Sixth Committee Speakers Debate Codifying Draft Articles on Protecting Persons in Event of Disasters, Balance between States’ Rights, Affected Population

As the Sixth Committee (Legal) today began consideration of the International Law Commission’s draft articles on the protection of persons in the event of disasters, speakers diverged over whether that product appropriately balanced the need to protect the rights of those affected by a disaster against those of the State in which it occurred, and if an international legal framework should be elaborated based on those texts.

Speaking for the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), the representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines voiced concern that protection from disasters is comprised of soft law — non-binding instruments elaborated at the intergovernmental level or by private entities.  Establishing an international legal framework governing this area, therefore, is one of the main challenges meriting the Committee’s consideration.

Similarly, the representative of Jamaica, speaking for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), observed that — prior to the development of the draft articles — this area of law was “encumbered by a plethora of international instruments” that addressed specific issues in a fragmented way.  A legally binding instrument would facilitate the global support necessary to address calamitous events, he stressed, welcoming the draft articles’ attempt to strike a balance between the provision of humanitarian assistance and respect for State sovereignty.

Also noting that efforts to respond to disasters are still fragmented, Thailand’s representative urged the international community to take the next step to fill the lacuna in international law.  She joined others in stating that a convention on this topic would also address human rights and protect human dignity, adding that it would serve as a reminder that these principles “do not cease to exist during disasters”.  She also said the draft articles strike a balance between upholding State sovereignty and protecting human rights.

In that vein, the representative of Denmark, also speaking for Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, said that the draft articles strike an adequate balance between the rights and obligations of the affected States and those of assisting actors.  Further, they reflect the dual nature of sovereignty as entailing both rights and obligations.

However, Equatorial Guinea’s delegate pointed out that Africa has been a victim of politicized humanitarian assistance, which only exacerbated the situation and destabilized the affected country in the long run.  She therefore underlined the need to respect the principles of sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs.  Requesting assistance should be a right rather than an obligation.

Adding to that, the representative of Burkina Faso underscored that, while an international convention could be an excellent tool to address a fragmented system, humanitarian assistance should not be used for manipulation or as a pretext to interfere in domestic affairs.  “No people hit by natural disasters should be discriminated against,” he said.

Iran’s representative, as well, noted that the draft articles fail to address the effects of unilateral coercive measures that prevent targeted States from addressing and responding to disasters.  He emphasized that the affected State has the exclusive right to determine the severity of the disaster and assess its response capacities, underscoring that all assistance must be provided in response to that State’s request.

Along those lines, the representative of Australia, also speaking for Canada and New Zealand, said:  “We cannot underestimate the value-add of domestic law and policy measures, as well as regional initiatives, which can offer more flexible and agile solutions in the face of disasters.”  Noting divergent views on key draft articles, she reiterated that the affected State maintains the primary role in preventing and responding to disasters.

While regional and international disaster relief cooperation deepens ties between nations and peoples, Israel’s representative stressed that this matter should not be framed in terms of legal rights and duties.  The draft articles should remain as guidelines for international cooperation undertaken on a voluntary basis and, in this context, he detailed his country’s disaster assistance to Türkiye, Ecuador and Tonga.

The representative of Syria also highlighted the importance of international cooperation in disaster response, which should not be interpreted as allowing the central role of the affected State to be marginalized or its sovereignty undermined.  Further, the draft articles should have included a provision on lifting unilateral coercive measures such as those that compromised Syria’s ability to respond to the devastating earthquake earlier this year, he said.

Nonetheless, Croatia’s representative, while observing that it is understandable, natural and human for delegations to take the floor to spotlight the last disastrous event in their country or region, emphasized:  “It is necessary to remember that we are here today to see the bigger picture.”  Underscoring that “we are all equally vulnerable”, he expressed support for the elaboration of a convention based on the draft articles.

At the outset of the meeting, the Sixth Committee concluded its debate on measures to eliminate international terrorism.  (For background, see Press Releases GA/L/3685 and GA/L/3686.)  Expressing support for the convening of a high-level conference on this topic, the representative of Malawi said:  “There is more that unites us as the United Nations than divides us.  The time to harness that synergy is now.”

The Sixth Committee will meet next at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, 5 October, to conclude its consideration on the protection of persons in the event of disasters.

Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism-Statements

TIGRAN GALSTYAN (Armenia) noted that the rise of hate speech, xenophobia and polarization has created fertile ground for the recruitment of terrorists.  That is particularly relevant for societies that, for decades, have been subject to State propaganda of hatred on ethnic and religious grounds and where hate crimes perpetrators have been glorified.  He noted that the Working Group on the use of mercenaries reported on the recruitment of foreign terrorist fighters from Syria to support the armed forces of Azerbaijan during the 2020 hostilities.  This has prompted Armenia to accede to the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. In addition, the country’s Parliament has also recently ratified the Rome Stature.  Condemning attempts to justify military violence by framing it as a counter-terrorism operation, he said that the use of force by Azerbaijan caused hundreds of casualties and the displacement of over 100,000 Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh.  This was preceded by a 10-month long blockade and use of starvation as a method of warfare, demonstrating an intent to commit ethnic cleansing, he stressed.

CLEMENT AMAMAI DIMA NAMANGALE (Malawi), associating himself with the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, said that terrorism knows no borders and, hence, international cooperation is key to deal with it effectively.  As such, the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy forms a good basis to that end. Noting that his Government has developed a national counter-terrorism strategy to guide the relevant institutions in combatting terrorism, he spotlighted the importance of technical assistance.  In this regard, the country is engaging with the United Nations Office on Counter-Terrorism. It is also building capacity to deter all forms of this scourge through domesticating international law and committing to policy guidelines; sharing information and best practices; and suffocating illegal money flows that finance such acts.  In addition, the Government provides civic education to citizens and adopts preventing strategies to stop attacks, while also promoting the justice and economic pillars of development for averting crimes of need.  Expressing support for the convening of a high-level conference, he added: “There is more that unites us as the United Nations than divides us.  The time to harness that synergy is now.”

TANIA ROMUALDO (Cabo Verde), pointing out that her country’s geographic location is conducive to money-laundering and terrorist financing, said the Ministry of Justice started addressing this issue with university students in 2022.  Impressed upon them is the fact that the State must collaborate with the international community in the common fight against terrorism in a preventive manner. One of the most important aspects in the fight against terrorism is the strengthening of cooperation at the global level, she said, calling for bolstered diplomatic relations and joint strategies at the bilateral, regional and global levels.  Reiterating the challenge posed by her country’s geographic location — namely, that criminal organizations are eager to take advantage of its fragility and lack of means for proper monitoring — she said that the Government prioritizes the prevention of terrorism within the country and of the use of its national territory as a “springboard” for the practice of terrorism elsewhere.

JOSÉ EDUARDO PEREIRA SOSA (Paraguay) underscored that while terrorism takes many forms, it is always characterized by its indifference towards innocent victims and the suffering it inflicts on societies.  To tackle the menace, international cooperation is essential, including disseminating good practices, exchanging experience and information, as well as transferring technologies.  Acknowledging the importance of capacity-building to ensure effective responses of States, he called for exploring areas of cooperation between United Nations entities and relevant national authorities.  For its part, Paraguay will continue to comply with international law in preventing and countering all aspects of terrorism.  To this end, his country is a signatory to a significant number of international counter-terrorism instruments negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations that are implemented through national legislation.  Welcoming the eighth review of the Global Counter-Terrorism strategy, he expressed support for negotiating and adopting a legally binding convention on international terrorism. 

