of significant interest that are still in the long-term programme of work that should be considered for addition to the current agenda, including “Universal criminal jurisdiction”, further expressing deep interest in the codification of the universal jurisdiction practice on the important issue of ensuring accountability for sexual and gender-based crimes.  This is to address a critical gap in the exercise of jurisdictions or lack thereof on sexual and gender-based crimes, she said. 

VANESSA FRAZIER (Malta), speaking on “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, recalled an open debate on the implications of that phenomenon for international peace and security, held earlier this year under her country’s presidency of the Security Council.  Sea-level rise itself cannot be invoked as a fundamental change of circumstances for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty, which establishes a maritime boundary. More so, she stressed:  “We should spare no effort to ensure that any sovereign nation whose territorial integrity is affected by sea-level rise does not lose any existing rights.”  While a territory constitutes a prerequisite for establishing a State, sovereignty refers to the whole territory under the State’s control and not solely to the land territory.  In this regard, she said that a territory that becomes partially inundated or fully submerged due to sea-level rise should not be considered a non-existent territory.

LUCIA TERESA SOLANO RAMIREZ (Colombia), speaking on “Other decisions and conclusions of the Commission”, welcomed the inclusion of the topic “Non-legally binding international agreements”, spotlighting her country’s ample experience to that end.  She also welcomed the establishment of the Working Group on the Commission’s long-term programme of work and the reconstitution of the Working Group on the methods of work.  She emphasized that both Working Groups will facilitate greater relations with the Sixth Committee, enhance dialogue and coordination relating to the product emanating from the Commission and facilitate the follow-up of the products already available.

Turning to “General principles of law”, she expressed concern about potential discrepancies between the Commission’s reference to the subsidiary means of interpretation in draft conclusions 8 and 9 and the work that has been done on a topic of subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law.  She invited the Commission to exercise “extreme” caution in its discussion of this point to avoid contradictions.  She further noted that draft conclusion 10 continues to be “confusing”, expressing doubt whether a phrase “general principles of law are only resorted to when other rules of international law do not resolve a particular issue in whole or in part” is true.  Emphasizing that the Statute of the Court does not create a hierarchy of sources, she noted that some courts have — in certain circumstances — resorted to the general principles to fill the gap.  To this end, using such principles as a type of source that is “less important” might have dangerous consequences, jeopardizing the nature as an autonomous and primary source of international law, she asserted.

On “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, she said that States from the Global South must participate more actively on this topic. She expressed concern that only two remaining sessions on significant matters remain open for debate, including the section “Future work of the Study Group”.  Stressing that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not answer all questions, she encouraged the Commission to explore other instruments under the Convention and customary law to provide a complete response.  She also noted that many baselines and maritime limits between States have not been established, emphasizing that any emerging consensus on the preservation of existing borders must strike a balance between concerns over sea-level rise and the need for States to establish their maritime borders. Also voicing concern about the legal nature of the final product, she suggested reviewing the Study Group’s mandate to ensure that States can take specific measures to address the effects of the phenomenon.

JEEM LIPPWE (Federated States of Micronesia), aligning himself with the Pacific Islands Forum and the Alliance of Small Island States and speaking on “General principles of law”, expressed support for a draft conclusion recognizing the formation of general principles of law within the international legal system.  He also underscored the challenge of understanding what is meant by general principles of law being “intrinsic” to the international legal system. Additionally, the clarification that no formal hierarchy exists between general principles of law and the other sources of international law listed in article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice is welcomed.  Further, he recalled his delegation’s previous references to the relevance of the customary laws and practices of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to multiple legal systems, as well as to the international legal system.

Turning to “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, he underscored the observation in the Study Group’s additional paper that the loss of maritime resources as a result of climate-change-related sea-level rise would be contrary to the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources.  International law, as a general matter, favours legal stability with respect to the existence and scope of State sovereignty, once lawfully established. He also emphasized the need for caution when characterizing such sea-level rise as an “existential threat”. While the phenomenon does pose such a threat in the physical sense, this is separate from whether legal considerations are truly threatened.  As a growing body of State practice suggests, the international community appears to be coalescing around the view that international law protects States from being threatened in a legal sense by sea-level rise — at least with respect to law-of-the-sea matters and Statehood.  He therefore encouraged the international community and the Commission to maintain a distinction in this regard.

MOHAMMED IYLIA OMAR (Malaysia), taking up “General principles of law”, noted that on draft conclusion 6, the compatibility test is important to determine the principle in foro domestico to be transposed into the international legal system.  In deciding which general principles of law (derived from domestic court or tribunal) may be transposed to the international legal system, relevant criteria such as variety and diversity must be considered.  Voicing support for the adoption of draft conclusions 8 and 9, he further observed that on draft conclusion 10, there was consensus by Member States that general principles of law fulfilled the same functions as the other sources of international law, although caution must be applied while determining the nature of principles and their applicability to the issues presented before the international courts and tribunal. Taking up draft conclusion 11, he expressed support for the possibility of a parallel between general principles of law and rules of customary international law.

Turning to “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, he voiced agreement that there is no provision in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea requiring Member States to update their baselines or prohibiting the freezing of baselines to address sea-level rise. However, since the question on whether baselines are permanent or ambulatory is still debatable, he recommended that the Study Group explore the possibility of coordinates or charts that had been deposited with the Secretary-General by Member States directly affected by sea-level rise to be regarded as one of the practical solutions for them to freeze their baselines.  He stressed that his delegation does not underestimate the challenges posed by climate change against the coastlines of Member States directly affected by sea-level rise.  However, climate change cannot be used to legitimize measures to preserve maritime space without credible scientific assessment that justifies the risks faced by the Member States, he said.