ALINA J. LLANO (Nicaragua), associating herself with the Non-Aligned Movement, the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), said that States must denounce the double-standards of imperialist and neo-colonialist countries.  Through their interference in the domestic affairs of States, such nations promote State terrorism and destabilizing actions to topple legitimate Governments in developing countries, she noted, recalling that 37 years ago the International Court of Justice handed down a ruling condemning the United States for State terrorism.  She pointed out that Nicaragua remains a regional driver of stability and a “retaining wall” against drugs trafficking and terrorism, supported by its family and community-based model.  Expressing support for a convention on international terrorism, she welcomed the adoption of the eighth review of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. Further, she condemned unilateral coercive measures that block access to resources to combat the menace, reiterating that Nicaragua continues to forge a culture of peace with positive indicators in gender equality, public safety and poverty eradication.

MARIAM SAO (Mauritania), associating herself with the African Group, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Non-Aligned Movement, said that terrorism — as a global threat – affects the United Nations’ work in areas including sustainable development, human rights and humanitarian affairs.  In Mauritania, a tradition of tolerance yields an approach linking robust military and security measures with a policy focused on development.  Towns have been built in rural areas that might otherwise be used by terrorists.  These towns aim to bring together local populations and provide basic services such as water, electricity, education, health care and transportation infrastructure. She also spotlighted the important role played by the Group of Five for the Sahel (G5 Sahel), which her country currently chairs.  Reporting that Mauritania has demonstrated solidarity with its neighbours through its hosting of more than 100,000 Malian refugees, she emphasized that the G5 Sahel is the best forum for dealing with terrorism in the region.  She also detailed national measures to combat illegal financial flows.

MAJED BAMYA, Deputy Permanent Observer for the State of Palestine, associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement and OIC, said that the gravest form of terrorism is subjecting an entire nation to this scourge by denying its right to self-determination, security, safety and freedom. The State of Palestine is subject to terror imposed by Israeli occupation forces as well as State-sanctioned settler terrorism, with full impunity and in breach of international law.  Against this backdrop, his country has recently enacted laws targeting settler organizations, their enablers, financiers and individuals who commit or are complicit in acts of terrorism or coercion against the Palestinian people.  Commending the international community for its firm stance against Israel’s attack on the global and Palestinian human rights movement, he called for translating it into protection of Palestinian civil society and human rights defenders. “We cannot accept a world in which bigotry is unacceptable except if it targets Muslims and Islam,” he said.

ROBERT DAVID MURPHY, an observer for the Holy See, stressed that any effective response to terrorism must be grounded on the rule of law.  States must scrupulously respect their obligations under international law, including human rights treaties, international humanitarian law and international refugee law, especially when enacting counterterrorism measures, to ensure that the fundamental freedoms and the dignity of all persons are upheld.  Although some extremists exploit religious identity to divide societies and encourage the radicalization of the disenfranchised, terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality or ethnicity, he stated, underscoring the need to build a culture of dialogue and to redouble efforts to “rediscover our common humanity as the basis for human fraternity”. Further, any effective response to terrorism must address material injustice, including inequality and deprivation, which can create conditions ripe for exploitation by terrorist groups, he added.

PIERRE APRAXINE, the International Committee of the Red Cross, noted the important steps taken by the European Union and the African Union to limit the negative consequences of counter-terrorism measures on impartial humanitarian activities.  In that regard, some Member States have also adopted measures at the domestic level to protect the humanitarian space from unwanted consequences of counter-terrorism measures, notably through the inclusion of humanitarian exemptions in their counter-terrorism criminal laws.  However, only a limited number of Member States have adopted such humanitarian exemptions and more efforts have still to be undertaken.  Humanitarian activities exempted under UN financial sanctions must no longer be considered as criminal offenses under counter-terrorism criminal legislation, he added, noting that the ICRC looks forward to continued discussions with States and with UN bodies to strike the proper balance between counter-terrorism measures and the urgent need for impartial humanitarian action.

Right of Reply

The representative of Israel, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said it is ironic that the Palestinians — of all people — chose to speak only about their victims of terrorism, while completely ignoring their designated terrorist organizations.  Noting that “people who live in glass houses should not throw stones”, he said that the State of Palestine attempted to advance its “narrow agenda” to divert the important subject of the meeting.

The representative of Azerbaijan, also speaking in exercise of the right of reply”, rejected Armenia’s statement as “false and irresponsible”.  He pointed out that Yerevan is trying to groundlessly blame Azerbaijan for offences that it itself has repeatedly committed since the late 1980s and in the subsequent aggression against his country.   What Armenia calls “military attacks against a peaceful population” on September 19 and 20, were local counter-terrorism measures lasting less than 24 hours and taken by Baku on its sovereign soil in response to systematic armed provocations, targeting military objects.

The observer for the State of Palestine said that the words of Israel’s representative — “Palestinians, of all people” — encompasses all the arrogance and racism of the occupier.  “Israel only recognizes us as a people when they are attacking us,” he noted, also recalling that the Prime Minister of Israel recently stood in the General Assembly — “of all places” — and held up a map denying the existence of the Palestinian people.  Noting that such people have endured dispossession, displacement and denial of their rights for over 70 years, he said that this “is the worst form of terrorism possible”.  He also recalled that the representative of Israel said that there was no justification for terrorism, asking:  “Then what have you been doing for 75 years?”

The representative of Armenia said that Azerbaijan is using the Sixth Committee as a platform to justify a deliberate act of aggression that resulted in the exodus of the entire Indigenous Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh.  The international legal system exists so that no State feels entitled to intentionally inflict harm on civilian populations.  Using starvation as a method of warfare, wilfully impeding humanitarian aid and engaging in ethnic cleansing are not sovereign rights.  He underscored that, regardless of the pretext advanced by Azerbaijan on this or any other agenda item, the response is the same – there is no acceptable justification for ethnic cleansing, and “to think otherwise is to challenge the foundations of international law”.

The representative of Israel underscored that the Sixth Committee must remain professional.  It is not a suitable forum for political statements.

The representative of Azerbaijan noted that the comments made by Armenia’s delegate are illustrative of his country’s attempts to deny its policy of aggression, hatred and terrorism.  Armenia portrays itself as an eternal victim, but this cannot conceal its image as a persistent violator of international law and supporter of terrorism.  It is important that the international community insists on accountability for the war that Armenia unleashed, he said, pointing out that there is compelling evidence of Armenia’s terrorist activities, including the use of mercenaries and foreign terrorist fighters against Azerbaijan.  Durable and lasting peace cannot be achieved through insults, hatred and disinformation, he said.

The observer for the State of Palestine pointed out that the Sixth Committee is not a technical forum.  More so, international law is an applied science and not a theoretical exercise, he said, stressing:  “When we speak about terrorism, we speak informed by our experiences.”

The representative of Armenia said that the remarks by the representative of Azerbaijan demonstrate the deliberate and pre-planned nature of its military actions against Nagorno-Karabakh and an intentional nature of its results.  Pointing to the definition of “ethnic cleansing” in the UN system, he reminded the representative of Azerbaijan that certain crimes have no statute of limitations. Perpetrators will face justice.

Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters — Statements

MARVIN IKONDERE (Uganda), speaking for the African Group, said that the International Law Commission’s product on the protection of persons in the event of disasters is a valuable contribution to fill the gap in this area.  He expressed concern, however, over the frequency and severity of natural disasters — many of which are exacerbated by climate change — and over their damaging impacts on societies.  The number and scale of such disasters has resulted in massive loss of life, food insecurity, water-related challenges, displacement, humanitarian needs and long-term negative economic, social and environmental consequences.  Further, their impact is more severe in African countries that suffer lack of early warning capacity.  Moving forward, it is important to consider how to avert — or reduce to a minimum — the impact of disasters, to streamline humanitarian aid and to avoid politicizing such assistance.

More so, natural disasters often strike developing countries the hardest, he continued, stressing the need for international cooperation in the form of humanitarian assistance.  The international community must also address the obstacles that limit States from adequately preparing for and responding to the devastating effects of disasters.  On that, he emphasized that lack of capacity and necessary resources to address these phenomena poses a serious challenge for the Group, exacerbated by some States’ use of unilateral coercive measures.  He therefore spotlighted resolutions of the African Union, Human Rights Council and General Assembly condemning unilateral extraterritorial coercive economic measures and called on all States not to recognize such acts.  Adding that the Group takes note of the Commission’s recommendation to elaborate a convention based on the draft articles on this agenda item, he welcomed discussions thereon in the Sixth Committee.

HAYLEY-ANN MARK (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines), speaking for the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), underscored that the protection of people, their human dignity and well-being should be at the centre of all humanitarian cooperation and assistance measures.  This is especially important given that, despite some multilateral agreements and a much larger number of bilateral treaties on mutual assistance, the legally relevant instruments are limited and not uniform.  In this context, she expressed concern that protection from disasters is comprised of soft law, non-binding instruments elaborated at the intergovernmental level and also by private institutions and entities, stressing that elaboration of an international legal framework becomes one of the main challenges that merits the Sixth Committee’s consideration.

She also welcomed the adoption of a General Assembly resolution that decided to continue the consideration of the draft articles of the International Law Commission, expressing support for the possible establishment of an international conference of plenipotentiaries to elaborate a convention or take any other action on the basis of those articles.  This process should take into account the views, comments and observations expressed in the Sixth Committee’s debates and working groups.  The adoption of an international legal instrument would make a significant contribution to the harmonization of measures and protocols for effectively addressing the underlying causes of disasters and the current high levels of vulnerability.  It would also strengthen disaster risk reduction and management efforts at every stage, she said.

THOMAS RAMOPOULOS, representative of the European Union, speaking in its capacity as observer, said that in its external action for disaster relief, the bloc assists populations, countries and regions confronting natural or human-caused disasters and promotes multilateral cooperation and global governance.  One pillar of the Union’s disaster relief framework covers humanitarian aid, while the other addresses civil protection, he noted, spotlighting the European Union Civil Protection Mechanism that coordinates the response to disasters among all 27 member States.  It also covers the phases of disaster prevention, preparedness and response. Detailing several civil protection operations in Türkiye, Syria, Canada, Libya, Pakistan and Ukraine, he said that the Union’s internal disaster relief framework and the existing international frameworks, including the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, have guided the bloc’s engagement.

Turning to the related draft articles, he emphasized that the affected State has the primary responsibility to provide disaster relief, noting that, overall, the draft articles strike an appropriate balance between the need to safeguard the national sovereignty of affected States and the need for international cooperation.  He stressed that in situations of armed conflict, international humanitarian law takes precedence as lex specialis.  Furthermore, it is important that the draft articles aim to meet the essential needs of persons affected by disasters while complying fully with their rights.  Recognizing the important role of regional organizations in disaster relief, he said it would ensure legal clarity to add a reference to such organizations in the definition of “other assisting actor” in the draft articles.

BRIAN CHRISTOPHER MANLEY WALLACE, speaking for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), noted that, as the international community works to secure the planet for future generations, the question of the protection of persons in the event of disasters “becomes even more relevant”. The global push to elaborate a convention based on the draft articles is justified by the prevalence of natural disasters, which upend lives and livelihoods.  He also pointed out that, prior to the development of the draft articles, this area of law was “encumbered by a plethora of international instruments” that addressed specific issues in a fragmented way.  There is therefore value in elaborating a well-crafted, clearly articulated flagship instrument, and the draft articles provide a solid basis on which to do so.

He also pointed out that, for small island developing States, the quest for sustainable development has been stalled by recurring natural disasters.  For CARICOM’s member States, economic vulnerability to these shocks is a direct result of small population size, geographic location, limited resources and undiversified economies.  Thus, welcoming a legally binding instrument, he pointed out that it would create an established framework for global support necessary in the event of calamitous events resulting in widespread loss of life, great human suffering, mass displacement or large-scale material or environmental damage.  It would also confirm the centrality of respecting the human dignity of persons affected by disasters, particularly vulnerable persons in vulnerable situations.  Further, he welcomed the draft articles’ attempt to strike a balance between the provision of humanitarian assistance and respect for State sovereignty.

EGRISELDA ARACELY GONZÁLEZ LÓPEZ (El Salvador), speaking for the Central American Integration System, said that her region is highly vulnerable to natural hazards, such as forest fires, floods, droughts, tropical storms, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes.  These are becoming more intense, she observed, drawing attention to two previous years’ hurricanes that caused over 200 deaths and damages exceeding $2.6 billion.  Such disasters affect the region’s structural poverty indices, population growth, economic development, rapid and uncontrolled urbanization, as well as environmental degradation.  Against this backdrop, the region-wide Coordination Centre for the Prevention of Disasters in Central America and the Dominican Republic was established with a mandate to promote activities, projects and programmes that lead to the reduction of risks of disasters that cause human and economic losses caused by socio-natural factors. 

Turning to the absence of an international legal framework, she acknowledged an urgent need for its development.  The process should pay attention to facilitating a response and reducing disaster risk, effectively and adequately meeting the essential needs of affected individuals while fully respecting their rights and human dignity.  The consideration of the draft articles and their eventual implementation should be accompanied by commitments made in other relevant intergovernmental fora, such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. However, she expressed concern over that Framework’s uneven and insufficient implementation.  Given the growing global interdependence, a timely and adequate humanitarian assistance as well as means of its implementation are required to achieve comprehensive disaster risk reduction at all levels, she said. 

LUCIA TERESA SOLANO RAMIREZ (Colombia), also speaking for Croatia, Italy, Jamaica, Nigeria and Thailand, said that the increasing number of disasters around the world, experienced especially — but not only — in developing countries, is the result of complex emergencies and crises, where the human factor is pushing nature to its limits.  Noting that the Sixth Committee — representing the whole international community — will have the possibility to examine the draft articles, one by one, she recognized that there will be different views and different perspectives on their future.  “Those different views and perspectives did not prevent us in 2021 from establishing an innovative and outcome-oriented process,” she pointed out, spotlighting its consensual manner. 

Questioning whether Member States, the United Nations and relevant actors are well prepared from a legal perspective to address the humanitarian consequences of a disaster-prone world, she said that in the view of “our countries” — coming from all regions of the world — launching the process of negotiating a convention on the protection of persons in the event of disaster will be complementary to and in line with the political commitments during the Mid-Term Review of the Sendai Framework.  These commitments also include the establishment of sound regulatory and legal frameworks at all levels, she added. 

ERIK LAURSEN (Denmark), also speaking for Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, said that the increasing frequency of natural and human-made disasters — including extreme weather, viruses and other hazards — makes this agenda item highly topical.  International cooperation on disaster relief, humanitarian assistance and protection must be further strengthened.  In that regard, the draft articles constitute a framework for disaster risk reduction and international cooperation in disaster response. Further, they strike an adequate balance between the rights and obligations of the affected State and those of assisting actors.  “By providing that external assistance in principle requires the consent of the affected state — but that such external assistance shall not be withheld arbitrarily — the draft articles reflect the dual nature of sovereignty as entailing both rights and obligations,” he said. 

He also said that the draft articles reflect the centrality of the principle of human dignity and recall States’ duty to respect, protect and fulfil human rights.  Further, he emphasized the importance of integrating a gender and vulnerability perspective to ensure affected populations’ access to assistance and protection without discrimination.  Stressing that the importance of prevention cannot be overstated, he spotlighted draft article 9, which reflects States’ obligation to reduce risks by taking appropriate measures to prevent, mitigate and prepare for disasters.  He added that the countries for whom he speaks remain ready to further consider the International Law Commission’s recommendation to elaborate a convention based on the draft articles.