GORDANA VIDOVIĆ MESAREK (Croatia), speaking on “General principles of law”, expressed support for a more cautious approach when discussing issues related to the contentious category of such principles formed within the international legal system. Additional efforts are needed to examine, elaborate and clarify remaining issues pertaining to this particular category to distinguish clearly between general principles of law and other sources of international law, especially in relation to customary law. Also important is to clearly determine the elements necessary for the recognition of general principles formed within the international legal system to avoid the wrong conclusion that there are no differences between customary law and general principles of law.  While draft conclusion 10 demonstrates the situation in practice, its formulation could lead to the incorrect interpretation that the subsidiarity of general principles of law in relation to treaties and customary law is based on the principle of hierarchy rather than speciality, she stressed.

Turning to “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, she expressed hope that the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction — also known as the High Seas Treaty — would contribute to better addressing the impact of climate change, including sea-level rise.  Drawing attention to a reference to the right of self-determination in paragraph 170 of the report, she recalled that it was observed that the principle implied that States should not use their right to territorial integrity because of sea-level rise.  Nevertheless, as the principle is attributable to people rather than States, the Commission should further examine and clarify how the affected population could exercise it in relation to sea-level rise.  She advocated for a cautious approach, as opinio juris is currently not present.

Regarding “Settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties”, she commended the first report as a solid basis for further elaboration.  To enhance accuracy, she suggested slightly amending the definition of the term “international organization” by adding the word “sovereign” in draft guideline 2(a) between the words “other” and “entities”. This would distinguish international organizations from other international bodies and entities as well as other subjects of international law, she noted.

On “Succession of States in respect of State responsibility”, she took note of the recommendations of the established Working Group.  This topic is of interest for Croatia because of its own experience, she said, detailing that even more than 30 years after the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia, the agreement on succession concluded in 2001 between its five successor States has not been fully implemented yet.

SHERLEY MEGA SANDIORI (Indonesia), speaking on “General principles of law”, said that while the Commission’s work in this area has been largely commendable, some challenges persist.  She noted that the identification and application of these principles can be ambiguous and subjective, also highlighting the challenge of ensuring that they evolve in line with changing international treaties, values and expectations.  She pointed out that the term “intrinsic” in draft conclusion 7, paragraph 1, needs further elaboration, while the use of the phrase “without prejudice” in draft conclusion 7, paragraph 2, might defeat the purpose of the “intrinsic” criteria.  Recognizing that some general principles emerge from international legal systems and not national legal systems, she emphasized that States need to be more mindful to avoid confusion.

Turning to “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, she pointed out that this phenomenon is a present reality for at least 70 States, including Indonesia.  Stressing that the Commission’s work on this topic is a “testament to its commitment to safeguarding the interests of all nations”, she underscored the importance of preserving Statehood and the territorial integrity of States.  If not handled carefully, sea-level rise could alter existing maritime zone limits and boundaries, she said, noting that this will create uncertainties and conflicts. In this regard, she concurred that the principles of legal stability, certainty and predictability, as well as preservation of balance of rights and obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, should be maintained.  Stressing that the baselines and outer limits of maritime zones should be upheld regardless of sea-level rise, she called for respecting existing maritime boundary agreements to that end.

MA XINMIN (China), speaking on “General principles of law”, observed that, according to draft conclusions 3 and 7, the Commission has noted two categories of such principles — those that originate in domestic legal systems and those that are formed in the international legal system. The latter category needs further study, as it is difficult to distinguish it from customary international law.  The existence of that category is questionable because, if — as draft conclusion 11 suggests — such principles could exist in parallel with rules of customary international law with similar content, then customary international law can be applied directly without recourse to such general principles of law. He also noted that there is currently a lack of international practice supporting the existence of a category of general principles of law.

Turning to “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, he supported the Commission’s efforts to study sources of law other than the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as parties did not take this phenomenon into account when concluding that instrument.  The Convention only provides for fixed baselines in two cases, he noted — deltas and other places where coastlines are “very unstable” and in the outer limits of the continental shelf.  There is no presumption that the Convention permits the use of such baselines in other cases.  Further, he said that it is “inappropriate” to emphasize that historical rights recognized under general international law provide an example for the preservation of existing maritime zones that are not otherwise in conformity with international law. He also reiterated China’s consistent position on the arbitration case involving the South China Sea:  the arbitral tribunal exercised ultra vires jurisdiction and the related award is illegal, null and void.

On “Other decisions and conclusions of the Commission”, he expressed concern about draft article 7 on the topic “Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction” and stressed that the Commission should strike a balance between upholding the principle of sovereign equality and eliminating impunity.  Further, the Commission’s examination of State practice and opinio juris should be representative and universal.  On that, he pointed out that the cases cited in the commentary to draft article 7 are all from European countries.  He therefore urged the Commission not to rush to complete its second reading; rather, it should “adequately respond to the views and suggestions made by States over the years”.  Additionally, he supported the Commission’s inclusion of “Non-legally binding international agreements”, but — noting that international “agreements” are generally binding — supported changing that word to “instruments” or “arrangements” in the topic’s title.

JOSÉ ALBERTO BRIZ GUTIÉRREZ (Guatemala), taking up “General principles of law”, noted that for such a principle to exist, it must be recognized by the international community.  Draft conclusion 3 underscored that such principles include national legal systems and those that may be formed in the international legal system.  On draft conclusion 4, the Special Rapporteur correctly noted that there are two great requirements for a general principle derived from national systems to be applicable, namely the existence of a principle common to the different legal systems of the world, and its transposition into the international legal system.  He expressed agreement with draft conclusions 8 and 9, in that they grant a subsidiary role to jurisprudence in determining a general principle.  On draft conclusions 10 and 11, he stated that recourses to general principles mainly apply when other norms of international law do not fully or partially resolve a question. 

Turning to “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, he voiced concern over that phenomenon, particularly in the Caribbean Sea, and its adverse repercussions for coastal States and small island developing States.  He expressed interest in the response that can be found in international law on the impact of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the baselines established for the extinction of coastal areas. Another sensitive issue concerns a State that might be completely flooded, requiring the international community to ensure that “we consider the humanitarian consequences of this phenomenon” which jeopardizes the very survival and quality of life in vulnerable countries, especially Central American and Caribbean nations.  He further specified the issues of the sovereignty of a State over its land and sea areas and natural resources, highlighting that the concept of legal stability is included in the Convention and contributes to maintaining international peace and security.

FRED SARUFA (Papua New Guinea), associating himself with the Pacific Islands Forum and the Alliance of Small Island States, noted regarding “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, that the topic is critically important for the sustainable future as well as peace and security of his country, the region and the world. He commended the ongoing engagement of Commission members with the Pacific Islands Forum on the issue, including their participation — in their personal capacity — in this year’s Pacific Regional Conference on Statehood and the Protection of Persons Affected by Sea Level Rise.  Preservation of States’ maritime rights is closely linked to the continuity of statehood, he continued, drawing attention to the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources, also anchored in his country’s Constitution.  International law supports a presumption of continuity of statehood and does not contemplate its demise in the context of climate change-related sea-level rise, he stressed. 

KAAN ESENER (Türkiye), speaking on “General principles of law”, recalled that his delegation voiced doubts concerning the recognition of the imposition of a general principle of law from national legal systems and highlighted the need for clarification whether transposition is implicit and does not require an express or formal act.  In this regard, he said that the commentary for draft conclusion 6 does not correspond to the required clarification, noting that Türkiye’s concerns remain relevant.  Turning to draft conclusion 4 and the commentary to draft conclusion 7, he requested clarification about the criteria for identifying which part can be transposed, and to what extent.  Also noting the divergence of views of the Commission’s members regarding the second category of general principles and the lack of common approach in the doctrine on this issue, he stressed that these discrepancies need to be carefully reflected when the draft conclusions are transmitted to Governments for commentaries.  He also expressed support to the “call for caution” regarding dissenting opinions examined under the heading “Decisions of courts and tribunals”.

Turning to “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, he pointed out that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was negotiated when sea-level rise was not an issue, noting that present challenges are not covered by this treaty.  While coastal conditions may change, he stressed that the balance of coastal State and third State rights need to be observed.  He emphasized that his country — as a coastal State surrounded by the Black Sea, the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean Sea — will continue its efforts to maintain legal certainty, security, predictability and stability with regard to maritime zones.

On “Other decisions and conclusions of the Commission”, he pointed out that the topic “Non-legally binding international agreements” was included in the long-term programme in 2022.  After a rather short period of time, it already figures in the Commission’s programme of work, he observed.  He expressed doubt whether this topic corresponds to the criteria for the selection of new topics, adding that it is also being discussed in other international expert bodies, including the Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law of the Council of Europe.  “It might therefore be prudent to observe and follow the developments in these fora before embarking upon work on this subject,” he asserted.   

ARMAN SARVARIAN (Armenia) said that the Commission’s final product on “General principles of law” should be draft articles with commentaries, rather than draft conclusions.  Regarding draft conclusion 5, he suggested further clarification concerning the meaning of “a comparative analysis of national legal systems”; a distinction could be drawn between national practice that concerns internal law and such practice that concerns questions of international law decided in a State’s domestic legal system.  He also pointed out that the principal source for the identification of general principles of law has been international courts and tribunals, citing examples of judge-made rules in the procedural law of such bodies that fill gaps when no customary law exists.  The Commission could therefore make a significant contribution to “the methodology of the exercise of judicial discretion” by identifying general principles of law as logical deductions or predicates from treaty and customary law. “The true question is therefore how judges have identified such general principles of law as forming within the international legal system,” he emphasized.

On “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, he said that — for certain aspects of the Commission’s project on this topic — a report might be the best medium through which to communicate its findings.  He also expressed support for those Commission members who opined that the principle of uti possidetis “was not helpful or relevant within the context of the topic”.  That rule of customary international law — relating to State succession to existing international boundaries — did not find analogous application to the distinct context of loss or alteration of maritime boundaries due to submergence of the land on which they depended.  He therefore suggested a focus on analogies from the law of territory, rather than the law of treaties, such as cases involving melting glaciers, the accretion of boundaries and the adaptation of riparian boundaries due to course changes.

Turning to “Other decisions and conclusions of the Commission”, he suggested the Commission take due time to reflect on the scope and utility of the topic “Non-legally binding international agreements” before determining whether it should be included in its main programme of work.  He said that, though interesting, such a project appears to have “relatively narrow parameters that might not be sufficient to facilitate a substantial product”.  Nevertheless, if such a project is pursued, a report could offer a more suitable format than draft conclusions or model guidelines.  On the topic of “Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction”, he welcomed the Commission’s intention to pursue its classical model of completing draft articles with commentaries on second reading.

JENNY STAVRIDI (Greece), addressing “General principles of law”, voiced support for the inclusion in draft conclusion 3 of the phrase “that may be formed”.  Referring to the issue of transposition in draft conclusion 6, while acknowledging the presentation of some examples illustrating the subject, she called for the inclusion of positive examples in the commentary thereto, as it refers almost exclusively to negative examples — namely to principles that have not been considered incompatible with international legal systems.  On draft conclusion 9, she called for a cautious approach concerning teachings as a subsidiary means for the determination of general principles of law, also taking into account the ongoing work in the Commission on the topic of subsidiary means for determining the rules of international law.  She further welcomed draft conclusion 10, which merges essential and specific functions of the general principles of law.

Addressing “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, she reiterated that the predictability, stability and certainty that are inherent to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and which guide its application, require the preservation of baselines and the outer limits of maritime zones, as well as maritime entitlements deriving therefrom. Moreover, baselines and maritime zones that have been duly established and deposited according to the Convention are not affected by climate-change-related sea-level rise — unless the coastal State opts to review and update its baselines and outer limits.  She stressed that the Convention imposes no obligation to review or recalculate those measurements.  Further, it provides the answers to the questions raised, including on this topic, within their proper contexts.  Therefore, she underlined that considerations pertaining to the formation of customary law are not relevant, and sources of law other than the Convention are of no relevance.