ALEXANDRA HUTCHISON (Australia), also speaking for Canada and New Zealand, noted that the draft articles are a useful first step in considering how States might prepare and respond in disaster situations in a people-centred manner.  Welcoming the opportunity to consider these articles and discuss the extent to which the existing international legal frameworks already provide a basis for effective disaster preparedness, she expressed particular interest in the views of those who are most vulnerable to natural hazards, including Pacific island countries. Initially, the Sixth Committee should first examine how existing international law already supports the protection of persons in the event of disasters, she said, pointing out that many of the draft articles’ objectives are already reflected in current norms.  Reaffirming the application of international human rights law in disaster situations is one example, she noted. Further, the draft articles are linked to the principles of State sovereignty and non-intervention.

“We cannot underestimate the value-add of domestic law and policy measures, as well as regional initiatives, which can offer more flexible and agile solutions in the face of disasters,” she stressed.  Since the publication of the draft articles, there have been ongoing climate change advisory proceedings, as well as work on the protection of persons in the context of sea-level rise.  Against this backdrop, there is a need to ensure cohesion and alignment, especially as there are some divergent views on some key draft articles. There is no agreed international legal definition of disaster and the current one in the draft articles is broad. Reiterating that the affected State maintains the primary lead role in preventing and responding to disasters, she called for finding a delicate balance between sovereignty and international cooperation to protect persons in the event of a disaster.

ANDY ARON (Indonesia) said that his country, positioned upon the volatile Pacific Ring of Fire, has been disproportionately affected by the cataclysmic 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami and the seismic upheaval in Palu in 2018, among other disasters.  Noting that States must switch their paradigm on disaster management from reactive to preventive, and from response to preparedness, he reported that his country has started this shift in 2017 and has crystallized it in the National Plan on Disaster Management.  While the resilience of Jakarta may look different from that of Bali or Lombok, each region's preparedness is equally crucial for the nation's collective strength, he asserted.  Therefore, aligning resilience approaches, climate change adaptation and mitigation and sustainable disaster risks management are the best ingredients for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.  Recognizing that protecting persons in the event of disasters transcends mere survival and encapsulates the ideals of humanity, he urged the Sixth Committee to envisage such protection not in isolation, but as an integral facet of its overarching objectives for sustainable development.  “Our deliberations today indelibly imprint the legacy we bequeath to posterity,” he underscored. 

PEDRO MUNIZ PINTO SLOBODA (Brazil) said that his country is “deeply engaged” in humanitarian assistance and cooperation, recalling Brazil’s humanitarian mission to Canada to support the fight against forest fires at Ottawa’s request.  Further, as co-penholder of the Syrian humanitarian file in the Security Council, Brazil has been guided solely by the humanitarian imperative, which means addressing the basic needs of the Syrian people that have increased dramatically since the February earthquakes.  Underlining the need to find the right balance between the need to protect persons and the fundamental principles of sovereign equality and non-intervention, he stressed that external assistance can never be a pretext for intervention in domestic affairs.  He also welcomed that draft article 13(1) reflects the well-established norm that requires the consent of the affected State for the provision of external assistance, but stated that such assistance should be based not only on consent, but also a public, expressed request from the affected State — preferably in writing. 

CARLA MARIA RODRÍGUEZ MANCIA (Guatemala), aligning herself with CELAC and the Central American Integration System, underscored that, in recent years, her country has seen a worrying increase in the frequency of natural phenomena.  A devastating hurricane and a volcanic eruption have caused loss of lives, destruction of infrastructure and impairment of essential services.  This has a serious effect on social development, she said. Against this backdrop, effective risk management and early warning systems are essential aspects for Guatemala.  Nevertheless, those disasters have allowed the country to build human capital experienced in providing assistance to affected population.  At the national level, Guatemala has established a national coordinator for disaster reduction — a Government mandated entity to prevent and reduce the impact of disasters on society as well as to coordinate rescue and reconstruction efforts.  The coordinator is also responsible for the evaluating potential risks and imminent disasters. “We are convinced that operational guidelines facilitate humanitarian action in emergency situations,” she noted.

ELIZABETH MARYANNE GROSSO (United States), noting that her country is the largest single humanitarian assistance provider worldwide, expressed appreciation for the inclusion of provisions on the protection of personnel providing assistance following disasters.  While the draft articles can contribute to disaster assistance, the definition of “disasters” may be problematic as it does not exclude situations of armed conflict or other political and economic crisis, she said. This approach creates a risk that the draft articles could conflict with international and humanitarian law.  Also expressing concern regarding draft article 13, she said that while the United States agrees in principle that external assistance should normally be delivered with the consent of the affected State, it would be necessary to consider whether the provision of assistance without consent would violate territorial integrity of that State or the principle of non-intervention.  Also noting that the draft articles include numerous assertions of obligations that are not part of international law, she expressed disagreement over the fact that States have a legal obligation to cooperate with the organizations listed in the respective paragraph when responding to disasters, as stated in draft article 7. 

MICHAEL HASENAU (Germany) said that the draft articles form a good basis on which to elaborate a new convention.  They appropriately emphasize the needs of those struck by disasters, as draft articles 4 and 5 state, respectively, that the human dignity of all affected persons must be upheld and that the human rights of such persons must be respected.  He also welcomed the provision in draft article 6 that the needs of the most vulnerable must be taken into account, pointing out that it is “too often forgotten that not all are affected in the same way when disasters occur”.  Further, he welcomed the general understanding of State sovereignty inherent in the draft articles, noting that States bear the responsibility to protect persons in the event of disasters.  As Germany is a regular provider of relief assistance, in this regard, he welcomed that article 16 codifies the affected State’s duty to protect all external relief personnel.

MAURIZIO MASSARI (Italy), aligning himself with the European Union and the statement made by Colombia on behalf of a group of States, underscored that, following recent disasters, his country has provided assistance to Libya and also offered help to Morocco.  Italy is ready to continue supporting recovery based on the requests and needs of the affected States.  As the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events rises, compound natural hazards can overwhelm adaptive capacity and substantially increase damage.  While they disproportionally affect countries with low coastlines and less developed early warning systems, Italy has also recently been hit by disastrous floods, causing deaths and damage.  In this context, international cooperation on disaster preparedness and response requires urgent attention.  The current state of international law shows that this area is commonly regulated through bilateral and regional legally binding instruments. However, a universal convention would fill an important legal gap, he noted. 

LEONOR ZALABATA TORRES (Colombia), associating herself with the group of States for which Colombia spoke earlier and CELAC, said that the draft articles, prepared by the Commission under the leadership of the Special Rapporteur — a Colombian — are a good “starting point”.  Calling attention to the determination by the States of the Global South to establish a regulatory framework, she said it emanates from the fact that existing bilateral and regional mechanisms are disordered, fragmented and sometimes contain contradictory terminology and objectives.  While the draft articles focus on the need to protect those affected by disasters and their rights, they go far beyond managing disasters when they occur and provide provisions to reduce and prevent them, she observed.  To this end, a new legally binding instrument on the basis of the draft articles would facilitate the development of new initiatives and enable more efficient coordination and prevention.  Emphasizing that for her country “this is the right time” to advance such negotiations, she highlighted that a new convention will fill in an important legal gap.

WIETEKE THEEUWEN (Netherlands), aligning herself with the European Union, said that the draft articles help clarify the different roles, responsibilities and duties of the main actors involved in disaster relief.  In their current form, they are useful as non-binding guidelines that may assist in better protecting persons affected by disasters.  She also observed that they strike a balance between assistance offered in response to acute need and the responsibilities of the affected State.  Thus, aid not in conformity with accepted principles on humanitarian assistance may be refused, but consent to external assistance shall not be withheld arbitrarily.  While acknowledging that there is no coherent international legal framework on this topic, she recalled her country’s hesitation to work towards a legally binding instrument based on the draft articles, as some of them go beyond existing international law “and the scope is rather broad”.

NOAM CAPPON (Israel) noted that his country is at the forefront of numerous relief missions around the world, demonstrating its commitment to mutual assistance and cooperation during times of crises.  Following a recent earthquake, Israel sent a medical aid delegation that established a field hospital in Türkiye and dispatched over 60 tons of humanitarian aid to help alleviate the situation for survivors. Earlier, Israel donated emergency kits to Ecuador following a deadly landslide, and first aid kits and food for children to Tonga after a volcanic eruption and subsequent tsunami.  While regional and international disaster relief cooperation deepens ties between nations and peoples, this matter should not be framed in terms of legal rights and duties.  In this vein, the draft articles should remain as guidelines or guiding principles for international cooperation undertaken on a voluntary basis, he said. Nevertheless, Israel will continue to provide assistance regardless of any obligations. 

BAHRAM HEIDARI (Iran) said that some of the draft articles fail to strike a balance between the rights and obligations of affected States vis-à-vis those of the assisting States and other actors in providing humanitarian assistance in disasters.  They do not address the role, rights and obligations of transit States to facilitate humanitarian assistance transfers or the obligations of the relevant actors to respect those nations’ domestic laws and regulations.  Pointing out that some situations that negatively affect humanitarian assistance and narrow humanitarian space have not been addressed, he said that the draft articles cannot be considered as action oriented. Moreso, they fail to address the effects of unilateral coercive measures that prevent targeted States from addressing and responding to disasters.  He emphasized that the affected State has the exclusive right to determine the severity of the disaster and to assess its response capacities, underscoring that all assistance must be provided in response to that State’s request.  In addition, the draft articles should not leave any room for potential arbitrary interpretations that could justify interference in the affected States’ internal affairs under the guise of humanitarian assistance.

GALA MATOS (Portugal), aligning herself with the European Union, pointed out that the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the urgency of establishing a sound, universally inclined international legal framework applicable to disasters.  The draft articles represent a good framework, echoing the human-rights-based approach taken by the International Law Commission in the course of its work. Additionally, they strike a good balance between the imperatives of protecting human rights and facilitating international cooperation, while also upholding the fundamental principle of State sovereignty and the primary role of the affected State in providing disaster relief assistance.  Recalling her delegation’s consistent position that the Commission’s work in this area should be reflected in an internationally legally binding instrument, she said she looks forward to exchanging views on specific aspects of the draft articles.

ANTONIO MANUEL REVILLA LAGDAMEO (Philippines), recalling a decade-old tropical cyclone that claimed thousands of lives, noted that his country ranks high for population exposure and vulnerability to hazards.  Turning to the draft articles, he said that the points raised by delegations promise a rich basis for further discussions on the various clusters within the framework of the corresponding Working Group.  For Cluster 1, these include the definition of disaster and possible inclusion of armed conflict or epidemics and pandemics therein, as well as deliberating whether the draft articles should apply to both natural and human-made disasters. Regarding Cluster 2, some States suggested expanding the draft articles by adding, for instance, a provision on the preparation of populations at risk.  Moving on to Cluster 3, he noted that States have shared important insights on the scope of the duty to cooperate, including its relation to State sovereignty. 

PETER MOHAN MAITHRI PIERIS (Sri Lanka) noted that “trusting in our intuition often saves us from disaster”.  However, he also stressed: “We are presently at war with our planet,” adding that it is a war in which States are surely on the losing side, as the planet and its inhabitants experience disaster after disaster by the activity of what appears to be a “very angry planet”.  In 2015, nations declared a “truce” [the Paris Agreement on climate change], but did not keep to it seriously.  Sri Lanka, like many nations, has experienced devastating consequences of both natural and human-caused disasters, he noted, pointing to its vulnerability to natural hazards.  In this context, he reiterated the significance of safeguarding individuals during disasters as a priority, spotlighting that his Government has taken steps to implement legal provisions in line with the draft articles.  He also noted that Sri Lanka’s Disaster Management Act No. 13 of 2005 constitutes a legal foundation for the risk management system.  Further, in 2006 the country established a Ministry of Disaster Management. Appealing to Member States to take courage, he emphasized: “The brave soul can mend even disaster.”

PABLO AGUSTÍN ESCOBAR ULLAURI (Ecuador), aligning himself with CELAC, pointed out that the number of natural disasters has increased by almost 35 per cent since the 1990s.  Crafting an international legal framework to facilitate an effective, adequate international response to disasters would be a significant contribution to the progressive development of international law.  On that, he said that the draft articles serve as a good basis on which to move towards this goal, as they strike a balance between protecting human rights and facilitating international cooperation on the one hand, and the importance of defending the fundamental principles of State sovereignty and responsibility on the other.  He also expressed support for the draft articles’ emphasis on human dignity, human rights and humanitarian principles.  Stating that additional discussion is needed on certain issues — such as the distinction between natural and human-caused disasters — he said his delegation will follow the Working Group’s discussions.

NATALIA JIMÉNEZ ALEGRÍA (Mexico), aligning herself with CELAC, noted that the recent history of her country has been marked by the impact of various natural hazards.  While being aware of the primary responsibility of States to respond to these occurrences, Mexico has always counted on international solidarity and cooperation and it has also responded to emergencies beyond its borders by sending specialized search and rescue contingents.  In this context, a common legal framework to facilitate the coordination of humanitarian action is required.  For its part, Mexico has legislation, strategies and mechanisms for a comprehensive response to risks and disasters in a way that addresses the needs of people with dignity.  It also has bilateral agreements with the United States and Guatemala on this matter and will continue to engage with the international community to move from a reactive approach to one of prevention, as well as risk reduction and control, that promotes communities’ resilience, she noted. 

JONATHAN HOLLIS (United Kingdom), pointing out over 400 disasters take place each year globally, said that Member States have many tools to mitigate the worst impacts of these hazards.  When disasters happen, affected populations are often rescued and supported by local, national and regional responses that had been prepared for such an eventuality, he noted, observing that poor and marginalized communities and groups, including women and girls, in lower-income and fragile communities are disproportionally affected.  Emphasizing the primary role of affected States in responding to disasters, he also highlighted the role of local actors and people affected in disaster risk reduction, preparedness and response. However, the international response system often faces challenges related to poor coordination, insufficient funding and regulatory barriers.  In this regard, his Government has collaborated with humanitarian and private actors on disaster risk financing and has supported the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies risk transfer mechanism.  While the draft articles provide a helpful starting point for discussion, he said that the United Kingdom is open to exploring benefits of a convention.

JAMES KIRK (Ireland), aligning himself with the European Union, said that his country’s priority is to ensure that impediments to the provision of assistance to victims of disasters are lifted.  He welcomed the balance struck by the draft articles between a rights-based approach and a needs-based approach for victims of disasters. Underscoring that the draft articles’ principal focus should be the practical and operational aspects of disaster relief, he noted that the current international legal framework on disaster response is fragmented.  While he welcomed efforts to bring clarity and consistency throughout the articles, he nevertheless pointed out that the requirement of “serious disruption to the functioning of society” as the key test for the articles’ applicability is “somewhat unclear”.  He acknowledged the need to maintain flexibility but cautioned that this lack of clarity may “lead to debates in instances where speedy disaster response would be more appropriate”.