ORIOL SOLÀ PARDELL (Spain), speaking on “General principles of law”, said that principles intrinsic to the international legal system have been formed in addition to those derived from national legal systems.  For instance, the principles of consent to jurisdiction, uti possidetis, elementary considerations of humanity, the prohibition of using the territory for purposes contrary to international law, respect for human dignity of States and others have been identified by the International Court of Justice as principles originating from the international legal system.  He also expressed agreement with draft conclusion 10 on the functions of general principles of law and welcomed that draft conclusion 11 refers to the relationship between general principles of law and other sources of international law.

Turning to “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, he welcomed the exhaustive bibliographic selection presented by the Study Group, while expressing regret that references to scientific bibliographies in Spanish are missing.  More so, he encouraged the Study Group to harness human rights doctrine in considering sea-level rise, noting that the final report will provide answers enabling greater interaction between the law of the sea, international environmental law and international human rights law.  “How do we face the hypothetical cases of loss of territory and partial or total depopulation under international law?  How do we guarantee the continuity of Statehood and States as subjects?” he asked.  The final report should also contain practical guidelines for States and for the protection of populations and the most vulnerable groups.  The concept of legal stability of existing borders is of utmost importance to guide the conclusions, he said.

ELVIRA CUPIKA-MAVRINA (Latvia), speaking on “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, said that the sea-level rise is a cross-regional issue and, thus, deserves immediate global reaction to collectively seek the most appropriate solutions for the affected countries.  Expressing her agreement with the Study Group that sea-level rise would have a large impact on people in a broad range of areas and that it is of direct relevance to peace and security, she emphasized that this phenomenon will introduce competition for vital resources and fuel tensions in some regions.  Also acknowledging the importance of the issue relating to the potential loss of territory caused by sea-level rise, she stressed:  “The voice of those most affected low-lying and small island developing States needs to be considered.”  While such a situation might be an “eventuality”, the loss of territory is preceded by the loss of habitat and livelihoods, she observed. She also noted that international courts and tribunals play an important role in clarifying the applicable rules that guide the conduct of States in dealing with the causes and implications of climate crisis.

Mr. HERRERA (Argentina), on “General principles of law”, welcomed the Commission’s view that the term “civilized nations” is anachronistic and that it should be replaced with “international community”.  On draft conclusion 3, he noted a lack of consensus regarding general principles of law that may be formed within the international legal system and called for greater clarification on the methodology used to identify such principles.  He expressed support, however, for the methodology proposed in draft conclusions 4 through 6 to identify general principles of law deriving from national legal systems, emphasizing that the comparative analysis contemplated in such provisions must include different regions of the world.  Further, he welcomed the draft conclusions’ suggestion that the decisions of international courts and tribunals — particularly the International Court of Justice — relating to the existence or content of general principles of law constitute a subsidiary means for determining such principles.

Turning to “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, he said that the Commission is the competent forum for considering the legal aspects of this topic, adding he agreed that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea can be interpreted in such a way that it effectively addresses sea-level rise.  Once the borders and outer limits of the maritime spaces of coastal States or archipelagos are determined under the Convention, it should not be necessary to readjust them should rising sea levels “affect the geographic reality of the coast”, he said.  Regarding the effects of changing coastlines on agreed maritime boundaries, he also said he agreed with the report that the concept of “fundamental change of circumstances” is not applicable to agreements establishing borders, and that the principle of uti possidetis applies solely in the context of State succession.

Finally, on “Other decisions and conclusions of the Commission”, he said that his delegation will closely follow the Commission’s work on the topic “Non-legally binding international agreements”.  Echoing other speakers, he said it would be useful if the title of this topic used the term “instruments”, reserving the use of “agreements” for legally binding texts to avoid confusion.

NAGANO SHUNSUKE (Japan), addressing “General principles of law”, noted that per draft conclusion 2, recognition by the community of nations is essential for such a general principle to exist.  He therefore expressed agreement with the explanation in the commentary to draft conclusion 6 that transposition of a principle common to the various legal systems of the world to the international legal system does not occur automatically.  Turning to the notion of the second category of general principles of law — namely, general principles of law formed within the international legal system — he noted the divergence of views in doctrine among the members of the Commission or between States on the existence of such principles, as well as the concerns raised regarding the methodology for identifying such principles. He also called for further explanation in the commentaries regarding clarification on the distinction between general principles of law and customary international law.

Taking up “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, he stressed that since many countries, including the island States, are exposed to imminent threats and various uncertainties due to sea-level rise, it is a pressing issue for the international community as a whole with direct relevance to peace and security around the world.  Legal stability and predictability based on international law are the necessary foundations for States in tackling the challenges posed by sea-level rise.  For this reason, the primacy of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea must be maintained.  Taking into account the Commission’s views and State practices such as the Pacific Islands Forum Declaration on preserving maritime zones, his delegation’s officially adopted position holds that it is permissible to preserve the existing baselines and maritime zones established in accordance with the Convention, notwithstanding the regression of coastlines caused by climate change.

The representative of the Republic of Korea, speaking on “General principles of law”, commended the replacement in the draft conclusions of anachronistic expressions, including “civilized nations” with “community of nations”.  Expressing concern that the introduction of general principles formed within the international legal system as a category might blur the distinction between customary international law and general principles of law, she encouraged the Commission to address this issue in more detail.  For instance, the phrase “intrinsic to the international legal system” is not sufficiently clear, despite some examples provided in commentary to draft conclusion 7(1).  In particular, it is questionable whether the principle of uti possidetis is an appropriate example of a general principle of law intrinsic to the international legal system, she said.