ALESSANDRA FALCONI (Peru), aligning herself with CELAC, said that her region is susceptible to a variety of natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods and mudslides.  Its experience has shown that an effective and coordinated response based on principles of humanity, neutrality and impartiality is key to mitigate human suffering and guarantee the protection of affected persons.  The draft articles reflect a good balance between the rights of persons affected by disasters and State sovereignty.  This is enshrined, for instance, in the provision that a disaster needs to overwhelm the national capacity to respond.  The interaction between the draft articles and international humanitarian law that makes it possible to safeguard the integrity of the legal regime.  Stressing that an international framework would guarantee a more effective humanitarian response, she said that protection measures should reflect a gender-sensitive approach as well as considerations of all vulnerable groups.

RICCARDA CHRISTIANA CHANDA (Switzerland), welcoming the creation of the Working Group on the matter, said it is paramount to ensure coherence with other instruments mandated in this domain, including the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Health Regulations and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.  Noting that humanitarian organizations should be able to carry out their activities when disasters occur within the scope of armed conflict, she suggested including additional clarifications concerning the scope of application of these articles in relation to the humanitarian law.  In this context, draft article 3 should specify that a situation of armed conflict does not in itself qualify as a disaster for the purposes of these articles.  Noting that the commentary to draft article 18 remains unclear, she called for ensuring that there is no ambiguity as to the law applicable in a given situation, as well as in complex emergency situations or rapidly changing settings. The primary purpose of the draft articles must be to save lives by facilitating disaster relief operations, she stressed.

AMR MOHAMED MOSAAD NOUH (Egypt), aligning himself with the African Group, said that the disasters that have hit the Middle East and the rest of the world necessitate a discussion aimed at achieving consensus on the draft articles.  Turning to specific provisions, he said that the international community should consider making the definition of disasters — contained in draft article 3 — inclusive of all kinds of disasters, including pandemics.  Cooperation and international assistance to affected States should be consistent with the guidelines provided in the annex to General Assembly resolution 46/118 and the principles of impartiality, neutrality and consent by the affected country.  Further, the responsibility of States, under draft article 9, should serve as a pillar for promoting legal frameworks governing environmental protection.  He added that consent — as discussed in draft articles 11, 13 and 14 — should be governed by the principles of sovereign equality and non-interference in internal affairs, and that assistance should be subject to the unlimited, unconditional consent of the affected State.

NASIR UDDIN (Bangladesh) underscored that his country is among the most disaster-prone globally, with floods, cyclones and river erosion becoming increasingly frequent.  In this context, Bangladesh has made significant progress in disaster preparedness, encompassing rescue, recovery and the protection of people.  It has adopted a law on disaster management as well as a comprehensive national plan on the same issue, aligning the latter with the Sendai Framework.  The Government has also built nearly a million disaster resilient houses, 16.4 kilometres of sea dykes, 12,000 cyclone shelters and 200,000 hectares of coastal plantation.  Substantial investments have been made in early warning systems, resulting in a significant reduction in fatalities.  As a former recipient of international support, Bangladesh is now ready to share good practices and locally-led technologies.  Turning to the draft articles, he advocated for the incorporation of provisions on capacity-building, technical assistance and protection of vulnerable groups.

ZHAO YANRUI (China), pointing to the principle of sovereignty of States and the primary role of the affected State in providing humanitarian relief, said that her country “deeply” endorses this, also noting that this should be a guiding principle throughout the draft texts.  She pointed out that countries are different in their conditions and capabilities in disaster response, emphasizing that the ownership of the affected State should be respected.  Further, draft articles 4 and 5 coincide with the notions in the Chinese culture that “a benevolent person loves others”.  Reporting that in 2023 multiple regions in her country were severely affected by severe rainfall, rarely seen in their history, she said that her Government has put “people and life first” by making proper arrangement for those affected and carrying out post-disaster reconstruction.  Also pointing to the lack of consensus on the elaboration of an international convention, she noted that the draft articles over-emphasize duties of affected States and fail to balance the rights and obligations between the affected and the assisting countries.

MANTSHO ANNASTACIA MOTSEPE (South Africa), recalling that her country recently experienced flooding that resulted in extensive damage and loss of life, stressed:  “South Africa’s experience is not unique.”  Africa is amongst the geographical areas most affected by climate change and resulting disasters; such phenomena are consistently becoming more frequent and complex with broader impacts.  As such, there is a growing need for increased cooperation amongst States. Turning to the draft articles, she welcomed the inclusion of human-made disasters, as the interaction between natural and human factors in the cause and amplification of disasters “should not be overlooked”.  Expressing support for a convention based on the draft articles, she said that the establishment of the Working Group is a great step towards ensuring that human life is spared.  However, she expressed concern over the slow progress that is being made in other areas, calling on States to work speedily in ensuring that the convention becomes a reality.

ARIANNA CARRAL CASTELO (Cuba), associating herself with CELAC, emphasized that when a disaster exceeds national response capacities, a State has the right to request or accept bilateral or international assistance.  In this regard, the current wording of the draft articles should be re-evaluated, since it stipulates an obligation of the affected State to request bilateral or international assistance.  Draft article 11 does not reflect customary international law on that matter and introduces a norm of progressive development that does not enjoy international consensus.  This is not acceptable, she said.  As the International Law Commission cannot be considered a legislative body of the international community, it should exercise caution in its compilation work.  Measures to reduce the risk of disasters should include collection and dissemination of information on risks and prior losses as well as compliance with technical norms and investment to promote resilience of vulnerable populations, she noted. 

GLORIA DAKWAK (Nigeria), associating herself with the African Group and the group of States for which Colombia spoke, said that disasters — natural or human-created — remain a major challenge to achieving global sustainability. To reduce risks of natural hazards, she suggested putting in place laws and ensuring integration of disaster risk reduction and management policies.  Noting that prevention and early warning systems are key, she pointed to the African Union’s Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa, also known as the Kampala Convention. Further, in 1999, her Government established the National Emergency Management Agency to coordinate efforts and resources towards disaster prevention, preparedness, mitigation and response.  Nigeria recently experienced disasters, she said, reporting that in 2021 over 2.3 million people were affected by floods, while in 2023 natural disasters displaced 2.5 million people.  Spotlighting the importance of investing in infrastructures that can withstand natural disasters, she also drew attention to the need for educating people how to evacuate safely, stockpile emergency supplies and communicate with each other during such events. 

ZACHARIE SERGE RAOUL NYANID (Cameroon), aligning himself with the African Group and echoing the introductory remarks made by the representative of Sri Lanka, said that the international community must not forget that the planet — “our mother, which gives us life” — is under attack. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, all estimates regarding a “terrible future” are well-founded, he said, calling for concerted action at a time when the planet is “expressing its fury at what we are doing to it”.  He underscored that the legal regime in this area must do more to meet the needs of people in distress — those feeling the brunt of the fury being unleashed across the planet.  Keeping the “sacred nature of humanity” in mind, he said his delegation will participate in the Working Group on this topic.  Concluding, he recalled a story about a snake that was once promised that it would grow legs by the time it reached maturity; yet “time went on and on, but the snake continued to crawl and slither along the ground”.

Mr. LOMPO (Burkina Faso), associating himself with the African Group, noted that, over the last decade, his landlocked country has been hit by disasters of increasing frequency, including drought, floods, epidemic and mass population movement due to terrorism.  To confront these challenges, Burkina Faso enacted a law on disaster and humanitarian crises risk prevention and management.  Moreso, it developed a national contingency plan that covers preparation and response to disasters.  Turning to international regulatory frameworks, he noted that their growing number has fragmented the system that now lacks coordination between relevant actors, reducing effective implementation on the ground.  An international convention could be an excellent tool to address this situation.  Noting the importance of international solidarity in disaster response, he underscored that humanitarian assistance should not be used for manipulation or as a pretext to interfere into domestic affairs.  “No people hit by natural disasters should be discriminated against,” he said.