Turning to “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, she welcomed the submission of the additional paper, including the issuance of a selected bibliography as an addendum. Recalling her country’s previous intervention on the need to approach this topic in terms of not only lex lata but also lex ferenda, she added that more in-depth discussions based on widespread State practice are also important.  This will allow the international community to devise more articulate and effective measures for addressing the phenomenon.  Given that sea-level rise progresses on a gradual basis, the Commission may need to structure its deliberations more systematically based on different phases of the rise.  The Commission may also want to take a more flexible approach that considers the differing circumstances of States.  Earlier this year, her Government expressed support for the 2021 Pacific Islands Forum declaration on the matter, she said.

Regarding “Other decisions and conclusions”, she pointed out that the carefully outlined work programme for the quinquennium is a testament to the Commission’s thoroughness in addressing complex legal issues.  The inclusion of “Non-legally binding international agreements” as a new topic demonstrates the Commission's dedication to addressing emerging areas of international law, she noted. 

DIMANA DRAMOVA (Bulgaria), speaking on “Sea-level rise in relation to international law” and aligning herself with the European Union, said that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is the “Constitution of the oceans” which sets out the legal framework for all activities in the oceans and seas.  The process of deriving legal conclusions on this topic should be undertaken on that basis and with respect for the principles and provisions of the treaty, she emphasized, noting that it enshrines a “very delicate balance” between the rights and the obligations of States.  She also said that the Commission should adopt a careful approach and exercise a high level of caution in its consideration of new legal concepts, such as “climate displacement”, “climate refugees” and “climate statelessness”. As well, the topic “Immutability and intangibility of boundaries” should be observed taking into account the principle of legal stability.  Expressing agreement that sea-level rise does not constitute a fundamental change of circumstances under article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, she said that the Commission’s conclusions should underline the importance of preserving the boundaries and rights of coastal States over their maritime spaces.  She further noted she is not convinced of the need to prepare an interpretative declaration of the Convention or propose amendments to it.

TIÉMOKO MORIKO (Côte d’Ivoire), aligning himself with the African Group, took note of the draft conclusions and associated commentaries on “General principles of law”.  The Commission’s study of this topic has helped to clarify the nature, scope and function of these principles, also outlining the criteria and methodology used to identify them.  Adding that the Commission’s work in this area facilitates a better understanding of such principles as a source of international law referred to by article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, he welcomed that this topic will remain on the Commission’s programme of work for 2024.

On “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, he pointed out that his country, as a coastal State, is among those hardest hit by this “corrosive phenomenon” which negatively impacts peoples, environments and economies.  Almost every year, flooding results in loss of life and displacement that particularly affects Abidjan, the economic capital of Côte d’Ivoire.  Detailing Government measures to mitigate and adapt to the challenges posed by rising sea levels, he spotlighted the construction of drainage channels and overflow dams, along with a project relating to sanitation and urban resilience undertaken in partnership with the World Bank.  He also urged bilateral and multilateral partners to uphold their financial pledges made within the framework of the Paris Agreement on climate change.  Supporting the maintenance of this topic on the Commission’s programme of work, he said that his delegation shares the view regarding the immutability of maritime boundaries.

Lastly, on “Other decisions and conclusions of the Commission”, he welcomed the addition of the topic “Non-legally binding international agreements”, noting he looked forward to the Commission’s final report expected in 2025.  The legal nature of these commitments — characterized as “soft law” — deserves further clarification, he added.

MOHAMED FAIZ BOUCHEDOUB (Algeria), aligning himself with the African Group, took up “General principles of law”, citing the methodology of the Special Rapporteur in adding important bibliographical notes to the draft conclusions, which will undoubtedly enhance credibility and transparency.  He welcomed the decision to replace the term “civilized nations” with “community of nations” in draft 2, but noted that text is still not suitable, as it lists international organizations alongside States as personalities of international law that also contribute to the general principles; this is tantamount to an amendment to the current legal status of paragraph 1(c) of article 38 of the International Court of Justice's Statute.  He therefore called for the Commission to remove that contradiction implied in paragraphs 4 and 5, preferring the term “community of States”.  He called for adopting an approach comparing national legal systems, including legislations by national courts, with due regard given to linguistic diversity and characteristics of each national legal system in determining common denominators.

Turning to “Sea level rise in relation to international law”, he stressed that the issue demands diverse global solutions, as the effects of sea-level rise raise many important questions regarding international law.  Algeria overlooks the Mediterranean Sea, he pointed out, stressing the need for solutions to be in line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as it is inadmissible to change the Convention — particularly with regards to identifying baselines or maritime zones.  He encouraged the Study Group to develop international law without prejudice to the existing rights of Member States resulting from the delineation of maritime zones under the Convention.  Since the sea-level rise phenomenon is originally attributed to a rise in Earth temperatures leading to melting glaciers, he called for that important topic to be addressed in relation to relevant principles of international environmental law.

CLAUDINE BAILEY (Jamaica), speaking on “General principles of law”, called on the Commission to elaborate on paragraph 5 of the commentary to draft conclusion 2, in particular to identify examples of cases where international organizations may contribute to the formation of general principles of law.  As her country has not previously viewed general principles of law as being intrinsic to the international legal system in the manner proposed by the Commission, she called for further examination of the corresponding draft conclusion and the attendant commentaries. In particular, she asked the Commission to elucidate any possible impact of that draft conclusion on the interpretation of article 38, paragraph 1(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice as well as how the methodology would be applied so as not to create any overlaps with other sources of international law, especially customary law. 

Turning to “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, she reported that the negative effects of the phenomenon on her country have steadily increased.  Evidence demonstrates that Jamaica is at risk of losing parts of its territory, cultural and heritage sites as well as human mobility through displacement.  The Government’s 2023 Climate Change Policy Framework for Jamaica indicates that the country’s predicted changes in sea-level rise, as of the year 2015, are from 0.28 meters to 2.8 meters.  The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea laid down principles by which States may delimit their boundaries and those boundaries, once established, must be preserved, acknowledged and respected even in the context of sea-level rise.  Jamaica is one of the many States that have adopted legislation to preserve its baselines and maritime zones.  Preservation of States’ maritime rights is deeply connected to the preservation of their Statehood, she underscored. 

LIGIA LORENA FLORES SOTO (El Salvador), calling attention to the fact that the Commission was chaired by two “outstanding female jurists”, encouraged States — on future occasions — not only to reflect on the criteria of equitable geographical representation but also on “genuine” gender parity.

Turning to “General principles of law”, she welcomed the use of the term “community of nations” instead of “civilized nations” in draft conclusion 2, noting that the latter term does not reflect the reality of the current society.  Also reiterating support for general principles being derived not only from national but also from international legal systems, she recognized the principles stemming from regional organizations.  In draft conclusion 5, paragraph 3, she said she agreed with the comment that national laws and decisions of national courts should be understood in the broadest terms, encompassing different legal systems. Turning to draft conclusion 12, she underlined the idea that the criteria for resolving conflicts of law are applicable to general principles, although other types of criteria may also be applicable as well.  Underscoring the Statute of the Court does not establish any hierarchy for the sources, which are systemically interrelated, she said that it allows for different legal effects.

Turning to “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, she emphasized that this phenomenon should be recognized as a scientifically demonstrated fact in the Commission.  Hence, its international legal obligations are not restricted solely to the law of the sea but also reflect a vast array of disciplines and sources, which converge in a multidimensional analysis of this phenomenon, she added.  She further expressed concern about the comment in chapter VII, paragraph 142, encouraging the Study Group to consider the existence of regimes based on historic titles or norms of customary international law applicable to geological formations that are not described under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Regarding “Other decisions and conclusions of the Commission”, she welcomed the decision to set up a Planning Group to consider the Commission’s programme, procedures and working methods, as well as encouraging dialogue and exchange of good practices to that end.  She also voiced support for the Commission’s recommendation to hold the first part of its seventy-seventh session in New York in 2026.

VILIAMI VA’INGA TŌNĒ (Tonga), aligning himself with the Pacific Islands Forum and the Alliance of Small Island States, focused on “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”.  Agreeing that sea-level rise “poses an existential threat” that requires certain, stable baselines and maritime zones, he added that climate change remains such a threat to people’s livelihoods, security and well-being.  The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea must be interpreted and applied in a way that respects the rights and sovereignty of vulnerable small island States, he stressed, underlining the need to preserve baselines and outer limits of maritime zones — and their entitlements — despite rising sea levels resulting from climate change.  The maritime zones of Pacific States that are delineated pursuant to the Convention should not be challenged or reduced due to that phenomenon.  Further, there is no obligation under that instrument to either keep baselines and outer limits of maritime zones under review or to update charts or lists of geographic coordinates once deposited with the Secretary-General.

THEODOULOS PITTAKIS (Cyprus), aligning himself with the European Union, addressed “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, noting that his island State is mindful of the severity of the consequences anticipated from the phenomenon.  Legal stability, in particular concerning baselines and maritime zones, is vital for the preservation of the rights of coastal States under international law.  He affirmed that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not forbid nor exclude the fixing or freezing of baselines, and, in doing so, preserving the maritime zones of coastal States.  Thus, coastal States may designate permanent baselines pursuant to article 16 to withstand any subsequent regression of the low-water line caused by the climate-induced sea-level rise, in conformity with the Convention, that aim at safeguarding coastal States’ legal entitlements in light of the ongoing, worrisome developments generated by climate change. Moreover, baselines must be permanent and not ambulatory so as to achieve greater predictability on maritime boundaries.

YOUSSEF HITTI (Lebanon), emphasizing the Commission’s key role in combating impunity for mass atrocities, said that such atrocities are still being perpetrated against the people of Palestine.  He also noted the need to strengthen cooperation between the Commission and the Sixth Committee, recalling a suggestion to hold a briefing for the Committee’s delegates to enhance their preparedness in considering the Commission’s report.  In this context, he welcomed a virtual briefing convened at the end of September to provide an overview of the Commission’s work during its last session. More so, an executive summary of the annual report would be useful, as would be capping the number of topics covered therein, he said.

On “General principles of law”, he noted that the draft conclusions will provide useful guidance to States, international organizations and jurisdictions, but also to anyone called upon to use the principles as a source of international law.  Drawing attention to the category of principles formed within the international legal system and the divergent views of States on their existence, he stressed the need to avoid confusing general principles of law and customary international law.  Ensuring the diversity of legal systems is essential for a more representative and more just international legal system, he said, commending the inclusive approach in draft conclusion 5.  Draft conclusion 11 provides an important clarification on the relationships between general principles of law and treaties and customary international law, in particular on the absence of hierarchy and the recognition of coexistence between them.

Turning to “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, he emphasized that, eventually, because of the phenomenon’s multifaceted consequences, the international community as a whole will have to grapple with it.  It is important to ensure legal stability, certainty and predictability, especially pertaining to maritime zones.  Also vital is to preserve the integrity of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the stability provided by its rules, while relying on State practice when necessary.  Drawing attention to the Study Group’s proposal to possibly convene a meeting of State parties to the Convention to facilitate its interpretation, he also called for developing a roadmap as well as defining the form, content and expected results of the final report, to be delivered in 2025.

AZELA GUERRERO ARUMPAC-MARTE (Philippines), speaking on “General principles of law”, expressed agreement with draft conclusion 1 and welcomed the use of term “community of nations” in draft conclusion 2.  Turning to draft conclusion 3, she pointed out that article 38, paragraph 1(c), of the Statute of the Court, which contemplates two categories of general principles, is consistent with her country’s practice.  Detailing her observations relating to draft conclusions 4, 5, 6 and 7, she quoted Judge McNair in the individual opinion of the South West Africa case:  “The way in which international law borrows from this source is not by means of importing private law institutions lock, stock and barrel, ready-made and fully equipped with a set of rules.  It would be difficult to reconcile such a process with the application of the general principles of law.”  Further, she welcomed draft conclusion 8 and expressed support for the understanding that the word “teachings” under draft conclusion 9 refers to “writings” and teachings in non-written form.