RABIA IJAZ (Pakistan) said that her country continued to execute a recovery and reconstruction plan following the floods in 2022 that impacted 30 million people.  Despite financial challenges, the Government has demonstrated outstanding resolve for the protection of people in need.  Noting that any forthcoming convention, based on the draft articles, should maintain a distinct separation between natural and human-caused disasters, she added:  “This distinction is crucial as different type of disasters are regulated by different legal rules.”  She observed that disasters tend to magnify the vulnerability of already disadvantaged and economically unprivileged groups and countries, stressing that a special focus should be given to the disaster-prone countries of the Global South.  This should include necessary financial assistance for reconstruction and rehabilitation in the aftermath of debilitating events, she underscored, calling for the Loss and Damage Fund to be urgently operationalized.  She emphasized that the text of draft article 11 should be meticulously crafted to respect the sovereignty of States, adding that the affected countries must have the sole right to request and conclude external assistance.

HAWANATU KEBE (Sierra Leone), aligning herself with the African Group, noted that in 2023 alone, Türkiye, Morocco and Libya experienced devastating disasters resulting in large-scale loss of life, destruction and displacement.  She therefore repeated the call for strong international cooperation at all levels to address the humanitarian, economic and social impacts of these phenomena, especially in already-fragile communities.  Turning to the draft articles, she welcomed their emphasis on human rights and dignity.  She also commended the Sixth Committee on taking the important step to “address the lacuna in facilitating international cooperation to protect persons in the event of disasters” and noted that her delegation sees merit in pursuing the International Law Commission’s recommendation to elaborate a convention.  Responses to disasters must be embedded in the principles of sovereign independence, neutrality, impartiality and humanity, she emphasized, adding that States can further strengthen the draft articles to build broad consensus and universality.

MHD. RIYAD KHADDOUR (Syria), noting the importance of international cooperation in disaster response, underscored that such cooperation, irrespective of its form, modality or mechanism, should not be interpreted as allowing the central role of the affected State to be marginalized or undermining its sovereignty.  In this context, the proposed draft articles require further discussion and negotiations to ensure their consistency with existing international norms.  Turning to the draft article on barring the countries from arbitrarily withdrawing consent to external assistance, he expressed concern over the possibility of its broad interpretation to override the primary role of the affected State and interfere into its internal affairs under the pretext of humanitarian intervention and claims of arbitrary rejection of assistance. Instead, the draft articles should have included a provision on lifting unilateral coercive measures that undermine the States’ disaster response capacities.  Such measures have compromised Syria’s ability to respond to this year’s devastating earthquake, he added. 

Mr. HITTI (Lebanon), pointing to the importance of adequate and effective response in the aftermath of disasters, said that Member States have witnessed this in Lebanon following the Beirut Port Blast on 4 August 2020.  In this regard, facilitating relief assistance for developing countries and international cooperation is key, he said.  Recognizing that the International Law Commission has continued contributing to the development and coordination of international law, he observed that the draft articles place their primary focus on disaster response, while also containing significant components on disaster risk reduction.  “Overall, the draft articles seem to be a well-balanced product,” he noted, adding that while his delegation sees value in having a convention, it remains — at this stage — open to further action in respect to the draft articles.  To this end, he encouraged substantive exchanges of views to identify possible improvements to the text, while welcoming the holding of the respective Working Group in a “full consecutive days” format.  This will allow for more focused and dynamic deliberations, more constructive work and meaningful progress, he added.

THARARUT HANLUMYUANG (Thailand), aligning herself with the group of States for which Colombia spoke, noted the existence of myriad, non-legally binding instruments on this topic.  Efforts to respond to disasters are still fragmented, and the international community must take the next step to fill the lacuna in international law.  A convention on this topic would also address human rights and protect the inherent dignity of person.  It would further serve as a reminder that these principles “do not cease to exist during disasters”, she said.  Stating that the draft articles could form the basis for the elaboration of such a convention, she noted they provide a sufficiently broad framework that covers the various stages of the disaster cycle and strike a balance between upholding State sovereignty and protecting human rights.  She also recalled that, with disasters of increasing frequency and scale in the region — notably the 2004 tsunami — the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) developed a legally binding instrument to promote a timely, effective response to disasters.

AHLAM ABDULRAHMAN A. YANKSSAR (Saudi Arabia) noted that her country has crafted a national strategy for reducing disaster risk as part of its sustainable development efforts and the Sendai Framework.  Saudi Arabia attaches particular importance to regular participation in various risk reduction fora to collect best practices and extend the best possible protection to all people affected by disasters without any discrimination and in line with State sovereignty.  To that end, it has set up a national centre for emergency response and relief and it continues to address the repercussions of disasters through legislative frameworks and coordination efforts, including through the United Nations system and various international partnerships.  Further, Saudi Arabia is ready to share experience on addressing crises and disasters, disaster risk reduction as well as rehabilitation efforts. To effectively address such occurrences and grapple with their consequences, it is necessary to build capacities, help societies analyse risk and craft corresponding plans, she said. 

SCOTT TAN (Singapore), pointing out that South-East Asia is frequently affected by typhoons, floods and earthquakes, said that in 2023 over 70 disasters were reported in the ASEAN region.  He noted the divergence of views concerning the future of the draft articles, emphasizing that regardless of the course of action taken, they should continue to reflect the diversity of States’ practice.  Further, he observed that draft article 12, paragraph 2 reflects a corresponding article in the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response, which includes Singapore’s contribution to disaster relief efforts in the region.  Moreover, even in times of disaster, States should have the right to determine whether to provide, seek or receive assistance, also determining measures to reduce disaster risks.  In this context, he spotlighted that draft article 13, paragraph 1 accords with the above-mentioned ASEAN agreement that recognizes the need for respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations.  Also noting that the draft articles represent an important disasters response, he added: “They can serve as a useful guide for States and others engaged in disaster relief.”

JEEM LIPPWE (Federated States of Micronesia) said that his country is open to the elaboration of a new convention that defines “disaster” to include the adverse impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, including sea-level rise, destructive storms and ocean acidification.  However, he stressed that, in elaborating such a convention, “care must be taken to avoid establishing a regime for addressing disasters that weakens existing commitments to tackle the climate crisis”. Noting that draft article 9 obligates each State to act to prevent, mitigate and prepare for disasters, he said this is characterized as an effort to reduce the risk of disasters.  This implies that such disasters will inevitably occur, and all that remains is to react to them appropriately.  He expressed concern that such an approach — in the context of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions — will favour adaptation to, rather than mitigation of, climate change and its impacts.  To tackle the climate crisis, the risk of disasters must be eliminated — not merely reduced.  Mitigation of emissions is central to that effort, he stressed.

ESTELA MERCEDES NZE MANSOGO (Equatorial Guinea), associating herself with the African Group, underscored that affected people, especially in developing countries, find themselves in precarious situations and are often forced to leave their homes because of natural disasters.  Right in that chaotic moment of uncertainty, the international community needs to redouble its efforts to present effective coordinated responses. Nevertheless, a possible international convention should complement the current instruments and agreements already in place.  Turning to the draft definition of a disaster, she said that it should only extend to natural hazards.  Africa has been a victim of politicized humanitarian assistance that only exacerbated the situation and destabilized the affected country in the long run. Against this backdrop, international law — in particular the principles of sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs — should be respected, making the request for assistance a right rather than an obligation, she said. 