With regard to “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, she said that the exchange of views with the Co-Chair’s observations indicate that the Commission is listening and reacting to Member States’ comments, adding:  “We appreciate this dialogue, in written form, with the Commission.”  She also noted that nations should approach the issue of sea-level rise on the basis of legal stability, security, certainty and predictability in international law.  She welcomed the pragmatic approach of States regarding the issue of “legal stability” in relation to sea-level rise with a focus on baselines and maritime zones.  Noting that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is a mechanism for regulating climate change and its consequences, she said that its mandate is broad enough to consider the connection between climate and oceans. Pointing to the South China Sea Arbitration Ruling and reiterating the Philippines’ possession in this regard, she said that this ruling is a confirmation of the dispute mechanism under the Convention.  It not only sets reason and right in the South China Sea but serves as an inspiration of how such matters should be considered, she added.

Turning to “Other decisions and conclusions of the Commission”, she welcomed the Commission’s decision to include “Non-legally binding international agreements” in its work programme, also noting the decision of the Planning Group to establish a Working Group on the Commission’s long-term programme of work for the quinquennium.

LOUREEN O. A. SAYEJ, observer for the State of Palestine, said that it is “ridiculous and absurd” that Israel believes it can come into international forums and legalize the illegal, rationalize the starvation of millions, justify a medieval siege and explain why ethnic cleansing is a necessity.  “An occupying Power paints itself as a champion of the rule of law while it is singlehandedly contributing to its demise,” she stated.  Israel shows the world every day how little it cares for international law and the international community, she said, observing that “once we remove the principles of humanity and distinction from the laws of war, nothing remains”.  Recalling a recent statement by Israel’s representative that Palestinians are sub-human, she said that those present surely “do not believe our lives are less worthy” and do not believe that international law is optional.  “You do recognize, however, that what Israel is doing endangers all of us,” she said.

Turning to “General principles of law”, she said that such principles are expressions of both national legal systems and international rules and principles.  They represent the “common denominator” of the community of nations and ensure the evolutionary character of international law.  They are not limited to gap-filling.  Rather, they are intrinsic to the international legal system and complement — not supplant — customary law.  Welcoming the Commission’s reaffirmation that general principles of law are a source of international law, she said that, while such principles are indications of national legal policies and principles, they are only augmented by international recognition.  She further welcomed the commentary to draft article 7, which outlines an inductive methodology that will analyse relevant treaties, customary rules and other international instruments, such as General Assembly and Security Council resolutions and declarations made at international conferences. 

On “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, she welcomed the Study Group’s identification of the sub-topics of protection of displaced persons and the preservation of States’ legal rights. Noting that the Commission is responding to “unprecedented challenges”, she underlined the applicability of international human rights law, including the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.  “The right to self-determination of peoples affected is unassailable,” she reiterated, adding that “sovereignty lies with the people”.  The State of Palestine’s commitment to the sea — and its solidarity with affected communities — stems from the universality of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and its nature as the main legal framework for all sea-related activities.  She also welcomed the request for an advisory opinion on climate change, which “embodies our conviction that humanity will rise to the challenge by clarifying the obligations that lie upon us today”.

GABRIELE CACCIA, Permanent Observer for the Holy See, addressing “General Principles of Law”, advised caution in promoting an approach that at times appears to place undue emphasis on the empirical analysis of State practice and judicial decisions.  The diverse nature of the various legal principles affects the drafting of conclusion 10, on their “functions”.  He noted that the function of a principle such as the sovereign equality among States, that establishes the basis structure of the international community, is vastly different from that of a judicial rule such as the compétence-compétence principle.  While the latter is invoked only when no other rules are available, the former — those principles of an almost constitutional nature — underpin the entire application of international law.  He recalled that the same issue arises with regard to conclusion 11, concerning the hierarchy of the sources of law. 

Turning to “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, he stressed the growing urgency of the issue, as rising sea levels threaten about a quarter of humankind, affecting the habitability of low-lying regions and even the existence of entire States.  The legal and technical aspects of sea-level rise are complex, and the intricacies of identifying effective solutions underscore the pressing need for decisive international action.  As mentioned in paragraph 138 of the report, sea-level rise has led to the emergence of new concepts, such as “climate displacement”, “climate refugees” and “climate statelessness”, which have not yet been defined in international law.  However, he noted that ensuring the protection of affected persons requires greater conceptual clarity.  This is crucial to address effectively the unique challenges posed by climate-induced displacement, and to enable more targeted and comprehensive legal responses to safeguard the rights of those impacted by environmental change. 

ANA GOMEZ HEREDERO, representative of the Council of Europe, speaking on “Other decisions and conclusions”, reported that the topic “Non-legally binding international agreements” has also been on the agenda of the Council’s Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law since 2021.  The Committee’s first step was to prepare a detailed questionnaire on the practice of States and international organizations regarding non-legally binding agreements.  Hitherto, over 30 replies were received.  The Committee is also considering organizing a practical workshop with a view to discussing the existing material, addressing open issues and clarifying what future action could be taken.  Another common topic is the “Settlement of international disputes to which international organizations are parties”.  The Committee developed a questionnaire thereon as well, handling the data as confidential.  In September, a decision was taken to lift the confidentiality of replies, she said. 

MARCELO VÁZQUEZ-BERMÚDEZ (Ecuador), Special Rapporteur on “General principles of law”, thanked delegations for their statements on this topic and assured them that all comments, observations and suggestions will be considered for submission to the Commission ahead of its second reading of comments and conclusions in 2025.  Noting that the high number of delegations that participated in this debate is “proof of the importance States have given to clarifying this issue”, he thanked them for their constructive input.

BOGDAN AURESCU (Romania), Co-Chair of the Study Group on the topic “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, said that all nuances expressed by Member States — especially those urging caution or offering guidance on the Commission’s work — will be duly considered. Welcoming Member States’ ever-growing interest on this topic — demonstrated by a constantly increasing number of statements in the Sixth Committee, higher this session than the last — he thanked all delegations for their support.

Right of Reply

The representative of Israel, speaking in the exercise of the right of reply, said that the delegate of the State of Palestine disseminated incomplete information and exaggerated figures, adding:  “If her genuine concern lies with the well-being of the Palestinian population in Gaza, we recommend that her remarks be directed to Hamas, whose gruesome actions and use of civilian population of Gaza as ‘human shields’ greatly affect the situation on the ground.”  She pointed out that Israel’s authorities released intelligence proving that Hamas-made headquarters are stationed in tunnels and under Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza city. 

Cluster 2 Statements

ANDRÉ BOUQUET, representative of the European Union, in accordance with resolution 65/276 and in its capacity as observer, addressed “Settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties”, noting the choice of the Commission to modify the topic from “Settlement of international disputes to which organizations are parties” to “Settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties”. This change enlarges the scope of the exercise in order to cover any issues of international public law that may arise in national disputes where the international organizations are faced with legal disputes with private parties.  He recalled that, while the bloc has been established by international public law instruments, it has developed a sui generis legal order. Any internal disputes (between two or more member States or between one or more member State and the bloc’s institutions) in relation to European law fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

FRANK HOFFMEISTER, representative of the European Union, in accordance with resolution 65/276 and in its capacity as observer, addressed “Prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea”, underlining the evolving security threats, which require actions guided by a cross-sectoral approach, respect for international law and maritime multilateralism. On 25 January 2021, the European Union launched the first pilot of the new Coordinated Maritime Presences concept in the Gulf of Guinea off the coast of West Africa, thereby strengthening its role as a global maritime security provider, in close cooperation with African partners of the organization of the Yaoundé Architecture. He recalled that the Security Council commended the efforts of the Naval Operation EUNAVFOR ATALANTA, its mission being to suppress piracy and to protect ships cruising off the coast of Somalia.  The Council also welcomed the European Union’s Capacity Building Mission in Somalia, which assists that State in strengthening its maritime security capacity in order to enable it to enforce maritime law more effectively.

WIETEKE ELISABETH CHRISTINA THEEUWEN (Netherlands), speaking on “Settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties”, noted that the Commission’s decision not to include the word “international” before the word “dispute” in draft guideline 1 makes it clear that the draft guidelines encompass all kinds of disputes to which international organizations are parties. Noting that this decision enables disputes of a private law character to fall within the scope of the draft guidelines, she also welcomed the amended title of the topic.  She then noted that, in many cases, the immunity of international organizations prevents individuals who have suffered harm from conduct of such an organization to bring a claim before the court.  She encouraged the Commission to strengthen the dispute settlement mechanisms of a private law character, to which an international organization is a party.

Turning to “Prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea”, she welcomed the Commission’s decision not to alter any rules set forth in existing treaties, particularly the decision to preserve the integrity of the definition of piracy, as contained in article 101 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  She observed that draft article 2, paragraph 1, is a duplication of article 101 of the Convention, noting that the definition omits the substance of article 102, which pertains to acts of piracy committed by a warship, Government ship or Government aircraft. To this end, she requested a clarification for this omission.

ANDREI POPKOV (Belarus), on “Settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties”, welcomed a comprehensive study of this topic.  However, the Commission should prioritize consideration of approaches to settle disputes that arise between States and international organizations and between such organizations and their own organs.  There is no homogeneous legal practice for addressing such disputes, he pointed out, emphasizing that an absence of settlements in this context could hamper cooperation and undermine trust between international organizations and their member States.  Modern international organizations enter into contractual relations and engage in financial activity that could give rise to contentious situations and, thus, special settlement procedures are needed.  He also called for a comprehensive analysis of situations involving unequal legal status between parties to a dispute, adding that the immunities enjoyed by international organizations should not result in the denial of justice to legal or natural persons when justice can be done without seriously damaging such organizations’ functioning.

Turning to “Prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea”, he pointed out that, while piracy is being considered in the context of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, no international legal instrument governs armed robbery at sea. As such, he suggested that the Commission prepare a report on specialized international organizations’ practical application of the rules of international law in this context. Noting that piracy can be committed on the high seas and, therefore, that the principle of universal jurisdiction applies, he called on the Commission to detail how States bear responsibility for prosecuting such crime.  He added that modern piracy and armed robbery at sea involve unmanned vehicles and cyberattacks at sea and in the air, which must be taken into account when defining these crimes.  Regardless, the Commission’s product on this topic should create conditions for close cooperation between States in combating these crimes.

DUC HANH LE (Viet Nam), taking up “Settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties”, expressed agreement with the commentaries of draft guideline 1 that note it is not feasible to design across-the-board draft articles that may eventually form the basis for a treaty and that it is necessary to restate the existing practices of international organizations concerning the settlement of their disputes. However, given the extreme divergence with regard to the nature of the disputes, the parties to them and the available settlement mechanisms, she suggested that a set of conclusions should be drawn from the practices, before the second stage, with consideration to developing guidelines intended to direct States, international organizations and other users to answers that are consistent with existing rules or that seem most appropriate for contemporary practice.  On guideline 2, she noted there seems to be no doubt that international organization may include States and international organizations.

Turning to “Prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea”, she said armed robbery and piracy pose serious threats to global maritime security, as they jeopardize the safety of seafarers, vessels and the uninterrupted flow of international trade.  She emphasized the shared recognition of the imperative and expediency in advancing the codification and development of international regulations in this realm.  In spite of some divergence in the definitions of piracy in international treaties and domestic laws, she noted that the following can be agreed:  First, measures preventing and repressing piracy should be comprehensive, in line with the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals; and second, obligations of cooperation in addressing piracy should be highlighted.  She further called for the depoliticization of piracy; priority for prosecution given to the flag State of the ship victim, but also the State of the offender’s nationality; and compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.