LOK BAHADUR THAPA (Nepal) said that looking back at his country’s history of devastating earthquakes, floods, and glacial lake outburst, he can understand the importance of external relief assistance. Noting that the protection of persons affected, including their property, is the primary responsibility of the State concerned, he said that the affected State may request humanitarian assistance in the event of disaster.  Moreso, States have the right to evaluate and give consent to the types and scale of such external assistance based on their domestic rules and regulations, he noted, emphasizing that such assistance from abroad should not undermine human dignity, impartiality, neutrality, sovereignty and non-intervention. While the draft articles would provide a comprehensive legal framework for institutionalizing the existing practices, the new convention should chart out the rights and obligations of all States. He reported that Nepal has signed a model agreement with the UN to facilitate the movement of relief consignments and possessions of relief personnel in the event of disasters and emergencies, also noting that it regularly issues warnings of major hazards. 

KRISTIJAN PAPAC (Croatia), aligning himself with the European Union and the group of States for which Colombia spoke, pointed out that the existing body of bilateral, regional and multilateral agreements in this field is fragmented and sometimes contradictory.  As such, a universal legal framework would not only fill the lacuna in international disaster law but would also contribute to future legal instruments relating to international cooperation.  The draft articles envisage the protection of persons in all stages of a disaster; rather than focusing solely on immediate post-disaster response, they also extend to prevention and mitigation efforts.  He also observed that, as much as it is understandable, natural and human for delegations to take the floor to spotlight the last disastrous event in their country or region, “it is necessary to remember that we are here today to see the bigger picture”.  Underscoring that “we are all equally vulnerable”, he expressed support for the International Law Commission’s recommendation to elaborate a convention based on the draft articles.

ANNA V. ANTONOVA (Russian Federation) said that as her country has traditionally paid particular attention to assisting foreign States in emergency situations, it has accumulated experience in this field and concluded a wide array of international agreements.  The absence of a dedicated legal instrument on this issue has never been a setback to Moscow’s efforts, she stressed, as it has been using bilateral and multilateral mechanisms to that end.  The draft articles suffer from substantial imbalance, caused by an approach of defending human rights adopted by the Commission.  This has prevailed over practical considerations, she emphasized, adding:  “This approach, as we see it, is very bizarre.”  Pointing out that the draft articles do not recognize any rights of an affected country, yet place a great number of duties on it, she observed that, at the same time, the document gives the assisting countries vast discretion of power without any prerequisites.  To craft a “genuinely” universal treaty, States will need to rethink the Commission’s logic, also shifting the focus from the duties of affected States to their needs and rights in the draft articles, she asserted.

BETELIHEM TAYE (Ethiopia), associating herself with the African Group, noted that, as the protection of persons falls within the purview of human rights, humanitarian laws and principles of humanitarian assistance, the process should be a unifying one without introducing new concepts or completely departing from the current international legal standards concerning this issue.  The definition should be clear and specific, without allowing for broad interpretations and should include both natural and human-made disasters, since international cooperation on humanitarian assistance is a delicate matter.  In light of this, States themselves must deliberate on how, when and to whom to plea for help.  Existing regional instruments may provide inspiration as well as lessons for the global efforts to elaborate a convention.  The Kampala Convention stands out as the only binding legal instrument, she noted.

NUR AZURA BINTI ABD KARIM (Malaysia) said that the draft articles should not take the form of a legally binding framework, such as an international convention.  Instead, States ought to be given the prerogative to decide on whether adopt the document.  Even if States do not adopt the draft articles, this should not discourage them from making reference to this document whenever necessary.  As such, the draft articles could be seen as the focal reference point on international disaster relief and management.  Noting the convening of the Working Group to deliberate and discuss further the substantive provisions of the draft articles, she emphasized the need for clarification and further justification at this preliminary stage.  The Commission’s work will be most valuable when it provides best practices and principles, which States can refer to and implements in prevailing situations, she noted, underlining that the draft articles should be approached though the provision of practical guidance and cooperation rather than through the elaboration of an international agreement.

CATHERINE NYAKOE (Kenya), associating herself with the African Group, said that the international community has always stepped in when a disaster response was needed.  While some of those efforts were very efficient and commendable, others required better coordination and collaboration. In light of this, there is a plausible need for a practical yet solid framework to regulate the conduct of international responses to disasters. Nevertheless, the discussions should not lose sight of already existing rules to avoid ambiguity or collision in the overarching legal framework that the international community intends to develop.  This consideration is instrumental to clarify the rights and responsibilities of both the recipients and providers of humanitarian assistance.  There is also a merit in deliberating on the intersection of the draft articles with other elements of disaster management that speak to prevention and the dignity of persons, such as early warning mechanisms and enhancing resilience, she said.

Mr. LASRI (Morocco) said that throughout its history his country has known a number of natural disasters which led to human loss and material damage.  In its capacity as an affected State, Morocco has implemented an emergency strategy — under the directives of King Mohammed VI — which involved deploying assistance on the ground and established a fund to raise funding through voluntary contributions.  Turning to the draft articles, he said that it would have been wiser to reflect the term “unpredictability” in paragraph 2 which characterizes a “force majeure” event. As well, draft article 3(a) does not reference patrimonial losses, he observed, noting that the impact on legacy should be considered since it reflects the identity of the affected State. On draft articles 11 to 17, he suggested reviewing the modalities for those willing to provide assistance, while pointing out that the expression “without delay”, in draft article 12(2), should have been more explicit because it causes ambiguity with regard to the amount of time between the request of assistance and a response. 

WISNIQUE PANIER (Haiti), associating himself with CARICOM and CELAC, noted that 93 per cent of his country’s territory and 96 per cent of its population is exposed to natural disasters.  These occurrences have devastating consequences on communities, destroying infrastructure and livelihoods as well as undermining progress towards sustainable development.  Haiti is also vulnerable to human-made disasters and its current reality is marked by massive displacements caused by violent events, which have come on top of other challenges Haiti is experiencing. Against this backdrop, the Government acts upon the recommendations made by the civil defence authority to address this situation and restore security. He also emphasized the importance of disaster risk prevention and reduction, as well as strengthening local and national capacities.  In regard to assistance on the global platform, he noted that humanitarian interventions should be coordinated, transparent and aligned with the needs and priorities of the affected State. 

JEANETT VEA (Tonga), pointing out that her country was once ranked the second-most at risk in the world to natural disasters, recalled that in 2022 an underwater volcano of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai erupted with an “off the scale” magnitude, which triggered a tsunami “as high as the Statue of Liberty”.  This disaster devastated the country’s economy, as several islands were completely destroyed and the people evacuated to neighbouring islands.  She stated that the World Bank estimated Tonga's economic and social damage at 36.4 per cent of its gross domestic product (GDP). Also observing that the country has participated in the Midterm Review of the Sendai Framework in 2023, she emphasized that timely access to finance prevents small island developing States from making the progress they hope for and must have.  In this regard, she called for a revision of the “largely” uncoordinated funding mechanisms to prioritize short-term post-disaster financing and long-term risk reduction, spotlighting that Tonga has implemented its National Early Warning System throughout the country with communications and siren systems. 

TRAN THI PHUONG HA (Viet Nam), underscored that, as many countries lack the capacity to effectively respond to disasters, international cooperation and support are key. The recent natural hazards that struck Türkiye, Syria, India, Pakistan, Libya, the Philippines and many other locations confirm the necessity of pooling efforts to minimize consequences and effectively resolve humanitarian issues, including by enhancing capacities of States. Turning to the draft articles, she noted that they present a significant and commendable contribution to international law in this field. Nevertheless, those provisions should not create more procedures that could complicate disaster response. Moreso, sovereignty, self-determination, non-interference into internal affairs and the primary responsibility of states to provide disaster relief and protect their citizens need to be fully respected. On another tack, she welcomed further discussions and assessment of the draft articles’ compatibility with existing international instruments as well as domestic laws to ensure consensus on the way forward.